Eugene Debs Was Jailed for Speaking Out Against WWI, 100 Years Ago This Week

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fiery-socialist-challenged-nations-role-wwi-180969386/?no-ist

by wallace_f • 8 years ago

175 85 8 years ago

omeid2• 8 years ago

   “The working class have never yet had a voice in declaring 
   war,” Debs declared. “If war is right, let it be declared 
   by the people – you, who have your lives to lose.”

   Those were dangerous words in June 1918.

They still are. Little has changed in the past 100 years. The war is still declared by the rich, and the poor dies, on both sides.

madaxe_again• 8 years ago

War is a highly profitable enterprise - many of the industrial giants of the 20th century were built off the back of armaments, supplies (clothing and rations), and finance.

As long as war remains wildly profitable, war will continue - and war always has been profitable, and likely always will be - right up until the point that there’s nothing left, and the profiteers realise they can’t eat a number in a ledger.

icebraining3• 8 years ago

Also from the early 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

smallnamespace2• 8 years ago

War is a highly profitable enterprise

No, this is a relatively new phenomenon that arose after WWI, when warfare became highly industrialized and too costly to fight personally for the rich.

During WWI, the aristocracy led from the front, as was their traditional calling, and they were mowed down in droves just like the most common soldier.

For the British, an entire generation of their sons were killed at Marne, Verdun, the Somme, Ypres, and other large battles, and the effect was stark:

At the outset of the 1870's, the British aristocracy could rightly consider themselves the most fortunate people on earth: they held the lion's share of land, wealth, and power in the world's greatest empire. By the end of the 1930's they had lost not only a generation of sons in the First World War, but also much of their prosperity, prestige and political significance. [1]

This largely held true for the Austro-Hungarian elite (they were decimated and the empire was torn apart), the Germans, and every other participant in the fight.

Note that historically, European aristocrats were military elites and were descended from the knightly class. The whole reason they were a cut above the population was because they would fight and take the danger first. The realization after WWI that war was simply a number's game doomed the legitimacy of their leadership in all countries.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/750411.The_Decline_and_F...

jcranmer3• 8 years ago

There is one trope that I despise in particular, and that is the idea that war profiteers drive countries to war over the backs of reluctant and unwilling populations.

War is popular. I mean, look at how much of our modern entertainment glorifies war. The military is generally and genuinely the most popular public institution. The problem is, when a war loses its momentum, people lose their enthusiasm really quickly. People forget that the Iraq War, for example, actually had majority support when it broke out.

War profiteers certainly exist, but they are a tiny minority, even of the military-industrial complex. There is a much larger segment of industry that is hurt by war: war means a loss of external markets, disruption of supply chains, increased cost of resources, higher taxes, lower internal demand, and massive destruction of property (should the war be fought on your soil).

War is not profitable. The one thing that war is most closely connected with is higher taxes. The inability to pay for wars is probably the single largest contributor to the downfall of governments in recorded history.

merpnderp3• 8 years ago

Little has changed? Yeah right, when people marched in the streets burning effigies of George Bush in protest against the Iraq War, literally nothing happened to them. You can go out and protest any war you want, often stomping on other people's civil rights to do it, and the judges will be super lenient of your civil rights violations because they were done in the name of political speech.

And calling modern volunteer soldiers poor is an insult. Underpaid would be fair.

fzeroracer2• 8 years ago

That's objectively false. To say nothing happened to them ignores those that were arrested even during peaceful protests and I would like to see some citations on that claim of people violating other people's civil rights.

NeoBasilisk• 8 years ago

And yet thousands of soldiers were still sent to their deaths

duxup• 8 years ago

Sadly the poor are often happy to do it....

101km• 8 years ago

For some color, watch Mark Ruffalo read Eugene Debs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuGp-0G1p4M

billsmithaustin• 8 years ago

Or this version, read by Bernie Sanders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMu70olQtU

prolikewhoa2• 8 years ago

This is far too leftist for HN.

user982• 8 years ago

This was one of a clutch of related cases before the Supreme Court that gave us the pro-censorship cliché about "shouting fire in a theater."[1]

The Espionage Act that they were convicted under is, of course, still on the books, and now primarily used against whistleblowers and leakers.

[1] https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

zeth___• 8 years ago

And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined.

Which is why a libertarian had a really odd choice to make last election: go with someone who has hollowed out the constitution in her time in office as much as possible, or go with someone who promises to hollow out different parts of it. Or not vote.

dvfjsdhgfv• 8 years ago

And of course Obama used it more than all other presidents combined.

Could you provide a source for that?

tpush• 8 years ago

Wouldn't a libertarian have voted for Gary Johnson?

ataggart• 8 years ago

"shouting fire in a theater."

Relevant Christopher Hitchens: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY

pas• 8 years ago

I'm always amazed by his impeccable cocktail of eloquence and straight-to-the-pointness, but now I miss a bit of detour, the on the rocks for this particular drink: how would society heal out of a pathological state of ignorance/misinformation/xenophobia/bigotry? Sure, probably control of free speech is not the answer, but now I'm intrigued.

lern_too_spel• 8 years ago

now primarily used against whistleblowers and leakers.

It's primarily used against leakers. Throwing "whistleblowers" in there makes the statement misleading, since none of the leakers the Obama administration prosecuted under that act were whistleblowers.

The controversy was that some of the leakers prosecuted were journalists, not whistleblowers.

lotsofpulp• 8 years ago

If one believes the government should be transparent, then they would be considered whistleblowers.

Brockenstein3• 8 years ago

One man's leaker is another man's whistleblower. It's not always so black and white.

teachrdan• 8 years ago

Here's a whistleblower who was prosecuted by the Obama administration: Thomas Drake, who revealed massive overspending and incompetence within the NSA. He was charged under the Espionage Act and the prosecution wanted to give him 35 years in prison; he ultimately plead guilty to "exceeding authorized access to a computer."

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/drake-pleads-guilty/

byproxy• 8 years ago

Though, since 1969 the test for free speech has been imminent lawless action:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

j16sdiz• 8 years ago

It is just socialist, anti-capitalist, not anti-war:

“I know of no reason why the workers should fight for what the capitalists own,” ... “I will never go to war for a capitalist government,”

It is ironic how later “socialist” country manage to kill their own civilians.

agumonkey2• 8 years ago

all in all, the best option is to run as far away from war as possible

simonh• 8 years ago

Leaving any faction willing to actively seek out and start wars to win by default, unopposed even by a faction only willing to use it to protect itself and it's allies?

I'm not saying there's any perfect formula for only using warfare for protection. Who counts as deserving protection? What exactly are the circumstances in which war is justified? How aggressively should war be used even for protection in any particular circumstance? these are difficult and contentious issues.

However there absolutely are people out there who don't care a fig for any of that, will gleefully use war to further their aims and will pursue it to their maximum advantage if free to do so. Those people have to be stopped somehow.

agumonkey2• 8 years ago

Sure, but when a nation has been propped up into war, there's no point into going against.

If I may rephrase my previous comment, war is a like a tsunami, it's absurd to stand up to it, find voids and wait until it's over.

tomohawk• 8 years ago

This is more about Woodrow Wilson, than Debs. Wilson, like many progressives, thought that you should never let things like the constitution get in the way of doing "good".

His version of "good" was that he was a massive racist. Among other things, he resegregated the federal government, ending the careers of many who were not white.

He also did not like freedom of speech or the press. He prevented magazines and newspapers he disagreed with from going through the mail. Nice piece of work.

adrianratnapala• 8 years ago

All of the above insults are true; but it's not about Wilson being some kind of two-headed monster. As an internationalist, and an idealist, he has quite been seen as a hero as well.

So it's not about one man at all. It's about ends-vs.-means and the importance of respecting inconvenient rights.

seanmcdirmid2• 8 years ago

How can you claim Wilson was a progressive when he clearly acted like a reactionary? He in fact won against the progressive party in 1912 (against Roosevelt and others), and ushered in the end of the progressive era.

ameister142• 8 years ago

He created the FTC, instituted major banking reform and created the Fed as well as instituted a graduated income tax. He made child labor illegal and signed into law an 8 hour work day. He created the League of Nations.

Most people consider him a progressive.

astronautjones• 8 years ago

This is more about Woodrow Wilson, than Debs. Wilson, like many progressives, thought that you should never let things like the constitution get in the way of doing "good".

as opposed to conservatives? this is a disingenuous and useless distinction

stevenwoo• 8 years ago

Woodrow Wilson helped start the 20th century version of the Klu Klux Klan and re instituted segregation in the federal government. That does not sound very progressive, Helen Keller was his contemporary and she was against those things and for Eugene Debs and workers' rights and women's rights.

ameister142• 8 years ago

Yes, those parts weren't very progressive. Wilsonian Progressive reform, which is one of the things he's most famous for (and creating the League of Nations) was pretty progressive, though. It's why he's historically known as a progressive.

dsfyu404ed• 8 years ago

you should never let things like the constitution get in the way of doing "good".

Protip: If it's really that "good" you won't need to make an end run around the constitution to get it done.

stareatgoats2• 8 years ago

The era most similar to ours could arguably well be the pre-WW1 era, with several imperialist powers vying for larger markets and better raw material supplies, without any real threat of a socialist revolution, which at the core had the notion of workers unity across nation borders. It is mainly the reason that socialism is not a threat that differs: then socialism had not yet proven itself as a viable form of government; now it has been disproved.

It makes we worry that we have no real leverage against the modern-day imperialists that are increasingly sounding their trumpets of war.

jcranmer3• 8 years ago

The era most similar to ours could arguably well be the pre-WW1 era, with several imperialist powers vying for larger markets and better raw material supplies, without any real threat of a socialist revolution, which at the core had the notion of workers unity across nation borders.

Uh, false? One of the major factors in the breakout of WWI was that all of the major European powers had massive, divisive conflicts (largely related to class), and their leaders felt that a war would be a good way to help bring unity to their own country while looking over at their competitors and feeling that a war would push the other countries over the edge.

stareatgoats2• 8 years ago

false? false I think. The two descriptions complement each other, they are not mutually exclusive.

Latteland4• 8 years ago

Replace the conflicting and overlapping disputes and treaties in pre-ww 1 Wurope with the same thing in the middle east today. I expect the middle east will trigger the next great war.

wallace_f• 8 years ago

Bit of a meta comment: how often do HN mods typically change post titles? I've noticed posts I've submitted which have their title's changed (sometimes for good reason), have the change made after garnering the majority of their upvotes.

shanghaiaway• 8 years ago

"Land of the free"

prolikewhoa2• 8 years ago

Unless you speak out against capitalism, then you get shot in the head. MLK also shot for this reason, see: Poor Peoples Campaign.

kenmicklas2• 8 years ago

I don't disagree in the sentiment but I think it is ahistorical to say that MLK was shot for speaking against capitalism.

techntoke2• 8 years ago

Land of the rich is more like it.

Latteland4• 8 years ago

I didn't know we had anti-sedition laws during WW1. Another reason not to like that notorious racist Woodrow Wilson. I half expect them to come back, and I'm not being sarcastic.

I worry about my own teenage son getting drafted for a pointless war. It seems we couldn't be trying harder to repeat the actions that lead up to the depression and 1930s pre-war any better. Replace Japan with China, maybe Germany with Russia and you can start arguing that we don't need trade with these countries. Destructive tariffs, breaking trade connections that should have been reducing the appeal for conflict.

Eugene Debs Was Jailed for Speaking Out Against WWI, 100 Years Ago This Week

Related Stories