7 ms·
Anarchy in the US (The Revolution That Almost Happened)
- dirtyhippiefree 3y agoThe story of Eugene Debs parallels what might happen currently. We’ve had a presidential candidate run from prison. His crime was protesting WWI…
- lukan 3y ago"The story of Eugene Debs parallels what might happen currently." What exactly? I do not see much that Donald Trump has in common with Eugene Debs.
- coldtea 3y agoThe potential of running as a candidate from prison and of being anti-war.
- krapp 3y agoTrump isn't remotely anti-war. The man launched more drone strikes than Obama, increased military spending to record levels, launched cruise missiles into Syria, escalated American military activity in Yemen and Afghanistan and threatened war with North Korea over Twitter.
- kerkeslager 3y agoAnd if jailed, Trump will be in jail for committing real crimes, as opposed to being in jail for speaking out in favor of workers as Eugene Debs was.
- coldtea 3y ago"real crimes" of the kind every D.C. politician does, but are swept under the carpet
- kerkeslager 3y agoWhile I certainly agree that there are a lot of D.C. politicians covering up their own crimes, Trump has gone pretty far beyond what most D.C. politicians do in the sheer brazen-ness with which he has disregarded the law.
- blinkingled 3y agoPer Wikipedia Eugene Debs was convicted of federal charges for defying a court injunction against the strike and served six months in prison. The world we live in means that someone is going to draw an equivalence from similar words for political gain. For e.g. prison is prison doesn't matter if it's for defying anti strike injunction or financial fraud. Likewise anti-war is anti-war be it a WW2 or Vietnam.
- resource_waste 3y ago>Likewise anti-war is anti-war be it a WW2 or Vietnam. Defensive and Just wars are not exactly the same as carving out political spheres of influence.
- blinkingled 3y agoThat's exactly the point - it is being used by a post below as such.
- somenameforme 3y agoBear in mind that you might see such parallels as unthinkable in the same way that someone of the time might have simply seen Debs as a 'anti-government insurrectionist who would later turn to outright sedition.' Debs led strikes that turned into violent riots that resulted in dozens of people being killed and millions of dollars in damage, only finally being shut down by the Army. [1] And he was indeed also arrested for sedition after speaking out loudly against US participation in WW1, which at the time was being framed as the most noble of all wars imaginable - it was literally called "The War to End All Wars." Propaganda, like always. A quote from Stalin was that, "I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the winds of history will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy." And I think that's probably true of many people. How we see things in one era often looks very different in the future -- you're left with just the big picture, less muddied by the liminalities and biases of the day. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
- 3y ago
- riffic 3y agodoesn't seem much like a parallel to be honest
- indus 3y agoWhere was Cornelius Vanderbilt in this? There is no reference at all.
- saxonww 3y agoVanderbilt Family Cemetery and Mausoleum, Staten Island, New York, U.S. (He died in 1873, ~20 years earlier)
- derelicta 3y agoThe US government suppressed strikes back then, which proved it was a democracy for capitalists, and a dictatorship for workers. No need to suppress them nowadays, for unions have been significantly weakened by decades of red scare propaganda, which makes the US government a democracy for capitalists, and a dictatorship for workers.
- refurb 3y ago> The US government suppressed strikes back then, which proved it was a democracy for capitalists, and a dictatorship for workers. I'm not sure it proves that at all. The anarchist "protests" involved significant violence including more than 40 bombings including letter bombs mailed to the Attorney General of the US and FBI.[1]. As well as bombings of public areas that were up to 25 pounds of TNT.[2] I don't know of any country that wouldn't treat it as a crime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#April_1919_mail_bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#April_1919_mai... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#June_1919_bombs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#June_1919_bomb...
- defrost 3y agoIn context, the 1919 bombings carried out by the Galleanisti (who were a small part of a much larger labour force) came after a decade of violent strikebreaking. It's incorrect to frame the violence as justified because of a small group of anachists who later retaliated with small bombs.
- ohthatsnotright 3y agoGreat book on some of this history, and a fun read: https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Times-Bombing-Americas-Forgotten/dp/1493006495 https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Times-Bombing-Americas-Forgott...
- derelicta 3y agoOh I'm not saying the US is in any way special in that case. Most countries nowadays are defacto dictatorships for their workers. Also a gentle reminder that most of your rights were gained through violence. It's a sad fact, but peaceful protests and sending gentle letters to your representatives is rarely effective. Debates are great and functional only when there is a little power asymmetry between the involved parties. Otherwise the US didn't gain its independence from Great Britain just by whining about it in London lol.
- rurban 3y agoThere were a lot of similar strikes then. Against Rockefeller mines e.g. Usually the industrialists just hired guns to shoot the strikers, but in some bigger cases they hired the army or national guards to shoot the strikers. The Texas railroad commission war e.g. Nowadays they can still hire guns, the army (eg the Banana war) or the CIA (foreign policy of secret wars). But buying the press is usually enough. The Detroit major mass-murder still runs free e.g. That's what we call anarchy. And never ever was anyone prosecuted. I mean the only fascist who went to prison was the John du Pont for being extraordinary stupid.
- mathgorges 3y agoHey, I’m a born & bred Detroiter and I’m not sure what you’re referring to by “The Detroit major mass-murder”. Google wasn’t helpful, but I would love to know more; can you expand on what event(s?) you’re alluding to?
- dingnuts 3y ago[flagged]
- tessierashpool 3y agothis is not just an ad hominem, it is also senseless. "you can safely assume this person knows nothing of our history, because he finds our tourists annoying" is not a valid argument. flagging for ad hominem
- Izkata 3y agoThey probably meant "murderer", not "murder". First search using that instead resulted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_massacre
- Tomte 3y agoHe‘s German, and murderer is Mörder in our language, and pronounced like murder. It‘s a mistake I make every now and then, as well.
- rocky_raccoon 3y agoIs there a good primer on the history of unionization in the United States? I've been living here for almost half a century and I know next to nothing about how it works. I've read and enjoy Grapes of Wrath, have heard about the Pinkertons, and have seen one or two picket lines in the streets of Downtown Austin. But I still have no clue how any of that stuff works. It seems like a vastly different world to me.
- UncleSlacky 3y agoNot specifically about unions, but a number of chapters in Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" cover them: https://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html https://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
- 8338550bff96 3y agoAs I understand it, this book is generally polemical and caters more to activism than disinterested truth-seeking. A book taking an opinionated position on a big topic is totally forgivable and above board for a non-fiction books, however when I see that it is the primary reference for so many different ideas, I get concerned that too much is taken for granted. I see enough objections, especially on its treatment of history, to this book whenever it is mentioned for me to approach it with a good deal of skepticism. I haven't even read it, so I have to reserve judgement. It does appear to be very influential, so it is high on my political reading list whether I like it or not. All of this is said to build context for what I'd really like to ask: what were your expectations when your read People's History of the United States? Did you have similar reservations? As a self-described disillusioned centrist, I have to raise my eyebrow when I see that so much political prescription appears to be based on this singular book that generally appears to be an other-side-of-history opinion piece.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoHaving actually read the book I'd say whoever you've been speaking to has an agenda they're trying to cater to. Read it and decide for yourself.
- bdw5204 3y agoThe history of strikes before federal labor law illustrates exactly why federal labor law is so essential to maintain a functioning economy that is fair for both capital and labor. Would you rather have a system run by the government where workers can vote to form unions and the unions can formally negotiate working conditions with the employer or an informal system where workers can form unauthorized unions and renegotiate or even go on strike at any time they wish? Would you rather have peaceful strikes where the union stands outside protesting but ensures no damage is done to the equipment or strikes where the union vandalizes the equipment and federal troops get called in to shoot union members? Getting rid of labor law does not eliminate unions. It simply turns labor disputes into small scale wars rather than peaceful negotiations that usually end with concessions from each side. Besides, it is much easier for corporations to just use anti-union propaganda to ensure the union loses the secret ballot election or get the legislature to pass "right to work" laws so people can work at a unionized workplace without joining the union.
- toss1 3y agoThis immediately reminded me of a quote, of US President John F. Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hammock 3y agoWhy is federal jurisdiction required for this? State-level regulation enables greater accountability to local constituents, empowering communities to shape labor policies directly. States can enact labor laws more quickly in response to local labor market conditions, and state-level regulations can be tailored to address specific economic and social contexts. States can experiment with new labor policies, fostering innovation in labor relations. Favorable labor laws in some states may attract businesses and workers, fostering healthy competition. Proximity between policymakers, workers, and employers facilitates better understanding and responsiveness
- 3y ago
- AlbertCory 3y agoThanks for all the comments. Usually when you hear of "armed thugs breaking a strike" it's in the 1930s and they're Pinkertons or equivalent. I don't know of any others where regular US Army troops were used. National Guard: yes. Those are usually under state control, though. I have at least two more posts on this coming. Stay tuned.
- thisismytest 3y agoDouglas MacArthur famously killed veterans that were protesting https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/28/the-veterans-were-desperate-gen-macarthur-ordered-u-s-troops-to-attack-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/28...
- AlbertCory 3y agothat wasn't a strike, though
- reactordev 3y ago>”Workers weren’t required to live there. Rents were actually a little higher than in the surrounding villages, especially in the Panic of 1893, but there was a belief among the workers that you’d be favored if you lived there. Plus, it was a short walk to the factory.” Sounds like the same arguments for return to office, and we can deduce the same outcome. It benefits one group. The executive.