5 ms·

>> "It is herds and movements that are disempowering." > The Civil Rights movement. > The labor movement. > The environmental movement. > The suffragette mo

by lutusp 12y ago

>> "It is herds and movements that are disempowering." > The Civil Rights movement. > The labor movement. > The environmental movement. > The suffragette movement. > The abolitionist movement. > The free speech movement. > The list can go on and on. Indeed it does, and some will argue that, with some noteworthy exceptions, your list, and other similar lists, proves the point being made by the OP. Most public movements only postpone what they protest against -- the labor movement stands as a classic case. > Whatever else you could say about these movements, agree or disagree with their aims or effects, its difficult to give credence to the view that they weren't effective or empowering to their members or that their goals could have been achieved without organization. From a scientific standpoint, we cannot say whether these movements were causes or effects. By the time people were rightly condemning slave ownership on any scale in the U.S., Great Britain had abandoned slavery decades before, and many civilized people in the U.S. and elsewhere saw slavery's abandonment as inevitable. As to the labor movement, historically it described an arc between ineffectiveness and corruption -- between a promise of a solution, to becoming a bigger problem than the issue it claimed to address. As to free speech -- well, I see this as a classic example of modern government's basic strategy, which is to find out what people are going to do anyway, order them to do it, then try to take credit for the outcome.

maxxxxx 12y ago
I don't think it's right to doubt that these movements at least accelerated improvements. I am sure the South would happily have held slaves for much longer than it did. I remember when I was a kid car manufacturers claimed they would go bankrupt if they had to install catalytic filters. Only the pressure from the environmental movement build up the momentum for requiring those filters. Without the labor movement we would probably still work 12 hours six days a week.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I don't think it's right to doubt that these movements at least accelerated improvements. But I didn't do that. I only said we cannot know scientifically whether they're causes or effects. That's an important distinction, one often overlooked in historical accounts.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  "Without the labor movement we would probably still work 12 hours six days a week." Unfortunately, many in the technology field still do, and worse. Many on this very forum advocate working much longer hours in their attempts to get rich quick through the startup lottery. At the same time, they rabidly belittle unions, membership in which would probably be the only thing short of becoming an independent consultant that could allow them to work relatively sane hours.
pmoriarty 12y ago
"Most public movements only postpone what they protest against -- the labor movement stands as a classic case." The 8-hour work day[1], the existence of overtime pay[2], workplace health and safety standards[3], child labor laws[4], the right to strike[5] and organize (as curtailed as these have become in recent decades) and many other labor laws in the US (not to mention Europe) would provide counterarguments. "From a scientific standpoint, we cannot say whether these movements were causes or effects." The causation is usually quite clear, if you educate yourself as to what happened during these movements. Much of America saw segregation[6] as the natural order of the world and couldn't imagine that people of different races could or should "intermix". Many very powerful segregation proponents fought tooth and claw to keep it alive, killing, torturing, and imprisoning countless people that they saw as their enemies. If it weren't for the Civil Rights[7] movement, segregation probably would have continued for many more decades, and I would surprised if people of different races could sit in the same restaurants or marry one another in the US by the turn of the 21st century. The heart of the Free Speech[8] movement was in the Bay Area, so I would like to hope that those HN members that hail from Silicon Valley or SF shouldn't need to have its history recapped for them, so I'll just say that the University of California had dug in its heels against giving in to any of the students' demands, and were it not for their massive and persuasive protests, there's no evidence that it would have been achieved without the movement. Some decades later, a similar set of events lead to the appointment of the first Deaf President at Gaulladet.[9] The end of Apartheid[10] in South Africa: due to a mass movement against it. The independence of India[11] (and many others) was the result of a mass movement. Those who already know the history of these movements must forgive me for such obvious and superfluous citations. I only do so because I fear that the only way off-hand claims of the ineffectiveness of such movements could be taken seriously is if one had a profound ignorance of history (for which the citations could hopefully make a little self-education easier, for those of a curious mind), or a deep ideological opposition to them -- which I'm afraid no citations are likely to cure. You say, "As to the labor movement, historically it described an arc between ineffectiveness and corruption -- between a promise of a solution, to becoming a bigger problem than the issue it claimed to address." Who other than bitter ideological opponents would describe it as such? I'm sure many American conservatives and "pro-business" proponents see having their employees work shorter days, having to pay pesky overtime pay and compensate them for on-the-job injuries as "a bigger problem than the issue they claim to address". I've also seen similar criticisms from Marxists who think anything short of bloody revolution is a weak compromise that only perpetuates capitalism. These are not exactly "scientific standpoints", to use your term, but ideological ones. And I'd be interested to see a source for them other than the likes of the Free Republic or the Nation. You also say, "As to free speech -- well, I see this as a classic example of modern government's basic strategy, which is to find out what people are going to do anyway, order them to do it, then try to take credit for the outcome." Look at the history of the Free Speech movement. The students involved in those protests weren't ordered by the government to protest. Quite the contrary, they were bloodily opposed every step of the way. So I'm not sure what makes you say otherwise. Of course, success has a million fathers and failure none. So it's no surprise that everyone would try to take credit for it now. But I'm not sure how this is supposed to discredit the original movement itself. Please enlighten me. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour [5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action [6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_Unit... [7] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955-1968%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_... [8] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement [9] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_President_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_President_Now [10] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid [11] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Most public movements only postpone what they protest against -- the labor movement stands as a classic case The labor movement wasn't protesting against something in the future that could be postponed, it was protesting against the current status quo, which in many of the key aspects it was protesting against, it reversed. Its true that over time, with less activity, some of those gains have been eroded, but I don't see there being any reasonable argument that the labor movement "only postpone[d] what they protest[ed] against". If you think there is such an argument, I'd certainly welcome you to present it.

by lutusp 12y ago

maxxxxx 12y ago

I don't think it's right to doubt that these movements at least accelerated improvements. I am sure the South would happily have held slaves for much longer than it did. I remember when I was a kid car manufacturers claimed they would go bankrupt if they had to install catalytic filters. Only the pressure from the environmental movement build up the momentum for requiring those filters. Without the labor movement we would probably still work 12 hours six days a week.

lutusp 12y ago
> I don't think it's right to doubt that these movements at least accelerated improvements. But I didn't do that. I only said we cannot know scientifically whether they're causes or effects. That's an important distinction, one often overlooked in historical accounts.
pmoriarty 12y ago
"Without the labor movement we would probably still work 12 hours six days a week." Unfortunately, many in the technology field still do, and worse. Many on this very forum advocate working much longer hours in their attempts to get rich quick through the startup lottery. At the same time, they rabidly belittle unions, membership in which would probably be the only thing short of becoming an independent consultant that could allow them to work relatively sane hours.

pmoriarty 12y ago

"Most public movements only postpone what they protest against -- the labor movement stands as a classic case." The 8-hour work day[1], the existence of overtime pay[2], workplace health and safety standards[3], child labor laws[4], the right to strike[5] and organize (as curtailed as these have become in recent decades) and many other labor laws in the US (not to mention Europe) would provide counterarguments. "From a scientific standpoint, we cannot say whether these movements were causes or effects." The causation is usually quite clear, if you educate yourself as to what happened during these movements. Much of America saw segregation[6] as the natural order of the world and couldn't imagine that people of different races could or should "intermix". Many very powerful segregation proponents fought tooth and claw to keep it alive, killing, torturing, and imprisoning countless people that they saw as their enemies. If it weren't for the Civil Rights[7] movement, segregation probably would have continued for many more decades, and I would surprised if people of different races could sit in the same restaurants or marry one another in the US by the turn of the 21st century. The heart of the Free Speech[8] movement was in the Bay Area, so I would like to hope that those HN members that hail from Silicon Valley or SF shouldn't need to have its history recapped for them, so I'll just say that the University of California had dug in its heels against giving in to any of the students' demands, and were it not for their massive and persuasive protests, there's no evidence that it would have been achieved without the movement. Some decades later, a similar set of events lead to the appointment of the first Deaf President at Gaulladet.[9] The end of Apartheid[10] in South Africa: due to a mass movement against it. The independence of India[11] (and many others) was the result of a mass movement. Those who already know the history of these movements must forgive me for such obvious and superfluous citations. I only do so because I fear that the only way off-hand claims of the ineffectiveness of such movements could be taken seriously is if one had a profound ignorance of history (for which the citations could hopefully make a little self-education easier, for those of a curious mind), or a deep ideological opposition to them -- which I'm afraid no citations are likely to cure. You say, "As to the labor movement, historically it described an arc between ineffectiveness and corruption -- between a promise of a solution, to becoming a bigger problem than the issue it claimed to address." Who other than bitter ideological opponents would describe it as such? I'm sure many American conservatives and "pro-business" proponents see having their employees work shorter days, having to pay pesky overtime pay and compensate them for on-the-job injuries as "a bigger problem than the issue they claim to address". I've also seen similar criticisms from Marxists who think anything short of bloody revolution is a weak compromise that only perpetuates capitalism. These are not exactly "scientific standpoints", to use your term, but ideological ones. And I'd be interested to see a source for them other than the likes of the Free Republic or the Nation. You also say, "As to free speech -- well, I see this as a classic example of modern government's basic strategy, which is to find out what people are going to do anyway, order them to do it, then try to take credit for the outcome." Look at the history of the Free Speech movement. The students involved in those protests weren't ordered by the government to protest. Quite the contrary, they were bloodily opposed every step of the way. So I'm not sure what makes you say otherwise. Of course, success has a million fathers and failure none. So it's no surprise that everyone would try to take credit for it now. But I'm not sure how this is supposed to discredit the original movement itself. Please enlighten me. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour [5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action [6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_Unit... [7] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955-1968%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_... [8] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement [9] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_President_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_President_Now [10] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid [11] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Most public movements only postpone what they protest against -- the labor movement stands as a classic case The labor movement wasn't protesting against something in the future that could be postponed, it was protesting against the current status quo, which in many of the key aspects it was protesting against, it reversed. Its true that over time, with less activity, some of those gains have been eroded, but I don't see there being any reasonable argument that the labor movement "only postpone[d] what they protest[ed] against". If you think there is such an argument, I'd certainly welcome you to present it.