• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trade unions are inconsistent with capitalism, but they are also inconsistent with socialism.

Trade unions function as labor cartels. The idea is to restrict the supply of labor available to an individual firm or an entire industry in order to artificially increase wages/benefits above market rates for the members of the union. This has a multitude of bad effects for society, such as higher consumer prices and increased unemployment, both of which hurt the poor the most. Unions also tend to kill innovation and fight against any technology which reduces human labor.

There is a very good reason why labor unions are specifically excluded from antitrust laws - it's because they blatantly violate them.

Under free market capitalism, if the employees tried to form a labor cartel, the employer would simply fire them on the spot and replace them with other workers. That's really all that needs to be said about that.


On the political left, things get a bit more complicated. While a variety of labor unions were founded by socialists, many leftists today and in the past have been or are against unions for the following reasons:

1. Trade unions solidify the capitalist wage system. The fat and stupid "worker" performing his cushy union job and receiving compensation far above market rates quickly loses any interest in class struggle. As Marx put it, unions turn wage slaves into contented wage slaves.

2. To their credit, leftists usually despise union management. This is a group of rich, politically-connected, extremely corrupt pieces of shit who are in bed with the state - just what one would expect from a group running a legal cartel.

3. Independent unions have no place in a socialist economy run by central planners, because strikes interfere with production. The historical record bears this out.

Lenin didn't like trade unions. He felt their best function was to spread commie propaganda. When the workers of Kronstadt demanded the right to form labor unions, Lenin sent Trotsky to take care of the situation. There the "Butcher of Kronstadt" executed thousands and sent thousand more to concentration camps. By the time Stalin was in power, unions were under complete control of the state, and that meant no strikes.

Here's Mr. H on unions (from Mein Kampf):

In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence will be enormously reinforced thereby.

Hitler knew he couldn't have independent unions, so he nationalized all of them, thus creating the DAF, in which strikes were outlawed.

In a planned, socialist economy, there can be no labor strikes, because socialism uses the stick, not the carrot, in order to get people to work. Whether it's a four year plan or a five year plan doesn't matter, the plan has quotas which must be met or else. Unions are inconsistent with socialism because the union is looking out for its own interests instead of what's good for the community as a whole. That sort of self-interested behavior is not tolerated under socialism.
 
Unions are inconsistent with socialism because the union is looking out for its own interests instead of what's good for the community as a whole. That sort of self-interested behavior is not tolerated under socialism.
Contrary to popular belief, a lot of socialist theory is based around orienting people's self interest so it aligns with what is best for society.

Regardless, there are good and bad things about trade unions, but what I certainly don't care about is if they "align with socialism/capitalism" or not.
 
I just want to say that trade unions specifically are an extremely complicated subject on their own. Throwing in their relation to capitalism and socialism only further complicated things. In fact it complicates things so much so, that despite how much I've read about the subject (or maybe because of it) I don't even feel comfortable taking a strong position on the issue. What I can say with confidence is that your post engages in a high degree of oversimplification where it is almost meaningless. Bringing Hitler's view into the discussion really nailed the coffin on this being a productive thread.

Under free market capitalism, if the employees tried to form a labor cartel, the employer would simply fire them on the spot and replace them with other workers. That's really all that needs to be said about that.
A small thing, but this is absurd. The era with the loosest worker's laws were ones with some of the strongest trade unions.
 
Contrary to popular belief, a lot of socialist theory is based around orienting people's self interest so it aligns with what is best for society.

Providing some examples would be helpful.
 
Providing some examples would be helpful.
Well without going into an excessively long commie rant, pretty much the main tenant of communism is that the interest of the owner class don't align with the interests of society broadly. That's like communism 101. Communism isn't about making everyone equal or have the same wealth. If you read Marx a huge part of his writing is trying to structure society in such a way that it produces the best results possible if everyone acts in their own self interest.

For example, if you make you money from stocks you don't care about income taxes. You only care about capital gains tax. Whereas everyone who works for a living is effected by income tax.
 
Providing some examples would be helpful.
Another good example is local environmental issues. Like a coal factory pollutes the air, in a town but the person who owns the factory doesn't live in the town. Honestly it really feels unfair to attribute this criticism to communists. The concept of negative externalities is pretty mainstream. It's just that liberal economics and Marxist economists have different solutions.
 
Another good example is local environmental issues. Like a coal factory pollutes the air, in a town but the person who owns the factory doesn't live in the town. Honestly it really feels unfair to attribute this criticism to communists. The concept of negative externalities is pretty mainstream. It's just that liberal economics and Marxist economists have different solutions.

What's the socialist solution? Socialist countries have been environmental disasters. The only people who care about the environment at all are those who can afford to do so, hence the most capitalist countries are the best regarding the environment. In the mostly capitalist US, the biggest polluter is a socialist institution.
 
What's the socialist solution? Socialist countries have been environmental disasters. The only people who care about the environment at all are those who can afford to do so, hence the most capitalist countries are the best regarding the environment. In the mostly capitalist US, the biggest polluter is a socialist institution.
Well state communism doesn't solve the problem at all. Because the state also doesn't care about your local river or whatever does it. They just care about steel production. I'm talking about direct worker ownership like worker coops or worker councils. i.e. the people that live there and would be effected by it make the decision. Essentially a high degree of local governance.
 
Well state communism doesn't solve the problem at all. Because the state also doesn't care about your local river or whatever does it. They just care about steel production. I'm talking about direct worker ownership like worker coops or worker councils. i.e. the people that live there and would be effected by it make the decision. Essentially a high degree of local governance.

People make decisions based on costs and benefits, that's why a farmer will burn down a part of the amazon rain forest in order to use it as farmland. Your coops don't change that. If you are cold, and you have coal to burn, you are going to burn coal for heat, regardless of the environment.

Again, in the history of the world, the only people who take actions to preserve the environment are those who have become wealthy via capitalism. Nobody else gives a shit.
 
My only disagreement is with this:

aociswundumho said:
Hitler knew he couldn't have independent unions, so he nationalized all of them, thus creating the DAF, in which strikes were outlawed.
In a planned, socialist economy, there can be no labor strikes, because socialism uses the stick, not the carrot, in order to get people to work. Whether it's a four year plan or a five year plan doesn't matter, the plan has quotas which must be met or else. Unions are inconsistent with socialism because the union is looking out for its own interests instead of what's good for the community as a whole. That sort of self-interested behavior is not tolerated under socialism.

When Hitler nationalized the unions, he brought them all under the [national] socialist banner. There was no point for strikes because well, there was no point for them - all was socialist.

The notion that "unions are inconsistent with socialism because the union is looking out for its own interests instead of what's good for the community as a whole" applies when the community as a whole isn't socialist. When the reverse is true, society's interests ARE the unions interests, and vice versa.

Fundamentally, unions ARE the epitome of socialism - and the strong arm of socialism to boot.
 
Well state communism doesn't solve the problem at all. Because the state also doesn't care about your local river or whatever does it. They just care about steel production. I'm talking about direct worker ownership like worker coops or worker councils. i.e. the people that live there and would be effected by it make the decision. Essentially a high degree of local governance.

Having a “high degree of local governance“ doesn’t place more emphasis on the (overall) environment. Locals care about local air and water quality more than what might be happening downwind or downstream. Granted, they may care about what happens upwind or upstream, but lack much say in those (other) local government matters. That’s why most ‘environmentalists’ tend to be ‘globalists’.
 
Trade unions function as labor cartels. The idea is to restrict the supply of labor available to an individual firm or an entire industry in order to artificially increase wages/benefits above market rates for the members of the union. This has a multitude of bad effects for society, such as higher consumer prices and increased unemployment, both of which hurt the poor the most. Unions also tend to kill innovation and fight against any technology which reduces human labor.
Is my labor not my property? Do I not have a right to my labor and right to decide how I sell and distribute it? Capitalism tells me that as a private individual I have the right to sell and distribute my property - I call that my labor - to my discretion as I see fit. Certainly in the interest of profit maximization which means I should be enabled to extract the largest amount of value out of the firms to which I sell my labor. And in a pure market economy free of government intervention do I not have the right to make agreements to coordinate the distribution of my property?

In my mind, the government taking action to regulate how I distribute my labor/property; or how/if I'm able to coordinate or make agreements with other (private) producers of labor is contradictory to capitalist ideals. I feel that voluntary trade unionism is perfectly harmonious with capitalism.
 
Is my labor not my property? Do I not have a right to my labor and how I distribute and sell it? Capitalism tells me that as a private individual I have the right to sell and distribute my property - I call that my labor - to my discretion as I see fit. Certainly in the interest of profit maximization which means I should be enabled to extract the largest amount of value out of the firms to which I sell my labor. And in a pure market economy free of government intervention I have the right to make agreements to coordinate the distribution of my property, also correct?

Yes to all of the above.

In my mind, the government taking action to regulate how I distribute my labor or how/if I'm able to coordinate or make agreements with others is contradictory to capitalist ideals.

I agree.
 
Having a “high degree of local governance“ doesn’t place more emphasis on the (overall) environment. Locals care about local air and water quality more than what might be happening downwind or downstream. Granted, they may care about what happens upwind or upstream, but lack much say in those (other) local government matters. That’s why most ‘environmentalists’ tend to be ‘globalists’.
I completely agree. This and socialism in general isn't some...like magic silver bullet that will automatically solve all the worlds problems.

Like if we were living in medieval Europe I'd advocate for capitalism. Capitalism isn't even close to perfect, it is just better than feudalism. I don't think a socialist system is magic, just better than what we have now.
 
Trade unions function as labor cartels. The idea is to restrict the supply of labor available to an individual firm or an entire industry in order to artificially increase wages/benefits above market rates for the members of the union. This has a multitude of bad effects for society, such as higher consumer prices and increased unemployment, both of which hurt the poor the most. Unions also tend to kill innovation and fight against any technology which reduces human labor.
There is a very good reason why labor unions are specifically excluded from antitrust laws - it's because they blatantly violate them.
Under free market capitalism, if the employees tried to form a labor cartel, the employer would simply fire them on the spot and replace them with other workers. That's really all that needs to be said about that.
On the political left, things get a bit more complicated. While a variety of labor unions were founded by socialists, many leftists today and in the past have been or are against unions for the following reasons:
1. Trade unions solidify the capitalist wage system. The fat and stupid "worker" performing his cushy union job and receiving compensation far above market rates quickly loses any interest in class struggle. As Marx put it, unions turn wage slaves into contented wage slaves.
2. To their credit, leftists usually despise union management. This is a group of rich, politically-connected, extremely corrupt pieces of shit who are in bed with the state - just what one would expect from a group running a legal cartel.
3. Independent unions have no place in a socialist economy run by central planners, because strikes interfere with production. The historical record bears this out.
Lenin didn't like trade unions. He felt their best function was to spread commie propaganda. When the workers of Kronstadt demanded the right to form labor unions, Lenin sent Trotsky to take care of the situation. There the "Butcher of Kronstadt" executed thousands and sent thousand more to concentration camps. By the time Stalin was in power, unions were under complete control of the state, and that meant no strikes.
Here's Mr. H on unions (from Mein Kampf):
Hitler knew he couldn't have independent unions, so he nationalized all of them, thus creating the DAF, in which strikes were outlawed.
In a planned, socialist economy, there can be no labor strikes, because socialism uses the stick, not the carrot, in order to get people to work. Whether it's a four year plan or a five year plan doesn't matter, the plan has quotas which must be met or else. Unions are inconsistent with socialism because the union is looking out for its own interests instead of what's good for the community as a whole. That sort of self-interested behavior is not tolerated under socialism.
1649608980164.png
 
Trade unions function as labor cartels. The idea is to restrict the supply of labor available to an individual firm or an entire industry in order to artificially increase wages/benefits above market rates for the members of the union. This has a multitude of bad effects for society, such as higher consumer prices and increased unemployment, both of which hurt the poor the most. Unions also tend to kill innovation and fight against any technology which reduces human labor.

There is a very good reason why labor unions are specifically excluded from antitrust laws - it's because they blatantly violate them.

Under free market capitalism, if the employees tried to form a labor cartel, the employer would simply fire them on the spot and replace them with other workers. That's really all that needs to be said about that.


On the political left, things get a bit more complicated. While a variety of labor unions were founded by socialists, many leftists today and in the past have been or are against unions for the following reasons:

1. Trade unions solidify the capitalist wage system. The fat and stupid "worker" performing his cushy union job and receiving compensation far above market rates quickly loses any interest in class struggle. As Marx put it, unions turn wage slaves into contented wage slaves.

2. To their credit, leftists usually despise union management. This is a group of rich, politically-connected, extremely corrupt pieces of shit who are in bed with the state - just what one would expect from a group running a legal cartel.

3. Independent unions have no place in a socialist economy run by central planners, because strikes interfere with production. The historical record bears this out.

Lenin didn't like trade unions. He felt their best function was to spread commie propaganda. When the workers of Kronstadt demanded the right to form labor unions, Lenin sent Trotsky to take care of the situation. There the "Butcher of Kronstadt" executed thousands and sent thousand more to concentration camps. By the time Stalin was in power, unions were under complete control of the state, and that meant no strikes.

Here's Mr. H on unions (from Mein Kampf):



Hitler knew he couldn't have independent unions, so he nationalized all of them, thus creating the DAF, in which strikes were outlawed.

In a planned, socialist economy, there can be no labor strikes, because socialism uses the stick, not the carrot, in order to get people to work. Whether it's a four year plan or a five year plan doesn't matter, the plan has quotas which must be met or else. Unions are inconsistent with socialism because the union is looking out for its own interests instead of what's good for the community as a whole. That sort of self-interested behavior is not tolerated under socialism.
If both capitalists and socialists hate unions we must be doing something right!
 
Trade unions function as labor cartels. The idea is to restrict the supply of labor available to an individual firm or an entire industry in order to artificially increase wages/benefits above market rates for the members of the union. This has a multitude of bad effects for society, such as higher consumer prices and increased unemployment, both of which hurt the poor the most. Unions also tend to kill innovation and fight against any technology which reduces human labor.

There is a very good reason why labor unions are specifically excluded from antitrust laws - it's because they blatantly violate them.

Under free market capitalism, if the employees tried to form a labor cartel, the employer would simply fire them on the spot and replace them with other workers. That's really all that needs to be said about that.


On the political left, things get a bit more complicated. While a variety of labor unions were founded by socialists, many leftists today and in the past have been or are against unions for the following reasons:

1. Trade unions solidify the capitalist wage system. The fat and stupid "worker" performing his cushy union job and receiving compensation far above market rates quickly loses any interest in class struggle. As Marx put it, unions turn wage slaves into contented wage slaves.

2. To their credit, leftists usually despise union management. This is a group of rich, politically-connected, extremely corrupt pieces of shit who are in bed with the state - just what one would expect from a group running a legal cartel.

3. Independent unions have no place in a socialist economy run by central planners, because strikes interfere with production. The historical record bears this out.

Lenin didn't like trade unions. He felt their best function was to spread commie propaganda. When the workers of Kronstadt demanded the right to form labor unions, Lenin sent Trotsky to take care of the situation. There the "Butcher of Kronstadt" executed thousands and sent thousand more to concentration camps. By the time Stalin was in power, unions were under complete control of the state, and that meant no strikes.

Here's Mr. H on unions (from Mein Kampf):



Hitler knew he couldn't have independent unions, so he nationalized all of them, thus creating the DAF, in which strikes were outlawed.

In a planned, socialist economy, there can be no labor strikes, because socialism uses the stick, not the carrot, in order to get people to work. Whether it's a four year plan or a five year plan doesn't matter, the plan has quotas which must be met or else. Unions are inconsistent with socialism because the union is looking out for its own interests instead of what's good for the community as a whole. That sort of self-interested behavior is not tolerated under socialism.
Labor unions are not inconsistent with capitalism. If workers want to band together and collectively bargain they have the freedom to do that; just as management has the freedom to say "Sorry, we don't like your terms and are considering hiring non-union staff." So they haggle and worker and management differences are usually balanced out over time and agreements ultimately reached.

Inconsistency with capitalism comes when government policy puts a thumb on the scale.
 
Labor unions are not inconsistent with capitalism. If workers want to band together and collectively bargain they have the freedom to do that; just as management has the freedom to say "Sorry, we don't like your terms and are considering hiring non-union staff." So they haggle and worker and management differences are usually balanced out over time and agreements ultimately reached.

The negotiations already took place when each employee negotiated their compensation when they were hired. The fact that they remain working there is strong evidence that this is the best opportunity for them at the current time - if they could find a better situation they would quit and take it.

They are already getting market rates, and the employer will not want to pay above that, just like you do not like paying above market prices when you purchase things every single day of your life.

Inconsistency with capitalism comes when government policy puts a thumb on the scale.

If unions could exist without government's thumb on the scale, why aren't they widespread with the government's thumb on the scale? If small businesses are willing to pay unions above market rates, like you are suggesting, why aren't employees everywhere forming unions in order to reap the benefits?
 
If unions could exist without government's thumb on the scale, why aren't they widespread with the government's thumb on the scale?
I don't know and it's not relevant to my point. I'm simply stating what is an what is not consistent with a market economy. Unions, per se, are not inconsistent with it.
 
I don't know and it's not relevant to my point. I'm simply stating what is an what is not consistent with a market economy. Unions, per se, are not inconsistent with it.

I think we are talking past each other over what inconsistent means in this context. It seems you are saying that there is nothing in free market capitalism which would prohibit a group of workers from attempting to form a union, and with that I agree, but market forces would make unions extremely unlikely, again, as evidenced by the fact that they have a lot of trouble existing even with the state passing lopsided laws which benefit them.
 
I think we are talking past each other over what inconsistent means in this context. It seems you are saying that there is nothing in free market capitalism which would prohibit a group of workers from attempting to form a union, and with that I agree, but market forces would make unions extremely unlikely, again, as evidenced by the fact that they have a lot of trouble existing even with the state passing lopsided laws which benefit them.

Exactly, unions increase the cost of labor (production) without a corresponding increase in product sales (consumer demand).
 
I think we are talking past each other over what inconsistent means in this context. It seems you are saying that there is nothing in free market capitalism which would prohibit a group of workers from attempting to form a union, and with that I agree, but market forces would make unions extremely unlikely, again, as evidenced by the fact that they have a lot of trouble existing even with the state passing lopsided laws which benefit them.
Fair enough.
 
"Trade unions are inconsistent with capitalism"

I would argue that trade unions are partners in capitalism. Through collective bargaining, unions can "set a price" for their commodity - labor. Company A can agree upon a fair wage for labor or not. Workers have the choice of continuing to work with or without a contract, or seek employment elsewhere. A company is either going to pay for skilled labor, or they will pay for training of new employees as well as suffer the loss of production until their new employees can meet the expectations of skilled labor, or hire contractor firms or independent contractors. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Through collective bargaining, unions can "set a price" for their commodity - labor. Company A can agree upon a fair wage for labor or not.

The fair price for your labor is the market rate, and you don't need a union to get that.
 
Back
Top Bottom