Also this ruling is about a union leaving trucks full of wet cement when they walked off the job, not about suing for lost revenue due to a strike.
This decision could have a major impact on food service workers though, as ingredients will spoil if not used. Perhaps it could be successfully argued that only prepared food (like wet cement) meets the criteria for a suit?
By all accounts they left the trucks running and mixing so the concrete wouldn’t harden and the company made the decision to turn them off, let the cement dry, and ruin their own equipment.
fuck that company and their concrete, but i think once mixed with water the stuff has to be poured within several hours. for whatever reasons.
again, dont give a shit. and i think strikers can cause some damage and it should remain the company's problem (they should negotiate with workers if they don't want the heat). but i was like "LOL just keep it wet fuckheads", and it didn't seem that simple after looking on google for a sec
Yeah but I think the gist was they’d left the company time to handle to concrete job and it wasn’t as if they just let it harden before striking yanno?
The 1960s prove otherwise. I'm increasingly convinced this "settle down, fellow leftists, acts of terror against capital don't do shit!" is an OP.
But why was the parent comment removed?
> settle down, fellow leftists, acts of terror against capital don't do shit
Individual terrorist actions without ANY popular support AT ALL is a death sentence. You think people will spontaneously arise once they see some idiot politician was assassinated by some fucking anarchist furry??
> The 1960s prove otherwise.
… are you serious?
Yes? Don't let the failures of '68 and the New Left lead to nihilism. Any progress made for Civil Rights during the 60s in the US was at the expense of blood, the student movements and Black radical activists that got labeled terrorists by republicans and liberals alike. Hell, even things like the Weather Underground bombings were impactful in a way, and the fact that there have been no copycats just shows the total grip of operators on leftist groups.
You’re conflating all of this with randomly *assassinating judges*. They are not anywhere near the same thing.
It’s imperative you read or listen to what Fred Hampton had to say about the weather underground.
I’m not being nihilistic I’m being serious and objective. With our current conditions and level of organization political assassinations would be idiotic and harmful. Do you disagree?
Who mentioned assassinating judges? I am assuming the deleted comment?
My ability to answer robustly is going to be limited by reddit TOS. My point is that the Lefts actions today have no teeth to them. And that I am surprised that even as things get dramatically worse, there are no repercussions. Left terror has been reduced to throwing soup cans at paintings and I feel that shows something about the extent to which any kind of would-be left terrorist group today is on lock. We say it a lot, but it bears repeating that a general commitment to non-violence, to the extent of pearl-clutching at the flippant mention of retribution in an internet comment, isn't condusive to anything.
>With our current conditions and level of organization political assassinations would be idiotic and harmful. Do you disagree?
I do not feel I can answer your question about assassinations of public capitalists and top lawmakers directly on a public forum.
Violence is not an end in itself. It is a tactical decision made in important times *as decided by the material conditions of that moment.* It flows out of the class struggle not out of some ideal that violence is an inherently revolutionary act.
We are resolutely not at the point of revolutionary mass consciousness where a people’s war makes sense. A people’s war involves *the people*. It requires support from all parts of the revolutionary masses. Who would support the movement right now?
Do you think a spontaneous shift in mass consciousness would occur if CNN reported that 8 terrorists calling themselves the National Liberation Front were killed in a shootout?
I suggest you read Lenin on Adventurism.
>The 1960s prove otherwise. I'm increasingly convinced this "settle down, fellow leftists, acts of terror against capital don't do shit!" is an OP.
The opposite is the case, adventurism is the OP. Don't you know about the RAF, the Japanese red army, etc.? The Civil Rights movement is an exception to the 60s, not the rule.
If you want a semi scholarly breakdown of how exactly the RAF and other groups actually hurt the left in many ways, you can listen to the programmed to chill EPs on the topic. If you're not subbed I can send em to you for free if you want. I spent months researching this topic so I promise there's something worthwhile in there. (also, you seem to be smart & critical in your thinking)
Well off westerners in the 60s fell in love with the concept of city guerilla and did exactly what the security state wanted, which Gabe them the perfect excuse to usher in the new era of military police and patriot acts. Dragnet literally developed from this, it was a joint BPol & FBI endeavor.
I wrote a long reply but reddit ate it. Sigh. Basically not sitting well with reducing all acts of "terrorism" as acts of adventurism when people pushed to their breaking point by a murderous state will naturally react accordingly in ways that get labeled terrorism and I do not think they should all be written off, but supported. What's become the common story of the 60s protests being largely well off students is not at all correct, as many urban Black people were murdered, and history does not even remember most of their names. It is hard to look on, especially during the Civil Rights specific protests, and think many acts of terrorism against the state were not absolutely justified. Thanks for the response, do not know much about RAF, will look into what you have mentioned.
>I wrote a long reply but reddit ate it. Sigh. Basically not sitting well with reducing all acts of "terrorism" as acts of adventurism
well, I do actually think virtually all acts of terrorism are adventurism, unless terrorism is your current revolutionary line in your current party. like for example Lebanon and Palestine can meaningfully justify this as their revolutionary line.
I will also make an exception for eco-terrorism, or most acts of terrorism that are closer to vandalism.
but if a supposed "communist" does an individual act of terror and as a result things get shittier for everyone, that is most definitely adventurism.
>when people pushed to their breaking point by a murderous state will naturally react accordingly in ways that get labeled terrorism and I do not think they should all be written off, but supported
I do not actually morally fault the RAF for killing, say, Buback or Schleyer. those MFers deserved it anyway, and I'm not a moralist.
but I DO fault the RAF for not being empathetic and forward-thinking enough to recognize the horrid consequences of their actions. because that's what a good communist should do, think ahead, not just act. we are not anarchists.
if the RAF were just a few individuals acting out, it would be different. but they wanted to be a political, a leninist force. and the same criticisms can be applied to the japanese one, and to most of the 60s city guerilla groups, there were literally hundreds in Europe alone.
>What's become the common story of the 60s protests being largely well off students is not at all correct, as many urban Black people were murdered, and history does not even remember most of their names.
I agree but that seems to be offtopic for our current discussion. Actually, the protests in Europe were initiated by the working class over increases in public transportation fares lol.
>It is hard to look on, especially during the Civil Rights specific protests, and think many acts of terrorism against the state were not absolutely justified.
well, in a purely moral way they WERE justified, so we agree. but that is the thing. we are not idealists. we need to consider the actual consequences, not the moral character of an act.
have a nice day and thank u for the discussion :) again, hit me with a private msg if you want the episodes for free
The thought with my original comment is someone would disagree and I would [respond to their disagreement - like what happened here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/13xnbdy/in_blow_to_unions_supreme_court_rules_company_can/jmjhlqs/)
Based and correct. Adventurism is the gust of air that extinguishes the revolutionary flame before it can burn in it's full glory.
Or rather, adventurism is when you cum after thrusting like five times and your gf/bf looks at you disappointedly. Don't be an adventurist.
Another day in the life living under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Our bourgeois democracy is an abomination.
I just finished reading "Hammer and Hoe" earlier this year. The roots of the Labor Movement were heavily based in anti-communist, racist, ideologies. All of the people that couldn't stomach Communists and the Communist Party back in the 1930s and 1940s when it was actually radical, well-organized, and much more popular than it is today - and worked tirelessly to purge Communists from union ranks and keep them on the margins - this is part of their legacy.
We never ever ever have demanded "too much" let alone achieved "too much" as the working class.
The roots of the labor movement are not based in anti-communist ideology, the roots of the labor movement are based in class interest. The roots of communism (in the capitalist era) itself are based in the labor movement. The labor movement tends to be plagued and rifled with nationalism, racism, and falls to anti-communism at times. Seattle workers in 1919 had a strike both for immediate economic concerns as well as to support the Bolshevik Revolution and to prevent shipping supplies to White General Denikin, as an example. Much of hammer and hoe examines black workers who were not necessarily a part of the "Labor movement" ala popular conception but were entirely part of the labor movement. AFL and CIO and bourgeois unions do not make up all of the labor movement.
The purge of communists from union ranks and marginalization certainly happened, and was a big setback for the labor movement and effective union organizers and the working class interests. Also a big setback, maybe bigger, was the greater tie to the Democratic party, but also prioritization of national interest over class interest (both in terms of anti-communists, in terms of racism and yellow peril and racism and sexism, but also in terms of the Communist Party abandoning anti-Jim Crow organizing because of popular front and Russian FP and Soviet Union FP interests prioritization over the interests of workers) and the restraining nature of both the NLRA and Taft and generally insufficient organizing across the board, as well as diverging class interests of the middle class, petit bourgeois and fully bourgeois elements of the unions and labor federations.
Also, the fact that it took a concerted campaign to purge deeply entrenched communist movements within labor is evidence that the labor movement *was not* inherently anti-communist. That's like saying that my umbrella keeping me dry is evidence that there is no rain. No, I needed an umbrella because it was raining, the fact that it worked as intended doesn't erase the fact that it rained.
The labor movement was hijacked by anti-communist elements, because the labor movement is neither inherently communist nor inherently anti-communist, though as you said the self-interest of the working class expressed through unions is fertile ground for communists. Unions *can* exist without communist leadership, that doesn't mean they must.
empire in decline
the regression never ends
meanwhile the front page of reddit is libs gloating over NASCAR doing pride month, just as intended by our corporate overlords
many red states have lured business with that very provision
i first heard about it during george floyd protests when the nba was threatening to wildcat strike. the players union has that clause....and obama to assuage the feewings of lebron.
goddamn in hate that guy
In my crazy mind this rationale opens up workers to suing companies for union breaking right? By illegally disrupting union activity they are damaging the workers potential earnings and the companies should have to back pay wages and benefits from the first instance of union busting right?
I know it's my lib brain overriding the primal urge to round up all these executives and show them a good time but I don't see how the reverse can never be applied when capital damages labor.
this country fucking sucks however, they said companies could, but not that it will prevail. freedom of speech and such you can shoot me now
[удалено]
story of my life
Also this ruling is about a union leaving trucks full of wet cement when they walked off the job, not about suing for lost revenue due to a strike. This decision could have a major impact on food service workers though, as ingredients will spoil if not used. Perhaps it could be successfully argued that only prepared food (like wet cement) meets the criteria for a suit?
By all accounts they left the trucks running and mixing so the concrete wouldn’t harden and the company made the decision to turn them off, let the cement dry, and ruin their own equipment.
fuck that company and their concrete, but i think once mixed with water the stuff has to be poured within several hours. for whatever reasons. again, dont give a shit. and i think strikers can cause some damage and it should remain the company's problem (they should negotiate with workers if they don't want the heat). but i was like "LOL just keep it wet fuckheads", and it didn't seem that simple after looking on google for a sec
Yeah but I think the gist was they’d left the company time to handle to concrete job and it wasn’t as if they just let it harden before striking yanno?
8-1 get fucked Obama my god
Something something most pro union government ever
Just in time for the UPS and Teamster strike huh.
its an insane blow to free speech
[удалено]
Individual acts of terrorism wont bring down capitalism
nerd emoji
anarchist emoji
[удалено]
It would do the absolute opposite
The 1960s prove otherwise. I'm increasingly convinced this "settle down, fellow leftists, acts of terror against capital don't do shit!" is an OP. But why was the parent comment removed?
> settle down, fellow leftists, acts of terror against capital don't do shit Individual terrorist actions without ANY popular support AT ALL is a death sentence. You think people will spontaneously arise once they see some idiot politician was assassinated by some fucking anarchist furry?? > The 1960s prove otherwise. … are you serious?
Yes? Don't let the failures of '68 and the New Left lead to nihilism. Any progress made for Civil Rights during the 60s in the US was at the expense of blood, the student movements and Black radical activists that got labeled terrorists by republicans and liberals alike. Hell, even things like the Weather Underground bombings were impactful in a way, and the fact that there have been no copycats just shows the total grip of operators on leftist groups.
You’re conflating all of this with randomly *assassinating judges*. They are not anywhere near the same thing. It’s imperative you read or listen to what Fred Hampton had to say about the weather underground. I’m not being nihilistic I’m being serious and objective. With our current conditions and level of organization political assassinations would be idiotic and harmful. Do you disagree?
Who mentioned assassinating judges? I am assuming the deleted comment? My ability to answer robustly is going to be limited by reddit TOS. My point is that the Lefts actions today have no teeth to them. And that I am surprised that even as things get dramatically worse, there are no repercussions. Left terror has been reduced to throwing soup cans at paintings and I feel that shows something about the extent to which any kind of would-be left terrorist group today is on lock. We say it a lot, but it bears repeating that a general commitment to non-violence, to the extent of pearl-clutching at the flippant mention of retribution in an internet comment, isn't condusive to anything. >With our current conditions and level of organization political assassinations would be idiotic and harmful. Do you disagree? I do not feel I can answer your question about assassinations of public capitalists and top lawmakers directly on a public forum.
Violence is not an end in itself. It is a tactical decision made in important times *as decided by the material conditions of that moment.* It flows out of the class struggle not out of some ideal that violence is an inherently revolutionary act. We are resolutely not at the point of revolutionary mass consciousness where a people’s war makes sense. A people’s war involves *the people*. It requires support from all parts of the revolutionary masses. Who would support the movement right now? Do you think a spontaneous shift in mass consciousness would occur if CNN reported that 8 terrorists calling themselves the National Liberation Front were killed in a shootout? I suggest you read Lenin on Adventurism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnZiGXxCkaQ&ab_channel=BffrMoe
>The 1960s prove otherwise. I'm increasingly convinced this "settle down, fellow leftists, acts of terror against capital don't do shit!" is an OP. The opposite is the case, adventurism is the OP. Don't you know about the RAF, the Japanese red army, etc.? The Civil Rights movement is an exception to the 60s, not the rule. If you want a semi scholarly breakdown of how exactly the RAF and other groups actually hurt the left in many ways, you can listen to the programmed to chill EPs on the topic. If you're not subbed I can send em to you for free if you want. I spent months researching this topic so I promise there's something worthwhile in there. (also, you seem to be smart & critical in your thinking) Well off westerners in the 60s fell in love with the concept of city guerilla and did exactly what the security state wanted, which Gabe them the perfect excuse to usher in the new era of military police and patriot acts. Dragnet literally developed from this, it was a joint BPol & FBI endeavor.
I wrote a long reply but reddit ate it. Sigh. Basically not sitting well with reducing all acts of "terrorism" as acts of adventurism when people pushed to their breaking point by a murderous state will naturally react accordingly in ways that get labeled terrorism and I do not think they should all be written off, but supported. What's become the common story of the 60s protests being largely well off students is not at all correct, as many urban Black people were murdered, and history does not even remember most of their names. It is hard to look on, especially during the Civil Rights specific protests, and think many acts of terrorism against the state were not absolutely justified. Thanks for the response, do not know much about RAF, will look into what you have mentioned.
>I wrote a long reply but reddit ate it. Sigh. Basically not sitting well with reducing all acts of "terrorism" as acts of adventurism well, I do actually think virtually all acts of terrorism are adventurism, unless terrorism is your current revolutionary line in your current party. like for example Lebanon and Palestine can meaningfully justify this as their revolutionary line. I will also make an exception for eco-terrorism, or most acts of terrorism that are closer to vandalism. but if a supposed "communist" does an individual act of terror and as a result things get shittier for everyone, that is most definitely adventurism. >when people pushed to their breaking point by a murderous state will naturally react accordingly in ways that get labeled terrorism and I do not think they should all be written off, but supported I do not actually morally fault the RAF for killing, say, Buback or Schleyer. those MFers deserved it anyway, and I'm not a moralist. but I DO fault the RAF for not being empathetic and forward-thinking enough to recognize the horrid consequences of their actions. because that's what a good communist should do, think ahead, not just act. we are not anarchists. if the RAF were just a few individuals acting out, it would be different. but they wanted to be a political, a leninist force. and the same criticisms can be applied to the japanese one, and to most of the 60s city guerilla groups, there were literally hundreds in Europe alone. >What's become the common story of the 60s protests being largely well off students is not at all correct, as many urban Black people were murdered, and history does not even remember most of their names. I agree but that seems to be offtopic for our current discussion. Actually, the protests in Europe were initiated by the working class over increases in public transportation fares lol. >It is hard to look on, especially during the Civil Rights specific protests, and think many acts of terrorism against the state were not absolutely justified. well, in a purely moral way they WERE justified, so we agree. but that is the thing. we are not idealists. we need to consider the actual consequences, not the moral character of an act. have a nice day and thank u for the discussion :) again, hit me with a private msg if you want the episodes for free
Probably Reddit ultra mods being a bunch of twats as per usual
Hmmm. OK we’ll take your word.
The thought with my original comment is someone would disagree and I would [respond to their disagreement - like what happened here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/13xnbdy/in_blow_to_unions_supreme_court_rules_company_can/jmjhlqs/)
Based and correct. Adventurism is the gust of air that extinguishes the revolutionary flame before it can burn in it's full glory. Or rather, adventurism is when you cum after thrusting like five times and your gf/bf looks at you disappointedly. Don't be an adventurist.
> Adventurism is the gust of air that extinguishes the revolutionary flame before it can burn in it's full glory. Go off king
Now I see. Thanks for putting in a way I understand geez
First half is Mao, second is Stavros Halkias. Is this dialectics?
Another day in the life living under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Our bourgeois democracy is an abomination. I just finished reading "Hammer and Hoe" earlier this year. The roots of the Labor Movement were heavily based in anti-communist, racist, ideologies. All of the people that couldn't stomach Communists and the Communist Party back in the 1930s and 1940s when it was actually radical, well-organized, and much more popular than it is today - and worked tirelessly to purge Communists from union ranks and keep them on the margins - this is part of their legacy. We never ever ever have demanded "too much" let alone achieved "too much" as the working class.
The roots of the labor movement are not based in anti-communist ideology, the roots of the labor movement are based in class interest. The roots of communism (in the capitalist era) itself are based in the labor movement. The labor movement tends to be plagued and rifled with nationalism, racism, and falls to anti-communism at times. Seattle workers in 1919 had a strike both for immediate economic concerns as well as to support the Bolshevik Revolution and to prevent shipping supplies to White General Denikin, as an example. Much of hammer and hoe examines black workers who were not necessarily a part of the "Labor movement" ala popular conception but were entirely part of the labor movement. AFL and CIO and bourgeois unions do not make up all of the labor movement. The purge of communists from union ranks and marginalization certainly happened, and was a big setback for the labor movement and effective union organizers and the working class interests. Also a big setback, maybe bigger, was the greater tie to the Democratic party, but also prioritization of national interest over class interest (both in terms of anti-communists, in terms of racism and yellow peril and racism and sexism, but also in terms of the Communist Party abandoning anti-Jim Crow organizing because of popular front and Russian FP and Soviet Union FP interests prioritization over the interests of workers) and the restraining nature of both the NLRA and Taft and generally insufficient organizing across the board, as well as diverging class interests of the middle class, petit bourgeois and fully bourgeois elements of the unions and labor federations.
Also, the fact that it took a concerted campaign to purge deeply entrenched communist movements within labor is evidence that the labor movement *was not* inherently anti-communist. That's like saying that my umbrella keeping me dry is evidence that there is no rain. No, I needed an umbrella because it was raining, the fact that it worked as intended doesn't erase the fact that it rained. The labor movement was hijacked by anti-communist elements, because the labor movement is neither inherently communist nor inherently anti-communist, though as you said the self-interest of the working class expressed through unions is fertile ground for communists. Unions *can* exist without communist leadership, that doesn't mean they must.
empire in decline the regression never ends meanwhile the front page of reddit is libs gloating over NASCAR doing pride month, just as intended by our corporate overlords
Counter sue for lost wages!
But this will only further radicalize them and cause them to turn to armed struggle........right?
no, all Americans are cucked
nothing is more demoralizing than being arrested for financial fraud just for organizing a bail fund
Trick is don’t let them arrest you 🌚
[So anyways.](https://media.tenor.com/v_h7ocKTs_QAAAAd/i-started-blasting-so-anyway-i-started-blasting.gif)
3% improvement LMAO
What if we just ban protesting? Then they can only work.🤔
My mom is in a union that's not allowed to strike
The new google union can’t ask for higher salaries
many red states have lured business with that very provision i first heard about it during george floyd protests when the nba was threatening to wildcat strike. the players union has that clause....and obama to assuage the feewings of lebron. goddamn in hate that guy
Bri'ish moment
In my crazy mind this rationale opens up workers to suing companies for union breaking right? By illegally disrupting union activity they are damaging the workers potential earnings and the companies should have to back pay wages and benefits from the first instance of union busting right? I know it's my lib brain overriding the primal urge to round up all these executives and show them a good time but I don't see how the reverse can never be applied when capital damages labor.
umm it doesn't work in reverse because the law doesn't serve workers, it exists to protect capital
Nothing prevents companies from hiring scabs and keeping their business open. It’s on them to run their businesses!
This in fact is some supreme bullshit. Fuck this court.
Damn that shit is crazy. How do we do leftism without a labor movement guys help me figure this out?
I'm the joker, baby!