6 ms·

>We took away your unions and safety net, but by golly, we'll protect your "dignity." Organized labor may not have been targeted explicitly like by Republicans

>We took away your unions and safety net, but by golly, we'll protect your "dignity." Organized labor may not have been targeted explicitly like by Republicans, but Democrats haven't really been a friend to them either [1]. Both parties have been on board with the neoliberal agenda for 40 years. [1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/democrats-paid-a-huge-price-for-letting-unions-die.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/democrats-paid-a-huge...

gen220 7y ago
Yeah, when you expand your scope of analysis to include the labor movements of other nations, it’s striking how anemic and disenfranchised organized labor has been in the US. Unions in other countries have historically been a voice of the people, and don’t have a lasting allegiance with any political party or movement. I have no idea why American unions collapsed; perhaps, it was justified in the moment, but the present absence of a strong voice for organized, skilled labor is tragic.
- luckylion 7y ago
  I can't speak for other countries, but Germany's unions are very closely tied to the social democratic party. So much so, that there's a ~70% overlap in membership at the functionary level, while the average worker is somewhat further removed from the party (they're currently polling at ~15%). While not as extreme, the result is similar as well over here: knowledge workers make a lot of money, blue collar workers cannot afford to live in the large cities. The elite consists primarily of lawyers, political scientists and teachers, and the mocking of the lower class (with a hint of paternalist "we cannot let them be free, they don't know what to do with freedom") is palpable.
- KineticLensman 7y ago
  > Unions ... don’t have a lasting allegiance with any political party or movement Not true in the UK - the unions have a strong relationship with the Labour party, in terms of providing funding and endorsement of leadership candidates. Indeed, in its original form [0] the Labour party was created as the political wing of the unions. Many unions automatically took a cut of their members' subscriptions as labour party funding. Battles between the unions and the Conservative party have been key a feature of UK politics, e.g. the Miners' strike in the 1980s [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984–85) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984–85)
- yesenadam 7y ago
  >I have no idea why American unions collapsed I learnt a lot about that unknown history from Alex Carey's classic Taking the Risk Out of Democracy (1987). It was no accident but a huge and deliberate campaign. The story is pretty horrifying. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Alex+Carey&column=author http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Alex+Carey&column=autho... A small part of the story, from p31: "The American Advertising Council represents large corporations and large advertising agencies. In April 1947 the council announced a $100 million advertising program which, over the next twelve months, would use all media 'to "sell" the American economic system' to the American people. The program was officially described as a 'major project of educating the American people about the economic facts of life'. Daniel Bell, then an editor of Fortune, provides a perspective on both the scale and the anti-union and anti-New Deal purposes of these campaigns: "It has been industry's prime concern, in the post war years, to change the climate of opinion ushered in by...the depression. This 'free enterprise' campaign has two essential aims: to re-win the loyalty of the worker which now goes to the union and to halt creeping socialism [i.e. the New Deal] ... In short the campaign has had the definite aim of seeking to shift the Democratic majority of the last 20 years into the Republican camp ..." Bell sketches some of the resources, created to sell goods but now used in an overwhelming campaign to sell ideas. 'The apparatus itself is prodigious: 1,600 business periodicals, 577 commercial and financial digests, 2,500 advertising agencies, 500 public relations counsellors, 4,000 corporate public relations departments and more than 6,500 "house organs" with a combined circulation of more than 70 million. Of the opinion-shaping product Bell observes: "The output is staggering. The Advertising Council alone, in 1950, inspired 7 million lines of newspaper advertising stressing free enterprise, 400,000 car cards, 2,500,000,000 radio impressions ... By all odds it adds up to the most intensive "sales" campaign in the history of industry'
jayd16 7y ago
I would argue social safety nets that Dems do push for (such as healthcare) do benefit the labor class.
- Despegar 7y ago
  Huh? A few years ago Obama/Biden were considering what to do about the "entitlement crisis". The famed Simpson-Bowles commission (unsurprisingly they suggested cuts to Medicare and Social Security) [1]. Only Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (who waffled on M4A, and subsequently faded in the polls) are trying to expand the social safety net. Meanwhile the DNC is trying to do whatever it can to protect their class interests [2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-... [3] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-shifts-debate-requirements-opening-door-for-bloomberg-110017 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-shifts-debate-r...
  - jayd16 7y ago
    You're going to blame Obama/Biden for things they didn't do that never made it out of a bipartisan committee? And this was the same year they passed Obamacare.
- war1025 7y ago
  Healthcare is something that would benefit the working class. Unfortunately one of the side effects of Obamacare is that rates have skyrocketed to the point that many people can't afford it. There are subsidies, but the premiums / deductibles are still high enough to be basically useless for many people. Add to it that we had a mandate that you needed to have insurance or you'd be fined. There are a lot of good things that came from Obamacare, namely the removal of pre-existing conditions and the ability to keep your kids on your health insurance after they've left the house. But there are real issues with the program, and what many people hear when they raise them is effectively "You're just holding it wrong" to steal that old iPhone marketing wank. I honestly don't know anyone who is against improving healthcare in the US. The main thing people are afraid of is that a well-intended change will make things worse for them. (This is a rant at this point that I'm not even sure is responding to anything you said)
wwweston 7y ago
> Democrats haven't really been a friend to them either [1]. Both parties have been on board with the neoliberal agenda for 40 years. In a democracy, every interest or issue is either represented by a constituency that will vote reliably in support of it, or it's not and it will suffer. Labor's suffered for the last half century for two reasons: 1) The Democratic buy-in on civil rights and reproductive freedom, and subsequent defection by those hostile to it -- these cut across the lines drawn around working class constituencies and eroded that constituency's reliability. 2) Americans have examined and bought into neoliberal-supporting ideas (or auxiliary ideas that keep progressive economics from gaining mindshare). Discourse architects have been effective enough at shaping political and policy conversations that a good number of politically active citizens and officeholders understand issues the way those advancing neoliberal policies would like. When you understand this dynamic, you don't see the movement as Mr-Burns-thumb-twiddling by DLC/DNC sellouts, you see the Democratic party struggling for a constituency that will let it win elections along the odd way that key lines are drawn in the US system and finding that it had to move a neoliberal direction. And you get a sense of the scope of the work that'd be necessary for a working-class friendly politics to take root again, which is gonna be much harder than just electing President Sanders or Warren (which is not an easy sell in itself).
lurcio 7y ago
The “Neoliberal agenda” didnt surface in search results for me. Anyone have a link to a copy please, I’d be most grateful.
- auxbuss 7y ago
  Neoliberalism is broadly defined as the extension of competitive markets into all areas of life, including the economy, politics and society. See Mont Pelerin Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society ... and Friedrich Hayek, Frank Knight, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler, and Milton Friedman. Implemented by Reagan and Thatcher. Biases: • The Market is efficient => give it free-reign • The State is incompetent => remove it • Trade is win-win => open borders • Society => There is no such thing (see Thatcher) • Finance is infallible => 2008?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Both parties have been on board with the neoliberal agenda for 40 years. For the Democrats, it's more like less than 28; the neoloberal faction didn't become dominant over the economically progressive, faction until during Bill Clinton's Presidency; Clinton himself obviously was a member of the neoliberal faction, but most of the Democratic Party in Congress opposed NAFTA; it wasn't until sometime after the midterm defeat in 1994 that the neoliberals faction definitely dominated the Party. And the neoliberal faction in the Democratic Party is fighting desperately against being swept from power in the party right now, to the extent of prioritizing that intraparty fight over defeating the other major party.

gen220 7y ago

Yeah, when you expand your scope of analysis to include the labor movements of other nations, it’s striking how anemic and disenfranchised organized labor has been in the US. Unions in other countries have historically been a voice of the people, and don’t have a lasting allegiance with any political party or movement. I have no idea why American unions collapsed; perhaps, it was justified in the moment, but the present absence of a strong voice for organized, skilled labor is tragic.

luckylion 7y ago
I can't speak for other countries, but Germany's unions are very closely tied to the social democratic party. So much so, that there's a ~70% overlap in membership at the functionary level, while the average worker is somewhat further removed from the party (they're currently polling at ~15%). While not as extreme, the result is similar as well over here: knowledge workers make a lot of money, blue collar workers cannot afford to live in the large cities. The elite consists primarily of lawyers, political scientists and teachers, and the mocking of the lower class (with a hint of paternalist "we cannot let them be free, they don't know what to do with freedom") is palpable.
KineticLensman 7y ago
> Unions ... don’t have a lasting allegiance with any political party or movement Not true in the UK - the unions have a strong relationship with the Labour party, in terms of providing funding and endorsement of leadership candidates. Indeed, in its original form [0] the Labour party was created as the political wing of the unions. Many unions automatically took a cut of their members' subscriptions as labour party funding. Battles between the unions and the Conservative party have been key a feature of UK politics, e.g. the Miners' strike in the 1980s [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984–85) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984–85)
yesenadam 7y ago
>I have no idea why American unions collapsed I learnt a lot about that unknown history from Alex Carey's classic Taking the Risk Out of Democracy (1987). It was no accident but a huge and deliberate campaign. The story is pretty horrifying. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Alex+Carey&column=author http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Alex+Carey&column=autho... A small part of the story, from p31: "The American Advertising Council represents large corporations and large advertising agencies. In April 1947 the council announced a $100 million advertising program which, over the next twelve months, would use all media 'to "sell" the American economic system' to the American people. The program was officially described as a 'major project of educating the American people about the economic facts of life'. Daniel Bell, then an editor of Fortune, provides a perspective on both the scale and the anti-union and anti-New Deal purposes of these campaigns: "It has been industry's prime concern, in the post war years, to change the climate of opinion ushered in by...the depression. This 'free enterprise' campaign has two essential aims: to re-win the loyalty of the worker which now goes to the union and to halt creeping socialism [i.e. the New Deal] ... In short the campaign has had the definite aim of seeking to shift the Democratic majority of the last 20 years into the Republican camp ..." Bell sketches some of the resources, created to sell goods but now used in an overwhelming campaign to sell ideas. 'The apparatus itself is prodigious: 1,600 business periodicals, 577 commercial and financial digests, 2,500 advertising agencies, 500 public relations counsellors, 4,000 corporate public relations departments and more than 6,500 "house organs" with a combined circulation of more than 70 million. Of the opinion-shaping product Bell observes: "The output is staggering. The Advertising Council alone, in 1950, inspired 7 million lines of newspaper advertising stressing free enterprise, 400,000 car cards, 2,500,000,000 radio impressions ... By all odds it adds up to the most intensive "sales" campaign in the history of industry'

jayd16 7y ago

I would argue social safety nets that Dems do push for (such as healthcare) do benefit the labor class.

Despegar 7y ago
Huh? A few years ago Obama/Biden were considering what to do about the "entitlement crisis". The famed Simpson-Bowles commission (unsurprisingly they suggested cuts to Medicare and Social Security) [1]. Only Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (who waffled on M4A, and subsequently faded in the polls) are trying to expand the social safety net. Meanwhile the DNC is trying to do whatever it can to protect their class interests [2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-... [3] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-shifts-debate-requirements-opening-door-for-bloomberg-110017 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-shifts-debate-r...
- jayd16 7y ago
  You're going to blame Obama/Biden for things they didn't do that never made it out of a bipartisan committee? And this was the same year they passed Obamacare.
war1025 7y ago
Healthcare is something that would benefit the working class. Unfortunately one of the side effects of Obamacare is that rates have skyrocketed to the point that many people can't afford it. There are subsidies, but the premiums / deductibles are still high enough to be basically useless for many people. Add to it that we had a mandate that you needed to have insurance or you'd be fined. There are a lot of good things that came from Obamacare, namely the removal of pre-existing conditions and the ability to keep your kids on your health insurance after they've left the house. But there are real issues with the program, and what many people hear when they raise them is effectively "You're just holding it wrong" to steal that old iPhone marketing wank. I honestly don't know anyone who is against improving healthcare in the US. The main thing people are afraid of is that a well-intended change will make things worse for them. (This is a rant at this point that I'm not even sure is responding to anything you said)

wwweston 7y ago

> Democrats haven't really been a friend to them either [1]. Both parties have been on board with the neoliberal agenda for 40 years. In a democracy, every interest or issue is either represented by a constituency that will vote reliably in support of it, or it's not and it will suffer. Labor's suffered for the last half century for two reasons: 1) The Democratic buy-in on civil rights and reproductive freedom, and subsequent defection by those hostile to it -- these cut across the lines drawn around working class constituencies and eroded that constituency's reliability. 2) Americans have examined and bought into neoliberal-supporting ideas (or auxiliary ideas that keep progressive economics from gaining mindshare). Discourse architects have been effective enough at shaping political and policy conversations that a good number of politically active citizens and officeholders understand issues the way those advancing neoliberal policies would like. When you understand this dynamic, you don't see the movement as Mr-Burns-thumb-twiddling by DLC/DNC sellouts, you see the Democratic party struggling for a constituency that will let it win elections along the odd way that key lines are drawn in the US system and finding that it had to move a neoliberal direction. And you get a sense of the scope of the work that'd be necessary for a working-class friendly politics to take root again, which is gonna be much harder than just electing President Sanders or Warren (which is not an easy sell in itself).

lurcio 7y ago

The “Neoliberal agenda” didnt surface in search results for me. Anyone have a link to a copy please, I’d be most grateful.

auxbuss 7y ago
Neoliberalism is broadly defined as the extension of competitive markets into all areas of life, including the economy, politics and society. See Mont Pelerin Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society ... and Friedrich Hayek, Frank Knight, Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises, George Stigler, and Milton Friedman. Implemented by Reagan and Thatcher. Biases: • The Market is efficient => give it free-reign • The State is incompetent => remove it • Trade is win-win => open borders • Society => There is no such thing (see Thatcher) • Finance is infallible => 2008?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Both parties have been on board with the neoliberal agenda for 40 years. For the Democrats, it's more like less than 28; the neoloberal faction didn't become dominant over the economically progressive, faction until during Bill Clinton's Presidency; Clinton himself obviously was a member of the neoliberal faction, but most of the Democratic Party in Congress opposed NAFTA; it wasn't until sometime after the midterm defeat in 1994 that the neoliberals faction definitely dominated the Party. And the neoliberal faction in the Democratic Party is fighting desperately against being swept from power in the party right now, to the extent of prioritizing that intraparty fight over defeating the other major party.