It’s easy to say “Oh, I wish we had unions like we did back in the day.” But we had unions back in the day and they didn’t stop things from turning out the way they did. What we need is a sober analysis of the class dynamics and why things went awry, and what we can do differently going forward.

The government in the postwar era used a carrot and a stick to root out communists. The stick was McCarthyism, but the carrot was the fact that the government was willing to cooperate with unions provided they showed a willingness to purge communists, like the AFL/CIO did.

The decision of unions to cooperate with that is a major reason why everything has gone to hell. In the short term, sure, they got to enjoy a higher standard of living. But all the while, the ruling class was building power through imperialism and anticommunism. At a certain point, they were simply powerful enough that they no longer needed the unions’ cooperation at all, and so they betrayed and dumped them, in the Carter/Reagan era. The only thing that could’ve stopped that shift would have been if the unions had stood together in solidarity, for example in a general strike. But “standing in solidarity in recognition of a common class interest” is the sort of thing that commies do.

Decades of riding high on the promises of the New Deal era transformed unions to become almost entirely self-interest, with no solidarity even with other domestic workers, much less with the global south. And of course, all of this is a very white perspective on things. The offer to get a high standard of living in exchange for ratting out commies was never really extended to minority groups. And again, confronting racism and using your voice and position to blah blah, again, commie shit.

“You give up all ideals, all solidarity, all high minded ideals of justice and equality, and kick out the people who won’t, and we’ll give you some real nice benefits. And who cares if we get to secure our position in a generation or two, you’ll have retired by then anyway.” This is the foundation of the “left” anticommunism that won out in the West. Of course, now, that offer has been rescinded, because the ruling class already got what they wanted. And yet, we still have plenty of people who love punching left at communists for no real reason. They’re not even offering a reward for it anymore! But whether because of force of habit or indoctrination or whatever brainworms, people are still throwing around “tankie” the way they used to throw around “pinko” or “red.”

If we manage to rebuild unions, we need to ensure that they do not become compromised by narrow self-interest like they did before. We have the ability to build them from the ground up with the correct approach, but it’s only through recognizing the mistakes of the past that we have the opportunity to correct them.

Reminds me of an all time classic Onion article.

Fun fact: After WWII, people who had recognized the danger of fascism and opposed it from the start (such as Americans who fought in the Spanish Civil War) were often termed “premature antifascists” and regarded with suspicion and passed over for promotion in the military because of the possibility of having communist sympathies.

Christ, what a bootlicker.

There’s this group that pokes it’s head around here from time to time that call themselves that, or “anarcho-antirealists.” They claim that objective reality, including physical laws like gravity, are “oppressive” and only exist because people believe in them.

So gravity is something you consider unjust?

Yes. Gravity does not ask one’s consent before pulling.

They’re a bizarre, annoying cult but seem mostly harmless, they’re just roleplayers who forgot their dice.

There used to be two opposing superpowers. Then there was one superpower, with nobody else powerful enough to keep it in check. How on earth was it not more balanced? How could anything be less balanced than a world with one superpower?

It was more balanced than it is today. And especially more balanced than it was immediately after the the USSR collapsed.

My example of a world with a balance of power isn’t any better than a world dominated by a single power?

Anyone who’s in camp 2 will be labelled as a “tankie” regardless of anything they say or don’t say.

But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check, than to have one bad country that can act as a sole superpower and can do whatever it wants with impunity.

There we have what? A consistent stance that the US shouldn’t be able to dominate the entire world?

The USSR is a poor example of a counterbalance to the US as it engaged in the same behaviours as the US, just with the lie being communism rather than the democratic system touted by the US.

So, say what you want, your premise has a faulty foundation.

What I actually said was:

But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check,

So what part of my premise is “faulty,” exactly?

The goals of 2 and 3 are completely aligned at this moment. So you can obviously dismiss anybody who supports 2 by accusing them of supporting 3.

“Simping” is a ridiculous, childish term to apply to geopolitics. This also doesn’t really have anything to do with my question.

I think the USSR served as a useful counterbalance to the US, and that the world was safer when there was such a force keeping the US in check. I don’t “simp” for it or consider it perfect by any means.

The question remains of whether you want to see any kind of force emerging that is capable of putting checks and balances on US aggression, or whether you want it to remain as the global hegemon.

I don’t “simp” any country and never have. But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check, than to have one bad country that can act as a sole superpower and can do whatever it wants with impunity.

Andrew Tate confirmed “Soulist?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pynW87zaS7g

WHICH I REFUTED ALREADY, JUST LIKE I REFUTED YOUR 3D PRINTER BULLSHIT AND EVERY OTHER STUPID BULLSHIT POINT YOU RAISED, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.

Blocked.

Man, fuck off. Like you didn’t make shit up over an over, that whole “1776” line, get the fuck out. Just drop it. Reply again and I’ll block you.

That’s stupid. If I went into sufficient depth to satisfy you (and only you, btw), nobody would read it because of the length.

I’ve addressed all your objections and each time you just invent some new bullshit to try to justify why you got all pissy in the first place. Just fuck off already.

So I’m not allowed to tell anyone to do anything if that one thing doesn’t magically fix all the problems in the world?