Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 3
Generated: 12:22:47
Dumb ass kid had his politics used against him to get him to give up a day off. Labor day wasn't a communist holiday. At the time labor day was created as a federal holiday, the labor unions were voluntary association. You could work in union shops without joining. There might even be competing unions at your work for you to pick from already. In fact, many anarchists believe that the historical model of unions from that time is the free and voluntary association way of accomplishing many of the protections for workers that the legal system attempts to provide today. Anarchists being pro union would not have seemed strange to people of that time. 2 dates were considered for the holiday, one in may and one in September. Both were considered because they were planned recurring strike days by the unions. May had more history of the strike becoming violent, while September tended to be cookouts. The government chose September because they were worried the historically more violent day would become about the anarchist movement. But the socialists you say. That word has changed. Today socialism basically means government enforced, aka communism. Earlier, there were competing definitions. Socialism often meant that the workers of the business held shared ownership of the business, instead of a single owner hiring workers. This was still a profit seeking business with no government involvement under that model. Look up anarcho-syndicalism for more about how unions work under anarchy. Look up libertarian socialism for more about how a socialist business can be a free thing that doesn't use government force to achieve its goals. They aren't perfect ideologies, but their ideas hold important truths if people want to be free. Early model unions and libertarian socialism are both powerful answers to "without a government some other bully will come along and exploit people even worse." I don't think it is a coincidence that those words have become corrupted and earlier meanings lost to time.
2025-09-01 11:52:44 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 2 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (3)

Unionization was broken by economics, not policy. Workers got too many rights and had babies faster than developing the resources to care for them, so the babies grew up to suffer as punishment. Then we got the fucked up hell society we have today. Political preferences like "communist or capitalist" have little bearing on an underlying human sequence of events like this Communists and capitalists both enjoy high quality of life -> both enjoy having babies -> both can be lazy and forget to develop the resources for childcare while having babies -> both worked together on this and now blame each other for it lol
2025-09-01 13:15:05 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply
I wouldn't cast shade on the kid. We don't know what we don't know. But the Rough Extraction episode basic lays out what you are saying and why it made sense. A very exploitative-corporate model had emerged, human dignity demanded a response. As the political map gets reoriented, labor unions discussion is going to be hard for some. Must get past the WWE political narrative first. Most importantly, this history rhymes with today's de-humanization in the AI revolution.
2025-09-01 13:32:33 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply
The luddites were were from not too far away in time and also an anti "companies using technology to dehumanize their workers" movement. Not surprising we see them also coming back when wealth inequality tips back into the range last seen during the robber baron era. We could learn from the successes and failures of the movements of that era. Instead we were trained in school that they were all bad so we'll have to reinvent the wheel or get bulldozed by the oligarchs this time.
2025-09-01 15:00:58 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply