- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
ID: WookieeMark @EvilGenXer posted:
"OK so look, Capitalism is right wing.
Period.
If you are pro-capitalism, you are Right Wing.
There is no pro-capitalist Left. That’s a polite fiction in the US that no one can afford any longer as the ecosystem is actually collapsing around us."
Meh, I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but don’t like black/white dichotomies (though I’m personally anti-capitalist). Unions most definitely care the businesses they work for make money. The more money the better, since union members can bargain for more. They have incentive to be pro-consumerist and to protect their business/industry. Even at the expense of others.
Unions are workers coming together to advocate for their rights. I don’t know what you mean by the unions having an incentive for companies to make more money. Companies making more money does not translate to increased wages for workers. It translates to increased profits for shareholders. And unions do not own companies. Unions are a form of collective action against the capitalist ruling class. Workers who are a part of unions are making commitments to each other to fight for their rights as a group. They have nothing to do with what capitalist ceos or shareholders do. Not unless a union has been corrupted and is being manipulated by ruling class forces.
I am not a syndicalist, but I do think that the widespread unionization of workers is objectively a good thing. Tenants unionizing against their landlords, workers unionizing against their bosses, the working class as a whole unionizing against the ruling class.
I also push back against this notion of capitalism not being a hard and fast specific ideology that takes specific actions at the expense of workers. It is the truth. In countries that are more socialized but still maintain capitalist systems, less capitalism is still an improvement for the material conditions of workers. Private ownership of the means of production is still problematic even if there are more regulations from local government. Those things could still be collectivized and made worker owned so that everyone can have the fruits of production. And so that everyone has the same political power as everyone else.
I think unionization is very important, and I personally lean toward anarcho-syndicalism, but unions are not hardline anti-capitalist institutions. I guess the term I should have used is that unions definitely want the companys’ “revenue” to increase, not necessarily profit to increase. Nearly every person I’ve known that worked in a union job was conservative (probably more of a reflection of where I lived), and many were very emotionally attached to the company they worked for. I’ve known several Ford plant workers that would disallow any member of the household to own a vehicle from any other manufacturer. I’ve heard that if a worker drove a car from any other manufacturer to work, it would likely get vandalized in the parking lot.
I’d say that leans towards what I said at the end. Any form of worker organization can be corrupted. Symptoms of a greater problem, not one of unions specifically. Consumerism and corporatism have made identities out of brands, like in the Ford case you mentioned. That brand and those workers’ associations with it became ways for them to exert a kind of social power. But that could’ve happened whether those workers were unionized or not.
In a unionized company with periodic collective bargaining, it definitely gives workers the potential to earn more money, if the union is doing its job right.
But, overall I agree with you. The potential drawbacks to unions are small potatoes compared to their real benefits. I think they’re one of the most powerful ways for the working class to take power back from the parasitic owning class.