A Federation of
A national federation of living, breathing, autonomous unions. Yes, that is what I would like to see more than anything. Only then can we outgrow the holds which Capitalism seeks to impose upon regional, peoples' movements. To those who say that our unionizing is going to cause prices to rise, and ultimately to lead to a lower standard of living -- I say, let them try it, with every worker out on strike! It would not just be a strike, but full-scaled class warfare; and do not threaten crowds of the poor, the dispossessed, the angry, the hungry, and the idle. They are the intimate substance of every revolution that has created liberty or prosperity for its people. We can force the capitalist, by their own self-interest, to submit to our demands. While it is true on the local level for wages, it is also true on the national and global level for standards of living, democratic government, and economy. If the mines and factories are owned by a small, elite class, then we can compel their owners' behavior to our demands, if we intimidate them with a strike. By human nature, to save their profits and wealth, they will give in and grant the workers their demands -- a capitalist would sooner give in to a demand than lose the whole of their wealth. They could always go find other workers, other lands to exploit, but only by a national union could we fight this. The scabs who sought to end the strike against one particular capitalist -- what would happen if they were offered higher-paying, union jobs? This could certainly be a possibility, if unions were to federate and act on a national and international level. Together, they would be able to force the creation of new and productive employment.
There are empty lands and idle hands. It is due to a lack of initiative or incentive on those managers of such wealth. The unions should demand from their capitalist class to hire more hands, to put industry to the machinery and lands. To the capitalist, there is no contradiction in having uncultivated lands and dormant factories standing next to homelessness and starvation. But to a laborer, it is a crime -- the mere act of possessing property, committed by the Capitalist class, is enough to send the common worker into dire poverty. It is private ownership of the property which is the true thief of the workers. But if we can fight it to get better wages, safe working conditions, and fewer hours, then we can fight it do anything; to hire more of the unemployed, to increase productivity, and -- in another phrase -- to run and operate the means of production for ourselves. We can fight the boss for small things on a local level, but at higher tiers of society, we can fight all the bosses combined to win an entire world for everyone. So to those who tell me that unions cause unemployment and lower the standard of living, I say this: I'd rather stand up and fight for the possibility of freedom, than lay down and die under the certainty of oppression.
We know that they keep more to themselves than their labor deserves; we know that the CEOs, the corporate officers, and the stockholders are responsible for some of the company's direction, but overall, they contribute absolutely no labor. They are, in fact, like a player of the game chess; they move the pieces, allign them to whatever design or pattern, and then command them to slaughter and die. Likewise, in terms of military, it is the master that is likely to gain the prestige, the recognition, and the value of the bet, than it is the actual soldiers who died. Our battle is against this class; it is against a group that has used systematic poverty as a means of compelling lower wages or worsened working conditions. For whatever weapon the masters can employ against the strikers, their most deadly is this: want and poverty. At moments, it is the cause of extremism and fanatics, but ultimately, starvation will cause the peoples' movement to disperse, break up, and lose direction. In all ways, it can persist, but it has simply been broken in its will and prowess. The goal of the capitalist, then, is never directly against the popular movement -- it only seeks to destroy the popular movement's weakest members, so as to pull the whole structure tumbling to the ground. If we, as this unionist movement, do not act to preserve, protect, and help the unemployed and the homeless, then we are letting our weakest members enter the butchery; and we are following right behind.