The story of Eugene Debs parallels what might happen currently.
We’ve had a presidential candidate run from prison. His crime was protesting WWI…
We’ve had a presidential candidate run from prison. His crime was protesting WWI…
What exactly?
I do not see much that Donald Trump has in common with Eugene Debs.
Defensive and Just wars are not exactly the same as carving out political spheres of influence.
A quote from Stalin was that, "I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the winds of history will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy." And I think that's probably true of many people. How we see things in one era often looks very different in the future -- you're left with just the big picture, less muddied by the liminalities and biases of the day.
If anything, Stalin has an even worse reputation today as in the years after his death. And I actually hope this won't change, as it would mean viewing mass murder and totalitarism in a good light again.
"overall positive in many ex-communist states"
So examples please?
Drawing a parallel between Donald Trump and Eugene Debs running for president from prison is an absurd comparison. Sure, it's true that Trump may end up running for president from prison just as Eugene Debs did, but that's possibly the only similarity between these two figures. Making this comparison, as if Donald Trump is some sort of fighter for workers, sounds awfully politically motivated.
While not everyone in the strike remained peaceful, Debs himself was very firmly a believer in peaceful protest. From the link you posted, Debs said:
> Strong men and broad minds only can resist the plutocracy and arrogant monopoly. Do not be frightened at troops, injunctions, or a subsidized press. Quit and remain firm. Commit no violence. American Railway Union will protect all, whether member or not when strike is off.
Emphasis mine. Also notable, none of the things Debs was charged with were violent crimes.
Don't link things that don't support your point as if they do. At best that means you didn't read it, and at worst you're being intentionally dishonest.
Debs lead strikes which turned into riots, resulting in massive property damage and numerous deaths, multiple times. This is a fact. You trying to spin him into being some sort of dedicated believer in peaceful protest is your opinion, and a poorly supported one at that. That's not to say you can't hold that opinion - you can believe whatever you want. But what you can't (or at least shouldn't) do is reject the facts around the past, which is what you are also doing.
On the contrary, I embraced the facts which you linked--it's just that the facts which you linked don't say what you claim they do. I would encourage anyone reading this conversation to click the link somenameforme posted and see that in fact, the link says what I'm saying it does.
> Debs lead strikes which turned into riots, resulting in massive property damage and numerous deaths, multiple times.
Did Debs incite that violence? You can juxtapose him next to violence all you want, but that's not evidence that did anything to cause it.
> This is a fact. You trying to spin him into being some sort of dedicated believer in peaceful protest is your opinion, and a poorly supported one at that.
Well, we can agree to disagree about whether the quote you linked supports my opinion well or poorly. But I don't feel that I need to support my opinion better than I have, given your total absence of any support for your opinion. If you choose to post any evidence which actually supports your opinion I'll be happy to do more thorough research (and admit I'm wrong, if I am wrong).
The fact is, Eugene Debs did write to the strikers, "Commit no violence." If you want to ignore that fact so you can pretend he's some sort of terrist, it might have been easier if you hadn't linked a page with that very quote in it. :)
---
- "I am asking everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the party of Law & Order - respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
- "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
- During his speech prior to the riots he also said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today."
---
So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest? Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things?
You seem to be under the delusion that if you only state facts and never state your opinion, no one will notice that you're arguing for an opinion.
Yes, you're doing a good job of stating a very small percentage of the facts which supports the opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence.
You haven't explicitly stated that it is your opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence, but given you're only accepting facts that supports that opinion, I think it's pretty obvious what your opinion is. Whether you state your opinion or not, it's obvious that you have an opinion, and it's obvious what your opinion is.
And I'm not even saying it's a bad thing that you have an opinion: I have an opinion too. Everyone has opinions. Bias is unavoidable. My only objection is that it's absurd that you're trying to present yourself as having no bias.
> [Trump tweets encouraging peace]
> So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest?
If those Tweets were the only things in evidence, I'd be happy to say that Trump is firmly a believer in peaceful protest. Those Tweets aren't the only things in evidence, though[1].
> Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things?
It's somehow different because there's more evidence than just those tweets[1]. If there's more evidence that Debs was a proponent of violence, I'd be happy to consider it, but so far all you've presented is that he was proximal to violence.
Believe it or not, I'm actually not 100% convinced that Trump was involved in the January 6 attacks--simply because I am aware there's a lot of evidence I haven't looked at. It hardly matters--there's plenty of other reasons to think he's a horrible human being--but I'd prefer not to form opinions when I know I haven't looked at most of the evidence.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-fi...
"Summarizing Debs's thought in this period, the historian David A. Shannon wrote: "Debs's desideratum was one of peace and co-operation between labor and capital, but he expected management to treat labor with respect, honor and social equality"."[1]
"Debs said in part: 'Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means.'"[1]
"In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the grounds that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I..."[1]
"On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois."[2]
"Debs first welcomed the military, believing that they would help to keep the peace and allow the strike and boycott to continue peacefully."[2]
I'm not starting with an opinion and then seeking facts to support it. That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other. If anything I'd be quite aligned with him on many things, particularly his views on imperialism. But I tend to give near 0 weighting to words and opinions, because assuming the truth of words is itself little more than a proxy for a view on the person saying them. The reason I gave Trump as the example there is to emphasize that I think most people also intuitively think this way, and only resort to words when convenient. In either case, I give immense weighting to actions, and in this regard I see nothing to support the notion that Debs wasn't more than fine with violence.
The Pullman Strikes were not a one-off thing. Debs was also involved in the Burlington railroad strike of 1888 [1], and it also turned violent. And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence. It was an era when workers were cheap and easily replaced. Nobody cares about a bunch of people running around with signs - companies would simply hire new workers, 'strike breakers.' So strikers would respond to this by carrying out sabotage, attacking or intimidating the strike breakers, and so on. The rare time strikes ended peacefully tended to be when the strikers were able to get some form of leverage, like convincing a town to boycott the business.
I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history. And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_...
If this were like most social networks that allow Blocks for people like you, everyone would have Blocked you already. You can reply to this with hundreds of more words of blather, but I won't be responding any further.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is true, but I do care about the past, and correctly understanding the past, because actions today are informed by our understanding of the past.
> But I tend to give near 0 weighting to words and opinions, because assuming the truth of words is itself little more than a proxy for a view on the person saying them. The reason I gave Trump as the example there is to emphasize that I think most people also intuitively think this way, and only resort to words when convenient.
I think self-descriptions certainly aren't as reliable as actions, but 0 weighting? I certainly don't think that extremely little of words, and I disagree that almost anyone does.
> In either case, I give immense weighting to actions, and in this regard I see nothing to support the notion that Debs wasn't more than fine with violence.
I don't see any action at all that indicates this is the case. You've only shown a proximity to violence.
> And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence.
That's an absurd statement. Is it your opinion that workers should have just sucked it up and lived with inhuman treatment because strikes were likely to turn violent?
> It was an era when workers were cheap and easily replaced. Nobody cares about a bunch of people running around with signs - companies would simply hire new workers, 'strike breakers.'
This was sometimes the case (and was in the case of the Burlington railroad strike) but was not the case for the Pullman strike.
I'm also going to point out something: you're talking about "violence" but let's be specific about what that violence was. It was property damage. Workers were killed by military and strike breakers in the Pullman strike, and (2) workers were killed by a foreman and by a scab during the Burlington strike. If you're really just talking about this as an interesting part of history, you have an interesting way of characterizing property damage as unconscionable violence while failing to even mention people being killed.
> I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history.
Bro, you're the only one who believes this bizarre delusion of grandeur that you've somehow risen above human bias.
> And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present.
I mean sure, Debs and Trump said some similar things about violence and might both run for president from jail. They probably also eat food and drink water. Meaningless parallels abound.
Literally everything I have cited has been a fact, while most things you have sourced have been not only opinions, but opinions that should be expected to be anything but impartial. Some of the few facts you have offered are also misleading. For instance you mention that "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois." Calling it a peaceful meeting is not only an opinion, and also an intentionally misleading one. That meeting is quite relevant, because at its conclusion - the workers set out to riot - setting fire to local buildings and derailing a train. [2] That event is actually what triggered the government crackdown, as the locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail. It's like wherever Debs went, violence followed!
Finally I would also say that it increasingly feels like you're engaging in active cognitive dissonance. You're half arguing that they didn't engage in violence, and then half arguing that - well they had to engage in violence!
[1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general...
You have "literally" continued ignoring the evidence that your facts are wrong, e.g. about what Debs' six-month sentence was for (contempt of court, not for inciting violence). He was never convicted for conspiracy or inciting violence, because Pullman refused to testify.
> locomotive they derailed was carrying US Mail
aside from the pedantic fact that locomotives don't carry mail; mail cars do:
The union consistently said that it didn't object to mail cars. It was having a Pullman car attached that was unacceptable.
> wherever Debs went, violence followed!
since he stayed in Chicago while violence was all over, that's certainly not "literally true."
Also, I did not misspeak when I said locomotive. The rioters, after setting fire to buildings, did literally derail the entire locomotive. And this locomotive had a US mail car. Again you pay too much attention to words. You're completely right that the Union said they didn't object to anything except Pullman cars. They would have also said they don't support setting buildings on fire. Yet, a brief meeting with Debs and off goes his followers to set buildings on fire, derail entire locomotives - including those carrying US mail, and partaking in general hooliganism. This is yet more evidence of why words are utterly irrelevant.
Debs was Debs, Trump was/is Trump. Different times, different circumstances. Can you grasp that?
> Try to find a single incorrect or false statement I made - you will not.
I just did. He was never convicted of rioting, violence, or anything you're alleging.
> The initial strike was largely ineffectual.
Yes. Pullman refused to even meet with the union. The title is "Anarchy in the US" for a reason.
Nowadays, "secondary boycotts" are expressly regulated, which is part of the evolution in labor laws that came about partly in response to the Pullman strike.
Debs was not "actively at the head of these strikes/riots." Maybe read something other than Wikipedia.
> preventing other trains and workers from being able to operate, including with violence
Again: "anarchy." The other unions would happily run trains with no Pullman cars. The railroad managers refused because they were standing together to keep the union from winning.
> He ended up serving 6 months in prison for it.
wrong again. The 6 months were for contempt of the injunction. His grand trial for the more serious things you're talking about was dropped when Pullman defied a subpoena and refused to testify.
I think you mean WW1. Debs went to prison for protesting that.
Protests against wars have been handled very differently, depending on the war and who was in power.