Why the Labor Council Rejected Kshama Sawant



🕯 🕯
🕯 summoning 🕯
🕯 circle for 🕯
🕯 socialistworld 🕯
🕯 🕯


@1 Sad.

. . . . . . . . 🕯. . . . . . . . .
. . . .🕯. . . . . . . 🕯. . . .
. 🕯. summoning .🕯. .
🕯. . . .circle for. . . 🕯.
. 🕯.socialistworld.🕯.
. . . .🕯. . . . . . . 🕯. . . .
. . . . . . . . 🕯. . . . . . . . .


Because she is an unethical toxic self-aggrandizing attention whore with no good ideas.


I’ve met her on two occasions, once before she became a socialist celebrity. She is a wholly unpleasant person. Kind of person you could see being indifferent to gulags.


Four voting adults in my house. 100% of our Democracy Vouchers will be endorsed over to her opponent in the general election.


Comrade Sawant is an embarrassment to the city.


This article at key points tries to make opposition to Sawant seem motivated by back-room dealing, careering, fear of labor leadership's disapproval, and general opportunism. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in relation to Mosqueda. Sawant mistakes dogma for principle and demonizes anyone not submissive to her. She reeks of self-importance and shows little or no capacity for genuine self-reflection about her own limitations and flaws. #4 above essentially expresses what many in this city feel about Sawant. We are not motivated by careering and back-room dealing, and neither are most people in labor. And, I think, Mosqueda's opposition to her comes from a true place. Now, what is The Stranger's take on Mosqueda: that she is a mere tool of corrupt labor because she's working against Sawant? I'm not a huge fan of Mosqueda, but she seems a reasonably kind, genuine person, and I don't think she turned on Sawant lightly. Mosqueda tried hard to link with Sawant and was rebuffed in the fashion of purist disdain. In essence, Sawant was unfair and patronizing, and Mosqueda was understandably offended. Why does The Stranger keep implying any opposition to Sawant is misguided or corrupt or unfair? Again, read what #4 has to say, and you'll get a clearer picture about how many people feel about Sawant. She could still win, yes, but chances of that seem to be dimming. And this would largely be her own fault, not that of back-room deals.


People have had enough of her shit.



Y'know, I think it seems entirely plausible that Sawant is a bit of a jerk, AND there's a bunch of "back room dealing" (or in other words, "politics") going on to counter her.


@ 12. Yes, good point. It's absolutely plausible there's some of both. Good point. Fundamentally, though, Sawant's all-too-frequent blaming, self-promotion, and hypocrisy have alienated many, many people, including Mosqueda. Her implicit and explicit rebukes of Sawant reflect tensions on the left, and I think the back-room machinations reflect attempts by union and party leaders to establish coherent common ground so that the tensions do not worsen. The Democratic Party left, though, seems ready to definitively move on from Sawant, and they want to create a large enough consensus to overwhelm her in the event she seeks to inflame a public spat. We'll see how it all plays out...


""We're to a point now where—I hate to say it—where labor is getting crony. There are these backroom deals by leadership being made, and they don't reflect the rank and file." "

Oh My Fucking God! Has Justin Vinson never heard of Jimmy Hoffa? Corruption and backroom deal defined labor from the '50s to through the '70s. The back-room deals and disregard for the rank and file is what created the conditions for Reagan's successful attacks on Labor.

Good Lord, I guess Mr. Vinson is a teacher. Let's hope he doesn't teach history!


Developers care only for profit. They don't care about Seattle. These developer are vampires sucking all that is good from Seattle. Swanat wants to take us into the future with worker's need met, environmental health secure. Developers will never put workers needs first because it hurts their profits. Don't buy into their propaganda machine. Cambridge analytica type of corporate manipulation.



I suppose, but nobody's giving away free lumber, glass and rebar, either.

Any ideas?


The swarm will arrive, gnaw through reality, and provide a portal to the outside shortly.

The wood will be free. It’s called “tree” in a language that does not exist yet.

Glass. Heat and sand. Start with future tree.

Rebar? Try bronze.


Either Rich Smith is about to get disciplined by his boss, or CM Sawant’s re-election hopes just took another hit:

“...members of Iron Workers Local 86 shut down a Sawant rally at Bezos's Balls to protest her support of the head tax.”

I do believe this is the first time a writer at The Stranger has been allowed to admit this incident did, in fact, happen. Sawant’s re-election prospects may not depend on solidarity from The Stranger, but losing The Stranger’s wholly unconditional and wholly uncritical support can’t help.

In other non-news, the US labor movement long ago chose to appropriate the benefits of capitalism for labor, instead of working to overthrow capitalism. This has earned it the undying enmity of socialist revolutionaries ever since. The only question is, how did CM Sawant’s alliance with labor last this long?



The problem with the last paragrph in your effort at narrative-building is that Sawant still has a dozen endorsements from your supposedly anti-socialist American unions.

Leave the spin-doctoring to the professionals, kid. You don't know when you're overdoing it, nor what your goofy fantasies look like from outside that overheated noggin of yours.


Looks like Comrade Sawant forgot a basic tenent of the manifesto:

"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another."

Sawant is no better than those she believes are the enemy.

Be careful who you piss off, Comrade... "all glory is fleeting".


Hi Rich Smith,

An error in your otherwise-excellent article:
We, Socialist Alternative, will never let anybody “shut down” any of our public rallies.

Amazon’s billionaire bully Bezos outrageously threatened ironworkers with loss of work if they had the temerity to want an Employee Hours Tax on the huge corporations for funding affordable housing — a threat he would later brazenly carry out anyway.

A few ironworkers, wilting under Bezos’s bombardment, interrupted Kshama Sawant while she was speaking at the rally.

Kshama — in splendid Kshama-style — gave them the microphone!

And one of them did speak.

Subsequently, when Kshama spoke again, some of them interrupted again — this time, however, they did not take up the offer of the microphone.
So Kshama cranked up the volume and spoke right over them.
Completely correctly.

Another successful public rally!

More fundamentally, let’s decode what the trade-union-leadership barons are whining about:
1: The Seattle Police Officers’ Guild’s opposition to Kshama:
Well, the police are not workers (unlike their parents, who probably are) — instead, the police are often used by our corporate overlords as front-line attack-dogs against workers.
We are proud that SPOG opposes us.
We fight for full democratic community control over the police force.
Against the horrific death toll they inflict upon us — one black youth, and one white youth, slain by police somewhere in the US every day on average.

2: Nicole Grant, MLKCLC secretary-treasurer, plaintively pleading for “partnership” — between proletarians and plutocrats!
There is no “partnership” between horse and rider.
We, the workhorse, strive to overthrow the rider.
Check out the marvelous 2017 Raoul Peck movie “The Young Karl Marx “:
“The bosses and the workers — are they brothers?
No — they are enemies!”

3: Monty Anderson, secretary, Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council, opposing the Employee Hours Tax on mega-corporations.
And supporting the “Monty Python” skit, of the corporate-catspaw city councillors who’d just a month before unanimously passed the tax and who now nearly-unanimously repealed it!
Obviously they’d received their marching orders from Amazon’s billionaire Bezos and his $350,000 mayoral acquisition Jenny Durkan.

4: The Butt-hurt Bureaucrats Brigade — the Democrats’ city councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, Ed Solseng of the SEIU 775 executive board, Dustin Lambro the political director of Teamsters 117, et al — caterwauling:
“How dare Socialist Kshama Sawant criticize me while I grovel before SPOG / water down pro-worker tenant legislation / sell my striking trade-union members short!
And she makes me look bad with my stratospheric salary compared to the workers I say I represent, whereas Kshama, horror of horrors, lives on the average Seattle worker’s salary plus fully-auditable expenses and gives all the rest to the workers’ fightback!
Most unpardonable sin of all, here am I happily welded-at-the-hip to my lords-and-masters the Democrat Party establishment, and cruel Kshama Sawant and savage Socialist Alternative strive to create a mass workers’ party independent of the Republican-Democrat 2-headed snake!”


Despite all the above milquetoasts’ mewlings, Kshama Sawant has won more trade union endorsements than all her strikebreaking-scab opponents put together!
60,000 trade unionists already!

We’re Socialist Alternative.
We fight for all our class, all the 99 Per Cent, all our sisters and brothers.
Against all our exploiters, oppressors, blood-drinkers.

Please donate to us!
Come march with us!
And most importantly, consider joining us!
Together, we have a world to win!




Sad that the Labor Council voted to endorse a candidate who will be sharply to Kshama's right-and,therefore, can be assumed to be much less pro-worker. No good comes to working people of this. In the centennial of the General Strike, the Seattle Labor Council is voting to embrace the defeatist conservatism of Samuel Gompers, the Samuel Gompers who forced the General Strike to end by threatening to pull the cards of all the AFL members who'd succeeded in running the city for five days without needing the bosses at all. No good to workers would come of anyone to Sawant's right ending up in that seat.


The Stranger needs to keep a watch on what seems to be a growing practice of one or two right-wing posters spamming a thread with posts under multiple aliases. It's clear what's happening and it needs to be stopped. if the comments sections are to retain any semblance of integrity.


6: She's a Trotskyist, you asshole. That means she's always been opposed to things like camps.



The Stranger built their own blogging-software in-house, and then the guy who built it left, and now nobody at The Stranger knows how to change it, and they're too cheap to hire a software contractor to come in and do it for them... so they're stuck with a system that still allows users to post anonymously (provided they're dull enough to read javascript).

The Subject-Changing Anonymous Posting Troll is pretty easy to recognize, you'll get used to him eventually.


21, in all honesty, drop “blood-drinker” from any future speech.



@21- gfy.


@19: My point being the tension has always been there, as @22 reminds us. That doesn’t mean every last local of every last labor union is absolutely and unconditionally forbidden from allying with every socialist, or vice versa; successful politics requires compromise, bargaining, and setting aside long-standing philosophical differences to achieve short-term gains.

But when your goal is to overthrow the system, you can’t keep working together forever and seamlessly with those who seek to work within the system. The histrionics @21 show how desperate denial of this point can become.

I’m sorry you’re too busy playing Thread Cop to notice.



On the one hand, yes, communist rhetoric is long overdue for a total rewrite, but on the other hand, let me tell you about Peter Thiel...



LIke I said, tensor, leave the spin-doctoring to the pros. Your narrative just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and you're abysmally bad at selling it, too.



you're precious.

someone please find that kid his binky before his wailing wakes up the neighbors....


@30: Nice to see you’ve promoted yourself to being the Mall Ninja of Thread Cops. Twirl that nightstick, baby!

Back in reality, some labor and other political leaders now understand how expensive (and toxic) a liability CM Sawant has become, and are actively trying to rid themselves of her. Rich’s narrative suffers from his need to make it repeatedly wander away from this central point.


What a shame! Rich and The Stranger spent so much time, effort and credibility backing Kshama Sawant through thick and thin, and now it's just months away from crashing down around their heads.

The city of Seattle does not want your extremist politics, your uncompromising arrogance or your endless demonization and sarcasm. We want decent, respectable, qualified people with practical solutions based on reality, not ideology.

Meanwhile I'm sure The Stranger will be chomping at the bit here in a couple months to endorse the next round of inexperienced wannabe-communist cosplayers, sliming and denigrating their opponents with innuendo about corruption/corporatism/establishmentism, and the cycle of never learning from our mistakes will begin anew.

Hope those porn ads are making you guys enough to stay in business.


21) Yeah, that's the good stuff. Inject the insanity straight into my veins.


@28: There is this, though: from the moment in the late Forties when the labor leadership decided to anathemize every part of the left and expel most leftists(not just CPUSA members but Socialists, anarchists, independent leftists, and, in some unions, anybody who didn't support the blacklist and the decision of most union leaders to refuse to support the fight against Jim Crow), and to make pointless, indefensibly stupid concessions like accepting no-strike clauses in their contracts, the labor movement went into long-term decline. Every union that replaced "communist" leaders and organizers with "anticommunist" leaders became a corrupt, reactionary shadow of its former self-note, when I use the term "communist" there, it doesn't necessarily mean people who were actually CP members, although party membership itself was never intrinsically evil; mostly, it was simply code for any union members who hadn't accepted the notion that the class struggle needed to end or that unions needed to support other progressive justice struggles and causes rather than just focusing on wages and working conditions, and in some cases it simply meant those who hadn't given up on trying to organize more workers and make their unions larger and more effective..

In exchange for doing this, the management sector of the economy gave union labor-mainly white, male labor, because most unions weren't organizing women and people of color in the Forties-an agreement that there would always be job security, a strong employee benefits package and regularly rising wages in exchange for labor peace and the no-strike pledge, and essentially in exchange for unions giving up on trying to get those workers organized who weren't currently given union representation.

When corporate power decided, in the late Seventies, to unilaterally abandon this postwar "accord" between management and unions-the accord which was the only reason the American "middle class", as we knew it from the Fifties to the late Seventies, ever came into being and the main reason this country had generally shared prosperity, rather than just massive profits hoarded by the few while the many struggle as we have now-the labor establishment had no idea of how to fight back. They didn't understand that the class struggle had never ended and that the wealthy were fighting to take away everything workers had gained in this country since the Thirties. And, too often, they cared more about looking "respectable" rather than "acting like a bunch o'commies", to come up with any effective fightback strategy.

The ONLY people who have put up any real, effective resistance to the misery that's been inflicted on most working-class people since 1978 or so are people on the Left-are people like, quite frankly, the Socialist Alternative(of which I am not a member), like Teamsters for a Democratic Union, like the opposition caucuses in most established labor unions, and quite frankly, like the Industrial Workers of the World.

It never stopped being about class, tensor. And cooperation with management was always going to result in management taking away everything workers had won in the past decades of struggle.

Nobody in management wants to "cooperate" with unions on anything other than the crushing of unions and the taking back of everything workers anywhere ever forced management to concede.

BTW, nobody in Seattle, or much of anywhere else in this country is a "communist". Nobody wants Stalin back. Nobody wants Mao back. And there's never going to be a scenario in which Kshama turns into a gulag warden, so give the outdated Cold War bullshit a rest.


32: In the late Forties and Fifties, you'd have cheered for the HUAC and the blacklist and all the shit J.Edgar got up to.


There are though, Parnell.

They were “indie kid”(really.) communists when I was 21, and over 14 years later they’re “Alexa,” or “Siri,” communists.

I mean, the Mayday protests may be dwindling, but many of those are self-professed communists.

“Be careful what you pretend to be, because you are what you pretend to be”.

I know we’ll get to talk about this later, but your class war may start off with a bang if you all get your debts repaid and everyone else gets nothing.

I’m never going to hire anyone. How about that.


@15 I agree with these comments, and I've never seen Sawant publicly make a move that wasn't in keeping with her basic ideology, which is strongly anti-corporate. And I agreed with the head tax - many of our city's headaches have come from the deliberate decision of city/corporate to allow Amazon to be headquartered downtown in a pretty massive way. The head tax shouldn't be considered personal, but just an acknowledgement that the City has spent time, money, and infrastructure development, because of Amazon's in-city needs, and some balance in the relationship would be gained with a head tax.
I'm kind of shocked that there are hard feelings over the Jon Grant campaign, because Jon was supported by labor, and ran part of his campaign at a labor building on 16th Avenue where I volunteered for it.
As a long and careful viewer of City Council politics, I'm still giving the benefit of the doubt to Sawant - after all, the unions who decided to swing against her (but not all of them) are some of the most conservative leaning, such as the police officers and firefighters. And the building trades people - sounds like they snuffed her because she might have gotten in the way of some of their job possibilities downtown. But Sawant's job encompasses more than just two or three "potential" buildings - she represents a still maligned area of Seattle - where more minorities and low-income people live than in most other areas.
What Seattle will miss out on is Sawant's opposition to Big Corporate, and at a time when you voters should be realizing by now, that Mayor Durkan seems to be sitting IN their pockets, completely in bed with developers.


@35: Well, that was an uninteresting, context-free mishmash of embittered finger-pointing, which utterly failed to address anything I actually wrote. How about some actual facts?

"In the immediate postwar period, America's rapid growth favored the middle and lower classes. The poorest fifth of all households, in fact, fared best. Then, in the 1970s, amid two oil crises and awful inflation, things ground to a halt."

Yes, the period when the "poorest fifth of all households, in fact, fared best..." was nothing but sell-outs by nefariously non-communist labor leaders. The nerve!

"It never stopped being about class, tensor."

I never said it did. How about you address something I actually wrote? Like, what your aimlessly wandering blowtorch of blame actually admits: American labor unions never embraced overthrowing capitalism, but instead appropriated the benefits of capitalism for their workers. And as a result, those workers fared better than any workers ever had, anywhere in the world.

"...give the outdated Cold War bullshit a rest."

Strange -- you wrote that exactly as if you had provided a quote of me engaging in "outdated Cold War bullshit." But you didn't, because you can't. So, back to what I actually wrote:

CM Sawant is an expensive liability not because of whatever ideology she spouts, but because she's been really, really bad at her job. Her loudly-promoted "Amazon Tax" (the EHT) was repealed, and the number of homeless persons in Seattle dropped dramatically thereafter. (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/steep-drop-in-king-countys-homeless-youth-annual-homeless-count-shows/) Her effort to "Save the Showbox" was just laughed out of court (https://crosscut.com/2019/06/showbox-blowback-judge-rejects-protections-music-venue) and may result in a rich guy getting our money whilst saving no Showboxes. And she's a toxic liability due to her constant demonizing of Amazon and other local employers, her divisive, hateful rhetoric towards her fellow citizens of Seattle, and her my-way-or-the-highway attitude. To the extent her ideology drives such behaviors, it's a problem, but it's possible to disagree without becoming disagreeable. She never manages this trick.

@36: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee. I do regret not ever seeing J. Edgar Hoover wear a dress. (Snicker.)

You're the living embodiment of what you claim to despise. You're just not bright enough to see yourself for what you are.


Anyone else find it odd that the "MLK Labor Council" is mostly made up of and run by white, upper middle class raised Seattle wealthy socialites? Seriously, has any poor working class Seattlite or person of color asked what has this organization done for them? I spent 10 minutes googling and couldn't find anything.

As for all the whataboutists and altright trolls comparing Sawant to Stalin, the fact that you are alive to post that shows she isn't a Stalin and you don't know your history. Ironically, that your supported candidates casually support "stalinist" policies towards protesters and nonwhite demographics (your president is putting latino toddlers in concentration camps and cheering cops on who murder unarmed black kids) shows you not only dont know that you are talking about, but your entire argument is based on hypocrisy baked in lack of self reflection.


@39: the problem with the Accord era was that the labor bureaucrats of that era-most of whom also betrayed workers of color by refusing to support the black freedom movement and giving only tepid support to the mostly Chicano farmworkers' cause, as well as by the unquestioning support most gave to the Vietnam war-had no strategy to defend their members, and in some cases little interest in defending their members, in the post-1978 era when capital, for no valid reason, decided to take away everything workers-or at least white male workers-gained under the Accord. It's been nothing but lost ground for those union leaders who had decided to work with the rich rather than fight to defend their class ever since.

Since establishment unions haven't effectively fought to defend the interests of their members in decades, since nobody on the management side feels any need-or likely ever WILL feel any need again-to treat workers decently-ask anybody who works in Bezos' distribution centers if you don't believe me-it would be pointless for the labor unions to try labor-management cooperation. All anybody in management anywhere wants to do these days, and all they will try to do for years to come unless forced to offer more due to actual union militancy, is to get unions to cooperate in giving back everything generations of workers before them won through struggle.
The Accord era was relatively good for workers ONLY because management had been forced, by all the union militancy in the Thirties and right after the war, to give ground to labor. Those workers who did will in the Forties, Fifties, Sixties and Seventies ONLY did so because of the passionate, class-based fight workers had put up leading to that time. It isn't possible to "appropriate the benefits of capitalism" for workers in a time of increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of CEO's. Management can only be made to make life better for worker if it is forced to by the threat of a real, humane, democratic, and achievable alternative to capitalism being brought into existence. Without that, management will just keep taking back and taking back and taking back.

And quite frankly, there is nothing Bezos gives Seattle-if he "gives" it anything at all-that is worth allowing him to hold the city to ransom and force its elected officials to betray the community as a whole in the name of meeting his unjustified demands.

Why SHOULD this man be allowed to go through life paying no tax at all? How can letting him exempt himself from the social contract serve the greater good at all?

Why should the wealthy anywhere be allowed to act as if they owe nothing to anyone other than their shareholders?

We tried that in the 19th Century-the country that produced is the country that organized unions, including socialist unions, and elected huge numbers of radical politicians to office. That will happen again if your class, if the tiny fraction of people who are either wealthy through luck or lucky enough to have work, as you seem to, carrying water for the wealthy, keep acting as though everything has been settled and everybody else is obligated to unquestioningly do what you command and defer to what you presume is your intrinsically superior perception.

But, in the end, what you are trying to build will collapse, an something better will be built in its shell.

And yes, much of the union LEADERSHIP-the timid, defeatist AFL unions forced into pointless subservience by Sam Gompers, the AFL-CIO under George Meany which decided it wouldn't try to increase the size of the labor movement by organizing the unorganized-didn't embrace socialism, but the wing of the labor movement that was more effective than any other in the Thirties and Forties, the CIO of John L. Lewis, had a strong socialist component an was unafraid to challenge management by class and, even when not socialist, to challenge the idea that management and wealthy should always have the upper hand.

There was no good reason to repeal the tax on Amazon. Bezos could easily have paid it and had no reason to make a big stink about finally making a small contribution to the city which made him richer than several gods, after decades in which he gave next to nothing back. If he'd left, the city could have helped the workers of Amazon buy out his facilities and run them as a network of co-operatives.

As to the supposed decline in homelessness after the defeat of the tax-it was never a "tax on jobs" and you and KIRO-TV damn well know it-you've fallen into the logical flaw of confusing correlation with causation. Those were two things that happened at the same time; they had nothing to do with each other.


To conclude (White)workers did well in the years of the Accord. They didn't do well because of the choices made by the anti-Left union leaders who agreed to the Accord: They did well because rank-and-file militancy in the years before 1946 FORCED management to agree to the Accord. It's not possible to get anything remotely similar to the Accord in an era when management has all the power and the establishment wing of the labor movement, the sort of pie-cards who let the labor movement start to slowly die in the late Forties, Fifties, and Sixties by kicking out all the militants, by refusing to back the black freedom movement and the farmworkers and by insisting on supporting massive war budgets and a decade of unending bombing of Vietnam, are still engaging in toxic, cowardly and ultimately defeatist tactics by having construction workers-always the most reactioanary, anti-solidarity portion of the labor movement-attempt to shout down and intimidate Kshama Sawant, a person who can't BE intimidated, solely because she tried to get the 1% of Seattle to do what they should damn well agree to do and pay back SOMETHING to the city which made them who they are and to which they owe everything. There's no good reason to treat Bezos and the rest of the malefactors of great wealth as though they are gods who walk the earth.


@40: “As for all the whataboutists and altright trolls comparing Sawant to Stalin,”

No one here has done so. You and @35 are the only ones here who have even mentioned that dictator’s name. Rather, multiple commenters have noted how Sawant’s rigid absolutism has fared poorly in our democratic process. Why not address a criticism which has actually been made here?


@43: You seem to have forgotten THIS post:

"I’ve met her on two occasions, once before she became a socialist celebrity. She is a wholly unpleasant person. Kind of person you could see being indifferent to gulags.
J. Stalin on June 22, 2019 at 6:41 AM · Report this"

I hope you would agree that, whatever else a person can say about Kshama Sawant-full disclosure, I met her once and she was nice to me-that she has done nothing to deserve the implication that she would approve of gulags or any other measures any Stalinist state imposed in the name of "internal security".


@44: I didn’t forget it; I just didn’t take seriously a joke posting by an obvious troll. (But that’s the nature of a cult follower, isn’t it? Any slight to Dear Leader must be avenged!!) You’re still the first one to have attacked Sawant’s serious critics for something we haven’t said. In your defense, that is easier for you than dealing with what we have said, which is why you ignored the facts I provided to disprove your narrative.

Get back to me when you’re ready to deal with those facts. (I’m guessing that will be never.)


On the contrary, “Francis7” #27:

“Gfy” — doggy-style, given that you’re a coprophagous cur.

Nonsense “tensor” #45”,

To be a “serious critic” of socialist Kshama Sawant you’d need to make “serious criticisms” — not your current compendium of cretinous caterwaulings.

Here’s a standing challenge to all “serious critics”, actual or wannabe:
List here your top 3 “serious criticisms” of Kshama Sawant or of Socialist Alternative, explaining clearly why each is a pet peeve of yours.

And we’ll counterattack and crush your arguments — or adopt them if we find them correct of course.

Ideas which acquire a mass basis become a material force.
In the relentless war between opposing ideas, the best ideas will eventually win.




@46: What’s it like, seeing The Stranger go from throwing the ironworkers’ criticism of her down the Memory Hole, to their (and your) inept MiniTruthing of it (a year late and several dollars short), to The Stranger openly providing free advertising space to one of her opponents? What’s it like, seeing such treason and being risibly impotent to stop it? Does it burn like a canister of NaPalm to your face, without the attendant vast improvement to your visage?

But, just to mock your bravado, I’ll respond to your challenge.

‘List here your top 3 “serious criticisms” of Kshama Sawant’

First: SeaTac passed a $15 Now! minimum wage. Under the ‘leadership’ of CM Sawant, Seattle finally managed to enact a “not $15, not now, and not for everyone” minimum wage.

Second: CM Sawant presented the EHT as necessary to reduce the numbers of homeless in our streets. After citizen action (tens of thousands of signatures on Referendum petitions), the EHT was repealed before it could take effect. The number of homeless in Seattle’s streets has since measurably declined. Why was CM Sawant so wrong about our need for the EHT?

Third: Why have CM Sawant’s efforts to “Save The Showbox” resulted in nothing but expensive legal bills?

Good luck “crushing” all of that, fool.


I've dealt with those facts. The fact is, it isn't possible to get any meaningful change through municipal government by being polite and just having supporters of the changes blandly reading three minute statements in public comments. The fact is, the tax on Amazon was never "a tax on jobs" and Bezos never had any valid reason to fight it. The fact is, Bezos and his corporation essentially pay no taxes, which means they contribute nothing to the community. The fact is, there's nothing Amazon does which couldn't be done just as well by a network of worker-managed cooperatives. The fact is, a decent city community can't just assume all homeless people are drug users or drug dealers and drive them out of town as though they were vermin instead of human beings, because the fact is, we can't just create a perpetual group of wandering internal refugees.

The fact is, your hatred of Sawant-btw, I'm not in any cult, it's simply that I don't want to see her replaced by somebody who supports capitalism and therefore would be a reactionary on everything important while in office, as her opponent would be.

And Sawant is nobody's Dear Leader. She's simply somebody working for change, who uses the tactics she uses because the tactics you'd prefer her to use-giving up on anything but putting in tiny, trivial increments and doing a freeze on additional spending, IOTW massive austerity-would mean abandoning the people who elected her and taking the side of the few against the many.

Without Sawant on the council, you'd have nothing but bland, passionless centrists-IOTW, people who care about nothing but what Amazon and the Bank of America want.


@48: "I've dealt with those facts."

No, as usual, you haven't. Good to see you're still giving yourself credit for work you have not done (and will not ever do). Here's one of your groundless assertions, @42:

"To conclude (White)workers did well in the years of the Accord."

And here's the (thoroughly undealt-with) fact which negates it, @39:

"In the immediate postwar period, America's rapid growth favored the middle and lower classes. The poorest fifth of all households, in fact, fared best."

So, white, male, union-represented workers headed the bulk of "the poorest fifth of all households"? No, those households were disproportionately headed by blacks, latinos, and women. You then go on to give labor radicals credit for all good things, totally ignoring everything else that was going on in the world for decades. Since you didn't bother to make any citations, we simply note that assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

"The fact is, it isn't possible to get any meaningful change through municipal government by being polite and just having supporters of the changes blandly reading three minute statements in public comments."

The fact is, it's not possible to overthrow global capitalism from a single Council seat in a small, remote city. Now, I understand everyone needs a hobby, but we citizens are permitted to elect someone who won't let her grandiose hobby interfere with the actual work of running a city.

'The fact is, the tax on Amazon was never "a tax on jobs" and Bezos never had any valid reason to fight it.'

You know, the word "fact" has a meaning, and that meaning does not encompass whatever groundless assertion you need make to support your claims. It was the Employee Hours Tax, which taxed hours worked by employees of certain firms; Amazon was just one of hundreds. How you square a tax on hours worked with your assertion it wasn't a tax on jobs would make for an interesting psychological study concerning the corrupted thought processes of cult followers, but has no relevance upon why a piece of legislation which had been unanimously enacted could then be repealed so quickly such a short time later.

"The fact is, Bezos and his corporation essentially pay no taxes, which means they contribute nothing to the community."

Thank you for informing us of your view, that the only way anyone can "contribute to the community" is by paying taxes. Apparently, providing thousands of good-paying jobs does not, in your view, contribute anything to our community. Glad to see you admit just how warped your worldview really is. Please let every volunteer in every organization in Seattle know they are not, in your view, contributing anything to any community. I'm sure they'll let you know how much they appreciate your concern.

"The fact is, a decent city community can't just assume all homeless people are drug users..."

No, but assuming we have nothing but a housing-affordability crisis, when we do have a raging addiction problem as well, is what got us to our present sorry state. Policy made upon made-up "facts" tends to fail, and to fail badly, which is another reason the EHT got swiftly repealed -- it was obviously just more of the same failed policy.

"...the fact is, we can't just create a perpetual group of wandering internal refugees."

Ha, ha, ha. That is EXACTLY what the failure of our policy had created -- a local system which attracted as many of those "wandering internal refugees" as it possibly could. This benefited no one except our local Homeless-Industrial Complex, which stood to gain from the EHT.

"I'm not in any cult, it's simply that I don't want to see her replaced by somebody who supports capitalism..."

The lack of self-awareness from one side of that comma to the other is truly a work of wonder.

"Without Sawant on the council, you'd have nothing but bland, passionless centrists..."

Speaking of facts, the votes to enact the EHT, and to get us sued over the Showbox, were unanimous; there are plenty of other reality-challenged persons on our Council. Hopefully that number will be severely reduced by us voters in November.


Why would you be stoked about the demise of the Showbox? No one but the wealthy benefits from the place being destroyed?

As to Sawant-she knows perfectly well she can't singlehandedly overthrow capitalism from a city council seat and she has never pretended otherwise. But it's not possible to work for progressive change without standing up to corporate power and pushing to end corporate domination of politics.

What Sawant does is simply part of a broader project of systemic change, a project with is going on all over the country and gaining support all over the country. It would mostly be achieved by cooperativizing the economy and setting up things like municipal banks(where everybody could have an account, which would mean nobody would ever have to go to a check cashing store and give up 10% or more of the value of the check they were cashing just to get it paid), municipal and neighborhood assemblies which would make the major community and economic decisions for a community, and a municipal Co-op bank which would make it easier for people to band together to create jobs for themselves or save their jobs if the company they worked for just decided to ditch its facilities and leave the town to rot. All of that is achievable on the municipal level and none of it would harm anybody.

In this era, being "pro-business" means abandoning the project of ultimately freeing the city, the state, and the nation from injustice and poverty-two goals which have to be part of the progressive project if its to be progressive at all. There's no difference from switching from supporting socialism to supporting capitalism, on the one hand and switching from being a progressive to being a total reactionary and abandoning working people and the poor. We can assume that DeWolf would vote as a conservative if elected and would be indifferent to the working and kept-from-working poor.

As to Amazon, there's nothing that corporate behemoth does that can ONLY be done because it pays no taxes and by reducing benefits after it was forced to raise wages to a still-barely survivable $15/hour. We don't have to have massive and growing economic inequality to have "prosperity"-and the "prosperity" we currently have is prosperity in name only, because most of the gains of this supposed prosperity are hoarded by those at the top. We could easily replace it with a network of cooperatives, a network which could do everything Amazon does at reduced cost, since it wouldn't be paying its executives and its CEO a salary higher than several Gods.

As to drugs-the way to deal with that is to legalize, admit that it is a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue, build drug treatment centers rather than shipping drug users off to mental hospitals and prisons-institutionalizing those people does nothing but stigmatize them for life and make it impossible to gain employment if they do "clean up".

And as to the Jordan Weissmann quote, it proves nothing. It is simply his unsupported assertion. It neither proves that conservative labor leaders deserve all the credit for the Accord or that the supposed gains made by the lowest fifth of the economy prove that the Accord didn't significantly exclude workers of color-most of the conservative wing of the labor movement had always refused to organize workers of color and without union representation any gains made by any workers are always going to be unjustly minimized.

The Accord ONLY happened because management was scared of a postwar return to the radical labor militancy of the Thirties. It would never have happened if the labor rank-and-file had listened to Sam Gompers and refused ever to stand up to management.

The role the conservative wing of the labor movement played in the Accord was to offer management a way out. They were only in the place to make that offer because labor militancy and, quite frankly, the fear of a Communist takeover, gave them a chance to drive a hard bargain.

Nothing like the Accord could have been achieved in the Eighties, for example, when the unions were being crushed and most union leaders were simply surrendering to management without a fight. And nothing like it could be achieved as a result of the labor movement of the present declaring itself implacably opposed to socialism or even social democracy.


And, as I should have pointed out earlier, the non-Left union leaders of the Forties and Fifties destroyed their own bargaining power by agreeing to no-strike pledges, by largely abandoning an efforts to organize those workers lacking union representation, and by supporting politicians like Nixon and in many cases Reagan in the name of standing up to "those damn hippies" or "those (fill in nonwhite race or non-male gender or non-heterosexual sexual orientation)s who are trying-fun fact, no they weren't trying, actuall-to take OUR jobs".

Those establishment union leaders spent decades undercutting the workers they were supposed to be fighting for, posing with presidents rather than leading strikes and pickets, and driving away allies who would have stood with them if only they'd stood with those people in THEIR hours of need.

In the end, it's their fault that the workers lost everything that the decades of prewar militancy won for the workers in the Accord. Hacks like George Meany and Lane Kirkland and the sellouts who took over the UAW have nothing to teach worker today except how NOT to lead the labor movement.


@50; “And as to the Jordan Weissmann quote, it proves nothing. It is simply his unsupported assertion.”

If you’d actually read the page, you might have seen his source data was from the U.S. Census Bureau for the decades in question. It completely disproves your claim that only white workers benefited from the post-war economy.

And, let’s have a round of laughter at you dismissing research as “unsupported assertion” which “proves nothing.” You’ve filled this thread with your ignorant and contrafactual opinions, many of which you have deliberately mislabeled as facts. You’ve continued to do this even as contrary facts were presented to you, even as you were repeatedly told no one was buying your claims.

Furthermore, I wasn’t “stoked” by upcoming closure of the Showbox, and it strains credulity that even your reading comprehension could be that poor. I am unhappy the City Council got us sued over the sale of a property. CM Sawant’s needless policy failed on its’ own terms, but instead of criticizing her for wasting our money, you attack a critic for noting this failure. If you’re trying to convince anyone you’re not a cult follower of hers, your own chosen behavior isn’t helping.


Woo hoo “tensor” #47 you hilarity-inducing halfwit,

As others on this thread have aptly pointed out, your 3 preposterous “points” are not in any way criticisms of Kshama Sawant or Socialist Alternative.
SeaTac blazed the trail for the $15 per hour minimum wage.

Underpaid workers, Kshama, Socialist Alternative and our friends utilized that victory to win the $15 per hour minimum wage in Seattle.

A great victory, in a major US city, in the belly of the beast — despite significant clawbacks by the capitalists and their corporate catspaws in city council, that represented a welcome wage hike for thousands upon thousands of the worst-paid workers, and a billion-dollar blow to the ruling moneybags.

We strive to replicate and deepen that victory nationwide.

And your caviling criticism is — “but but but Kshama couldn’t prevent some of those capitalist clawbacks”?

You inarticulate imbecile.

Oho, so you lick Amazon’s billionaire Bezos’s boots, and you’re afraid of the Employee Hours Tax on mega-corporations?

Whereas Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative fight for such a tax, as part of the struggle for housing as a human right.

You cowardly clown.

The Showbox is worth saving as a historical music venue, according to the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition.

Ideally owned, managed and controlled by the community.

So we continue to fight.

Using public funds as and when we can.

Whereas you, at the first whiff of grapeshot in the form of a judge’s adverse ruling, give up and grovel before our corporate overlords.

You lily-livered lickspittle.

Your dimwitted drivel claiming that our public meeting outside Bezos’s Balls was somehow “shouted down” is refuted even by the link to the short video in the contemporaneous article linked to in this original article.

It’s excellent that corporate toadies such as you are driven to apoplexy by our socialist perspectives, programme and actions.




@41: Thank you for admitting your real beef with American labor unions: their failure to instigate violent revolution to bring about your pie-in-the-sky utopia: “...real, humane, democratic, and achievable alternative to capitalism being brought into existence.” As your laundry list of adjectives has never once been realized, not anywhere, not ever, your carping amounts to a whine about their failure to achieve the impossible. Instead, they worked for the betterment of all workers, with the results we have already seen in our census data. I thank you for illustrating my point, the one robotslave so risibly refused to grasp, about the tension between goals of self-appointed revolutionaries and interests of actual workers.

@53: SocialistWorld! Welcome back! I hadn’t expected the continued pleasure of your company, and as I don’t want you to have drained your last reserves of courage for nought, I’ll have my fun with your silly non-responses.

“Underpaid workers, Kshama, Socialist Alternative and our friends utilized that victory to win the $15 per hour minimum wage in Seattle.”

Yes, you guys are not innovators, and your pale imitation of Sea-Tac’s victory barely counts as flattery. Doing worse with greater resources isn’t anything to crow about, and your miserable failure to understand this merely adds to your already great amusement value.

“A great victory, in a major US city, in the belly of the beast — ”

One of the most liberal cities in the history of ever, you mean? You poor little man, if you ever were to find yourself ejected from your little bubble of unearned privilege, your slow and painful death from uncontrollable, continuously spontaneous auto-defecation would immediately begin. (This would also be one of the few remaining ways you could add to your amusement value.)

“...despite significant clawbacks by the capitalists and their corporate catspaws in city council,”

Actually, it was Mayor Murray who made those many concessions to business, in the service of his political ambitions. That experienced legislator then easily co-opted the neophyte CM Sawant, to sell his compromises to her constituency. Given how hard you’re still flogging her miserable excuses, the con job worked perfectly.

“...a welcome wage hike for thousands upon thousands of the worst-paid workers, and a billion-dollar blow...”

How many workers in Seattle earn minimum wage? How much did they lose to CM Sawant’s spotlight-grabbing capitulation? Luckily for the workers she happily sold out, the latter answer is nowhere near the figure you just gave.

“We strive to replicate and deepen that victory nationwide.”

And what has all your self-proclaimed “striving” produced? How about you List the other cities where you have won?

(Oh, look: you already gave the full list!)

“...Employee Hours Tax on mega-corporations?”

Swiftly repealed after tens of thousands of citizens lined up to place it on Referendum. (Watching actual people engage in real popular action just really, really hurts, doesn’t it?)

“The Showbox is worth saving as a historical music venue, according to the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition.”

Just because you and 250 billion other flies eagerly eat shit does not make it a good idea.

“Ideally owned, managed and controlled by the community.”

None of which is happening. Instead, the Showbox will be sold, and we may have to pay a rich guy for the privilege. All of this is a direct result of CM Sawant’s easily-avoidable actions.

“Using public funds as and when we can.”

Using them to pay needless legal bills and possibly a rich guy too, you mean. (But thanks for confirming your love of spending other people’s money for purposes they haven’t approved.)

‘...our public meeting outside Bezos’s Balls was somehow “shouted down” is refuted...’

Ha, ha, ha. If there was a MiniTruth, you would have been sacked from it for such a weak rewrite. Why not say the Union iron workers all lifted Comrade Sawant onto their shoulders, and carried her to victory? It’s just as true and sounds more heroic.

(For all your sophomoric name-calling, I still didn’t receive the coveted sobriquet of “blood-drinker.” Please do try harder next time, ‘K?)



You've resorted to mockery and insult because you have no actual argument against my post.

And I admitted nothing remotely similar to what you claimed I admitted to there.. Nothing socialists supported then, or now, requires violence. It simply requires this to become a country where we have REAL elections, as we would be if the Electoral College were scrapped and corporate donations abolished. As to the statistic, I read them, but they are a classic example of "correlation, not causation". They prove that certain things that happen at certain times. They do NOT prove what you'd like them to prove-that is the stats in your article do not in any way prove your assertion that the postwar gains by American workers were caused by the postwar labor leadership moving sharply to the right and by kicking out "the reds". Workers got the gains they got because management thought there was a real possibility that an alternative to capitalism might prevail in this country. Management only gave that ground to workers because of the militancy. And the "moderate" postwar labor movement started undermining the workers they were supposed to defend by largely abandoning any efforts to organize unorganized workers-this was why farm workers were totally unorganized, and totally brutally exploited-and betrayed every worker of color by mostly refusing to back the black freedom movement. It wasn't ever "working for the betterment of workers" to assume that an economy run solely on greed is the only kind of economy we could have-nor was it "working for the betterment of workers" to support Cold War militarism and every military intervention from 1945 to 2004(and counting). And it can't be "working for the betterment of workers" to obey Jeff Bezos' or to go into "partnership" with a management class who will never do anything but try to impose concession after concession after concession on workers-like the railroad management in the 1890s which was demanding that railway workers take pay cuts at a time when railway workers were already essentially unpaid.

Other than the construction workers, nobody in the rank-and-file thinks their unions have anything to gain by becoming left-free zones. They know that the union which makes a point of being spitefully anti-socialist never fights for the rights of the workers that union represent at all-and that unions never preserve jobs of stop concessions by taking the side of the bosses.

Finally-it's not impossible to create a humane, democratic alternative to the status quo. More and more people around the world want such a humane, democratic alternative to the way things are currently done. How can it ever be even mildly progressive to oppose that growing community of change?

And there was no alternative to Sawant's approach on The Showbox. The only progressive approach was to fight the rich on that, since the rich were giving nothing to the community that justifies destroying a historic music venue. No good would have come of just capitulating to the builders on that without a struggle.

And it's silly for you to still be that outraged by the Employee Hours Tax. More revenue is needed to deal with the problems the community faces-and none of those problems can be dealt with through private sector charity-a form of "help" which is almost always insufficiently helpful and unjustly judgmental towards those it purports to "help", which still holds with the discredited myth that poverty or homeless is a result of "bad choices" or personal failure.

If you were against the EHT-btw, most workers in Seattle weren't against it, it was just the construction workers-a group which has always been the most reactionary part and unsolidaristic wing of the labor movement,and they only did that because Bezos scared them into it as part of his childish refusal to pay a tax he could easily have paid and that, really, he has a moral obligation to pay after all the unjustified giveaways the city gave him over the years-would you, if you oppose that, agree that it's past time to have a statewide initiative to repeal the state ban on income and wealth tax? That it's time the wealthy finally started paying something close to their fair share in this state? Would you agree that we should not be a state where the most of the taxes we have are regressive taxes like a sales tax?

And isn't it time to admit that the post-1992 period proves that there can't be such a thing as progressive governance on an austerity budget? That it has never been possible to "do more with less" on issues like poverty and homelessness?


“You've resorted to mockery and insult because you have no actual argument against my post.”

Actually, I’ve repeatedly cited actual facts to show your “argument” consists of nothing but the same groundless or contrafactual assertions, tiresomely restated. (Your making blatantly false statements about this actual evidence doesn’t help you, either.)

“Nothing socialists supported then, or now, requires violence.”

You wanted militant labor actions to end capitalism. If you think that would not have resulted in huge amounts of violence, then you know nothing about American labor history. (Look at all of the violence in the Civil Rights movement, even though one side chose to act non-violently.)

“They prove that certain things that happen at certain times.”

That’s more than you’ve done.

Also, you have yet to square your assertion that white, male, union workers were getting all the gains when the census data clearly showed otherwise. Why does the data not support your claim? Why does that not bother you? Why do you believe you can make a blatantly false claim about the source of this data, and yet still enjoy the privilege of having anyone believe anything you say?

“Finally-it's not impossible to create a humane, democratic alternative to the status quo. More and more people around the world want such a humane, democratic alternative to the way things are currently done.”

(You forgot the ponies. They all want ponies, too.) Sweden and the UK are democratic welfare states. Capitalism remains their economic base because no one has yet found an alternative which worked. Given the horror stories which resulted from attempted alternatives, I’ll choose to remain skeptical.

“And there was no alternative to Sawant's approach on The Showbox.”

Doing nothing would have been better.

“The only progressive approach was to fight the rich on that...”

The rich guy won anyway. All we got were legal bills, and the possibility of paying him damages. The policy failed on its’ own terms, and here you still are, defending it. How sad.

“No good would have come of just capitulating to the builders on that without a struggle.”

No, but we could have tried negotiating. All over town are new buildings which incorporate facades and functions of the old buildings they replaced. But no, CM Sawant wanted a fight, and she got one. She was the bully, and she lost. Full stop.


First off, what I said about the minescule amount of "evidence" you provided is true:

The statistics in that article prove correlation, not causation. They no more prove what you want to prove than the fact that I Love Lucy premiered the year before the 1952 election proves that Lucy and Ricky were the cause of the Eisenhower victory, or that Pop Rocks and mood rings are responsible for cocaine abuse in the Seventies.

And I didn't say that white male workers got ALL the gains from the Accord-but it is a fact that women and people of color were largely not included in unions in the first two-and-a-half decades of the postwar era. That matters hugely, because in the postwar era, the labor leadership undermined their own negotiating position by refusing to do much of any organizing after 1955 or so and by not putting in any real effort to organize those workers who most WANTED to be organized-women, especially women doing clerical work-people of color, and farm workers. Nothing but damage was done to the cause of workers' rights by this choice of the labor movement to cease growing their unions. Had the leadership kept organizing, it might have been possible to stop management abandoning the Accord and taking away everything workers had won in the prewar militancy which was the actual cause of all the postwar gains.

As I said, the statistics you posted, being correlation and not causation, prove nothing-and they especially do NOT prove that workers gained BECAUSE labor moved to the right after the war. They do not prove that because it isn't the case. Here are links on the role labor militancy played in the accord. The accord happened because management was forced into it. Had there been no labor militancy, there'd have been no accord. To get the Accord, the "leadership" of the labor movement crushed its own rank-and-file, who wanted to start the fight against capital again, in the months after the war:


Here's an article about how the Accord ended-my one quibble with it is that it implies that things "went to hell", as opposed to the reality which was that unions had to start trying to fight back when management simply decided to abandon the Accord and throw the workers who created all their wealth under the bus:


And once again, since nobody in management anywhere wants to do anything but take away the gains workers won decades ago, since management no longer respects working people or sees them of being of any value, it would be futile to cooperate with management. Why should labor settle for nothing but negotiating conditions for surrender?

And the alternative to capitalism which failed was Stalinism/Maoism-economic statism run by bureaucrats, with no say in how the workplace was to be run by the workers and no say in what was to be produced or how a service was to be offered by workers OR consumers. Cooperatives, which are springing up all over the place, are working exceptionally well-providing quality goods and services at a reasonable price with massively reduced overhead due to the lack of excessively inflated management/CEO/shareholder compensation. The key is to run the workplace democratically-do that, treat all in the workplace with equal respect, train all to listen to each other's suggestions, give everyone an equal chance to get trained in whatever skills they wish to be trained in-and to change jobs and learn new skills when they wish to-and you get a roaring success.

The failure of Stalinism/Maoism doesn't discredit the idea of seeking an alternative to what we have now-a city run as Bezos' Gates' and Schultz's personal fiefdom.

And it isn't possible to bully a corporation.


@57: First off, here’s your contrafactual dismissal of that evidence:

“And as to the Jordan Weissmann quote, it proves nothing. It is simply his unsupported assertion.”

So no, you don’t get to weasel out of your blatantly false claim. Either you didn’t read the link I provided, or you read it and didn’t understand it, or you read it and understood it, and lied about it. Please feel free to enlighten us as to which of those paths led you to make your blatantly false claim.

Second, picking a clever-sounding phrase doesn’t mean anything if you can’t use it right. You’ve pounded your “correlation, not causation” claim several times in this thread, and you’ve been wrong every time.

Concerning the EHT, it was repealed before it could take effect. Therefore, it could not have caused the real, measured, and dramatic (not “supposed”) decline in Seattle’s homeless population over the past year. Your “correlation, not causation” formula was exactly wrong: I was noting the EHT could not possibly have caused a decline in homelessness, not that the repeal has done so. That proponents of the EHT had claimed it was necessary to reduce homelessness just shows how wrong they were. Feel free to criticize them for that any time you like.

“...taking away everything workers had won in the prewar militancy which was the actual cause of all the postwar gains.”

The war ended the Great Depression and created a prosperity unlike any ever seen. Yet this fact appears not at all in your fairy tale. If you want to blame “the Accord” for everything that went wrong in the post-war period, then it also gets credit for everything that went well. But no, you try to have it both ways, and you fail. Too bad for you.

“Cooperatives, which are springing up all over the place, are working exceptionally well-”

Citation, please?

Yeah, right.

You’d sooner criticize CM Sawant for allowing a rich guy to sue us.

“And it isn't possible to bully a corporation.”

Yeah, I’d say Amazon proved that pretty well. Too bad CM Sawant responded by trying to bully a rich guy over the Showbox, instead of learning her lesson.


"The War" and "The Accord" are two entirely separate things.
The country was prosperous during the war because FDR made sure that the war effort was a full-employment economy, NOT because their weren't strikes. And the lack of strikes during the war was something the labor movement agreed to voluntarily.
Management agreed to "The Accord" out of fear of renewed labor militancy-a well-grounded fear, since there was a huge wave of fully-justified strikes right after the war ended. It was the militancy that caused The Accord, and then the establishment union leaders pissed it away by abandoning organizing and letting themselves believe that management accepted unions as a permanent fact of life.. Them's the facts, Jack
And there was no alternative, if Seattle is to deal with its problems, to demanding that the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Poverty can't be eliminated by "the magic of the market", because "the market" NEEDS poverty and unemployment to continue to exist.
And there was no valid reason for Bezos to throw a tantrum and use construction workers to bully Sawant rather than just paying what he morally owes to the city. He'd still have been richer than several gods.

And I read the article. It's just that there's nothing in the article that ends the discussion.
Nothing Sawant did to Bezos and the guy who wants to replace the Showbox with a soulless metal tower in which nothing creative will ever happened could possibly have been considered bullying. And there could never have been a non-reactionary case for just giving and letting the Showbox be destroyed without a fight.

And the difference between correlation and causation is massive. You can't just say that one thing caused another thing simply because the two things happened at or near the same time.


@59: “And I read the article.”

So, were you merely completely mistaken when you said the point of the article was an “unsupported assertion,” or were you knowingly and blatantly lying about it? Either way, why should we care what else you have to say about it?


Just re-read the article...I read it several times. It referred to "the poorest fifth" doing best of all, but poverty doesn't equate to being a person of color. Most of the poor who gained were poor whites, because most of those who are poor in this country were white in 1945 and most of those who are poor now are white-which means that it was criminally wrong, in the Nineties, for Bill Clinton to endorse the canard that poverty is "a black thing" and that it's mainly caused by the imaginary "pathology of the black family".

The article also points out that the people you want labor to cooperate with are the ones who, for no valid reason, ended the Accord and have spent the last forty years taking everything away from workers. You've offered no valid reason as to why workers should cooperate with them or would gain anything from cooperating from them. Cooperation only works when management has been put on the defensive and fears the loss of its privileges.


“...but poverty doesn't equate to being a person of color.”

What America do you live in?

You just claimed that in Jim Crow America, poverty didn’t co-relate strongly with skin color.

Aside from blowing away any claim to your knowing what the fancy phrase about correlation vs. causation actually means, you’ve also thrown away any need to have anyone take you seriously. On anything, really.

And for all that, you have yet to answer the question: were you ignorant or were you lying when you described the point of the article as nothing more than an “unsupported assertion,” when it was, in reality, supported fully by data from the US Census Bureau?