• Twinklebreeze @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Wasn’t the us labor movement violent? I seem to remember something about troops firing on striking miners.

    • Jaderick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      Mine owners utilized violence and essentially wage slavery to keep miners from unionizing and asking for more fair working conditions. Pinkertons got their reputation as being violent corporate mercenaries in this period, and they continue to be. The violence caused miners to fight back, and when they did the US army got involved usually in the interest of the mine owners. The lead up to the Battle of Blair Mountain is one of the best examples of this and maybe the most impactful.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It was nonviolent, until bosses/police starting shooting miners and their families, at which point it developed into a small-scale civil war. So yes, I shouldn’t have simply said blanket non violent I guess… I was just trying to draw a distinction between “let’s fight for justice for ourselves” versus “let’s storm the capital and do away with the leaders” as two roads (with the first being more effective, and the second often leading to catastrophe instead of the progress that was hoped for.)