Cosplay Socialist Fires Staff for Starting a Workers Co-Op

[Kronik85]

Then people have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm really not interested in entertaining people's ignorance as a valid counter-point.

Unions form within a capitalist system so that collective power can offset the inherent advantages employers have over employees in labor negotiations. In nearly all socialist systems this would be superfluous, as the means of production wouldn't be owned by some independent owner in the first place. Even in cases where a socialist system uses the same word, "union", to describe a worker collective, it's not anything like what we're talking about when we describe "unions" in common parlance; it's a word applied to a form of worker co-operative, where the union itself owns the shop its members work at, and thus they share in its profits as a result.

Any framing where a "union" is a worker's group meant to negotiate with ownership over compensation and working conditions and such, that's explicitly capitalist in origin, not socialist. You've defined the concept in relation to the economic system of capitalism, and while it's working to offset the power of the capitalist class, it's still fundamentally rooted in capitalist theory.

Like, words mean things. The reason we keep having these arguments is because we let bad people misuse the terminology so egregiously, in the first place.



I've put in bold the phrase that should explain pretty darned clearly why it's not a socialist attitude.

Again; "Capitalism" means "private ownership of the means of production". "Socialism" means "collective ownership of the means of production". Everything else is flavor text about which variety of each we're talking about.

If someone describes a company as "their (single ownership) business", that's pretty much definitively capitalism. Pretty much the sole exception is businesses that are so structurally small they're essentially only that individual working in it; an independent freelance writer is the sole worker in "their business", for instance.

I'm not gonna try and gatekeep socialism by saying stuff "isn't true socialism" just because it's a flavor I don't like, or something. But there's a pretty simple and obvious demarcation between "socialism" and "capitalism", and that's the ownership of the means of production. Stalinism is socialism, and hippie communes are socialism, and market socialism is socialism, but private ownership is always capitalism.

Its funny how you talk about gatekeeping but start your post by gatekeeping. Real talk? We will never achieve Socialism without working within Capitalism, and to turn Capitalism into Socialism we have to start with Unions.

Unions are stage 1 of achieving a real Socialist system under Capitalism. But you want to take the discussion to the weeds. Well ok bro, you do you I guess? I'd rather have a useful discussion on how we achieve socialism rather than whether people really know what socialism or not.

[Shalcker]

Then people have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm really not interested in entertaining people's ignorance as a valid counter-point.

Unions form within a capitalist system so that collective power can offset the inherent advantages employers have over employees in labor negotiations. In nearly all socialist systems this would be superfluous, as the means of production wouldn't be owned by some independent owner in the first place. Even in cases where a socialist system uses the same word, "union", to describe a worker collective, it's not anything like what we're talking about when we describe "unions" in common parlance; it's a word applied to a form of worker co-operative, where the union itself owns the shop its members work at, and thus they share in its profits as a result.

Any framing where a "union" is a worker's group meant to negotiate with ownership over compensation and working conditions and such, that's explicitly capitalist in origin, not socialist. You've defined the concept in relation to the economic system of capitalism, and while it's working to offset the power of the capitalist class, it's still fundamentally rooted in capitalist theory.

Under which actual socialist system have this ever been implemented?

Even in USSR unions didn't work like that.

...is USSR considered capitalist in modern theory?

[Endus]

Its funny how you talk about gatekeeping but start your post by gatekeeping.

Pointing out that words have specific, distinct meanings is not "gatekeeping".

Real talk? We will never achieve Socialism without working within Capitalism, and to turn Capitalism into Socialism we have to start with Unions.

Unions do not shift the needle in any respect.

Also, I have no idea where you got the idea that capitalism was some kind of necessity. It isn't some natural baseline or something. It's as artificial and arbitrary as any other economic system.

Unions are stage 1 of achieving a real Socialist system under Capitalism. But you want to take the discussion to the weeds. Well ok bro, you do you I guess? I'd rather have a useful discussion on how we achieve socialism rather than whether people really know what socialism or not.

We can't have a "useful discussion on how we achieve socialism" without a shared understanding of what "socialism" even means.

Under which actual socialist system have this ever been implemented?

Even in USSR unions didn't work like that.

...is USSR considered capitalist in modern theory?

Did you not read my post, or not read your wiki link? Because those weren't "unions" in the sense that we're talking about in the modern West, any more than a "marriage union" is, or an advocacy group like the "Union of Concerned Scientists".

Also, the failure of the trade union system in the USSR is a pretty strong argument against their socialist economic position, as they clearly prioritized their authoritarianism over any sense of socialist policy. This isn't me saying they "weren't socialist", but they were authoritarians first and foremost, and socialist a distant second, and only where that did not conflict with the authoritarianism. As your own link shows. Instituting a new Party hierarchy to control workers is not exactly empowering workers, their propaganda otherwise aside.

[Shalcker]

Did you not read my post, or not read your wiki link? Because those weren't "unions" in the sense that we're talking about in the modern West, any more than a "marriage union" is, or an advocacy group like the "Union of Concerned Scientists".

Also, the failure of the trade union system in the USSR is a pretty strong argument against their socialist economic position, as they clearly prioritized their authoritarianism over any sense of socialist policy. This isn't me saying they "weren't socialist", but they were authoritarians first and foremost, and socialist a distant second, and only where that did not conflict with the authoritarianism. As your own link shows. Instituting a new Party hierarchy to control workers is not exactly empowering workers, their propaganda otherwise aside.

As that article says their primary function was making sure people were working in safe conditions, got appropriate payment, and were in good health. Serving as safeguard against directors, party, and ministries making unreasonable demands - similar to capitalist version.

But... are you telling me that unions like you describe have never been actually tried?
Maybe it is better to call them something else if every example of actual unions is different?
If you're describing some specific kind of common-ownership cooperative why would you call it union?

[Endus]

As that article says their primary function was making sure people were working in safe conditions, got appropriate payment, and were in good health. Serving as safeguard against directors, party, and ministries making unreasonable demands - similar to capitalist version.

But... are you telling me that unions like you describe have never been actually tried?

The only unions I described were the actual unions we have all over the place today. They've clearly been tried.

This is what I meant by you either not understanding or willfully misrepresenting what I said.

What was being discussed at the workplace in the OP was not a union. It was a worker co-operative. Entirely different thing. And again, there are plenty of examples out there if you want them. It's not like I invented the concept.

[JohnBrown1917]

Most countries with "socialist leanings" haven't done much experimentation with worker co ops. It's not hypocrisy to say that you are a socialist business owner who doesn't want to turn their business into a worker owned coop against their own wishes.

If this guy was a union busting piece of shit who didn't want to pay his employees what they are worth then I'd be with you but that doesn't seem to be the case in this story.

Worker coops are not unions. Really poor showing on your part here Endus conflating the two.

Very few countries have socialist leanings. Bolivia, a few south-east Asian countries, Cuba.. and thats over 50% of them.

[Glorious Leader]

Very few countries have socialist leanings. Bolivia, a few south-east Asian countries, Cuba.. and thats over 50% of them.

He probably considers any country with even modest social welfare programs "socialist". Basically unless it's gaults gulch its filthy communism.

[Shalcker]

Most countries with "socialist leanings" haven't done much experimentation with worker co ops. It's not hypocrisy to say that you are a socialist business owner who doesn't want to turn their business into a worker owned coop against their own wishes.

Stalin's USSR had worker cooperatives. Even relatively big and successful ones.

They were all converted into state enterprises under Khruschev. Some see it as part where socialist project had sown seeds of failure.

[Theodarzna]

Never trust a man who regularly dresses like he just walked off the set of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.



Socialism with Nathan J. Robinson characteristics and a dash of Roger Stone aesthetics, innit.

NJR dressed like the Riddler, and his magazine only makes money because his mom and dad fund his vanity project and he openly hates Marxism. Idk why you bring up Roger Stone, but I guess sure. But the reasons NJR isn't a socialist is the same reason Nancy Pelosi isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing is for sure, it most definitely isn't someone that fires people for trying to unionise or starting a workers co-op.

NJR was never a Socialist. I mean the New Orleans Riddler was no more a 'Socialist' than say some youtuber playing dress up and making skits.

- - - Updated - - -

True, you don't really have to call these "cosplay" socialists, most of them genuinely believe socialism is just government giving them free stuff

For a lot of them, Socialism is just a word for Jobs Programs for Downwardly mobile college grads. They really want those HR jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

Look, someone who doesn’t understand the difference between socialism and communism. What level do you teach again?

I assume for you "Socialism" might just mean "Voting Democrat, the more Democrats there are the more socialist things are." which is a very standard American view if you were a student of Rush Limbaughs school of politics.

[downnola]

NJR dressed like the Riddler, and his magazine only makes money because his mom and dad fund his vanity project and he openly hates Marxism. Idk why you bring up Roger Stone, but I guess sure. But the reasons NJR isn't a socialist is the same reason Nancy Pelosi isn't.

[Theodarzna]

[... Nobody else need see that horrible coat ...]

I see.... the fashion sense. Dang, where was NJR's mom on the night of his conception?

[Shadowferal]

Looks like a rainbow flag...

[arandomuser]

based and capitalist pilled.

[Milchshake]

Tankie Cults are a flat circle.

[JohnBrown1917]

Tankie Cults are a flat circle.

This one does not even make any sense.

[uuuhname]

This one does not even make any sense.

I like the irony of calling things a cult when you totally don't have a cult like devotion to poo pooing leftist ideas.

[JohnBrown1917]

I like the irony of calling things a cult when you totally don't have a cult like devotion to poo pooing leftist ideas.

Yeah dude, whatever you say.


I never even called anything a cult.

[uuuhname]

Yeah dude, whatever you say.


I never even called anything a cult.

? dude it's clearly not directed at you.

[JohnBrown1917]

? dude it's clearly not directed at you.

You should probably quote the right post next time.

[uuuhname]

sorry I forget I'm not allowed to agree with people unless it's in a very specific way.