[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]

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

That is not what I did. What I did was find the most historically important counterexample to an unselfconsciously silly thing you said. If I had realized that we are pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist, I could have chosen the anti-Communist leadership of the Teamsters during the red scare or something.

Equating unionism with Marxism is goofy. I mean, honestly, go to the local pipefitter's union hall or something and poll a few people on their feelings regarding Karl Marx or worldwide worker's solidarity or control of the means of production. Please just be honest: do you really think you are going to find a lot of real Marxists?

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

Not to downplay the importance of etymology, which dang reminded me recently is quite important, but I think that if we project the values of today's "progressives" onto the depression era, it is obvious that they identify quite a bit more with the New Deal than with the progressive movement. Today, it is just a poorly thought out label. I think you can see why someone might view "Marxist" as a bit more than that.

It's a tangential point, but "progressivism" as a political term in the US dates back all the way to the 1890s. It meant something different in the 20s and 30s, which sort of illustrates the point I'm making.

[dragonwriter]

> Except the term "progressives" was coined by Marxists and socialists in the 1930s

Its a simple and easily verifiable historical fact that that's not when or by whom “progressive” as a political label (or even one used in the US) was coined. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt—who was neither a Marxist nor any other variety of socialist—ran for President under the banner of the “Progressive Party”.

And what you suggest is also not the origin of the modern use, which was from early 1990s liberals in the Democratic Party adopting the term largely in response to decades of Republican media efforts to make “liberal” a toxic term, but also as a distinguishing marker against the rising center-right neoliberal faction of the party.

[chimeracoder]

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

In the US, the term "progressive" is much older than that. The party you're referring to is the third "progressive" party, started by Wallace in 1948. The first was in 1912, and the usage of the term goes back to the 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_Stat...

The three parties had distinct platforms and motivations, and each used the term in ways that would be inconsistent with contemporary usage of the word. OP is clearly referring to contemporary usage of the word, so there's no reason to bring up the mid-20th century version of the party in that context.

[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.