Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.
Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.[/quote]
Forcing others to work for someone other than themselves? Its not making your employees volunteer on weekends. The concept is much broader.
I noticed that all the Quick Trip convenience stores I go to are well run and the employees are fast, friendly and helpful. Well it turns out that Quick Trip has policies that could be construed as social responsibility. They pay more than other gas stations/convenience stores. They promote from within meaning its not a dead end job.
My guess is that this helps QT’s profits in the long run. And it seems like the right thing to do. MOST convenience stores will pay minimum wage and replace workers at the drop of a hat.
The problem with social corporate responsibility is that it does not always pay toward the bottom line to behave in the broader interest of society. QT being decent to its employees is not the same as a chinese company getting the anti-freeze out of their baby formula or the heavy metals out of their pet-food. When maximizing value is your legal obligation, you see some shady business.
So my question to you is why don’t we blame the government sponsored corruption of the corporation that allows them personhood and at the same time grants that person one driving function: The bottom line?
Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.[/quote]
Forcing others to work for someone other than themselves? Its not making your employees volunteer on weekends. The concept is much broader.
I noticed that all the Quick Trip convenience stores I go to are well run and the employees are fast, friendly and helpful. Well it turns out that Quick Trip has policies that could be construed as social responsibility. They pay more than other gas stations/convenience stores. They promote from within meaning its not a dead end job.
My guess is that this helps QT’s profits in the long run. And it seems like the right thing to do. MOST convenience stores will pay minimum wage and replace workers at the drop of a hat.
[/quote]
No, QTâ??s policies are for profit. Period. It is profitable to have happy employees.
Other gas stations also give jobs to lazy, unskilled poor people that otherwise would not be able to get jobs. If every gas station was a great place to work, getting a job at one would be harder and poor unskilled people would lose jobs.
Either way, as long as employment is voluntary a guy can run his business whatever way he sees fit. Because it is voluntary it is impossible for a business to be run in a way that is a net negative for the employee, because if it was theyâ??d leave.
Only if the consumer feels that the tradoffs are worth it. BUT how decides what is â??best for societyâ??? Iâ??m sure you and I would disagree on that.
[quote]
So my question to you is why don’t we blame the government sponsored corruption of the corporation that allows them personhood and at the same time grants that person one driving function: The bottom line?[/quote]
This part I agree with. I think the government is the biggest problem regarding corporate corruption. But again, the government is the opposite of the free market. Government regulation and involvement supporting corporate corruption is an argument FOR the free market.
Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.[/quote]
Forcing others to work for someone other than themselves? Its not making your employees volunteer on weekends. The concept is much broader.
I noticed that all the Quick Trip convenience stores I go to are well run and the employees are fast, friendly and helpful. Well it turns out that Quick Trip has policies that could be construed as social responsibility. They pay more than other gas stations/convenience stores. They promote from within meaning its not a dead end job.
My guess is that this helps QT’s profits in the long run. And it seems like the right thing to do. MOST convenience stores will pay minimum wage and replace workers at the drop of a hat.
[/quote]
No, QT�¢??s policies are for profit. Period. It is profitable to have happy employees.
Other gas stations also give jobs to lazy, unskilled poor people that otherwise would not be able to get jobs. If every gas station was a great place to work, getting a job at one would be harder and poor unskilled people would lose jobs.
Either way, as long as employment is voluntary a guy can run his business whatever way he sees fit. Because it is voluntary it is impossible for a business to be run in a way that is a net negative for the employee, because if it was they�¢??d leave.
Only if the consumer feels that the tradoffs are worth it. BUT how decides what is �¢??best for society�¢??? I�¢??m sure you and I would disagree on that.
we may all agree on the third part, but Corporations are corrupt period , Some have a social conscience because they see a benefit to it. That is good.
I do not care what form of Government or what aspect of Government , there will always be corruption
I think since labor unions will never be what they were , because of the absence of organized crime that America will have to have a Labor party
I do not think this will happen because Americans would listen to the So Called Right Wigers say it is socialism
Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.[/quote]
Forcing others to work for someone other than themselves? Its not making your employees volunteer on weekends. The concept is much broader.
I noticed that all the Quick Trip convenience stores I go to are well run and the employees are fast, friendly and helpful. Well it turns out that Quick Trip has policies that could be construed as social responsibility. They pay more than other gas stations/convenience stores. They promote from within meaning its not a dead end job.
My guess is that this helps QT’s profits in the long run. And it seems like the right thing to do. MOST convenience stores will pay minimum wage and replace workers at the drop of a hat.
[/quote]
No, QT�?�¢??s policies are for profit. Period. It is profitable to have happy employees.
Other gas stations also give jobs to lazy, unskilled poor people that otherwise would not be able to get jobs. If every gas station was a great place to work, getting a job at one would be harder and poor unskilled people would lose jobs.
Either way, as long as employment is voluntary a guy can run his business whatever way he sees fit. Because it is voluntary it is impossible for a business to be run in a way that is a net negative for the employee, because if it was they�?�¢??d leave.
Only if the consumer feels that the tradoffs are worth it. BUT how decides what is �?�¢??best for society�?�¢??? I�?�¢??m sure you and I would disagree on that.
we may all agree on the third part, but Corporations are corrupt period , Some have a social conscience because they see a benefit to it. That is good.
I do not care what form of Government or what aspect of Government , there will always be corruption
I think since labor unions will never be what they were , because of the absence of organized crime that America will have to have a Labor party
I do not think this will happen because Americans would listen to the So Called Right Wigers say it is socialism
[/quote]
Isn’t a labor party socialist generally?
And no, corporations are not inherently corrupt. At least I have never worked for one that was. Every company I have ever worked for has done right by it’s employees and customers as long as it had the means to.
Enrons are the outliers. Period. On the other had, governments are always corrupt.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
some people believe anything , Reagan screwed American steel cost Hundreds if not thousands of profitable , tax paying companies to go out of business ,Thousands of towns and cities lose their tax base because all of their high paying jobs went to third world countries and all those employees are now on welfare , that is fucking great for America, go figure [/quote]
You always mention all of these lost jobs (which wouldn’t have been lost if those companies were run more efficiently), however, you refuse to see that unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took office and America was in one of the worst recessions ever. By the time Reagan left office unemployment was down to 5.3% and the economy was in great shape. [/quote]
Yeah, but what you dont see is that he fucked the steel industry which is vastly more important than any above stated “facts”, if you can call them that. Besides, if they were run more efficiently they would of been able to get more done with less people and the jobs would be lost anyways and that’s never good.[/quote]
They would have been able to get more done while paying there current employees less, unfortunately the union handcuffed themselves which is what ACTUALLY caused the death of the US steel industry. These “facts” are documented. You can run the numbers and easily see that millions of net jobs were created under Reagan. You can focus in on one industry all you want. You can (wrongly) blame the failures of 1 industry on Reagan. That doesn’t change the overall picture of what happened.
Also, your post may have been sarcasm, I’m not sure. If it was, I apologize for the preaching.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
some people believe anything , Reagan screwed American steel cost Hundreds if not thousands of profitable , tax paying companies to go out of business ,Thousands of towns and cities lose their tax base because all of their high paying jobs went to third world countries and all those employees are now on welfare , that is fucking great for America, go figure [/quote]
You always mention all of these lost jobs (which wouldn’t have been lost if those companies were run more efficiently), however, you refuse to see that unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took office and America was in one of the worst recessions ever. By the time Reagan left office unemployment was down to 5.3% and the economy was in great shape. [/quote]
You have to go to an area like Flint Mich. or Youngstown OH. to see 1rst hand of the waste that Reagan created. Like all industry Steel was standing in line for change , but the change Reagan created was not good for Steel and was not good for America . I know a lot of people are anti union and I understand their reasoning , but since the union died the disparity between the have and the have nots have grown beyond the wildest imagination.
Reagans supply side economics worked for a while because everybody like cheap stuff, but then after all the jobs went to the counties that make the cheap stuff , no one can afford the cheap stuff.
Supply side economics is only half the picture[/quote]
You blame Reagan with absolutely no logic or rational thought process. I can’t even follow. I’ll ask again (and this is not meant to be offensive) - is English your first language or not?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Ronald Reagan was the worst President America has known all the old Steel towns that are now vast fields of Welfare Recipients can all be lain at the feet of Ronald Reagan, Hundreds if not thousands of thriving companies , Thousands of towns and cities hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs , gone thanks to Ronnie[/quote]
That were thriving off of my money, and I wasn’t even buying any steel.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Ronald Reagan was the worst President America has known all the old Steel towns that are now vast fields of Welfare Recipients can all be lain at the feet of Ronald Reagan, Hundreds if not thousands of thriving companies , Thousands of towns and cities hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs , gone thanks to Ronnie[/quote]
Which begs the question, why don’t we just ban all imports? That would make all industry better and America better. Then we just hand out government money to any company that isn’t making it, that way no business ever fails.
I’m telling you guys, it’s foolproof.[/quote]
No need to ban anything just make sure that all the same players have the same human rights record and the same record on the ecology of the industry, I am running out of battery
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
some people believe anything , Reagan screwed American steel cost Hundreds if not thousands of profitable , tax paying companies to go out of business ,Thousands of towns and cities lose their tax base because all of their high paying jobs went to third world countries and all those employees are now on welfare , that is fucking great for America, go figure [/quote]
You always mention all of these lost jobs (which wouldn’t have been lost if those companies were run more efficiently), however, you refuse to see that unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took office and America was in one of the worst recessions ever. By the time Reagan left office unemployment was down to 5.3% and the economy was in great shape. [/quote]
Yeah, but what you dont see is that he fucked the steel industry which is vastly more important than any above stated “facts”, if you can call them that. Besides, if they were run more efficiently they would of been able to get more done with less people and the jobs would be lost anyways and that’s never good.[/quote]
He didn’t fuck up the steel industry, the unions did that. he just stopped America from being victimized by steel unions.
Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.[/quote]
Forcing others to work for someone other than themselves? Its not making your employees volunteer on weekends. The concept is much broader.
I noticed that all the Quick Trip convenience stores I go to are well run and the employees are fast, friendly and helpful. Well it turns out that Quick Trip has policies that could be construed as social responsibility. They pay more than other gas stations/convenience stores. They promote from within meaning its not a dead end job.
My guess is that this helps QT’s profits in the long run. And it seems like the right thing to do. MOST convenience stores will pay minimum wage and replace workers at the drop of a hat.
[/quote]
No, QT�??�?�¢??s policies are for profit. Period. It is profitable to have happy employees.
Other gas stations also give jobs to lazy, unskilled poor people that otherwise would not be able to get jobs. If every gas station was a great place to work, getting a job at one would be harder and poor unskilled people would lose jobs.
Either way, as long as employment is voluntary a guy can run his business whatever way he sees fit. Because it is voluntary it is impossible for a business to be run in a way that is a net negative for the employee, because if it was they�??�?�¢??d leave.
Only if the consumer feels that the tradoffs are worth it. BUT how decides what is �??�?�¢??best for society�??�?�¢??? I�??�?�¢??m sure you and I would disagree on that.
we may all agree on the third part, but Corporations are corrupt period , Some have a social conscience because they see a benefit to it. That is good.
I do not care what form of Government or what aspect of Government , there will always be corruption
I think since labor unions will never be what they were , because of the absence of organized crime that America will have to have a Labor party
I do not think this will happen because Americans would listen to the So Called Right Wigers say it is socialism
[/quote]
Isn’t a labor party socialist generally?
And no, corporations are not inherently corrupt. At least I have never worked for one that was. Every company I have ever worked for has done right by it’s employees and customers as long as it had the means to.
Enrons are the outliers. Period. On the other had, governments are always corrupt.[/quote]
I believe the so called right wants you to believe that legislation that benefits the working class
or the poor especially if there is one down side to the wealthy , then it is socialism
Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.[/quote]
Forcing others to work for someone other than themselves? Its not making your employees volunteer on weekends. The concept is much broader.
I noticed that all the Quick Trip convenience stores I go to are well run and the employees are fast, friendly and helpful. Well it turns out that Quick Trip has policies that could be construed as social responsibility. They pay more than other gas stations/convenience stores. They promote from within meaning its not a dead end job.
My guess is that this helps QT’s profits in the long run. And it seems like the right thing to do. MOST convenience stores will pay minimum wage and replace workers at the drop of a hat.
[/quote]
No, QT�??�??�?�¢??s policies are for profit. Period. It is profitable to have happy employees.
Other gas stations also give jobs to lazy, unskilled poor people that otherwise would not be able to get jobs. If every gas station was a great place to work, getting a job at one would be harder and poor unskilled people would lose jobs.
Either way, as long as employment is voluntary a guy can run his business whatever way he sees fit. Because it is voluntary it is impossible for a business to be run in a way that is a net negative for the employee, because if it was they�??�??�?�¢??d leave.
Only if the consumer feels that the tradoffs are worth it. BUT how decides what is �??�??�?�¢??best for society�??�??�?�¢??? I�??�??�?�¢??m sure you and I would disagree on that.
we may all agree on the third part, but Corporations are corrupt period , Some have a social conscience because they see a benefit to it. That is good.
I do not care what form of Government or what aspect of Government , there will always be corruption
I think since labor unions will never be what they were , because of the absence of organized crime that America will have to have a Labor party
I do not think this will happen because Americans would listen to the So Called Right Wigers say it is socialism
[/quote]
Isn’t a labor party socialist generally?
And no, corporations are not inherently corrupt. At least I have never worked for one that was. Every company I have ever worked for has done right by it’s employees and customers as long as it had the means to.
Enrons are the outliers. Period. On the other had, governments are always corrupt.[/quote]
I believe the so called right wants you to believe that legislation that benefits the working class
or the poor especially if there is one down side to the wealthy , then it is socialism[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
some people believe anything , Reagan screwed American steel cost Hundreds if not thousands of profitable , tax paying companies to go out of business ,Thousands of towns and cities lose their tax base because all of their high paying jobs went to third world countries and all those employees are now on welfare , that is fucking great for America, go figure [/quote]
You always mention all of these lost jobs (which wouldn’t have been lost if those companies were run more efficiently), however, you refuse to see that unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took office and America was in one of the worst recessions ever. By the time Reagan left office unemployment was down to 5.3% and the economy was in great shape. [/quote]
Yeah, but what you dont see is that he fucked the steel industry which is vastly more important than any above stated “facts”, if you can call them that. Besides, if they were run more efficiently they would of been able to get more done with less people and the jobs would be lost anyways and that’s never good.[/quote]
They would have been able to get more done while paying there current employees less, unfortunately the union handcuffed themselves which is what ACTUALLY caused the death of the US steel industry. These “facts” are documented. You can run the numbers and easily see that millions of net jobs were created under Reagan. You can focus in on one industry all you want. You can (wrongly) blame the failures of 1 industry on Reagan. That doesn’t change the overall picture of what happened.
Also, your post may have been sarcasm, I’m not sure. If it was, I apologize for the preaching.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
some people believe anything , Reagan screwed American steel cost Hundreds if not thousands of profitable , tax paying companies to go out of business ,Thousands of towns and cities lose their tax base because all of their high paying jobs went to third world countries and all those employees are now on welfare , that is fucking great for America, go figure [/quote]
You always mention all of these lost jobs (which wouldn’t have been lost if those companies were run more efficiently), however, you refuse to see that unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took office and America was in one of the worst recessions ever. By the time Reagan left office unemployment was down to 5.3% and the economy was in great shape. [/quote]
You have to go to an area like Flint Mich. or Youngstown OH. to see 1rst hand of the waste that Reagan created. Like all industry Steel was standing in line for change , but the change Reagan created was not good for Steel and was not good for America . I know a lot of people are anti union and I understand their reasoning , but since the union died the disparity between the have and the have nots have grown beyond the wildest imagination.
Reagans supply side economics worked for a while because everybody like cheap stuff, but then after all the jobs went to the counties that make the cheap stuff , no one can afford the cheap stuff.
Supply side economics is only half the picture[/quote]
You blame Reagan with absolutely no logic or rational thought process. I can’t even follow. I’ll ask again (and this is not meant to be offensive) - is English your first language or not?
[/quote]
Well yes , English is my first language, It may not make sense that Reagan was responsible for the demise of the Steel industry, because the way history accounted for Reagan’s Reign was incorrect
As far as my writing defying logic , I believe that is a deficiency on your part
Not to mention, they are also generally monopolies. It’s like the worst of all worlds, but you still think they are good?[/quote]
Capitalism, despite its clear benefits, has a history of chewing up its workers. Labor organizations are one way of addressing that concern.
Another one is corporate social responsiblity which is all too often, these days and in the past, a pipe dream.[/quote]
Labor unions are a product of capitalism, not a reaction to it. It’s the corrupted government sponsored union that is unnecessary and has done nothing but bad. The union (back when it was needed) was the product of a free market, not the invention of the government.
And “social responsibility” in the liberal sense (forcing others to work for someone other than themselves) is against all human nature and always fails with disastrous results.[/quote]
Forcing others to work for someone other than themselves? Its not making your employees volunteer on weekends. The concept is much broader.
I noticed that all the Quick Trip convenience stores I go to are well run and the employees are fast, friendly and helpful. Well it turns out that Quick Trip has policies that could be construed as social responsibility. They pay more than other gas stations/convenience stores. They promote from within meaning its not a dead end job.
My guess is that this helps QT’s profits in the long run. And it seems like the right thing to do. MOST convenience stores will pay minimum wage and replace workers at the drop of a hat.
[/quote]
No, QT�??�??�??�?�¢??s policies are for profit. Period. It is profitable to have happy employees.
Other gas stations also give jobs to lazy, unskilled poor people that otherwise would not be able to get jobs. If every gas station was a great place to work, getting a job at one would be harder and poor unskilled people would lose jobs.
Either way, as long as employment is voluntary a guy can run his business whatever way he sees fit. Because it is voluntary it is impossible for a business to be run in a way that is a net negative for the employee, because if it was they�??�??�??�?�¢??d leave.
Only if the consumer feels that the tradoffs are worth it. BUT how decides what is �??�??�??�?�¢??best for society�??�??�??�?�¢??? I�??�??�??�?�¢??m sure you and I would disagree on that.
we may all agree on the third part, but Corporations are corrupt period , Some have a social conscience because they see a benefit to it. That is good.
I do not care what form of Government or what aspect of Government , there will always be corruption
I think since labor unions will never be what they were , because of the absence of organized crime that America will have to have a Labor party
I do not think this will happen because Americans would listen to the So Called Right Wigers say it is socialism
[/quote]
Isn’t a labor party socialist generally?
And no, corporations are not inherently corrupt. At least I have never worked for one that was. Every company I have ever worked for has done right by it’s employees and customers as long as it had the means to.
Enrons are the outliers. Period. On the other had, governments are always corrupt.[/quote]
I believe the so called right wants you to believe that legislation that benefits the working class
or the poor especially if there is one down side to the wealthy , then it is socialism[/quote]
You didn’t in any way address the question.[/quote]
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest.
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]
Oh, a special interest group?
And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]
Oh, a special interest group?
And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]
What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]
Oh, a special interest group?
And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]
What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]
Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist.
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]
Oh, a special interest group?
And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]
What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]
Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]
How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]
Oh, a special interest group?
And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]
What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]
Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]
How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]
What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?
Probably , traditionally , I am talking about a party that represents the working class and their interest. [/quote]
Oh, a special interest group?
And this sounded like a yes, they are socialist. Meaning those crazy right wingers trying to make people believe a labor party is socialist are just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]
What is socialist about a political party or action commity that represents American Labor ?
[/quote]
Who they represent has no bearing on them being socialist. [/quote]
How are they socialist, I content they would not be , they would not be , and the opposition’s defense agaist them would be to label them socialist
[/quote]
What would make them socialists (or not) is the policies they’d support. So, what policies would they support?[/quote]
We would agree that that an organization that represented labor is not Socialism unless they support a socialist’s agenda
