If you’re curious about unions, I always find the Taft-Harley Act of 1947 fascinating for how it curtailed the efficacy of unions in this country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act?wprov...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act?wprov...
> Throughout the Second World War, the National War Labor Board gave trade unions the responsibility for maintaining labor discipline in exchange for closed membership. This led to acquiescence on the part of labor leaders to businesses and various wildcat strikes on the part of the workers.
Strikes and unionization are ways that individuals can become in parity with the owner class. Each side has something the other needs.
In politics, understandably, everyone believes that their actions are right. Those beliefs inevitably lead to warfare. That's why I don't believe in politics.
I stick to philosophy now, knowing that the quiet contemplation of the world, without taking sides, will yield some lasting benefits, without reckless wars destroying the insights about ourselves that we have already collected and named 'progress'.
Who succeeded in doing that? There is Confucius, and Norman Borlaugh, and many others ...
But if local involvement has taught me anything, people always have their own incentives, and it's really impossible to be anodyne it unless you're just letting them run over you.
Not taking sides is a political action in itself. Not wanting to be involved doesn't mean you aren't involved.
How I wish this was true
(this is not a comment on Unions, just on abuse of power in general)