Of communism, parity, consternation and unions in 3 parts

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Chapter 1

Lemme get a bit simplistic on you - Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

While that's the opening line to the Wikipedia explanation of Communism, it's also pretty accurate. Here's another.


When I was but a lad and not as versed in Political Science and generally being human as I am today, I really didn't see a huge problem with Communism.

Back then Communism was the BIG EVIL and I was as much a Rebel then as I am today. Today, communism is just one of them thangs.

Being older, more learned and far more crotchety, I still don't have a problem with Communism. But it won't work outside of a utopia which does not exist. It's fundament is flawed. Communism relies on the belief that everyone will pull their own weight.

Ain't never happened. Ain't happening now. Ain't gonna happen.  Human nature ain't built that way.

Lemme rephrase please. Communism is an economic system in which the workers control the means of production.

A Comm - Uni - monkey reacts to this blog.

In defense of the Big Red, I note Communism, like Capitalism, has never been fully implemented on a nation-wide scale anywhere.

Still won't work.

Ah. Can anyone else tell me a system in which the workers control the means of production? Anyone?

I give you a hint - Unions.

Ooooooooooo.

Some people are going to point out that many union-owned companies are successful. Tru Dat. In return, I point you to Animal Farm by George Orwell and this report. In war, the victor writes the history book. In the world of industry, success is a matter of who does the reporting at that moment. United Airlines anyone?

CHAPTER 2

In a discussions on FB recently, I have been assailed by unionists over my support of the Michigan Legislature making the state a Right To Work place.

Among the attackers is one person who has repeatedly insisted unions and their work have benefited everyone. I took umbrage to the term "everyone" and listed examples of people who have not benefited from unions. In return, I was insulted. At least I think I was insulted when I was called a fool.

According to one union enthusiast in the thread: "But some people choose to stay in jobs and be slaves for companies that treat them like shit. Do not understand that. Why do you work for companies like that?" (profanity as written)

Pro union argument when faced with logic.

That statement is an example of cognitive disconnect. This person is essentially saying, it is entirely appropriate for one person to quit a terrible job, but should be mandatory for another person to join a union to force changes to the same job. Why can't both quit? Seems to me given a lack of employees, the company would fold or change its ways.

Bringing this dichotomy to the attention of the speaker would result in another round of insults or subject changes.

To explain a bit more, years ago as a cub reporter,  I broached the idea of quitting or striking to a union in Nevada, I was told I had no idea what I was talking about. The union meeting was held to announce the results of a study in which the union said the plant was unsafe. Exactly a year prior, the plant exploded, killing two people. My innocuous question - "Well, since you knew it was unsafe before the explosion, why didn't you strike?" resulted in a not-too-veiled threat aimed at me by the Union chapter chairman.

The plant was a chemical factory. The union chapter chairman also complained "We're steelworkers, We don't know anything about chemicals." I kid you not. This is cognitive disconnect in the raw.

And the truth shall get your butt threatened by goons.

Chapter 3

A complete list of advances made by Communism

List for me, please, major technological and quality-of-life advances which have come from Communist organizations. Never mind, I've done it for you.

Communism, like unions, purports to support being fair. Communism, if given a chance, might actually do that. Never been tried.

Unions never have, never will be fair. Unions seek to be unfair.

From the NY Times (a notoriously liberal paper and union supporter) article I link to above, I give you this comment: Union officials acknowledge their discomfort with the union being a major shareholder. “The reason we’ve received this equity stake is we’re trying to help the corporation survive and fund the VEBA,” Mr. Fredline said.

Ah.

If a union's rules were applied across the board, then the union would be torn apart. Unions exist to imbalance the workplace.

Unions take away the right of a business owner to run his business in the way he sees fit. Period. Is this fair to the business owner?

If unions seek to be fair, they would be fair to the business owner(s).

"But some people choose to stay in jobs and be slaves for companies that treat them like shit. Do not understand that. Why do you work for companies like that?"

If a non union worker says this, you are declared anathema. Continue in that vein and you are declared a fool and threatened. Why?

If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.