[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


 No.1188678[Last 50 Posts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers

Read this list and tell me why these AREN'T the priority jobs for organising, in this order.

1) Soldier,
2) Retail employee
3) Railway worker
4) Service industry worker.
5) Workers in extractive industries
6) Tech workers and workers involved in tech production
7) Logistics. (my word for whatever the fuck Amazon is, a delivery company I suppose)


Obviously this isn't an exacting science its some wiki list, and there is probably things you can say about how accurate it is, but I believe it is probably fairly representative of trends.

In terms of organising I'd probably change up the order slightly, but this is what the numbers say. In reality, at this level they should all receive equal priority, with the caveat that soldiers, while being perhaps the most essential, are going to be a lot harder to organise. As well as the fact that, although this list shows the most major retail company, or food service company, it does not show all their next biggest rivals, and so on. In reality, privately owned retail and service are probably far larger employers in America than the singular military.

Obviously we can point to the difference in China and Americas biggest employers, China's building infrastructure, Burgers b shopping and eating burgers.

Proud 2b anglo for once, although again more people work in the service or retail industry.

Searching other stuff, supposedly the most common job in the united states is working in retail (or being a solider). In china it appears to be working on the railway (or a soldier)

 No.1188690

>soldiers
You can't organize soldiers, they're cops but for geopolitics, structurally reactionary in the age of volunteer armies, bring back the draft and we can maybe talk. The military needs to be dismantled as it is sucking the blood and resources from all other infrastructure.

 No.1188692

>>1188678
the best job to organise is 'whoever will listen to you'

 No.1188700

>>1188692
Not good enough if the people listening have no leverage

 No.1188705

>>1188700
it's obviously an advantage to have any person being a commie

 No.1188715

>>1188690
You can certainly organised amongst vets, particularly anti war/anti imperialism stuff. They are best positioned to be able to speak to other soldiers. Each area of organising will be hard, soldiers definitively harder, but not impossible for the right person with the right skills.

Also, the most decorated American soldier ever was based as shit and ratted on the Business Plot by ole grandpappy Bush.

>>1188692
Sure. But if you are a real world group with real world resources, you have to prioritise these things and do so tactically

 No.1188721

>>1188715
realitically I don't see any way to organise soldiers in modern western society, only nationalist retards, or soulless careerists who are willing to kill just for a GI bill, are in the army

 No.1188723

Also for consideration:

There are around 2 million prisoners in the US. Putting them in just behind Walmart.

 No.1188748

>>1188721
The thing about it is though there IS lots of bad blood between vets and the US army. Suicide rates, drug abuse etc, mental health issues, general poverty post military is sky high. You think these people don't blame the military a little bit? A lot of them. There's got to be many more guys like this, who just stayed in the military for whatever reason. Also vets have some level of cultural and political power

 No.1188749

>>1188678
how do you organise in retail? not criticising this scheme, but it seems there are high rates of turnover of staff, and you get told if you dont like it then dude just find another job lmao.

 No.1188751

>>1188748
vets =/= soldiers though and even among vets most are not 'based anti imperialists'

 No.1188769

>>1188749
Same as anywhere else really, in all regards. Remember a retail worker is most people who work in any supermarket, clothes shop. While the turnover is high, for a lot of people it is a job they will have for years.

 No.1188771

>>1188751
What I said originally was that vets would be the path to organising soldiers, not that they were soldiers and I didn't say that most vets based anti imperialists

 No.1188899

Don't use that image with the traitor Malchenko who abandoned the revolutionary cause and would later engage in counter-revolutionary sabotage to aid fucking fascist imperialists in 1929.

 No.1188907

>>1188899
lmao, based edit comrade

 No.1189458

first organize yourself
then organize the organizations (into one big coalition)

always be trying to organize and agitate in your workplace as much as u can obviously
Not much point in trying to organize people in workplaces you aren't in. Maybe newspapers or w/e. But that doesn't need to be targeted. It's always cringe af to see ppl floating the "what if we told them to rise up, but, like, on their own!" idea.

Also, vets are only good insofar as they have jobs. So might as well strike them from the list and consider them a lucky find among proles in general. Until they start organizing themselves - then they're part of "organize the organizations".

btw ik this comes off jokey but i'm 1000% serious. Step 1 don't be retarded, be active in your own life, in your local orgs and movements, in your workplace, etc. Step 2 (idk if its a "step" but w/e - its a vital long-term goal necessary in order to get to a revolution) organize the popular working class movements under one banner - either by a broad unity, or by growing a socialist faction within to take over, or just organizing a socialist faction within to split off and join in the coalition. This is necessary because it puts all the people who are politically active, working class, and willing to work beyond their single issue in one group, and communists can work within this group to further educate and radicalize.

It sounds sorta like entryism but it's basically the communist tactic (and its distinct from entryism cause it's not about going into capitalist institutions). This is what they did prior to the russian revolution. Notice how even tho the bolshies sounded the call for the soviets, they still fought for influence within them. We have to both move things forward, and respect that there aren't leaps and bounds in our power which come from nowhere. So… we plant ourselves where the people we want to work among (which is: the advanced of the proletariat) are, and we agitate, educate, sum up experiences, and so on.

 No.1189483

how is this a good metric? they’re just singular employers, and combined they still make up a very small percentile of all workers

 No.1189502

File: 1664090591633.mp3 (255.35 KB, sample.mp3)

>1) Soldier
I was going to make an independent thread about this yesterday, and the thought of that list didn't even cross my mind.

I'll say again:
Soldiers are some of the most mistreated workers in the western world. Their suicide and PTSD rates are no secret. Most people nowadays going in are doing it due to debts or lack of other employment opportunity. Even looking at places like /r/socialism, recent veterans are easy to find.

Soldiers are also some of the best trained people you could ask for in a class struggle, and that training affects others who they organize and train and lead. The sides they pick matter, just look at the Russian Revolution. The more you have friendly, the less will be looking to kill you.

And if we don't grab them, the fascists will. They did historically, and that's exactly the way Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany came into power. Ex-servicemen.

Easily radicalized and some of the most important people in conflict. What better combination could there be? Everything else is icing on the cake.

 No.1189504

>>1189483
That argument applies to literally every grouping by occupation.
It's not a great metric, but it's also not a great argument.

 No.1189510

>>1188690
>You can't organize soldiers,
Stopped reading. What a stupid, historically and currently ignorant thing to say. I hope you're not in an org.

 No.1189587

>>1188678
>retail employees
<THE REVOLUTION IN AMERICA WAS LED BY NIKE WORKERS
Lol

 No.1189592

>>1189587
you hate workers?

 No.1189594

>>1188678
a bigger employer is also more powerful. It's difficult to unionize a company with billions of dollars that can spend hundreds of millions against you, and once you have that union it's also very difficult to radicalize it further

 No.1189598

>>1189587
brand bullshit has such a thick margin that Nike retail employees actually have a lot of value added they can take hostage

of course retail employees in the west are atomized and easily scared with automatisation (not so much self-pay stuff as just moving business completely to the internet)

 No.1189621

>>1189592
<in the event of building dual power
>doctors providing alternative medical care
>agricultural workers providing alternative food production
>steel workers providing alternative steel production
>Retail workers providing… LE SOCIALIST NIKE STORE

 No.1189683

>>1189483
Okay champ, which industries employ more people than retail and service industry?

>>1189587
Who is gonna lead it then? Retail work is guard work and distribution work. You think there won’t be guards and distributors under a planned economy? What are you some kind of ultra who thinks everyone will just like, become chill bro and smoke weed bro and not steal bro because a revolution happened bro?

You think people won’t choose shoes under socialism? Because socialism is literally an open air concentration camp?

Shut your mouth dumb bitch and grow the fuck up.

Btw retail workers are more likely to work in a super market, so, the end point of food distribution, stacking shelves, making sure everything is in date and so on,

But this will all happen automatically immediately post election of the dengtard party to United States Congress right bitch?

Shut up bitch and throat me

 No.1189700

>Read this list and tell me why these AREN'T the priority jobs for organising, in this order.
1. The order is the result of the chosen scheme of categories. Different categories will result in different rankings. For example, male employees are a bigger group than the number one in your list.

2. What you are doing is like observing incoming and outgoing money flows and then only talking about one of them for some reason. The bigger the group is, the harder it is to organize. This is a negative.

>>1188700
>leverage
Important word to keep in mind. How much can you fuck shit up downstream by going on strike? Workers in the energy sector are a great example of this.

>>1188721
Maybe your outlook ist too bleak, but one has to admit that ending the draft in the US (and other countries like Germany) has massively weakened our prospects for winning soldiers over.

 No.1189711

>>1189700
1) what you gonna do then organise by male and female? Why haven’t unions done this before in this case?

2) >the bigger the group is, the harder they are to organise
I would say, it means there is more opportunities and it spreads easier once you make gains.

 No.1189714

>>1189683
>Okay champ, which industries employ more people than retail and service industry?
the point is also moot
just organize who you can

 No.1189718

>>1189714
>>1188715
> Sure. But if you are a real world group with real world resources, you have to prioritise these things and do so tactically

 No.1189728

>>1189718
ok then do so tactically
also another note, most jobs aren't categorized at all. they're usually called "general labourer" or something like that

 No.1189733

>>1189728
oh, and a note on top of that, most industry nowadays is extremely horizontal and distributed
for example, the "function" of an amazon warehouse nowadays would have been just one part of the old vertically integrated fordist plants of yore

 No.1189876

>Soldier
I agree with all the others except this one soilders in the western world are volunteers and because of this their interest lies with the ruling class. Most armies are made up a small highly trained well equipped core of soilders that would gladly kill us if ordered to. This isn't the 19th or 20th century anymore.

 No.1189882

>>1189510
You chose to stop reading because you can't understand that a VOLUNTEER ARMY is fundamentally different from a conscripted one.

 No.1189955

>>1189728
>ok then do so tactically
right, so that is the question of the thread, which industries should be prioritised for organising?

>most jobs aren't categorized at all. they're usually called "general labourer" or something like that

right but I mean, most statistics you look up have service and retail as the biggest employers, unless you have some contrary statistics?

I don't really know of a job that would be called a "general labourer" Most factories have specific purposes and titles that go with them.

>>1189733
Okay, and how do you think that effects organisation of the work force?

>>1189876
>Most armies are made up a small highly trained well equipped core of soilders that would gladly kill us if ordered to
I mean kind of, but I was gonna say, the way things are these days, basically its the special forces who actually get into combat, the low level infantry is pretty much just place holders and logistics.

 No.1190010

>>1189683
See>>1189621

 No.1190013

>>1190010
excuse me?

 No.1190864

>>1189882
And I stopped reading that entire post before I saw it because they most of those "volunteers" are tricked or economically coerced into that position by debts and propaganda, which is why vets are the way they are.

 No.1191014

>>1190864
Yeh I was gonna say, when literally the entire state apparatus grooms so many young people into the military in an active way, how voluntary is it?

 No.1191093

>>1191041
Yes it is truly terrible of me to have just a bit of proletarian patriotism for the one thing about my shithole country that is somewhat good.

go fuck yourself American

 No.1191095

>>1191093
Sage is PatSoc Gang confirmed

 No.1191099

>>1191014
There's literally nothing forcing you to join the military, you go into knowing you're assisting in the murder of people around the world. Nobody makes this excuse for gangbusters and mafiosos, that's what soldiers are, criminals

 No.1191130

>>1191099
>Nobody makes this excuse for gangbusters
so many people make this excuse, its pretty integral to a socialist analysis of crime, in fact.
>mafiosa
fair enough, people tend not to.
>There's literally nothing forcing you to join the military
the military is currently running a highly developed program of infiltrating youth spaces in order to bamboozle them into joining, through esports and QT military girl ops, as well as a range of other things. There are countless stories of recruiters lying to young people to get them to join up. Hating recruiters is a meme among soldiers I believe.

The entire culture of American society, from its national mythos, to the video games it pumps out at the direction of its intelligence services, is geared towards recruiting young people.

No nothing is "forcing you" but, things are strongly encouraging you, and in a place where you have few options, that is very attractive
>you go into it knowing you will murder people
all of the above ops also serve to make people believe these people you murder are less than human.

Its not a "moral excuse" its just plain facts, the morality means little. Pretty much built in is the eventual disillusion with the mythos, hence as stated the mental state many soldiers come back in.

 No.1191149

>>1191130
I have no respect for institutions (college, church, and military) whom pander to the youth.
All recruiters should burn in hell.
Society actively bars the youth from basic freedom yet dangles "opportunities" to "excel".

Fuck that shit.

All the adults whom talk to children in motivational/poetic cliches should be spat on and groin-kicked by delinquents.
And they should be psychoanalysis by precocious junior "philosophers".

 No.1191165

>>1191149
Cool I agree

 No.1191297

>>1189621
this is a great argument against dual power, thanks

 No.1207193

>>1191165
Did you understand what newgene meant by that?

 No.1208324

>>1189711
>what you gonna do then organise by male and female?
You know it is silly and yet if follows from your own arguments.

 No.1208332

>>1188678
>1) Soldier,
Literally a felony in America. Good luck.

>>1188715
>You can certainly organised amongst vets, particularly anti war/anti imperialism stuff. They are best positioned to be able to speak to other soldiers. Each area of organising will be hard, soldiers definitively harder, but not impossible for the right person with the right skills.
What purpose does it serve? Are you just on the typical /leftypol/ LARP of organizing an armed revolt?

 No.1208433

>>1188678
I would encourage everyone to use this method rather than looking at the largest industries:

LOOK FOR THE CHOKEPOINTS

Why focus on organizing such a large section of the economy when having certain Industries organized can have a disproportionate effect on the economy? Imo, these are the industries that have the most significant l chokepoints:

1) Logistics, including transportation
2) Electrical workers
3) Defense manufacturing
4) Agricultural workers

And in particular, longshoremen, electrical utility workers, and linemen are the most critical imo. This isn't to say that other industries shouldn't be organized, just that these are the industries that leftists should focus on.

 No.1208452

>>1207193
Pretty sure yeh.

>>1208324
It doesn't because I am talking about trade unionism and male/female are not trades.

>>1208332
>Literally a felony in America. Good luck.
didn't know that. Guess you'll have to be sneaky then.

>What purpose does it serve?

you quoted the purpose it serves.

>>1208433
I think what you say is true and also we can see some crossovers - logistics for examples appears in both our lists, so does "tech worker/electrical worker -

The problem, is that one small section of the workforce, for example, agricultural workers (1.4% of the population in the US) shutting down the food supply on service industry workers (70% of the population) ain't gonna go down well unless you have enough density in the service sector to make it hold as a solidarity thing.

 No.1208484

File: 1664978420886.png (185.38 KB, 1254x898, e28.png)

>>1190864
Mfs really pretend that America doesn't have a system of soft conscription via economic coercion.

 No.1208514

>>1208452
>shutting down the food supply on service industry workers (70% of the population) ain't gonna go down well unless you have enough density in the service sector to make it hold as a solidarity thing.

This is true. I only listed it as a potential chokepoint. Whether we hypothetically used it or not depends on the specific circumstances.

 No.1208577

>>1208433

> look for the chokepoints


this attitude reflects a big misunderstanding about the landscape of labor organizing in the US. it would be good advice if you had enough organizing capacity that you could actually make decisions about who to organize rather than being in constant crisis mode, but for the most part you don't.

the reality is that conditions on the ground already determine most of these choices for you, and you probably don't have a union or a team of organizers on standby while you deliberate about target selection.

your only real option is to start organizing your own workplace.

 No.1208589

>>1208577
Fair enough.

 No.1208720

>>1208452
>didn't know that. Guess you'll have to be sneaky then.
Lol. How do you picture this going in your head. Let's say I'm in military, I decide to organize the troops. I go out and convert one soldier and then he converts one soldier and we manage to covertly do it until enough of the armed forces are converted to stage an armed revolt?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/976

>10 U.S. Code § 976 - Membership in military unions, organizing of military unions, and recognition of military unions prohibited


(a) In this section:
(1) The term “member of the armed forces” means (A) a member of the armed forces who is serving on active duty, (B) a member of the National Guard who is serving on full-time National Guard duty, or (C) a member of a Reserve component while performing inactive-duty training.
(2) The term “military labor organization” means any organization that engages in or attempts to engage in—
(A) negotiating or bargaining with any civilian officer or employee, or with any member of the armed forces, on behalf of members of the armed forces, concerning the terms or conditions of military service of such members in the armed forces;
(B) representing individual members of the armed forces before any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the armed forces, in connection with any grievance or complaint of any such member arising out of the terms or conditions of military service of such member in the armed forces; or
(C) striking, picketing, marching, demonstrating, or any other similar form of concerted action which is directed against the Government of the United States and which is intended to induce any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the armed forces, to—
(i) negotiate or bargain with any person concerning the terms or conditions of military service of any member of the armed forces,
(ii) recognize any organization as a representative of individual members of the armed forces in connection with complaints and grievances of such members arising out of the terms or conditions of military service of such members in the armed forces, or
(iii) make any change with respect to the terms or conditions of military service of individual members of the armed forces.
(3) The term “civilian officer or employee” means an employee, as such term is defined in section 2105 of title 5.
(b) It shall be unlawful for a member of the armed forces, knowing of the activities or objectives of a particular military labor organization—
(1) to join or maintain membership in such organization; or
(2) to attempt to enroll any other member of the armed forces as a member of such organization.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) to enroll in a military labor organization any member of the armed forces or to solicit or accept dues or fees for such an organization from any member of the armed forces; or
(2) to negotiate or bargain, or attempt through any coercive act to negotiate or bargain, with any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the armed forces, on behalf of members of the armed forces, concerning the terms or conditions of service of such members;
(3) to organize or attempt to organize, or participate in, any strike, picketing, march, demonstration, or other similar form of concerted action involving members of the armed forces that is directed against the Government of the United States and that is intended to induce any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the armed forces, to—
(A) negotiate or bargain with any person concerning the terms or conditions of service of any member of the armed forces,
(B) recognize any military labor organization as a representative of individual members of the armed forces in connection with any complaint or grievance of any such member arising out of the terms or conditions of service of such member in the armed forces, or
(C) make any change with respect to the terms or conditions of service in the armed forces of individual members of the armed forces; or
(4) to use any military installation, facility, reservation, vessel, or other property of the United States for any meeting, march, picketing, demonstration, or other similar activity for the purpose of engaging in any activity prohibited by this subsection or by subsection (b) or (d).
(d) It shall be unlawful for any military labor organization to represent, or attempt to represent, any member of the armed forces before any civilian officer or employee, or any member of the armed forces, in connection with any grievance or complaint of any such member arising out of the terms or conditions of service of such member in the armed forces.
(e) No member of the armed forces, and no civilian officer or employee, may—
(1) negotiate or bargain on behalf of the United States concerning the terms or conditions of military service of members of the armed forces with any person who represents or purports to represent members of the armed forces, or
(2) permit or authorize the use of any military installation, facility, reservation, vessel, or other property of the United States for any meeting, march, picketing, demonstration, or other similar activity which is for the purpose of engaging in any activity prohibited by subsection (b), (c), or (d).
Nothing in this subsection shall prevent commanders or supervisors from giving consideration to the views of any member of the armed forces presented individually or as a result of participation on command-sponsored or authorized advisory councils, committees, or organizations.
(f) Whoever violates subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, except that, in the case of an organization (as defined in section 18 of such title), the fine shall not be less than $25,000.
(g) Nothing in this section shall limit the right of any member of the armed forces—
(1) to join or maintain membership in any organization or association not constituting a “military labor organization” as defined in subsection (a)(2) of this section;
(2) to present complaints or grievances concerning the terms or conditions of the service of such member in the armed forces in accordance with established military procedures;
(3) to seek or receive information or counseling from any source;
(4) to be represented by counsel in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;
(5) to petition the Congress for redress of grievances; or
(6) to take such other administrative action to seek such administrative or judicial relief, as is authorized by applicable laws and regulations.

 No.1208801


 No.1208809

>>1208801
I was about to write a bit about how America isn't 1917 Russia but then I figured it didn't need to be said, but of course it needs to be said. Lol. I'm still not going to detail all the differences because you should be able to figure it out for yourself.

Soldiers are literally the last group you'd be able to convert. It would be infinitely more productive to increase the popularity of communism in the general populace instead of soldiers. Communists taking over the military and using it for armed insurrection is so far down the line if even possible it's not worth talking about at all.

 No.1209506

Only leftypol is so fucking stupid that they see the american army literally gangraping children on the middle east and decide: "hmm yeah these subjects are ripe for organizing". Like holy shit dude, yeah of course there are material pressures leading to someone joining the army, but there are also material pressures that lead other people to become pigs, yet you don't see retards arguing that the police should be unionized. Just as cops do, soldiers get to be above the law, they get to commit all sorts of fucked up shit with impunity. Sometimes they are a little bit above the law, sometimes they are very much above the law. They aren't going to join your retarded revolution if its consequences means their impunity ends and possibly they themselves get to face public trials, as they should for being murderers and rapists.

 No.1209525

>>1209506
>Only leftypol is so fucking stupid that they see the american army literally gangraping children on the middle east
Do you think the average American soldier has done this? Or been party to such crimes? Because I have a hard time believing that's the case, especially when the majority of them are in support roles and never leave the base.
>yeah of course there are material pressures leading to someone joining the army, but there are also material pressures that lead other people to become pigs
Not the same at all. It's pretty much common knowledge that economic coercion is one of the primary recruitment tools of the US military, and moreover most people are only in the military temporarily whereas cops are usually there for a career. The two are not comparable.

 No.1209531

>>1208514
For sure. Also 100% key industries should be targeted. The extractive industries as mentioned above, for example also.

>>1208577
While this is true, and why I think we should be focussing mainly on the largest unorganised sectors: the service industry.

It is perfectly un-far fetched for a communist party in a certain city to make one of its key tasks organising hospitality workers, for example. It also has a number of advantages, such as the generally fairly low entry requirements. Obviously there are also disadvantages, people don't see it as a job for life etc.

Also.. it is my workplace.

>>1208720
Do you think such things as mutinies, or groups of soldiers refusing to fight, is something that doesn't have historical precedent?

>>1208809
I think cops would be harder.

>It would be infinitely more productive to increase the popularity of communism in the general populace instead of soldiers

do both. Next question. Yes there are limited resources, however its one of them high cost high reward type arrangements. All the best things are.

>Communists taking over the military and using it for armed insurrection is so far down the line if even possible it's not worth talking about at all.

you have ultra brain, no view for strategy, or long term thinking.

No of course there will not be an instantaneous conversion of the military. However, like has been stated over a over, it is possible to start out with small things, Veterans and soldiers at anti war protests, bare in mind, this is a thing that already happens and has happened many times.

Then there are other things, build it up a little, refusing deployment and so on - focus on those new recruits who've realised they've been lied to be recruiters, as discussed.

Also in general, very few people are irredeemable evil as you seem to think. As we have discussed, also, the military industrial complex has a highly specialised recruitment matrix.

People get into prestation, drug dealing, the military, they will be damaged by it. It is the duty of the communist to serve such people and help them to change and to help others to change.

 No.1209532

>>1209525
> Do you think the average American soldier has done this?
While nothing as graphic as this, I do think the average American soldier has commited some sort of transgression.They even frequently harrass their own, they don't even have to leave the base to be fucked up. This is why armies have their own courts and stuff, For an army, that kind of stuff is petty. You have to be a moron if you don't think this, or that soldiers don't know that they are, legally, above everyone else.

 No.1209538

>>1209532
>This is why armies have their own courts and stuff, For an army, that kind of stuff is petty.
Military culture is pretty fucked, but frankly I'm a lot less concerned about this than I am with their ability to objectively strengthen our cause.

 No.1209539

>>1209506
Most of the worst shit is done by special forces, large amounts of military people are basically security guards. Particularly these days as international war has moved on to unconventional means and ways.

Do you realise how vanishingly small the chances of dying as a western soldier are?

You're in the western Navy, when was the last time in history somebody that wasn't maybe a pirate actually shot at you?

 No.1209555

>>1209539

I doubt the anon you're speaking to is aware of this or cognizant that to organize they'd have to leave the comfort of their home and actually go outside. It doesn't matter that only about 10% of soldiers see combat, let alone actually kill someone in combat. No, instead every member of the military is a baby-killing rapist, and instead the Left should organize loudmouths on Twitter who cry about loud noises, are scared of guns, and make up excuses about how expectations of any kind are fascist in nature.

 No.1209567

>>1209555
Checked.

Out of interest I looked and according to wikipedia, the last time the imperial navy got into what could by any stretch be called a naval battle, was 2011 during the Libyan coup.

It was three destroyers, one French, one British, one Canadian, against a bunch of light craft. There was one single exchange of machine gun fire.

The imperialists sustained zero damage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles#Later_20th_century

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-F245298B-EA603C2A/natolive/news_73983.htm

Unless you count a Saudi frigate that was sunk by a houthi suicide bomb/boat in 2017.

Before that, the most notable incident was

>20–24 March - Battle of Al Faw (2003) Joint British-American-Australian-Polish fleet conducts amphibious operation on the Al-Faw Peninsula in Iraq. Forces capture Iraqi ports and oil platforms.


This list is quite an amusing read. Sickening, but amusing.

 No.1209576

File: 1665017873567.png (978.76 KB, 1024x683, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1209555
Projecting faggot. 2 of the 4 soldiers I know personally said they killed babies.

Anyways the issue isn't even that. The issue is you're not going to amass enough commies in the military to start and insurrection or even cause a serious problem for the military. It's all LARPer fantasy because you're all living in history books from a century ago. You're really no different than Roman LARPers. Funny how all you faggots need to make posts telling everyone to convert active duty soldiers to communism yet not one of you has a story of doing such. Take your own advice, get offline, touch grass, stop living your 19th early 20th century LARPer fantasy.

 No.1209588

>>1209576
>The issue is you're not going to amass enough commies in the military to start and insurrection
literally been over this
>>1209531
"No of course there will not be an instantaneous conversion of the military. However, like has been stated over a over, it is possible to start out with small things, Veterans and soldiers at anti war protests, bare in mind, this is a thing that already happens and has happened many times.
Then there are other things, build it up a little, refusing deployment and so on - focus on those new recruits who've realised they've been lied to be recruiters, as discussed. "
>or even cause a serious problem for the military
they already have serious recruitment problems. You get a bunch of soldiers together telling people not to sign up, it makes a dent.
>Funny how all you faggots need to make posts telling everyone to convert active duty soldiers to communism yet not one of you has a story of doing such
There are plenty of left wing vets. One ran as a communist in the US recently.

 No.1209591

>>1209588
>they already have serious recruitment problems. You get a bunch of soldiers together telling people not to sign up, it makes a dent.
I'm with you there. I'll say you're better than the other LARPers. Many tell people commies should all join the military so they can get combat experience killing hadjis that they can then transfer to communist insurrection.

 No.1209619

>>1209591
I mean, its a perk. I also consider it good that such a person that thought killing Hadjis was good no longer does so and infact abhors such things. Its a huge victory in fact.

 No.1209633

>>1209591
<not a single Joe Glenton post ITT.
let's change that.

 No.1209797

>>1209531
>the largest unorganised sectors: the service industry

this is not correct, in the US the service sector has the second highest rate of union participation of any industry, behind professional services.

the total rate of unionization is very low across all workers in the US but it's surprisingly common in the service industry because about ~33% of public, state, and city employees are unionized compared to ~5% in the private sector and they comprise a large part of the service sector

I guess trivially everyone is "unorganized" in the sense that generally union membership is so low as to basically be non-existent in every industry, but if we're looking at where existing unions are directing their energy and membership it's heavily in the service sector already.

> It is perfectly un-far fetched for a communist party in a certain city to make one of its key tasks organising hospitality workers


it's absolutely far-fetched, I have never seen any socialist or communist party actively go out of their way to start a union organizing drive. the most I've seen is them serve as either a solidarity block for an independent union organizing drive or a referral service for existing unions, and that in itself is rare.

> the generally fairly low entry requirements


salting as a strategy doesn't work to the degree that you think it does either, you usually don't have enough organizers to rotate in and the people actually taking the jobs pretty reliably burn out in less than a year. for context the average time from getting a successful vote to negotiating a contract is ~460 days and the average duration of a union election is ~150 days, not counting the organizing prior so you need multi-year commitments from everyone involved in a campaign if you want to seriously use it as a strategy. it's not unheard of and e.g. UNITE HERE uses salts pretty aggressively but a small communist party with an active membership of like two dozen people will usually not have the capacity to do anything with that sort of strategy.

 No.1209816

>>1209797

> I have never seen any socialist or communist party actively go out of their way to start a union organizing drive


before I get some moron talking about the 1920s I'm talking about in the past fifteen years

 No.1209835

>>1209797
Sage isn't american. Where he is the point about service workers is perfectly legit.
polite sage.

 No.1209846

>>1209835

ok, but 1) the industry-wide unionization trends hold for basically every country in the west, and 2) none of that refutes anything I said

 No.1209867

>>1209846
<Union density was highest in professional occupations at 43.7 per cent whilst sales occupations had the lowest at 12.9 per cent.
>Within industry, smaller sample sizes prevents detailed comparisons of collective agreement coverage for part time and temporary employees but the broad patterns of highest coverage in public administration and defence industry and lowest in hotels follow those for all employees.
<Education and public administration and had the highest rates of union density at around 52.0 percent each whilst accommodation and food services (3.8 per cent) had the lowest.
and so on and so on.
Even the most cursory of research show that isn't true.
Anon… If you don't know something look it up or admit you don't know instead of just making up an answer, you will only look like a fool doing this.

 No.1209881

>>1209867
> Education and public administration … blah blah blah

all of these are classed as service industries by the DoL and international labor bodies, everything you've said supports my points

 No.1209884

>>1209867

like if you compare the industrial distribution spreadsheet here to the DoL 2022 numbers it's within a margin of error of being the same. "oh I'm not american union organizing it's different for me" no it fucking isn't, we're all starting from basically nothing and you're stupid for making these arguments.

 No.1209903

>>1209881
>> Education and public administration are service industries
We all know that's entirely not what anybody means by service industry. you are a simpleton. please come back when you understand what the terms and words you use mean, or If you are simply lying to 'win' an conversation then please do not come back at all.

 No.1209913

>>1209903

if you're going to use terms in a way that's different from what every single entity reporting on labor statistics does for the sake of an internet argument I'm sure that's fine, but at least read something from any of the international periodicals on this where basically everyone uses US designations

use real numbers be a real labor agency or get the fuck out, your rinky dink pseudocountry crap doesn't jive with me, arvind

you were subsisting on onion and beet slop and polishing the cocks of german horses before the USSR uplifted your ancestors into sapience, your opinion on this matter is fundamentally irrelevant to international labor markets

 No.1209916

>>1209913
look i'm happy to engage with you but can you try again but at least attempt to make it readable English, this is your first language, not mine. do better.

 No.1209919

>>1209916

here how about this, your "country" of three million people has no bearing on actual labor markets, where service employees generally are better organized than industries further down the production line.

 No.1210303

>>1209919
Kid, look. I am interested in workers being organized. I couldn't care less what your chauvanist ass thinks country it better than other country. grow up, get a grip.
This whole comment chain should be deleted, I'm sorry I engaged with you.

 No.1211072


>>1209797
>>1209816
I want to focus very keenly in on these two things you have said
>I have never seen any socialist or communist party actively go out of their way to start a union organizing drive. the most I've seen is them serve as either a solidarity block for an independent union organizing drive or a referral service for existing unions, and that in itself is rare.
and
>before I get some moron talking about the 1920s I'm talking about in the past fifteen years
I would like to ask if any of the communist parties above mentioned who do the sorts of things you mentioned are at all successful, versus communists in the 1920s.
It really isn't stressed enough how basically a huge majority of the big names in socialism were union organisers and that its also synonymous with the success of their respective movements. Maduro was a union organiser. Evo Morales was a union organiser. Lenin before he was a political party figure was a union organiser.
When I said it isn't far fetched, I meant, it is, feasibly, a thing a group of dedicated communists could do.
>salting as a strategy doesn't work to the degree that you think it does either
I would agree that it is definitely a strategy with problems. No disagreement on that. Or basically all the rest of things you've said besides
>you need multi-year commitments from everyone involved in a campaign
and
>but a small communist party with an active membership of like two dozen people will usually not have the capacity to do anything with that sort of strategy.
and its not that I don't agree with the multi year commitments thing, its just, I would say, a serious communist party SHOULD be people who are willing to make such a commitment or a similar commitment, following from that, basically the majority of resources spent by communist parties (in the west at least) are hopelessly squandered all of time. The committed among them should abandon their ideas of getting elected, raising awareness, "starting the conversation" for now. Instead, they should focus on other tasks, such as proper union efforts and so on. Is my view on it. If you want to have a socdem anti imperialist pressure group/cheerleaders for various causes with little influence, okay, but that is what most of the communist parties you speak of are, though generally decent enough people.

 No.1211377

>>1211072

> I would like to ask if any of the communist parties above mentioned who do the sorts of things you mentioned are at all successful, versus communists in the 1920s.


that's a vacuous question, there's no successful communist parties in the anglosphere.

I get that you're trying to argue that if only western communist parties were more involved in labor organizing they would be successful, I don't think that's wrong, but that does ignore why they aren't involved in the first place – they're weak organizations that have extremely limited organizing capacity and labor organizing from outside of a workplace requires a large amount of committed work over a large amount of time, which the parties just do not have.

the most successful approach communists have taken in the west with regards to labor organizing as far as I can tell has not been parties trying to organize individual shops it has been entryism into union staff positions, leading to the formation of sizeable left-wing blocs within specific unions from which they can drive union-wide organizing strategy leveraging existing resources (e.g. TDU, whatever the IATSE equivalent of that is called now, united campus workers in tennessee/the southeast, and the organizing team within SEIU that started the current starbucks drive)

 No.1211416

>>1211377

again though this goes back to the point of the question "who should _we_ be organizing" requires us to answer the question of "who is 'we' here"? there isn't a single communist party or socialist organization in the US or UK that could realistically organize a workplace of 100 people if you put a gun to all of their heads

if we're trying to determine what we as individual communists should do, the answer is obvious and obviates this entire category of questions about strategy (strategy exists only at the level of abstract conflict, not individual struggle where we are engaged with operational questions or tactics): embed yourself in the proletariat to the degree that you can and organize your own workplace

 No.1213470

Sage you pussy, go hard or don't even bother anglo scum

POLICE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED INTO LARGE GENERAL UNIONS, PROVIDED THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT POLICE ARE TYPICALLY HIRED TO OPPRESS US AND THAT THEY HAVE AN EXPECTED ROLE OF SHOWING SOLIDARITY IF THEY EXPECT IT TO BE RECIPROCATED. ALIENATING THEM DEHUMANIZES WORKERS. MAKE POLICE LIKE US MORE THAN CAPITALISTS AND THEY WILL, AS MANY HAVE HISTORICALLY, REFUSE ORDERS TO ANTAGONIZE STRIKERS. MOLES ARE USEFUL IF YOU CAN BRING THEM TO OUR SIDE.

 No.1217579

File: 1665441970573.jpg (6.24 MB, 3000x4000, 1654355985982.jpg)

>>1189594
Absolutely untrue. Most militant unions often are the ones who had to go up against the biggest employers who fought hard against the organizing drive.

>>1189683
But do retail workers really have that much leverage? I'm genuinely asking, never worked retail, don't know anything about it. I've just generally understood that retail workers aren't massively productive and therefore don't have as much bargaining power as factory workers.

I think the three most important employment sectors to organize are 1) Logistics workers, they hold the most raw power. 2) Industrial workers (manufactury, maintainance, resource extraction etc.), since they have the most bargaining power in terms of what they produce in profits vs what they get. Factory is also where the battle naturally takes the shape of fighting over who controlls the macines, who gets to benefit from the increases in productivity etc. Even if the manufacturing base in your country is small, you can't do without this sector. 3) Construction. Lot of overlap with industrial workers, while also have similar "essential worket" quality as logistics workers.

I maybe wrong, but my experience in working in manufacturing also makes me skeptical of organizing tech workers if that means engineers, programmers etc. At least in the companies I've worked for a good chunk of the engineers and higher end white collars aren't productive workers but rather assets the company invests in with the surplus value skinned off the back of the production crew. If a factory has 100 guys working on the floor and 200 guys working in r&d, marketing, sales etc. it's a good bet a lot of those softer handed guys wouldn't have a job if the blue collars got their due. Or they'd be there working on the shopfloor too. This is reflected in the complicated relations between bluee & white collars.

I believe this is reflected also in the imperialist consciousness of the woke left. Even if they're not bourgeois, they often work in higher educated "passion" fields and are dependant on a subservient proletariat. So they adopt ultra left "anti racist" views in order to discipline workers at home, while also falling in line with the Western imperial projects that ensure the flow of cheap goods from 3rd world countries.

 No.1217745

>>1217579
>But do retail workers really have that much leverage?
No, compared to the other industries you mentioned. I mean, the leverage they have is against their boss, who wants to make money, and if they stop them from doing that, that is leverage. Remember, the union struggle isn't just a popularity contest, although the media does play a huge part obviously. Its key advantage is that it is a direct attack on profits. Where they do have a disadvantage is being more replaceable.

Also, the sheer scale of how many people are employed in retail means that you have knock on effect where it is sort of automatically popular among large sections of the workforce, their families, friends, etc.

The same is true of (some) elements of the service industry. There are lots of bartenders, also, people like drinking. Generally when they go into bars, its in a relaxed, social setting, and they are there for a good time, they talk to the bartenders. Generally, bartenders are well liked. As opposed to say, lawyers or something. Rarely do they talk to the owner. For the average person, if they see bartenders going on strike, they are generally gonna be supportive of it.

Also to consider is that although there is a lot of money in bars, it tends not to be a super porky industry, just a petit or medium sized porky. There is less resources against you, wins are easier.

For other areas of the service industry, a lot of it is food service. A lot of people rely on there being somewhere to get their lunch, etc. Its basically the faulty front end of a section of capitalist food distribution.

You can say "oh people should be cooking at home anyway" or whatever. But this is idealism, because people do not do this, they in fact like the convenience of food served in this way. And why not, the restaurant or cafe is simply the bastardised capitalist version of communal food. It is good for people to get together and eat in a social setting, or for them to have the option of convenient food they did not have to cook themselves.

For this reason, I would say it constitutes an essential part of the economy. Unless you think communism is when you eat grey slop. I don't, I'm for the peoples Steak house .

>manufacturing

Yes, but where I live, (in the west and I believe this is true across most of the west) there aren't that many of these and we don't even tend to manufacture essential things. They do have a lot of leverage, are harder to replace, and the factory setting actually lends itself to organisation, but in terms of political leverage, they are a much smaller group. Sort of the opposite of retail workers, who have high numbers, so they have some measure of political leverage, but are very replaceable.

I agree with you about logistics workers,

The extractive industries are interesting, cos no doubt they are the most essential of industries for capitalism to keep running. Thing is for my personal situation, the extractive industries are all in the north sea, and working off shore is lucrative generally. If there is a labour aristocracy, those guys are it.

 No.1217751

>>1211377
>they're weak organizations that have extremely limited organizing capacity
Yes, they are weak. I have other ideas in that area, the organisation of the communist party, but this isn't the thread for that, unless you want it to be.
>and labor organizing from outside of a workplace requires a large amount of committed work over a large amount of time
discussed above. Communist grindset is essential. I know this sounds basic as shit, but like, it is a problem. People have to be serious about what they are doing. Deadly serious. In the sense that, what they are doing, if done correctly, will at some point become extremely deadly, for you, the person doing it. You want to literally have a revolution? Yes, you need to be very very serious with yourself about what that is. If you want to have leadership within a communist organisation, you shouldn't bother unless you have this level of commitment and foresight. You must, or yours is a wasted errand. How do you compete with the langley paycheck pushing against you? You rise, and you grind. Only way.
>the most successful approach communists
What you describe should also be done. You will have more influence however if you have created successful unions drives. These are your credentials to the workforce.
>>1213470
Fuck pigs. Would rather organise prisoners. Maybe I'm biased because I have had run ins. Fuck pigs. Yes, there should be moles in the pigs though, an excellent idea.

 No.1217764

>>1217751

> Communist grindset is essential


"try harder" does not constitute a plan, and this attitude is just a recipe for permanently staying an irrelevant cadre of less than a dozen people who burn out half their membership every two years

 No.1217774

>>1217764
Its not really about harder, but smarter. I think a communist party should be of a military structure, executing long term plans, rather than a quasi democratic social club executing a series of well meaning but extremely reactive plans.

 No.1217775

>>1217764
In terms of the grindset question specifically. Yes, if you want to overturned global imperialism you need to put a lot of work into that. Its simply a fact.

 No.1217782

>>1217774
>>1217775

sorry but communist parties haven't shrunk into total irrelevance in the west because of their members not rising and grinding hard enough. I don't think you're really engaging at all with the reasons actual left-wing movements fail

the handful of groups that currently exist like you're describing (thinking of various MLM formations, tiqqunists, and urban guerilla groups) are politically irrelevant because their cadre structure makes it impossible for them to have any real interaction or integration with anyone outside their sociopolitical clique so they're always functionally limited to being an extremely capacity-limited group of a dozen guys who self-style as revolutionaries selling newspapers or flyering outside of a workplace or committing the occasional act of domestic terrorism, inevitably devolving into a reading group when years of failing to reach the masses finally gets to the membership

 No.1217789

>>1217782
>sorry but communist parties haven't shrunk into total irrelevance in the west because of their members not rising and grinding hard enough.
No, there are a variety of reasons, but that doesn't negate the fact that to have a revolution, they will need to rise and grind.
>evolutionaries selling newspapers or flyering outside of a workplace or committing the occasional act of domestic terrorism
except , these are not any of the activities I would say this group should be doing, however. What I'm saying such a group should be doing, at least in part, among other things it should be doing, is organising workplaces.

Which brings us full circle.

 No.1217792

>>1217789

no, the things you're describing are things which an organization of the size you're describing will not have the capacity to do, so it'll inevitably resort to ineffective but familiar motions of resistance by inertia

nobody wakes up and sets out to have their organization turn to tailism or opportunism, or deviate from the cause of organizing the working class.

the realities of organizing are simply that workplace organizing from the outside requires more work than you can do on the scale you're going to operate, which is why unions adopted staff organizing models in the first place

 No.1217793

>>1217782
Also, every communist party in the west is an irrelevant sect with a bunch of burned out people who drop off, or, more likely, get bored, unengaged and just drift off, having achieved basically nothing for however much time they put in. For 50 years this has been the western communist experience.

 No.1217794

>>1217793

yeah if only they'd woken up earlier and grinded harder though

 No.1217796

>>1217792
I haven't described any size. I also don't see how being a small org necessarily means you will degenerate into vandalism and domestic terrorism.

I think a communist party should have funds which can be directed towards such things as paid organisers yes.
>oooh but you won't have funds.
If you want a full breakdown of exactly how I think a communist party should and could operate, like I said, its a different thread.

But currently, communist parties spend their meagre funds on stuff that is, and I can't stress this enough, virtually useless. If we look at the track record of virtually every western communist party, bar none or vanishingly few, every penny of that money is wasted.

 No.1217800

>>1217794
I have repeatedly said it is a fact that you will have to work hard to achieve revolution. You have not acknowledged that fact, it is one.

It is also a fact that every western communist party sucks, I get that you are in one, but the truth is, it sucks. Nothing personal, just the cold bare facts of the situation.

 No.1217805

>>1217796

I told you above, militant commitment automatically precludes a large organization, especially initially it functionally limits you to a sociopolitical clique, which is why parties of this type that form whenever someone gets the idea to do this whole rigamarole again typically never grow beyond a few dozen people

at that point you're functionally limited in what you can do by your organizing capacity, regardless of what you would like to do or how you would imagine yourself directing the organization and wind up taking opportunist action by organizational inertia

I think thinking of yourself as an agent of the revolution that brings it about by force of will like you seem to be implying is not correct. I think the working class as an entity is the agent of revolution and in the current organizing landscape in the US communist party formations wind up being functionally reactive by their very structure. as I've said elsewhere imo the best you can do is embed yourself within the proletariat and organize there

 No.1217946

>Tech workers and workers involved in tech production
absolute sellouts

 No.1218206

>>1217800
Tbh, trying to male communist movements in the west, especially in the Anglo countries is a lost cause.
Just leave it be.

 No.1218266

>>1217805
Every communist party in the west is a clique. You haven't really contended with that. All I'm saying is the clique (if we are accepting your analysis, which i don't, but whatever) should be organised slightly different and do different things.

Like I said, most cliques currently are quasi democratic and work on a very short term basis. I would prefer a military structure which I think gets around the problem of hangers on and shitcunts being a problem.

I also believe this should be a clandestine organisation. I have discussed this at length in other threads if you've been around here a while.

> which is why parties of this type that form whenever someone gets the idea to do this whole rigamarole again typically never grow beyond a few dozen people

these are all parties which, for whatever reason, decide their clandestine militant party should have a facebook page or whatever. Mostly for larping reasons. This is not what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying we bring it about by will or force, but a superior form of party organisation.

I'm interested to know what you think communist parties should be doing differently, because you seem to be advocating for the tactics which have, across the board, without one counter example, been an utter failure.

>>1217946
so probably in the same realm as extractive workers… which leaves us with… the ever glorious service, retail, and logistics :)
>>1218206
Okay I shall simply allow my country to invade and exploit yours, eventually to get into a nuclear war with China.

 No.1249413

booomp

 No.1250527

>Who to organise?
Military
/thread

 No.1250528

>>1188690
stupid anarkiddie, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

 No.1250537

>>1250527
<most reactionary segment of socoety
retard

 No.1250563

>>1250537
>Only successful revolutions have been with armed force
Soldier's Soviets would like a word with you

 No.1250567

>>1250566
>muuh dick

 No.1250582

File: 1667445237461.png (93.66 KB, 480x270, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1250566

 No.1250906

>>1250566
>Lol of course most anons in lefty/pol/ only care about soldiers.
<one guy
Didn't taking one opinion and presenting it as a board consensus in bad faith in order to troll used to be against the rules?
What ever happened to that rule?

 No.1250931

Only broad social unionizing which can include people across sectoral boundaries, soldiers, the unemployed, etc. has any chance of advancing a socialist political project.
If you limit yourself to the most 'strategic' sectors of the workforce, then we know exactly what will happen. That sector will eventually win some modest concessions and representation from the bourgeoisie, the workers will immediately sink back into trade-union consciousness to defend their gains, and communist organizers will be sidelined or purged. This is what's happened to every successful labor organization in the industrial world.

 No.1250986

>>1250906
loosely enforced to allow shitposting,since it's "board culture"
I'm not sure about the army,since most are there now to get a paycheck,and aren't actually commited to anything (especially not waging a war,which is an actual problem for a ton of armies in "devellopped" countries) and I just don't see them coming around to "our" side in droves because of it,they're very invested in keeping the job and not doing anything dangerous,but if your country army sounds receptive,go for it.

 No.1250989

>>1250986 (me)
it also means most wouldn't actually start firing on the civilians,they would unironically go back to their home to smoke weed if a civil war happenned,so if you manage to get some on your side,it actually would make a big difference in numbers,and the real problem in a time of civil unrest is not the army,it's the police,this is very clear and has been demonstrated multiple times,so I don't get why this thread is trying to pretend the army is going to gun them down and sage is dumb and smelly for it.

 No.1257441

Soldiers don't have any power, they're not workers in any real sense, and they're easily discarded
Maybe at best the officers can provide their expertise if they come on board and help train a new military from the ground up, but that's about it
BTW the DoD isn't just soldiers
You do realize firms have different types of employees within them, right?


Unique IPs: 44

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]