"Soviet" is the Russian word for "council". In the period leading up to the 1917 Revolution, there were Unions that were largely behind the movement towards that Marxist/ Communist Revolution. There were even "Unions of Unions", (kinda like the AFL-CIO). Meetings of these Unions' elected delegates were called "Soviets". There were multiple Soviets, the "St. Petersburg Soviet of Worker's Delegates" being the most significant because Lenin and Trotsky were members of it. In 1905, new Unions were springing up all over Russia, including the "Peasants' Union" and the "Union of Russian People". The Soviets and other Unions won concessions from the Tsar in the 1905 Revolution. That produced some temporary stability, but it ultimately proved to be too little too late. After the 1917 Communist Revolution, in order to reflect the importance of the Soviets to the Marxist government he had helped create, Lenin decided to include the word "Soviet" in the name of the newly Tsar-less worker's paradise. Hence, the 2nd 'S' in "USSR".
Conceptually at least, the USSR was partly designed to be what one might call a Union-run government.
Jump cut to the United States, 2009.
When ownership wants to spend less on labor, the Unions will fight that plan. We have Unions to protect workers from being abused by ownership. That's all well and good. But this means that the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), whose membership consists of Government employees, is essentially protecting its workers from…what?…the ownership of the government! The problem is; that's the people! The SEIU is a powerful Union that is, by the very nature of its existence, protecting it's workers from the people. This means that whenever the people decide, through their representatives, that they want to spend less money on a given government program, the SEIU kicks its influence into overdrive. It mounts nasty protests (insert ACORN beating here), and it threatens whatever politicians it has funded with revocation of support. They even put up/fund their own new candidates for office when their "bought" politicians start talking about government spending cuts. This is currently happening in Oregon and all over California. The SEIU (and its close affiliate ACORN) uses its enormous power to ensure the constant growth of government. The relationship between the SEIU and the Government is thus a feedback loop that only produces ever-escalating taxes and ever-escalating spending over time.
Conceptually at least, the US was designed to be what one might call a citizen-run government. But when the SEIU blocks the will of the people from being implemented, shouldn't we conclude that the US is now a de-facto Union-run government?
For instance, the majority of American Citizens do not want it, yet Congress is preparing to pass the Health Reform bill. Is it a coincidence that this bill would greatly benefit the SEIU?
President Obama has basically pledged his life's work to the SEIU. When historians look back at our own time in America's history, will they see any such parallels? Are the SEIU and ACORN America's "Soviets"?