Author Topic: Will labor unions support a right-wing candidate? (Read 1359 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **on:** March 26, 2015, 04:41:12 PM »

I take this article as proof that no labor union would ever support a right-wing candidate as shown by the words hurled against Pat Buchanan in this old 1996 article. You have to remember that these organizations do NOT really support the worker but are more about political activity for the Democratic Party. That is why labor unions are completely unreliable for any good movement to come into fruition. Hell you'd have more a chance for immoral corporations to support you than these characters with their leftist code words of fascist, αnтι-ѕємιтє, sexist, racist, etc.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-02-22/news/9602220240_1_striker-replacements-pat-buchanan-afl-cio-officials

Dolores · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2015, 12:09:35 PM »

Of course not. Labor unions, by their very nature, are left-wing organizations. Why would they support a candidate that opposes their very nature?

BTNYC · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2015, 01:57:42 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Of course not. Labor unions, by their very nature, are left-wing organizations. Why would they support a candidate that opposes their very nature?

Labor unions are not "left wing by their very nature." The guilds of old - of which labor unions are a modern corruption - were designed to secure the rights of the working man. There's nothing "left wing" about that - after all defrauding the laborer of his wages (which is what a benevolent society of laborerers is designed to defend against) is one of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance. So says the Bride of Christ.

The problem with unions is not intrinsic to their nature, but to the Godless, materialistic form of capitalism under which our nation - including all our Labor and Capital - operates. In this system, the rights of the working man are not held as sacrosanct and God-given and inviolable under pain of eternal damnation. No, under this system, the wage due to the laborer is merely another column in the ledger book of expenses which, like all other expenses, the employer is expected to minimize whenever possible. And so the working man, facing extortion of his just wages at every turn by Capital, must needs turn to strongarm organizations (e.g. labor unions) in order to safeguard his rights via counter-extortion. It's an ugly business, but par for the course when the Rights of God and man are cast aside in the service of Mammon.

As to the unions' affiliation with the Democrat party - it's simply one strongarm outfit seeking the protection of a bigger strongarm outfit. And it's yet another example of the (seemingly) paradoxical - but always inevitable - slide of a capitalist society into socialism in order to addresss the evils that capitalism naturally engenders (see Belloc's The Servile State).

And what does "left wing" even mean in a nation whose very ideals and form of government are godless and masonic? Is "right wing" - which in this nation means siding with usurers and Zionists and warmongers and all manner of evil - really so much better than the "left wing?"

Come on. We're Traditional Catholics. If others have ignorance as an excuse for being tricked into believing in this false Americanist left-right / capitalist-socialist paradigm, we certainly do not.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2015, 02:17:25 PM »

Anyone who reads my posts know I am far from capitalist, so anyone who insists I am a capitalist pig must have a personal vendetta against me. :wink:

Hell I made a whole thread calling Christ a "socialist" that created quite a stir on here. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Christ-was-a-socialist

Anyone knows that when I mean left-wing I mean Communism/Socialism/Liberalism, and even in a liberal society like the United States which supports international trade and freedom in economic affairs unions will still support this politically even if it is not in their rhetoric, since they do not really safeguard the rights of workers but are more about political activity to safeguard a powerful coalition. Also while I oppose businesses operating in an inhuman, immoral way of paying workers barely enough to live on with crap benefits and relocating overseas, I also oppose the union becoming too militant and raising the demands too high along with creating a strike against the common safety of the economy.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2015, 02:25:39 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Of course not. Labor unions, by their very nature, are left-wing organizations. Why would they support a candidate that opposes their very nature?

To be fair while unions support a Democratic Party that really does not concern itself with the workers' livelihood on the same note it also does not support the Right which also does not safeguard the worker with its support of free trade, immigration, etc. So really both sides Left and Right are guilty of the same thing.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2015, 02:29:58 PM »

First, the modern American labor unions are communist-led organizations. The leaders of these unions would never, ever support anyone that is considered right-wing. The leaders of these unions would not even support anyone that is actually thought to be anything other than a leftist-communist.

But, more important is the second point: There's a "right-wing" candidate? I suppose that the only currently announced candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, might be considered "right-wing" in some respects and he would probably be the closest thing to the "right" one can expect in national politics, but I would hardly think of him as actually being "right-wing".

BTNYC · « **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2015, 02:41:59 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Also while I oppose businesses operating in an inhuman, immoral way of paying workers barely enough to live on with crap benefits and relocating overseas, I also oppose the union becoming too militant and raising the demands too high along with creating a strike against the common safety of the economy.

I oppose these as well. But that is the way things are, and the way they will be - the way they must be - so long as America remains a nation that alternately opposes Almighty God and ignores Him. You can't expect true fairness, justice, equity etc, from a nation whose own conception of justice is so fundamentally flawed that it does not even bother to safeguard the rights of Almighty God first and foremost.

How can any economy thrive when the nation it operates within does not even know the purpose of an economy? If true morality (which is Catholic morality) is not part of the picture, then the whole system merely fumbles blindly from one materialistic utilitarian "cure" to the next - which, in practice, means it perpetually vaccillates between Capitalism and Socialism. It's insane, yes... but sanity is impossible without sanctity, and so it is impossible here and will remain so (until the nation converts).

BTNYC · « **Reply #7 on:** March 27, 2015, 02:51:46 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Hell I made a whole thread calling Christ a "socialist" that created quite a stir on here. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Christ-was-a-socialist

Your thread had exactly one respondent apart from yourself (Sigismund) whose one post consisted of one word ("Bravo!"), so I can't see how that qualifies as "creating quite a stir." And, to be frank, getting a "Bravo!" from Sigismund is just about the last thing I would ever find myself boasting about.

I didn't bother reading it because you lost me at the thread title. Our Lord was no more a "socialist" than he was a Tory or a Reagan Democrat. Your problem is that you use modern terms with very definite, narrowly defined meanings and you project them backward into periods and onto persons and cultures where they are meaningless. And in the case of calling Our Lord a "socialist" you offend pious ears (at best) and flirt with blasphemy (at worst) by projecting the name of a modern materialistic economic theory which has often been at odds with holy Mother Church directly onto the Person of God Incarnate. And for what? To be provocative? If you can't see where that's problematic then talk to a priest because your Sensus Catholicus needs a tune up.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2015, 08:55:44 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Your thread had exactly one respondent apart from yourself (Sigismund) whose one post consisted of one word ("Bravo!"), so I can't see how that qualifies as "creating quite a stir." And, to be frank, getting a "Bravo!" from Sigismund is just about the last thing I would ever find myself boasting about.

There are plenty of posters that have agreed with both of us neither of us care about.

Quote

I didn't bother reading it because you lost me at the thread title. Our Lord was no more a "socialist" than he was a Tory or a Reagan Democrat. Your problem is that you use modern terms with very definite, narrowly defined meanings and you project them backward into periods and onto persons and cultures where they are meaningless. And in the case of calling Our Lord a "socialist" you offend pious ears (at best) and flirt with blasphemy (at worst) by projecting the name of a modern materialistic economic theory which has often been at odds with holy Mother Church directly onto the Person of God Incarnate. And for what? To be provocative? If you can't see where that's problematic then talk to a priest because your Sensus Catholicus needs a tune up.

It is you who are using modern terms here. If you read the thread you would already know that in the first sentence I pointed out when I said socialist it had nothing to do with Marxian socialism but was about Christ supporting social justice.

Thurifer · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2015, 01:37:39 PM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: Dolores
Of course not. Labor unions, by their very nature, are left-wing organizations. Why would they support a candidate that opposes their very nature?

Labor unions are not "left wing by their very nature." The guilds of old - of which labor unions are a modern corruption - were designed to secure the rights of the working man. There's nothing "left wing" about that - after all defrauding the laborer of his wages (which is what a benevolent society of laborerers is designed to defend against) is one of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance. So says the Bride of Christ.

The problem with unions is not intrinsic to their nature, but to the Godless, materialistic form of capitalism under which our nation - including all our Labor and Capital - operates. In this system, the rights of the working man are not held as sacrosanct and God-given and inviolable under pain of eternal damnation. No, under this system, the wage due to the laborer is merely another column in the ledger book of expenses which, like all other expenses, the employer is expected to minimize whenever possible. And so the working man, facing extortion of his just wages at every turn by Capital, must needs turn to strongarm organizations (e.g. labor unions) in order to safeguard his rights via counter-extortion. It's an ugly business, but par for the course when the Rights of God and man are cast aside in the service of Mammon.

As to the unions' affiliation with the Democrat party - it's simply one strongarm outfit seeking the protection of a bigger strongarm outfit. And it's yet another example of the (seemingly) paradoxical - but always inevitable - slide of a capitalist society into socialism in order to addresss the evils that capitalism naturally engenders (see Belloc's The Servile State).

And what does "left wing" even mean in a nation whose very ideals and form of government are godless and masonic? Is "right wing" - which in this nation means siding with usurers and Zionists and warmongers and all manner of evil - really so much better than the "left wing?"

Come on. We're Traditional Catholics. If others have ignorance as an excuse for being tricked into believing in this false Americanist left-right / capitalist-socialist paradigm, we certainly do not.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to write an in-depth response. Not that I could state it with your eloquence.

Corruption is answered with corruption due to sin. It's really that simple. Having said that, it was the big companies owned by the powerful that started it. People who rode a wave into a comfortable middle class existence, which is no longer available, looked down on those in organized labor as soon as they received a degree and a job they thought was paying them well. They were further deceived that unions were no longer necessary at the same time they thought they were in, or on their way, to an elite existence. The "Right Wing" is not only made up of Zionist War Mongers, but they also lie about being against abortion, the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda, and all other social evils.

Never forget that the "Right Wing" is only the right wing of unabashed liberalism as dictated by the enlightenment.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2015, 03:03:10 PM »

How did the guilds of old come to their end? What were the historical events that brought their downfall?

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2015, 03:04:36 PM »

Somewhat related, here's a docuмent I found interesting:

Peter McGuire and the Spirituality of Labor by Fr. Kevin Shanley. O.Carm