Rooting on the failure of the NLRB in hopes that it creates the contradictions needed for an uprising of the labor movement is naive. As we currently see in the labor movement when the ruling class threatens workers ability to eat and have a shelter they cave and I don't think this is simply because institutional powers tell them to. I think there's plenty of critique for these institutions, but what organizational power do leftists have in the labor movement to move people once there is no NLRB or its power removed so much it becomes meaningless?
Again, the NLRB affects 10% of workers, it is already meaningless to the most marginalized and oppressed workers; to nearly every worker. The union itself should be the organizational power, but the NLRB means they the power rests in a government body instead of the workers themself. What power did workers have before the NLRB? Considering it was their power that forced the government to create the NLRB in response, obviously it was a lot. The idea that anyone is rooting for this in hopes of it helping is naive and misguided, the point is that it is happening anyway and contradictions are getting sharper for many reasons, this being one of them. That is happening and we need to incorporate that into our analysis and be prepared to organize with that reality in mind
The power does exist within the workers. The NLRB if it were to truly be pro labor would be a full extension arm of labor. I find no contradiction in having a federal labor bureaucratic agency that protects the rights of labor. The fact that agency could be used to destroy labor unions should be fought and a fight leftist should show up to.
Yes and the senate and house and presidency, if only the were truly pro worker, would be great for labor. It's almost if we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the state is a tool of the ruling class to oppress the working class or something
Rooting on the failure of the NLRB in hopes that it creates the contradictions needed for an uprising of the labor movement is naive. As we currently see in the labor movement when the ruling class threatens workers ability to eat and have a shelter they cave and I don't think this is simply because institutional powers tell them to. I think there's plenty of critique for these institutions, but what organizational power do leftists have in the labor movement to move people once there is no NLRB or its power removed so much it becomes meaningless?
Again, the NLRB affects 10% of workers, it is already meaningless to the most marginalized and oppressed workers; to nearly every worker. The union itself should be the organizational power, but the NLRB means they the power rests in a government body instead of the workers themself. What power did workers have before the NLRB? Considering it was their power that forced the government to create the NLRB in response, obviously it was a lot. The idea that anyone is rooting for this in hopes of it helping is naive and misguided, the point is that it is happening anyway and contradictions are getting sharper for many reasons, this being one of them. That is happening and we need to incorporate that into our analysis and be prepared to organize with that reality in mind
The power does exist within the workers. The NLRB if it were to truly be pro labor would be a full extension arm of labor. I find no contradiction in having a federal labor bureaucratic agency that protects the rights of labor. The fact that agency could be used to destroy labor unions should be fought and a fight leftist should show up to.
Yes and the senate and house and presidency, if only the were truly pro worker, would be great for labor. It's almost if we live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the state is a tool of the ruling class to oppress the working class or something