|
The wartime propaganda under Wilson was extreme, and coupled with the Espionage and Sedition acts, did an excellent job of squashing any protest. Any newspaper even vaguely opposing the war was censored (given that at the time, many newspapers were delivered by the postal service, government censorship had a huge impact). World War I drastically undermined many socialist and left organizations in the US (classically anti-war), and authorities used the new laws and tacit understanding to attack them and anyone else anti-war with impunity. Vigilante justice also became pretty big, especially given that authorities often did not investigate crimes against people against the war. In many areas, people were shamed, attacked, or even killed for opposing the war. There was a mood of utterly rabid patriotism On top of that, things that weren't even anti-war were censored because they could possibly undermine morale. For example, as the 1918 influenza epidemic began ravaging the country, there was either complete media silence on the issue, or newspapers constantly published that it was no big deal and would be over soon. Parades promoting war bonds were allowed to go through, even as scientists and doctors were calling for quarantines. Any quarantines that were eventually imposed came far too late.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:TLDR; Corporations control everything, including both parties. Therefore we should not get angry about or invest any energy in the farce of electoral politics. We should instead focus on building economies that exclude powerful, hierarchical corporations. To return more to the intent of the thread, which really should be less about Hedges specifically and more about combating the power of corporations, I want to disagree with eschewing elections. Participating in elections as a third party is indeed participating in a rigged game, but it's a game that a lot of everyday people pay attention to. Through participating in elections as an alternative to the two corporate parties, we can give voice to various demands or issues that are actually important. There are also unopposed candidates everywhere, especially at the state and local level, and we can drag them leftwards or even win. Elected offices can act as a platform from which to speak. Through building popular support on an issue and candidate, we also can begin to create organizations of people that can do more than win elections. I think that building alternative economies isn't a great solution. Corporations have immense access to resources and power, and if alternative economies ever become an actual threat, they'll use the state and political power to combat them. Then, you'll have to fight through civil disobedience, mass movements, and elections just like if you started with labor struggles or politics to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:History would tend to prove otherwise, except in cases where one main party was so weakened as to not run at all. I don't mean the third party will necessarily win (though occasionally they do) especially in lovely FPTP system awash with corporate money, but that they will change the conversation. The Democrats adopting the silver currency as their issue after the populist party gave voice to it is a rather famous one. A recent one would be Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative making a $15/hour minimum wage the focus of Seattle politics. It is not, unfortunately, a left-wing only phenomenon. The Tea Party has dragged the Republicans right on various issues too, after all. To be clear, elections should not be the goal of a third party or a movement, only another tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 02:09
|
|