- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- memes
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- memes
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1740294
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1740285
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/WildingDNC.pdf
Because 1 party does everything their donors say, the other does most of the stuff their donors say but still shows it's able to be pushed by their voters to do good.
Do you really think that the donor class wanted the recent NLRB rule change that helps unions against union busting? No, but it happened because unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party can be swayed to fight for the working class. Is it perfect? No, but it's something.
But they aren't really swayed, they are playing the good guys to prevent riots. The role they fill, regardless of how any democrat personally feels, is the role of the small concession to prevent riot. It's super helpful to capitalism to have a tiny outlet so that the major exploitation is ignored. It's only "better" when you obsess with the short term goals and can't see the projects over decades and across borders. Sometimes I get it, honestly, like I am never mad at comrades voting for the hope that trans and indigenous comrades aren't genocided. But it's just not good strategy to think about that decision for more than like 4 minutes a year because of the above stated functional argument.
With one hand they give you a ruling that says that if an employer breaks labor law (and the DoL agrees to enforce it), card check gets a union instead of a union vote.
With the other they take away three years of work labor organizing through impossible hoops by breaking the strike of the railworkers, who got nothing to show for it.
What's the point of a union if you can't strike?