Why is no one else reporting on this strike? Its huge news that Mexican workers in a border city are striking while Democrats and Republicans try to build a wall and encourage fascism. These workers are trying to strike in solidarity with US workers. This should be huge news and please help spread it to as many people as possible.
Seventy thousand mexican workers go on strike. No news media reporting besides WSWS
no, they oppose it
wrong again, neither side should exploit either for a profit motive. if you think the first world (or vice versa, works both ways) should just let their citizens work in each other's country for lower wages thats what makes the pig quiver with delight and gives more power to predator multinationals.
If capital wanted open borders, we would have them. That you think that we wouldn't outs you as the liberal reformist that you are.
Democrats are proposing a "steel fence" and have a history of expanding "border security"
A worker has no nation and needs to link up with brothers and sister workers worldwide. Capital has no borders and workers need to link up in order to beat multinational corporations. Both Mexcian workers and US workers are being used by transnational corporations to boost their own profits. If workers anger is channelled back to nationalist measures like increased tariffs and trade wars then this will simply lead to a real war which would lead to the deaths of potentially billions of people worldwide.
Even if you dont agree with these workers striking, dont you agree that this news needs to be spread? Why is no news media talking about this?
When they build walls to keep their own people in, they call it anti-fascism, when others build walls to keep other people out, they call it fascism..
Is fascism really that much better than socialism?
It should be obvious, capital would rather feature arguments about the porky jr smirking than workers fighting against capital. Unless you're already converted to the left or know someone that is chances are you won't hear any talk about labor news.
Yes, then its essential we get this to as many people as possible. Then even the news organizations that pretend to be socialist would be forced to cover it.
"liberal reformist" yeah Stalin must be a liberal, and a reformist for wanting to keep the profits of his state shared amongst his OWN people. I'm no dogmatist (Stalin had his faults too)
also think there's a clear difference between pragmatic internationalism (worker solidarity) and idealistic internationalism (YOU GUISE WE ALL BLEED RED)
You support the international proletariat. Capital is already international, its time for the proletariat to attack in an international fashion as well. The Yellow Vest movement has spread past national borders. We are entering a time when the workers struggle needs to be waged with an internationalist perspective.
if capital is already international, why propagate it? its capitalism.
Nah, the news that pretends to be socialist is mostly compromised anyway and will just use it to restate geopolitical lines like any worker revolt in "anti-imperialist" states actually being a cia op. What we need to do is make friends with the niggas where we at and the niggas where we ain't to link up the growing radical workers movement instead of letting it dissolve or get pushed into reformist channels.
there's nothing wrong with this as long as you don't start enroaching on cultural norms or ethnic norms of countries aligned. yes, that includes the third world.
its likely someone is gonna throw a Zig Forums joke/meme at me any time now.
being against universalism was also a prime competent of Ludwig Wittgenstein, A GERMAN JEW. fucking hell.
There can be no unparticular universalism.
Because so many shitlibs, OP included, forget that the open borders neoliberalism imposed by NAFTA on both the USA and Mexico was fiercely opposed by workers on both sides of the border, prompting record-breaking protests by unions in America, and an attempted revolution in Mexico resulting in the creation of the EZLN.
This strike is about low wages, bad conditions, and the domination of both the Mexican and American economies by corporate free trade ideologues.
Why do brainless libs always have to shit up any topic about international solidarity with the need to run advertising for porky's slavetrade 2.0 scheme?
NAFTA was "open borders" for capital not for labor. This allowed capitalists to exploit labor in low wage countries while laying off workers in the USA. However, NAFTA was not an isolated incident and alongside the dissolution of the USSR(opening up cheap labor) and "free trade" deals in all continents, was part of the push towards globalization of productive capital(capital used to produce commodities which includes labor costs) enabled by advances in computer technology and transportation breakthroughs. This is why now parts are produced all over the world and then assembled. To create one product, labor is split up internationally. Workers all over the world are working for transnational corporations. They are brothers and sisters who are linked internationally through capital and thus in order to overthrow capitalism, workers throughout the world need to unite. GM workers in Mexico alongside the US need to go on strike. As do all workers worldwide. After all workers now work for the same companies and by striking together corporations will not be able to use the threat of offshoring to screw them over.
Your idea of raising tariffs and somehow forcing transnational corporations back is being mirrored by Donald Trump right now. That is the path to world war as a retreat to nationalism will inevitably force capitalists of each nation state to come into conflict with each other over profits.
Socialists believe in open borders for LABOR. Workers have the right to live wherever they please. You might as well take off the flag and paint yourself a fascist.
You're not the first and you won't be the last to say this fam.
Can’t we all agree that strikes are good. As for the wall, it’s mostly a nothing-burger, but boy the shutdown spectacle will defiantly radicalize some prols.
You should hear some of the shit that federal employees are saying these days. Mutiny is becoming an imminent threat, and management has been instructed to grant requests from anyone who asks for hardship exemptions just to get them out of the building. The entire agency news feed is just a litany of screaming about how bullshit the shutdown is. Barely a third of the people who were ordered to work without pay at certain agencies are still coming to work, and the number of absentees keeps rising. You should hear what the people who actually are coming to work are saying. I even heard "we should all walk out together and shut the place down" from people who aren't proper reds to my knowledge. Even the managers openly declare that they don't give a shit and intend to do as little as possible until the shutdown is over. If the shutdown lasts another pay period essential services are going to shut down completely. Oh, the union is going to be a fun place when this shit is done.
This guy is connected to Jimmy Dore and runs a livestreme show where he read articles that people tweet at him. We need him to read about the strike so Jimmy will cover it, which will help avoid the media blackout.
Thanks comrade. Thats a good tip
Praytell, what would "open borders for labor" look like while capitalism is still the dominant mode of operation?
Importing infinite scabs to crush labor unions in the 1st-world and brain-drain any glimmer of hope from the 3rd-world? Free trade in the export of child slavery and environmental devastation to the 3rd-world and rewarding dumping of subsidized goods from the 1st-world? Foreign aid being diverted from actually helping refugees where they live, into resettling them within high-PPP countries as laundered economic migrants, incentivizing the MIC for starting wars?
Neoliberalism did most of its damage in the 1970s via China. The 80s, even moreso the 90s, were just bouncing the rubble at most.
Oh, Donald "Great Big Beautiful Door" Trump? The Trump phenomenon is part of a broader left-right pushback against neolib/neocon pseudoconsensus, but the man himself hasn't demonstrated any particular inclination, least of all in "muh wall" (which both concentrates on the relative nonissue of illegals versus the far larger number of legal immigrants, and ignores the over 2/3rds that overstay legal visas rather than border hopping) and "muh deportations" (which have decreased under Trump, and are pointless compared to measures targeting illegal employers, such as E-Verify). As well as characterizing the justification for trade protectionism as "currency/market manipulation" that can be dealt with by spot tariffs, rather than human rights arbitrage that requires blanket tariffs.
Look at the last era of unregulated open borders, free trade, and mass migration, the 1800s Gilded Age of colonial empire. There was constant war as sovereign "trading companies" such as British East India with their own private armies and annexed land battled each other for their share of the pie, brutally oppressing workers in the process, shuffling populations and resources around like pieces on a chessboard.
Then organized labor and the socialist movement came to the fore into the 1900s, a wave of populism that imposed migrant quotas, trade tariffs, and ultimately destroyed the colonial empires.
That world wars happened was not the result of this pullback from globalism, but reactions against labor emancipation by capital (and the dregs of absolute monarchy), combined with a failure of internal discipline within the Socialist Internationales and the unions that formed their base. World war between great powers can not happen again, however, because we now live in the atomic age, where far higher tensions at the apex of the protectionist era resulted only in the Cold War, tensions even the collapse of the Chinese economy (if aggressively mismanaged when 1st-world protectionism forces it away from selling their people as slaves, rather than sanely restructuring) couldn't possibly equal.
Not under capitalism they don't. We need international solidarity among workers, strong unions with powerful leverage against capital. Not a formless, undisciplined mass of starving slaves ready and willing to trample over the faces of their comrades during strikes and boycotts.
Reminder the public sector, especially the federal government, is one of the last strongholds of organized labor in burgerstan.
Because the mainstream media is pro bourgeoisie. Everything that benefits the working class gets smeared.
Help cover this strike! The word needs to get out there
Like the end of capitalism. Imagine prices for labor and other commodities reaching equilibrium as workers simply move to wherever is hiring. Those who get left out would congeal into great migrant bands, becoming unconrollable and thus no longer a viable reserve army of labor. Wherever they settle they would take over, detaching the area from capitalist production out of necessity. While this is happening, the workers who do still have jobs will utilize their newfound leverage to take an ever-growing portion of revenue until capital simply stops flowing. When that happens there would be little to stop the empoyed workers from continuing to produce things regardless of who owns the place, because the bosses will not have either the ability or the incentive to hire armies of thugs to keep the workers out.
Retarded Posadist-tier idea
Do you guys know of any way to get this out to youtube news channels? This news needs to spread like wildfire. The workers defied their unions and went on strike, this needs to be done worldwide.
Not that guy but how would you want to establish socialism? Give me a step by step case because I've been monitoring this thread and I don't understand what you are advocating for.
Union controlled social democracy.
The old 2nd Internationale playbook, dusted off for the Atomic Age:
1) Use socdem reforms to weaken transnational capital, strengthen international labor, and build prestige for our orgs.
2) Also build parallel power using direct action outside the system (community organizing, unions, coops, syndicates, etc.) as it tips in our favor.
3) If porky shuts down the polls or otherwise renders democracy completely unresponsive, violent revolution happens under the most favorable terms possible for us, as briefly as possible before returning to democracy.
4) Keep going until capitalists regulated out of existence, rendered irrelevant by burgeoning socialist system from below, or (very unlikely IMHO) violently deposed by genuine and democratic socialism.
5) From probably mutualist position, explore further into abolishing commodity form, etc., toward true socialism.
As a starting point, yes. It's got a better track record for bettering material conditions than any alternative, as opposed to generating corrupt and transitory red fash state capitalist regimes.
Porky already has everything. That's what controlling the means of production is all about.
The state cannot be used to weaken capital. The state can only serve the interests of a particular segment of the ruling class, which, under capitalism, is the bourgeoisie.
2) Also build parallel power using direct action outside the system (community organizing, unions, coops, syndicates, etc.) as it tips in our favor
That will be necessary as capitalism decays.
Step 4) run to the mountains
Step 5) fight for two or three years
Step 6) die
So either end up as a "corrupt and transitory red fash state capitalist regime" or the SDP. First as tragedy then as farce.
Becoming the left wing of capital that undoes what concessions were won by labor is a piss poor track record.
If you think a revolution is destined to be crushed by reaction then you should reconsider posting here.
What absurd historical revisionism. No faction of capital ever asked for the elimination of debt bondage, the expectation of pension schemes, industrial/consumer regulatory enforcement, the legalization of labor strikes, etc. All of these things have made it easier for us to further our ambitions, and harder for porky to operate compared to the height of the Gilded Age.
Ha ha. Srsly tho, Syria and similar countries are rather different from the inside of a global (or even regional) military power. Plus various peculiarities of Syria itself like DFSNS originating as a splinter of an ethnic minority liberation movement that it still hasn't fully outgrown, the Syrian civil war being knocked off kilter by the bronze-age dregs of burgerstan blundering in neighboring Iraq, or Syria being far more of a strongman dictatorship than a more typical 3rd-world country like Mexico.
Something like WW1 can't happen again, and the rollback of those reforms is primarily the result of a neolib/neocon pivot from organized labor in the 1970s.
WW3 doesn't need to happen for a civil war to occur.
The pivot was a result of the social democratic interpretation of the 2nd international's strategy and organized labor's leadership being more concerned with supporting the union as an organization than the workers as proletariat. Your desire for social democracy before it was corrupted is just maga with radical aesthetic.
Corruption and indolence inside the unions themselves certainly played a part, but arguably more important was the 1960s Culture War (race, sex, religion, free expression, environmentalism, pacifism, etc.) drawing younger generations away from organized labor toward more "exciting" issues that won celebrated victories. Combined with the stodginess and resentment engendered by the "old left" during that period, the ultimate resolution of most Culture War issues through legal reform produced a gaping void in the 1970s left, as except for a hard core of single-issue lunatics that went on to feed the SJW problem the rank and file of the "new left" evaporated instead of filtering back into unions like their parents (waking up from adolescence into the job market to the massive depression of the supposed "oil shock" certainly didn't help with such lofty ambitions, either).
This power vacuum within the left gave porky carte blanche to run hog wild with deregulation and privatization unopposed by any class-conscious organized opposition.
You mean all that shit that just happened to get passed when the Great Depression was in full swing, the IWW was causing whole cities to strike at once, and the Soviet Union growing explosively? They did indeed ask for that shit, because the alternative was a proper world-wide revolution. It is absurd that reformists take all the credit for that now.
Whoa, you totally got me there. How did I not realize that the bourgeoisie is not in total control when there is an actual army of workers threatening them? Clearly what we need to do in order to take advantage of that weakness is to try to get socdems elected so that they can keep the bourgeoisie from stomping out the revolution in its cradle! What could possibly go wrong?
You're an idiot if you think that's true especially since WW1 was fully orchestrated as opposed to WW2.
Fuck off with that retarded Zig Forums laugh-typing shit.
What? I got that from some YouTuber 3 years ago, when did Zig Forums start doing that? I haven't bothered baiting them since 2016.
At this point, the establishment leadership of the old socdem parties are clearly in the position of the enemy, much as in many of the older, "yellower" labor unions today. As such, electoral politics should consist of attempts to displace, split from or (especially in burgerstan's highly uncompetitive FPtP federal elections) coopt them.
Remember that the communists, Sparts, and other participants in Germany's revolutions of that era were themselves splinters from the SPD, as were the unions and guilds that formed their backbone.
And how is that going to happen with weak to marginal labor unions and zero class cohesion in the face of transnational business given free reign over a wholly unregulated international economy?
If another world war were going to happen, it already would've during the Cold War. Also, hearkening back to mention of a civil war, remember a coordinated wave of exactly those (or, hopefully, just crippling but mostly bloodless general strikes) were what WWI was whipped up to head off.
ww1 had better aesthetics
I don't like Rosa myself and I'm more of a Third Worldist/Maoist in terms of what I want as an economic basis. like most council communists, she dindu nuffin. I mean really she just stood there.
It did in the same sense Lovecraft did.
That's even worse.
There was no indolence, the unions were zealous in removing radical elements to better function in maintaining capitalism, as did the social democratic parties. It was the result of this deradicalization that resulted in the inability of reformist unions and social democracy to defend the gains achieved by labor, often executing the errosion of labor's victories themselves in the name of defending labor, akin to the behavior of the "revisionist" ML states adopting various components of liberal capitalism. Your suggested strategy's primary reliance on social democracy and fetishization of liberal democracy is a mistake any supposed anarchist would require complete ignorance of anarchist ideas and history to make. Take off the flag and put on the rose.
Obviously, the flawed behavior of a union in decay can't be blamed entirely, or even primarily, on its leadership, but on the rank and file's unassertiveness. Unlike a political party (barring perhaps those systems that allow immediate recalls), corruption, even to the extent of complete unresponsiveness to votes or lawsuits, can ultimately be walked away from instantly if dissatisfaction is broad: Dues, strikes, and negotiation can all be done wildcat as a new union is formed.
Old union members became complacent, and no fresh blood from the boomers entered to energize them.
Socialism is always liberal and always democratic. Perhaps you mean electoral democracy? That would be a debatable characteristic.
Those went rotten almost immediately, upon centralizing dictatorial power during the revolution, and became utterly unsalvageable on violently refusing to surrender it back to the people at the earliest possible juncture.
France and Germany are calling for a "pan-European army". Capitalist nations worldwide are rearming themselves, with the US at the forefront. The USA pulled out of the INF nuclear agreement, and is engaging in trade war. USA is also threatening military action in Iran, North Korea, and China. The US Congress also released a report called "Providing for the Common Defense" which said that war with China was very likely and that many people would die. And somehow a worldwar "cant happen again"? This is delusional and dangerous thinking.
The findings of the panel, published as a report titled “Providing for the Common Defense,” can be summarized as follows: The US military is entirely correct to prepare for war with Russia and China. But the Pentagon, which spends more each year than the next eight largest national military forces combined, requires a massive expansion in military spending, to be paid for with cuts to bedrock social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
The report is, in other words, a congressional rubber-stamp on the Trump administration’s military build-up, putting into words what the Congress did in deeds this year when it passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the largest military budget increase since the Cold War.
But beyond the recognition that the United States should prepare for an imminent, “whole-of-society” war with “devastating” impacts on the American population, the document is a stark warning of another basic reality: The United States could very well lose such a war, which requires, in effect, the military conquest of the entire planet by a country with less than five percent of the world’s population.
The United States “might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia,” it declares. These wars would not just be fought overseas, but would likely target the American population: “it would be unwise and irresponsible not to expect adversaries to attempt debilitating kinetic, cyber, or other types of attacks against Americans at home while they seek to defeat our military abroad.”
It adds, “Should war occur, American forces will face harder fights and greater losses than at any time in decades. It is worth recalling that during the Falklands War, a decidedly inferior opponent—Argentina—crippled and sank a major British warship by striking it with a single guided missile. The amount of destruction a major state adversary could inflict on U.S. forces today might be orders of magnitude higher.”
To drive the point home, the report outlines a number of scenarios. The first involves Taiwan declaring independence from China in 2022, prompting Chinese retaliation. “The Pentagon informs the President that America could probably defeat China in a long war, if the full might of the nation was mobilized. Yet it would lose huge numbers of ships and aircraft, as well as thousands of lives, in the effort, in addition to suffering severe economic disruptions—all with no guarantee of having decisive impact before Taiwan was overrun … But avoiding that outcome would now require absorbing horrendous losses.”
The solution, the report concludes, is a much bigger army, funded by consistent, multi-year increases in spending. “There is a need for extraordinary urgency in addressing the crisis of national defense,” it writes.
I haven't been able to take those sorts of indulgent porkbarrel puff pieces seriously even in the Dubya years.
War can and does certainly happen in the imperial margins within or between proxies, but direct war between the powers now is absurd on its face. Nuclear rearmament is meaningless, as warhead stockpiles have never dropped below apocalyptic levels (nor have their hair-trigger targeting systems ever been put on a less bellicose footing), and the mirage of ABM has been steadily budgeted the entire time. The supposed power blocs are fanciful as well, positing that the EU will form a parallel to NATO (fighting WHO?) even as France is on the brink of upending the EU itself, that China will throw its entire weight into a purely symbolic bum rush at Taiwan, and that the preposterously inflated paper tiger that is Russia can accomplish anything of supra-regional consequence.
In reality, Europe is neither unified enough to attack the US/China nor anywhere near hostile enough to attack itself, China even in the case of trade with the West dying off will be more interested in empire building within the 3rd-world than pointlessly attacking western powers, and Russia is too weak to put up a serious fight with any major power or even perform meaningful force projection to more than one or two distant countries.
At absolute most, we might get another Vietnam or two rather than the lame airwar+symbolic troop/merc presence of recent "wars", but even that stretches plausibility unless the US or Europe can stir up sufficient paranoia over whatever faraway imbroglio to reinstate the draft, which would require something absolutely insane happening, like the breakup of Saudi Arabia.
There is pretty much no possible way we're going to see something like WWI/WWII with full-scale international land invasions of the imperial centers until serious rivalries between credible power blocs, surpassing the level of antagonism during the Cold War, emerge. That would take well over a decade, minimum.
If their was a war between the US and China it would last only hours as the missiles fell. Nuclear powers do not fight conventional wars against each other. And a Nuclear War would only happen if one country felt like they had nothing to lose. And both the US and China have a lot to lose.
The US will not simply kick back and let China and Russia develop their economies and expand their influence. There’s only one reason the us has been perpetually at war for almost 6 decades now, and that is because as their economic hegemony declined their military adventurism increased to hold on to their global dominance. Unless there is an international working class uprising war will happen, and a retreat into nationalist measures and oppurtunist politics will simply enable the capitalists to go into war.
This is why there’s been a huge increase in the sale of bunkers and doomsday prep for the ruling elite, it’s because they think that they can escape the turmoil of war
Oh come on. They don't even need to prep, they're rich enough to hightail out of here. It's us lower classes who are fucked. Liberals on both sides think somehow this is ok. It's not.
I've seen an uptick in the propaganda about a nuclear war being survivable. Seems like every video, article or podcast about nuclear has all these shills in the comments saying that nuclear winter is bullshit because nukes carry dust a few thousand feet short of the upper atmosphere.
No mention of how much higher nuclear yields are now, fallout, or the fact that 99% of production capacity would be wiped out world wide. Just, "They were wrong about nuclear winter, so WWIII would be survivable".
In the 90's and the 2000's NOONE seriously questioned if a nuclear war was survivable.
A regional nuclear exchange, say Israel/Iran or India/Pakistan, would completely reset the climate clock and halt the coming crisis
DON'T YOU WANT TO SAVE THE ECOLOGY???
George Soros funds Bethesda to make nuclear winter seem cool to the sheeple. FACT.
Alex Jims just made a video on it yesterday not sure if it was a 2nd strike or not but I hope that this thing somehow starts a chain reaction that sends the world off a jumping board into economic chaos.
Das Capital is next fams, we'll have Jimmy turned yet!
Ron identifies as a market socialist. Jimmy identified as a Marxist the last time he subbed for Jesse Ventura's show. They're being cautious about how much power level to show off and where.
Jimmy literally cannot stop referring to "shit the government does" as socialism, so I don't think he's quite been turned yet. Curious which episode of World According to Jesse you're referring to though.
That's at least half of self-described marxists tbh. What's more important than what they call themselves is what they do, and at this point it seems Jimmy is just going to support a socdem.
I forget what part of the video it is. He plays it off by saying "…although I'm more of a Groucho Marxist" but given the stuff he's said about Marx and the fact that he's talked about reading some of Marx on the Saturday streams, I'm pretty sure he's trying to avoid getting shafted by youtube.
I found it! 06:19
If someone could make a webm of it, that'd be great. Hopefully there'll be a good compilation to made out of these bits eventually.