banneryear1868 @ banneryear1868 @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

923

Joined

2 yr. ago

Scotty has the most clickbait titles. "If you have a car you will REGRET this ONE SIMPLE TRICK and DESTROY YOUR ENGINE" (video is about winter octane stabilizers or something completely mundane)

Wallenstein still ran like a baby from that battle and was assassinated by his own side over it (allegedly). To think Adolphus would likely have secured Seedish land in mainland Europe...

A great way I've seen this summarized is that a union is not made of people you have to agree with or share beliefs or even ideology with, they're people who you have a shared economic interest as part of a single labor body.

The employer would just hire scabs in that arrangement like the main idea of a union is to have that single collective power.

I think the more pro-capitalist view of unions would say that "one big union" is definitely a bad idea. The socialist or anarcho-syndicalist would likely see the one big union as a way to collectively fight the bosses, specifically in the context of class struggle. The communist or Marxist-Leninist would maybe say the union is a barrier to revolution by sustaining the class structure.

The biggest "one big union" org was/is the IWW or "wobblies" as they were known and it was their primary mission to unionize all workers under the IWW banner.

It was written much earlier for the IWW's Little Red Songbook by Ralph Chaplin

both sides

wtf did u just say to me u lil bishh

What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?

Only thing I'm hearing is that I need to share way more Jacobin links on lemmy now, but I'll block you so you can't see them, best of both worlds. Move over New Left Review it's Bhaskar's time to shine.

Nixon is really interesting as a president it's kind of a shame how he's only remembered for Watergate and the drug war now. Most people don't think "created the EPA" or "desegregation" when they picture Nixon, he also ended the Viet Nam war and draft. Definitely a complex person above a lot of other presidents, poor Quaker upbringing and looked down on by his elite classmates, could have rejected the draft on his Quakerism but became a lieutenant commander, insanely respected as he rose through the ranks and commended by almost everyone he worked with. Did terrible things with Kissinger in South America as a staunch anti-communist. It's like every stark judgement on him has some extreme counter example. The guy basically was the USA at an insane time in history, definitely a man who fully embodied that period of history.

The US since it's inception has basically been an experiment in free real estate.

The active president doesn't really have as much control over the economy as people think, Trump's tariffs are still in place and wholly supported by Biden as well to the chagrin of the WTO. People's perception of the economy absolutely changes with the active president, to the point that people will feel more financially secure the day after the president they support wins the election and isn't even sworn in to office yet. The overarching neoliberal capitalist economy is consented to by both major parties and is "right" leaning if we're talking pure economic political spectrum. Democrats just believe in more tax incentives and inclusion, Republicans are more ruthless. I guess the main point I'm making is the "Trump" or "Biden" economy isn't real, what they effectively have are dials that fine tune secondary parameters of the economy.

World events out of their control or financial sector behaviors (like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations) are the "real" drivers and the government under either party is generally reactive. Biden is basically doing "good" things under this system that don't upset it but have small noticeable improvements. So while it's good to point this out it's also important to realize these aren't unprecedented or majorly new things and likely won't alter our default economic arrangement and social contract, which is still being degraded as the neoliberal capitalist system degrades.

Naturalized Landscapes: Reduce budget by naturalizing all public landscapes, alter "unkempt yard" qualifications, incentivize against lawns.

Smart Density Overhaul: Destroy developer's abilities to build detached home subdivisions, build public homes that are integrated with landscapes and require less upkeep from homeowners, maximize leisure and the things that actually make people happy, roads are... not what they currently are. Subsidize rural taxi service.

Industry Perks: Tax incentives for industrial employers relative to employee's salaries. Similar remote work incentives for professional-managerial employers. A study on commercial office use will be conducted to determine how to best move in to new work arrangements.

Yes you have made your opinion known, I would just say don't read it if it makes you uncomfortable. This is what happens when you get between an American and his anti-intellectualism I guess. For someone who is so self-aggrandizing about their superior intelligence it's surprising you don't know who someone as renown as Barbara Fields is. Your other pedestrian remarks make it obvious you don't know about the ideas being discussed here either.

I know more than you and everyone who now or ever has or will ever work at the Jacobin Wendy's

Not only that but race and racism in America as a uniquely economic relation. One of her central thesis is that this notion of race developed out of economic relations and not the other way around as it is often presented, or in her words, "as though the point of slavery was to produce white supremacy instead of cotton." She argues that race is not a real biological category and against essentialist notions of race that suggest they are ontologically "real," and that race is invoked to explain and justify economic inequalities. She often invokes the absurdities within so-called "biracial" or "mixed" racial categories to highlight the lack of explanatory power race offers as a point of analysis.

I know more than you and everyone who now or ever has or will ever work at the Jacobin

"The Jacobin" sounds like how an old person says "the pokeymans." ITS PRONOUNCED JACOBIN MOM!

historian is not a leading scholar on economics

Their major area of study and impact as scholars is contextualizing the institution of slavery as a primarily economic relation. You're being confidently incorrect.

Jacobin is a leading left publication, if you're a right wing or liberal you probably don't agree with it's editorial stance, but dismissing leading scholars on a topic because of this is pure anti-intellectualism. Here's one of her essays Ideology and Race in American History that a prof seems to have hosted on their university site which contains some of her main ideas, you can lead a horse to water after all...

It's the same as in 2016 how Trump supporters would share clips and compilations of reactions to him from liberal media personalities, and how Hillary invented the "deplorable" slogan for them. His political brand was built by reactions to him largely from liberal media.

The last 70 years of sponsoring fascist coups around the world in the interests of capitalists made US the bad guys.