Unions originally started out of US working movements that could be termed as socialist or anarcho-syndicalist, such as the IWW. Since the post-WW2 era they became capitalistic in nature and were co-opted into business models. They exist (optimistically) as a voice among workers to advocate the highest amount of pay and benefits for workers without bankrupting the company.
It most strongly depends on how the unions organized, their relationship to the government and their consumers. I would say the general idea of a union is communist in the traditional sense of collective cooperation not the eastern post WW1 government sense. Union organization differs from union to union and country to country.
I think you're spot on about the movement in the united sates but i feel that anarcho-syndicalism developed out of unions in Europe first.
Neither. Unions are a very fundamental expression of capitalism; they are an essential component of the relationship between management and labor in a functional capitalist system. The death of independent labor unions goes hand in hand with the death of capitalism. There is no such thing as a healthy free market economy without strong independent labor unions.
How so? I would strongly disagree with your description of healthcare in the US as "socialist". Merely being paid for by the government is not sufficient to make something socialist. I'll grant you that private education in the US is a socialist institution, but you would need to be more specific.
Unions are completely capitalist. Although painted red on the outside, unions only use that ruse to fleece their sucker members. They amass massive assetts, do back room deals, and skim the cream like no CEO would ever dare.
That's a very loaded question, also not very clear. Particular unions can theoretically be right wing or left wing, the same applies for union member. Although, they tend to manifest with a left wing persuasion due to the labour movement and ties to socialist thinking. Most major unions now tend to fall into a centre-left sphere of political persuasion. Outside of ideology they have been born out of necessity within the capitalist framework of society, but they could again theoretically exist under socialist systems or communist systems.
Hmm, I wasn't aware. I know people like Emma Goldman and many other immigrants to the US were big proponents, but I admit I am pretty ignorant of union movements outside of North America. I should probably read about it sometime.
To me they're like a mob organization with big shots at the top - and all the others follow and pay homage in dues in exchange for being part of the group. The payback is bargaining power and prestige. Members go along or else.
Interesting question. I respect peoples right to voluntarily associate with each other, as they choose, with no interference from the state whatsoever. I support the right of unions to organize and bargain as they see fit. Is this what we have in the United States? No. The current labor laws in the US tilt the balance of power far too much to the advantage of unions. So they are most certainly a socialist-type of organization since there is state coercion. For instance, in many cases, there is mandatory participation in a union supported by the state. This is clearly unconstitutional. It's a mess with public unions as well. I prefer the non-coercive approach in general. If states arent getting benefit out of dealing with a union, they can chose not to. If employees dont want to be represented by the union, they dont have to be.
I don't care what they are. They're a tool. Sometimes they're necessary and workers are legitimately being screwed. Sometimes they overreach. IMO Unions should be regulated as much as corporations. They shouldn't have free speech (they're NOT a person... stupid Supreme Court).
They are neither. Unions are collective instruments used by normally powerless workers to negotiate better work conditions. They are a product of capitalism as businesses seeking to maximize profit typically do so by squeezing their workers, unions are merely a manifestation of the workers' collective desires to profit from their labor.
Angrytaxpayer would be better off thinking of unions as a modern version of a guild, with a gloss of class struggle rhetoric and an increasing inability to tough it out when the government weighs in on the side of management. The old time unionists must be spinning in their graves!
Depending. There are socialist unions. There are communist unions. There are anarchist unions. And also there are fascist unions, yellow unions or right unions. And I think than in USA most of the unions are of the last kind, right unions. That are more corporativist than anything. You can't generalize about the idea of unions. Yes that unions originally were leftist organizations, socialist, communist or anarchist. But later appeared other kind of unions more "capitalistic". Every kind of unions have different goals and methodologies. The anarchist unions are revolutionary. Also there are some communist that are revolutionary others not. And as anarchist union you have the IWW(Industrial Workers of the World).
You should More because the strongest anarchist union of the world was the CNT of Spain, until the end of the Spanish Civil War where it was destroyed. The CNT was created in 1910. And in the XIX century Kropotkin and Malatesta(I think, too) defended the use of the worker unions to make the revolution. And the Socialist union UGT(Union General de Trabajadores) linked to the PSOE(Spanish Socialist Workers Party) was created in 1888. And the origin of the trade unions is in Great Britain in the first half of the XIX century.
I dont regard Unions as either Socialist or Communist oranizations. I think that are actually a part of the Free-Enterprise system. The problem we seem to be having since the recession began is that many of our local governments are near bancruptcy and we have allowed our Public Unions to have the same bargaining rights as the Private sector Unions. The basic flaw in this is that the negotiator in the Public Sector has come to be someone appointed by an official elected with aid from a Public Union. The result is Gold plated Pensions and Benefits that these local governments can no longer afford. (It is a problem for the Public Sector)
