- cross-posted to:
- tankiejerk@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- tankiejerk@lemmy.world
I consider myself a leftist. I wanted some insight on my labor union’s internal disagreement. So, I thought asklemmygrad might be a good spot (bad idea).
After mentioning I’m an engineer, this guy explains that shooting highly educated people in the head is actually a good idea. I think its safe to say I’m not welcomed there.
You must log in or register to comment.
My theory is that the desire to kill people comes first, then something that seems to be a justification is hung on it.
So for instance, tankies aren’t leftists who have come to defend or even advocate for mass killing - they’re psychopaths who happen to have adopted leftist ideology.
I’ve come to believe that because over the years, I’ve engaged with people from all over the ideological spectrum who advocated for killing these or those people for this or that reason, and I’ve never seen any significant differences between any of them. In all cases, one could take the things they say and go through and simply replace each reference to a specific group of people and a few of the key terms with the labels and terms appropriate to some entirely different murderous ideology and end up with something that could have been, and most likely has been, said word-for-word by someone from that ideology.
To me, the only reasonable conclusion is that they share much more than they don’t - that the central thing that defines them is that they want to kill people, and the rest is just sort of filling in the blanks.
when all you have is a hammer…
“The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements is a non-fiction book authored by the American social philosopher Eric Hoffer. Published in 1951, it depicts a variety of arguments in terms of applied world history and social psychology to explain why mass movements arise to challenge the status quo.
[snip]
Hoffer argues that mass movements are broadly interchangeable even when their stated goals or values differ dramatically. This makes sense, in the author’s view, given the frequent similarities between them in terms of the psychological influences on its adherents. Thus, many will often flip from one movement to another, Hoffer asserts, and the often shared motivations for participation entail practical effects. Since, whether radical or reactionary, the movements tend to attract the same sort of people in his view, Hoffer describes them as fundamentally using the same tactics including possessing the rhetorical tools. As examples, he often refers to the purported political enemies of communism and fascism as well as the religions of Christianity and Islam.
[snip]
Successful mass movements need not believe in a god, but they must believe in a devil.
Ah yes, I wonder what their opinion is on the country that put an end to Pol Pot’s regime? You know, Communist Vietnam.
Also to kill the educated you must execute people like Marx, Stalin, Che, and Ho Chi Minh.
Stalin wasn’t known as a very well-educated person. He had a criminal history as a gangster and was primarily used by Lenin to enforce the more unsavoury aspects of his dictatorial rule, like killing dissidents and threats.
After Lenin fell ill, Stalin saw the chance to take control.
He wasn’t well educated or particularly intelligent but he was a poet who attended (but didn’t graduate) seminary. Khmer Rouge didn’t have a high bar to kill. Glasses were considered sufficient proof of being part of the intellectual elite. But yeah he probably shouldn’t be compared to Dr. Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, or Marx in terms of education as a communist leader.
Tankies be like: “Why our movement doesn’t gain any traction? It must be the CIA!”
What was your labor union’s internal disagreement?
The union is a mix of office and field workers. The workplace is forcing “return to work” and “work from home” is no longer an option. The union is split on whether or not to push back.
That split is because some union workers don’t want a work from home option? Work from home as an option is kind of an across the board benefit for workers, so it sounds like management either has got people by the balls and/or there isn’t much solidarity in your workplace. Is that a safe assessment?
Basically. The field workers do not want work from home. While they are union members, most are right leaning. They believe in “bootstraps economics”. Hard work deserves good pay and if you don’t get paid enough its because you aren’t working hard enough. People who WFH are lazy and don’t deserve the same benefits. Go into the office and work hard like the rest of us.
I disagree with that mentality, but its what I’m dealing with.
The framing of “work from home” plays into that mentality. It is remote work. It’s a capability for people to work outside of the office. Let them know remote work means workers can work from the field. Or their hospital bed. Remote work means 24/7 work capability, no matter the circumstances and it is only supervisory limitations that would endanger the quality and integrity of that. Or something to that effect that appeals to their bootstraps and show how it is management’s fault if teleworkers are somehow lazy. But more to the point, it sounds like there is an overall anti-labor anti-union sentiment within your union based on your description, which is a whole order of magnitude different from just a disagreement on how to address management. Going further: that kind of jealousy and suspicion is a destroyer of any workplace culture. They’re likely doing more harm to the organization’s ability to operate overall. Harmful to the union and the organization alike.
It just feels like an uphill battle. One of the louder members was saying “this is what the bosses decided and we can’t change that. If they told us we have to work 4/10s from now on, we would have to do that too.”
Or “you know the only reason you can work from home was because of covid. And covid is over”.
Absolutely no desire to pushback. Just boot licking. And yes I get this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things but what the fuck.
The bosses drove a wedge in place by saying some employees who WFH wouldn’t answer their phones while on-call. I believe that was blown out of proportion but its clearly worked to get people back in the office. I fully believe this decision will lose employees and productivity, but I’m fairly powerless in changing anything with the union acting like this.
It feels like an uphill battle because it always is. Individuals are fairly powerless in changing anything on their own.
And it will lose employees and productivity. Depending on your sector it may be worth exploring new possible workplaces. If you’re limited to this workplace all you can do is get involved with your coworkers in building a sense of solidarity as a union of workers.
Also FWIW historically the field workers in my office were considered the lazy ones because they could account for hours each day purely in transit time. If your workplace is anything like mine, and your description of some of there people being right leaning, then I’m going to play a lazy card myself: these guys just may be projecting a bit.
I’m definitely not exploring new workplaces over this. Its the utility company that gives power to my house. On top of that, its a non-profit, public owned utility competing against neighboring investor owned utilities. I have good reason to want this workplace to succeed.
And while I may disagree with my coworkers in the field, they sort of earn their asshole mentality. They are hard workers. They work a very dangerous job. Our community would not function without their work. So yeah, nothing but respect for the work they do.
Its a Holiday in Cambodia
Wasn’t that doctrine of eliminating “cultural elite” first formulated by Mao during the cultural revolution ?
