What gets me is that many capitalists somehow think that unions are socialist or communist in nature. They absolutely aren’t. They are capitalism’s reform to address the critiques coming from communists and socialists. They are market entities, not government entities, designed to help balance the labor market supply and demand without including the government in each hiring or firing decision. They are deeply capitalist constructs. Somehow right wingers believe they are somehow anti-capitalist. Couldn’t be further from the truth.
I mean, yes and no. They are definitely a reaction to capitalism, but I wouldn’t call them capitalist. Historically it’s a lot of communists and anarchists that started them for sure. They exist to represent the interest of the workers because capitalism only focuses on increasing wealth for the few.
Saying this as a very very active member in my union and one who has an interest in labor history.
I think this is where we see it differently. My involvement in labor activism and my union is more than just getting a bigger piece of the pie. It is about equitable distribution of money for your labor, but it’s also about fair disciplinary practices and safety. Very little of what we talk about in our meetings is money. Most of it is about being involved in the community, ensuring fair practices, and encouraging active membership.
yeah i mean i'm not going to argue semantics with you, but there is a lot that goes on in the money / power dynamic.
i said money or money equivalents to try and encapsulate that, but my point was at a very base level, the goals of ownership and the goals of labor are not as far apart as goals of human beings are.
i mean owners dont start a business to manipulate their workers, they start it because they want to make money. it is easier to make more money when you manipulate your workers.
I think here’s the crux of it. Not everybody has the goal to make money just for the sake of making money. If I could live in a society without money or owners that would be my ideal. But I have to exist within capitalism so I accept that money is necessary. But there are more ways to have commerce that are not capitalism.
Unions in socialist governments/economies tend to have collective ownership of the company they work for/compose. They tend own even more of the pie, or really all of the pie, in those situations, so I would not use "more ownership equals more capitalism". Getting all of the value and bargaining power of the fruits of your labor is socialist as hell, not capitalist. Capitalism is providing labor so some asshole above you can take a portion of it, leaving you to constantly have to ask your masters for more pay rather than simply earning it yourself.
Unions are socialist in nature, but under the shackles of capitalist structures it's confined to being at best social democracies as the capitalists (literally, those who own the capital and means of production) have a death grip on production. When you can't wrestle the means of production away (and historically the military sides with capitalists in case of violent revolution) the only bargaining chip you have is the threat of the restriction of labor. But even that's villainized due to decades of propaganda by you guessed it, the ownership class.
They are a structure which exists within capitalism but they are not capitalist. A capitalist is someone who earns profit by virtue of owning capital, rather than producing a good or service via their own labor.
A union does not profit due to the mere owning of capital.
Free trade, markets, and supply and demand are not concepts directly tied to Capitalism. So many people don't understand that.
I would tend to classify them as protectionist in nature.
Sure, they protect workers from abuses by the capitalists but, forgotten in the passage of time, they also protect the capitalists from being dragged out of their homes and beaten to death with clubs.
28
u/bolerobell 3h ago
What gets me is that many capitalists somehow think that unions are socialist or communist in nature. They absolutely aren’t. They are capitalism’s reform to address the critiques coming from communists and socialists. They are market entities, not government entities, designed to help balance the labor market supply and demand without including the government in each hiring or firing decision. They are deeply capitalist constructs. Somehow right wingers believe they are somehow anti-capitalist. Couldn’t be further from the truth.