• Shadywack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    175
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    What the UAW is doing here is fighting for all workers. This sets precedents that ripple across all industries. What formed the UAW back in 1937 took some balls, and so does this.

    It’s not communism to fight for dignity and a living wage. We’re practically fighting for some more table scraps, but the rich are acting like we’re threatening social fabric.

    Go and get it Shawn, this is exactly what we all need right now. Support the UAW.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      In the last 20 years, we’ve seen the most rapid rise in productivity since the industrial revolution, and just like in the wake of the industrial revolution, there was massive worker exploitation that led to reforms and eventually unionization that ushered in a golden age of labor in America where workers were fairly compensated for the work they provided, so much so that it was easy for a salaryman to support a nuclear family on his single paycheck.

      Since then, the business owner class has been working hard to dismantle unions while refusing to pay their fair share of the massive profit windfalls to the bottom rung workers. We are long overdue for sweeping multi-industry unionization effort. Only then will we start seeing something more than just table scraps.

    • theuberwalrus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      Fighting for dignity actually is literally communism. It’s capitalist propaganda that has you convinced otherwise.

      • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Communism provides a theoretical framework to advocate for those things, but it is not the same as doing those things. I think the distinction is important because it allows you to have a plurality or support

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        I mean, I can see a utopian vision of Communism where dignity is forefront, but I’ve also seen where it’s dystopian. Correct me if I’m wrong but the basis is to each according to their need and from each based on their abilities. Dignity isn’t mentioned, but the happiness and contentment of all is the goal so I suppose it’s inferred but not specified.

        Either way, it doesn’t have to be viewed with any kind of social opposition. If we keep following the slippery slope of late game capitalism, who’s to say companies don’t just purchase legislation that re-establishes full on slavery? We have a fucked up oligarch system, and moments like this where workers unite is a good thing in any system. Free market my ass, and this is a moment where arguing for semantics is a side-discussion, for now it’s us against the oligarchs.

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        You don’t seem to understand that your distinction between the theory of communism, and communism as practiced, are both equally valid and accepted uses of the word. One is a theory, one created reeducation camps and killed millions of their own people. It is not capitalism that convinced me of this.

        • theuberwalrus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Your comment is fair, but please allow me to deflect for a moment with a few questions:

          The nazis called themselves national socialists, do you believe they were socialists?

          The north korean government has called their country a democratic republic, do you believe that?

          I’m guessing you answered no to both. If that’s the case, why do you believe the ussr and the ccp when they say they were/are practicing communism?

          Additionally, who benefits more than capital if you believe socialism and communism equal authoritarianism?

          • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            If you guys understood marketing, you’d stop insisting on your version of the word being the one people should embrace. Socialism sells way better than communism even though it still gets people as riled up as Sen Kennedy reading “not all boys are blue” while pretending that it’s legally mandated to be given to white Christian boys at birth. 9/10 you guys rail against European social democracy, regardless of the fact that it would be a far easier reach for the US and would dramatically improve the lives of workers.

          • WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            If the only way to defend communism is by claiming that no country has ever done communism correctly, then that’s a problem. You can’t point to a single successful communist country because there aren’t any.

            China became far more successful since it abandoned communism for its own flavor of capitalism. Private ownership in China has led to a massive improvement in quality of life for most Chinese residents, and more opportunities for success than ever before.

            Meanwhile, most complaints about capitalism have almost nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with laws and regulations or human greed (which is the worst part of any system).

            • jmankman@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, point to all the communist countries that failed with the US was relentlessly fucking with them despite the fact that “Communism will naturally fail if left to its own devices”

              Pointing out greed as a problem of capitalism is valid when money is power and all decision making is based around profit.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I work at the corporate headquarters of a company that provides contract services to industrial plants. Not related to the car industry, but I literally just had a meeting today with some folks from HR to add a way to our central system to track what plants our employees have unionized at. The general tone was “oh crap we have union workers now, how do we not accidentally break the law because we’re quickly seeing more and more of our workforce unionize”

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Even China knows this. Give the hard working people a better job than mom and dad had and they won’t rebel.

    The people who are rolling in their next billion have forgotten what happens when you take that away.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      China is about to find out as well, they have something like a 30% new-grad unemployment rate, and Pooh Bear is on a bootstraps kick saying that social protections encourage laziness.

      They’re on even thinner ice than the US.

      • DrPop@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I mean we all know what “didn’t” happen last time students got together in protest. Whatever became of the Hong Kong protest btw?

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is a good question. Last time I brought this up on Lemmy, someone said they were better off under the CCP than British rule. 🤔

    • Calavera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      They are in the economic industrial boom that already happened to western countries decades ago. The problem is that eventually all booms end

      • Syldon@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        That is just buying into accepting the current model where the rich can have it all at the expense of the poor. The model is the problem not the amount we have to distribute.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well nothing has happened, what is being asked of them is less than what they’ve taken. Worse case scenario is they give back some of the stolen goods.

      But this is the same as a fine for breaking the law, they made more than they lost as a result so this is all factored in.

      • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, but Fain is the first democratically elected UAW leader (prior leadership was chosen by delegations and was fraught with racketeering and embezzlement) and it shows.