Tfw union worker

no he didn't.

no u

Unions can be perfectly congruent with capitalism and promote inter-proletarian competition, but serve reactionary ends too? Who'd a thunk it? Hmm: marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm

If you allow non-union workers any work, porky will just use that to take working hours away from you. Ban all non-union workers. Get rid of Pablo.

Or just>>1492735?

Union workers get all the pussy

Unionize Pablo.

Tood you about coops dog

Unions are hierarchical and do nothing for the proletariat

...

Unionize everyone.

Oh look, theoreticians posturing about as limply and hilariously as muh NAP anclaps
Gee, other than protecting their surplus labor, the whole point of communism?

#NotMyComrade

Ees not beeg sooprise

read this in Bryzgalovs voice tbh

Unions are ethical capitalism at its purest form, we want workers ownership and control of the MoP, only cooperatives can get us there

b me

b software engineer

b non union but socialist/commie and support unions all teh way

have coworkers who are so cucked they will regularly downtalk unions, think theyre still better off without representation

nobody realizes we could be paid more and treated even better w/ unions

tfw you're paid well but know the company could pay you more due to surplus value extraction

tfw tech workers are the most servile retards this side of america

Have you actually read that? Most people mention and/or post it without reading much of it. I was a generic Leninist and if anything, reading it is actually what piqued me to dive into left communism and ultimately made me one.

It's been a few years since I read it, but something interesting to note is that he had completely changed his mind about communists working in reactionary trade unions barely a year later, with the founding of the Red International of Labour Unions.

As usual with Lenin, this work gets taken completely out of historical context. Trots go as far as bending it to justify entryism, while Maoists cite it despite the fact that it goes entirely against Maoist politics of peasant emancipation. They don't even understand the title, because most of the time they haven't read it, much less understood it.

In the end I've come to accept most of what it says, and so did Bordiga: quinterna.org/lingue/english/historical_en/left_wing_communism_00.htm.

Gorter (Dutch-German communist, which I otherwise do not agree much with) wrote a response to it in his time which is actually pretty decent too to check out: marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/. Of course he was closer to the councilist line, which had overlap with Luxemburg, and many of the points he raises here are similarly raised by Luxemburg in her exchanges with Lenin.

Unions are actually threatening to capitalism. So much that the state actively cracks down on them with policy, and most unions that are left today come from the few that survived the wreckage they experienced from actual violent action against unions. Unions like the AFL-CIO are literally just slave unions for the Democratic party, for example.

Meanwhile, cooperatives, as is their prerogative, are just a different way of organizing a firm. Cooperatives face no legal persecution, because they follow the letter of capitalism to a T with what is just a new paint job.

It's unsurprising, because the first cooperatives were created in the 14th century by bourgeois bondsmen as a collaborative effort at business, while the first unions were highly illegal entities created in the 18th century by working class men and women, which took many decades to get even some entrenchment legally against capital.

He's clearly already doing the same work though

How absolutely retarded

Yes, cooperatives are not a threat to capitalism in any way. Correct. Even to fascistic capitalism (Franco loved Mondragon and struck a nice deal with it).

Lets see shit-for-brains, what would be the logical conclusion of syndicates be if taken to their fullest, if not cooperatives?

You are obviously fucking retarded and dont understand how cooperatives work aside from their initial stage in a proprietor and statist society

Keep beliving declaring anarchy, stablishing property as theft, and taking over industry by any means necessary in order to stablish voluntary cooperatives is in any way similar to capitalism tho

I fail to see how logical conclusions get anything done in meatspace.

Yes, basically, hence why catalonia failed

Capitalism. Syndicates (trade unions; not even class unions necessarily) are a tool of working class collective bargaining against capital, and cooperatives are capitalism horizontalited and democratized.

Btw if you got from this that I was suggesting unions are the end of everything, you haven't read my first post ITT, which stated that unions are generally not revolutionary in any way and that they are in their actual revolutionary potential limited to just organizing workers along class lines, and that they can furthermore be incredibly reactionary or create scenarios as we see today where unions compete with other unions, effectively extending the field of market competition to the union suborgan with collective bargaining (without mentioning that most unions have been so effectively targeted by the bourgeois state that unions have become mixed-class; a direct tool of controlled opposition).

Read Marx tbh.

Oh, it's you, I didn't see your flag. Read Marx tbh; don't feel like indulging your illiteracy.

Also, you've mentioned before how you're an English teacher and that (in spite of that?) your English is garbage. If I'm expecting anything from this exchange to be fruitful, it's that I'd like you to tell all of us what your mother tongue is. I have a strong suspicion it's Spanish, which would explain a whole lot.

Goo goo gaa gaa!

Welp, better sit down and wait, anything that isn't pure traditional marxism doesn't help at all. If you're not a syndicalist you might as well go out and murder the homeless.

Or just avoid wage labouring and start a global, cooperative movement?

Why would anyone engage in wage labouring when we could engage in a cooperative society, that, while it still uses markets, doesnt involve the bourgeoisie-proletariat dichotomy?

Syndicalism cannot work outside the realm of markets, because their increase in wages needs the economic exchange, a cooperative society does not, it is easier for one to engage in barter or gift economies

You can't have both.