
Eugene Debs Was Jailed for Speaking Out Against WWI, 100 Years Ago This Week - wallace_f
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fiery-socialist-challenged-nations-role-wwi-180969386/?no-ist
======
omeid2

       “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
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.

~~~
smallnamespace
> 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...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/750411.The_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_British_Aristocracy)

~~~
icebraining
I don't see how your post contradicts madaxe_again's. Are you saying those
elites didn't profit from the pre-WWI wars?

Yes, the early 20th century was a turning point, but it only changed _who_ was
profiting.

~~~
smallnamespace
Yes, the vast majority those elites did not profit, either in an economic
(they mostly owned land, not corporations) nor more important (they / their
sons were dead) sense; something like 1 in 4 young men were killed.

Even at the turn of the century, the foundation of the wealth of the British
aristocracy rested on ownership of land, agriculture, and control of the
Empire. The Great War disrupted all three greatly.

It was mainly the merchant and upper middle class that owned stocks, ran
businesses, and profited from the war, with a tiny fraction of aristocrats
benefiting.

Most of the rest saw the value of their land go towards zero, their manors
used for wartime purposes while their servants were conscripted away, their
sons killed on the field of battle, and confiscatory tax rates imposed to help
fund the war effort.

This pattern was repeated again in WW2.

There's a reason _Downton Abbey_ is set on the eve of WW1 and goes into the
interwar period — that's when the British aristocracy was systematically taken
apart piece by piece.

Common people largely supported monarchical, aristocratic governments before
WW1. One reason was because their elites that _actually_ put their money (and
their lives) on the line for their nation... although sometimes with
disastrous consequences.

Note that historically, the world wars were when wealth inequality _dropped_
the most quickly. The US raised marginal tax rates to 90% during WW2, and most
wealth was real assets, which obviously suffered greatly all throughout
Europe. In a total war, everyone can give up their lives, but the wealthy can
_also_ lose their wealth.

~~~
icebraining
I don't think you read my post carefully; I wrote "pre-WW1". I understand they
did not profit from WW1 itself.

You wrote that wars being a profitable enterprise is a relatively new
phenomenon that arose after WW1. What I'm saying is that pre-WW1 wars were
already a profitable enterprise (for that aristocracy - exactly in terms of
extra land, etc), and that WW1 only changed _who_ profited from them.

------
user982
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...](https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-
apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/)

~~~
lern_too_spel
> 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.

~~~
teachrdan
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/](https://www.wired.com/2011/06/drake-pleads-guilty/)

------
tomohawk
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.

~~~
stevenwoo
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.

~~~
ameister14
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.

------
Latteland
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.

------
101km
For some color, watch Mark Ruffalo read Eugene Debs:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuGp-0G1p4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuGp-0G1p4M)

~~~
billsmithaustin
Or this version, read by Bernie Sanders:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMu70olQtU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvMu70olQtU)

~~~
prolikewhoa
This is far too leftist for HN.

~~~
kenmicklas
I can only pray that posts like this one will slowly raise class consciousness
in the HN crowd.

------
wallace_f
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
"Land of the free"

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

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

------
stareatgoats
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.

~~~
jcranmer
> 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.

~~~
Latteland
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.

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

~~~
simonh
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.

~~~
agumonkey
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.

~~~
alfredallan1
That strategy won’t work against a sufficiently determined adversary, if
they’re willing to eliminate all potential enemy combatants (= civilians) and
capture all the resources of the defeated entity for themselves.

~~~
Latteland
There was WW2 and then everything else in terms of clarity between good and
evil. The vast majority of conflicts the US has been involved in were not so
clear cut, like say Vietnam, Iraq 2. I guess all the atrocities weren't
visible at the start of WW2; there was a clear difference with Japan and
Germany, and they could have won ww 2. Imagine a war today with the US vs
China, fought over say freedom of access to the ocean, those atolls in the
South China Sea.

~~~
sangnoir
> There was WW2 and then everything else in terms of clarity between good and
> evil.

Was it that clear? I think the difference between sides was on the sense of
scale. Before the war, eugenics was in vogue, Jewish people were hated
everywhere, the idea of lesser races wasn't even questioned, and a lot of
ideas that Nazi German executed on were inspired from across the Atlantic.
What the 3rd Reich did was package all these ideas into a formal ideology and
industrialized death for the 'undesirables'. IMO it was less of 'good vs.
evil' and more 'not-good vs. evil'.

~~~
Latteland
There was certainly anti-jewish hate in the us, remember the country clubs
that wouldn't let jewish people in. the kkk might have wanted to her jews but
very few people in the us, afaik, didn't want to hurt them.

------
j16sdiz
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.

