Talk:Eugene V. Debs

This was put in the article by me. So, I'm moving it here. Carptrash 19:54, 18 August 2008 (EDT)


 * He means: "(This article is lifted word for word from the conservapedia article on him. Surely we can do better.)"  ħ uman  20:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

you people should add some more
debs was a great american and deserves a much longer article than this one, but i've mixed the vics with rum so i'm not going to be ok for a while.UncleHo (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, since you ladies won't do it, i will, but i am drunk and high now so bear with me if i make any errorsUncleHo (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell does "beat child soldiers with clubs" mean? This could a few judicious footnotes...  03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i don't know dude i've drank a lot of rum and taken too much vicodin so if you can fix the grammar go ahead and do itUncleHo (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

actually i meant that. fixed it.UncleHo (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's hard to fix grammar when I can't understand what is meant. 03:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * vicodin is a hell of a drug.UncleHo (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"he was no more a radical than FDR."
Try really hard not to say stupid things. It'll help your cause immensely. Debs was a socialist and in 1920s-1930s America that made him--proudly--a radical. As WP puts it so succinctly, "The IWW contends that all workers should be united as a class and that the wage system should be abolished." That is a radical position in any liberal system. How the hell do you see FDR's liberal model of gov't as having anything in common with Marxist ideas? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second bill of rights. Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges. Roosevelt's stated justification was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to create an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

* A job with a living wage * Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies * A home * Medical care * Education * Recreation

Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice. Later in the 1970s, Czech jurist Karel Vasak would categorize these as the ‘second generation’ rights in his theory of three generations of human rights.

how, ToP, is this not at least as radical as what debs proposed?UncleHo (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it still assumes that there will be workers working for capitalists for wages. And what did FDR ever do to implement this idyllic vision? And how can a man who okayed the development of atomic weapons and called for the internment of American citizens based on racial identity be thought of as a force for positive social change? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * well, he didn't do much being as he died shortly after he proposed it. i don't think death counts for inactivity. also, the second bill of rights was going to guarantee this regardless of race, creed or social status.UncleHo (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As soon as he let those pesky Japanese out of the internment camps, right? How do you think Debs felt about that? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * debs was a noted anti-racist, and i will grant you this, but had the second bill of rights passed, even Japanese-Americans would have moved into the civilized world.UncleHo (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * would've, could've should've. This would have done nothing to undo the fundamental principle that a radical like Debs was trying to work against--a society structured on class where workers had to sell their labour to the owning classes for a wage. By reforming capitalism along its own lines, you further entrench it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * perhaps i oppose the word "radical" because of it's negative connotations. i really hate to see debs tarred with the same brush as osama bin laden, michael collins or ho chi minh. i'm not opposed to radicals, just look at my name, but debs was not on the same level as them.UncleHo (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But Debs was proud to call himself a radical, I see no point in trying to hide him from a criticism the man himself embraced and wore with pride.

Perhaps you should take the time to read some stuff by people whose views align roughly with your own and see how they embrace the term for themselves. Don't let the bad guys seize the high ground. The word has several valences--it doesn't have to imply violence: look at folks like Jimmy and Grace Lee Boggs or C.L.R.James or Marty Glaberman--all radicals, none violent. Lumping Michael Collins in with OBL makes no sense. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * michael collins killed people, so did osama and ho chi minh. debs never condoned the killing of anyone. he was a very committed pacifist. therein lies the difference, in my mind. i am myself proud to be called a radical, but i don't know if debs would have been suchUncleHo (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A friend of mine tells a story....
....about marking a student's exam. The question asked the students to identify a number of terms, including "Eugene V. Debs." The student identified the term as a major court case that took place during the Civil Rights era. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 02:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * F!!! Тy Please do not click on this 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)