Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
The American Democrat Party has leaned Marxist for so long now that I use the terms Democrat and Marxist almost interchangeably. Democrat politics are generally redistributionist, collectivist, big-government, and solidly behind fiercely government-enforced "fairness" and "social justice." This puts them at odds with American Founding Principles and American Constitutional Principles.
The false "fairness" and "social justice" that they would impose upon the citizenry is unfair and unjust; it is more akin to the rigid social-sameness of the great collective.
Added to their ever growing arsenal of government-growing, people-controlling weapons are bogus, fraudulent programs of "environmental justice" and "global disarmament" and "open borders" and "global governance," and, the ever dreamed of utopian "New World Order."
Of course, all of this puts them at odds with the American Constitution, which they generally ignore and pretend does not exist, or is no longer in effect. Democrat Party Redistributionism, for instance, opposes the Constitutional right to private property, but, you see, the Democrat sense of "fairness" trumps the Constitution.
The Unions started out Marxist. They were born of Marxist revolutionary ideology. Marx's Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, and it caused the 1848 "Springtime of Revolution" in Europe and elsewhere, when the whole world was destabilized by violent, bloody revolutions. All of the violent revolutions failed, but the evil seeds of Marxist "fairness" and "social justice" had been planted.
The "Revolution" effort, once failed, morphed into a more gradual "Organization" effort, preparing the ground for future revolution. The words that got the international labor movement started were from the closing lines of Marx's Manifesto, quoted here:
This is the basis of union organizing. All unions have national and international scope and/or linkages with other unions. They have less interest in your particular working situation than in the larger preparations for future large scale strikes, disruptions and even revolutions.
The whole goal of union organizing is to cause division and instigate class warfare, even where classes do not exist. Union organization depends upon popular promotion of two myths:
Thus, union organizers work to place emnity between workers and their own employers. To drive a wedge between them and put them at odds with each other. In union shops, workers and employers are no longer in partnership to produce an excellent product or service; in point of fact, the employer is no longer in charge of his own business. We talked about the pre-union partnership between those seeking jobs and those seeking workers in the Against Unions argument, and how the initial partnership between employees and employers was torn asunder by union organization. We won't go over all that again here.
What needs to be pointed out here is two things that are, for the most part, not even recognized, let alone emphasized about the Democrat Party and Organized Labor:
The interesting thing here is that the average rank-and-file union member, like the typical run-of-the-mill registered Democrat voter, are completely oblivious to all of this. Many of them actually consider themselves to be American patriots. Most of them are what Rush calls the low information voters, and what I call the moron voters.
The general popular ignorance of the true but hidden nature of the Democrat Party and of the big unions is fed by decades of Democrat/Union controlled state-fed educational indoctrination, and Democrat directed/Marxist leaning Mainstream Media purposeful propaganda. And it is further fed by the moron-directed, amoral, hard Left-leaning entertainment establishment.
But unions collect huge sums of union dues from workers they claim to represent, and they funnel those dues directly to the Democrat Party and to various Democrat political candidates, whether the union membership likes it or not. The Democrat Party, and various Democrat politicians, in return for Union largess, return the favor by favoring union expansion, causes, programs and even funding through favorable legislation. Money goes back and forth between big unions and Democrats.
Industries dominated by unions: Usually we think of auto workers, garment workers, dock workers and truckers when we think of unionized workers. But that certainly ain't all. Education is dominated by unions. Entertainment is dominated by unions. News media is dominated by unions. Government, at all levels, is dominated by unions. Now, that's an important point, because union involvement in government is dangerous.
When a union organizes a shop, they "negotiate" wage and benefit contracts with the owner(s) of the shop. Whatever the owner(s) yields to union demands comes right out of profit - the pay of the owner(s). But when a union organizes a department or a bureau of a government, things change. Because now, the union negotiates with a government, but what the government yields does not come out of profit, because governments don't make profit. Governments only spend money. What the government yields in negotiations with unions comes out of the the blind-sided tax payers, who are not party to the negotiations and have nothing to say about them. It's no skin off the government's nose.
It may be argued that the worst thing to ever happen to America involved union domination of government workers, and the relationship of the Democrat Party to that domination. Tax payers pay for the whole pay and benefits package of the government worker, out of which the government dutifully collects union dues for the unions, out of which the Democrat Party gets its own political campaign funding and kickbacks.
On top of that we have the conflict of interest created in the government union worker, who depends on government for his way over average pay and benefits, which will make him tend to vote for the Big Government Party, candidates and issues. And, of course, they would all be Democrat.
Crony Capitalism and the Democrats. Corporatism = Crony Capitalism = National Socialism = Nazi Fascism comes into being when big business cooperates with, partners-up with or even merges with government, in formulating political policy and even in the running of the government. It can happen to such a degree that it may be difficult to tell the difference between a corporate big shot and a government big shot. They look, speak and act alike.
Here in America we have seen many Crony Capitalists change their pure profit motivation typical of big businesses to take second-place to a pure political power motivation. In America, this Crony Capitalism is most effectively exploited by the Democrat Party. Just like with the unions, money goes both ways between Crony Capitalists and Democrats.
The biggest banks in the country, two of our three car companies, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc., etc., etc., are in close partnership with the Democrat Party. There are multiple Solyndra-like phony "Green" companies in fraudulent relationship with the Democrats. (They get billions of tax dollars to simply get filthy rich, produce nothing that works or is marketable, support Democrats, eventually go out of business, but stay rich and continue to support Democrats, and maybe do it all over again with a "new" start-up "Green" company.)
The one aspect of all of this that is not widely recognized is the fact that a big union is a big business. It may be argued that the first Crony Capitalists in America were big unions. When a corporation is a closed-shop company, meaning only union members may apply for work, and the company is in bed with the Democrats, we have a double-whamy situation. Management has gone solidly Democrat, the rank-and-file dues go to support the Democrats, and the way above average pay and benefits of the workers induce them to support the union and the Democrats, upon whom they have become more and more dependent for their continued life style.
More Cross-Contamination. Hollywood, the movie industry and show-biz in general are heavily union-organized and they openly express solid allegiance to the Democrat Party. Journalists and news media workers in America are both union members and solidly Democrat in their politics. The owners of entertainment and news enterprises are Crony Capitalists, and their workers are dues-paying union members, who, in support of their bosses and their unions, and their own incomes, support the Democrat positions on everything. We wrote about some the effects of this in the Professional Liars of Journalism page, and in several articles linked in the right column of that page.
But it gets worse. American public school teachers are union members and they are government employees, at the same time. We the people, we the taxpayers, pay them to follow orders and indoctrinate our children in Democrat, i.e., Marxist politics, issues and policy, along with false anti-American history, and fraudulent environmental "science." Every IRS worker is a union member and a government employee. The same can be said of all EPA workers, and all the other ones. Pick a government agency acronym. They all pay union dues, which pay the Democrat Party, and they are all utterly dependent upon Big Government for their very livelihood, which induces them to vote Democrat.
We pay these people to cooperate in the destruction of our Constitution.
The only way out. The two things that must be stopped are the legal closed-shop-rule, and the legal forcing of employers to deduct union dues from paychecks. If these two rules were gone, the unions would slowly dry up and blow away.
This last item may require legislation to accomplish, because it affects contract law. The first two may simply be declared un-Constitutional and no law by any Congress or any President who wishes to do so.
As soon as item 2 above is accomplished, the government should stop deducting union dues from the paychecks of all government employees.
Employees would still be free to join unions and pay their dues, so long as it was voluntary. Employers would still be free to deduct union dues out of employee paychecks and send them to the unions, as long as it was voluntary.
As we said in the Kill the IRS page, and in several other pages herein, those programs, bureaus, agencies and laws that are clearly un-Constitutional on their face should be easier to kill than they were to build up. Provided we have a full government - all three branches - intent on returning us to strictly Constitutional government.
I hate unions and the Democrat Party because I hate Marxism just as much as I hate organized crime. (The tight relationship between Big Crime Families, Big Labor and Big Government is a separate subject that deserves another treatment all its own.)
That's my two cents worth. Long live the Constitution.
Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Wed Jul 24 17:47:27 2013
Location: Akron, OH
I am unable to reconcile your views regarding unionism with the magisterium, in particular as expressed by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum. I fear that you are allowing your conservative politics to lead you into error, and that you have fallen into the "cafeteria Catholicism" that your elsewhere decry. Your linking unions to Marxism would come as a surprise to Lech Wałęsa, a Roman Catholic who led the Solidarity union and was in significant measure responsible, with the support of Pope John Paul II, for transforming Poland from a communist to a non-communist state.
I would also note that you are incorrect about the law regarding unions. For example, no person may be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment, although he may be required to pay the equivalent of dues and fees. Further, there is not law, regulation or practice that forces employers to involuntarily deduct dues or fees from their employees' checks. Any such arrangement is strictly voluntary and the product of bargaining as memorialized by a contract. Finally, union dues may never be used for political purposes without the consent of the union membership.
Date: Thu Jul 25 05:27:58 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
I wonder if you mean to refer to something other than Rerum Novarum. The first third or so of that letter is spent condemning Socialism and redistributionism, and blessing individual liberty and the natural right to private property. The only thing in it that I take issue with is one clause in one sentence in paragraph 33 that speaks of " ... the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; ... " which appears to me, as a function of Socialism, to conflict with all that went before. I wonder if his holiness meant to use a word like "protect" rather than "provide." Earlier references to the call to charity and alms giving targeted the indigent and unfortunate, not the worker, and the giver of alms was he who had plenty, not the state. A small quibble, which has nothing to do with unions.
Your reference to Lech Walesa is interesting, in that Communist Poland was a far different environment for laborers than America. Walesa stood against the state, not against any private business enterprise. He stood to die, and he knew it. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said to the AFL/CIO, in Solzhenitsyn Speaks, it was the first time that the Communist government did not use their favorite labor negotiation tool, which was the machine gun.
Leo speaks to us of how associations of laborers must have religion as one component of the organization. When was the last time you saw a religious component of your union's organization? In paragraph 54 he warns of one of the exact problems I spoke of. Let me quote the paragraph:
Pargraphs 57 and 58 return to the theme that unions should be based on religion.
Your statement " ... no person may be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment, although he may be required to pay the equivalent of dues and fees. ... " raises the question, what's the difference? If you force a man to pay dues to an association, you force him into supporting an association he may not wish to support. To associate, through his dollars, which were his private property, with an association he might oppose.
As to the existence of laws or regulations that force employers to involuntarily deduct dues from laborers, I cannot speak specifically, but to the practice, I can. When I came home from Vietnam service I worked at the GM Fleetwood Plant in Detroit, Michigan, and I was quite literally forced to agree pay dues to the UAW as an absolute requirement of employment at the GM Fleetwood plant. It was a Democrat controlled city and a Democrat controlled nation, and a mostly Democrat controlled state, although we had a Republican governor at the time.
The "bargaining" and resulting labor contracts you speak of were legally required to go into "arbitration" whenever international labor unions threatened to shut down whole industries or whole cities or whole states or whole nations. The "arbitration" was always done by judges who were Democrat appointees. Guess who would come out on top in these "arbitration" decisions.
Your statement that union dues may never be used for political purposes without the consent of the union membership is just a flagrant lie. Every labor union in America strongly supports Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, and his Democrat Party, but the rank and file membership does not.
Date: Thu Jul 25 11:37:01 2013
Location: Akron, OH
You're compounding your initial error, tap dancing around in a vain effort to make Rerum Novarum conform to your Republican politics rather than the reverse.
In 1958 the Bishops of the six Roman Catholic dioceses opposed the proposed "right to work" Constitutional amendment, which would have outlawed the union. (Note: you do not appear to understand the difference between the "closed shop" which has long been illegal and the "union shop" which is not). And yet here you are leading your idiosyncratic personal crusade against a system the Church has long sought to foster.
Before you accuse visitors to your site of lying perhaps you should educate yourself a bit about union dues and politics. You could start with the Supreme Court's Beck v. Communication Workers of America case. What you're complaining about is union PACs, but these are funded exclusively by voluntary contributions by union members, not through dues.
Arbitration is a contractual mechanism for resolving disputes that arise under a collective bargaining agreement. Both sides must consent to the inclusion of an arbitration clause in the agreement. Then, both sides must agree to the use of a particular arbitrator. It is incorrect to contend that arbitrators are inevitably "judges who were Democrat appointee[s]."
You are a very angry and hostile person. I won't be returning to your site, and I pity your poor wife.
Date: Thu Jul 07 19:28:20 2013
From: Vic Biorseth
Tap dancing? Have you even read Rerum Novarum? It is what it is, whether you like it or not.
"The" six American dioceses? There are 164 dioceses and 1 apostolic exarchate in America. What do you mean by "the Bishops of the six Roman Catholic dioceses"?
Six Catholic Bishops, or any number of Bishops, do not make up "The Church." The Catholic Church speaks from Rome, not from any six American Catholic Bishops. Take a look at Lucifer and the CCHD for the story on how Saul Alinsky manipulated multiple Catholic Bishops and Priests to get the Church in America on board and in league with his Marxist union organizing.
Any hint that the rank and file union membership of America's unions had any say whatsoever in any of the untold billions of union PAC money devoted to the Democrat Party over the years is, as I said, a flagrant lie, and you know it.
Don't stand there with your bare face hanging out and declare that Ford, GM and Chrysler have never been legally forced into arbitration before an arbitrator not of their choosing. Do not stand there and imply that they ever came out on top of any such arbitration.
Take a good look at Detroit before you open your mouth again.
And thank you for pitying my wife; so do I.
Date: Sun Oct 05 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Get in the fight! Engage!
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
All Published Articles
By Publication Date
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to all new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and absolutely nothing else.
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
The Purpose of this grouping of links is to highlight the Marxist birth and anti-American slant of the organized labor movement, regardless of what the rank and file members think they know about it.
The Unionism Pages.
Born of the "Workers of the World, Unite!" line of the Communist Manifesto, labor became the first successful effort of Marxist "Community Organizing" toward class warfare and eventual revolution. The whole purpose was and is to set employees against their own employers and displace economic cooperation with animosity and strife.
A Plan to Kill the Unions, especially in government. We need to kill the unions, or at least break their stranglehold on free enterprise.
The Anti-Union Sentiment: Where does it come from? The Communist Manifesto and the modern organized labor movement.
Our argument against unions and for a more open and free marketplace. Arguing against unions and other free market interventions is seeking greater excellence in market goods, services, employees and employers, through free and open competition.
Breaking Unions: Ending Marxism's intrusion into work place relationships. Breaking Unions means breaking the very reason Organized Labor was originally Organized: to provide a path to violent revolution.
The Insidious Hidden Evil behind Collective Bargaining. The sly "Fairness" mask on Collective Bargaining hides the original, ongoing and continually exploited evil Marxist anti-institution stratagem.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the