He probably wasn't.
The CIA has released documents on him through freedom of information requests, and it's unlikely that he was ever knowingly in contact with CIA agents.
The only actual evidence I could find was hearsay, which was constantly being spread by extreme left publications.
Tbf even Nkrumah thought he was a CIA asset. It was a plausible belief at the time, and he certainly did a lot of work that lined up with the CIA's interests.
It’s also worth noting that unions are specifically not leftist entities as much as they try to claim it today. You only get unions in capitalist systems. Unions are a capitalist system, or else they would be advocating for the dissolution of private enterprises and entities as a whole, not for worker’s interests.
You're kinda right, but you framed things a bit disingenuously. You get unions in capitalist systems because unions are typically a reaction to certain effects of capitalism. There have been several unions who draw from socialism. Look up Eugene Debs, for a pretty famous example.
I’m not being disingenuous. Things can be influenced by and draw from socialist ideologies without being socialist. I have a hard time imagining a fully socialist system in which unions are necessary. A union is an answer to owner interests superseding worker interests in a capitalist system. Unless you wanna play a dumb game about it, most socialist ideologies would have a set up in which the workers are already fully represented in their interests, if somehow not directly the owners/shareholders themselves. You can only get a Union as a function of a capitalist system. Furthermore, using unions as a stepping stone *towards* a more socialist system does not make unions socialist because it still isn’t removing them from being a capitalist function/purpose. All it would do in that mindset/ideology is introduce and move workers into comfort with a democratized workplace.
No it doesn’t, lmfao. It makes it part of a capitalist transitional system at best. It’s still capitalism/capitalist. The ends don’t fundamentally and definitionally alter the means.
Unions - or rather, the concepts of collective bargaining and collective action in general - are central socialist concepts. In a system of economic hierarchy, where your social power is determined by your level of wealth, collective action by united masses of common people are necessary to force social change. Capitalism is obviously weighted in favor of the rich, and thus they have a grossly disproportionate amount of influence in politics and economics; in the face of entrenched wealth and privilege, the individual is nothing, and can be snuffed out with ease - but an organized, united front cannot be dealt with so easily. This is the basis of a union - it is a united front of working people struggling for their mutual interests. Because the boss has access to a wide array of powers and resources, the only power the workers have in a capitalist hierarchy is to collectively deny the boss their labor, for without the workers, the machines do not move, and nothing of value is created. This is why unions are such an enormc threat to the ruling elite, and they take Herculean measures to crush them or prevent them from forming. Do you disagree?
Gotcha. Anything else you wanna say to try to cope? Unions can be good without being socialist. You don’t have to change their definition and reason for existence for them to be good. You don’t have to force socialist definitions and reinterpretations on capitalist entities and functions just to make them good things. They’re economic things. They’re tools. We can have socialist tools and ideology in plenty of other places without having to replace capitalist ones. If it works, it works. You don’t have to pretend it’s something else to justify it working.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000500220037-6.pdf
Heres an article where he denies being infiltrated by the CIA https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00364R000200020086-0.pdf Heres another official CIA archive letter from Meany swearing he’s not doing what was claimed in the first article I shared that you dismissed. Do you think if Meany, the head of the AFLCIO was also working with the CIA that it would be something in the public record? That the head of Labor was in cahoots would not be something that Meany would conceal?
He probably was, and youve offered nothing to counter the source Ive presented other than dismiss it without anything other but a handwave. Thats not the sole source, and you can believe what you want, you’re not a scholar or anymore educated on the matter.
the american labor movement was so much better when we had pissed off socialists leading it. now we just have the exact same suit and tie wearing idiots that are working on the corporate labor relations side.
The booming American economy of the XX century created the wealthiest working class in the world. The average American labourer has benefited from the free-market economy so much, that communism lost almost all footholds in American politics. For this reason on the turn of the century the Frankfurt School of marxism explicitly stated that the target recipents for the communist ideology should no longer be the callously capitalist, conservative working classes of the West, but rather corporations who stand to gain the most from the power offered to them by the political and economic control through marxism.
You will never have the "people's" communism, if it had ever existed. You will have corporate communism, in which the means of production and the political processes are controlled totally by supernational corporations "on behalf of the people" using the governments as their puppets.
Literally not even Russian, you keep spreading your nonsensical Frankfurt school capitalist-communism drivel though, maybe one day you'll be able to understand what a word's definition means
corporate communism, which is obviously a tad abstract for your smooth, red brain. Unlike you I'm actually familiar with modern marxist theory and not just the 1860s slogans lol
> communism lost almost all footholds in American politics
Communism never had any foothold in American politics because it was never popular here. Communist Party candidates almost always walked away with ~1% or less of the vote. The closest thing we have today is someone like Bernie Sanders, who is still a capitalist and has explicitly said he doesn't believe workers should own the means of production.
> You will have corporate communism, in which the means of production and the political processes are controlled totally by supernational corporations "on behalf of the people" using the governments as their puppets.
Funny how these terms get created. "Corporate communism" is an oxymoron, but one that is probably synonymous with "state capitalism." I guess you use one or the other depending on what side you're on, but essentially it just means "authoritarian state."
Source: CounterSpy magazine.
Founded by: Philip Agee.
A CIA case officer known for defecting to the cuban intel and KGB in 1973, delivering everything he could gather during his stay at the western agency, outing numerous CIA members in soviet countries, getting them killed.
So:
- a magazine
- source is a guy who literally works for the KGB and cuban intel, having all the motives to accuse a union leader competing with communist unions.
- date is september 1974, as the North Vietnam was pushing an offensive into the South, with the US, already out and reducing their aid, with Nixon resignating.
- George Meany was in favor of the US involvement in the Vietnam War the whole time, seeing it as a necessary fight against communism.
So what you're saying is that the KGB, supporting an imminent regime change in South Vietnam at that moment, was accusing an anti-communist union leader of being a CIA agent? Color me surprised.
Ignore them. They are active on a subreddit that supports Russia and Hamas (they called Oct 7 a "justified act of resistance").
The modern far left movement is motivated solely by "America Bad, anti-America good"
Way to completely dodge the guys reply. You're looking great buddy! I'm sure you're gaining a lot of political adherents with this sound argumentation!
Feel free to see the other comments where I provide more sources, some from the CIA themselves, confirming the contemporaneous accounts that Meany, an avowed anti-communist, had CIA connections and was allowing the agency to direct supposed AFLCIO goodwill operations in Latin America to aid in (the very well documented) undermining of Labor movements by repressive, US backed regimes.
They certainly do not say that Meany worked for the CIA, because how do you think that would play with AFL-CIO membership? And if you think it would have been cool, then why did he never reveal that? So just because I can’t pull a CIA payslip or whatever preposterous source you would consider legitimate doesn’t mean there are not very good indications that he was involved in said subterfuge.
I could probably pull some more sources up, but why would I bother when you’ve made it clear you’re unserious and not actually interested in Meany’s life or the Labor movement. Infiltration and coopting by groups like the Pinkertons and Mafia are widely documented, as were numerous covert and overt US government attempts to control and manipulate the organizations, figures, literature, and ideologies literally from its inception with the struggles for the 8 Hour Day.
"I could give you more proof but I don't want to for some reason and it's not like anyone else is interested, especially not the dozens of people who have already up/downvoted it"
You think downvotes are an indication of the Truth of a matter? I also have included other sources, including CIA archives where Meany insists he is NOT an informant or infiltrator. Do you think that would be public information or have a massive paper trail if he was secretly working to undermine the broader Labor Movement?
That last sentence threw me for a loop lmao
He was a CIA stooge https://aadl.org/node/197771
He probably wasn't. The CIA has released documents on him through freedom of information requests, and it's unlikely that he was ever knowingly in contact with CIA agents. The only actual evidence I could find was hearsay, which was constantly being spread by extreme left publications.
Commies love saying anyone who opposes them is a CIA asset lol
Tbf even Nkrumah thought he was a CIA asset. It was a plausible belief at the time, and he certainly did a lot of work that lined up with the CIA's interests.
Imagine thinking people today would be insulted at being called a Commie!
Imagine being called a commie and immediately assuming it's an insult, but hey, if the shoe fits...
Oh I see, your comment was one of support and agreement
I guess you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is your mortal enemy, but i don't move like that.
No, you just make nonsense bot comments
Thank you for being an ally of the commies!
It’s also worth noting that unions are specifically not leftist entities as much as they try to claim it today. You only get unions in capitalist systems. Unions are a capitalist system, or else they would be advocating for the dissolution of private enterprises and entities as a whole, not for worker’s interests.
You're kinda right, but you framed things a bit disingenuously. You get unions in capitalist systems because unions are typically a reaction to certain effects of capitalism. There have been several unions who draw from socialism. Look up Eugene Debs, for a pretty famous example.
I’m not being disingenuous. Things can be influenced by and draw from socialist ideologies without being socialist. I have a hard time imagining a fully socialist system in which unions are necessary. A union is an answer to owner interests superseding worker interests in a capitalist system. Unless you wanna play a dumb game about it, most socialist ideologies would have a set up in which the workers are already fully represented in their interests, if somehow not directly the owners/shareholders themselves. You can only get a Union as a function of a capitalist system. Furthermore, using unions as a stepping stone *towards* a more socialist system does not make unions socialist because it still isn’t removing them from being a capitalist function/purpose. All it would do in that mindset/ideology is introduce and move workers into comfort with a democratized workplace.
I didn't mean to call you disingenuous, but your wording in your original comment confused me I think. I agree with you completely here.
Using them as a stepping stone towards a more socialist society makes them entirely that: socialist.
No it doesn’t, lmfao. It makes it part of a capitalist transitional system at best. It’s still capitalism/capitalist. The ends don’t fundamentally and definitionally alter the means.
Unions - or rather, the concepts of collective bargaining and collective action in general - are central socialist concepts. In a system of economic hierarchy, where your social power is determined by your level of wealth, collective action by united masses of common people are necessary to force social change. Capitalism is obviously weighted in favor of the rich, and thus they have a grossly disproportionate amount of influence in politics and economics; in the face of entrenched wealth and privilege, the individual is nothing, and can be snuffed out with ease - but an organized, united front cannot be dealt with so easily. This is the basis of a union - it is a united front of working people struggling for their mutual interests. Because the boss has access to a wide array of powers and resources, the only power the workers have in a capitalist hierarchy is to collectively deny the boss their labor, for without the workers, the machines do not move, and nothing of value is created. This is why unions are such an enormc threat to the ruling elite, and they take Herculean measures to crush them or prevent them from forming. Do you disagree?
Gotcha. Anything else you wanna say to try to cope? Unions can be good without being socialist. You don’t have to change their definition and reason for existence for them to be good. You don’t have to force socialist definitions and reinterpretations on capitalist entities and functions just to make them good things. They’re economic things. They’re tools. We can have socialist tools and ideology in plenty of other places without having to replace capitalist ones. If it works, it works. You don’t have to pretend it’s something else to justify it working.
Depends on what you think unions represent. I view unions as collective bargaining.
Uh yeah, thats how communism and socialism work
Go be a weirdo somewhere else. It’s weird seeing you try so desperately to convince everyone you’re not wrong all over this post.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000500220037-6.pdf Heres an article where he denies being infiltrated by the CIA https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP71B00364R000200020086-0.pdf Heres another official CIA archive letter from Meany swearing he’s not doing what was claimed in the first article I shared that you dismissed. Do you think if Meany, the head of the AFLCIO was also working with the CIA that it would be something in the public record? That the head of Labor was in cahoots would not be something that Meany would conceal?
He probably was, and youve offered nothing to counter the source Ive presented other than dismiss it without anything other but a handwave. Thats not the sole source, and you can believe what you want, you’re not a scholar or anymore educated on the matter.
Let me be blunt; is there a labor crisis in America today?
It depends on what you mean by “cwisis”
Relevant username. Can you bring me back one of those gyros?
You’re talking into your wallet, chief
This guy was great on Krusty.
the american labor movement was so much better when we had pissed off socialists leading it. now we just have the exact same suit and tie wearing idiots that are working on the corporate labor relations side.
The booming American economy of the XX century created the wealthiest working class in the world. The average American labourer has benefited from the free-market economy so much, that communism lost almost all footholds in American politics. For this reason on the turn of the century the Frankfurt School of marxism explicitly stated that the target recipents for the communist ideology should no longer be the callously capitalist, conservative working classes of the West, but rather corporations who stand to gain the most from the power offered to them by the political and economic control through marxism. You will never have the "people's" communism, if it had ever existed. You will have corporate communism, in which the means of production and the political processes are controlled totally by supernational corporations "on behalf of the people" using the governments as their puppets.
Brainrot
Russian
Marshmallow
Just Schmallow, only hot babes in r/crinklers call me by my full name
Seething and going through my post history lmao
keep yapping Ivan Conscriptovitch, the motherland will thank you for your sacrifices spreading commie propaganda on reddit lol
Literally not even Russian, you keep spreading your nonsensical Frankfurt school capitalist-communism drivel though, maybe one day you'll be able to understand what a word's definition means
corporate communism, which is obviously a tad abstract for your smooth, red brain. Unlike you I'm actually familiar with modern marxist theory and not just the 1860s slogans lol
“Corporate Communism” so capitalism?
Kinda what China is today.
> communism lost almost all footholds in American politics Communism never had any foothold in American politics because it was never popular here. Communist Party candidates almost always walked away with ~1% or less of the vote. The closest thing we have today is someone like Bernie Sanders, who is still a capitalist and has explicitly said he doesn't believe workers should own the means of production. > You will have corporate communism, in which the means of production and the political processes are controlled totally by supernational corporations "on behalf of the people" using the governments as their puppets. Funny how these terms get created. "Corporate communism" is an oxymoron, but one that is probably synonymous with "state capitalism." I guess you use one or the other depending on what side you're on, but essentially it just means "authoritarian state."
lmao he will still be labelled a communist by your typical conservative
Nah he was CIA, helping out the bosses
Pro union, anti communist. I like him.
He was a CIA informant https://aadl.org/node/197771
Source: CounterSpy magazine. Founded by: Philip Agee. A CIA case officer known for defecting to the cuban intel and KGB in 1973, delivering everything he could gather during his stay at the western agency, outing numerous CIA members in soviet countries, getting them killed. So: - a magazine - source is a guy who literally works for the KGB and cuban intel, having all the motives to accuse a union leader competing with communist unions. - date is september 1974, as the North Vietnam was pushing an offensive into the South, with the US, already out and reducing their aid, with Nixon resignating. - George Meany was in favor of the US involvement in the Vietnam War the whole time, seeing it as a necessary fight against communism. So what you're saying is that the KGB, supporting an imminent regime change in South Vietnam at that moment, was accusing an anti-communist union leader of being a CIA agent? Color me surprised.
Ignore them. They are active on a subreddit that supports Russia and Hamas (they called Oct 7 a "justified act of resistance"). The modern far left movement is motivated solely by "America Bad, anti-America good"
Ah yes, the deprogram. I knew it without even looking at his account.
Thats one source, yes. I’m sure that I could pull up more if you asked me really nicely.
Way to completely dodge the guys reply. You're looking great buddy! I'm sure you're gaining a lot of political adherents with this sound argumentation!
Feel free to see the other comments where I provide more sources, some from the CIA themselves, confirming the contemporaneous accounts that Meany, an avowed anti-communist, had CIA connections and was allowing the agency to direct supposed AFLCIO goodwill operations in Latin America to aid in (the very well documented) undermining of Labor movements by repressive, US backed regimes.
They certainly do not say that Meany worked for the CIA, because how do you think that would play with AFL-CIO membership? And if you think it would have been cool, then why did he never reveal that? So just because I can’t pull a CIA payslip or whatever preposterous source you would consider legitimate doesn’t mean there are not very good indications that he was involved in said subterfuge.
That snippet is essentially: "He's CIA because I said so"
Ok, well I’ve made a claim and provided some preliminary evidence. You can believe what you like
Okay so where’s the evidence he was working for the cia?
Why are you so invested in trying to disprove it?
I claim you're an idiot and use this as a thread for preliminary evidence. Everyone else can believe what they like
I could probably pull some more sources up, but why would I bother when you’ve made it clear you’re unserious and not actually interested in Meany’s life or the Labor movement. Infiltration and coopting by groups like the Pinkertons and Mafia are widely documented, as were numerous covert and overt US government attempts to control and manipulate the organizations, figures, literature, and ideologies literally from its inception with the struggles for the 8 Hour Day.
"I could give you more proof but I don't want to for some reason and it's not like anyone else is interested, especially not the dozens of people who have already up/downvoted it"
You think downvotes are an indication of the Truth of a matter? I also have included other sources, including CIA archives where Meany insists he is NOT an informant or infiltrator. Do you think that would be public information or have a massive paper trail if he was secretly working to undermine the broader Labor Movement?
A commie hating, union man. My kinda guy.
I wish George Meany wrote a biography.
So a traitor of the people
Cringe ass