More union thuggery?

[billc]

A breaking report on a possible union attack on a member of the Tea Party. As wisconsin heats up, and teamsters from New York are imported to wisconsins capitol, scenes like this may become more common. Other links here at the study have already chronicled quite a little bit of union thuggish violence, here is one more.

http://biggovernment.com/cdevore/20...party-activist-at-moveon-org-organized-rally/

Then one of the Tea Party activists, also bullhorn equipped, replied, “We pay your salary!”
This enraged Andazola, who, according to Stanhope, rushed the Tea Partiers, chanting “Fascists go home! Fascists go home!” He violently shoved Stanhope twice, the second time apparently striking Stanhope in the throat:

Doesn't this alleged assaulter (innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) realize that Tea Party members, who believe in smaller government can't be fascists?

The shove comes in at the 32 second mark on the second video.

the alleged attacker was a teamster.

 

[granfire]

A breaking report on a possible union attack on a member of the Tea Party. As wisconsin heats up, and teamsters from New York are imported to wisconsins capitol, scenes like this may become more common. Other links here at the study have already chronicled quite a little bit of union thuggish violence, here is one more.

http://biggovernment.com/cdevore/20...party-activist-at-moveon-org-organized-rally/

Then one of the Tea Party activists, also bullhorn equipped, replied, “We pay your salary!”
This enraged Andazola, who, according to Stanhope, rushed the Tea Partiers, chanting “Fascists go home! Fascists go home!” He violently shoved Stanhope twice, the second time apparently striking Stanhope in the throat:

Doesn't this alleged assaulter (innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) realize that Tea Party members, who believe in smaller government can't be fascists?

The shove comes in at the 32 second mark on the second video.

the alleged attacker was a teamster.

Some people believe fascists are communists. It all comes out in the wash...

 

[shesulsa]

Doesn't this alleged assaulter (innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) realize that Tea Party members, who believe in smaller government can't be fascists?

Wiki on Fascism:

Confusion over whether fascism is of the left or right is due to the inability to fit the economic policies into a clear-cut category, because while fascism is considered on the right politically, fascist economic controls were left-wing, though ended up benefiting social groups considered to be supportive of right-wing parties.

*emphasis mine*

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-16

"Single party?" ... "Small government?"

The abolition of unions is a hallmark of fascism and totalitarianism.

 

[Big Don]

Wiki on Fascism:

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.

Oh, like ONLY the communist party exists in China? or only the communist party existed in the Soviet Union?

"Single party?" ... "Small government?"

Not even close

The abolition of unions is a hallmark of fascism and totalitarianism.

pah

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

that man should be charged with assault and battery and inciting to riot and given a restraining order from appearing in anymore wisconsin rallys of anykind for at least 3 months.

 

[billc]

From wikipedia and my college days, Trade unions were a part of Italian fascism, you know, the place where the term fascism was coined.

... and Fascist trade unions agreed...

The Fascist regime began to create a corporatist economic system in 1925 with creation of the Palazzo Vidioni Pact, in which the Italian employers' association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy's employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions.[28]

Syndicalism is a type of economic system proposed as a replacement for capitalism and state socialism which uses federations of collectivised trade unions or industrial unions. It is a form of economic corporatism that advocates interest aggregation of multiple non-competitive categorised units to negotiate and manage an economy.[1]

Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism.[7] They keep getting the right wing thing wrong.

 

[elder999]

From wikipedia and my college days, Trade unions were a part of Italian fascism, you know, the place where the term fascism was coined.

... and Fascist trade unions agreed...

No, not really. In it's early days, the fascist movement in Italy, Fasci di Combattimento, had strong socialist elements: progressive income and capital taxes, high taxes on war profits, a minimum wage, nationalization of some industries, worker participation in management, and, of course, trade unions.

They didn't really have much success from its founding in 1915 until 1920. It rose to prominence in Italy between 1920 and 1922, and, in 1924, Mussolini established his fascist dictatorship, and abolished trade unions.

Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism.[7] They keep getting the right wing thing wrong.

No, they don't.

Clearly, you do.



Unions, on the other hand, are basically socialist/communist organizations, especially in the U.S.-most unions have roots in the American Communist party-who we in the U.S. can thank for the 40 hour work week, paid vacations, sick days, profit sharing, overtime pay and the minimum wage, among other things.

 

[billc]

What is a right winger? try this: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626



So what are Rightists?
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981).
Military Dictators?
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism?
Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative.
It might be noted, however, that, centuries earlier, the parliamentary leaders of England — led by Fairfax, Cromwell etc. — did something similar to the Hispanic generals of the 20th century. Faced by an attempt on the part of the Stuart tyrant to abrogate their traditional rights, powers and liberties, they resorted to military means to overthrow the threat. There is no reason to argue that democracy cannot or must not use military means to defend itself or that Leftists or anyone else must be granted exclusive rights to the use of force and violence.
German Origins
What modern-day Rightists of the English-speaking world are, then, traces right back to the German invaders who overran Britannia around 1500 years ago and made it into England. They brought with them a very decentralized, largely tribal system of government that was very different from the Oriental despotisms that had ruled the civilized world for most of human history up to that time. And they liked their decentralized system very much. So much so that the system just kept on keeping on in England, century after century, despite many vicissitudes. Only the 20th century really shook it.
Where the English get their traditional dislike of unrestrained central power is not the main point or even an essential point of the present account. Nonetheless, tracing that dislike to the ultimately German descent of most of the English population might seem colossally perverse in view of Germany's recent experience. Was not Hitler a German and was he not almost the ultimate despot and centralizer of power in his own hands? One could quibble here by saying that Hitler was NOT a German (he was an Austrian) and the Israeli historian Unger (1965) has pointed out that Hitler was much less of a despot than Stalin was but neither of those points is really saying much in the present context.
The important thing here again is to see things with an historian's eye and realize that recent times are atypical. Right up until Bismarck's ascendancy in the late 19th century, Germany was remarkable for its degree of decentralization. What we now know as Germany was once always comprised of hundreds of independent States (kingdoms, principalities, Hanseatic cities etc.) of all shapes and sizes: States that were in fact so much in competition with one another in various ways that they were not infrequently at war with one-another.
And it was of course only the fractionated and competing centres of power existing in mediaeval Germany that enabled the successful emergence there of the most transforming and anti-authority event of the last 1000 years: The Protestant Reformation. Despite the almost immediate and certainly widespread popularity of his new teachings among Germans, Luther ran great risks and would almost certainly have been burnt at the stake like Savonarola, Hus and his other predecessors in religious rebellion had it not been for his (and our) good fortune that he was a Saxon. His Prince, Frederick III ("The Wise") of Saxony gave him constant protection. As one of the Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick was strong enough and independent enough to protect Luther from Pope, from Emperor and from other German potentates.
So only after Bismarck engineered the defeat of the French at Sedan in 1870 did most of Germany become unified — with the Germans of the Austrian lands remaining independent even then. And to this day Germany has a Federal system very similar to that of their largely Germanic brethren in the United States, Canada and Australia — a system of State governments which markedly limits central (Federal) government power. So the German origins of the English do make their historic dislike of concentrated power at the Centre just one part of a larger picture.
In 1066, William of Normandy disrupted the traditional decentralized and competitive power structure of England to some degree but by the time of King John and Magna Carta it was back with a vengeance. Even in the reign of that great Tudor despot, Henry VIII, there were still in England great and powerful regional Lords and many less powerful but numerous local notables representing local interests that the King had to take great care with. Even Tudor central government power was highly contingent, far from absolute and much dependant on the popularity of the ruler among ordinary English people. And when the Stuarts, with their doctrine of "the divine right of Kings", ignored all that and tried to turn the English monarchy into something more like a centralized Oriental despotism, off came the head of the Stuart King.
A Conservative Revolution
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed — liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals — ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries!
So right back in the 17th century we had the apparent paradox of "conservatives" (the parliamentary leaders — later to be referred to as "Whigs") being prepared to undertake most radical change (deposing monarchy) in order to restore treasured traditional rights and liberties and to rein in overweening governmental power. So Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not at all breakaways from the conservatism of the past. They had very early and even more determined predecessors. Nobody who knew history should have been surprised by the Reagan/Thatcher "revolution". And it was in deliberate tribute to the parliamentarians of Cromwell's day and their immediate successors that two of the most influential conservative theorists prior to Reagan and Thatcher both described themselves as "Old Whigs" — Burke (1790) and Hayek (1944). Hayek described Whig ideals as "the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power" (Hayek, 1960).
Religion
Many influential conservative writers of the past (e.g. Burke, 1790) have held that Christianity is an essential foundation for conservatism — though others (e.g. Hayek, 1944) disagree. A large part of the reason for that is the traditional role of the church as arbiter and enforcer of morality in general and sexual morality in particular. Although suspicious of authority generally, conservatives have never shrunk from the need for authority if they consider it essential to the functioning of a civil society. And morality has always to them seemed essential for any kind of civilization. And morality generally has to be taught and to some degree enforced. It does not always come naturally. And both the church and the State have generally seemed needed for setting and maintaining moral standards.
In the modern world, however, it is clear that civil society and a modicum of morality (both sexual and otherwise) can survive without the church so the Burkean view that religion and its moral codes are essential to a good life can no longer be reasonably maintained by conservatives or anyone else. Christian conservatives still claim, however, that traditional Christian moral standards make for a better society than it otherwise would be and sometimes agitate energetically for such standards to be widely applied. Their view of the benefits of Christian standards may well be correct but if they try to have such standards applied to non-believers they are simply mired in an obsolete past. They are mistaken about what is essential.
Other theories of conservatism
Perhaps the best-known work on political psychology is that by Adorno et al. (1950) — who claim that conservatives are pro-authority whereas Leftists are anti-authority. This vast oversimplification is perhaps an understandable mistake given the characteristic opposition by Leftists in the economically successful "Western" democracies to the existing centres of authority and power in their countries and given the characteristic acceptance by conservatives of those same authorities but it once again lacks in historical perspective. What Leftists oppose is not authority as such (or there would be no Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.) but only authorities that they do not control; and what conservatives favour is not any and all authority but rather carefully limited authority — only that degree of central authority and power that is needed for a civil society to function. See Ray (1988, 1989 & 1990) for a more extensive critique of the Adorno claims.
The biggest mistake that has been made by psychologists (e.g. Altemeyer 1981 & 1988) and others, however, is to identify conservative motivation with opposition to change. Obviously, from Cromwell to Reagan and Thatcher, change has never bothered "conservatives" one bit — but preservation of their rights and liberties from governments that would take those rights and liberties away always has. THAT is what has always made a "conservative" — and it still does.
One dimension or two? As is evident from the above, describing the entire domain of political attitudes in terms of a single Right/Left dimension does have its problems. For this reason various authors (e.g. Eysenck, 1954; Rokeach, 1960; Kerlinger, 1967) have proposed that an adequate description of world politics really needs two dimensions. They propose, for example, that the Left-Right dimension be supplemented by an Authoritarian/Permissive dimension. So that democratic Leftists and Rightists are Permissive Leftists and Rightists whereas Communists and Fascists are Authoritarian Leftists and Rightists.
Although such proposals have considerable intuitive appeal, they do not, unfortunately, seem to coincide with how people's attitudes are in fact organized when we do surveys of public opinion. It is very easy to find people's attitudes polarizing on a Left/Right dimension but nobody has yet managed to show in a satisfactory way any polarization of attitudes on the postulated second dimension (Ray, 1980 & 1982).
The account of Left/Right attitudes given in this paper suggests why this is so. For a start, the assumption that Fascists or Nazis are Right-wing is false. Hitler himself energetically claimed to be a socialist and Mussolini (the founder of Fascism) was a lifelong Marxist. The evidence for this has been summarized at great length in two previous papers (See Musso.txt and Hitler.txt on my website) so will not be further elaborated here.
Historically, the core of conservatism has always been a suspicion of government power and intervention and conservatives therefore accept only the minimum amount of government that seems needed for a civil society to function. So it is no wonder that there is no authoritarian version of conservative ideology. If it were authoritarian it could not be conservative.
Leftism, on the other hand, IS intrinsically authoritarian and power-loving and will always therefore tend in the direction of government domination. It is only non-authoritarian to the extent that is thwarted by external influences (such as democracy) from achieving its aims. Leftists in democratic societies do of course commonly deny authoritarian motivations but that is just part of their "cover". Deeds speak louder than words.

CONCLUSIONS
Although Leftists in the economically successful "Western" democracies have (thankfully) never gained power on anything like the scale achieved by Mao and Stalin, there have of course been Leftist governments and influential Leftist politicians in the economically successful "Western" democracies countries on many occasions and these have certainly managed to lay the stifling and impoverishing hand of bureaucracy on many endeavours. The twin disciplines of the ballot box and constitutional constraints have however limited what such politicians and governments can do. Their power has always been far from absolute.
But in all cases, bitter experience has shown that Leftists in power are very dangerous and destructive people. Where their power is effectively unchecked, they generally seems to resort sooner or later to mass murder (as in the case of the French revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and many Communist regimes and movements worldwide) and where they are partially thwarted by strong democratic traditions and institutions, they at least bring about large-scale impoverishment (as in post-independence India and pre-Thatcher Britain). By contrast, conservatives just muddle along with piecemeal reforms that don't require them to murder anybody. So giving any power to Leftists is a most dangerous thing to do and working to prevent that happening is a matter of no small importance.

 

[billc]

I think we need to look for wisdom from one of the classics of modern cinema: Caddy Shack,

Judge Smails: "...I'm no slouch myself Ty."

Ty Webb: "Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch."

End Scene. ( This was a reenactment, and is not a direct translation of the scene)

Mussolini was the "incredible slouch" of the socialist mass murderers. That is one reason why the left tries to distance themselves from him...

More to the point, If you look at the wikipedia article on Fascism, it goes through more contortions than a 12 year old, cold war era, soviet Gymnast at the Olympics. There are some reasons for this.
1) The national socialists in germany kicked the butts of the international socialists in germany. It was an embarrassment, and they have tried to distance themesleves from that defeat.
2)Left wing Academics and other western sympathizers with international communism were trying to help international communism in any way they could. one of these ways was to support, Lenin's or Stalins I don't remember which one did it, attempt to distinguish international socialism from their brothers the national socialists. Look it up if you will. THat is why they keep trying to say that fascism, was left/right, socialist/capitalist, and so on. They know that socialism and fascism are really the same thing, but they have to give it the old, liberal, college try.
3)as is noted in the front page magazine article I have put in several posts, the left goes after the nazis so hard because they don't want the world to realize that all the really bad 20th century mass murderers were on the left wing. They will do and say anything to keep that truth from getting out.

http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

The Marxist-Leninist Theory of History, Note 2

Although communists liked to see fascism as the ultimate expression of capitalism, and fascism did nominally leave property in private hands, fascism and communism nevertheless had more in common with each other than with capitalism, since each was a collectivist ideology that subordinated individual interests to the purposes of the State. It was no coincidence that both Hitler and Mussolini came out of the socialist movement, and Lenin himself had praised Mussolini as the great champion of the Italian socialist party in the days before World War I. Later, Hitler's own best role model for ruthless police state power was Lenin. Both communists and fascists knew that the opposite of both ideologies was the despised "liberalism."

 

[elder999]

I
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

The Marxist-Leninist Theory of History, Note 2

Although communists liked to see fascism as the ultimate expression of capitalism, and fascism did nominally leave property in private hands, fascism and communism nevertheless had more in common with each other than with capitalism, since each was a collectivist ideology that subordinated individual interests to the purposes of the State. It was no coincidence that both Hitler and Mussolini came out of the socialist movement, and Lenin himself had praised Mussolini as the great champion of the Italian socialist party in the days before World War I. Later, Hitler's own best role model for ruthless police state power was Lenin. Both communists and fascists knew that the opposite of both ideologies was the despised "liberalism."

So an student essay from an objectivist, Randian point of view is right, and every poli-sci textbook,history text book, encyclopedia and dictionary in the world is wrong.


I should have known.

 

[granfire]

So an student essay from an objectivist, Randian point of view is right, and every poli-sci textbook,history text book, encyclopedia and dictionary in the world is wrong.


I should have known.

Yes, indeed! You should have known! I read it on the internet, so it ha to be true.

 

[billc]

The article excerpt on "Rightism" was written by:


My full name is Dr. John Joseph RAY (JR for short). I was born of Australian pioneer stock in 1943 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland in Australia. I was, in other words, born in the Tropics, like my parents and all of my grandparents before me. After an early education at Innisfail State Rural School and Cairns State High School, I taught myself for matriculation. I took my B.A. in Psychology from the University of Queensland in Brisbane. I then moved to Sydney (in New South Wales, Australia) and took my M.A. in psychology from the University of Sydney in 1969 and my Ph.D. in Behavioural Sciences from Macquarie University in 1974.

 

[MA-Caver]

My own thoughts on Unions... at first they were a good thing. Making sure workers got fair wages for their labors and decent hours and benefits, etc.

But over the years they've, like many organizations (not all) became drunk with power and greed and thus resorted to thuggery, intimidations, bribes and all manner of illegal derring dos.

Sad.

Seems unions need an overhaul as well. To ensure (best as possible) against corruption.

Yeah, right.

 

[shesulsa]

My own thoughts on Unions... at first they were a good thing. Making sure workers got fair wages for their labors and decent hours and benefits, etc.

But over the years they've, like many organizations (not all) became drunk with power and greed and thus resorted to thuggery, intimidations, bribes and all manner of illegal derring dos.

Sad.

Seems unions need an overhaul as well. To ensure (best as possible) against corruption.

Yeah, right.

I think crap rolls downhill and the problem is overloading at the top. Like I said - government programs, career-specific unions, non-profit organizations, professional sports, law enforcement, big corporations ... the problem is the same: Those in the positions of real power don't have the cajones to pull the Trump card (Yer fired) and go through the paper trail it takes to remove people who won't do their jobs right - and that's probably because THEY are not doing their jobs right.

People don't know how to be in charge anymore, you see it in parenting, in management, in government, in education, in finance.

With the failing economy, the future crash of the American dollar and the ever-increasing gap between lower- and higher-income populations, Unions need to stay in place ... but they DO need to be either re-vamped or re-staffed!

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I think crap rolls downhill and the problem is overloading at the top. Like I said - government programs, career-specific unions, non-profit organizations, professional sports, law enforcement, big corporations ... the problem is the same: Those in the positions of real power don't have the cajones to pull the Trump card (Yer fired) and go through the paper trail it takes to remove people who won't do their jobs right - and that's probably because THEY are not doing their jobs right.

People don't know how to be in charge anymore, you see it in parenting, in management, in government, in education, in finance.

With the failing economy, the future crash of the American dollar and the ever-increasing gap between lower- and higher-income populations, Unions need to stay in place ... but they DO need to be either re-vamped or re-staffed!

I am so anti union its not even funny... they disgust me on every level. But this is about the most reasonable comment I have ever seen from a pro union person.
and i have to admit it does get me thinking...

 

[shinbushi]

People don't know how to be in charge anymore, you see it in parenting, in management, in government, in education, in finance.!

I blame it on the hippies

 

[ballen0351]

I think like many things over time the unions have outlived there usefulness. They have lost one of the most powerful tools they had and that was the power of the public opinion. They at one time represented the working man and his struggle to succeed and public opinion was on their side. Now days think of how many lazy union worker jokes you have heard, think of all the union coffee break stories you hear. The public opinion has changed to see union jobs and workers as lazy over paid over benefited. If you take two people doing the same job one union and one nonunion the benefits and salary are so different in some cases its hard for people to feel sorry for them. Look at your local grocery stores the unionized stores prices are always higher because of employee costs to operate.
Union officials also seem to feel the worker owes them something and anyone that stands up to them or refuses to join is the enemy. I flat out refused to join the union that represents the officers in my department. #1 its not even a police union many years ago before my time the officers signed onto a grocery workers union. #2 I am very anti-union so for me to join would be wrong, and #3 I disapprove of they way they pretty much run our department taking away alot of power from the chief of police to make sure or city is safe. So after I refused to join I would get email's, and phone calls from shop stewards and union reps daily. The final straw was when 3 union officials showed up at my house to tyr to tell me all the things I was missing by not being a member. Or at least thats what they wanted to do until I let my 135 Pound Rottie out and I stepped out with a Glock on my hip. Funny thing they didnt stay long after that and I have not been bothered since and its been a few years.

 

[billc]

For all the fans of trust busting in the Teddy Roosevelt days, a harvard economist wrote a column and pointed out that the collective bargaining that unions do, where they set the price for their labor across a state or several states, is really no different than any of the old fashioned trusts created by companies to fix prices for their goods. I thought it was an interesting perspective.