"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"
If anything, Stalin has an even worse reputation today as in the years after his death. And I actually hope this won't change, as it would mean viewing mass murder and totalitarism in a good light again.
Sure, propaganda has led people to believe all sorts of things, but importantly there were real events that really happened independent of people's opinions of them. I think we have a fundamental responsibility to fight against propaganda and fight for truth.
Drawing a parallel between Donald Trump and Eugene Debs running for president from prison is an absurd comparison. Sure, it's true that Trump may end up running for president from prison just as Eugene Debs did, but that's possibly the only similarity between these two figures. Making this comparison, as if Donald Trump is some sort of fighter for workers, sounds awfully politically motivated.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
I'm not sure you'd really agree with what you're saying! The Pullman strike [1] wasn't a bunch of people walking off and then running around with signs. The initial strike was largely ineffectual, so the strikers started rioting and actively preventing other trains and workers from being able to operate, including with violence. In one instance within the riots a bridge was dynamited when soldiers in a train were crossing! These actions are exponentially more vile than anything Trump is being charged with, and Eugene Debs was overtly and actively at the head of these strikes/riots. He ended up serving 6 months in prison for it. Given the state of our justice system now a days, they would have tried to put him in prison for life.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
I would agree with what I'm saying, because what you are saying is simply not true.
While not everyone in the strike remained peaceful, Debs himself was very firmly a believer in peaceful protest. From the link you posted, Debs said:
> Strong men and broad minds only can resist the plutocracy and arrogant monopoly. Do not be frightened at troops, injunctions, or a subsidized press. Quit and remain firm. Commit no violence. American Railway Union will protect all, whether member or not when strike is off.
Emphasis mine. Also notable, none of the things Debs was charged with were violent crimes.
Don't link things that don't support your point as if they do. At best that means you didn't read it, and at worst you're being intentionally dishonest.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Try to find a single incorrect or false statement I made - you will not. You are doing precisely what you claimed to want to critique others for - you are rejecting the facts to try to turn Debs into whatever you want him to be.
Debs lead strikes which turned into riots, resulting in massive property damage and numerous deaths, multiple times. This is a fact. You trying to spin him into being some sort of dedicated believer in peaceful protest is your opinion, and a poorly supported one at that. That's not to say you can't hold that opinion - you can believe whatever you want. But what you can't (or at least shouldn't) do is reject the facts around the past, which is what you are also doing.
> You are doing precisely what you claimed to want to critique others for - you are rejecting the facts to try to turn Debs into whatever you want him to be.
On the contrary, I embraced the facts which you linked--it's just that the facts which you linked don't say what you claim they do. I would encourage anyone reading this conversation to click the link somenameforme posted and see that in fact, the link says what I'm saying it does.
> Debs lead strikes which turned into riots, resulting in massive property damage and numerous deaths, multiple times.
Did Debs incite that violence? You can juxtapose him next to violence all you want, but that's not evidence that did anything to cause it.
> This is a fact. You trying to spin him into being some sort of dedicated believer in peaceful protest is your opinion, and a poorly supported one at that.
Well, we can agree to disagree about whether the quote you linked supports my opinion well or poorly. But I don't feel that I need to support my opinion better than I have, given your total absence of any support for your opinion. If you choose to post any evidence which actually supports your opinion I'll be happy to do more thorough research (and admit I'm wrong, if I am wrong).
The fact is, Eugene Debs did write to the strikers, "Commit no violence." If you want to ignore that fact so you can pretend he's some sort of terrist, it might have been easier if you hadn't linked a page with that very quote in it. :)
Whoa, we finally have a pro-Pullman guy here. Amazing /s.
> The initial strike was largely ineffectual.
Yes. Pullman refused to even meet with the union. The title is "Anarchy in the US" for a reason.
Nowadays, "secondary boycotts" are expressly regulated, which is part of the evolution in labor laws that came about partly in response to the Pullman strike.
Debs was not "actively at the head of these strikes/riots." Maybe read something other than Wikipedia.
> preventing other trains and workers from being able to operate, including with violence
Again: "anarchy." The other unions would happily run trains with no Pullman cars. The railroad managers refused because they were standing together to keep the union from winning.
> He ended up serving 6 months in prison for it.
wrong again. The 6 months were for contempt of the injunction. His grand trial for the more serious things you're talking about was dropped when Pullman defied a subpoena and refused to testify.
I have stated facts, not opinions. Facts can be falsified, opinions cannot. If you list a single statement I've stated that is an opinion, or a false fact please do point it out. In any case, we're in a old thread buried deep, this chat is between just you, I, and bots. And once again I don't think you believe what you are saying. A simple example would be looping back to the original discussion - Trump. These were Trump's final Tweets (which were oddly enough censored, though can now be viewed plainly since Musk restored his account):
---
- "I am asking everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
- "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
- During his speech prior to the riots he also said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today."
---
So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest? Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things?
> That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is true, but I do care about the past, and correctly understanding the past, because actions today are informed by our understanding of the past.
> But I tend to give near 0 weighting to words and opinions, because assuming the truth of words is itself little more than a proxy for a view on the person saying them. The reason I gave Trump as the example there is to emphasize that I think most people also intuitively think this way, and only resort to words when convenient.
I think self-descriptions certainly aren't as reliable as actions, but 0 weighting? I certainly don't think that extremely little of words, and I disagree that almost anyone does.
> In either case, I give immense weighting to actions, and in this regard I see nothing to support the notion that Debs wasn't more than fine with violence.
I don't see any action at all that indicates this is the case. You've only shown a proximity to violence.
> And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence.
That's an absurd statement. Is it your opinion that workers should have just sucked it up and lived with inhuman treatment because strikes were likely to turn violent?
> It was an era when workers were cheap and easily replaced. Nobody cares about a bunch of people running around with signs - companies would simply hire new workers, 'strike breakers.'
This was sometimes the case (and was in the case of the Burlington railroad strike) but was not the case for the Pullman strike.
I'm also going to point out something: you're talking about "violence" but let's be specific about what that violence was. It was property damage. Workers were killed by military and strike breakers in the Pullman strike, and (2) workers were killed by a foreman and by a scab during the Burlington strike. If you're really just talking about this as an interesting part of history, you have an interesting way of characterizing property damage as unconscionable violence while failing to even mention people being killed.
> I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history.
Bro, you're the only one who believes this bizarre delusion of grandeur that you've somehow risen above human bias.
> And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present.
I mean sure, Debs and Trump said some similar things about violence and might both run for president from jail. They probably also eat food and drink water. Meaningless parallels abound.