World Unions getting ready to revolt against Corporations

Unions condemn delegates on crisis
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5614520.ece

snip...

Guy Ryder, the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), said that the current financial turmoil had triggered a social timebomb that would lead to deepening civil unrest and soaring crime.

The comments from the confederation, which represents 168 million workers in 157 countries, are the most ferocious example yet of a backlash that has persuaded many who attend frequently to stay away from Davos this year. Yesterday Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, became the latest political figure to stay away from the meeting, after a similar move by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary.

Mr Ryder, speaking as strikes involving hundreds of thousands of workers erupted across France and Germany, told The Times: “We are on the road to serious social instability, which could be extremely dangerous in some countries to democracy itself.”
snip...

Geneva-based International Labour Organisation of figures which showed that global unemployment would rise to 230 million this year, or 7.1 per cent of the world’s workforce.


The Unions are uniting against the Corporations
pretty serious times we live in


they project 200 million in absolute poverty while the governments twiddle their thumbs

and the world.

Is he missing his magic bullet?

"Welcome back to the White House" They Get it

It's time to take back our lives from corporate tyranny. First a drop here and there; then a downpour; then a storm. It's a matter of consciousness. The time for waiting and patient submission to the status quo is over. The false reality built from out of the force of greed and fueled by sophisticated marketing is collapsing on itself. It's time for humanity to say "no more."

It's time for workers to overthrow the capitalist system, and take the power back into their hands.

It's GRAND THEFT when a corporate CEO earns millions (not including their exorbitant bonuses) while their hard-working employees scrape by, just hoping they can earn enough to feed, clothe, and house their families.

is that the US has a President who will allow and take action to encourage union organizing and mass people's movements. This is one of the reasons why Obama was the best person for the Dems to nominate at this time. More than any other President we've had, he understands the importance of bottom-up change from popular movements because he has worked in one.

The US will never engage in violent social upheaval like other countries do. But we may still see lasting societal changes.

Depression and afterward

Socialism ...

I'm not sure what you mean or how it contradicts what I wrote. This time could be similar to the union drives of the depression era. That wasn't violent social upheaval except for occasional attacks by company owners and their state militia.

giving the corps BILLIONS. If he understand the bottom-up change, why isn't he giving every taxpayer a $21,000 check? If that doesn't kick the economy, nothing will.

It's time to stop looking toward government for help. It's not coming for us, only for the big boys. It's time for a bloody revolution and yes, I think the US WILL engage, just as soon as people can't afford their Wii's, beer and NASCAR they'll be out in the streets with the rest of us.

Have an itch to blow some brains out, no matter if they are innocent ones?

If so, your avatar is a good choice.

was no more bloodthirsty than George Washington. The Cuban Revolution was a violent one because the dictatorship allowed for no other method of political change. Do you have a point to make or is this just a tangent?

I do know though that Che was too bloodthirsty for me to ever hold him up as a hero or symbol of ideals that I aspire to. If George Washington was just as bloodthirsty, then mark him off my list too. If you have any info on the latter I would welcome it.

Are you aware of Che's bloodthirstiness? His execution, for example, of a local peasant who joined up when Che and company were in his area (in Cuba, I think) and was guilty of nothing more than wanting to remain behind when they moved on? Not sure if I've got it right myself -- I can google it if you want.

Regarding whether it's a tangent or not, your post #6 seemed to regret that the US will never resort to violence. But maybe you didn't mean violence literally when you used the phrase "violent social upheaval".

that I was lamenting it. I just don't believe it will happen. Other countries took to the streets and seized the capitol building when someone tried to steal an election. Americans sat at home on our asses. It's a fact of life so we have to look at other ways of making change here. Even Che said a Cuban style revolution was likely to happen in an oppressed colonial state like Cuba, but not in a country like the United States.

No, I don't think Americans should buy guns and start shooting people. That won't accomplish anything good. But, sometimes a few hundred thousand people sitting down in a Capitol and refusing to leave until justice is done gets results in other countries.

I don't hold up Che as a saint so I'm not interested in debating everything he ever did.

I don't know about a saint -- not much of a fan of them anyway -- but you sort of do hold up Che as a hero, between the avatar and the sig line.

For me, one bloodthirsty and totally unnecessary murder is enough to disqualify him; just wanted to make sure you knew that part of his history.

But I agree wholeheartedly with your message.

The 1954 U.S.-created military coup in Guatemala did a lot, I think, to shape Che's views of tactics and methods.

In that instance, you had an impeccably democratic government with a totally free press, and the U.S. used the space to foment a fascist coup, through propaganda in the country's major newspapers and on radio. Also, nothing was done to secure the loyalty of the country's armed forces.

Thus, a bloodsoaked overthrow of a progressive government in which, eventually, 100,000 people, the vast majority of them indigenous peasants, would be slaughtered.

Che's whole focus was on making sure that nightmare wasn't replicated in Cuba. That's why he pushed for the military alliance with the USSR(Guatemala's civilian democracy had had no superpower ally)and why he used repressive methods a lot of us would shrink from today.

Che didn't do what he did for the hell of it.

You should correct that to *hasn't YET this century*.

How do you define the Revolution - a tea party? :sarcasm:

And I'm not convinced we won't have violent social upheaval if something isn't done to correct the devastation thousands of people are facing NOW, while our Representatives have their playful little pissing contest in Washington.

And considering all the Halliburton facilities that have been built in the last 8 years, I think our own government disagrees with you as well.

It's cold now, people are fighting to keep themselves warm and fed. But if the job layoffs continue into spring and summer at the rate they are going now -- ??? Anyone who thinks there won't be social upheaval and violence needs to get out and take a REAL look at what is happening.

there wouldn't be social upheaval. I wrote that there won't be VIOLENT social upheaval. If it didn't happen during the great depression, or any other time in American history outside of a few isolated incidents, then why should I believe it will happen now?

It's more realistic to look for other ways to accomplish dramatic change that don't rely on large numbers of people taking up arms. We should work to make sure this time leads to dramatic social change like the New Deal era did and ensure that it lasts even loner this time.

Electing a sympathetic President like Obama was step one. Time for step two. Organize.

the parasites have.

If the people are satiated with the minor, and temporary, concessions that will be granted violence may be avoided, if not the parasites will start it. They do not surrender power, they always play for keeps and as long as they believe that there are enough gatekeepers and enforcers to protect them, they have never hesitated to exacerbate the situation and escalate the violence. It is a battle of wills.

It's a big mistake to conflate violence by a people's movement and violence by the authorities to beat down a movement. The discussion was about whether the public will become violent.

There are very FEW people left who survived the Depression. There ARE several generations of people who were raised to think they had a RIGHT to a home, food on their tables, and their kids would be educated enough to have the SAME.

NOW -- we had 100K people LAST WEEK lose their jobs. We have a government that is handing out billions of dollars to banks that are REFUSING to lend, and companies everywhere dumping jobs to keep their profit margins working for their shareholders. And we have reports of people being added to Obama's cabinet who did NOT pay taxes on income because they *forgot*.

Yet the public is expected to be *patient*.

What do you think is going to happen when all those out of work people start doing the math? Don't you think they are going to be a wee bit angry when they suddenly hit that brick wall of NOT being able to pay for cable, or buy the ipod, or to the point of not even being able to FEED themselves?
How do you think they are going to feel when their belongings are out on the street?

People aren't able to *wait* for the dramatic change, especially when they no longer have the roof over their head, or the TV to dull the nagging pinch in their gut when the don't have enough food for themselves, let alone their families.

Once the freeze is over, you're going to see some heat. It's inevitable. The *Fuck you, I've got mine* American mantra is going to turn on itself. And saying it isn't going to get violent in areas is just more denial and delusion.

they'll have pretty much the same reaction as when Bush stole an election and then started a war of aggression based on lies. Not much.

Expecting some dramatic, sudden social upheaval is a cheap cop-out. Major change won't happen from people spontaneously taking to the streets. It won't happen magically. If there's going to be change it will take difficult, sometimes boring, on the ground organizing. It's hard work and it's not going to be handed to us just because things get really bad.

Yes, people will be angry but if there's no organized effort to channel that anger in a productive way then they're just as likely to listen to Bill O'Reilly and stew in their basement. And getting fed up is a long, long, long way from deciding to become violent.

And it's delusional to think that people will just *stew* in their basement. Come Spring, if the layoffs continue at this speed, and REAL substantial help isn't forthcoming from Washington you'll see all those *hopeful* people doing shit you wouldn't imagine they would do. Hunger is a driving force, and all the *it ain't gonna happen* rhetoric will be for nothing. :shrug:

during the Vietnam war because all the young men were being drafter and people knew that war was a fake as every war since. That it as a corporate war and was touted as not allowing the 'domino effect' of the Commie Russians taking over the world.

There was also the Civil Rights movement which was just as violent and murderous when the marchers went to the South. There were plenty of high profile assassinations during that time, MLK Jr being just one of them.

During the Suffragette movement there was government sanctioned violence against the women leaders. They were thrown in jail and when they went on a hunger strike they were force fed with tubes jammed down their throats. This caused the movement to actually grow and sentiment to turn against Woodrow Wilson.

And in our history there has been a lot of violence accompanying the formations of unions.

the violence was perpetuated by the opponents of change, not the movement leaders. The difference is important.
There are some cases of property vandalism by the anti-war movement and isolated cases of unions taking violent action against strike breakers. But those are rare exceptions to the rule.

Any European 'peasant' uprising was due to plenty of violence being perpetrated on them, sometimes for centuries. Please, you're insulting our intelligence.

Everything I wrote is 100% correct. It's not an excuse for anything. Do you not see the difference between a group of people arming themselves to fight against the government and the mobs the firebombed the freedom ride buses? Do you not see the difference between violent aggression and being the victim of violent aggression? I think all the Civil Rights leaders who strongly emphasized non-violence would find your suggestion that they embraced violence pretty ignorant and insulting.

I rest my case. You're making things up for the sake of argument. You're refusing or pretending to refuse to see that no one needs to embrace violence in order for violence to happen. I do wish nuance would become part of dialog again.

You seem to be having a completely separate conversation of your own. The conversation was about whether the public will rise up in violent rebellion. You responded by pointing out examples where the authorities instigated violence against the public, which had nothing to do with my point. You seem to be conflating violence started by the authorities with violence started by the public. It's an important nuance.

The Unions know the day of the CEO is over the Workers have had it

I don't think the European Union is going to be able to handle the meltdown

Enron and Chevron have record profits off the gouging of citizens at the pump for up to $5.00 a gallon. We need to start a revolution of screams that can be heard around the world. I know dramatic talk but what else is there but to scream!

I don't really want violence and mass strikes.

Thomas Jefferson said,

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

thomas jefferson said,

"tossing and burning a few cars and smashing up a starbucks
or two is such great fun in the short term. but in the end, it
leaves you with the stink of some burned out cars and no coffee."

and defended our rights, freedoms and liberty were stupid and foolish?

If so, I won't waste my time and energy on you again. If so, I wouldn't want you watching my back in any kind of fight.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is all.

God forbid the common man rise up against the shackles of their employers to take control into their own hands. Wouldn't want those fatcat corporate CEOs to have to worry about losing their multi-million dollar bonuses in order to make sure that their workers are taken care of, would you?

No, just go on watching American Idol, enjoy the Super Bowl on Sunday, pretend the world is fine, and go to your job on Monday, while thumbing your nose at those savages around the world fighting for what they believe in.

built on the backs of peasants and "muckity mucks."

yes, revolution is messy and not for sissies.

now get out of the way while those who have the courage actually confront the beast.

We bought ourselves time.

:eyes:

The New Deal only worked because the elites were terrified that the rabble (us) would overthrow them and install a Communist and destroy capitalism. We need to again instill the fear of insurrection among the elites.

representatives - our leaders. It is our leaders who are fighting other leaders. Our leaders divide up between those who work for the corporatons and the rest who give approvals.

Not all corporations are corrupt.
Probably, not all investment firms are corrupt.
Not all banks and credit unions participate in the thefts.
Not all funders screwed and stole from us.

In general,
we know that the government is the people.

So, we the government are at war with some of our leaders and the thieving corporations and Wall Street and their baron rulers twice removed.

We should come up with more precise names for those who are our enemies - the ones who have declared war on us. If you say IT&T - say Feinstein and use a name that reflects that. If you say Citicorp - you can probably say Schumer. They should also have a name.

Though their votes and words sound pretty and they are tough on little things that sound great, they are really at war with us.

It would have been so much worse with Cheney and his sidekick or John McCain and his evangelical tough gal, but so far it's not so great.

No support for the Palestinian people in words or gesture - except some money while their firm stance is for Israel. Why? Who is running things here?

We have to target who we fight back at.

It is complicated and saying government<>corporations is not enough.

It is very clear that the majority of Dem leaders did nothing about the theft of votes, the investigation of the crime committed on 9-11, the disappearance of tons of money, were wimpy on Katrina, oversight of Wall Street and killer-theft scams and pyramids - but, then they did PLENTY about sending us to Cheney's war for the war monger/profit corporations, giving us the Homeland Security atrocity, stealing our privacy, signing off to credit card companies - WHICH WAS WALL STREET.

We have big problems with our own leaders. I hope there are some good people getting warmed up out there - getting prepared to take over for the people at the next elections if some of the ones whe have continue to remain independently Republican in their coats and votes.

Robert Rubin was one of the instigators of the Wall Street/ Investment bank mess and even had a dastardly role in trying to influence the Treasury regarding an Enron/Citibank deal.

Why is he in any position of power where he can influence policy in favor of Citibank from which he only recently resigned.

I would love to know if guys such as Rubin have lost any money or assets last year

Robert Rubin was one of the instigators of the Wall Street/ Investment bank mess and even had a dastardly role in trying to influence the Treasury regarding an Enron/Citibank deal.

Why is he in any position of power where he can influence policy in favor of Citibank from which he only recently resigned.

I would love to know if guys such as Rubin have lost any money or assets last year

with the World Unions

we could bring the nation to a screeching halt

and it is coming

Think about it...

The banks went on strike and held a gun to our lawmakers' heads last October - refusing to lend, and they still aren't lending.

But we people have the counter-balance to that. What if none of us paid them? It would be the same kind of strike. But we don't even have to decide about whether or not to do this on purpose. It's happening anyway. More and more of us in large numbers CAN'T pay them. And those numbers are increasing daily. Businesses too.

So the global money-class is going to hit the wall sometime soon. Regardless.

Layoffs here are increasing by the day. Air Jamaica has cut the Miami route and is laying off lots of staff, bauxite companies are laying off like crazy and you only have to watch GEM$NBC to see the increased tourism ads. The banks are laying off workers and the oldest newspaper on the island (from 1834) has laid off dozens.

The strikes are coming.

and with the advent of TV, internet, & cell phones, people KNOW how other people live..

and they see the excesses of the "overlord society", and in their hearts they know HOW they got all that wealth..

Decades ago, bosses worked alongside their employees, they KNEW their employees.. Bosses had a bigger house & maybe a nicer car, but they were PART of the business, and their employees actually mattered to them..

As busineses got more conglomerated, and bosses further away from the day-to-day, everything changed..

It's easy to send a memo to the head of division of the company, thousands of miles away, saying "lay off 20%"..

It's a lot harder to lay off Joe & John & Larry & Millie.. people you see every day, and whose children's names you know...and whose children are friends of YOUR children..