The problem here is that the labor unions are not the same as labor. In the US the unions are political action entities that connect with Democrats. And Democrats are the primary supporters of the globalist project that exports good American jobs and imports cheap non-union labor from their open borders position.
That is the disconnect in the political-media mythology related to the left and labor unions. Previously the Democrats were aligned with labor and the Republicans with business... primarily big business. Small business seemed split between the Democrats and Republicans. The big business, including banking and Wall Street, alignment has flipped to Democrats... with establishment Republicans holding on to some shreds of old industries like organic energy. Unions are still aligned with Democrats, but Democrat politics are generally against the interest of American labor. Also, small business is also under attack by Democrat policies.
People are waking up to this, and there is a shift of labor and small business looking to the new Republican party. Big business and union leadership are still married to Democrats.
"Previously the Democrats were aligned with labor and the Republicans with business..."
You've just illustrated a point I raised in a previous comment: "The problem is deeper than ideological principles, which can change depending on circumstance." Neither Democrats nor Republicans are ever opposed to what increases their personal fortunes. Corporate and financial interests fund both parties, and he who pays the piper calls the tune. Same as it ever was.
Changes to the economy which Republican elites supported have resulted in the disappearance of industries that Republicans used to be aligned with and the emergence of new industries that Democrats are more aligned with.
As you said, and I don't disagree. My point is the two parties often switch places depending which way the political winds blows. As a rule, they aren't consistent in anything outside of rewarding themselves and their most generous supporters.
I should add that being Canadian I don't really understand US partisanship. I notice many Americans will vote red or blue regardless of the policies being put forth. That I just don't get. I'll vote if it feels like it might make a difference, but it's the policies I'm voting for, not the party. Lately I haven't been voting though because quite frankly, there's not much to choose between any of them.
I think the more interesting discussion would have been the disconnect between the left and working class they claim to represent, but whose members vote increasingly against the recommendations of union leadership.
A constant issue I have is with defining terms. What exactly is the "working class" for example? I understand how Marx used the term, and it was probably relevant in his day (the dark satanic mills that Blake wrote about) but does it have any real meaning today?
I've been an industrial worker all my life, but I was never confined to that role. It was a matter of choice, a means to an end, not a socially defined role from which I could never escape. There are many educated, highly intelligent people today in the industrial workforce. I speak from direct knowledge. They are there because they're unwilling to compromise personal values in the service of bureaucratic hierarchies and their ownership elites. Skilled labour is their means to an end, not an end in itself. To illustrate, how many truck drivers do you know that can cite William Blake, much less even know who he was? Well, you just met one, and there's more of us than you may realize. So how do we fit into "workers of the world unite" other than as leaders, a role which most of us wisely avoid.
I never suggested that those who work in the trades or other jobs that don't require a college education aren't educated - in many cases, far better than those who do have a degree. I used "working class" in its accepted usage, particularly among those who self-describe as the left, as jobs that do not require a university or college degree to qualify for the position.
Not picking on you personally, just drawing attention to how the term has changed meaning over time. Likewise, many people today describe themselves as middle class when they're clearly working class. There's another fuzzy definition that often works to separate people with common interests. If defined by income, then I'm middle class, but I wouldn't describe myself that way. A lot of my co-workers would though, as their definition is income, not occupation based.
It seems that many in the current labor movement earned a BA in Wokeism and are now outraged that plumb “save-the-world” jobs at the UN are hard to come by. The labor movement has a multitude of legitimate and egregious concerns, but “grownups” maybe be unwilling to look through all the Woke hysteria to see them.
The union rep. in one place I worked was an effeminate self-styled Marxist "revolutionary" replete with beard and beret. He had no idea how ridiculous he looked to both workers and management. The only thing that kept him in place was that nobody else wanted the job!
Left vs. Right is a false dichotomy. While the terms may have meant something in the past, they are worse than useless today, and actually serve as a wedge to divide people by hoicking up controversial irrelevancies in lieu of a sincere discussion of where we want to go, and how we're going to get there, based on objective principles with demonstrable results.
The problem is deeper than ideological principles, which can change depending on circumstance. The one constant in human affairs is the urge to power, and the type of people that power attracts. So the question is not whether one believes in the ideology of Left or Right, but whether one recognizes how either can be used by power elites to gain control over ordinary people who have more practical things on their mind, like feeding their family and putting a roof over their head.
To put it bluntly, the issue is psychopathic elites and their servitors vs. everyone else. This real dichotomy has now been pushed to the forefront by the collision between psychopathic will to power vs. the material consequences of that impulse. I'm not offering a solution here, but until you can clearly state the problem the solution will always be out of reach.
The problem here is that the labor unions are not the same as labor. In the US the unions are political action entities that connect with Democrats. And Democrats are the primary supporters of the globalist project that exports good American jobs and imports cheap non-union labor from their open borders position.
That is the disconnect in the political-media mythology related to the left and labor unions. Previously the Democrats were aligned with labor and the Republicans with business... primarily big business. Small business seemed split between the Democrats and Republicans. The big business, including banking and Wall Street, alignment has flipped to Democrats... with establishment Republicans holding on to some shreds of old industries like organic energy. Unions are still aligned with Democrats, but Democrat politics are generally against the interest of American labor. Also, small business is also under attack by Democrat policies.
People are waking up to this, and there is a shift of labor and small business looking to the new Republican party. Big business and union leadership are still married to Democrats.
"Previously the Democrats were aligned with labor and the Republicans with business..."
You've just illustrated a point I raised in a previous comment: "The problem is deeper than ideological principles, which can change depending on circumstance." Neither Democrats nor Republicans are ever opposed to what increases their personal fortunes. Corporate and financial interests fund both parties, and he who pays the piper calls the tune. Same as it ever was.
Changes to the economy which Republican elites supported have resulted in the disappearance of industries that Republicans used to be aligned with and the emergence of new industries that Democrats are more aligned with.
As you said, and I don't disagree. My point is the two parties often switch places depending which way the political winds blows. As a rule, they aren't consistent in anything outside of rewarding themselves and their most generous supporters.
I should add that being Canadian I don't really understand US partisanship. I notice many Americans will vote red or blue regardless of the policies being put forth. That I just don't get. I'll vote if it feels like it might make a difference, but it's the policies I'm voting for, not the party. Lately I haven't been voting though because quite frankly, there's not much to choose between any of them.
American media inflames partisanship. Partisanship is an American media political power and money-making enterprise. I guess capitalism can suck.
I think the more interesting discussion would have been the disconnect between the left and working class they claim to represent, but whose members vote increasingly against the recommendations of union leadership.
A constant issue I have is with defining terms. What exactly is the "working class" for example? I understand how Marx used the term, and it was probably relevant in his day (the dark satanic mills that Blake wrote about) but does it have any real meaning today?
I've been an industrial worker all my life, but I was never confined to that role. It was a matter of choice, a means to an end, not a socially defined role from which I could never escape. There are many educated, highly intelligent people today in the industrial workforce. I speak from direct knowledge. They are there because they're unwilling to compromise personal values in the service of bureaucratic hierarchies and their ownership elites. Skilled labour is their means to an end, not an end in itself. To illustrate, how many truck drivers do you know that can cite William Blake, much less even know who he was? Well, you just met one, and there's more of us than you may realize. So how do we fit into "workers of the world unite" other than as leaders, a role which most of us wisely avoid.
I never suggested that those who work in the trades or other jobs that don't require a college education aren't educated - in many cases, far better than those who do have a degree. I used "working class" in its accepted usage, particularly among those who self-describe as the left, as jobs that do not require a university or college degree to qualify for the position.
Not picking on you personally, just drawing attention to how the term has changed meaning over time. Likewise, many people today describe themselves as middle class when they're clearly working class. There's another fuzzy definition that often works to separate people with common interests. If defined by income, then I'm middle class, but I wouldn't describe myself that way. A lot of my co-workers would though, as their definition is income, not occupation based.
It seems that many in the current labor movement earned a BA in Wokeism and are now outraged that plumb “save-the-world” jobs at the UN are hard to come by. The labor movement has a multitude of legitimate and egregious concerns, but “grownups” maybe be unwilling to look through all the Woke hysteria to see them.
The union rep. in one place I worked was an effeminate self-styled Marxist "revolutionary" replete with beard and beret. He had no idea how ridiculous he looked to both workers and management. The only thing that kept him in place was that nobody else wanted the job!
Left vs. Right is a false dichotomy. While the terms may have meant something in the past, they are worse than useless today, and actually serve as a wedge to divide people by hoicking up controversial irrelevancies in lieu of a sincere discussion of where we want to go, and how we're going to get there, based on objective principles with demonstrable results.
The problem is deeper than ideological principles, which can change depending on circumstance. The one constant in human affairs is the urge to power, and the type of people that power attracts. So the question is not whether one believes in the ideology of Left or Right, but whether one recognizes how either can be used by power elites to gain control over ordinary people who have more practical things on their mind, like feeding their family and putting a roof over their head.
To put it bluntly, the issue is psychopathic elites and their servitors vs. everyone else. This real dichotomy has now been pushed to the forefront by the collision between psychopathic will to power vs. the material consequences of that impulse. I'm not offering a solution here, but until you can clearly state the problem the solution will always be out of reach.
I'm generally in favour of unions but I find that they tend to have negative impacts that people don't tend to focus on.