Tsitsikovas posted:

Serious question, wrt to your other post about pushing american unions towards internationalism - does the fed gov still have the power to invoke taft-hartley to stop unions from taking positions that the US doesnt like? Does the NLRB have the power to injunct a union if they do take a stand, or better yet take concrete action if say a local or a national goes all in on BDS?

asking basically if the battles on the ground are purely political or if there are more concrete blocks towards an international position, especially a position against stated US interests (ie supporting Palestine). I know some states have passed anti-bds laws, and the fed has tried but failed at it, as has NYS (in another post I said NYS passed laws but turns out they just kept trying to and it never got to cuomo's desk).

Tsitsikovas posted:

a precision laser guided syq. israel can only dream.

In Training posted:

I think that ILWU has refused to unload Israeli weapon shipments in the past w/o an injunction.

Scarabrae posted:

Ok if we had to napkin math what % of jewish identifying people are anti-genocide and ending the occupation of Palestine?

i say swears online posted:

i prefer a good carpet-syq

In Training posted:

same here it means American workers could meaningfully disrupt war production and turn this public sentiment into concrete action. As it is we are largely stuck trying to get a small handful of orgs to pull retirement funds out of Israeli investments. Politically there is 0 opportunity for any anti-imperial effort. It's rough

sullat posted:

Oh so it's cool and good when workers do bespoke disruption of war production but when neoliberal managers successfully make it so wars can't be fought due to lack of material it's not cool?

Zodium posted:

the virgin trade unionist vs the chad neoliberal manager

Raskolnikov38 posted:

lmao the RPG round hanging from the bottom

gradenko_2000 posted:

this is a bit more of a hot take but the whole "Hamas was Bibi's creation" is sort of a rhetorical trick to try and get around the calls for "do you condemn Hamas? do you condemn Hamas???" that pro-Israel types yell at you whenever you try to talk about these things - instead of equivocating, or instead of saying "no, I do not condemn Hamas" (or the more inflammatory "Hamas ftw"), you simply turn the tables on the other party by whipping out that Israel is only getting what it asked for when it deliberately cultivated the growth of this group that's now attacking it

but like, and this is my personal opinion, even if it wasn't - even if Hamas was an entirely "organic" group that sprang out of the particular material conditions of Gaza and Palestine, they'd still be worthy of our support, because they're the ones fighting for Palestinian liberation

Zodium posted:

that’s why chuds are ftw

Zodium posted:

that’s why chuds are ftw

Zodium posted:

the virgin trade unionist vs the chad neoliberal manager

Frosted Flake posted:

I don't have time to write this all up at the moment, but there's a thread here that connects the Anglican hospital that was bombed to the state of the American Empire.

Britain built up a huge global Anglican Church under the Victorians, trying to compete with Catholicism and also create a class of civil servants, administrators, soldiers etc. that were Anglicized. Whatever you think about the Brits, Christianity has an appeal, and the Anglican Church was successful in many parts of the world, including Mandatory Palestine.

When the Brits quit Empire, they basically cut all of these people loose. This is kind of a through line for Britain, because they were really big on taking their toys and going home. Another thing is, where Catholicism is slowly coming to terms with being a global religion where most Catholics, the ones who take it most seriously, the places where the Church is growing, are outside of Europe, the Brits absolutely cannot deal with this. It's the Church of bloody England innit? So they refuse to give leadership of the Anglican Church to the people who are its lifeblood.

Desmond Tutu was the closest to the ideal of an Anglican bishop in a hundred years or more, but the Brits really don't care. Well, this was an Anglican hospital that was bombed. Has the King of England, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England made any statement about this? What is it supposed to mean to be Anglican? What are all of these institutions for?

I bring that up, because I think we're starting to see this with American institutions too. Like Gradenko said, capitalism trumps nationalism, and as the Empire recedes, a lot of things America has spent effort pretending matter are going to be cut loose too.

Anyway, there's an interesting book about how the future of the Anglican Church, paradoxically, will probably be outside of England:

The Anglican Church in Burma: From Colonial Past to Global Future

Sometimes presumed to be a mere relic of British colonialism, the Anglican Church in Burma (Myanmar) has its own complex identity, intricately interwoven with beliefs and traditions that predate the arrival of Christianity. In this essential volume, Edward Jarvis succinctly reconstructs this history and demonstrates how Burma’s unique voice adds vital context to the study of Anglicanism’s predicament and the future of worldwide Christianity.

Over the past two hundred years, the Anglican Church in Burma has seen empires rise and fall. Anglican Christians survived the brutal Japanese occupation, experienced rampant poverty and environmental disaster, and began a tortuous and frustrating quest for peace and freedom under a lawless dictatorship. Using a range of sources, including archival documents and the firsthand accounts of Anglicans from a variety of backgrounds, Jarvis tells the story of the church’s life beyond empire, exploring how Christians of non-Western heritage remade the church after a significant part of its liturgical documents and literature was destroyed in World War Two and how, more recently, the church has gained attention for its alignment with influential conservative and orthodox movements within Anglicanism.

Comprehensive and concise, this fascinating history will appeal to scholars and students of religious studies, World Christianity, church history, and the history of missions and theology as well as to clergy, seminarians, and those interested in the current crises and future direction of Anglicanism.

HallelujahLee posted:

im a chud since im a union

FlapYoJacks posted:

Hi a union. I’m FlapYoJacks.

HallelujahLee posted:

shut up chud

Thoguh posted:

lol she deleted it.

FlapYoJacks posted:

Better than a shitlib.

captainbananas posted:

they're all just episcopalians now, op

HallelujahLee posted:

that loser never did answer any of the call-outs in the econ thread

FlapYoJacks posted:

Who? PFC?

Fleetwood posted:

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

So much for the tolerant wet

HallelujahLee posted:

I actually havent heard much from unions here in support of palestine

to be clear i havent heard much of anything at all about the conflict from unions

Death By The Blues posted:

Germany is threatening to deport Hamas supporters. They must be terrified of the AfD.

HallelujahLee posted:

no the dipshit that was calling union members chuds and claiming that genocide joe personally expedited his green card

Gabagool posted:

the only union i've heard about was the starbucks union and they're getting sued into oblivion over it