Are USians not still working 10 hours day/6 days a week? The USA are usually near the top of the “time worked per week” OECD rankings.
Also, interesting how the poster and first replier have the same avatar. Is that a historical figure?
It looks to me like the top post is a screenshot of Twitter, and the two below are on Tumblr. I think they were just sharing their own post. But I don’t use either site, so I can’t be sure.
Yes, Americans are not still working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. (But phrasing things backwards that way is confusing!)
40 hours a week is typical for normal, salaried jobs. But, because union membership is extremely low, some people are pressured into working a lot more than that. Also, some people have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. But, I don’t think 6 days a week is at all normal, nor is 10 hours a day.
It’s actually the USA that is to thank for the normal work day being only 8 hours. In post-civil-war USA 6 days a week, 10 hours a day was the norm. But, workers in Chicago went on strike on May 1st, demanding an 8 hour day. Their argument was “Eight Hours for work. Eight hours for rest. Eight hours for what we will.” They didn’t get what they were demanding. Instead the strikers were met by police and Pinkerton violence. Some anarchists in the crowd responded to that police violence by throwing bombs (at least, allegedly). The police responded to the bombs by shooting the crowd. They then rounded up the suspected leaders of the anarchist movement and after incredibly brief show-trials, they hanged them.
It was actually the backlash against the hangings that energized the unions and communists around the world, and although it took years to actually achieve the 8 hour day they demanded. The rest of the world also celebrates a worker day on May 1st as a result of this event. But, of course, in the US, “May Day” is seen as being too close to “communism” so Labor Day is in September instead.
It took decades more to reduce the work week from 6 days to 5. Again this was the result of union pressure.
American workers have lots immense amounts of power since the 1880s. Even if those striking workers were beaten by Pinkertons, they were at least able to organize a general strike.
The desperation and work culture of believing we can just slave away into success are what keeps people from rocking the boat. Faith in being able to win the game is how we got here.
How are you referencing the OECD and claiming 60 hour weeks in the same paragraph? If you actually checked the OECD that you reference, you know hours worked is wayyyyyy lower.
I would guess he is saying that the hours listed in the OECD, which I think were 1730 per year, is skewed. I wonder if separating rich/middle/poor would yield vastly different results.
I generally assume that the OECD statistics are underreporting overtime and moonlighting/illicit work wouldn’t be included in these statistics anyway, though the latter is probably a bigger issue in poorer countries. Also, it doesn’t make a difference between part time work and fulltime work, which greatly diminishes how useful it is for gauging how much a fulltime employee works.
So you’re just adding on an extra 25 hours a week to the actual average number based off vibes?
C’mon man :(
Why are you pro-rioting before a massive rally? The regime WANTS a riot so they can engage in massive retaliation. You’re literally doing their work for them, get smart.
The regime is currently kidnapping people off the streets and raiding homes.
They do not need pretext. They will manufacture their own regardless of what we do. You are arguing that we should not remove the boot that is currently pressed on our neck.
No I am not. I am arguing a disorganized riot accomplishes nothing and turns the boot into a machete. If your enemy wants you to do something, why are you dead-set on doing it?
They don’t want us to; they’re perfectly happy killing and kidnapping people without retaliation right now, and know that so long as we never fight back, they can take as long as they want to murder us slowly under the pretext of whatever laws they feel like making up on the spot. We’re slaves with a slim chance to escape our inevitable execution, but you’re so worried about how hard they’ll whip us if we fail that you don’t even want to try until it’s too late.
The very fact that you’re able to march and feel safe enough to not get murdered outright speaks to how you don’t understand that other people are already being removed from the equation just for walking through a park in Chicago. A significant amount of people aren’t safe enough to leave the house, and you think that we’re going to show them our power by peacefully telling the government that’s bad as if they aren’t aware? When they control the laws and have shown that they willfully change them to suit their agenda, what else will stop them but the fear for their own lives? Who will remove a tyrant from power when all forms of enforcement have already bent the knee to him?
Protests are to warn the government that we’re mad and might get violent if ignored. We’ve been ignored for long enough.
At this point, we aren’t living under liberal democracy and a peaceful rally is more illegal and dangerous than rioting was. The point is to not demonize the language of the unheard when few states will have free and fair elections next year.
The regime can do whatever it wants, without justification.
They do want a riot; that’s why they are talking about enacting the Insurrection Act. They want their use of force and illegal tactics to be justified to their base.
Which is why we will always need heroes.
Funnily enough there’s a very similar situation to the US that’s going on in Serbia, where a canopy falling and killing a bunch of people due to government cheapening out led to lots of outrage and exploded into a massive student movement against the president due to corruption, election rigging, suppression of dissent and executive branch abuse.
At first, they did peaceful protests, blocked roads and all that jazz constantly, but after seeing that it had led them literally nowhere (they got nothing except for a fake concession that was some minister resigning) except on getting arrested and beaten up in jails, they decided to give a green light to civil disobedience, violence, trashing ruling party’s headquarters all over the country.
What did this escalation result in? A whole load of nothing except cracked skulls, mostly for the students.
If you’re looking at reformism ‘fixing’ things during the course of history, civil disobedience the vast majority if not all of the time was noise. What eventually got implemented or changed wasn’t because the ruling class got scared, but because they were either getting major gains in terms of compromise as a result of the reform, or the reform itself was beneficial to their interests and only a small minority didn’t want them to pass.
To give a bit of hope to the liberals in the US though, what’s happening there isn’t new and the state of things from before (as in liberal democracy functioning normally) is going to sooner and later return, it’s a cycle that happens every now and again due to falling rate of profit, crisis and rise of reaction that happens as a result.
Eventually, liberal capitalists will start fighting the conservative capitalists to get their place in the sun again, maybe it’s going to happen electorally or maybe there’s going to be a slaughter of millions of workers in the name of liberal democracy or anti-fascism, after which wholesome democracy will reign supreme once again and the countdown towards another crisis and rise of reaction will start once again. Isn’t that lovely?
If you’re looking at reformism ‘fixing’ things during the course of history, civil disobedience the vast majority if not all of the time was noise. What eventually got implemented or changed wasn’t because the ruling class got scared, but because they were either getting major gains in terms of compromise as a result of the reform, or the reform itself was beneficial to their interests and only a small minority didn’t want them to pass.
So, in your opinion the woman’s suffrage movement, or LGBTQ activism, for example, were just wastes of time? These people didn’t need to do or say anything since the bourgeoisie were about to give them everything they wanted anyway?
If they held no benefit to the ruling class, then no. LGBT opens up more industry focused on identity (via pride merch, medical needs) which means more profitable industry for bourgeois, while women’s suffrage legitimizes capital’s rule further by allowing more people to vote + liberates capitalist women which is what bourgeois feminism is primarily about.
Whether these reforms would have happened without the noise though, can’t really say - there’s no mirror that looks into alternate realities. Still, these kinds of reformist mass movements are usually a result of bourgeois infighting, not some spontaneous working class action - just look at who organizes and funds them.
Thats not to say liberal working class are idiots for joining them and acting as footsoldiers, no - there are definitely benefits to be had for one’s identity no matter the class, like in the case of LGBT, but the things won aren’t full-on liberation, just specific compromises that are capital-friendly(women getting voting rights but still being discriminated against to encourage births/staying at home and raising more workers, LGBT getting essentially bare minimum recognition and care to be sold merch but not enough to significantly attack the traditional family for child-raising). Therefore, true liberation can only happen via the abolishment of the class society, else it’s gonna be endless compromises that miss the mark.
I think workers should own their workplaces but tbh I don’t see that by itself automatically fixing all forms of prejudice and discrimination. Certainly not on a personal level, but probably not even at a systemic level either. Though I agree that the present conditions definitely forment reactionary thought.
Yeah it won’t, because commodity production, markets, accumulative money and therefore capital won’t be abolished, meaning that the incentives to oppress certain groups of people for growth will remain.
Only after we overcome the production for profit model and replace it with production to satisfy people’s needs will capital fully be replaced and dead, removing any incentives to discriminate (aka systemic discrimination). Will it change prejudices that people have immediately? No, but it will certainly disappear over time given how the central source of these prejudices is now abolished + a revolution and development like that is only possible in a class conscious society which produces solidarity with other workers no matter their features (USSR is a good example of this when looking at Oct Revolution - women were viewed as fellow comrades, led the charge on most influential mass protests, and once revolution happened they got a ton of systemic freedom in terms of abortion rights and legal autonomy, while the rest of the western world was still on legal guardianship).
Civil disobedience for the sake of it is just stupid. When we retroactively look at civil disobedience in history, we intentionally filter out the vast majority and just highlight the few examples that we’re done in ethical ways, for the right causes, and achieved results. Civil disobedience is not a virtue nor is it uncommon. What actually matters are the motivations, principles, and methods used behind the civil disobedience.
Trying to say that all the ones that failed did it wrong instead of realizing that no matter what if you succeed or fail they’re only going to elevate the ‘right’ moments and demonize the ‘wrong’ ones based on the needs of the ruling class.
I think it’s worth pointing out that calling these riots isn’t really appropriate. When we think of riots, we think of unfocused, unplanned, unmanaged, etc. Highly organized protests sometimes wind up turning into riots because capitalists use violence, but it’s not the norm.
Labor movements in the 19 th and early 20th centuries also literally organized riots, where the express purpose was to destroy property. It used to be a legitimate protest strategy against the owning class.
Super This:
Organized, non-violent protests are not riots. They are people, in mass, using their freedom of speech to complain about something.
A common issue is that some people, either within the protest group, or outside instigators, will then prod the protest into violence in order to discredit it. Two examples:
- Police using rubber bullets/tear-gas/pepper-spray to disperse a lawful gathering. This escalates and adds tension. Not everyone is prepared to weather abuse to stay non-violent. Gassing a peaceful protest is going to make at least some of them really mad and is a pretty trivial way to turn a peaceful protest into something else and remove it’s message, making it just a “riot.”
- Agitators claiming to be within the group, but who are actually against, it performing actions such as property damage or violence in order to discredit the whole event. If a non-violent march is walking down a street and some dick throws a rock through a store window and steals something, the whole march is called a riot by the media.
It’s important that if you are involved in a protest that you stay calm despite what is thrown your way. The protest is the message and fighting back during that event is only harming your message. Please do things like capture pictures/videos of people inciting violence, of police using crowd control on peaceful protesters, of generic unfair treatment; but during that event, the goal is to be calm. Afterwards, you can take all your grievances to the medias. If you’ve been harmed during a protest, find a lawyer – many will work pro-bono for cases like this and if your first pick doesn’t… fuck 'em: Name and shame – and then fight back after the event, when you have legal standing.
Your grievances are real. Your pain is real. The people in power will use every trick to discredit your issues. Don’t give them ammo.
unreasonable? it is generally categorized as criminal
and being trans can make you a criminal; what’s your point?
my point it is not labelled as only unreasonable, it is actually labelled as criminal
That’s the point. These actions are criminal and demonized, but undoubtedly necessary for us having rights at all.
Yes and the word “unreasonable” underplays how they actually try ro portray it. When some action is called criminal it creates fear. “Unreasonable” not so much.
The response by quasi-normalcy reads like a cherry picked simplification to lead to a likely incorrect conclusion.
The statements suggest all (or most) riots:
- change public policy for the better; they don’t
- are justified by the rioters; they aren’t
Here are some examples:
For five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers (called the Logan Defenders)[6] who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners’ attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields when tensions rose between workers and mine management. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[7] and the United States Army, represented by the West Virginia National Guard led by McDowell County native William Eubanks,[8] intervened by presidential order.[9]
In the short term the battle was an overwhelming victory for coal industry owners and management.[52] United Mine Workers of America (UMWA or UMW) membership plummeted from more than 50,000 miners to approximately 10,000 over the next several years, and it was not until 1935—following the Great Depression and the beginning of the New Deal under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt—that the UMW fully organized in southern West Virginia.
This union defeat had major implications for the UMWA as a whole. As World War I ended, the demand for coal declined adversely impacting the industry. [citation needed] Because of the defeat in West Virginia, the union was also undermined in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. By the end of 1925, Illinois was the only remaining unionized state in terms of soft coal production.
So in this example, most of us today would say the riot was justified as the coal miners were seeking safer working conditions under unionization. This riot failed and largely destroyed the union.
So was the riot justified: yes. Did it lead to positive change: no.
Tulsa race massacre aka Tulsa riot
The Tulsa race massacre was a two-day-long white supremacist terrorist[13][14] massacre[15] that took place in the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States, between May 31 and June 1, 1921. Mobs of white residents, some of whom had been appointed as deputies and armed by city government officials,[16] attacked black residents and destroyed homes and businesses. The event is considered one of the worst incidents of racial violence in American history.[17][18] The attackers burned and destroyed more than 35 square blocks of the neighborhood—at the time, one of the wealthiest black communities in the United States, colloquially known as “Black Wall Street.”[19]
More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals, and as many as 6,000 black residents of Tulsa were interned, many of them for several days.[20][21] The Oklahoma Bureau of Vital Statistics officially recorded 36 dead.[22] The 2001 Tulsa Reparations Coalition examination of events identified 39 dead, 26 black and 13 white, based on contemporary autopsy reports, death certificates, and other records.[23] The commission reported estimates ranging from 36 up to around 300 dead.[24][25]
So in this example most of us today would say the riot was NOT justified as the black residents were just trying to live their lives in peace and prosperity before the white supremacists came in with violence and murder of black residents.
So was the riot justified: no. Did it lead to positive change: no.
The original premise by that poster is questionable as only through the lens of history can we pick out specific riots that lead to positive policy or positive societal change.
The Tulsa massacre is a wild example, because while it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist’s goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn’t inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn’t stop.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we’ll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
it led to no positive change, it did help accomplish the white supremacist’s goals of keeping Black people from building generational wealth. The terrorism of the KKK and non state sanctioned attacks against native Americans played a crucial war in building all the inequities of America. The injustice wasn’t inevitable or even based on legal discrimination alone, but bolstered and reinforced by extrajudicial actions they knew the state wouldn’t stop.
I agree with 100% of what you said here. It is an absolute travesty that this occurred at all, but then was hidden from mainstream recorded history for decades.
Does this mean the left can do anything close to the same thing as the KKK? Fuck no, we’ll pay extra in jail time and executions. The state allowed an encouraged that evil. It does make the moralizing bullshit about illegality being the only way to change things even more hollow.
I wasn’t defending the “illegality” argument. I was pointing out that the supposition of the thread post ascribes riots as the primary driver of liberal democracy. I’m pointing out that that is only true if you pick out specific riots and ignore dozens of others that don’t support the thesis. Even riots whose outcome could have shaped liberal ideas but didn’t like Blair Mountain have to be ignored for the thread post to be true.
I also reject that riots were the only shaping device of liberal democracy in the USA. I would argue FDRs New Deal was a bigger driver of modern liberal democracy than any riot. While the New Deal was certainly influenced by protest from the Bonus Army, but there was no riot from that. Further, the Race Riot of 1943 had occurred in Detroit under FDR’s watch, but FDR stayed silent on it and I’m not aware of any changes in policy that occurred because of it though I admit I only know of the riots occurrence and not much more.
You aren’t going to win every battle, even if you end up winning the war. And obviously, winning any battle is never a foregone conclusion, but sometimes you have to fight anyway.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men.
The Internet has made people too easy to divide and conquer
Phhh that’s exactly the kind of behaviour I’d expect with a user from leminal.space!
Bahh! Bloody Trekkies stirring the pot as usual, go back to your Spock Base and phase some Vulconions!
I’m suddenly reminded of this quote:
“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”
– Douglas Adams in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Yep. Creating division amongst the common class, so they fight each other, instead of those in power who are the real criminals.
Funny how it’s getting harder and harder to find a job in the US that isn’t 10-12 hours a day, six days a week.
It’s hard to finda a job period right now, and mass unemployment is always so productive to stability and peace.
Yeah, we’re definitely going backwards. Americans blame the unions and worship the billionaires and politicians that are making everything worse.
This state of affairs is not especially surprising – if it were the popular belief that violence is justified to change society in some particular way, then society would already be changed in that way. Just like how no stock on the market can be widely seen as undervalued.
This is why class consciousness is important.
It’s also why it’s vital to meet people where they are. Propaganda that works often begins not with big ideas but targeting emotions and one’s perception of their everyday life, and if you aren’t engaging in propaganda then your opponent who is is defining the narrative unopposed
You’ve got to seize the means of production, of course in the US that means getting on a plane.
Global capitalism makes seizing the means of production a global effort no matter where you are, which is why nationalism is main the tool for maintaining capitalism
The State only respects power. If a group of people show that they have more power than the State, change can happen. However, what is power?
Power comes in many different forms.
There is economic power which is showcased through strikes and boycotts.
There is democratic power which is showcased through the ballot box.
There is soft power which is showcased through the lobbying, and speeches.
There is non-violet power which is showcased through protests, marches, and sit ins.
There is violent power which is showcased through physical violence such riots.While, the populace has access to many different forms of power. The State is limited to either soft power or violent power. Depending on the State, soft power might not even be contemplated.
Riots are just one form of power for the populace to exercise.
This feels really insightful, and I wonder if there is a source other than ShaggySnacks.
Can anyone expand on or contradict this comment? I honestly want to hang it in my house so my children can see it and understand they power they have.
This feels really insightful, and I wonder if there is a source other than ShaggySnacks.
Sadly, no source. It’s something I’ve observed. I can’t recall any time a State changed it’s position on an issue simply because it was the moral thing to do.
There are other forms of power such as legal (using the Courts), culture, morality, etc.
The examples above aren’t exhaustive, for example having allies in the State does help with change, which is means running for office in an a democratic system.
did you find this post in a bottle on the beach
basically 😔
