My ‘ideal’ union? Are you a part of a union? Do you know how they actually work? You clearly know how to quote how they should work, but it seems pretty obvious you don’t know what you are quoting.
Name specific policies nazi Germany implemented that can be considered socialist. For good measure, explain how* Goebbels* implemented them.
Also, do you think I’m a plum pudding? Or are you just arguing in bad faith?
Dnftt
‘the one YOU were talking about’ No, what I was talking about in the post you quoted was the ‘Read a book’ comment. In that same post, I denied making the argument that the Nazis were socialist merely because of their name. You responded with ‘He was replying to Clothy’. The ‘Read a book’ comment was directed to me, not the other user. If ‘He wasn’t replying to Clothy’ was directed at ‘You had nothing of substance to offer’, then that’s equally idiotic. It doesn’t matter who he’s responding to. He didn’t make a substantive argument.
Every one that worked under the GLF was a part of a union.
“The ETUF was founded in 1957 as a state-controlled union. Until 2011 all unions other than the ETUF were banned.[1] During the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 ETUF leaders were active in defending the Mubarak regime, including participating in attacks on peaceful protestors.”
gasp That needs to be changed immediately, as there is no such thing, according to plum pudding.
No one said you did. That was Clothy’s claim, hence the post being replied to.
I have yet to see an apology for calling me a liar.
“Nazis were socialist because of their name” is not a substantive argument, and does not deserve a substantive argument in response.
A so-called labor union (that goes for both)! Union in name. I mean, FFS, I can call myself and my right hand a labor union if I want, It doesn’t (well, more so that GLF and ETUF) make it a labor union.
We already went over that. You’re a little slow, so let’s slow it down. He commented ‘Read a book’. This was directed to me. I responded ‘That’s not an argument.’ He then replied with “It was a dismissal ‘They were socialists because Socialist was in their name’ is an argument, and a piss poor one at that.” He obviously mistook me for the other user and was attributing this post/argument to me.
The comment about substance was directed to his ‘Read a book’ response. Telling someone to ‘read a book’ is not a substantive response. I didn’t make the argument that Nazis were socialist because of their name, hence ‘Clothy’s’ quote is irrelevant. ‘…and does not deserve a substantive argument’ That’s not how this works. That’s a cop-out. If he had anything to substantive say, this is a prime opportunity to say it. If his argument was incorrect or logically flawed, then he should explain why.
Reading comprehension is fundamental. The issue isn’t the name. The issue is the fact that an encyclopedic source is referring to this organization as a state-controlled union. By your own logic, a state-controlled union can not exist.
“McDonald’s is cooperating with China’s large state-controlled union to allow the formation of more unions in its 750 outlets here.” - New York Times
Why is the New York Times helping spread false information? Remember, there are no state-controlled unions, as a union can not be state-controlled. What do you know that the New York Times does not? You have some work to do getting encyclopedic and academic sources to change their wording.
Well, since the whole point of a fucking labor union is to be controlled by it’s constituents, as someone who knows what a labor union is and is a member of one I wouldn’t really call it a labor union in anything but name. Which is the point me and several others are trying to explain. You have to walk the walk, for the talk to be true and not just talk.
Yep, you got us. We liberals hate America and wipe our asses with the US flag. KJU’s sis is a hot chingaling who is a paragon of the socialist agenda we relentlessly pursue. LONG LIVE SOROS! FAWN FAWN FAWN!
Say goodnight. Everyone has already written you off as a boring troll. You’ve even made the troll list at 2 different troll slaying forums. Awesome job for a one trick troll.
Nope. There are labor unions that are state controlled, and there are labor unions that employ more democratic principles in terms of how they operate. Both are still labor unions. This is similar to the equally stupid claim that there is no such thing as a communist government.
Many of you do. That’s why you burn the American flag (see any Antifa rally); it’s why you funnel information to Islamofascists (see Lynne Stewart); it’s why you wanted to end the embargo with Cuba (a country that planned terrorist attacks against the United States and funded anti-American extremists overseas); and it’s why you celebrate anti-Western regimes and movements such as Hamas, Iran, and Venezuela.
What you just said is no longer considered parody. It’s the sad reality of the American left (much of it, anyways).
Tell me, how does a state-controlled labor union work for the workers they’re supposed to represent? What do you think about labor unions controlled by corporate shareholders? 
You can make these same specious arguments to undermine America’s designation as a democratic-republic. You can make the same argument about the types of unions in America that are allowed to represent employees that don’t even belong to the organization. How are those unions working in favor of worker’s interests when their interests don’t necessarily align with all the workers?
Mine underlined. Hey hold it, please answer my question, then I’ll answer yours.
That whole post is the answer. America is still a democratic-republic and those unions are still unions. Same goes for the GLF.
Yes, truly the Nazis were great friends of labor as befits their socialist nature. I mean, sure, they allowed German citizens to own shares of stock in a private corporation which actually leased human beings (“The SS charged IG Farben three Reichsmarks (RM) per day for unskilled workers, four (RM) per hour for skilled workers, and one and one-half (RM) for children.”), but I’m sure that was an essentially socialist scheme. It only sounds like the culmination of the worst excesses of capitalism.
‘For decades, the PRC regime has acted as the guarantor of an abundance of cheap, docile labor for foreign and domestic capitalists. This system has been facilitated by the state-controlled All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU). Indeed, as the only legally recognized trade unions in China, the ACFTU has acted as a tool at the disposal of the PRC police state for subduing worker unrest.’ - Socialist Labor Party
Hold on, wait a minute. Why is a socialist publication of all things using the term ‘trade unions’ to describe the organization? They didn’t get your memo. It should read: ‘Indeed, as the only legally recognized trade unions in name only in China…’
Seems the concept of a state-controlled union is pretty well established. You’ve got work to do.
But none of your posts have answered any of my questions. Why would I answer your question What does america being a democratic-republic (with faltering unions) have to do with any of it?