:up:

Labor never had the power to do that. — Tate

Read about the 30s. The Wagner Act wasn’t simply a gift from above.

the tide turned against them and they're gone now. — Tate

They’re not gone.

The government, in the USA at least, has been mostly anti-labor and pro-capitalist.
— Moliere

Since the 1980s, yes. Before that, no. — Tate

The government has never been pro-union. Never.

FDR was somewhat receptive to unions, and with the proper push was able to pass the labor relations act in ‘35. Right away there was pushback, and it was significantly weakened through Taft-Hartley in the 40s.

Unions have had higher participation rates prior to the neoliberal assault. But the government has never been anything but pro-capitalist— including FDR.

Have you ever worked for a union? — NOS4A2

Yep.

setting up a new dynamic that made the labor movement possible. — Tate

The labor movement far predates Roosevelt.

Yea, it's true. — Tate

No, it’s not close to true. Feel free to pick up literally any book about it. The labor movement far predates any “government backing,” Teddy Roosevelt, or Woodrow Wilson.

Stop talking nonsense.

One thing you do need to understand about the American labor movement is that it only existed in the first place due to federal backing — Tate

Not remotely true.

There's no way to return to the days of powerful unions. — Tate

Says who?

If unionization is one step away from communism, then that 98% of Finnish active officers belong to a trade union makes me smile. After all, it's just an army that has since it's inception fought and prepared to fight Bolshevism, the Soviet Union and Soviet infiltration until the end of the Cold War and basically has been the only institution where Finlandization didn't happen at all. You really will not find in Finnish officer ranks an officer with political ideas like Hugo Chavez. — ssu

Yeah, it's pretty silly. But again, depends on how we're defining communism and socialism. By how I think of the terms, unions are certainly communist and socialist -- but so what?

True, it's a bad as labeling yourself a satanist in this country. But that's because of propaganda. Still, not the best marketing strategy.

Far better example would be the United Kingdom and it's Labour party and politicians like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown (not just Jeremy Corbyn). — ssu

A far better example of what? Blair was a much a neoliberal as anyone.

The Myth of the Individual in the USA mitigated against the uptake of unions. A Real Man stands on his own, not needing others to help him negotiate his workplace contract.

Hence the Myth of the Individual helped ceed power to corporations, resulting in the failed democracy that is the modern USA. — Banno

Yes indeed. Reagan helped perpetuate this bullshit "cowboy"-type version of the "true" manly American as well. The neoliberal policies that followed are no surprise, using this myth as window dressing. The country, and the world, has payed the price these last 40 years.

The worst faulty idea about trade unions is that they are a socialist endeavour promoting socialism. — ssu

Depends on what we mean by socialism. According to some, unionization itself is just one step away from communism. The problem isn't whether unions are socialist, it's why socialism has gotten so demonized that it's assumed unions are "bad" by association.

Union dues was another tax. Shitty workers never got fired or reprimanded so we all just stooped to their level. — NOS4A2

It's like you're living Fox News talking points. This is what came first, which then inevitably leads to:

I always hated working for a union. — NOS4A2

Anti-social individualist-minded people who constantly feel they're oppressed, and who were heavily brainwashed with Cold War era propaganda, will predictably feel this way -- about any institution, in fact. Not a surprise.

But your feelings and anecdotes don't really say much about the labor movement. I know plenty of people who had bad union experiences who are very much in favor of union efforts -- they see their importance and stick around to make them better. Disowning and fleeing is an option, of course. Comes down mostly to temperament. As I said, anti-social personalities aren't a good fit anyway.

I'd say this isn't lost on the majority of union people. I know that my preferred way of looking at unions is as institutions for working people to obtain power over the economy -- that is, a kind of socialism — Moliere

:up:

Again, just a matter of semantics. But I tend to agree with the underlying definition of socialism you're using here (power to the people), and so unions are indeed socialist by that standard: they help working people build power.

Unions have self-inflicted wounds, certainly, some of them near fatal. But it Is also the case that unions, unionizing, union leadership, union thinking -- all of it has been subject to really sustained attacks by both corporations and government. Legal barriers have been placed in the way of union formation. Unions are restricted in their ability to support each other (no secondary boycotts, for instance). State governments have stood ready to assist in breaking strikes (like, by protecting scabs crossing picket lines). There are companies specializing in anti-union strategies. There is a strong anti-unionization bias in media. ETC. — Bitter Crank

All very important. In terms of the anti-unionization bias, you see it full blown in the UK rail strikes. Mick Lynch has been doing an excellent job in communicating, but look at the spin and slant of the questions he constantly faces. From what I see of the US, they try to ignore strikes and unionization efforts entirely. Now that large companies are being successfully unionized, there's been some renewed interest -- but the slant is still there. You can tell the ideology fairly easily.

My work history has been mostly in the non-profit sector--an area as in need of unions as any other, but is additionally hobbled by do-good thinking that discourages unions. I was a member of AFSCME while employed at the University. AFSCME didn't seem to be very effective at this location. Some groups at the U were represented by the Teamster Union, which seemed to be a better representative and organizer. — Bitter Crank

We run in similar circles. I was part of a unionization effort in a non-profit as well, in Mass. AFSCME provided some guidance.

Alot of experts still think that this will significantly cut down climate emissions so I'll take it. — Mr Bee

I see that as well...and honestly, as pathetic as this sounds, I just want to be happy about this for a couple days.

Do you have any views about what a phenomenological approach to this model might be? In the light of the process of being and becoming and how we are constantly changing and reinventing self - how does this sit alongside your more pragmatic model which seems to rest upon a realist worldview? Does this make sense? — Tom Storm

It would help by defining what you mean by phenomenology. In my view, phenomenology is the awareness of beings, particularly those which are absent. Here I'm influenced by Heidegger. I think this framework I outlined above has very little to say about any of that.

We're constantly changing, yes. I don't see any problem with this fact and what I said above. Maybe I'm missing something?

A much better synopsis, yes.

The more I look at it, the less great this bill looks for climate. I'd like to think it's still a win, but if it is it's a small one. The provisions about oil and gas leasing on public lands are just absolutely horrific and morally repugnant.

It's about the only good news I see anymore — Moliere

And barely gets reported. Very encouraging signs. A healthy labor movement, starting with strong (strike-ready) unions, is crucial to any positive change were gonna make. Historically this is true as well.

If B is sound then C validates A and advanced chess playing could not have been achieved without A. — praxis

I see what you mean now. But I know many people who desperately want to change and can’t do it, despite all kinds of plans and support. Diets are one example, addictions are another. I don’t always attribute failure as a problem with A, or B. Although I see how one could argue that.

If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B. — praxis

You could look at it as validation, I suppose. I don't say that myself, but I can see that.

Taking the time to figure out what's important to you, who you want to be, how you want to treat others, etc., is important -- but may not lead to anything in particular. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing anyway, even if you don't act on it. In fact many people don't even get that far, and that's OK. It's when people are very unhappy or depressed that it becomes especially relevant to meditate on: what, exactly, is the problem? What is the source of your anxiety or unhappiness? Etc.

So formulating goals and making plans to achieve those goals -- A and B -- are important. How often do they lead to real action -- which is what I emphasize? I'd say it depends on how hard B is. Take losing weight. Plenty of diet plans one can follow, and most will give results -- *IF* one follows them. The fact that some people don't follow the plan doesn't necessarily invalidate the plan itself, right?

My objection was an internal critique of A (goals-forming/setting). — 180 Proof

I'm still not clear as to what the objection is, to be honest. What you've been saying sounds a lot like a solution in search of a problem. People want things and make goals and plans all the time. Nothing controversial about that. Not sure what's objectionable about it.

That was an interesting post, and I didn't get a chance to finish reading it. I particularly like the example of chess. Why did you delete?

At least Germany is working hard to increase climate change in a big way. — ssu

This legitimately had me laughing. Well done. :lol:

But of course nuclear energy won't do, it's evil... — ssu

It really is ridiculous, isn't it? We need nuclear now more than ever. I understand the concerns, but they've vastly overblown. What a pity.

Actually it's more of a reversal of a reversal (since Manchin blocked his very own bill two weeks ago), but whatever, I'll take it. — Mr Bee

Yes. It's funny -- the thread was created a year ago and its title is incredibly obsolete, but it goes to show how far this has come.

To recap for those who aren't following this story: the reconciliation bill (reconciliation being the budgetary process that avoids a senate filibuster -- meaning the Democrats can pass it without any Republican support) was initially $3.5 trillion; it was whittled down to $1.1 trillion or so, then CEPP provision was removed to please Manchin, then Manchin sunk the entire bill right before Christmas of '21. There was talk about rescuing parts of it throughout 2022, and they appeared to be going well -- and then he sunk that too two weeks ago. Shouldn't have been a huge shock, given that he's a coal magnate.

But this reversal really is a shock. I was not expecting this at all. Will it pass? Depends on (a) whether it meets the requirements of reconciliation, which is determined by the senate parliamentarian, (b) if all other Democrats, especially Sinema, agree to vote for it, and (c) if the House has the votes to pass it (there could be some Democratic holdouts over state tax deduction rules).

If I were a betting man, I'd give it a 70% chance of passing. Whether in its current form, I'm not so sure.

What's sad is that you feel, despite near unanimous feedback from both other moderators and other posters, that the comment "We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed" was anything other than a non-sequitur. But you're free to play the victim and waste everyone's time. I suppose that's a sign of "character" in your view. So be it.

If you have a concern, how about throwing it to another moderator to look at? — Tate

That was done.

Don't moderate a thread you're engaged in, especially after you're getting insulting and aggressive. — Tate

If necessary, I will continue to do so. Especially when one makes off-topic remarks and continues to after being asked not to. I'd gladly hand it over to others, as is my usual protocol; none happen to be around at the time -- as was already explained to you. Also, I didn't once insult you.

Next time, don't make off-topic remarks.

You were "simply saying" it after you were told that it was off topic. Furthermore, the fact that "information about ice ages can be shocking" says nothing whatsoever about why that comment was made to begin with, and is therefore just as irrelevant and off topic as stating, out of the blue, that "we're in an ice age guys."

The issue is that you disagreed with what I said and subsequently deleted my posts. — Tate

I deleted your posts because they were irrelevant, and explained why. Nothing to do with "disagreement."

The post deleted in this feedback thread was because you posted private correspondence in public, for no good reason. I've since found out that, since I'm a moderator, this is generally OK. If you wish to post them publicly again, feel free. I personally think it's tacky, but that's your business.

The following post:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

Is irrelevant and off topic. Not to mention rather snarky. Easy to go back and look up.

Apparently you were responding to -- without quoting or mentioning -- Olivier5, who did not once mention ice ages. No one could possibly know that from your post, and I'm only now assuming it because of what Olivier5 has said in that thread.

You can make anything a goal, if you make it your goal it is a goal. — unenlightened

Exactly.

Nevertheless, your psychology as described is highly individualist as distinct from social in emphasis — unenlightened

It does appear that way, yes. I should have emphasized the social aspect -- alas, I left quite a bit out to keep it as brief as possible. But I don't think major changes can usually take place without the help of others.

materiallist and pragmatic and entirely directed to an endless succession of wants and needs, which is exactly the focus that capitalism demands of a consumer. — unenlightened

There's really nothing materialist about the OP. This is your projection, really -- read it again and you'll see it, I think.

As for being pragmatic -- yeah, I guess so? It's practical. Whether or not it's directed at "endless succession of wants and needs," I don't see that either. If you're content, so be it. It's not recommending we constantly strive for improvement -- even though I see no issue with that -- it's saying that if you do indeed want to change something about yourself or your life, then here's a way to talk about that change. Maybe it's silly and useless to you -- that's fine. But it says nothing about what you should or shouldn't want/need/aim for.

If your goal is to get away from capitalism, this is not a good basis for doing so. That is my criticism, nothing personal. — unenlightened

I really don't take this personally because I'm not attached to it. I was reluctant to even post something so formulaic and simplistic -- it reeks of self-help, quick-fix, pop psychology bullshit I really don't like. I'm just not seeing your point. I don't see anything materialist or capitalist about it. Individualist, yes -- I see that one. That was my fault for not incorporating the importance of one's milieu. But the jump from that to capitalism is a stretch.

Here is a nice little piece on Gregory Bateson, that might hint at other ways of looking at things. — unenlightened

:up:

Thus, insofar as "having goals" requires applying "the ABC framework" to goal-formation itself, this infinite regress – problem of the criterion – tends to invalidate "having goals". — 180 Proof

It doesn't invalidate having goals any more than it invalidates wanting. It simply acknowledges that sometimes what we want, or what we prioritize, isn't always wise. Fairly common occurrence.

Rather, practice aligning one's expectations with reality by reflectively unlearning maladaptive habits (vide Laozi, Buddha, Epicurus, Epictetus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein, Zapffe-Camus, ... Beck ... Yalom ... Achenbach-Schuster). — 180 Proof

Sure.

I don't see where the "rather" fits in, but no matter. The framework I lay out is by no means meant to be exhaustive. Won't appeal to everyone and that's fine.

All good points. Having goals based on faulty assumptions or poor values is a big obstacle.

I think you should check in with another mod before you proceed. — Tate

Appreciate the feedback.

As I've explained several times, the comments on the climate change thread are off-topic and will be deleted if continued. You're free to take it up with anyone else you like, including the administrators, if you feel this is unfair.

Absolutely. This reversal really stunned me.

No, you said the following:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722391

Very easy to look it up.

Making this comment:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.
— Tate

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following:
— Xtrix

No, I said this:

"A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity." — Tate

No, you said exactly what I quoted -- without context, without the quote function, without the mention function. It was irrelevant and off topic.

Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives. — Tate

I’ll say it once more: not only is this inaccurate, it’s also completely irrelevant and off topic.

I don't know what you're talking about. — Tate

Okay, then I'll gladly explain.

Making this comment:

We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed. — Tate

Without quoting anyone or referencing anything, in the climate change thread, is irrelevant. When asked about it, you stated the following:

Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance.
— Xtrix

It's a fact about the climate. We're talking about the climate. Problem? — Tate

You then go on to talk about how we don't know whether CO2 levels will affect whether nor not we hit another ice age.

So, to recap:

(1) You made a statement out of the blue about being in an ice age, without explanation.
(2) Declared that it's relevant simply because it's a "fact about the climate."
(3) Speculated about future ice ages.

You're disrupting the thread with irrelevancies.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but this is big and surprising news:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manchin-schumer-climate-deal_n_62e1a677e4b07f83766bafbb

Fingers crossed that this reconciliation bill finally, at long last, passes. We desperately need some legislation on climate.

If you want to discuss ice ages, and how climate change may impact the next ice age, fine -- that's a different topic.
— Xtrix

I think it's very much on topic. — Tate

Randomly stating facts about ice ages in a climate change thread is irrelevant. Stay on topic or start another thread about ice ages.

Some possibly VERY good news:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manchin-schumer-climate-deal_n_62e1a677e4b07f83766bafbb

A complete reversal.

Completely irrelevant, as was the initial comment.

The fact remains: climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and is happening at a rapid rate. Very simple indeed.

If you want to discuss ice ages, and how climate change may impact the next ice age, fine -- that's a different topic.

The problem is that it's as irrelevant as stating any random fact about the climate.

CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. — Agent Smith

Then the following...

Fact: CO2 levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s. — Agent Smith

...is meaningless.

However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions. — Agent Smith

According to whom? Where are you getting this from?

The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not going to correspond exactly to emissions. No one has ever claimed that. Why? Because the oceans absorb a great deal of CO2, and plants increase their CO2 uptake -- to name two factors.