[Bartweiss]

Throwing around 'Marxist' seems extreme here, but I think I recognize the sentiment. There are a lot of ways to improve the position of workers, and historically progressivism has been interested in some and opposed to others.

Two examples:

If you want to improve salaries, you can do that via unionization and lobbying for guaranteed raises. That's a popular leftist approach. You can also do that by advocating for bonuses based on personal achievement or corporate profit. The left has generally been disinterested in that, and has indirectly opposed it by advocating for higher taxes on bonuses.

If you want to expand worker influence on how companies are run, you can found co-ops, establish worker's councils, and so on; these are popular leftist programs. You can also give meaningfully-large stock grants to large numbers of employees - equity-granting startups are worker-owned every bit as much as co-ops. This isn't a leftist initiative at all, and has been indirectly opposed by calls to heavily tax options and capital gains even when they're being given in lieu of salary.

I don't especially want to debate any of those as policies; it's just a demonstration of what some leftist and non-leftist roads to labor power look like.

[fortythirteen]

Considering some of the loudest voices on the strong to far left today are self avowed Marxists, especially in labor movements, I don't think it's even a stretch or "throwing around terms". In fact, 'social justice' is a term directly attributed to the philosophies of Karl Marx.

I'm not an extremest on the other end, but it is not disingenuous to state that much of the left's visions are directly "Marxist". What would you call the idea of a "base livable wage" or "equity over equality"?

[justin66]

> Considering some of the loudest voices on the strong to far left today are self avowed Marxists, especially in labor movements, I don't think it's even a stretch or "throwing around terms".

The most historically important labor union of our time, Solidarność, was the largest player in driving the Communists out of Poland and bringing back capitalism. It doesn't seem to me that you're throwing around terms, it's more like you're just sort of wandering around accidentally dropping them on the floor.

Which is possibly rude to say, but the first person to use the word "postmodernism" in a conversation earns some demerits. (edit: that wasn't you. My bad!)

Another poster pointed out that a labor union is a bunch of laborers standing in solidarity for something they want. Acting as if that is always the same... well, have fun with that.

[fortythirteen]

> The most historically important labor union of our time, Solidarność, was the largest player in driving the Communists out of Poland

You're confusing a labor union in a communist country versus those in a capitalist country. There is a long history of American labor unions being the main infiltration point of communist movements. The AFL CIO had to specifically write a bylaw in the 1950s to expel them.

Here's a really interesting interview of Thaddeus Russel, someone who was raised by two communists in Berkeley, whose main goal was infiltrating labor movements: https://youtu.be/x4YxSGFqOH8?t=3m50s

[justin66]

> You're confusing a labor union in a communist country versus those in a capitalist country.

It's not on me to intuit that your misuse of terms is limited to the United States. Your statement is funny, though, and would seem to imply that labor unions opposed to Marxism during Communist regimes would embrace Marxism once those governments adopted capitalism, for some reason. I wonder if there are any examples of that happening.

> someone who was raised by two communists in Berkeley, whose main goal was infiltrating labor movements

I think you've taken the notion that all Marxists like labor unions and taken it to imply that all labor unions like Marxism, which is obviously not true. You should be able to see the logical problem there, even if you're not interested in the historical specifics, which are interesting.

If you're limiting yourself to the American left-right political spectrum, which tends to lobotomize a political discussion, you can probably sort of justify calling unionization a "leftist" tactic. That's not about ideas at all, it is simply because what we call our "right" has defined itself as being opposed to unionization. Marxism has nothing to do with that, and calling unionization "Marxist/socialist" is really a bridge too far.

[fortythirteen]

Stop being disingenuous. The article this comment thread is over is about someone specifically attempting to organize labor in the US.

[fortythirteen]

> Perhaps you need to be more careful in the comments you make when you're addressing an international group of people whose interest goes a little deeper than talk-radio talking points.

Says the person who took an article about American labor organization and tried to make it about Europe.

> And in case it wasn't obvious: "progressives" often find being labelled Marxists irritating.

Except the term "progressives" was coined by Marxists and socialists in the 1930s to separate themselves from liberals.

[justin66]

Nothing I've written is disingenuous. Perhaps you need to be more careful in the comments you make when you're addressing an international group of people whose interest goes a little deeper than talk-radio talking points.

And in case it wasn't obvious: "progressives" often find being labelled Marxists irritating. It's one of the dumber things that happens in our political dialog, and if you do it in mixed company you'll sometimes be called out on it.

[crdoconnor]

>If you want to improve salaries, you can do that via unionization and lobbying for guaranteed raises. That's a popular leftist approach. You can also do that by advocating for bonuses based on personal achievement or corporate profit. The left has generally been disinterested in that, and has indirectly opposed it by advocating for higher taxes on bonuses.

The reason they are disinterested in bonuses based upon personal achievement is because it is guaranteed to be used as a tool for favoritism and divide and rule, which ultimately just lowers worker compensation.

It will only work if the measure is objective, which is almost always impossible.

[justin66]

The counterexample to both these points is a union like the Screen Actors Guild, which allows superstars to be compensated accordingly and does not depend on something like objective measures of achievement. If I were a tech worker in a union I'd want it to go in that direction, as opposed to something like the traditional UAW.

[ThrustVectoring]

Absolutely agree. They also run a multiemployer defined benefit plan, which might be worthwhile to set up. That, alongside defining and pushing for developer-friendly working conditions.

[fortythirteen]

> The reason they are disinterested in bonuses based upon personal achievement is because it is guaranteed to be used as a tool for favoritism and divide and rule, which ultimately just lowers worker compensation.

And this doesn't happen in unions? The only difference is in who's getting bribed, management or the union boss.