Labor in Union

Once upon a time some nations figured out a semi-solution to the fact that oligarchism caused mass destruction. Other nations were not so fortunate. They tried to fight oligarchism with paleo-Marxism, causing worse destruction, replacing one oligarchism with another.

The lucky nations fought oligarchism with labor unions, but the labor unions became corrupt. Some were co-opted by ruling groups, some taken over by rent seeking from within. Others were wrecked by the divide-and-rule practices of militarism and multiculturalism. A few become homes for organized crime. Workers needing unions the most didn't get them. Workers needing unions the least--public sector workers--did get them.

Unions helped nonunion workers by creating tighter labor markets, via the politicians unions supported. But now that private sector unions are rarer and less powerful, unions have less influence on the labor market. Witness the incredible political tolerance for loose labor markets for the past eight years, which seeks ever cheaper labor, no matter the ethical costs.

Many unions fought only for their current members, losing sight of their role in checking oligarchism.

Many became soft with hedonism.

Unions had comparatively little influence over the mass media. Most intellectuals and media celebrities, in their bubbles of unreality, favored variants of Marxism and establishmentism. The rare intellectual contradicts his institutions, especially when those institutions put money in his wallet. The mass media fought hard for oligarchism and cultural Marxism, known by such variants as globalism, third wayism or, even worse, neoconservatism. The techniques and technologies of propaganda kept developing. The media became dominated by the wealthy and individuals predisposed to idealistic sounding fanaticism.

Some tried to fight oligarchism with protests. But the ruling groups only budged when the protests agreed with the cultural Marxism of the ruling groups. Thus, Occupy Wall Street and similar protests accomplished almost nothing, but the University of Missouri protesters and related protests extracted concessions. The ruling groups probably laugh in secret at most contemporary non-ethnoracial protest movements.

Marxism adapted. It decided economics didn't matter as much, except when it comes to supporting the parasitism of multicultural leaders.

What mattered most for Marxism was being anti-white. Almost anything anti-white was tacitly or explicitly supported. White laborers went from being treated as subhumans by the likes of Andrew Carnegie to being treated as subhumans by wealthy multiculturalists and their allies.

Diversity lectures hectored whites with fallacious rhetoric and resembled paleo-Marxian struggle sessions.

Attempts to revive unions floundered due to ethnoracial conflicts and the past several decades of indoctrination in neoclassical economics.

In the establishment view, the rise of the American middle class had almost nothing to do with labor unions or pro-worker policies or anti-rent seeking movements or centuries of eugenic breeding in Europe or the fact that the United States was nearly 90 percent white. Establishments emphasized imaginary free markets, sainted figures, formal education, Southwest Asian religions, and, even more preposterously, the alleged benefits of ethnoracial diversity.

Bernie Sanders tries to market himself as a supporter of Scandinavian style mixed economies, yet refers to himself as socialist. Sanders' past behaviors, especially his Eugene Debs documentary, indicate Sanders has more in common with Marx than FDR. Sanders seems unaware that Scandinavian style economies work only with racially homogenous populations, practicing reciprocal altruism and eugenic breeding. Unfortunately, dysgenic immigration plus dysgenic breeding caused by the welfare state and the lack of explicitly eugenic policies, spells big trouble for Scandinavia. Even without outgroup invasions, egoism caused by dysgenic breeding would slowly ruin Scandinavia.

Even if he wins the presidency, Sanders faces courts and legislatures stacked against him, in some cases, rightfully so. The mass media will magnify every flaw, to bring back a neoconservative or third way president.

Though Donald Trump is mostly pro-establishment, Trump also faces a juggernaut arrayed against him for not being pro-establishment enough.

No matter who wins the presidency, working class workers will continue to suffer.