Introduce me to political philosophy literature that's pro organized labour but isn't socialist shit

The Nazi labour system was only better compared to post-1929 Germany’s worst moments. Historians have shown that under Weimar’s better days, workers had it better in terms of pay and work hours. Businesses were the big winners as they were supported financially by the State and didn’t have to face trade unionists anymore.

Lastly, German unions were always the home turf of the social democrats, not the communists. The major party in Germany until 1933 was the SPD, while the KPD was a stagnating fringe party.

Where are your sources

thats what socialism is my friend, just read the socialist works youre interested in and keep a respectful distance from the people that made you dislike the concept of socialism

>the Third Reich's system actually worked better for laborers overall

Attached: 1520105187002.png (364x322, 14K)

>pro organized labour
>but isn't socialist
Look mutt, you're just going to accept that socialism isn't the manifestation of the devil and get on with it.

Attached: 1534095218355.jpg (251x242, 12K)

>what is syndicalism
>what is corporatism
>what is yellow socialism
Go back Marxdrone.

Imagine having the thought process of an NPC.

The theory of collective bargaining by Hutt.
I can't describe it as really 'pro' in the sense he shows how many of their efforts are vain or misleading.

Read all the “economists” and “Bernsteinistd” Lenin critiques in “what is to be done” then.

>socialism
>someting that won't deliver any substance
>one big cope

>Introduce me to political philosophy literature that's pro socialist ideas but isn't socialist shit.

Attached: 0473E6A4-592A-48FA-91FA-46CF456F3703.jpg (483x521, 46K)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Stay mad socialists

Socialism is literally the working class trying to get a fare share of their labor. Unionism IS FUCKING SOCIALISM
>Nuh, sozilizm is gulags and dicktatoes

>hey guys let's have social welfare but also the free market oh hey what's up with all these immigrants

>hey guys I want to be for the worker and workers rights, but I dont want to be associated with Marx and class struggle lol

>Lets do half measures of socialism and capitalism
>Nothing will go wrong, ever.
Venezuela had the same idea, but their people are darker skinned and a few Americans think they should have their resources

Well it looks like this thread is mostly trolls and shit but if you're still here look into someone like John R. Commons

archive.org/details/cu31924013854488/page/n7

>create a prosperous society
>people want to live there
imagine my shock

>implying unions weren't a socialist enterprise
why are Americans so fucked in the head? is there any way to save them?

Attached: cringe.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

The KPD was getting close to 20% of the votes and were regularly one of the biggest parties in parliament. What are you talking about.

Not him, but I'd recommend Wages of Destruction by Tooze.

Attached: 1ac7b29fdac996ae0c743edb399d59df40a7755c9e849d0db7938f50d2c1fe17.png (1580x596, 166K)

You're a mongoloid, butters. Socialism = workers own the means of production. Unions = workers coming together to negotiate wages, workplace safety, etc.
They aren't the same thing.
1. Unions have historical links to socialism
2. Therefore unions are socialism

The very concept of a union is workers solidarity and increased power and democracy in the workspace. It's inherently socialist and I'd like you to show me an anti-socialist union that wasn't a fucking mafia puppet show

This.

Also if you wanted to end cheap immigrant labor, you'd just fucking regulate the people hiring them. Want to encourage more native hires? Make it so the jobs fucking pay well.

You can be a supporter of unions and not be a socialist. Unions do not entail socialism. These words have very clear definitions.
Socialism: a system wherein the workers own the means of production
Unions: an organisation of workers who bargain for their interests.

Norway has strong unions. Norway is not socialist.

Why is this controversial?

Consider following
Socialism: Advancement of interests of the working class

in your case socialism is a mere utopia, whereas IRL it´s an ideology

I'm not playing this redefinitional game with you. Socialism means and always has meant a socioeconomic system where the labourers own the means of production. Look on Wikipedia or IEP or the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

your definition is absolutely laughable and it's clear you are being dishonest. How about this: my definition of capitalism is just "people being happy". Why aren't you a capitalist now? You don't want people to happy?

>Socialism means and always has meant a socioeconomic system where the labourers own the means of production.
Hence Socialism has probably never existed. Also laborers owning the means of production would be "advancement of the working class".

>our definition is absolutely laughable and it's clear you are being dishonest
Why?

>How about this: my definition of capitalism is just "people being happy".
How about "Free market", the definition we are constantly fed?

Rooseveltian half measure, user. You see what happens with this watered down corruptible version, don’t you?

>their people are darker skinned
Butterfly admits the correlation between race and IQ?

>Everything good is socialism!
That's essentially the case. Americans, true to their nature, are completely shameless and Conservatives will fight to strip you of any shred of power and dignity they can get their trembling, pasty, arthritic, hands on. It's unironically a struggle of good vs evil.

socialists fucking refuse to define what their own system is supposed to be. One moment it's only and exclusively when the workers own the means of production(the fuck does this even mean, it's never happened and makes no sense) and then another day it's anything vaguely democratic, which somehow also includes fucking Stalin, because he was 'going towards socialism' or something, they do the same thing with China too some of them. Lying deluded snakes the lot of them, they are motivated purely by envy, hatred, and ambition.

He is 90% right.

>he's right because I say so

Germany Tomorrow by Strasser

If you're presupposing the legitimacy of the wage relation and just want a mechanism for better management you aren't exactly a socialist but more of a corporatist.

Socialisms only aim is abolishing waged labour. Ownership or management (e.g. democratic or something else) doesn't matter if you're not diminishing necessary work time to a minimum. The idea of someone like Marx was if workers collectively owned industry or input is being factored in more heavily than the self-interest of everyone would essiently align in this direction.
Unions in the 20th century pushed for higher nominal wages instead of lowering work time spreading work out more and getting higher productivity for each hour and more output with less input. You saw this in both actually existing state "socialist" developmentalist regimes and heavily regulated welfare states... neither lowered necessary labour time and failed.

Anonymous admits to not being able to read

if he is so right, what did people vote for Hitler?
why did they want to change if they have it so good?

Because the German people at that time were hypernationalistic and had just fought a world war. And most of the time people don't vote in their best interests. Also Hitler only had like 35% of the vote at the time.

That's socialism. A lot of you seem to think that socialism is necessarily Marxism-Leninist vanguardism.

Have you tried Classical Fascism or Falangism. Both are flavors of Fascism with the former being focused on creating a modernized guilds system, based on a mix of businesses and primarily state unions.

Falangism is basically syndicalism but nationalist.

>Socialism: Advancement of interests of the working class
But that definition is objectively wrong which means your whole argument is faulty.
This is reaching 'want men and women to be equal? That means you're a feminist' tier cope.

the grapes of wrath.

Jordan Peterson calmly dismantles feminism infront of two feminists (youtube video)

he's right tho

>dc mafia
nobody in dc cares about what happens workers except for politicians making empty promises. the rest of us are focused on the rest of the world and maintaining the pax americana through the un and nato

>But that definition is objectively wrong
Why?

prove it