!labour@hexbear.net is a union / labour organizing specific comm.

Any syndicalist comrades who want to work with me on this comm are also welcome. DM me and we’ll figure it out.

Hexers, what kind of content / resources do you want to see in c/labour? I'm thinking guides, news, pro-union art, propaganda, and memes.

Let's make one big comm for one big union.

:iww: :sabo: :big-bill:.

    • FidelCastro [he/him]M
      ·
      3 years ago

      Always worth asking for more than you think you can get. That sounds like you might wind up with $9.50 if they meet you half way. Either way, fight the good fight.

        • FidelCastro [he/him]M
          ·
          3 years ago

          I’m sure your union leaders have read the room and know how to navigate this. Worst case scenario, you can always get more involved and help radicalize the union again. Did you recently join the union?

    • FidelCastro [he/him]M
      ·
      3 years ago

      Got any good union content to get us going?

      :fidel-salute-big:

      • Nakoichi [they/them]M
        ·
        3 years ago

        Well it just so happens I've been meeting with a DSA organizing group and some of their comrades have given me some neat stuff. I've got a link for a guide to inoculating coworkers against anti-union propaganda.

  • DragonNest_Aidit [they/them,use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Just realized that the Talibans have been applying protracted people's (reactionary people are still people) war strategy for decades and we're now seeing its success.

    edit: just realized that this is not the megathread

      • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        PPW is a Maoist strategy based on the experience of the Chinese Civil War and later the Viet Nam War, whereby an insurrectionary movement based in rural areas fights a long-term guerilla war of attrition against a central enemy. The thing idk most about is how popular the Taliban are among Afgahanistan, as popular support was a central PPW thesis a lot of the time, but OP is kinda correct

        • DragonNest_Aidit [they/them,use name]
          ·
          3 years ago

          NATO sources often puts blame the Afghan people on just being backward on why Taliban have any support. I'm reserving judgements on the specifics of Afghanistan politics, but from what I've known the Kabul government is corrupt, inefficient, and its governor are mostly made up of former warlords installed to power. I guess that makes the Taliban looks like a force of stability in comparison.

  • Nagarjuna [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I'm curious about the "no anti union content" rule. I'm generally pro union, but I think the French ultra left critiques from the 60s and the italian ones from the 70s both belong here.

    Could we change the rule to no opposing unions from the right?

    • drinkinglakewater [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Since this comm is focused around labor and specifically union organizing maybe critiques would have a better home in a different comm. Unless they're like critiques of tactics instead of more theoretical critiques

    • D61 [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I'm going to side with "Opposition of unions, isn't the same thing as critiquing a particular union's actions or decisions that the union movement may have made at a moment in time."

      • Nagarjuna [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        That's not what I'm talking about. In the 60s, the French left argued that they were in a revolutionary situation, but that the unions were acting as a pacifying force that was channeling revolutionary activity into wage struggles. That's a pretty broad criticism. Lenin argued that trade unions could only lead to a limited class conciousness that wasn't revolutionary, that's a pretty broad criticism.

        I think we should make it clear there's room for that kind of discourse.

        • D61 [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          But does this criticism equate to "unions are always bad and should never be supported or joined" or "unions aren't the revolutionary communist vanguard that some people want them to be"?

          Because the former seems to violate the rules of this comm (and I agree with this rule) and the latter is probably a correct take that will need to be discussed constantly (which shouldn't normally be a violation of this comm's rules).

          • Nagarjuna [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            It equates to "unions are the enemy during revolutionary situations"

            • D61 [any]
              ·
              3 years ago

              :shrug-outta-hecks:

              No all enemies are bad, so I'm fine agreeing with you.

  • Gay_Wrath [fae/faer]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Rationally, i understand that cutting off most contact from lib friends is bad for my mental health and lowkey antisocial. But also, i've radicalized since becoming friends with them and they're not getting with the fucking program no matter how hard i try and how nicely i try to educate them. Like i bring up child slavery in coffee and bring up that you can get it from zapatistas instead of child slavers and i just get a "huh".

    TO FUCKING CHILD SLAVERY

    C H I L D

    S L A V E R Y

    why the fuck would i want to spend my time with people who just accept child slavery instead of buying better coffee or finding another caffeine fix?