American trade unions spent almost a billion dollars in the recent election to put pro-union politicians in positions of power in Washington. The Service Employees International Union, in the words of its own president, has “spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama.” According to the Washington Examiner, the United Auto Workers had taken a break from bringing the auto industry to its knees and gave $1.98 million to Democratic candidates, plus $4.87 million in independent expenditures to Obama’s campaign.
The money came from the mandatory dues of the workers who often wouldn’t have donated or voted for these people. In return, the Obama labor shop is cutting back on the enforcement of federal disclosure rules, without which the workers won’t be able to see where their money is going. The union bosses have a very good reason to hide their activities: the AFL-CIO has been spending so much on politics that they’re going deeply into debt.
But they are getting the expected payback. The United Auto Workers have been rewarded with owning 55 percent of Chrysler and 39 percent of General Motors, with the rest of the shares owned by the Obama government. Let me use the occasion to give Detroit automakers solidarity greetings from the Donbass coal miners. If this trend continues, the younger generation may as well wonder how a town without any motors could ever be called Motown.
When the current recession began, the first weak links to break in the damaged economy were unionized businesses — most notably, the Big Three carmakers dominated by the UAW. By contrast, in the “right to work” southern states of Alabama and North Carolina, non-unionized Japanese and German carmakers with hourly labor costs 65 percent lower than those in Detroit continue to employ more than 60,000 American workers without asking for a taxpayer-funded bailout. And, unlike many of its unionized competitors that have gone bust, the non-unionized Wal-Mart remains profitable.
While the financial crisis itself was not caused by the unions, it was a product of the same economic philosophy which prompted the government to tamper with the housing markets. It started with the desire to help a designated class of low-income families by endowing them with home ownership in the name of “economic equality and justice.” But it ended with forced inequality, as countless home loans are now being repaid by taxpayers, many of whom don’t even own homes and whose prospects of buying one are getting slimmer as a result.
The initial market distortion created an economic gremlin — a younger cousin of the Donbass economic monster, if you will — only this time it was strategically placed right in the center of the world’s economic engine. What can go wrong when self-righteous campaigners for economic equality in the government order the banks to issue risky home loans to the poor? Only a ripple effect. The demand goes up, real estate prices rise, chances of repaying the loans get slimmer, the government further pressures the banks to turn a blind eye, the banks begin to repackage bad loans, the bubble bursts, the banks collapse, a recession ensues, borrowers lose jobs and can’t afford payments, and the entire financial system goes down. In the worldwide crisis that follows, countless poor people overseas who will never have a house become even poorer than they were before the U.S. government decided to enforce “economic equality and justice.”
Predictably, the fiasco is blamed on capitalist greed and selfishness.






THE ULTIMATE TRIBE = UNIONS
Oleg …excellent, I always look forward to your essays.
this one in particular should be required reading in political and economic classes …from high school to university.
MR. INDEPENDaNT,
DID YOU MISS ME?
HERE I AM, PUMPKIN, ALL WAITING…
You better post those quotes and links… You don’t want us to think you deliberately lie to us, invent a non-existent “human face” to socialism, do you, honey?
And for now I REPOST MY LOVE LETTER TO YOU
(Marina, the rational you gave in your response as proof that the former USSR was a socialist country and not a communist country was simply in it’s name. Forgetting the absurdity of that position consider this; the official name of North Korea is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. By your standard just because North Korea’s leadership says that their country is a democratic republic then it is. So I’ll ask you, do you think North Korea is a democratic republic? Of course not. By the same token the former USSR was not a socialist country.)
You would have been absolutely right, if it had been my ONLY argument. “Democratic” in a name doesn’t make you a real democrat. The best exapmle is the s.c. DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE USA, promoting marxist state-dictatorship.
(…Your final point concerning my information sources is also false. The justifications for my statements are not based on an article in the Wikipedia or a comedy show but are based on the writings of the two men who invented the modern concepts)
You mean Laurel and Hardy? You cannot be serious calling the concepts of Marx-n-Engels “modern”, can you? The monsters lived in the 19th (!!!!!!!!!!!) century. We live in the 21st, if you need to be reminded. “Back to the future”? Rather “Forwards to the past”. “Modern”. Don’t be ridiculous!
(If you’re interested in learning for yourself what these concepts refer to I suggest reading the Manifesto of the Communist Party. And if you do find an instance where Marx or Engels actually do define communism and socialism as you do, please state the page number of where that is on this website.)
You’re kidding me. Is the Manifesto the only thing you’ve read from your gurus? The monsters suffered from verbal diarrhea. The concepts are not from the Manifesto. They’re from “Die deutsche Ideologie” by Marx. Here’s the original text:
“Nun aber besteht eines der wesentlichsten Prinzipien des Kommunismus, wodurch er sich von jedem reaktionären Sozialismus unterscheidet, in der auf die Natur des Menschen begründeten empirischen Ansicht, daß die Unterschiede des Kopfes und der intellektuellen Fähigkeiten überhaupt keine Unterschiede des Magens und der physischen Bedürfnisse bedingen; daß mithin der falsche, auf unsre bestehenden Verhältnisse begründete Satz: »Jedem nach seinen Fähigkeiten«, sofern er sich auf den Genuß im engeren Sinne bezieht, umgewandelt werden muß in den Satz: Jedem nach Bedürfnis; daß, mit andern Worten, die Verschiedenheit in der Tätigkeit, in den Arbeiten, keine Ungleichheit, kein Vorrecht des Besitzes und Genusses begründet”.
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Marx,+Karl/Die+deutsche+Ideologie
I’m sure you’re able to find the English text yourself. This is the foundation of both s.c. PRINCIPLES, that of COMMUNISM (“to everyone according to his needs”) and that of SOCIALISM (“to everyone according to his abilities”).
That is the main difference between Socialism and Communism, NOT A WORD ABOUT DEMOCRACY.
Now to DEMOCRACY. (You say: On your second point that the differences between communism and socialism are economic and not political, that is also false. In both instances the government controls the means of production, distribution, and finance. The only difference is the political mechanism that is used to achieve that. In the case of communism it’s a dictatorship and in the case of socialism it’s democracy.) REALLY? Did “The Manifesto” tell you that? Or was it Jon Stewart after all? Roseanne Barr? Maaaatt Daaaaamon? Whatever. Listen to one of your disgusting gurus:
“Aber die bloße Demokratie ist nicht fähig, soziale Übel zu heilen. Die demokratische Gleichheit ist eine Chimäre, der Kampf der Armen gegen die Reichen kann nicht auf dem Boden der Demokratie oder der Politik überhaupt ausgekämpft werden. Auch diese Stufe ist also nur ein Übergang, das letzte rein politische Mittel, das noch zu versuchen ist und aus dem sich sogleich ein neues Element, ein über alles politische Wesen hinausgehendes Prinzip entwickeln muß.
Dies Prinzip ist das des Sozialismus.” (F. ENGELS, Die Lage Englands).
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Engels,+Friedrich/Die+Lage+Englands.
Find the English text yourself. What Engels says is the DEMOCRACY IS UNABLE TO CURE SOCIAL EVIL. “DEMOCRATIC EQUALITY IS A CHIMERA” The fight between the poor and the rich CANNOT be led on the platform of DEMOCRACY. The only way is to apply the principle of SOCIALISM. Tah-dah!
So, dear Mr. IndependAnt, you wanted quotes, I gave them to you. Now tit for tat.
I still wanna know where this bull…t about “communism is a dictatorship and socialism is a democracy” comes from. Quotes and links, please!
But be very, VERY carefull what you’re qouting. Remember, I can read it IN ORIGINAL and IN CONTEXT.
I will post and repost this entry untill you give me what I want, honey.
Bye.
Interesting history but such conflation by commenters! I generally like Mr. Atbashian’s articles but it seems to me that just because Soviet communists found something useful in the undermining of the west does not make the thing, in itself, evil. Communists found a military useful. Is the military evil? Diplomats were useful. Is diplomacy intrinsically evil? The New York Times was useful. Writers, actors and musicians became useful idiots but does that make literature, newspapers, the stage and screen, evil things? Let us also recall that trade unionism was instrumental in creating the middle class and has accomplished much in improving the lives of ordinary working people and society, in general. Certainly groups and individuals can turn powerful institutions into nightmares. AIDS turns people’s immune system against themselves but our immune systems are not evil but rather, AIDS is the villain. Big Unions, Big Religion and Big Government can all attack and undermine freedoms and wallow in corruption but unions, religion and government, by definition, are not evil (unless necessary evils) in and of themselves. Communism is the villain.
“American trade unions spent almost a billion dollars in the recent election to put pro-union politicians in positions of power in Washington.”
Outrageous! Especially since corporations like insurance companies, oil companies, etc., spend almost nothing by comparison.
why don’t these liberal/socialist trolls go to live in one of these workers utopias they are trying to make in the USA
….oh right ..that would just be stupid.
so WHY isn’t it stupid to try to replicate it ???
The right wing has a good point. Unions in the modern western countries are, for the most part, no longer necessary. Government labor laws have been passed and enforced by both major parties and with minimum wage laws, the standard of living has risen. The working poor aint rich, but with free/cheaper health care soon to come on line, it will remove a big financial burden on them. However, in many countries, there is still a great need for unions as workers continue to be exploited because of greed.
3. Thomas_L…… (and others making similar arguments):
I absolutely agree with Thomas_L……’s points. The balance is rather delicate, however. That’s why it’s easy to slip into thinking that I reject the idea of unions altogether. I do recognize the unions’ original legitimate purpose of collective bargaining and taking care of work-related issues (safety, training, etc.). But I draw the line when they are turned into collectivist pressure groups that engage in class warfare.
Let me repeat what I wrote in Part 1:
“This is not an anti-union argument. To call it anti-union, one has to believe that a union’s main purpose is to siphon the nation’s wealth to its members. Or that the unions were created to provide logistical support to leftist radicals in their struggle for power. My argument is quite the opposite: since such overreaching by the unions is self-destructive and ultimately hurts the workers, ridding the unions of inappropriate functions and alliances would benefit everyone — the society, the workers, and even the unions themselves.
The workers are not herd animals; nor are they a separate biological species with a different set of interests. They are as human as anyone else who possesses a mind and free will, and therefore their long-term interests are not different than the rest of humanity. And since the interests of humanity lie with liberty, property rights, and the rule of law, this is what the unions should stand for.”
One of the best Union stories involves WWII. The Japs were bearing down on Midway island with only a hand full of Marines on the island to defend it against everything the Japanese had. A ship docked with much needed ammunition. The Union decided at that time not to off load the ship, demanding better wages. Fortunately the Marines were not in the same union and took matters in hand. If it had been up to the Union, the Marines would have been left in the cold.
biblio44 – what you are missing, is that the unions, which are corporations, don’t make their money by providing goods and services to sell. They make their money off the sweat of the worker. They can be quite greedy in this demand for ever higher wages..and thus, higher dues. They take money..from the wages of the worker..and what do they do with it?
Well, this money supports the, ahh..executive..in a very well paid lifestyle. Oh, and they give it to support political parties. But wait..the worker doesn’t necessarily support that political party.
So, why should HIS wages be used to support a political party with which he doesn’t agree?Hmmm?
A private corporation, unlike the Union corporation..and again, unions ARE corporations..well, a private corporation gets its money from the profits of the sold goods and services..profits which are sums of money left AFTER the workers have been paid. If its executive wants to give those profits to a political party..OK. It’s not taking the worker’s money for that use…as is the Union.
Marina …nice responce, even tthough I don’t encourage engaging trolls as they have little use for the truth.
regatds
“If its executive wants to give those profits to a political party..OK.”
Perhaps for a privately held corporation. If I’m a stockholder in a publicly traded corporation, I bloody well do object. And I will vote my proxies accordingly.
The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Anything else, including political advocacy beyond direct business purpose, is a violation of executive management’s fiduciary responsibility.
The same applies to union management’s misuse of member’s dues. Oleg’s discussion in #7 above is spot on.
However, if an executive wishes to contribute to a political party out of his own compensation, then we have no problem with that.
ITF – Thanks for your additional comments – exactly right, including Oleg’s #7 discussion.
Unions have transformed themselves from their original function of assisting the worker in the workplace, to now exist as separate corporations with their income gained by ‘dues’ from the worker. Their current agenda is no longer focused on worker well-being but on profits, and economic and political power. As such a parasitic corporation they are deeply harmful to the worker and to the economy.
Marina,
You stated in your last post that your justification for believing the USSR was a socialist country and not a communist one was not based on just the wording of the country. You neglected to state what your other justification(s) were though. I’m sure that was an oversight on your part. I’m still waiting for your explanation.
Concerning your reference to `The German Ideology’ I noticed you conveniently posted a “quote” and provided a link to a site in a foreign language. If you want to convince me of your position you’re not going to be able to do that with guile or deception. That book was originally published in Russian and had been translated into every major language spoken on the planet. If you wanted to you could have selected a quote written in English but you didn’t. If you’re going to try and lie I’m going to call you out on it.
Now the one thing that you did correctly state (but seem unable to understand) was that Engel’s did believe that democracy could not cure social evil, thus the goal of communism. So my question to you is what exactly is communism a transition from? And if you do decide to respond be sure to do so in English and provide the specific source your referencing (that’s means a site link or a manuscript with a page number).
I’ll be waiting.
OMG! My IndependAnt honey-bunny is BAAAAACK!!!!
WHERE ARE THE QUOTES AND LINKS I’M WAITING FOR????????????????
Now to your post, baby.
So, you don’t like me quoting the original, do you? O.k. you state that MARX HAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN A BOOK IN RUSSIAN (the language he NEVER STUDIED, NEVER SPOKE, wow) and then some genius had TRANSLATED IT INTO MARX’s NATIVE LANGUAGE. Wow… Wow, baby… No brain left, sweety? TEACHERS UNION, baby, toldja.
O.k., o.k., if you really believe this bullsh…t, please, give me the link to the “original” text. I’ll find you the quote and translate it for you.
OH, YEAH, I forgot to tell you, I STUDIED RUSSIAN IN COLLEGE, I can read that “ORIGINAL” too.
“If you wanted to you could have selected a quote written in English but you didn’t. If you’re going to try and lie I’m going to call you out on it”.
OMG, I’M SCAAAAAARED…. Honey, as you’ve noticed from my mistakes, English is NOT my native language. Why should I use a foreign translation if I can read the original? You don’t expect me to read all this crap again, but this time in a translation, JUST TO PLEASE YOU, do you? YOU are a marxist! You have to know your sources! Go and read it, it will make YOU happy, as it makes ME puke.
————————
And don’t forget QUOTES AND LINKS to prove your point “socialism is a democracy” (if they exist, of course).
Dear IndependAnt, you go on:
(“Now the one thing that you did correctly state (but seem unable to understand) was that Engel’s did believe that democracy could not cure social evil, thus the goal of communism. So my question to you is what exactly is communism a transition from?”.)
1. The b…ch’s name was Engels.
2. “The goal of communism”. O.k. sweety, the quote again:
“Aber die bloße DEMOKRATIE ist nicht fähig, soziale Übel zu heilen. Die demokratische Gleichheit ist eine Chimäre, der Kampf der Armen gegen die Reichen kann nicht auf dem Boden der Demokratie oder der Politik überhaupt ausgekämpft werden. Auch diese Stufe ist also nur ein Übergang, das letzte rein politische Mittel, das noch zu versuchen ist und aus dem sich sogleich ein neues Element, ein über alles politische Wesen hinausgehendes Prinzip entwickeln muß.
Dies Prinzip ist das des SOZIALISMUS.” (F. Engels, Die Lage Englands).
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Engels,+Friedrich/Die+Lage+Englands.
Engels doesn’t believe in democracy and CALLS the only way to solve the problems of “social evil” SOZIALISMUS. Now, honey, “Sozialismus” in German means SOCIALISM. COMMUNISM in German is “Kommunismus”. So, baby, it’s DEMOCRACY vs. SOCIALISM, not vs. COMMUNISM he’s talking about.
And find the English text yourself, I’m not gonna do your homework.
———————–
Your QUOTES and LINKS, darling, don’t forget.
IndependAnt, baby, I’m still with you:
(“You stated in your last post that your justification for believing the USSR was a socialist country and not a communist one was not based on just the wording of the country. You neglected to state what your other justification(s) were though. I’m sure that was an oversight on your part. I’m still waiting for your explanation.”)
Well, I actually explained it, with a quote from Marx, but you want the Russian “original” or the English traslation. Marx says that the Principle of COMMUNISM is “Jedem nach Bedürfnis” = “To everyone according to his NEEDS”
http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Marx,+Karl/Die+deutsche+Ideologie
It means that the state will DECIDE WHAT YOUR NEEDS ARE and then REDISTRIBUTE WHAT IS LEFT FROM THE WEALTH. Practically you’ll come to the state and say: “I need a house” and the state will give it to you. And the other guy will say: “And I need a car” and he’ll get it. And the third one will come and say: “And I need a jet”, and the state will… oh, wait. The state will not, because there will not be enough idiots who will work for all the “needies”. Ever dropping productivity vs. ever growing needs… That’s why COMMUNISM IS AN ECONOMIC UTOPIA, i.e. it cannot be built at all. NOWHERE. (Which doesn’t prevent retards like Obama try it again and again, but what can we say? – Harvard professors also need brains to eat).
—————-
Now prove YOUR point! Where are YOUR quotes and links?
Mr. INDEPENDaNT, last thing, dear:
“If you want to convince me of your position …”
NO, I actually don’t. I just want you to make a fool of yourself, to show how empty and stupid your side is. Your only argument is “Prove me YOU’re right” because YOU HAVE NO REAL ARGUMENTS FOR YOUR POINT, don’t you, honey? ‘Cause if you do, WHERE ARE THOSE QUOTES AND LINKS I want from you?????????????
There is none! Because neither Marx, nor Engels have ever linked Socialism to democracy. I know it, you still don’t. I even believe you still hope to find it (my goodnes, it’s fun!). I’m sure you run from one teacher to another asking where the source is. They won’t tell you, but they’ll be ashamed to confess it, so they’ll send you to the library: read this and read that. And you know you don’t have enough time to read all that crap to prove me wrong. And I know that even if you’d be able to read it, you’d find NOTHING. YOUR TEACHERS LIE TO YOU as their professors lied to them. And now you come here and try to spread that lie among us, REALLY INFORMED people. It’ so funny to watch!
Doing it you already make a fool of yourself. I just ad insult to injury. I usually ignore trolls, but YOU, baby, are a gift that just keeps on giving. THANK YOU. I really enjoy it.
O.k., first time, when you attacked Oleg, I was really pissed off, because Oleg lived in a marxist country, he went through the marxist hell, he was INDOCTRINATED in marxism. He knows marxism in theory and in practice much better than the whole brain-eating Teachers UNION does. AND YOU DARE TO TEACH HIM AND TO TELL HIM HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND SOCIALISM. Yeah, that time I was pissed off.
But then I’ve read your answer and it was like “comedy alert!”. You’re just too good to let you go. Believe me, it’s SO MUCH FUN!
marina – many thanks for your posts. They are excellent, both in their content, and in your approach to Mr. Independent, who is one of the most obtuse, ignorant and arrogant commenters I’ve seen.
As you say, his pompous attempts to rebut Oleg, who knows both practically and theoretically, what communism and socialism are about..are a riot – the ‘gift that keeps on giving’.
It’s incredible how the poor guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about..and yet, keeps slugging away at the same fallacies. Yes, his assertion that The German Ideology was first published in Russian is a classic.
Equally, his attempt to define a union as ‘good’ because he says it’s akin to a national legislature. False analogy.
Thanks for your excellent posts.
Marina,
To begin, I never stated that “MARX HAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN A BOOK IN RUSSIAN”. My actual post was (#14)“That book was originally published in Russian and had been translated into every major language spoken on the planet.” In case you didn’t know, Marx & Engels never had their work published. Their work was first published at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow by David Borisovish(David Riazanov). Below is a link to the Library of Congress. http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBRecID=8737305&v3=1&SEQ=20091017204330&PID=yp0gRfEOOeHrgznWP4H7KVnfpyM
As to your belief that I’m a Marxist once again you wrong. You continue to make assumptions instead of asking questions. If you had actually read my posts you would would have read my comments about the pitfalls of socialism (Part I, Post 17) and my comments about the virtues of democray (Part II, Post 29, 36, 47). My first comments on this seriers of articles was that it’s author (and others including you) should learn what the concepts you’re writting about actually refer to. Apparently you don’t understand what demcracy refers to either.
And yes I do expect you to read in order to find FACTS to support your position. I’ve clearly stated my postion. You stated that you have read ‘The German Ideology’ (you dodged the question as to if you’ve read ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party’) and stated you didn’t see a word of what I’ve suggested. I’ve asked you to prove it and your only response was to send a quote and link to a site in foreign language. That’s not a response. That’s an attempt at deception. If there is a specific statement written in those manuscripts that state that socialism will be completely divorced from democracy prove it. A real scientist wants to know if he or she is wrong.
I noticied you didn’t answer my question, what exactly is communism a transition from?
I think you’ve now explained why you seem unable to understand the concepts we’ve been discussing. You wrote in post (#15) “English is NOT my native language”; you’re still learning english. Marina if you don’t understand something you should ask for an explanation. That’s how adults learn. If you’ve read previous posts I’ve written in various articles you’ll notice a recurring theme, I ask questions. I honestly pity you that you’re so angry over whatever wrongs you’ve percieved (or actually) had done against you, that you cannot learn.
ETAB,
I don’t think you can comment on ignorance on these topics when you don’t understand the differnce between a union and an economy, or the Articles of the US Constitution and the Amendments, and the German Ideology was first published in russian, see the link above.
Mr. IndependAnt, honey,
you REPEAT YOURSELF, and when a comedian repeats himself, he’s getting BORING. Remember what I told you? I use you for my personal AMUSEMENT. So, please, darling, stop repeating yourself and start to amuse me again. Or I start to ignore you, like I do with any other troll.
Dear ETAB,
thanks for the nice words. Frankly speaking I hoped the Honey-Bunny will never appear (at least on this thread) again after my last post. But look: here he is, as intellectual as usual. Do they have any self-respect on the Left? I doubt. Otherwise how can they vote Democrat, the party of “the-state-knows-better-what-is-good-for-me”?
Marina,
I noticed you didn’t respond to any of the questions from my previous post. Was that an oversight? Well just in case you’re having trouble understanding the English language I’ll simplify my questions.
1.Do you really think ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party & The German Ideology were’ originally published in German as you’ve claimed?(yes or no)
2.Do you really know that Marx and Engels specifically stated that democracy will be divorced from socialism, as you’ve stated?(cite the manuscript & page number or provide a link to a site with that info in English)
3.What is exactly communism as transition form?(again answer in English)
*BONUS QUESTION*(This one wasn’t in my original post)
4.If the modern concept of socialism doesn’t incorporate democracy then how do you explain the modern country of India?(this one you should answer in your own words)
As to you final comment I believe a your limited understanding of the English language is causing you to miss a very obvious indication of my political beliefs. As my name suggests, I’m an independent. I’ve never supported any DEM or REB. Anyway, I’m very interested in hearing your responses to my questions.