Never thought I'd say this, but Vive La Révolution
(www.rt.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
Correct. All institutions are. It's the Iron Law of Oligarchy. That said, unions balance the enormity of corporate power, which is why I do support unions. The greatest threat to liberty is not corrupt institutions, as they all are, but institutions that have power and are not checked and balanced.
Unions were already huge before the USSR. E.g. the labour movement in Germany. Regardless, if this were true, they did not benefit the USSR.
Again, this is a universal among organizations, that does not mean that they should not exist (though some, like teacher's unions, definitely should not). But I look to labour conditions in the US and I am quite happy that we have had unions, even if it depresses the labour market and wages to some extent.
I am not sure their current contribution is as good as it has historically been.
True enough, and as you say, Corporations run the same way. Where I think we differ is that I don't believe they were ever intended to be anything else. Labor unions were originally established by political idealogues in order to co-opt the grievances of the working class, however legitimate. Any benefit they have provided the working class has been incidental, because that was never their intended purpose: their purpose was to act as political pressure groups and quasi-clandestine fund-raisers for Marxist efforts to subvert and undermine the integrity of Western societies.
Unions got their start in the 19th century, before the Russian revolution, it's true. However, unions as a well-funded political force and especially their revolving-door relationship with mainstream political parties, did not really take off until the 1920s and 30s. The fact that they were actively funded and supported by the USSR during and after this time is well-documented.
Actively supporting corrupt military dictators in Latin America doesn't benefit the US, but they keep doing it.
Public sector unions are the inevitable final form of the labour union: the co-option of working class political action by the pampered ideologues of the managerial class, to the point where the majority of the working class in the West are no longer unionized, but the bloated mass of social-climbing hangers on, clinging to the teat of the globalist elite, are the chief beneficiaries of labour unions. Which is further proof that they have only ever existed by the leave of corrupt elites.
I think this is largely accurate, but even those unions who were originally intended to be something else would eventually become bastions of corruption and cryonism.
You have to benefit them sufficiently to want to be members of your organization. It's obviously not the primary aim, but this is quite important or the power-holders would find themselves with a declining organization. However, not incidental.
I don't think it's true to say that in the beginning, they had the support of corrupt elites, but now since they benefit other corrupt members of the corrupt elites, they certainly do.