unions continue to show their scumbaggery

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It never ceases to amaze me that some people when confronted with corporations that bargain hard say "well that's capitalism, don't like it? Too bad.", but when confronted with unions that do the same compare them to say... the mob.

As usual, Eskimo is right; there's some bizarre psychology that makes working-class people turn on each other a lot more than they unite against their 'real enemy'.

Show them a billionare exploiting thousands of people for big bucks, and they praise and defend him, but show them a person they think is getting a few government dollars or a few dollars higher wages as a union member and they lose their minds in hate for the person.

Makes it awfully easy for the propagandists. Any time there are rumblings against the wealthy, just toss out some story about welfrare fraud, and they're back to that.

The majority of companies in the US are not owned by billionaires. They are owned by normal people who put everything they own on the line in order to make a better living for themselves.

You say you smell ideology, well I wouldn't say ideology as much as life experience.
I have seen a small business owner literally cry when his business became unionized. Within two years, the union basically forced him to close the business. The union bosses convince the employees that the company is making incredible profits and they should be getting more money (which equals more money to the union bosses). In reality most businesses operate on small profit margins. When the unions force the company to increase wages and benefits through the treat of strikes, it makes running the business a losing proposition.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So let me get this straight, you're angry at unions for acting in their own self interest.

THIS IS BREAKING NEWS.

You would be in agreement with extortion.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

Alright. Just so long as labor unions understand why business don't like to deal with them.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yet you only demonize one group. I smell ideology.

You farted.

And your post came out. Gee.

My posts, your posts, they both come out of your ass?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

/facepalm

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yet you only demonize one group. I smell ideology.

You farted.

And your post came out. Gee.

My posts, your posts, they both come out of your ass?

Only yours, in this thread. Now, shoo.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

so is that the new term for blackmailing these days?

Blackmail is defined as 'extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information'.

I'm sorry you don't like people using their bargaining power.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

Alright. Just so long as labor unions understand why business don't like to deal with them.

Gotta love the ideology here. Wonderful corporations would like to pay 10 cents an hour for labor, but they 'don't like dealing with unions' that make them pay more.

Just amazing, the ignorance.

You might not 'like dealing with' the bill collectors from the IRS, the phone company, the utilities, your credit card company, but they have a legitimate role."

Workers don't get decent salaries because companies are 'nice' and like paying them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It never ceases to amaze me that some people when confronted with corporations that bargain hard say "well that's capitalism, don't like it? Too bad.", but when confronted with unions that do the same compare them to say... the mob.

If JeepinEd has done that (defended extortion-like tactics by large corporations), some links would be helpful. Otherwise, this is just a strawman argument.

While I was alluding to him, I was more just making fun of his histrionics than actually accusing him of being a corporate apologist. Regardless I stand by my statement that people are far more accepting of hard bargaining by corporations than they are by unions.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

Or use there bargaining power to do stupid crap like get the company to let them wear hats that have competitors logos on them, or fight the company because they can't smoke in the building anymore (state law). Both of those items almost got one of the unions in my town to strike. From what I understand the vote was very close.

That is stupid and an abuse of power.

If you have a real concern go ahead and complain and strike if necessary, but if those are the worst things you can come up with maybe you should STFU and do your job. You don't gain a lot of sympathy from people when you are willing to strike over nothing.

I'm not saying that unions don't do dumb things, but attempting to use the power at their disposal to get their members money is certainly what I would be doing if I were a union leader. I hope you would be too.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

Alright. Just so long as labor unions understand why business don't like to deal with them.

Gotta love the ideology here. Wonderful corporations would like to pay 10 cents an hour for labor, but they 'don't like dealing with unions' that make them pay more.

Just amazing, the ignorance.

You might not 'like dealing with' the bill collectors from the IRS, the phone company, the utilities, your credit card company, but they have a legitimate role."

Workers don't get decent salaries because companies are 'nice' and like paying them.

While corporations may like to pay 10 cents an hour for labor, state and federal laws prohibit it. At the very minimum, they will be earning minimum wage, if that is what the company feels they are worth.
Better educated employees will earn more money. As much as companies would like to pay them 10 cents an hour for labor, they know they can't even pay them minimum wage because the worker would simply go elsewhere.

You seem to be completely dismissing the other side of the equation. I smell ideology.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yet you only demonize one group. I smell ideology.

You farted.

And your post came out. Gee.

My posts, your posts, they both come out of your ass?

Only yours, in this thread. Now, shoo.

:laugh: You're a piece of work... :laugh:

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

Alright. Just so long as labor unions understand why business don't like to deal with them.

Gotta love the ideology here. Wonderful corporations would like to pay 10 cents an hour for labor, but they 'don't like dealing with unions' that make them pay more.

Just amazing, the ignorance.

You might not 'like dealing with' the bill collectors from the IRS, the phone company, the utilities, your credit card company, but they have a legitimate role."

Workers don't get decent salaries because companies are 'nice' and like paying them.

Gotta love how you intentionally mis-represent the facts to try and push your agenda. Corporations cannot pay their workers 10 cents an hour...it's kind of against the law. Union/non-union has nothing to do with it.

Our current minimum wage law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...nimum_Wage_Act_of_2007

In fact, there has been a federal law about minimum wage, overtime, etc. since 1938:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act

Also, do you realize that there are millions of employees who are not unionized yet amazingly enough get paid more than 10 cents an hour (or in the real world and not Craig's fantasy world, the federal minimum wage)?

:Q

I'm sorry that reality interferes with your ideology, Craig.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

While corporations may like to pay 10 cents an hour for labor, state and federal laws prohibit it. At the very minimum, they will be earning minimum wage, if that is what the company feels they are worth.
Better educated employees will earn more money. As much as companies would like to pay them 10 cents an hour for labor, they know they can't even pay them minimum wage because the worker would simply go elsewhere.

You seem to be completely dismissing the other side of the equation. I smell ideology.

I'm both glad and sad you posted this, glad because it exposes some of the problems in understanding the issue, and sad that there is such a lack of understanding.

It gives a chance to answer the points. First, you make the mistake of relying on the 'minimum wage', because you assume that our current situation that has one is guaranteed. It's not. If you let the same forces on the other side from labor go further, they would first lower, and then abolish, the minimum wage. There are many think tank papers and even posters in this forum who would support and have supported abolishing it.
It's only the power of labor, like unions, that allowed it to be created at all.

Then, you use the phrase about the companies 'think they're worth'. There's no such thing as the companies 'think they're worth' something. Look at the third world countries where people can make under a dollar a day. What there is, is 'companies think they need to pay' a certain amount, and what they 'think they need to pay' goes up a lot from unions.

There was a theory in the 19th century that the proper wages for labor were 'substinence wages', the amount needed for the people to eat. Any more was considered 'wrong'.

You say the famous libertarian line, 'why, if the corporations pair workers badly, the workers would just go elsewhere'. The delusion is that there are better employers.

In the normal human society, there are a few well off and a lot of serfs. I don't think slavery was seen as so much a moral issue during much of human history, as a simple practicality - the worker's situation was going to be just as bad pretty much anyway, so why have all the headaches and complicatins of 'paying a wage' and the person finding their own place to live and their own food supply, when it was much more efficient for them to just be a slave with those things provided.

One step up from that was the 'technically free' worker who lived in company-supplied shanty towns, possibley ate company-provided food, and made a substinence wage.

In that situation, any one worker doesn'thave a chance - it's take it or starve.

It's not magic how that changes, it's the government interference in the 'free market' to create labor rights, outlawing some bad practices, allowing labor to organize.

That led to a change in the business culture which lets you think business 'think someone is worth that much'.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It gives a chance to answer the points. First, you make the mistake of relying on the 'minimum wage', because you assume that our current situation that has one is guaranteed. It's not. If you let the same forces on the other side from labor go further, they would first lower, and then abolish, the minimum wage. There are many think tank papers and even posters in this forum who would support and have supported abolishing it.

Slippery slope.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

There is a difference between bargaining hard and what amounts to blackmail. A company is limited by what the market will bear. Customers also have the option to shop elsewhere. Unions have the power and money to force a company to comply to their demands. Either hire union workers, or we'll make it nearly impossible for you to do business here.

So now unions are suddenly these all powerful forces that extract cash from the poor poor corporations who are helpless against them. They either comply with the unions or they cannot do business. Are you joking?

Unions do the same thing all other businesses do, they use their bargaining power to get the best possible deal out of those they bargain with. Get over it.

Alright. Just so long as labor unions understand why business don't like to deal with them.

Gotta love the ideology here. Wonderful corporations would like to pay 10 cents an hour for labor, but they 'don't like dealing with unions' that make them pay more.

Just amazing, the ignorance.

You might not 'like dealing with' the bill collectors from the IRS, the phone company, the utilities, your credit card company, but they have a legitimate role."

Workers don't get decent salaries because companies are 'nice' and like paying them.

Unions have both pros and cons. The inefficiencies that are typically found within the ranks of unions are seldom appreciated by anyone save for the union members themselves. Excessive costs also cause some heartache, as do the tactics often employed.

You mention bill collectors from the phone company - if a person or company is unsatisfied with the service and/or cost provided by said phone company, they can easily switch to another company that can better meet their needs. Same is true of credit cards, unless you're too ignorant and have charged up some massive debt that is unmanageable. Using the IRS as a comparison is incredibly poor as paying taxes is a legal requirement of each citizen. Are you suggesting that it should be a legal requirement to utilize unionized labor?

JeepinEd addressed your concern over wages. What say you to the professions that aren't unionized? Are those people, including myself, all working for slave wages?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It never ceases to amaze me that some people when confronted with corporations that bargain hard say "well that's capitalism, don't like it? Too bad.", but when confronted with unions that do the same compare them to say... the mob.

As usual, Eskimo is right; there's some bizarre psychology that makes working-class people turn on each other a lot more than they unite against their 'real enemy'.

Show them a billionare exploiting thousands of people for big bucks, and they praise and defend him, but show them a person they think is getting a few government dollars or a few dollars higher wages as a union member and they lose their minds in hate for the person.

Makes it awfully easy for the propagandists. Any time there are rumblings against the wealthy, just toss out some story about welfrare fraud, and they're back to that.

The majority of companies in the US are not owned by billionaires. They are owned by normal people who put everything they own on the line in order to make a better living for themselves.

You say you smell ideology, well I wouldn't say ideology as much as life experience.
I have seen a small business owner literally cry when his business became unionized. Within two years, the union basically forced him to close the business. The union bosses convince the employees that the company is making incredible profits and they should be getting more money (which equals more money to the union bosses). In reality most businesses operate on small profit margins. When the unions force the company to increase wages and benefits through the treat of strikes, it makes running the business a losing proposition.

I think you're confusing a bit the theory I'm talking about with more specific problems. Unions aren't perfect, and can be abuseive as well.

I didn't use a billionare in the example because it's the norm, I used it because it best illustrates the issue I was discussing.

If we were talking about people sympathizing with a small business owner with low marging, it would not illustrate what I was talking about - and would not be the psychological issue I was discussing. It's understandable to be sympathetic towards that small business owner.

Indeed I'm sympathetic to the story you describe, though I suspect there's another side to it, since it doens't make a lot of sense for the union to put him out of business.

I don't think small business owners being put out of business by crazy unions is the norm either.

You say that the union pushing for higher wages makes it a losing proposition. I disagree; there's a happy middle. The wages are a result of the competing pressures.

It's one of those things that is messy, but works better than either alternative, where wages go too high or too low. There's no easy answer, no one to sit on the government 'agency of wage setting' to say 'that's the right amount'. It's a negotiation, and the current system works ok, but it tilted a bit against workers in recent decades, hence their not getting any of the econoic growth after inflation for 25 years, all of it going to the top wealthiest people.

But that's the big situation, and I have sympathy for your small business story.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
It gives a chance to answer the points. First, you make the mistake of relying on the 'minimum wage', because you assume that our current situation that has one is guaranteed. It's not. If you let the same forces on the other side from labor go further, they would first lower, and then abolish, the minimum wage. There are many think tank papers and even posters in this forum who would support and have supported abolishing it.

Slippery slope.

I disagree. Slippery slope is the false, exaggerated claim - I think this one is accurate.

For most of our nation's history our nation had no minimum wage, and there are elements today - as I said, including posters here - who want to abolish it.

Now, understand my point - I'm not predicing the minimum wage will be abolished; I think that's not at all likely. I'm saying that if you let the employers have more and more power, that that will be the result, that they don't stop when wages are down 20% and say "well, that's enough of a cut, we'll stop now because we just feel people shouldn't make less", that's not how it works. I'm saying I think that if they got more power, it woud happen.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Gotta love how you intentionally mis-represent the facts to try and push your agenda. Corporations cannot pay their workers 10 cents an hour...it's kind of against the law. Union/non-union has nothing to do with it.

Our current minimum wage law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...nimum_Wage_Act_of_2007

In fact, there has been a federal law about minimum wage, overtime, etc. since 1938:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act

Laws change. As I said, if the employers got more and more power, the minimum wage would first be increased less, then go down, and finally be abolished.

Also, do you realize that there are millions of employees who are not unionized yet amazingly enough get paid more than 10 cents an hour (or in the real world and not Craig's fantasy world, the federal minimum wage)?

:Q

I'm sorry that reality interferes with your ideology, Craig.

You cannot understand the discussion.

We're not talking about the current conditions, where labor has more rights.

It's as if I said, "if we get rid of murder laws, murder will increase", and you argue how not everyone murders someone today. You can't can't understand the discussion.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
It gives a chance to answer the points. First, you make the mistake of relying on the 'minimum wage', because you assume that our current situation that has one is guaranteed. It's not. If you let the same forces on the other side from labor go further, they would first lower, and then abolish, the minimum wage. There are many think tank papers and even posters in this forum who would support and have supported abolishing it.

Slippery slope.

I disagree. Slippery slope is the false, exaggerated claim - I think this one is accurate.

For most of our nation's history our nation had no minimum wage, and there are elements today - as I said, including posters here - who want to abolish it.

Now, understand my point - I'm not predicing the minimum wage will be abolished; I think that's not at all likely. I'm saying that if you let the employers have more and more power, that that will be the result, that they don't stop when wages are down 20% and say "well, that's enough of a cut, we'll stop now because we just feel people shouldn't make less", that's not how it works. I'm saying I think that if they got more power, it woud happen.

So slippery slope doesn't apply here... because you don't think it does.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Now, they're just out to squeeze every last penny from whomever they can.

Damn straight they are just like employers are trying to squeeze every penny out of their workers. I won't say I particularly like Unions and that they're never overpaid, but it's a result free market (employees have nowhere near the power of employers and thus need to band together to have equal bargaining power) and it works both ways. To go against unions is to support communism. You're not a Communist/Marxist/Socialist are you?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SigArms08
You mention bill collectors from the phone company - if a person or company is unsatisfied with the service and/or cost provided by said phone company, they can easily switch to another company that can better meet their needs. Same is true of credit cards, unless you're too ignorant and have charged up some massive debt that is unmanageable. Using the IRS as a comparison is incredibly poor as paying taxes is a legal requirement of each citizen. Are you suggesting that it should be a legal requirement to utilize unionized labor?

You really missed what the analogy was about. The discussion was about the statement that corporations not 'liking' to deal with unions, and my pointing out how silly it was.

I don't care what phone company or credit card company you pick, you aren't expected to 'like' dealing with their bill collectors. That was the point.

That the corporations 'liking' to deal with the unions isn't the issue, of *course* they don't 'like' to deal with people that are going to negotiate for higher wages. So what?

JeepinEd addressed your concern over wages. What say you to the professions that aren't unionized? Are those people, including myself, all working for slave wages?

No, first, unions have an effect on non-union industries; non-union companies are still competing for workers with union shops. Second, unions aren't the whole story.

There are a variety of things that cause wages to increase, including a variety of government policies that support it. Unions are just one part.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Now, they're just out to squeeze every last penny from whomever they can.

Damn straight they are just like employers are trying to squeeze every penny out of their workers. I won't say I particularly like Unions and that they're never overpaid, but it's a result free market (employees have nowhere near the power of employers and thus need to band together to have equal bargaining power) and it works both ways. To go against unions is to support communism. You're not a Communist/Marxist/Socialist are you?

False.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
It gives a chance to answer the points. First, you make the mistake of relying on the 'minimum wage', because you assume that our current situation that has one is guaranteed. It's not. If you let the same forces on the other side from labor go further, they would first lower, and then abolish, the minimum wage. There are many think tank papers and even posters in this forum who would support and have supported abolishing it.

Slippery slope.

I disagree. Slippery slope is the false, exaggerated claim - I think this one is accurate.

For most of our nation's history our nation had no minimum wage, and there are elements today - as I said, including posters here - who want to abolish it.

Now, understand my point - I'm not predicing the minimum wage will be abolished; I think that's not at all likely. I'm saying that if you let the employers have more and more power, that that will be the result, that they don't stop when wages are down 20% and say "well, that's enough of a cut, we'll stop now because we just feel people shouldn't make less", that's not how it works. I'm saying I think that if they got more power, it woud happen.

So slippery slope doesn't apply here... because you don't think it does.

Yes. Feel free to argue why you are right to say otherwise.

If you had any awareness of the global business situation, you should note that there is no magic protection for any workers against the situation I mentioned. Go tell the people in situations where the employers have a lot more power, who make slave wages, how you disagree that will happen to them. If you can catch them between work and sleep.

Your argument is just idiotic, really. How do you expect to tell the difference between what is a slippery slope and what's simply a slope, other than opinion and discussion?

If you have a different opinion, fine, but what the hell are you demanding for 'proof' it's not a slippery slope that doesn't involve opinion?

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu

Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Now, they're just out to squeeze every last penny from whomever they can.

Damn straight they are just like employers are trying to squeeze every penny out of their workers. I won't say I particularly like Unions and that they're never overpaid, but it's a result free market (employees have nowhere near the power of employers and thus need to band together to have equal bargaining power) and it works both ways. To go against unions is to support communism. You're not a Communist/Marxist/Socialist are you?

From dictionary.com

Socialism
So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.




I would venture to say that union supporters are more socialist than non union supporters.