|
Nice piece of fish posted:Rowe seems to talk online about the trades and trade schools contantly, and hooking those people into a worker friendly political movement accomplishes both what I've previously mentioned AND steals votes directly from the republican base. Now, if Rowe is some sort of nutso libertarian or a staunch republican who hates the little guy, get someone else. I'm not telling you how, I'm asking how you'd do it from an american's perspective. You'll have to point me to these talks online, then, because all I've seen to Rowe's name online are endless bootstrap memes and screeds about how nobody owes you anything, and how anybody can succeed if you put in enough effort. Which all seems particularly callous to me, as the show he's most famous for, "Dirty Jobs," documents some of the not only dirtiest, but most dangerous, shameful, and borderline illegal jobs there are, and one would think that anyone with a shred of empathy for such people would advocate for greater worker protections and higher pay, but no, apparently it was all about "admiring the work ethic of those guys" (and secretly feeling better that at least you don't have a job that bad). He just strikes some of us as a poor spokesman for advocating unions or greater power, because both the right and the left would wonder why he had turned on a dime and dismiss him as a paid shill, not that the left is doing much listening to him anyway. However, I'm absolutely with you about trying to appeal to the working class and a good spokesman to rally around, but I think the best option there is genuinely somebody no one much has heard of.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:One Big Union. That sounds like a good idea to me! unions should dramatically broaden their organizing efforts - plenty of office workers, including professionals, are organized in the federal govt no reason not to take in every employee, whether in a cube farm or a machine shop, affected by benefits, compensation or working conditions controlled by someone else
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Oh! Oh! Are we talking about what I think we're talking about? Because Jacobin had a really good article about it just after the election: A Blueprint for a New Party by Seth Ackerman. Those darn Socialists, always ready with an article. Tch. (I urge you to read it.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
I hate to sound like a broken record, but right now it looks like the DSA is the strongest contender for "effective leftist organization" outside the Democratic Party. And one of its strongest sources of support is from unions and union members. The Communication Workers of America strike against Verizon was heavily supported by DSA, even before the group was all that large. The point is -- everyone asking where to start, or what to do, or who to contact -- check out the DSA. Even if you ultimately decide it's not for you, check them out. If you live in Denver and the nearest chapter is in Boulder, check them out. Make the trip once to check it out, and talk to them there. You might find that half a dozen Denver folks have been going out to Boulder because that's the nearest group without realizing that they have enough people to start their own chapter in their hometown. You can join and apply to start a chapter in the same day. I've been a member since November 9th, and I'm on the organizing committee for a new branch of the NYC chapter already. All that matters is that you want to contribute to a better vision of the US. That's it. edit: and yes, Jacobin has a ton of crossover with DSA, and the subtext of that article is that the DSA can be that new party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:Oh! Oh! Are we talking about what I think we're talking about? Because Jacobin had a really good article about it just after the election: An excellent article. Tandem efforts in the workplace and in party development could be beneficial if conducted in the right way, and there remain other avenues for creative improvements (though many of them would be very difficult), even in the face of a federal government dominated by the Republican party, e.g.: - Interstate compacts among blue states, forging progressive reform where possible and (provisionally) using "states rights" efforts against their erstwhile promoters - Local reforms where possible (e.g., Vermont, Colorado healthcare efforts) - Modifying fptp where / if possible - Efforts to reduce or avoid barriers to workplace organization
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
I think a shift towards a new party is inevitable (only assuming we don't all die under this administration) considering the political views of the youth are leaning increasingly left compared to past generations, but it's not going to happen by 2020 and under the current circumstances I'm wary of gambling with that risk. I don't doubt that the left is much larger than people estimate but they are not larger than both liberals and conservatives, and demographic trends won't outpace voter suppression in the next few years. It sounds more practical to me to utilize the movements currently mobilizing to stamp out corporate Dems and remove them from office rather than have them continue to run as a major competitor, moderates have too much power as is and too many voters still blindly vote for them, better to eliminate that threat first. I'm hearing some success stories about berniecrats gaining momentum and power within the party and we've only just started, I think we can keep that up and eventually phase out the establishment which is already weakening. I can't predict the future though, maybe something will happen that changes my mind on the subject but for now I'd rather hijack the party while they're down and then dismantle it in the future to make a new one when the risks aren't as high and boomers are too dead to gently caress everything up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:I think a shift towards a new party is inevitable (only assuming we don't all die under this administration) considering the political views of the youth are leaning increasingly left compared to past generations, but it's not going to happen by 2020 and under the current circumstances I'm wary of gambling with that risk. I don't doubt that the left is much larger than people estimate but they are not larger than both liberals and conservatives, and demographic trends won't outpace voter suppression in the next few years. It sounds more practical to me to utilize the movements currently mobilizing to stamp out corporate Dems and remove them from office rather than have them continue to run as a major competitor, moderates have too much power as is and too many voters still blindly vote for them, better to eliminate that threat first. I'm hearing some success stories about berniecrats gaining momentum and power within the party and we've only just started, I think we can keep that up and eventually phase out the establishment which is already weakening. I don't believe you're incorrect about where things stand today. That said, an effort like that needs an outside organization to be coordinating it, so that it isn't stamped out by the Democratic party itself. Now, if an organization that did that was, at the same time, organizing itself to be a new party if the need were to arise....well, you're covering all your bases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Actually on second thought, if the widening inequality gap phases out the middle class completely, which is a real possibility, then I will probably get behind a new party. But until then I think there's still too much of a stigma with socialism and communism in america (although it is decreasing) to emerge as the major party.
yellowyams fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:I don't believe you're incorrect about where things stand today. That said, an effort like that needs an outside organization to be coordinating it, so that it isn't stamped out by the Democratic party itself. Now, if an organization that did that was, at the same time, organizing itself to be a new party if the need were to arise....well, you're covering all your bases. Yeah, I totally get that. I joined the DSA so I can work both in and out of the party, I think it will just depend on how things play out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:Actually on second thought, if the widening inequality gap phases out the middle class completely, which is a real possibility, then I will probably get behind a new party. But until then I think there's still too much of a stigma with socialism and communism in america (although it is decreasing) to emerge as the major party. A lot of that stigma can be mitigated by some rad socialists showing America what we're really about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Did anyone else join up with Our Revolution? I went to a meeting last night and it was very informative about a ton of stuff in my area and also what they're planning on focusing on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Hey folks, just saw this thread, and thought I'd share some info. I'm a member of the International Socialist Organization in Seattle and I was at the J20 protest at the University of Washington campus where a IWW comrade got shot by a reactionary while protesting against Milo Y. speaking on campus. If you got a couple of bucks, please send them here. It was my first time at an Antifa action, and although it really sucks that a comrade got shot, I found it incredibly radicalizing and invigorating to face off against these cowards directly, and I am not afraid to stand up next time. Now more than ever, we must stand up to the reactionary forces in the US, or else we'll be seeing much worse violence than one man getting shot down the line. Other than that, the RESIST coalition (a coalition of student groups on UW campus which I'm part of with the ISO) occupied Odegaard library earlier that day and did teach ins, one of which I co-led. 60 people were in attendance for our section, and it was a really fun experience to have a dialogue with so many fresh faces eager to hear more about socialist politics and activism! You know you're doing a good job with students when nobody has their phones out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:06
|
|
pookel posted:Rowe is a right-wing nutjob, which is not hard to figure out if you google him. Who better to show the american poor that this issue doesn't fall along party lines? He certainly doesn't think it falls along party lines, and chances are he himself isn't fully informed about what socialism actually is and thinks it's basically communist russia. Read what he responded in that article, he's not arguing for bootstraps bullshit, he's arguing for any change that helps american manufacturing and labor, something that the country desperately needs and something a socialist party should be working toward because it's the first, biggest step, not arguing about ideological purity.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:A lot of that stigma can be mitigated by some rad socialists showing America what we're really about. a bit of simple, direct messaging wouldnt hurt either 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:A lot of that stigma can be mitigated by some rad socialists showing America what we're really about. Yeah, I think that's something that should be done regardless, but it will be a very uphill battle. Trump's administration and their massive surveillance program are going to jump at the opportunity to crush anything they label "un-american" and I will be shocked if they don't try to bring back the red scare poo poo to mobilize their own opposition on top of being able to bend the system how they see fit, then there's moderates who have the advantage of controlling most media and will try to derail any momentum, and then boomers who conflate socialism with communism and will never accept either. That's why I'd sooner dismantle moderate control of a major party to increase our chances of success, unless something crazy happens that causes most of the people to go into bloody revolution mode, which isn't impossible. But I think a decade from now or maybe a bit less, even a communist party getting sizable public support could actually happen. You're doing good work, we need more like you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Creating a third party is dumb. The goal should be to take control of the Dems' internal machinery and pressuring the rest of the party to fall in line. The Dems have a huge amount of infrastructure, resources, and name recognition and the left would be fools to give that up for ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Creating a third party is dumb. The goal should be to take control of the Dems' internal machinery and pressuring the rest of the party to fall in line. The Dems have a huge amount of infrastructure, resources, and name recognition and the left would be fools to give that up for ideological purity. Those are basically my thoughts although I don't think a third party is impossible in the future, it's just not the path of victory right now. The establishment is more unpopular than ever and weakened, this is the best opportunity we'll ever get to take them out of the picture completely instead of wrestling with them for voters down the line, and we will also get to take the brand name they rely on and their resources, making it harder for them to retaliate. It's two birds with one stone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Creating a third party is dumb. The goal should be to take control of the Dems' internal machinery and pressuring the rest of the party to fall in line. The Dems have a huge amount of infrastructure, resources, and name recognition and the left would be fools to give that up for ideological purity. A lot of people have tried this many times, and failed. There is an excellent book called "The Democrats: A Critical History" which explains this in great detail, going through several illuminating cases and also explaining how essentially the party is so inextricably tied to financial interests the party historically has been and most assuredly remains to this day. Frankly, the enmeshing of capital interests is so central to the actual apparatus of its power that, no matter how difficult it may seem for a third party to rise, it will almost certainly be harder to make the Democratic Party change. Even if you do not agree with my summary of its theses, I strongly recommend checking out the book, because it illuminates many aspects of the party that are worth considering even if you remain convinced that trying to reform it is the best strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:A lot of people have tried this many times, and failed. There is an excellent book called "The Democrats: A Critical History" which explains this in great detail, going through several illuminating cases and also explaining how essentially the party is so inextricably tied to financial interests the party historically has been and most assuredly remains to this day. Frankly, the enmeshing of capital interests is so central to the actual apparatus of its power that, no matter how difficult it may seem for a third party to rise, it will almost certainly be harder to make the Democratic Party change. Then the left is doomed. There's 0 chance at making a viable third party with FPTP system with the ballot lock in the US has. It's fix the party or bust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
I'll just echo that Jacobin article posted earlier. I think it's kind of dumb to eschew progress on any front that's open to you. Democrats are bad but I'm all for people pushing them left to whatever small extent is possible. Imagine how much easier that would be if we had actual, organized leftist institutions outside the Democratic party that had the credibility and reach to mobilize support when one of these hypothetical "better" Democrats ran in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Who better to show the american poor that this issue doesn't fall along party lines? He certainly doesn't think it falls along party lines, and chances are he himself isn't fully informed about what socialism actually is and thinks it's basically communist russia. Read what he responded in that article, he's not arguing for bootstraps bullshit, he's arguing for any change that helps american manufacturing and labor, something that the country desperately needs and something a socialist party should be working toward because it's the first, biggest step, not arguing about ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
This is awesome, thanks for sharing!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:A lot of people have tried this many times, and failed. There is an excellent book called "The Democrats: A Critical History" which explains this in great detail, going through several illuminating cases and also explaining how essentially the party is so inextricably tied to financial interests the party historically has been and most assuredly remains to this day. Frankly, the enmeshing of capital interests is so central to the actual apparatus of its power that, no matter how difficult it may seem for a third party to rise, it will almost certainly be harder to make the Democratic Party change. The left is simply not big enough to break off from liberals running as one of the main parties under the current ballot system while also dealing with gerrymandering, electoral vote, voter suppression, propaganda, and in-fighting, plus loads of scared people going with what they perceive as the safer option because of what's at stake. I think we would probably get closer than any other third party in recent history but we would not win and we will not survive two terms under Trump, I'm already doubting if we can survive one. The establishment just suffered a huge blow like never before, and people are energized to reform the party, we even have stuff like justice dems to get rid of dems who cast unacceptable votes and refocus the party onto the working class. This is a unique opportunity with special circumstances and it would be unwise to dismiss it. If the primaries come and the establishment still retains substantial power then I may reconsider but I would like to see how our efforts pay off first since I don't think this is comparable to any other attempt so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Then the left is doomed. There's 0 chance at making a viable third party with FPTP system with the ballot lock in the US has. It's fix the party or bust. The strategy with that in mind should be to pressure them from inside and out. You may not reform them into a real party but can mitigate the damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:The left is simply not big enough to break off from liberals running as one of the main parties under the current ballot system while also dealing with gerrymandering, electoral vote, voter suppression, propaganda, and in-fighting, plus loads of scared people going with what they perceive as the safer option because of what's at stake. I think we would probably get closer than any other third party in recent history but we would not win and we will not survive two terms under Trump, I'm already doubting if we can survive one. The establishment just suffered a huge blow like never before, and people are energized to reform the party, we even have stuff like justice dems to get rid of dems who cast unacceptable votes and refocus the party onto the working class. This is a unique opportunity with special circumstances and it would be unwise to dismiss it. If the primaries come and the establishment still retains substantial power then I may reconsider but I would like to see how our efforts pay off first since I don't think this is comparable to any other attempt so far. It's true that the left, as it is right now, has little pull in the sphere of electoral politics, either within or outside of the Democratic party. However, and this is one of the things The Democrats book I linked earlier talks about, electoral politics is not where the force towards true progressive change happens in our society. Consider the 1960's, the era in which some of the greatest victories for civil rights and women's liberation in the 20th century were won. It wasn't because there was anything essentially more progressive about the politicians of the era so much as it was the fact that it was an era of mass mobilization, strikes, and agitation. It was only in this environment that a politician like Richard Nixon could be responsible for creating the EPA. In fact, going into the 1970's when many of the radical figures of those days became coopted into the Democratic party and levels of direct political action decreased, that is when we saw this trend towards progressivism die down. Likewise, it is worth considering that FDR didn't draft the New Deal out of the kindness of his heart, but because he lived in a time of wildcat strikes. It's hard to appreciate this, but in that era many of the ruling elite feared that an actual socialist revolution could take place in the US, and their fears at the time might not have been wholly misplaced. Regardless, the New Deal was in many ways a capitulation to these populist forces, and it is in their absence that we have seen these victories erode. I suppose it is fine if you want to vote for a Democrat, at least, I'm not going to say you're being a "bad leftist" if you do, but I think the far more important project in this era is revitalizing this sense that politics does not end at the voting booth. I think the massive, historic outpouring of people last weekend for the Women's march is a sign that there is absolutely this potential within the people of the contemporary US, and it is our duties as leftists to organize as effectively as we can to capitalize upon and bolster this sentiment as much as we can. Whether this leads to a reform of the Democratic party or the rising of a legitimate worker's party in the United States, these things will come as an organic consequence of mass grassroots action, rather than precede it. The worst possible thing we could do is to direct that energy into the machinery of the democratic party, rather than dragging it (along with the rest of the political apparatus of the US) kicking and screaming into a better era. Mr. Lobe fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
And if we should reach a point at which we can terminate that political apparatus and build something better that truly represents the interests of people, I would very much like that, because that is what I am personally fighting for as a revolutionary socialist. But obviously that is going to be a long struggle, and we have a long way to go before that is a possibility. But I think it is very important to consider the shape of the society you want and to dream big, because even if you fall short in your struggle, you will make it much farther than if you did not have a sense of vision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
I guess the sentiment that the "left" can't break with the "liberals" might be more of a US thing, because in countries with actual non-mouthbreathing voting systems, we can actually vote for groups outside of the major two without wasting the vote so thats a thing. Really, the centrist liberals weren't really doing much for the cause anyway, they weren't really attending protests/demonstrations (not the ~right~ way to do it), so 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Crossposting this, because I never see this talked about very much amongst americans, and I'd love your thoughts on it. I don't disagree with any of this -- organized labor has traditionally been the mobilization platform for real progressive change and a third party of labor would be enormously helpful. But he acts like the only reason we don't have a national labor party in the US is that it never occurred to people that they should organize that way, which is a dangerously naive idea that ignores the messy history of labor in this country. There are some very fundamental barriers on both the structural and social level that have made it hard to organize unions in the US into something resembling a unified bloc -- purposeful efforts by the Right to disenfranchise unions are only a small part of it. I just don't know that you can expect to follow the playbook of Northern European socialist republics here and have it work. There are some commonalities, and labor definitely needs to be a major part of coalition pushing for change, but if a third party is going to be formed here it's going to have to chart a different course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:I just don't know that you can expect to follow the playbook of Northern European socialist republics here and have it work. There are some commonalities, and labor definitely needs to be a major part of coalition pushing for change, but if a third party is going to be formed here it's going to have to chart a different course. Just to point out a couple of things: In the infancy of labour and trade unions in western/northern europe, conditions were actually remarkably similar to current day US in terms of wealth distribution, lack of political representation and severe opposition to any form of union-building. The entire point and the reason it works, is that at a grassroots level it's really hard to oppose an organisation with loyal membership, clear goals and leadership and the actual ability to force change outside the legislature or government. The second thing I'd like to point out is that you don't need to create a third party right away or call it a trade union or build on any old frameworks. You can get the ball rolling and suggest members vote as left as possible in the interim while creating your power base and the infrastructure to carry out protest action, strikes and lobbying. If you start it out right, seek the proper allies and build it from the ground up with a general population friendly message, you don't need to immediately create a third party. It will create itself on the back of this organization. This is seriously the one big effective thing you can do to make the oligarchs wear their brown pants. I suggest reading up on the history of the big labour organizations and see how difficult the conditions were for workers when they spawned and how viciously they were fought against by the wealthy owners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
I completely agree that there's far more that needs to be done than just relying on the Dems, I plan to attend every protest I can and agitate politicians as much as possible while working with multiple organizations, and I think the work being done both inside and outside of the party is vitally important, but if Trump can't be beaten at the next election then I am going to die if I'm not already dead by then, and taking over the Dems is the most realistic strategy when I consider all the factors. To me, the push for Ellison for DNC is one of the signs that the party is caving to pressure and shifting towards grassroots after Hillary's loss basically exposed what was so wrong about the party, and I keep hearing from people participating locally who are mobilizing to steer things in that direction so we can bring accountability back to our representatives as they become supported by their constituents instead of rich donors. And the efforts outside of the party will be just as important for keeping on the pressure and supporting people and institutions. The part where I disagree is that I believe we've finally reached the point where the establishment can be defeated now that we have serious movements of energized people working to do just that while they're at the lowest point they've ever been, and I believe they will only continue to lose influence as grassroots overtakes the party. Recoome posted:I guess the sentiment that the "left" can't break with the "liberals" might be more of a US thing, because in countries with actual non-mouthbreathing voting systems, we can actually vote for groups outside of the major two without wasting the vote so thats a thing. American politics are completely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
The wobbly who got gut-shot by a nazi this week should find a liberal stooge and primary that poo poo into the dirt. Teach fear to the democrats. That's the one element of "be a left tea party" advice that seems right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The wobbly who got gut-shot by a nazi this week should find a liberal stooge and primary that poo poo into the dirt. Teach fear to the democrats. That's the one element of "be a left tea party" advice that seems right. They're in my state and both our Senators (D) voted against the importing canadian drug thing. I'd vote for him over either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:53
|
|
pookel posted:.... You have absolutely no idea what American conservatives are like, do you. Yeah you're right, american conservatives are all actually clones of Rush Limbaugh. Serious question, do you actually talk to regular blue collar workers and/or understand how their lives function in the slightest?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Scientists are now planning a march on Washington From a Canadian perspective, Trump is like our previous prime minister Stephen Harper, at least in the way of encouraging fossil fuels, dismantling environmental regulations, muzzling scientists and scientific journalists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Desmond posted:Scientists are now planning a march on Washington I hope they do some local marches again too, I would really like to participate but don't think I could afford the trip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:. The thing is, labor and trade unions are NOT in their infancy in the U.S. Union membership in this country was about 25 percent in 1945, but it's dropped precipitously since then. Further, the percent of Americans who view labor favorably has decreased steadily. Here's some data from Gallup. In 1936, Gallup put support of unions at about 72 percent, now it's at 58 percent. This level of support got noticeably WORSE during the Great Recession, probably because more than half of Americans think unions hurt the economy overall and only 38 percent think they help workers who aren't in unions. In an earlier breakdown that gives more demographic data, you can see that labor union favorability is declining across all groups, but it's declining fastest among people at or near the poverty line. This isn't even getting into the structural challenges to organizing a 3rd electoral party in the US, which were put in place by the parties specifically to make progressive organization more difficult. I'll point to the Jacobin article mentioned upthread for a good breakdown of that, it's excellent and well worth a read. The US is a nation where the unions and the progressives fought and LOST. Our politics make a lot more sense with that context. I wish it was going to be as easy as just glomming all the labor unions and union voters into a bloc, but it's not. Like I said, I think labor is an important piece of the puzzle, but it's not going to be everything and it might not even be the most important apparatus for change. I actually don't think we're that far out of alignment in tactics -- I think it's going to take a combination of in-system wrangling and extra-legal direct action like strikes, protests, and information warfare to create anything like real progressivism in this country. I just question if worker's unions are the right venue for it when very few Americans are in unions and the workers themselves have such a low opinion of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:You'll have to point me to these talks online, then, because all I've seen to Rowe's name online are endless bootstrap memes and screeds about how nobody owes you anything, and how anybody can succeed if you put in enough effort. Which all seems particularly callous to me, as the show he's most famous for, "Dirty Jobs," documents some of the not only dirtiest, but most dangerous, shameful, and borderline illegal jobs there are, and one would think that anyone with a shred of empathy for such people would advocate for greater worker protections and higher pay, but no, apparently it was all about "admiring the work ethic of those guys" (and secretly feeling better that at least you don't have a job that bad). He just strikes some of us as a poor spokesman for advocating unions or greater power, because both the right and the left would wonder why he had turned on a dime and dismiss him as a paid shill, not that the left is doing much listening to him anyway. Rowe isn't trying to advocate for Union Rights or anything of the sort. He's been telling people since his show ended that the spiel told to kids since elementary school that you need to go to college and get a white collar job if you don't want to be a poor person is false. He's shtick is that many trade jobs will pay you better than office work and if you play your cards right and perfect some niche poo poo like underwater welding (used for stuff like oil rigs) you may end up with a salary of a few hundred thousand bucks a year and only work a week or two a month because there is such a paucity of skilled workers. There is a really good speech from Tony Benn about that issue back in the Thatcher era. Somehow people's opinions changed and began to view skilled laborers with contempt and wanted to be the cubicle worker just shifting money back and forth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqOvBKnKdk
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Meanwhile, back at home, a scene that needs to be made. WATCH: Locals protest Dakota Access Pipeline at Riverton Wells Fargo County10 posted:HAPPENING NOW: Locals are at Wells Fargo Bank in Riverton where they are protesting against Wells Fargo's support of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Is there a precedent for this much diversified direct action in response to a new president within such a small window of time? Some of my moderate-liberal acquaintances seem more radicalized than I've ever seen them. W Bush didn't prompt anything like this until 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Is there a precedent for this much diversified direct action in response to a new president within such a small window of time? Some of my moderate-liberal acquaintances seem more radicalized than I've ever seen them. Probably Nixon, the anti-war protests continued straight through from LBJ into his tenure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:52
|
|