4 ms·

I agree with you except on a small point - I don't think restricting labor movement is particularly beneficial to capital - but I don't see much relevance to th

I agree with you except on a small point - I don't think restricting labor movement is particularly beneficial to capital - but I don't see much relevance to the article.

fallingfrog 7y ago
I felt that the article was trying to paper over genuine conflicts by making them just look like thinly held opinions. The message is: don’t fight, it’s not a real difference, it’s just slightly different ideas. That’s just false- a hen can’t be allies with a fox. If people are going to fight for themselves they have to know who their enemies are and why those people are their enemies. To make the point even more explicit- who do you suppose funds More In Common, and why do you suppose they do that?
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  The message of the article is _we are not enemies_ not "don't fight." Fellow Americans should be able to disagree and settle the conflict with elections. Enemies wish for each other's destruction, and while it may be how you feel, it is not the right frame of mind to take when attempting exchange of ideas on policy.
  - fallingfrog 7y ago
    See now, that right there is why liberals consistently lose and never learn from it. The right knows they’re at war, and they act accordingly, and the socialist left does too, but nobody listens to them, and then you have all these centrist liberals who think it’s a high school debate club or something. This is win or die stuff man. If the enemy acts like it’s a war and you don’t, you’re going to lose, every time.
    - slowmovintarget 7y ago
      Sigh. I'm a conservative. It shouldn't be a war. It should be a philosophical disagreement between brothers and sisters.
      - fallingfrog 7y ago
        Look: I was a conservative when I was a teenager and hadn’t gone out to see the real world yet. But at some point you go out and the ideal collides with the reality and you have to face what those ideas really mean. I say what I say out of a desire to influence people; I want to influence people out of a desire to make the world better. I have two kids- I don’t want them to be drafted in a war, or go hungry because of climate change. But if the conservatives get their way, that’s what will happen to them. I’ve been in city Council meetings advocating for paid sick leave for local working people. On my side was the vast majority of citizens, together with organized labor, on the other side was the chamber of commerce. The testimony was 20 to 1 in favor. But we lost, because the young lawyer in the expensive suit from the Chamber stood up and reminded the city Council members of who funded their election campaigns. And by defeating paid sick leave, they force people to work preparing food when they have the flu, they force people to choose between watching their sick kids or losing their jobs. I was once a fast food worker and my boss wouldn’t let me go home even though I was barfing in a trash can behind the fryolator. An experience like that changes you. But you know, the Chamber won, and they saved the business owners of the city a lot of money. Look, your side wants a war with Iran that will necessitate the return of the draft; to do nothing about climate change which is rolling the dice on civilization itself; and to literally put children in cages (while making substantial profit for doing it). I’m sorry but you’re not my brother or sister if you support that kind of violence.
fallingfrog 7y ago
To the point about capital mobility, I was just making a point about the phenomenon where Jeff bezos will come into town and demand millions of dollars in subsidies or else he’ll take his warehouse elsewhere. He can do that because capital is mobile and people are not. The same phenomenon applies in a different way to Mexico; you want to move your factories to where labor is cheap. But if all those Mexicans can just leave, it defeats the purpose of moving your plant to Mexico.

I agree with you except on a small point - I don't think restricting labor movement is particularly beneficial to capital - but I don't see much relevance to the article.

fallingfrog 7y ago

I felt that the article was trying to paper over genuine conflicts by making them just look like thinly held opinions. The message is: don’t fight, it’s not a real difference, it’s just slightly different ideas. That’s just false- a hen can’t be allies with a fox. If people are going to fight for themselves they have to know who their enemies are and why those people are their enemies. To make the point even more explicit- who do you suppose funds More In Common, and why do you suppose they do that?

slowmovintarget 7y ago
The message of the article is _we are not enemies_ not "don't fight." Fellow Americans should be able to disagree and settle the conflict with elections. Enemies wish for each other's destruction, and while it may be how you feel, it is not the right frame of mind to take when attempting exchange of ideas on policy.
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  See now, that right there is why liberals consistently lose and never learn from it. The right knows they’re at war, and they act accordingly, and the socialist left does too, but nobody listens to them, and then you have all these centrist liberals who think it’s a high school debate club or something. This is win or die stuff man. If the enemy acts like it’s a war and you don’t, you’re going to lose, every time.
  - slowmovintarget 7y ago
    Sigh. I'm a conservative. It shouldn't be a war. It should be a philosophical disagreement between brothers and sisters.
    - fallingfrog 7y ago
      Look: I was a conservative when I was a teenager and hadn’t gone out to see the real world yet. But at some point you go out and the ideal collides with the reality and you have to face what those ideas really mean. I say what I say out of a desire to influence people; I want to influence people out of a desire to make the world better. I have two kids- I don’t want them to be drafted in a war, or go hungry because of climate change. But if the conservatives get their way, that’s what will happen to them. I’ve been in city Council meetings advocating for paid sick leave for local working people. On my side was the vast majority of citizens, together with organized labor, on the other side was the chamber of commerce. The testimony was 20 to 1 in favor. But we lost, because the young lawyer in the expensive suit from the Chamber stood up and reminded the city Council members of who funded their election campaigns. And by defeating paid sick leave, they force people to work preparing food when they have the flu, they force people to choose between watching their sick kids or losing their jobs. I was once a fast food worker and my boss wouldn’t let me go home even though I was barfing in a trash can behind the fryolator. An experience like that changes you. But you know, the Chamber won, and they saved the business owners of the city a lot of money. Look, your side wants a war with Iran that will necessitate the return of the draft; to do nothing about climate change which is rolling the dice on civilization itself; and to literally put children in cages (while making substantial profit for doing it). I’m sorry but you’re not my brother or sister if you support that kind of violence.

fallingfrog 7y ago

To the point about capital mobility, I was just making a point about the phenomenon where Jeff bezos will come into town and demand millions of dollars in subsidies or else he’ll take his warehouse elsewhere. He can do that because capital is mobile and people are not. The same phenomenon applies in a different way to Mexico; you want to move your factories to where labor is cheap. But if all those Mexicans can just leave, it defeats the purpose of moving your plant to Mexico.