Union extortion now illegal in Michigan
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
fascists are also marxists... dude. marx created the framework of socialism, as well as communism. you really need to read the communist manif4esto and das kapital again. it's all there.
Marx asserted that the revolution was needed to remove the bourgeoisie from power, followed by the "state socialism" period as an interstitial and temporary means to De-Radicalize (disarm and pacify) the proletariat they previously inflamed for the revolution
State Socialism was to be temporary, a period of re-education of the masses to the glorious future of Utopian Communism, and then, when they were ready, the State would dissolve itself leading to a world of peace love understanding and sharing without further need for coercive governments, or in fact ANY government beyond the minimum needed to ensure all the happy kludges worked toward the goals of the commune
You must remember, Marx and Engles drafted this ideology in the salons and coffeehouses of Paris, London, Brussels and Cologne, but the shit didnt sell in "Liberal Progressive" states where there was no real serfdom or oppressed class, in fact at the time western europe was rather fat sassy and happy. Russia on the other had was ripe for revolution. Marx and Engles' writings and beard stroking were re-branded for the Russian peasantry (oppressed serfs who would have backed the devil himself for a crust of bread) who were just itching for a flag to rally around for their revolutionary uprisings
Benito Mussolini simply refined the socialist state as an intermediate position, and established an intermediate Quasi-Socialist position (The Third Way) to ease the proles into State Socialism without the violent uprisings and bodies being hurled at barricades. Non-productive private property was retained by the owners, so only the rich would get fucked in the democratic socialist thrill ride of Schadenfreude.
Thus, "Socialists" could be elected without violence, since the people with More are always outnumbered by the people with Less, and one rich man's vote is the same as one poor man's vote in democracy.
The promise of a return to the glories of ancient rome (richly re-imagined by the facist party) appealed to the nationalists, fucking the rich in their asses appealed to the poor and "middle class", and a promise of military might appealed to the military and imperialist factions. by promising everybody (except the super rich) exactly what thye wanted most, mussilini and his boys got voted into power on the "Hope and Change" of Third Way Socialism, and th4e phrase "The Third Way" has been a leftist dogwhislte ever since (bill clinton used it like it was going out of style)
Trostsky and most of the communists rejected The Third Way as a heretical concession to the bourgeois (capitalist bosses) and petty bourgeois (small shopkeepers and small business capitalists), and demanded that the Third Way either be full on manifesto compliant or they would start hurling bodies at the barricades again.
Hitler bit off Mussolini's innovation in Marxism, and instead of promising a return to the glories of ancient (largely fictional) Rome, he invented his own glorious mythology as a lure to the nationalist proles, which became the state religion of Nazism.
Pol Pot used the EXACTLY the same methods to gain power in cambodia (home of an ancient long forgotten empire) by promising the return of a mythological glorious past, and the promise of wealth and power for those who had little of either, but sauced it up with some bodies being thrown at the barricades, just to be extra special.
Mao did it the same way too, promising the Middle kingdom of ancient china would be re-born, plus, bodies being hurled at barricades, you gotta love the classics. of course mao and Pot didnt have any intention of restoring the ancient empires or the cultures that spawned them, they used the passions and desires of the people, till they had what they wanted, and then, it was all "The Thoughts of The Chairman" and personality cults as far as the eye could see.
Iran's revolution similarly used the dreams of a restored persian empire to bring the various factions together, but once the revolution was done, the communists, persian restorationists, and representative republic boosters all got lined up by a wall and shot, since khomeni always intended his revolution to be a marxist socialist islamic despotism. 100% pure Marx Schwarma, hold the Atheism, add Islam, garnish with Jihad, serve in a warm pita with hummus.
fascism IS Marxism. It's Marxist Socialism, with a twist, but when fascists talk to communists they always promise that it's just temporary, just like every Socialist always does.
it's never temporary.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
There are probably a few more words roughly synonymous with evil in your vocabulary that you can blame on Karl Marx.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
again, i reiterate, i LIKE communists.
Communists are harmless friendly and non-violent people, burdened by only a passing familiarity with the concept of ownership
Socialists (the specific and distinct subset of Marxism) are NOT Communists.
Capitalists believe "Whats Mine is MINE" and the corollary: whats yours is also yours.
Communists believe "Whats Mine is Ours" and the corollary: whats yours is also ours.
Socialists believe "What's Yours is Mine, What's Mine is Mine, and what's Ours is also MINE" and the corollary: up against the wall, you counter-revolutionary. 5 rubles for a blindfold. 10 rubles for a last cigarette.
Socialists adhere to all the evils and greed you associate with capitalism, but only because you accept their propaganda narrative as fact.
There is NEVER a benevolent socialist state.
The Party never surrenders power.
The Apparatchiks always need lots of stuff.
The proles and kludges deserve only re-education (slavery) structure (slavery) and guidance (slavery) until they prove their faith to the "Scientific Marxism" ideology.
Proles and kludges can never prove their faith except by serving The Party.
Invitations to become an Apparatchik are at the discretion of The Party.
Sorry, the Apparatchik dance club is currently full, you have to wait behind the Velvet Rope.
Those hot chicks we just let in? Oh yeah, they was on The List.
No, you cannot see The List.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we can haz collective bargaining rights?
you're certainly not dazzling anyone with brilliance, but your baffling with bullshit plan is exceptional and long winded.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Bullshit can do so much more than baffle.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
collective bargaining is capitalism. workers band together to negotiate the price of their commodity (their time and sweat) with their customer, the company (a collective of investors)
unions however are not a merry band of workers trying to get better wages, they are self-serving leeches feeding on the workers AND the company for their own benefit.
if unions have the right to organize, companies should have the right to simply fire anyone who joins a union, and refuse to negotiate with the union's representatives.
likewise, the union has the right to appeal to the company's customers, and request, REQUEST! that they take their custom elsewhere
in turn the customers have the right to decide if they wish to acquiesce to the union's request, or if they are dis-inclined to do so.
if enough customers choose to side with the union, the company can either cave in and deal, or close down. pure market action.
unions never accept the will of the market. they bring on threats of violence, blockading entrances to businesses, assaulting those workers who dont care about the union, or even worse, dont want the union at all, and even sabotage the company's equipment.
i guess crime is only ok if your sticking it to The Man.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, those 40 hour work weeks and safe working conditions were over the top.
corporations, on the other hand, are indeed a merry band of people doing actual work (not just pushing paper around!) who would never cheat, exploit, or otherwise behave unethically at the expense of their workers to up their bottom line, pensions, or compensation packages.
that would NEVER happen.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Hey Unclebuck.....
When I see your name I still think of you as the face of mitt romney............what happened?............nitro..
When I see your name I still think of you as the face of mitt romney............what happened?............nitro..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
had an itching for jefferson d'arcy. that man is the man, fictional as he may be.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
because you can not work unless you are part of the union.
Its like trying to be a football player without a team
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So the unions aren't letting people join?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Actually you are totally wrong. You can work in a union shop. But you still need to pay the portion of union dues that it cost the union to represent you
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Well done sir. I don't throw "likes" around very often, but your last three posts on this thread were excellent. You'll really know you have these simpering knuckleheads on the ropes when they are reduced to typing "purple prose" as a response to all of your posts.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
and who would do that? it's like hey ill give you all this for five bucks or ill just take your 5 bucks.
They still have to pay dues to an organization and that's wrong. Granted its not every job sector but is a lot of them
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
no i am sure they are, but why should you have to join.
Doer
Well-Known Member
In my state you don't have to join the public employee Union. But, we just voted. A person will still have contributions taken from his pay.
How about that? It is a hard job to tell the freedom fighters that they now are acting like thugs. Doesn't anyone see that the shoe is on the other foot, now. Everything has it's season.
Unions, now, are simply a force of politics played out on the streets. We have see this before. The govt tries the run the means of production, not through ownership, but, through the influence of labor. Govt will is enforced by brutes on the shop floor.
What is that form of govt?
How about that? It is a hard job to tell the freedom fighters that they now are acting like thugs. Doesn't anyone see that the shoe is on the other foot, now. Everything has it's season.
Unions, now, are simply a force of politics played out on the streets. We have see this before. The govt tries the run the means of production, not through ownership, but, through the influence of labor. Govt will is enforced by brutes on the shop floor.
What is that form of govt?
Similar threads
