Why did the modern left decide go from workers rights to SJW concerns?

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,770
At present SD, USA
We can argue why true feminism and relative ethnic equality started in the West.
Even though the conditions of the aboriginal people remain appalling, we are attempting to right historical injustice.
My personal issue is not so much with areas where European society has done things right and tried to correct its past errors. Because while one can make the case that European society has been a major driving force behind many things that we judge to be wrong, that does not mean that every European/American is some mustache twirling villain. That isn't the case, as we can always find people who have behaved with honor and justice.

My issue is more with those that would try to either deny where things had been done wrong, or have tried to excuse it in some way. Because in the end, that sort of thing also degrades those who have done things honorably. For example, in America, Lincoln is often pointed to as one of the key figures behind getting the 13th Amendment passed and finally putting an end to slavery in America. But... if someone somehow denies that slavery was even a problem, what would Lincoln be fixing?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,227
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_iron_ore_production

China still produces a huge amount, nearly 400 million tons.



Because Europe industrialized and these population centers grew close to the sources of coal and iron.

China didn't so their population distribution was uncorrelated with the distribution of iron and coal deposits.



No serious economic historian is going to argue that France industrialized before Poland did because of "easily accessible coal deposits". First because the reality is the inverse, Poland had more coal deposits than France. Second, because having coal deposits was just irrelevant for industrialization: coal is a very plentiful fossil fuel that is available worldwide. It was used in the UK because it was easier to get energy from coal than to get energy from watermills (that is after 1830, before 1830 most factories in the UK were powered by watermills and not coal powered steam engines).

You should read up a little bit more of economic history. Natural resource endowments have little correlation with economic development. For example, by 1910 the richest country in Europe was Switzerland, a country without large coal deposits, while territories that would become Poland and Czechoslovakia had vast coal deposits but were still very poor.

What is correlated is the development of social institutions. Spain and Italy developed after Germany and France, but they eventually did and now their living standards are almost at the same level. While Poland was very unlucky in being under Soviet rule for half a century, if Poland were integrated into Western Europe they would also have eventually converged to German living standards (which is what is actually happening right now as in 1990 Poland had only 35% of the per capita income of Germany while today it is about 60%).
There is a VERY STRONG correlation between resources and development, there is no use trying to deny it... A few exceptions such as city states do not put this rule in question....

It is in fact so evident that I wonder why you are denying it.... You can do the following thought experiment: teleport the entire nation of -for example- Sweden to a desert area with no resources.... (or to Mars for that matter).... and watch as their collective GDP plummets and they all die...

You are completely missing the point that Coal AND Iron must be close together (and also easily accesible)

Such as here



or here



Easily accesible quantities of a resource lower the cost... that's a very simple economic concept..... BTW in addition to Coal AND Iron, large quantities of water and wood were needed for the industrial revolution.....

There is just no magic... Looking at the overal resource picture (Temperature range, Arable Land, Water , Wood, Coal, Iron, Oil etc... + sufficient human resources , ease of access and security -as provided by geography-) gives a very good explanation of why civilizations appeared where they did and developed as they did.... Its just that the necessary mix of resources changes as technology progresses (for example Oil was useless until the 19th century) and some resources (for example wood) can disappear or others be discovered later on... so its a moving picture...

Social institutions are powerless to create resources (they cannot make it rain for example)... inefficient social institutions however can waste resources and thus delay development.....
 

larkin

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
3,698
Why did the modern left decide go from workers rights to SJW concerns?


It was a conscious strategy on the part of the Democratic party to abandon labor in favor of corporate funding.
Read Thomas Frank.



Also, the term SJW is a media contrivance. A collection of minority issues, some worthy others not that distract from genuine labor issues.


The term SJW serves another function. It confuses and trivializes the very potent and urgent call from the depths of Great Depression...A cry for Social Justice!
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,847
US
The problem with pensions in most European countries is that the system is in essence a financial pyramid... one that needs more and more "s*ckers" to keep working like any Ponzi scheme... So sure by bringing in more people the Ponzi scheme gets "extended play" but at the same time its eventual collapse will be worse... A retiree needs about 3 working people to pay his pension... sure you can bring in 3 immigrants (assuming of course they all can and want to work) but who will pay their pension ? 9 more immigrants ? then who will pay the pension of these 9, 27 more ? etc...



Yes. And it is apparently the same with some of the big unions, whose management leans left. Here is an article about the Teamsters, notorious for their socialist leanings at the top. It seems they can't pay their members' pensions.
Teamsters pension fund cuts would hit UPS, Giant Eagle retirees
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,351
Florania
Let's go back to the plight of the minimum wage earners:
Worker advocates may consider increases of the minimum wage a victory; the minimum wage earners may suffer from reduced hours of works or even automatic replacements.
This should be alarming:
World’s First Bank Entirely Run By Robots Opens Up In China - SGT Report
Deng Xiaoping's quote is "Science and technology are the primary productivity".
Ever since the emergence of the standardized parts and jobs, the human rival with machines and robots for precision has been futile.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,535
Let's go back to the plight of the minimum wage earners:
Worker advocates may consider increases of the minimum wage a victory; the minimum wage earners may suffer from reduced hours of works or even automatic replacements.
This should be alarming:
World’s First Bank Entirely Run By Robots Opens Up In China - SGT Report
Deng Xiaoping's quote is "Science and technology are the primary productivity".
Ever since the emergence of the standardized parts and jobs, the human rival with machines and robots for precision has been futile.
Sure and now automation via software will produce similar results. The main bright spot is people will always find something more to want but increasingly as more simple tasks become automated there will be fewer and fewer people able to create new things that other people want better than robot/software with entire recorded history of products and human wants to draw from.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,351
Florania
Sure and now automation via software will produce similar results. The main bright spot is people will always find something more to want but increasingly as more simple tasks become automated there will be fewer and fewer people able to create new things that other people want better than robot/software with entire recorded history of products and human wants to draw from.
I would like to ask the OP if workers' rights are not part of SJW.
We still hear much focuses about the plight of the working poor.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,535
I would like to ask the OP if workers' rights are not part of SJW.
We still hear much focuses about the plight of the working poor.
Not sure if OP is still participating but I think the U.S. Democratic party is having problems with this very issue if workers concerns are as valid as smaller segmented identity groups. Workers is almost too big... not all workers want the same things though I think there is some common concerns with medical care and retirement even on those issues the first disagreement is about who pays and how much work and of what type is required to claim any government benefit (which is technically only possible due to the labor of other current workers).

Republicans have very successfully turned many workers concerns to blaming open borders and immigration where the real support for this is very weak or actually the reverse but it intuitively makes 'sense' to many people because while the world has grown much more complex and global competition is much bigger threat to most workers livelihoods than immigration, when people look around the main difference they see from 25 years ago is a lot fewer white people proportionally. Even if wages had kept pace with profits there would be a rise in xenophobia as skin tones are assumed to represent a culture and even when the colour is right, if the culture is wrong there is a propensity to feel threatened.

The combination of the easily identifiable colour, the 'assumed' wrong culture, and the fact wages haven't risen equally makes politicians(the majority of politicians on both sides really but the difference is who is held accountable for their unethical actions) who care only about gaining power have easy targets.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
Fascinating question.I don't know anything about the history of US industrial relations, part from reading and seeing movies about miners being shot.

Below is 'in principle', and not a discussion of current Australian politics.

In Australia our Labor party was formed in 1921 as the political arm of the trade union movement.

"The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, " (originally)

I was a member for 25 years, but left when I saw those ideals being abandoned. Put simply, The Australian labor party was about social justice Eg Universal heath scheme, free university studies, decent wages and conditions across the board. I went to university under that system as a mature age student. As a civil servant, I got time off each week to attend lectures and the department paid the mandatory student Union fees. My university degree cost me around $1000, which was for text books mainly.

The other party was a coalition ,' The Liberal And Country Party ' They were and are our tories, seen as 'silver tails' supporting big business and the social status quo.

The two parties were effectively engaged in a class war.

This ended pretty much after the constitutional crisi in 1975. Today, the Labor part is centrer left, with something we didn't hav before; factions, left and right, with a strong feminist presence..

The liberal party moved further to the right.

We also had the emergence of minor parties , and single issue parties such as The Greens, and a "No Pokies' canditate (poker machines, which are legal in hotels and clubs, as well as casinos in every state)--He won and has stayed in politics

I've been thinking the gradual changes I've noticed in the Labor party were about an ageing membership becoming more conservative. I had not considered the growth of feminism, which on reflection was and is probably a major influence, becoming visible with Australian Germaine Greer's book 'The Female Eunuch', published in 1970.

Looking back selectively, I can remember equal pay for women,(1970) and other changes for women. Unfortunately, I'm a baby boomer, growing up in a single income house with rigidly defined gender roles. Feminism confused the fruck out of me .I mean, the insistence in treating women as real people was a real shock . I was on a steep learning curve for over a decade, until I began understand. I was helped along by my sister, an aggressive, radical feminist.