If voting for Democrats actually caused our political system to turn away from being completely subservient to corporate interests, the OWS protests probably would not exist. I, for one, hope that these protests stay far away from being channeled into supporting the electoral fortunes of the corporate/militarist party, whether it be branded Republican or Democrat. That way irrelevance lies.
I was specifically addressing Dr. Cole's assertions about anarcho-syndicalism, not the labor movement in general. In fact, I specifically referred to the IWW as "anemic." Unless you are going to argue that the rest of the labor movement is anarcho-syndicalist in any meaningful form, I fail to see that you have a point.
Representing the anarcho-syndicalists, as a former member of the Industrial Workers of the World, the Wobblies, I'd like to add:
It is just flat-out untrue that "the anarcho-syndicalist tradition makes workers [sic] unions more saintly and disinterested than they typically actually are," as the most cursory page-through of the Wob newspaper, which regularly attacks the "business unions" and urges workers to fight for greater democracy in their unions, will demonstrate. And, as unfortunately (in my view) anemic as the Wobs are, they do represent the most significant organized anarcho-syndicalist group in the United States.
I'll let the pro-capitalist libertarians defend themselves from Dr. Cole's calumnies.
So, you engaged the arguments of Trump, Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, and Romney and you expect me to be convinced?
Yet you still fail to address the very real constitutional issues of Obama's act of war, aside from saying that he "should have gotten Congressional authorization?" But, I would submit, he did not do so. Hence, that is still an outstanding issue, the lame excuse that we already know what the Senate thinks notwithstanding.
I also have my doubts that 1973 comports to the remit allowable by the UN Charter and would like to know if you think that the UNSC is allowed to go beyond the Charter by simple writ (and what checks exist to prevent such, aside from permanent member veto).
But I suppose you don't have to engage in these issues if you only pick out malinformed right-wingers to be your interlocutors on this topic.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
RE: motivating more people to vote.
If voting for Democrats actually caused our political system to turn away from being completely subservient to corporate interests, the OWS protests probably would not exist. I, for one, hope that these protests stay far away from being channeled into supporting the electoral fortunes of the corporate/militarist party, whether it be branded Republican or Democrat. That way irrelevance lies.
I was specifically addressing Dr. Cole's assertions about anarcho-syndicalism, not the labor movement in general. In fact, I specifically referred to the IWW as "anemic." Unless you are going to argue that the rest of the labor movement is anarcho-syndicalist in any meaningful form, I fail to see that you have a point.
Representing the anarcho-syndicalists, as a former member of the Industrial Workers of the World, the Wobblies, I'd like to add:
It is just flat-out untrue that "the anarcho-syndicalist tradition makes workers [sic] unions more saintly and disinterested than they typically actually are," as the most cursory page-through of the Wob newspaper, which regularly attacks the "business unions" and urges workers to fight for greater democracy in their unions, will demonstrate. And, as unfortunately (in my view) anemic as the Wobs are, they do represent the most significant organized anarcho-syndicalist group in the United States.
I'll let the pro-capitalist libertarians defend themselves from Dr. Cole's calumnies.
So, you engaged the arguments of Trump, Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, and Romney and you expect me to be convinced?
Yet you still fail to address the very real constitutional issues of Obama's act of war, aside from saying that he "should have gotten Congressional authorization?" But, I would submit, he did not do so. Hence, that is still an outstanding issue, the lame excuse that we already know what the Senate thinks notwithstanding.
I also have my doubts that 1973 comports to the remit allowable by the UN Charter and would like to know if you think that the UNSC is allowed to go beyond the Charter by simple writ (and what checks exist to prevent such, aside from permanent member veto).
But I suppose you don't have to engage in these issues if you only pick out malinformed right-wingers to be your interlocutors on this topic.