4 ms·

That's a far cry from the context he painted. Socialists were absolutely not under that kind of violent lynching level of abuse and it was quite the opposite in

That's a far cry from the context he painted. Socialists were absolutely not under that kind of violent lynching level of abuse and it was quite the opposite in Academia. [Just to be clear, did not know about Red Summer and I concede that point.]

defrost 3y ago
I haven't looked at the treatment of socialists - I just addressed the stoning of blacks. IIRC union busting in the US was quite violent and sometimes involved the police and | or military aiding in charging and beating strikers with clubs and occasional deaths, frequent injuries. Again, not stoning but would count as violence towards socialists | communists | workers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th... 1916 - 1925 seems to be a peak time of extreme violence toward unions.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  I wouldn't say unions are socialist at all. In fact unions are the first thing to go out the window under socialist governments. (The relevant part of the Wiki article is highlighted) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#:~:text=Independent%20unions%20are%20illegal%20in,in%20the%20world%20since%202009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#:~:....
  - defrost 3y ago
    You have a narrow view of socialism - it's a broad tent and in many ways neither Russia and the USSR nor China during the great leap forward are representive of what most socialists aim for. Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, 100 years ago in the USofA : Unlike the American Federation of Labor, the Industrial Workers of the World opposed the First World War. The American Protective League (APL) was a pro-war organization formed by wealthy Chicago businessmen. At the height of its power the APL had 250,000 members in 600 cities. In 1918, documents from the APL showed that ten percent of its efforts (the largest of any category) were focused on disrupting the activities of the IWW. The APL burgled and vandalized IWW offices, and harassed IWW members. Such actions were illegal, yet were supported by the Wilson administration. a quarter million self described capitalists were openly attacking self described socialists. Industrial Workers of the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_Worl... The philosophy and tactics of the IWW are described as "revolutionary industrial unionism", with ties to socialist, syndicalist, and anarchist labor movements. Neither of us get to "yeah, but..." and redefine what the wobblies a century ago described themselves as, nor what their opponents used as a slur.
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      I like unions. I don't like socialism. Socialist countries ban unions, which I like. Unions need freedoms to operate, which need to be respected too. Unions have a lot of ideological affinity with socialist movements, usually downright indistinguishable, I think this is not good.

defrost 3y ago

I haven't looked at the treatment of socialists - I just addressed the stoning of blacks. IIRC union busting in the US was quite violent and sometimes involved the police and | or military aiding in charging and beating strikers with clubs and occasional deaths, frequent injuries. Again, not stoning but would count as violence towards socialists | communists | workers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th... 1916 - 1925 seems to be a peak time of extreme violence toward unions.

hotdogscout 3y ago
I wouldn't say unions are socialist at all. In fact unions are the first thing to go out the window under socialist governments. (The relevant part of the Wiki article is highlighted) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#:~:text=Independent%20unions%20are%20illegal%20in,in%20the%20world%20since%202009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China#:~:....
- defrost 3y ago
  You have a narrow view of socialism - it's a broad tent and in many ways neither Russia and the USSR nor China during the great leap forward are representive of what most socialists aim for. Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, 100 years ago in the USofA : Unlike the American Federation of Labor, the Industrial Workers of the World opposed the First World War. The American Protective League (APL) was a pro-war organization formed by wealthy Chicago businessmen. At the height of its power the APL had 250,000 members in 600 cities. In 1918, documents from the APL showed that ten percent of its efforts (the largest of any category) were focused on disrupting the activities of the IWW. The APL burgled and vandalized IWW offices, and harassed IWW members. Such actions were illegal, yet were supported by the Wilson administration. a quarter million self described capitalists were openly attacking self described socialists. Industrial Workers of the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_Worl... The philosophy and tactics of the IWW are described as "revolutionary industrial unionism", with ties to socialist, syndicalist, and anarchist labor movements. Neither of us get to "yeah, but..." and redefine what the wobblies a century ago described themselves as, nor what their opponents used as a slur.
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    I like unions. I don't like socialism. Socialist countries ban unions, which I like. Unions need freedoms to operate, which need to be respected too. Unions have a lot of ideological affinity with socialist movements, usually downright indistinguishable, I think this is not good.