this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
183 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4359 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

And do you think it was the bombers that wrote this into law, or elected politicians?

edit: and why did other countries manage to get it into law a lot faster than the US?

[–] simplymath@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Also, I need a source about other countries enacting this before the US. In the 1880s, there wasn't exactly a plethora of Democratic governments anywhere. Germany was a brand new idea and so was Italy. France encompassed parts of Spain and Sweden, which was itself an empire with a military dictator. The UK is still a monarchy with colonies that want to secede (namely Jamaica) and the Netherlands is too. Swedish people didn't have surnames yet--they adopted the last name of their employer.

Eastern Europe had serfdom and antisemitic laws were the norm.

I would totally believe the UK got it first, but not without a mass mobilization of working class people.

Seriously, what are you talking about?

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the US only enacted it in 1937

So I only have basically all of Europe off the top of my head

[–] simplymath@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Right. So it was a 50 year long struggle led by the working class and groups like the Wobblies and your solution is to vote harder?

To what extent can we credit colonial nations like Portugal and the UK and the Netherlands for extending this right exclusively to white people with political capital?

Is it really a "pass" if the comfort of the homeland was predicated on slavery and/or empire elsewhere?

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Not 'harder'. Smarter, better and more consistently.

And yeah the US is the only country that never meddled in or abused other countries for economic gain, or benefitted from slavery in any way, so that's the only one in the world where workers' rights really count. Right

[–] simplymath@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that crediting the the UK for progressive politics while they enslaved half the world is a weird take.

I would make the exact same claim about the US, considering that neo-slavery (indentured servitude/whites only towns) wasn't abolished until after world war 2.

In fact, one of the most violent events in US history was a white mob that murdered an entire town of black people for trying to unionize.

Those white folks sure understood the power of working class solidarity and it's fundamental threat to capital.

That's also probably why MLKJ was assassinated during the poor people's campaign that sought to unite the grievances of the civil rights movement with the concerns of poor whites.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You sound more concerned about the extremely racist history of the US than how many other nations were able to cement many a workers' right in their legislation through voting for the right policies

[–] simplymath@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You have failed to list a single example of legislative change that didn't have the backing of a mass mobilization and credible threats to capital. I have presented several instances that support the claim that legislative change is dependent on working class organization.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Lots of legislative changes are enacted without mass mobilization, bomb attacks, 'threats to capital'

You can study the evolution of paternal and maternal leave in Sweden as a nice example. The Swedes didn't have to bomb any Ikeas - they just consistently voted for the right politicians.

[–] simplymath@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

You mean the country with basically universal union membership and literally 0 legislation around minimum wage?

The one where worker's rights are guaranteed by union negotiations and the threat of a strike rather than national legislation?

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I see you want to change the subject lol

Do you think Sweden has a problem with low wages?

[–] simplymath@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't change the subject. I'm saying those right were earned by unions and not gifted by politicians.

As somebody who lives and works in Sweden with a PhD in computer science, I had more disposable income when I washed dishes in NYC. So, yeah, I would say wages are pretty low.

[–] simplymath@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I think the law is irrelevant without a mass movement. You simply won't get the law without the mass movement.

You can't get from where we are to working class liberation without passing through working class struggle.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Sure. Mass movement, politicians, pen, paper, law

Leave one of those out and it probably won't work