3 ms·

And by the way, there's plenty more evidence that Debs was a pacifist besides that one quote you're objecting to: "Summarizing Debs's thought in this period, t

And by the way, there's plenty more evidence that Debs was a pacifist besides that one quote you're objecting to: "Summarizing Debs's thought in this period, the historian David A. Shannon wrote: "Debs's desideratum was one of peace and co-operation between labor and capital, but he expected management to treat labor with respect, honor and social equality"."[1] "Debs said in part: 'Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means.'"[1] "In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the grounds that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I..."[1] "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois."[2] "Debs first welcomed the military, believing that they would help to keep the peace and allow the strike and boycott to continue peacefully."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

somenameforme 3y ago
[edit: This was in response to your previous post, but self-forking conversation tends to lead to a mess, so I am replying here - I believe it largely applies to your response to yourself as well in any case] I'm not starting with an opinion and then seeking facts to support it. That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other. If anything I'd be quite aligned with him on many things, particularly his views on imperialism. 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. 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. The Pullman Strikes were not a one-off thing. Debs was also involved in the Burlington railroad strike of 1888 [1], and it also turned violent. And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence. 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.' So strikers would respond to this by carrying out sabotage, attacking or intimidating the strike breakers, and so on. The rare time strikes ended peacefully tended to be when the strikers were able to get some form of leverage, like convincing a town to boycott the business. I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history. And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_1888 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_...
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I see you've ignored the posts where I listed the inaccuracies in your earlier statements, and continued to troll anyway. If this were like most social networks that allow Blocks for people like you, everyone would have Blocked you already. You can reply to this with hundreds of more words of blather, but I won't be responding any further.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  > 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.

somenameforme 3y ago

[edit: This was in response to your previous post, but self-forking conversation tends to lead to a mess, so I am replying here - I believe it largely applies to your response to yourself as well in any case] I'm not starting with an opinion and then seeking facts to support it. That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other. If anything I'd be quite aligned with him on many things, particularly his views on imperialism. 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. 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. The Pullman Strikes were not a one-off thing. Debs was also involved in the Burlington railroad strike of 1888 [1], and it also turned violent. And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence. 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.' So strikers would respond to this by carrying out sabotage, attacking or intimidating the strike breakers, and so on. The rare time strikes ended peacefully tended to be when the strikers were able to get some form of leverage, like convincing a town to boycott the business. I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history. And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_1888 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_...

AlbertCory 3y ago
I see you've ignored the posts where I listed the inaccuracies in your earlier statements, and continued to troll anyway. If this were like most social networks that allow Blocks for people like you, everyone would have Blocked you already. You can reply to this with hundreds of more words of blather, but I won't be responding any further.
kerkeslager 3y ago
> 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.