3 ms·

The US government suppressed strikes back then, which proved it was a democracy for capitalists, and a dictatorship for workers. No need to suppress them nowad

The 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 ago
  In 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 ago
  Great 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 ago
  Oh 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.
yareal 3y ago
The U.S. government suppressed a strike just last year in the rail network. Labor is gaining power, but there's still interrupts coming from the government.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  Every time a democratic US president suppresses a strike, the world acts like it's the greatest thing ever. A lot of kennedy era political art and the positivity around him was from him "crushing" labor unions, especially big steel. I was struck by this while visiting his presidential library in Boston. I kind of hate it. The reality is that most people "think" they like unions, but in reality they seem not to.
  - derelicta 3y ago
    It's not surprising. Most newspapers(and political parties) are owned by capitalists, and therefore defend Capital, so it's not surprising to see that most people don't like unions. None of us are immune to propaganda after all, even more if it comes from a reputable source.
    - petsfed 3y ago
      This is never more clear than when you think about the last time "union" was used on a televised newscast on labor day. Sure, they may say "the parade included members of XYZ union local 995" or whatever, but absolutely nothing about "the day set aside to celebrate all the things made possible via the prior sacrifices of unions and other labor organizers". And the insidious thing about that omission is that there are plenty of perfectly valid arguments in defense of the journalistic integrity of everybody in that office, until you get to the interface between editor-in-chief and the actual owner of the newspaper. And even then, there's an apparently huge difference between "tell people that labor day is actually meant to celebrate the noble spirit of the lone entrepreneur, laboring to make our civilization great" and "just don't mention it, people don't care". That the actual intent is identical either way is not anywhere near as apparent as the surface-level differences between the two.
- 3y ago
randomdata 3y ago
> for unions have been significantly weakened by decades of red scare propaganda Let's be honest, though, the single biggest weakening function is the general decline in value of labour. People with low paying jobs simply can't afford to strike. The other side can just wait them out until they start to starve. It'll only take a few days. There is good reason why unions remain strong in high paying professions, but nowhere else. Those in high paying professions generally have much greater access to resources to maintain a strike for months or even years.
- derelicta 3y ago
  There have been studies conducted on this phenomenon. Unions apparent weakening are also due to the way our economy has changed. Big production centres went through a phase of either decentralisation, or delocalisation. The former having for consequence that it's way harder to organise many smaller independent and geographically distributed locations than one big factory.

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 ago
In 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 ago
Great 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 ago
Oh 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.

yareal 3y ago

The U.S. government suppressed a strike just last year in the rail network. Labor is gaining power, but there's still interrupts coming from the government.

Der_Einzige 3y ago
Every time a democratic US president suppresses a strike, the world acts like it's the greatest thing ever. A lot of kennedy era political art and the positivity around him was from him "crushing" labor unions, especially big steel. I was struck by this while visiting his presidential library in Boston. I kind of hate it. The reality is that most people "think" they like unions, but in reality they seem not to.
- derelicta 3y ago
  It's not surprising. Most newspapers(and political parties) are owned by capitalists, and therefore defend Capital, so it's not surprising to see that most people don't like unions. None of us are immune to propaganda after all, even more if it comes from a reputable source.
  - petsfed 3y ago
    This is never more clear than when you think about the last time "union" was used on a televised newscast on labor day. Sure, they may say "the parade included members of XYZ union local 995" or whatever, but absolutely nothing about "the day set aside to celebrate all the things made possible via the prior sacrifices of unions and other labor organizers". And the insidious thing about that omission is that there are plenty of perfectly valid arguments in defense of the journalistic integrity of everybody in that office, until you get to the interface between editor-in-chief and the actual owner of the newspaper. And even then, there's an apparently huge difference between "tell people that labor day is actually meant to celebrate the noble spirit of the lone entrepreneur, laboring to make our civilization great" and "just don't mention it, people don't care". That the actual intent is identical either way is not anywhere near as apparent as the surface-level differences between the two.
3y ago

randomdata 3y ago

> for unions have been significantly weakened by decades of red scare propaganda Let's be honest, though, the single biggest weakening function is the general decline in value of labour. People with low paying jobs simply can't afford to strike. The other side can just wait them out until they start to starve. It'll only take a few days. There is good reason why unions remain strong in high paying professions, but nowhere else. Those in high paying professions generally have much greater access to resources to maintain a strike for months or even years.

derelicta 3y ago
There have been studies conducted on this phenomenon. Unions apparent weakening are also due to the way our economy has changed. Big production centres went through a phase of either decentralisation, or delocalisation. The former having for consequence that it's way harder to organise many smaller independent and geographically distributed locations than one big factory.