Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
Depends on the workers. I think a far right violent revolt is more likely from the working class. I only really have my experience in construction work and the military to draw from, though. The food industry is probably more blue.
I'll admit, I'm quite biased: my fellow workers are mostly college educated, liberal if not leftists, passionate hard workers who are all about mutual aid and mutual organization. We show up for each other and the less fortunate, do outreach to underserved communities, and just generally try to do the best by one another and society at large to provide entertainment and emotional relief to a world full of strife. My fellow workers are some of the best people I know, and if it weren't for Robert's Rules we'd probably get stuff done a lot faster in meetings (making us much better qualified to run the world than the current lot of politicians). 😅
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
Depends on the workers. I think a far right violent revolt is more likely from the working class. I only really have my experience in construction work and the military to draw from, though. The food industry is probably more blue.
I'll admit, I'm quite biased: my fellow workers are mostly college educated, liberal if not leftists, passionate hard workers who are all about mutual aid and mutual organization. We show up for each other and the less fortunate, do outreach to underserved communities, and just generally try to do the best by one another and society at large to provide entertainment and emotional relief to a world full of strife. My fellow workers are some of the best people I know, and if it weren't for Robert's Rules we'd probably get stuff done a lot faster in meetings (making us much better qualified to run the world than the current lot of politicians). 😅
I didn't mean to shit all over the trades people I work with. Most of them are good people, too. On the whole they certainly aren't leftists, but they aren't violent MAGA nuts either. I just don't see those guys trying to overthrow the government anytime soon. Now the ones that ARE MAGA nuts. That's a different story.
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
I mean, aside from the bloodshed?
Because "workers' uprising" generally involves quite of bit of that win or lose.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
I mean, aside from the bloodshed?
Because "workers' uprising" generally involves quite of bit of that win or lose.
Not true! A workers' uprising could very easily be nonviolent. A great example of this would be the Bonus Army and the Seattle General Strike, both of which were workers' uprisings in miniature largely accomplished without violence for the purposes of securing real gains for workers and veterans who had been stiffed by a cruel and austere federal government. 99% of the violence that happened in those events was perpetrated by government forces seeking to prevent those workers and veterans from getting their just due.
In cases of America, a workers' uprising usually means it will be the workers who see violence used against them, instead of the ones who use the violence. History proves this. Examine any major labor action of the 19th and 20th century to see me proven right. The Ludlow Massacre and the Coal Wars are other good examples.
One of the big catches, I think, is that successful nonviolent worker's uprisings are not viewed as uprisings by a lot of people, but rather noble labour action that secured necessary modern rights.
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
I mean, aside from the bloodshed?
Because "workers' uprising" generally involves quite of bit of that win or lose.
Not true! A workers' uprising could very easily be nonviolent. A great example of this would be the Bonus Army and the Seattle General Strike, both of which were workers' uprisings in miniature largely accomplished without violence for the purposes of securing real gains for workers and veterans who had been stiffed by a cruel and austere federal government. 99% of the violence that happened in those events was perpetrated by government forces seeking to prevent those workers and veterans from getting their just due.
In cases of America, a workers' uprising usually means it will be the workers who see violence used against them, instead of the ones who use the violence. History proves this. Examine any major labor action of the 19th and 20th century to see me proven right. The Ludlow Massacre and the Coal Wars are other good examples.
I didn't say it would be workers using violence.
I said that a workers' uprising generally involves quite of bit of that (bloodshed) win or lose.
I'm not worried that the owners are going to bleed.
I believe wholeheartedly that the workers would be drowned in their own blood if anything resembling a workers' uprising were to occur in the US and nothing would come of it.
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
I mean, aside from the bloodshed?
Because "workers' uprising" generally involves quite of bit of that win or lose.
Not true! A workers' uprising could very easily be nonviolent. A great example of this would be the Bonus Army and the Seattle General Strike, both of which were workers' uprisings in miniature largely accomplished without violence for the purposes of securing real gains for workers and veterans who had been stiffed by a cruel and austere federal government. 99% of the violence that happened in those events was perpetrated by government forces seeking to prevent those workers and veterans from getting their just due.
In cases of America, a workers' uprising usually means it will be the workers who see violence used against them, instead of the ones who use the violence. History proves this. Examine any major labor action of the 19th and 20th century to see me proven right. The Ludlow Massacre and the Coal Wars are other good examples.
I didn't say it would be workers using violence.
I said that a workers' uprising generally involves quite of bit of that (bloodshed) win or lose.
I'm not worried that the owners are going to bleed.
I believe wholeheartedly that the workers would be drowned in their own blood if anything resembling a workers' uprising were to occur in the US and nothing would come of it.
As we have seen with numerous successful union campaigns in recent weeks and months (Starbucks! Kellogs! UAW!), the uprising does not always result in blood and defeat. You need to uncouple your notion of "uprising" from "violent revolt" and more broadly associate it with "aggressively utilizing democratic institutions and processes to install workers in key positions of power in order to better uplift their fellow laborers and reforge the infrastructure of the US into something which better serves the interests of the 99%".
Now, how probable that might be is a discussion we should probably take to the Labor thread. I'll drop the tangent here in the Congress thread as it's not super pertinent to the thread overall (until it becomes so...).
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
The last few have gone so well, after all.
Funnily enough, we've never actually had a workers' revolution in America, so you can't actually say this! 😉
American exceptionalism!
edit: history is at least somewhat in your favor here with American labor movements, as your bonus army example showed. I just couldn't resist!
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
The last few have gone so well, after all.
Funnily enough, we've never actually had a workers' revolution in America, so you can't actually say this! 😉
I disagree, we had a workers revolution that ended the gilded age with trust busting and such by the government. It was just a peaceful democratic revolution.
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
The last few have gone so well, after all.
Funnily enough, we've never actually had a workers' revolution in America, so you can't actually say this! 😉
I disagree, we had a workers revolution that ended the gilded age with trust busting and such by the government. It was just a peaceful democratic revolution.
They say the whirring of Madison’s corpse could be heard for blocks all round the cemetery
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
The last few have gone so well, after all.
Funnily enough, we've never actually had a workers' revolution in America, so you can't actually say this! 😉
I disagree, we had a workers revolution that ended the gilded age with trust busting and such by the government. It was just a peaceful democratic revolution.
They say the whirring of Madison’s corpse could be heard for blocks all round the cemetery
Attaching the leads to use it for power was a TVA project, which only increased the rate of spin.
So, is Congress still debating the voting rights thing? That was still going on late last night. Did they have a vote yet where Manchin and Sinema voted with the Republicans to let Republicans continue to ruin our democracy?
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
The last few have gone so well, after all.
Funnily enough, we've never actually had a workers' revolution in America, so you can't actually say this! 😉
I disagree, we had a workers revolution that ended the gilded age with trust busting and such by the government. It was just a peaceful democratic revolution.
They say the whirring of Madison’s corpse could be heard for blocks all round the cemetery
Attaching the leads to use it for power was a TVA project, which only increased the rate of spin.
The corpses of dead slavers appropriated for electricity generation as their rage brings them into the liminal space between life and death while clocking like 21,000 RPM is truly the best power source.
+11
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
So, is Congress still debating the voting rights thing? That was still going on late last night. Did they have a vote yet where Manchin and Sinema voted with the Republicans to let Republicans continue to ruin our democracy?
Headlines are reading that Schumer is still going to bring it to a vote and at least get them on record for agreeing to let our democracy die.
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
I mean, aside from the bloodshed?
Because "workers' uprising" generally involves quite of bit of that win or lose.
Not true! A workers' uprising could very easily be nonviolent. A great example of this would be the Bonus Army and the Seattle General Strike, both of which were workers' uprisings in miniature largely accomplished without violence for the purposes of securing real gains for workers and veterans who had been stiffed by a cruel and austere federal government. 99% of the violence that happened in those events was perpetrated by government forces seeking to prevent those workers and veterans from getting their just due.
In cases of America, a workers' uprising usually means it will be the workers who see violence used against them, instead of the ones who use the violence. History proves this. Examine any major labor action of the 19th and 20th century to see me proven right. The Ludlow Massacre and the Coal Wars are other good examples.
I didn't say it would be workers using violence.
I said that a workers' uprising generally involves quite of bit of that (bloodshed) win or lose.
I'm not worried that the owners are going to bleed.
I believe wholeheartedly that the workers would be drowned in their own blood if anything resembling a workers' uprising were to occur in the US and nothing would come of it.
As we have seen with numerous successful union campaigns in recent weeks and months (Starbucks! Kellogs! UAW!), the uprising does not always result in blood and defeat. You need to uncouple your notion of "uprising" from "violent revolt" and more broadly associate it with "aggressively utilizing democratic institutions and processes to install workers in key positions of power in order to better uplift their fellow laborers and reforge the infrastructure of the US into something which better serves the interests of the 99%".
Now, how probable that might be is a discussion we should probably take to the Labor thread. I'll drop the tangent here in the Congress thread as it's not super pertinent to the thread overall (until it becomes so...).
Are you sure that "worker uprising" and "worker revolution" can mean like... "unionizing"? That is certainly never been the context of what I've heard it used as before. And based on the conversations here, I'm not alone. So are you sure it's not you who is redefining it ?
Personally, I don't see how a workers' uprising would result in worse outcomes than the current system. We might actually end up with a system that caters to the 99% instead of the 1% that keeps us all in shackles and poverty where possible.
I mean, aside from the bloodshed?
Because "workers' uprising" generally involves quite of bit of that win or lose.
Not true! A workers' uprising could very easily be nonviolent. A great example of this would be the Bonus Army and the Seattle General Strike, both of which were workers' uprisings in miniature largely accomplished without violence for the purposes of securing real gains for workers and veterans who had been stiffed by a cruel and austere federal government. 99% of the violence that happened in those events was perpetrated by government forces seeking to prevent those workers and veterans from getting their just due.
In cases of America, a workers' uprising usually means it will be the workers who see violence used against them, instead of the ones who use the violence. History proves this. Examine any major labor action of the 19th and 20th century to see me proven right. The Ludlow Massacre and the Coal Wars are other good examples.
The violence is used against them, but they then do violence back. Which I'm not against! Labor has had many victories that are based in blood.
But we can't pretend that it was just owners killing laborers. Starts that way, and then escalates, because that's what happens when people are ok spilling blood.
40% of Union households voted for Trump. Which is less than the nation overall (by 6 points) it isn't exactly a vanishingly small minority.
Is that including, say, police "unions"?
It only includes true Scotsmen, I'm sure.
Historically, philosophically, and practically speaking, police unions stand alone. The question is as relevant as, say, when mentioning how the population of the UK voted on Brexit, you were asked "And how did Scotland vote?"
40% of Union households voted for Trump. Which is less than the nation overall (by 6 points) it isn't exactly a vanishingly small minority.
I would love to see your source on this.
It looks like this was based on exit polling, so it may not be super accurate given the amount of mail-in voting that happened. But even so, it doesn't look great for Dems looking at union households to help keep them afloat.
Ansago on
+2
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited January 2022
That chart tells me the Dems need to work harder to earn the votes of workers, who have been quite underserved by them in at least my entire lifetime.
Though a nearly 60/40 split between Biden and Trump is still a huge indication that workers are vastly more in favor of the more-left option. That's a huge margin in electoral politics.
That chart tells me the Dems need to work harder to earn the votes of workers, who have been quite underserved by them in at least my entire lifetime.
What hard work did Republicans do serving Union households to earn those votes?
A lot of union households view membership almost as a birthright to be passed down to their kids. Combine that with latent xenophobia and an at times genuine fear of jobs being moved off shore and it's easy to get them to buy in to the idea that Democrats want to give their jobs away to someone else with a darker skin tone.
Organized Labor somehow becoming totally divorced from Socialism also didn't help things
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
That chart tells me the Dems need to work harder to earn the votes of workers, who have been quite underserved by them in at least my entire lifetime.
What hard work did Republicans do serving Union households to earn those votes?
Stimulus payments during COVID.
No, Democrats added those payments to the legislation, not Republicans. And Democrats were the sole votes for additional relief via ARP against the hard work of Republican efforts to prevent it's passage. If that constitutes hard work serving Union Households on the part of Republicans it would appear that Democrats are amazing.
+6
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Yeah, this seems like a topic for the Labor thread, not the Congress thread.
That chart tells me the Dems need to work harder to earn the votes of workers, who have been quite underserved by them in at least my entire lifetime.
What hard work did Republicans do serving Union households to earn those votes?
Stimulus payments during COVID.
No, Democrats added those payments to the legislation, not Republicans. And Democrats were the sole votes for additional relief via ARP against the hard work of Republican efforts to prevent it's passage. If that constitutes hard work serving Union Households on the part of Republicans it would appear that Democrats are amazing.
Happened under a Republican president, so he gets the credit. We both know that's how people's perception works. It's the same reason Biden is going to eat shit for all the crap that Sinema and Manchin have pulled during his short time in office.
That chart tells me the Dems need to work harder to earn the votes of workers, who have been quite underserved by them in at least my entire lifetime.
What hard work did Republicans do serving Union households to earn those votes?
Say they were going to get rid of NAFTA and brings jobs back from Canada and Mexico
And then they didn't. The only benefits to Unions in NAFTA-2 that I'm aware of were instigated by Canada. It was also passed 385-41 and 89-10
Cant believe lying turned out to be an effective political strategy
It's effectiveness sure doesn't seem like a good omen for the premise of a worker led democratic uprising ushering in broadly beneficial leftwing outcomes.
That chart tells me the Dems need to work harder to earn the votes of workers, who have been quite underserved by them in at least my entire lifetime.
What hard work did Republicans do serving Union households to earn those votes?
Say they were going to get rid of NAFTA and brings jobs back from Canada and Mexico
And then they didn't. The only benefits to Unions in NAFTA-2 that I'm aware of were instigated by Canada. It was also passed 385-41 and 89-10
Cant believe lying turned out to be an effective political strategy
It's effectiveness sure doesn't seem like a good omen for the premise of a worker led democratic uprising ushering in broadly beneficial leftwing outcomes.
I'd hope a democratic workers uprising wouldn't use known liars, rapists, and billionaires to make their promises.
Posts
I'll admit, I'm quite biased: my fellow workers are mostly college educated, liberal if not leftists, passionate hard workers who are all about mutual aid and mutual organization. We show up for each other and the less fortunate, do outreach to underserved communities, and just generally try to do the best by one another and society at large to provide entertainment and emotional relief to a world full of strife. My fellow workers are some of the best people I know, and if it weren't for Robert's Rules we'd probably get stuff done a lot faster in meetings (making us much better qualified to run the world than the current lot of politicians). 😅
I didn't mean to shit all over the trades people I work with. Most of them are good people, too. On the whole they certainly aren't leftists, but they aren't violent MAGA nuts either. I just don't see those guys trying to overthrow the government anytime soon. Now the ones that ARE MAGA nuts. That's a different story.
I mean, aside from the bloodshed?
Because "workers' uprising" generally involves quite of bit of that win or lose.
Not true! A workers' uprising could very easily be nonviolent. A great example of this would be the Bonus Army and the Seattle General Strike, both of which were workers' uprisings in miniature largely accomplished without violence for the purposes of securing real gains for workers and veterans who had been stiffed by a cruel and austere federal government. 99% of the violence that happened in those events was perpetrated by government forces seeking to prevent those workers and veterans from getting their just due.
In cases of America, a workers' uprising usually means it will be the workers who see violence used against them, instead of the ones who use the violence. History proves this. Examine any major labor action of the 19th and 20th century to see me proven right. The Ludlow Massacre and the Coal Wars are other good examples.
I didn't say it would be workers using violence.
I said that a workers' uprising generally involves quite of bit of that (bloodshed) win or lose.
I'm not worried that the owners are going to bleed.
I believe wholeheartedly that the workers would be drowned in their own blood if anything resembling a workers' uprising were to occur in the US and nothing would come of it.
As we have seen with numerous successful union campaigns in recent weeks and months (Starbucks! Kellogs! UAW!), the uprising does not always result in blood and defeat. You need to uncouple your notion of "uprising" from "violent revolt" and more broadly associate it with "aggressively utilizing democratic institutions and processes to install workers in key positions of power in order to better uplift their fellow laborers and reforge the infrastructure of the US into something which better serves the interests of the 99%".
Now, how probable that might be is a discussion we should probably take to the Labor thread. I'll drop the tangent here in the Congress thread as it's not super pertinent to the thread overall (until it becomes so...).
Is that including, say, police "unions"?
It only includes true Scotsmen, I'm sure.
American exceptionalism!
edit: history is at least somewhat in your favor here with American labor movements, as your bonus army example showed. I just couldn't resist!
Cool, was just curious.
I disagree, we had a workers revolution that ended the gilded age with trust busting and such by the government. It was just a peaceful democratic revolution.
They say the whirring of Madison’s corpse could be heard for blocks all round the cemetery
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/28/the-veterans-were-desperate-gen-macarthur-ordered-u-s-troops-to-attack-them/
Attaching the leads to use it for power was a TVA project, which only increased the rate of spin.
The corpses of dead slavers appropriated for electricity generation as their rage brings them into the liminal space between life and death while clocking like 21,000 RPM is truly the best power source.
Headlines are reading that Schumer is still going to bring it to a vote and at least get them on record for agreeing to let our democracy die.
Are you sure that "worker uprising" and "worker revolution" can mean like... "unionizing"? That is certainly never been the context of what I've heard it used as before. And based on the conversations here, I'm not alone. So are you sure it's not you who is redefining it
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The violence is used against them, but they then do violence back. Which I'm not against! Labor has had many victories that are based in blood.
But we can't pretend that it was just owners killing laborers. Starts that way, and then escalates, because that's what happens when people are ok spilling blood.
Historically, philosophically, and practically speaking, police unions stand alone. The question is as relevant as, say, when mentioning how the population of the UK voted on Brexit, you were asked "And how did Scotland vote?"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I would love to see your source on this.
It looks like this was based on exit polling, so it may not be super accurate given the amount of mail-in voting that happened. But even so, it doesn't look great for Dems looking at union households to help keep them afloat.
Though a nearly 60/40 split between Biden and Trump is still a huge indication that workers are vastly more in favor of the more-left option. That's a huge margin in electoral politics.
What hard work did Republicans do serving Union households to earn those votes?
Stimulus payments during COVID.
Say they were going to get rid of NAFTA and brings jobs back from Canada and Mexico
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
that would make sense if this was a 2016 exit poll. but it is a 2020 exit poll.
pretty sure the question remains valid.
edit
also looks like opinions on NAFTA bifurcate along liberal/conservative axes:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/13/americans-generally-positive-about-nafta-but-most-republicans-say-it-benefits-mexico-more-than-u-s/
seems like this dog won't hunt monsignor
A lot of union households view membership almost as a birthright to be passed down to their kids. Combine that with latent xenophobia and an at times genuine fear of jobs being moved off shore and it's easy to get them to buy in to the idea that Democrats want to give their jobs away to someone else with a darker skin tone.
Organized Labor somehow becoming totally divorced from Socialism also didn't help things
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Workers have longer memories than this
Edit: we should take this to the labor thread
No, Democrats added those payments to the legislation, not Republicans. And Democrats were the sole votes for additional relief via ARP against the hard work of Republican efforts to prevent it's passage. If that constitutes hard work serving Union Households on the part of Republicans it would appear that Democrats are amazing.
And then they didn't. The only benefits to Unions in NAFTA-2 that I'm aware of were instigated by Canada. It was also passed 385-41 and 89-10
Cant believe lying turned out to be an effective political strategy
Happened under a Republican president, so he gets the credit. We both know that's how people's perception works. It's the same reason Biden is going to eat shit for all the crap that Sinema and Manchin have pulled during his short time in office.
It's effectiveness sure doesn't seem like a good omen for the premise of a worker led democratic uprising ushering in broadly beneficial leftwing outcomes.
I'd hope a democratic workers uprising wouldn't use known liars, rapists, and billionaires to make their promises.