|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I am realizing a big disconnect in this conversation regarding activism and workers gaining weekends is historical accuracy.
I want to be clear that none of you are to blame for the education you were given, since I had the same issue once upon a time. I used to think "MLK was the well behaved activist, so people listened to him because he was polite, but malcolm X was a net negative to black rights because he was rude about asking people to not lynch black people" and similar US history class in the 90s stuff.
We are taught history regarding child labor and weekends and other similar things that realllly brushes certain stuff under the rug and over-emphasizes other things. When you drill down into how the history actually went down, each of these rights we have gotten in the last 100 years has been achieved through either physical or economic violence. And people were killed by those in power to try to prevent it.
The weekend was fought against using violence. The weekend was fought FOR with violence. I will just word it like this: Violence was a crucial ingredient to workers being granted the weekend.
If you believe concrete progress has been achieved with pamphlets, outreach, organizing, grassroots conversations to get folks on board, you are the victim of an intentional effort to keep workers from realizing how powerful they are. There is an intentional effort to make workers less powerful and less capable of improving their lives. Stuff like "MLK gave black people rights by doing sit ins in libraries while folks ate cookies" is disinformation intended to make you less powerful. Diverting your attention into pamphlets, polls, petitions and whatnot is intended to prevent you from doing what has been NECESSARY evvvvvvery single time throughout history.
|
On August 30 2023 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:
I am realizing a big disconnect in this conversation regarding activism and workers gaining weekends is historical accuracy.
I want to be clear that none of you are to blame for the education you were given, since I had the same issue once upon a time. I used to think "MLK was the well behaved activist, so people listened to him because he was polite, but malcolm X was a net negative to black rights because he was rude about asking people to not lynch black people" and similar US history class in the 90s stuff.
We are taught history regarding child labor and weekends and other similar things that realllly brushes certain stuff under the rug and over-emphasizes other things. When you drill down into how the history actually went down, each of these rights we have gotten in the last 100 years has been achieved through either physical or economic violence. And people were killed by those in power to try to prevent it.
The weekend was fought against using violence. The weekend was fought FOR with violence. I will just word it like this: Violence was a crucial ingredient to workers being granted the weekend.
If you believe concrete progress has been achieved with pamphlets, outreach, organizing, grassroots conversations to get folks on board, you are the victim of an intentional effort to keep workers from realizing how powerful they are. There is an intentional effort to make workers less powerful and less capable of improving their lives. Stuff like "MLK gave black people rights by doing sit ins in libraries while folks ate cookies" is disinformation intended to make you less powerful. Diverting your attention into pamphlets, polls, petitions and whatnot is intended to prevent you from doing what has been NECESSARY evvvvvvery single time throughout history. No, people are aware and acknowledging that, but stating that in a violent fight between progressives and a fascist dictatorship history shows that the fascist dictatorship wins more often then not.
And today, in America when you go to the ballot box its a choice between a fascist dictatorship or not.
People are not saying that voting Democrat is good for progress. They are saying that Democrats not winning is horrible for progress. Because the alternative to the Democrats is a fascist dictatorship.
|
|
|
It's very telling that one if the reasons people should vote for a party is 'not fascism' instead of the actual ideals they supposedly hold.
Let me ask the Democrats in here the following:
What do you care about in the Democratic party and what do you actually think are they striving for? What can they accomplish so that they deserve your vote?
|
On August 30 2023 04:33 Uldridge wrote:
It's very telling that one if the reasons people should vote for a party is 'not fascism' instead of the actual ideals they supposedly hold.
Let me ask the Democrats in here the following:
What do you care about in the Democratic party and what do you actually think are they striving for? What can they accomplish so that they deserve your vote?
Fascism vs. Not Fascism is one of the reasons to vote for Democrats over Republicans, yeah. That doesn't mean it's the only reason, but honestly if a person were to hypothetically think that the two parties were literally identical except on the topic of fascism, then they ought to vote based on that one difference - the topic of fascism. It's not like fascism isn't a big deal lol.
I don't think that's the only difference between the two parties though, or what each party is striving for. The Democratic party's views on education, healthcare, science, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, criminal justice reform, equity, and the environment are all at least somewhat more aligned with what I hope to see in the future, compared to the Republican party's views on those topics. Do I think that the current Democrats have perfect perspectives on those issues, slam-dunk solutions to any related problems, or can fix anything very, very quickly? Of course not. But I think that moving in the direction of the Democrats is better than moving in the direction of the Republicans.
|
On August 30 2023 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:43 brian wrote:On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move. it is not a matter of semantics when the people in this thread are insisting it is strictly dem voters that are going to make the change happen. it is NOT voters at all that drive this change. and i don’t think anyone is suggesting moving right. that’s not the same as not voting dem. well the right wing voters sure aren't going to abstain to keep the playing field level. Every vote side A doesn't get is a vote less that side B needs to win. Elections are often won or lost on whether or not people can be bothered to go out a vote.
the point is that it wasn’t politics or legislation that made this change. voters don’t enter the equation at all. the status quo doesn’t change by not voting red. hell, that was explicitly Bidens platform, to change very little. that’s not even close to good enough, and i’m not voting for it. there’s nothing to gain by voting for a democrat or a republican.
mohdoo made the point in more detail, so i’ll leave it at that.
|
On August 30 2023 04:33 Uldridge wrote:
It's very telling that one if the reasons people should vote for a party is 'not fascism' instead of the actual ideals they supposedly hold.
Let me ask the Democrats in here the following:
What do you care about in the Democratic party and what do you actually think are they striving for? What can they accomplish so that they deserve your vote?
How about this. What policies would you like Democrats to be in support of?
What do YOU stand for in your hypothetical new party? How are YOU going to get people to vote for you? How do you intend to bring about your policies within the framework of the current system in the US (Senate, House, President, Judicial)?
|
|
|
On August 30 2023 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 03:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Not from "voters" voting, but from workers that may or may not have voted for either party or neither (like voting for Eugene Debs) forcing their concession despite the persistent threat/practice of social/political ostracism, grave harm and incarceration. If you measure Democrats against today's Republicans you'll end up standing to the right of yesterday's Republicans and calling it "to the left". On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move. The question/edit is an asinine semantic non sequitur as alluded to by the fact that you're using left and right relatively where what is "to the right" today can be "to the left" tomorrow and doesn't address the issue of the "luxuries" not being the product of voters voting. Like what? What are some current Republican talking points ("to the right today") that you think will be "to the left tomorrow"? Do you think that being against climate change, women's rights, education, or LGBTQ+ will suddenly be Democratic platforms, instead of Republican ones? Is there sufficient precedent for this? Historically, the opposite of what you're saying tends to be true. What was deemed progressive a generation or two ago (e.g., interracial marriage, rights to vote) is now so common sense that even most conservatives are okay with them. Over several decades, we see that many controversially-left positions end up becoming the norm and moderate and centrist. It's why we keep pushing to the left, even if that means incrementally. We certainly don't push to the right today and assert that it could end up being how best to get to the left tomorrow.
One prominent historical example that comes to mind is is the ACA. All the propaganda paints it as some massive achievement of "the left" but it's not only to the right of what Kennedy (D) proposed decades earlier, it is to the right of what Nixon and Republicans were countering with. So basically the most celebrated legislation in decades "on the left" is more rightwing than Nixon.
An obvious one we're seeing unfolding currently is policing where Democrats are increasingly picking up Republican perspectives to rationalize/ignore things like Cop City.
|
|
|
On August 30 2023 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Not from "voters" voting, but from workers that may or may not have voted for either party or neither (like voting for Eugene Debs) forcing their concession despite the persistent threat/practice of social/political ostracism, grave harm and incarceration. If you measure Democrats against today's Republicans you'll end up standing to the right of yesterday's Republicans and calling it "to the left". On August 30 2023 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 03:25 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 02:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 30 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:I also wanted to highlight this from mohdoo: it is important to note that many of the "luxuries" we now enjoy (like weekends) were forcibly taken from capitalists and people were killed fighting for that right. The idea that the positive changes in the US have come from people voting "less evil" people into power and then those elected officials make the changes is a convenient myth, but wrong. That's simply not how it works. How it has actually worked is that people organized beyond electoralism, fought tooth and nail (sometimes literally) the status quo, and eventually the "typically evil" politicians had to follow/toss them some crumbs or lose control altogether. But those "luxuries" came from voters on the left, not voters on the right. It would be ideal if the Democratic nominee was further to the left, but the fact of the matter still remains that the Democratic nominee will always be more to the left than the Republican nominee. Those luxuries didnt come from voters, they came from fighters, people threatening to burn their bosses homes down, people getting shot and beaten by cops, strikers, etc. And they were on which side? a. left b. right. Hint: answer is a. Semantics isn't going to change this fact. Edit: Same response for GH's post below. Moving to the right can't possibly be the ideal move. The question/edit is an asinine semantic non sequitur as alluded to by the fact that you're using left and right relatively where what is "to the right" today can be "to the left" tomorrow and doesn't address the issue of the "luxuries" not being the product of voters voting. Like what? What are some current Republican talking points ("to the right today") that you think will be "to the left tomorrow"? Do you think that being against climate change, women's rights, education, or LGBTQ+ will suddenly be Democratic platforms, instead of Republican ones? Is there sufficient precedent for this? Historically, the opposite of what you're saying tends to be true. What was deemed progressive a generation or two ago (e.g., interracial marriage, rights to vote) is now so common sense that even most conservatives are okay with them. Over several decades, we see that many controversially-left positions end up becoming the norm and moderate and centrist. It's why we keep pushing to the left, even if that means incrementally. We certainly don't push to the right today and assert that it could end up being how best to get to the left tomorrow. One prominent historical example that comes to mind is is the ACA. All the propaganda paints it as some massive achievement of "the left" but it's not only to the right of what Kennedy (D) proposed decades earlier, it is to the right of what Nixon and Republicans were countering with. So basically the most celebrated legislation in decades "on the left" is more rightwing than Nixon.
I totally agree with you that the ACA is not as progressive or left or beneficial as, say, M4A, but the ACA was still a step in the ideal direction relative to what directly preceded it. Maybe M4A would have been 20 steps to the left while the ACA was just 1 step to the left, but it's still better than what existed beforehand, and I think that jumping from Kennedy/Nixon to Romney/Obama is skipping a few decades of watching the healthcare system get progressively worse. It's not like Obama came right after Nixon, so we're not comparing today vs. tomorrow anymore; a lot happened between those two presidents. What happened after Nixon, over several decades, moved our healthcare system even further to the right, so when Obama supported the ACA - which may have been more to the right than Nixon - it was still to the left of the status quo. Could Obama have pushed even more to the left? Possibly. Is the ACA the best we can do? I sure hope not. Do people generally like the idea of M4A? Yeah, according to polls. But are they voting for it? Currently, they aren't - which means we can't have it - which is why it frustrates me when people don't give the voters any credit. Voters aren't just talking the talk; they're also walking the walk. A person saying they like M4A doesn't mean it's going to magically happen; we need the votes.
An obvious one we're seeing unfolding currently is policing where Democrats are increasingly picking up Republican perspectives to rationalize/ignore things like Cop City.
I'm not quite sure what this means. Do you mean that Democrats aren't protesting (and even rioting) over police brutality, or promoting slogans and groups like BLM, ACAB, and Defund the Police? Because clearly, they're doing all that. Not every Democrat is doing that, of course, but I still wouldn't say that Democrats and Republicans have identical perspectives when it comes to cops (e.g., Black vs. Blue/All).
|
On August 30 2023 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:
I am realizing a big disconnect in this conversation regarding activism and workers gaining weekends is historical accuracy.
I want to be clear that none of you are to blame for the education you were given, since I had the same issue once upon a time. I used to think "MLK was the well behaved activist, so people listened to him because he was polite, but malcolm X was a net negative to black rights because he was rude about asking people to not lynch black people" and similar US history class in the 90s stuff.
We are taught history regarding child labor and weekends and other similar things that realllly brushes certain stuff under the rug and over-emphasizes other things. When you drill down into how the history actually went down, each of these rights we have gotten in the last 100 years has been achieved through either physical or economic violence. And people were killed by those in power to try to prevent it.
The weekend was fought against using violence. The weekend was fought FOR with violence. I will just word it like this: Violence was a crucial ingredient to workers being granted the weekend.
If you believe concrete progress has been achieved with pamphlets, outreach, organizing, grassroots conversations to get folks on board, you are the victim of an intentional effort to keep workers from realizing how powerful they are. There is an intentional effort to make workers less powerful and less capable of improving their lives. Stuff like "MLK gave black people rights by doing sit ins in libraries while folks ate cookies" is disinformation intended to make you less powerful. Diverting your attention into pamphlets, polls, petitions and whatnot is intended to prevent you from doing what has been NECESSARY evvvvvvery single time throughout history.
This right here.
Voting matters when the violence has happened and theres no choice but to cement the change because the violence needs to stop. Voting doesnt stop shit, voting is basically the final enshrinement once the violence has reached a point of being too far and too threatening for the people in power.
Voting gets far too much credit, voting doesnt beat fascism, violence beats fascism, voting doesnt earn you human rights, violence earns you human rights, all voting does is put the final stamp on the paper to acknowledge the human rights for a little while (certainly not forever as we've seen with women's rights!)
Key word to all of this is violence. We didn't vote the Nazis out of power, we didn't vote Child Labor laws, we beat the Nazis by making the Nazis into Dead Nazis and we have Child Labor laws because people were pissed about their dead and mutilated children and made Capitalists into Dead or Very Afraid of Dying Capitalists.
EDIT: I'm convinced we'd see more progress from throwing a few fucking bricks through a some politician and capitalist's residences when they're home than ten years of voting. Why would the people in power give two shits about anyone they consider beneath them unless they're afraid of the consequences? Our society pretty clearly rewards sociopathic behaviors, so empathy ain't happening, but fear? Yeah, a sociopathic congressperson might be less inclined to fuck their people over if their people will throw rocks at their cars and beat their asses if they catch them in public.
Would be nice to not have to get to the ass beatings and brick throwing, but voting sure as shit isn't going to prevent us from getting there.
|
|
|
On August 30 2023 06:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 06:13 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:
I am realizing a big disconnect in this conversation regarding activism and workers gaining weekends is historical accuracy.
I want to be clear that none of you are to blame for the education you were given, since I had the same issue once upon a time. I used to think "MLK was the well behaved activist, so people listened to him because he was polite, but malcolm X was a net negative to black rights because he was rude about asking people to not lynch black people" and similar US history class in the 90s stuff.
We are taught history regarding child labor and weekends and other similar things that realllly brushes certain stuff under the rug and over-emphasizes other things. When you drill down into how the history actually went down, each of these rights we have gotten in the last 100 years has been achieved through either physical or economic violence. And people were killed by those in power to try to prevent it.
The weekend was fought against using violence. The weekend was fought FOR with violence. I will just word it like this: Violence was a crucial ingredient to workers being granted the weekend.
If you believe concrete progress has been achieved with pamphlets, outreach, organizing, grassroots conversations to get folks on board, you are the victim of an intentional effort to keep workers from realizing how powerful they are. There is an intentional effort to make workers less powerful and less capable of improving their lives. Stuff like "MLK gave black people rights by doing sit ins in libraries while folks ate cookies" is disinformation intended to make you less powerful. Diverting your attention into pamphlets, polls, petitions and whatnot is intended to prevent you from doing what has been NECESSARY evvvvvvery single time throughout history. This right here. Voting matters when the violence has happened and theres no choice but to cement the change because the violence needs to stop. Voting doesnt stop shit, voting is basically the final enshrinement once the violence has reached a point of being too far and too threatening for the people in power. Voting gets far too much credit, voting doesnt beat fascism, violence beats fascism, voting doesnt earn you human rights, violence earns you human rights, all voting does is put the final stamp on the paper to acknowledge the human rights for a little while (certainly not forever as we've seen with women's rights!) Key word to all of this is violence. We didn't vote the Nazis out of power, we didn't vote Child Labor laws, we beat the Nazis by making the Nazis into Dead Nazis and we have Child Labor laws because people were pissed about their dead and mutilated children and made Capitalists into Dead or Very Afraid of Dying Capitalists. But why “capitalists” there are currently children working in “communist “ countries. You would get a lot more traction and be more correct if you said elites or something.
What thread are we in?
|
|
|
On August 30 2023 04:56 Sadist wrote:
How about this. What policies would you like Democrats to be in support of?
I'll be honest here -- I just read up on the policies of both Republicans and Democrats (wiki) and this feels like some children's story devoid of nuance. You know what, I'm talking from a point of ignorance here, is it actually this black and white? I started making a list of what I was in favor of, then looked at their policies to get a more comprehensive take. Most things I agree with. Maybe I should change my stance on I dislike the way they do it? Maybe it feels like they're not actually fighting for these things? I'll have some introspection to do. Watch some people do their thing.
What do YOU stand for in your hypothetical new party? How are YOU going to get people to vote for you?
My own party - this will never get off the ground, but I'll try to give some aspects that I've thought about.
- Top down governing bodies are abolished - everybody can make their case for a (local) policy known and defend their case, this will then be voted on depending on the scope of the policy, whether it's local, regional or (inter)national.
- Marketing should be reformed to be non predatory, certain sectors should be banned to make profits on certain items/services, if they have grown big enough so that they are in a steady state -- meaning they can provide all their employees with a salary they can live off while having enough to do their business (r&d, procurement, upkeep, ..)
- School, public transportation, basic food items, water, housing (basic), health care - should either cost as little as possible or free, personally leaning to free.
- More emphasis on communal living - invest in medium scale technologies for water purification, electricity generation, battery technology -- connect 20-50 houses, let these communes farm, manage power/water, let them specialize and interact with the other communes. In other words, short chaining society to the extreme. This doesn't mean there should be interactions with other communes, but I think this is a more fullfilling way of living. Power dynamics between communes might become a problem.
- Taxes: % of your income, but you're free to decide how to spend it. Every citiezen gets its own "diagram" with a certain amount of policies (health care/education/pensions/... maybe even with some subdivisions) on how they want to spend their money. Every fraction then gets added and this is how the money gets spent.
- Fines: % of your income, not a flat fee.
- Crime: see Scandinavian countries.
- Education: partly back to apprenticships from early ages, definitely for people who know what they want to do early. Classes shouldn't be made on the basis of when you were born, but on what level can you handle.
How to get these people to vote for me? I don't know, I'm not a car salesman. I don't do popularity contests, but I've given some though about what I stand for and what I see currently is woefully inadequate.
How do you intend to bring about your policies within the framework of the current system in the US (Senate, House, President, Judicial)?
I can't, these people yell too loud and are too powerful to let it slip away from them. I don't care about power, I just care about human wellbeing.
|
On August 30 2023 06:26 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 04:56 Sadist wrote:
How about this. What policies would you like Democrats to be in support of?
I'll be honest here -- I just read up on the policies of both Republicans and Democrats (wiki) and this feels like some children's story devoid of nuance. You know what, I'm talking from a point of ignorance here, is it actually this black and white? I started making a list of what I was in favor of, then looked at their policies to get a more comprehensive take. Most things I agree with. Maybe I should change my stance on I dislike the way they do it? Maybe it feels like they're not actually fighting for these things? I'll have some introspection to do. Watch some people do their thing. I think its pretty fair to say that the Democrats have a problem with an apparent lack of progress on their stated policies.
|
On August 30 2023 06:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 06:16 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 06:15 JimmiC wrote:On August 30 2023 06:13 Zambrah wrote:On August 30 2023 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:
I am realizing a big disconnect in this conversation regarding activism and workers gaining weekends is historical accuracy.
I want to be clear that none of you are to blame for the education you were given, since I had the same issue once upon a time. I used to think "MLK was the well behaved activist, so people listened to him because he was polite, but malcolm X was a net negative to black rights because he was rude about asking people to not lynch black people" and similar US history class in the 90s stuff.
We are taught history regarding child labor and weekends and other similar things that realllly brushes certain stuff under the rug and over-emphasizes other things. When you drill down into how the history actually went down, each of these rights we have gotten in the last 100 years has been achieved through either physical or economic violence. And people were killed by those in power to try to prevent it.
The weekend was fought against using violence. The weekend was fought FOR with violence. I will just word it like this: Violence was a crucial ingredient to workers being granted the weekend.
If you believe concrete progress has been achieved with pamphlets, outreach, organizing, grassroots conversations to get folks on board, you are the victim of an intentional effort to keep workers from realizing how powerful they are. There is an intentional effort to make workers less powerful and less capable of improving their lives. Stuff like "MLK gave black people rights by doing sit ins in libraries while folks ate cookies" is disinformation intended to make you less powerful. Diverting your attention into pamphlets, polls, petitions and whatnot is intended to prevent you from doing what has been NECESSARY evvvvvvery single time throughout history. This right here. Voting matters when the violence has happened and theres no choice but to cement the change because the violence needs to stop. Voting doesnt stop shit, voting is basically the final enshrinement once the violence has reached a point of being too far and too threatening for the people in power. Voting gets far too much credit, voting doesnt beat fascism, violence beats fascism, voting doesnt earn you human rights, violence earns you human rights, all voting does is put the final stamp on the paper to acknowledge the human rights for a little while (certainly not forever as we've seen with women's rights!) Key word to all of this is violence. We didn't vote the Nazis out of power, we didn't vote Child Labor laws, we beat the Nazis by making the Nazis into Dead Nazis and we have Child Labor laws because people were pissed about their dead and mutilated children and made Capitalists into Dead or Very Afraid of Dying Capitalists. But why “capitalists” there are currently children working in “communist “ countries. You would get a lot more traction and be more correct if you said elites or something. What thread are we in? Who cares? Do you think if you magically switched to “communism” the same elites wouldn’t be the power brokers and wouldn’t do the same thing? So far it’s just a branding issue.
Last I checked we're in the US Politics thread and the United States doesnt have an issue with communist leaders and didn't back around the Gilded Age when children were being mutilated and killed working in factories. To my knowledge it was actually capitalists very much in power at the time.
If you want to talk about communism go do it in a thread about a place where communism in some form or another has actually can be said to have even potentially existed, because the US sure ain't it.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25990 Posts
On August 30 2023 06:13 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2023 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:
I am realizing a big disconnect in this conversation regarding activism and workers gaining weekends is historical accuracy.
I want to be clear that none of you are to blame for the education you were given, since I had the same issue once upon a time. I used to think "MLK was the well behaved activist, so people listened to him because he was polite, but malcolm X was a net negative to black rights because he was rude about asking people to not lynch black people" and similar US history class in the 90s stuff.
We are taught history regarding child labor and weekends and other similar things that realllly brushes certain stuff under the rug and over-emphasizes other things. When you drill down into how the history actually went down, each of these rights we have gotten in the last 100 years has been achieved through either physical or economic violence. And people were killed by those in power to try to prevent it.
The weekend was fought against using violence. The weekend was fought FOR with violence. I will just word it like this: Violence was a crucial ingredient to workers being granted the weekend.
If you believe concrete progress has been achieved with pamphlets, outreach, organizing, grassroots conversations to get folks on board, you are the victim of an intentional effort to keep workers from realizing how powerful they are. There is an intentional effort to make workers less powerful and less capable of improving their lives. Stuff like "MLK gave black people rights by doing sit ins in libraries while folks ate cookies" is disinformation intended to make you less powerful. Diverting your attention into pamphlets, polls, petitions and whatnot is intended to prevent you from doing what has been NECESSARY evvvvvvery single time throughout history. This right here. Voting matters when the violence has happened and theres no choice but to cement the change because the violence needs to stop. Voting doesnt stop shit, voting is basically the final enshrinement once the violence has reached a point of being too far and too threatening for the people in power. Voting gets far too much credit, voting doesnt beat fascism, violence beats fascism, voting doesnt earn you human rights, violence earns you human rights, all voting does is put the final stamp on the paper to acknowledge the human rights for a little while (certainly not forever as we've seen with women's rights!) Key word to all of this is violence. We didn't vote the Nazis out of power, we didn't vote Child Labor laws, we beat the Nazis by making the Nazis into Dead Nazis and we have Child Labor laws because people were pissed about their dead and mutilated children and made Capitalists into Dead or Very Afraid of Dying Capitalists. EDIT: I'm convinced we'd see more progress from throwing a few fucking bricks through a some politician and capitalist's residences when they're home than ten years of voting. Why would the people in power give two shits about anyone they consider beneath them unless they're afraid of the consequences? Our society pretty clearly rewards sociopathic behaviors, so empathy ain't happening, but fear? Yeah, a sociopathic congressperson might be less inclined to fuck their people over if their people will throw rocks at their cars and beat their asses if they catch them in public. Would be nice to not have to get to the ass beatings and brick throwing, but voting sure as shit isn't going to prevent us from getting there.
Would be quite nice to throw a brick through my landlord’s residence after 2 years of literally refusing to do any maintainence they’re liable for and hiking rent up 40%
Hey every legal channel wouldn’t do shit.
Not getting the deposit back because you never do, had considered just letting the damp we’re beating back just infest the place but all that will do is fuck over the next tenant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
