UAW is technically an international union with members in Canada lol. Way to go Shawn, just throw them under the bus.
El Chisme
Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.
Rules:
Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.
Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 4: No sectarianism.
Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Since America is still in NAFTA, doesn't that mean that Trump's tariffs don't apply to Canada anyways?
He's made up some lie about these being retaliatory tariffs because of fentanyl, which skirts NAFTA rules.
im stupid but didn’t he specifically sanction canada at like 25%?
This is literally the best you'll get if communists aren't a part of unions. Join or build a union and help lead the workers forward.
What's funny is that UAW has lots of communists (and even worse, Communists) in it and probably one of the most storied histories of radical labor organizing in the US. The union is just dominated by a reactionary old guard and is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt. Shawn Fain was effectively the compromise candidate imposed on them by the DoL and was only elected by a tiny portion of the membership.
communists (and even worse, Communists)
Which ones are we talking about here? I'm just passingly familiar with CPUSA's helping hand in the founding of UAW and the sit-down strikes and their purging from the union shortly after, but UAWs so outside of my sphere I don't really know what kinds of folks are running around their shop floors today.
Around a quarter of UAW members work in higher education, mostly as graduate workers/PhD students. A lot of these efforts are led by student activists who are usually some kind of radical. Where I live an ongoing campaign has deep ties to the CPUSA and basically revitalized their chapter here. I'm assuming that's generally the case though idk if the CP is as deeply rooted in all the campaigns as the one I'm familiar with because they're very quiet about it.
Also an openly Trotskyist WSWS candidate ran in the first round of their election fof their president and got like 5% of the vote.
Thank you for sharing, it's always a surprise to know how many pies unions have their fingers in. From teamsters nurses to UAW grad workers. Really helps elucidate the fact that unions are much more than a bunch of schluby pawpawps in hard hats and reflective vests.
Most (all?) unions currently have in their constitution a clause where all members must attest that they are not a communist. Openly endorsing communism gets you kicked out. Interestingly enough, this also applies to fascism...
Openly endorsing communism gets you kicked out. Interestingly enough, this also applies to fascism...
What is this? The Iron Front?
Every time I try to make a union, people hem and haw endlessly. "Oh I don't know. Oh, it's not really necessary." As the conditions slowly deteriorate. It's infuriating
you're trying your best
Try harder
bro I know plenty of non-unionized factory workers in Mexico that have a good shot at losing their jobs
Engels, On the Question of Free Trade (1888):
The consciousness is gaining ground in England that that country's industrial monopoly is irretrievably lost, that she is still relatively losing ground, while her rivals are making progress, and that she is drifting into a position where she will have to be content with being one manufacturing nation among many, instead of, as she once dreamt, "the workshop of the world". It is to stave off this impending fate that Protection, scarcely disguised under the veil of "fair trade" and retaliatory tariffs, is now invoked with such fervor by the sons of the very men who, 40 years ago, knew no salvation but in Free Trade. And when English manufacturers begin to find that Free Trade is ruining them, and ask the government to protect them against their foreign competitors, then, surely, the moment has come for these competitors to retaliate by throwing overboard a protective system henceforth useless, to fight the fading industrial monopoly of England with its own weapon: Free Trade.
The question of Free Trade or Protection moves entirely within the bounds of the present system of capitalist production, and has, therefore, no direct interest for us socialists who want to do away with that system.
Indirectly, however, it interests us inasmuch as we must desire as the present system of production to develop and expand as freely and as quickly as possible: because along with it will develop also those economic phenomena which are its necessary consequences, and which must destroy the whole system: misery of the great mass of the people, in consequence of overproduction. This overproduction engendering either periodical gluts and revulsions, accompanied by panic, or else a chronic stagnation of trade; division of society into a small class of large capitalist, and a large one of practically hereditary wage-slaves, proletarians, who, while their numbers increase constantly, are at the same time constantly being superseded by new labor-saving machinery; in short, society brought to a deadlock, out of which there is no escaping but by a complete remodeling of the economic structure which forms it basis.
From this point of view, 40 years ago Marx pronounced, in principle, in favor of Free Trade as the more progressive plan, and therefore the plan which would soonest bring capitalist society to that deadlock. But if Marx declared in favor of Free Trade on that ground, is that not a reason for every supporter of the present order of society to declare against Free Trade? If Free Trade is stated to be revolutionary, must not all good citizens vote for Protection as a conservative plan?
If a country nowadays accepts Free Trade, it will certainly not do so to please the socialists. It will do so because Free trade has become a necessity for the industrial capitalists. But if it should reject Free Trade and stick to Protection, in order to cheat the socialists out of the expected social catastrophe, that will not hurt the prospects of socialism in the least. Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage laborers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other.
The wage laborer everywhere follows in the footsteps of the manufacturer; he is like the "gloomy care" of Horace, that sits behind the rider, and that he cannot shake off wherever he go. You cannot escape fate; in other words, you cannot escape the necessary consequences of your own actions. A system of production based upon the exploitation of wage labor, in which wealth increases in proportion to the number of laborers employed and exploited, such a system is bound to increase the class of wage laborers, that is to say, the class which is fated one day to destroy the system itself. In the meantime, there is no help for it: you must go on developing the capitalist system, you must accelerate the production, accumulation, and centralization of capitalist wealth, and, along with it, the production of a revolutionary class of laborers. Whether you try the Protectionist or the Free Trade will make no difference in the end, and hardly any in the length of the respite left to you until the day when that end will come. For long before that day will protection have become an unbearable shackle to any country aspiring, with a chance of success, to hold its own in the world market.
Behold: the petty bourgeois nature of imperial core trade unions.
Bask in it. Understand it. And then overcome it, using them to your advantage despite the despicable aspects.
Does he seriously believe American companies would ever bring back manufacturing jobs if it meant giving them to unionized high wage labor?
This isn't even trade unionism, this is vulgar class collaboration with a side of utopianism
"Noooo leopards! You were supposed to eat someone ELSE'S face! I thought I was a leopard too! Nooooo!"
and curb the power of corporations that pit US workers against workers in other countries.
the corporate trade regime that has devastated the American and global working class
This sounds fairly internationalist, as far as you can expect in America. Perhaps it's just lip service?