Redpill me in labor unions

Unions are always behind on what the workers actually want and will thus often work against their interests.

But that does not mean we have to spread lies like this.

They're thought of as conservative and not revolutionary. This is a big reason why anarcho-syndicalism has dwindled as well.

Labour unions at last in the US are corrupt. They charge a fee to stay in one so the only people who can afford it have a higher paying job while the lower wage workers cant make due.

The upper class has a method by which they can collectively pool their power in the market (their capital), called a Corporation. This enables economies of scale to act as a force multiplier for the upper class to wield against the working class.

A union, within a capitalist system, essentially does the same thing for labor power that corporations do for labor power. This is why capitalists are keen to destroy unions if possible, and if impossible, either infiltrate and corrupt working unions or they'll uplift the most limp-wristed classcucked unions around (the sorts that refuse to strike and always bend over for management).

They charge a fee that's lower than the pay increase the union gets you, you're always better off in the union and guess what running a union does in fact cost money

I'm a Union organiser (although not in the US).

What do you want to know?

Labour unions are so full of porkies nowadays, which they would fuck off

the hottest redpill: marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm

I'm in a union in the US.
Could be better, could be worse.

Well Pannekoek is talking about reformist unions there, not revolutionary ones

This.
I make $15.25 an hour, the union gets .25 cents.
It's fair, simply because it provides the benefits of collective bargaining, which I wouldn't have otherwise.
Not to say it's perfect, it's far from it.
But it's better than not being in a union at all, or even worse, being in one that takes your money and bends over for porky anyway.

trust me, you don't want the product of your labor. what will you do when you own buckets of caviar and a dozen Mercedes?

the leftcoms who say that cite Pannekoek who basically argued that because unions push for better conditions for workers they are therefore conservative and depend upon capitalism, he was more receptive to groups like the IWW but argued that they too couldn't contend state power. What Pannekoek is writing about is what DeLeon described as the "pure and simple" trade union, which I'd argue most modern day unions consist of.

Only good union is the IWW and even that has a bunch of reformist liberals

So long as people have some kind of faith in bourg democracy there will always be reformists.

They became corrupt, over-bureaucratized, controlling institutions that have largely become too seperate from the workers. Bourgeoisie government regulation and sabotage by organized crime porkies is too blame for them.

Spontaneous unregulated unions and wildcat strikes are best unions and strikes.

This is your brain on ideology.

I suppose that is reasonable if that is the case but some people paid pretty low need every bit they get so they shouldn't charge a fee until their financial needs are met also aren't some unions in the US owned by porkies?

Mutualism would handle this situation very well.

It's a joke you fucking autist

Bump