Slug Defends Saul Williams Against Sage Francis

[Haitian Jack]

-The word "slave" is being thrown around carelessly here.

-Silence is an awesome poster.

-100 years from now, no one will know who anyone is.

yup, if nike workers are slaves then most peeps in those countries is beyond slavery. people are exploited but slavery is takin iit too far yo. but yeah i think both sage and saul have worthwhile points

[Piff Tannen]

ill sell nike any of my songs for 7k, flat fee, i dont give a fuck

[machine]

I'm not like you where if I dislike someone I study their every move..

Sure, cool guy.

Seems to know a lot about the dudes he sons...

Still, this is an incredibly uninteresting topic. These men need to rub together their abstrakt rime beardz and mold a few more psychology students for their fanbases.

[silence]

its harder than typing on your new g5 in your living room,

Your so far off on your assumption of me, so yea I'll just let that part go...

But really you don't know what your talking about, I wanna see oprah have saul on and put his work in her book club... :) letter to oprah are a must read.

the proverbial "you"....not you perssonally...i make no assumptions about your life

[chump change]

Over-riding point is that saul is a rare artist that has the ability to capture an entire cultures attention, he is the real deal, he stated the work nike has done and gave a web link to help explain his thought process(to internet heads) you've provided nothing to contradict that besides hearsay please cite some sources if you expect anyone to be cosigning saul williams is promoting slavery. Nike worker case studies over the last decade,ya know stuff like that...

[Xaula Zany]

Here's some of the bad and some of the good

http://knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nike%2C_inc.

[D. James]

I find this entire discussion to be worthless. I'd like to see Saul continue to write dope poems and make dope albums. Anything he does outside of that is his own business.

[Nolto]

i find it sad so many people respoonding to this thread have such elementary perspectives on corporatization, money, selling out, etc.

they dont give a fuck about saul's song, they want it to be an advertisement EVERY time the song is played. meaning free advertising.....so saul gets paid, he doesnt get paid every time that song is played, only when it is played on their commercial. People still think of the product when they hear the song without the commercial, therefore completely robbing the song of its meaning and replacing it with a visceral and emotional connection to a commercial product that has absolutely nothing to do with the music he makes, its history, or the people making it etc.

the corporations are asking for saul because they will then be able to be "o.k." with Saul's audience- people who would normally demonize that very corporation.

this is the essence of co-option- they negate their opposition by buying out the people who give power to the opposition.

I find it sad that that this is even defenseable

you dont want to scrub your toilet anymore so youre down to sellout-

thats the whole point- paying people nothing so they have no choice but to give in if they want to have a comfortable life


yall are so easy to control

You're not considering the positive aspects of co-optation. If Nike wants to co-opt Saul, then they will have to adopt (or at least feign the adoption of) certain principles and values. Saul's fanbase would not remain his fanbase if he were to advocate (explicitly) slavery and oppression. Therefore, slave-owners and other oppressors cannot co-opt Saul in order to garner support for their enterprises - that is, not without it being utterly unsuccessful. Saul attracted the fanbase that he has because of the principles and values he was espousing (and because of his talent in expressing those espousals). Therefore, Nike will have to appeal to those principles and values in order for their commissioning of Saul to be worthwhile. This can be very positive for Nike's role in the global community (though, not necessarily so - I am merely suggesting that there can be positives).

Take capitalism in general for example. Capitalist institutions began co-opting socialist movements in order to quell the rising possibility of revolt. In order to achieve effective co-optation, however, they needed to adopt some of the principles and values of the socialist movement: unions, minimum wages - or, more generally - "worker's rights," etc. That co-optation became the birth of modern social-democracies. Some might argue that those social-democracies fall short of the communist ideals that birthed them; but, few would argue that they are worse than the capitalism they replaced.

Just something to consider.

[Thun]

but I also met, Persia, whose boyfreind I played on the show, and is now
my wife (its been 30 days!).

damn.. Saul married Persia from Girlfriends.... NICE!!!

F'real

[ardamus]

but I also met, Persia, whose boyfreind I played on the show, and is now
my wife (its been 30 days!).

damn.. Saul married Persia from Girlfriends.... NICE!!!

F'real

pretty much the best news about this whole thread besides the fact Saul is able eat off his work more.

[ardamus]

Here's some of the bad and some of the good

http://knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nike%2C_inc.

fair enough and thanks for the input on it from your non-profit. still......i like to see someone like Saul eat off his art though. pretty much a big catch-22.

[Brougham33]

Damn. Good for Saul.

[Employer]

the word 'slave' is not being thrown around carelessly.

http://knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?titl ... hts_Abuses

in the past, workers have been forced to rent rooms in bombed out boarding houses near the factory...

when the factory slows down and cuts the worker's hours, which invariably happens, they often enter into 'loan' agreements with their slumlords, which then locks them into a permanent debt, where they basically become slaves to their landlords... powerless to stop working at the factory.

combine that with the incredibly foul conditions at these factories, which in the past have involved incidents of getting beaten and sexually harassed by their supervisors, and you have human beings living in conditions that are probably worse or equal to what *some* african slaves experienced in the u.s.

that was the reasoning behind what i said.

-

by the way.. hello to philaflava!


-b

[Brougham33]

Gotta give Dolan props on the name.

[Employee]

HIP HOP IN 2008 - NO WONDER MAWFUKAZ DOWNLOAD:

[Employer]

hahahaa

ah man.

don't get your feelings hurt employee.

the name is a tribute .
you consistently make me lol when i read this forum.

mac lethal and i had a conversation about you at paid dues. you were always on my mind.

i lub you. are you comfortable with that? cause i do.

lemme just homo emoticon myself right off the bat

seriously though, i'm gonna need you to fax some things and bring me a coffee.

[Employee]

mac lethal and i had a conversation about you at paid dues. you were always on my mind.

OMG DOOD - WUT DYD DA BLAUNND BOI WUHNDA SAYE ABOOT ME?

[Mindbender Futurama]

^^^ LOL @ the last 3 posts.

back to the topic:

hey um, judge not lest ye be judged?

we can sit behind our computers and form opinions bout who's right and/or wrong all day and talk shit and praise artists who are doing the damn thing... but for real, if someone came up to you and told YOU that your professional choices and personal contribution to capitalism was supporting slavery, what would you do?

are any of us about to start the motherfucking Revolution of All Revolutions and bring down Babylon tomorrow? probably not, but I will dream about it tonight :cookiecookie:

it's not cut and dried, yes and no, good or evil. it's so complex it makes people stop talking if not stop thinking.

i'm with Saul.
sometimes a simple 'fuck you forever' is the answer.
sometimes to work with the devil to bring some angel energy their way is to do the right thing.
sometimes the devil is really an angel, and the artist is more of a devil than any of their fans know.

so few people are innocent and clean of helping some kind of evil grow in the world today. the hardline approach personally isn't the only, right, perfect option to deal with all the bad shit in the world. but that's just me.

Sage, would/could you be willing to sever all ties to capitalism and move into the hills and live off the land if someone judged your artistic actions/choices as corrupt?


we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[ardamus]

@ the fact b. dolan calls himself Employer. hahaha, this thread just got better.....

[ILL SEER]

i find it sad so many people respoonding to this thread have such elementary perspectives on corporatization, money, selling out, etc.

they dont give a fuck about saul's song, they want it to be an advertisement EVERY time the song is played. meaning free advertising.....so saul gets paid, he doesnt get paid every time that song is played, only when it is played on their commercial. People still think of the product when they hear the song without the commercial, therefore completely robbing the song of its meaning and replacing it with a visceral and emotional connection to a commercial product that has absolutely nothing to do with the music he makes, its history, or the people making it etc.

the corporations are asking for saul because they will then be able to be "o.k." with Saul's audience- people who would normally demonize that very corporation.

this is the essence of co-option- they negate their opposition by buying out the people who give power to the opposition.

I find it sad that that this is even defenseable

you dont want to scrub your toilet anymore so youre down to sellout-

thats the whole point- paying people nothing so they have no choice but to give in if they want to have a comfortable life


yall are so easy to control

You're not considering the positive aspects of co-optation. If Nike wants to co-opt Saul, then they will have to adopt (or at least feign the adoption of) certain principles and values. Saul's fanbase would not remain his fanbase if he were to advocate (explicitly) slavery and oppression. Therefore, slave-owners and other oppressors cannot co-opt Saul in order to garner support for their enterprises - that is, not without it being utterly unsuccessful. Saul attracted the fanbase that he has because of the principles and values he was espousing (and because of his talent in expressing those espousals). Therefore, Nike will have to appeal to those principles and values in order for their commissioning of Saul to be worthwhile. This can be very positive for Nike's role in the global community (though, not necessarily so - I am merely suggesting that there can be positives).

Take capitalism in general for example. Capitalist institutions began co-opting socialist movements in order to quell the rising possibility of revolt. In order to achieve effective co-optation, however, they needed to adopt some of the principles and values of the socialist movement: unions, minimum wages - or, more generally - "worker's rights," etc. That co-optation became the birth of modern social-democracies. Some might argue that those social-democracies fall short of the communist ideals that birthed them; but, few would argue that they are worse than the capitalism they replaced.

Just something to consider.

nice post.

yeah yeah as a union boy i gotta agree that this socialist-capatlist combo seems to be better than either ideology taking total control. some folks died to get the unions going here but i doubt they'd call those that followed sellouts for working for the corporations after they were unionized. is it possible to redeem nike likewise?

[RacquetballGangsta]

lol @ saul getting all in sage's ass

[silence]

i find it sad so many people respoonding to this thread have such elementary perspectives on corporatization, money, selling out, etc.

they dont give a fuck about saul's song, they want it to be an advertisement EVERY time the song is played. meaning free advertising.....so saul gets paid, he doesnt get paid every time that song is played, only when it is played on their commercial. People still think of the product when they hear the song without the commercial, therefore completely robbing the song of its meaning and replacing it with a visceral and emotional connection to a commercial product that has absolutely nothing to do with the music he makes, its history, or the people making it etc.

the corporations are asking for saul because they will then be able to be "o.k." with Saul's audience- people who would normally demonize that very corporation.

this is the essence of co-option- they negate their opposition by buying out the people who give power to the opposition.

I find it sad that that this is even defenseable

you dont want to scrub your toilet anymore so youre down to sellout-

thats the whole point- paying people nothing so they have no choice but to give in if they want to have a comfortable life


yall are so easy to control

You're not considering the positive aspects of co-optation. If Nike wants to co-opt Saul, then they will have to adopt (or at least feign the adoption of) certain principles and values. Saul's fanbase would not remain his fanbase if he were to advocate (explicitly) slavery and oppression. Therefore, slave-owners and other oppressors cannot co-opt Saul in order to garner support for their enterprises - that is, not without it being utterly unsuccessful. Saul attracted the fanbase that he has because of the principles and values he was espousing (and because of his talent in expressing those espousals). Therefore, Nike will have to appeal to those principles and values in order for their commissioning of Saul to be worthwhile. This can be very positive for Nike's role in the global community (though, not necessarily so - I am merely suggesting that there can be positives).

Take capitalism in general for example. Capitalist institutions began co-opting socialist movements in order to quell the rising possibility of revolt. In order to achieve effective co-optation, however, they needed to adopt some of the principles and values of the socialist movement: unions, minimum wages - or, more generally - "worker's rights," etc. That co-optation became the birth of modern social-democracies. Some might argue that those social-democracies fall short of the communist ideals that birthed them; but, few would argue that they are worse than the capitalism they replaced.

Just something to consider.

so now that that movement has been co-opted, so graciously so

what are union numbers like right now? lower than ever...

who took over the unions? teamsters....

what is minimum wage? = less than it costs to live, kless than the povert line

who has access to health care coverage? people in the "middle class" barely can afford it, let alont people living in poverty

african americans now make less money (when adjusted for inflation) than they did in the 1970's

prison populations are up, high school graduation rates are pitiful

the U.S. has the highest violent crime rate out of any "first world" country

co-option of th movements you speak of has only resulted in a wdiening gap between rich and poor....

im glad saul can eat off his music now that hes done a nike commercial.....im guessing that cat was making some money, and probably enough to live on without it

i feel bad for the man, cuz i dont blame him personally for his decision. i blame a much greater system for forcing that option

[ILL SEER]

i find it sad so many people respoonding to this thread have such elementary perspectives on corporatization, money, selling out, etc.

they dont give a fuck about saul's song, they want it to be an advertisement EVERY time the song is played. meaning free advertising.....so saul gets paid, he doesnt get paid every time that song is played, only when it is played on their commercial. People still think of the product when they hear the song without the commercial, therefore completely robbing the song of its meaning and replacing it with a visceral and emotional connection to a commercial product that has absolutely nothing to do with the music he makes, its history, or the people making it etc.

the corporations are asking for saul because they will then be able to be "o.k." with Saul's audience- people who would normally demonize that very corporation.

this is the essence of co-option- they negate their opposition by buying out the people who give power to the opposition.

I find it sad that that this is even defenseable

you dont want to scrub your toilet anymore so youre down to sellout-

thats the whole point- paying people nothing so they have no choice but to give in if they want to have a comfortable life


yall are so easy to control

You're not considering the positive aspects of co-optation. If Nike wants to co-opt Saul, then they will have to adopt (or at least feign the adoption of) certain principles and values. Saul's fanbase would not remain his fanbase if he were to advocate (explicitly) slavery and oppression. Therefore, slave-owners and other oppressors cannot co-opt Saul in order to garner support for their enterprises - that is, not without it being utterly unsuccessful. Saul attracted the fanbase that he has because of the principles and values he was espousing (and because of his talent in expressing those espousals). Therefore, Nike will have to appeal to those principles and values in order for their commissioning of Saul to be worthwhile. This can be very positive for Nike's role in the global community (though, not necessarily so - I am merely suggesting that there can be positives).

Take capitalism in general for example. Capitalist institutions began co-opting socialist movements in order to quell the rising possibility of revolt. In order to achieve effective co-optation, however, they needed to adopt some of the principles and values of the socialist movement: unions, minimum wages - or, more generally - "worker's rights," etc. That co-optation became the birth of modern social-democracies. Some might argue that those social-democracies fall short of the communist ideals that birthed them; but, few would argue that they are worse than the capitalism they replaced.

Just something to consider.

so now that that movement has been co-opted, so graciously so

what are union numbers like right now? lower than ever...

who took over the unions? teamsters....

what is minimum wage? = less than it costs to live, kless than the povert line

who has access to health care coverage? people in the "middle class" barely can afford it, let alont people living in poverty

african americans now make less money (when adjusted for inflation) than they did in the 1970's

prison populations are up, high school graduation rates are pitiful

the U.S. has the highest violent crime rate out of any "first world" country

co-option of th movements you speak of has only resulted in a wdiening gap between rich and poor....

im glad saul can eat off his music now that hes done a nike commercial.....im guessing that cat was making some money, and probably enough to live on without it

i feel bad for the man, cuz i dont blame him personally for his decision. i blame a much greater system for forcing that option

dunno bout the U.S. but here in Canada even lowly Labourers like where i come from are doing o.k. through the Unions. and healthcare isn't just for the rich here, even if it might still need an overhaul.

i can't accept that the union members are worse off now than before ...

[Nolto]

i find it sad so many people respoonding to this thread have such elementary perspectives on corporatization, money, selling out, etc.

they dont give a fuck about saul's song, they want it to be an advertisement EVERY time the song is played. meaning free advertising.....so saul gets paid, he doesnt get paid every time that song is played, only when it is played on their commercial. People still think of the product when they hear the song without the commercial, therefore completely robbing the song of its meaning and replacing it with a visceral and emotional connection to a commercial product that has absolutely nothing to do with the music he makes, its history, or the people making it etc.

the corporations are asking for saul because they will then be able to be "o.k." with Saul's audience- people who would normally demonize that very corporation.

this is the essence of co-option- they negate their opposition by buying out the people who give power to the opposition.

I find it sad that that this is even defenseable

you dont want to scrub your toilet anymore so youre down to sellout-

thats the whole point- paying people nothing so they have no choice but to give in if they want to have a comfortable life


yall are so easy to control

You're not considering the positive aspects of co-optation. If Nike wants to co-opt Saul, then they will have to adopt (or at least feign the adoption of) certain principles and values. Saul's fanbase would not remain his fanbase if he were to advocate (explicitly) slavery and oppression. Therefore, slave-owners and other oppressors cannot co-opt Saul in order to garner support for their enterprises - that is, not without it being utterly unsuccessful. Saul attracted the fanbase that he has because of the principles and values he was espousing (and because of his talent in expressing those espousals). Therefore, Nike will have to appeal to those principles and values in order for their commissioning of Saul to be worthwhile. This can be very positive for Nike's role in the global community (though, not necessarily so - I am merely suggesting that there can be positives).

Take capitalism in general for example. Capitalist institutions began co-opting socialist movements in order to quell the rising possibility of revolt. In order to achieve effective co-optation, however, they needed to adopt some of the principles and values of the socialist movement: unions, minimum wages - or, more generally - "worker's rights," etc. That co-optation became the birth of modern social-democracies. Some might argue that those social-democracies fall short of the communist ideals that birthed them; but, few would argue that they are worse than the capitalism they replaced.

Just something to consider.

so now that that movement has been co-opted, so graciously so

what are union numbers like right now? lower than ever...

who took over the unions? teamsters....

what is minimum wage? = less than it costs to live, kless than the povert line

who has access to health care coverage? people in the "middle class" barely can afford it, let alont people living in poverty

african americans now make less money (when adjusted for inflation) than they did in the 1970's

prison populations are up, high school graduation rates are pitiful

the U.S. has the highest violent crime rate out of any "first world" country

co-option of th movements you speak of has only resulted in a wdiening gap between rich and poor....

im glad saul can eat off his music now that hes done a nike commercial.....im guessing that cat was making some money, and probably enough to live on without it

i feel bad for the man, cuz i dont blame him personally for his decision. i blame a much greater system for forcing that option

I believe you have missed my point.
Are you trying to say that the social-democratic America that you live in now, is worse than the laissez-faire capitalism that was prevalent through the late 18th century until the end of the great depression? Because, if you are, then I doubt we will be able to find any common ground upon which to have a debate.
Please keep in mind that I am not claiming that social-democracy is perfect, because it is clearly rife with the problems you listed and more. However, and this is what I am arguing, the co-optation of socialist movements was beneficial to the citizens and was an improvement over laissez-faire capitalism. Therefore, co-optation has its positives (no matter how far off the mark it is from attaining a perfect order).

[silence]

no, i am saying that what you consider to be those great steps....like the new deal etc...are now being completely reversed and we are reverting to what was once before.....the concentratio of wealth in a very minute amount of hands....


the middle class was a blip...an class that will soon cease to exist.....the 1950s through the 90s was a alot better than before....but we are heading in a different direction now.....of which has to do a lot with the commercialization of EVERYTHING, not just music....

Nike just so happens to be one of the most powerful companies in the world....and you do not get that way by being nice

[citizen]

@ the fact b. dolan calls himself Employer. hahaha, but nothing can save this thread.....

[Nolto]

no, i am saying that what you consider to be those great steps....like the new deal etc...are now being completely reversed and we are reverting to what was once before.....the concentratio of wealth in a very minute amount of hands....


the middle class was a blip...an class that will soon cease to exist.....the 1950s through the 90s was a alot better than before....but we are heading in a different direction now.....of which has to do a lot with the commercialization of EVERYTHING, not just music....

Nike just so happens to be one of the most powerful companies in the world....and you do not get that way by being nice

Fair enough.
But I think that, so long as Nike continues to co-opt people like Saul Williams, they will need to head toward the direction of "being nice" (for the reasons I listed above - principles and values and shit).
In fact, I would argue that corporations are "heading in a different direction now" because of their lack of co-optation. The social climate is such that corporations do not feel the need to co-opt their opposition (unless they are global warmers, since that seems to be popularly criticized these days).

[hired gun]

i find it sad so many people respoonding to this thread have such elementary perspectives on corporatization, money, selling out, etc.

they dont give a fuck about saul's song, they want it to be an advertisement EVERY time the song is played. meaning free advertising.....so saul gets paid, he doesnt get paid every time that song is played, only when it is played on their commercial. People still think of the product when they hear the song without the commercial, therefore completely robbing the song of its meaning and replacing it with a visceral and emotional connection to a commercial product that has absolutely nothing to do with the music he makes, its history, or the people making it etc.

the corporations are asking for saul because they will then be able to be "o.k." with Saul's audience- people who would normally demonize that very corporation.

this is the essence of co-option- they negate their opposition by buying out the people who give power to the opposition.

I find it sad that that this is even defenseable

you dont want to scrub your toilet anymore so youre down to sellout-

thats the whole point- paying people nothing so they have no choice but to give in if they want to have a comfortable life


yall are so easy to control

You're not considering the positive aspects of co-optation. If Nike wants to co-opt Saul, then they will have to adopt (or at least feign the adoption of) certain principles and values. Saul's fanbase would not remain his fanbase if he were to advocate (explicitly) slavery and oppression. Therefore, slave-owners and other oppressors cannot co-opt Saul in order to garner support for their enterprises - that is, not without it being utterly unsuccessful. Saul attracted the fanbase that he has because of the principles and values he was espousing (and because of his talent in expressing those espousals). Therefore, Nike will have to appeal to those principles and values in order for their commissioning of Saul to be worthwhile. This can be very positive for Nike's role in the global community (though, not necessarily so - I am merely suggesting that there can be positives).

Take capitalism in general for example. Capitalist institutions began co-opting socialist movements in order to quell the rising possibility of revolt. In order to achieve effective co-optation, however, they needed to adopt some of the principles and values of the socialist movement: unions, minimum wages - or, more generally - "worker's rights," etc. That co-optation became the birth of modern social-democracies. Some might argue that those social-democracies fall short of the communist ideals that birthed them; but, few would argue that they are worse than the capitalism they replaced.

Just something to consider.

so now that that movement has been co-opted, so graciously so

what are union numbers like right now? lower than ever...

who took over the unions? teamsters....

what is minimum wage? = less than it costs to live, kless than the povert line

who has access to health care coverage? people in the "middle class" barely can afford it, let alont people living in poverty

african americans now make less money (when adjusted for inflation) than they did in the 1970's

prison populations are up, high school graduation rates are pitiful

the U.S. has the highest violent crime rate out of any "first world" country

co-option of th movements you speak of has only resulted in a wdiening gap between rich and poor....

im glad saul can eat off his music now that hes done a nike commercial.....im guessing that cat was making some money, and probably enough to live on without it

i feel bad for the man, cuz i dont blame him personally for his decision. i blame a much greater system for forcing that option

dunno bout the U.S. but here in Canada even lowly Labourers like where i come from are doing o.k. through the Unions. and healthcare isn't just for the rich here, even if it might still need an overhaul.

i can't accept that the union members are worse off now than before ...

you dont live in the states. Unions are not the same beast they started out as, for the most part. Better then the alternative? Probably. Proof that co-option is a good thing....see silence's last post....its largely correct.

A lot of black and white on both sides, that makes no sense.

[ILL SEER]

i find it sad so many people respoonding to this thread have such elementary perspectives on corporatization, money, selling out, etc.

they dont give a fuck about saul's song, they want it to be an advertisement EVERY time the song is played. meaning free advertising.....so saul gets paid, he doesnt get paid every time that song is played, only when it is played on their commercial. People still think of the product when they hear the song without the commercial, therefore completely robbing the song of its meaning and replacing it with a visceral and emotional connection to a commercial product that has absolutely nothing to do with the music he makes, its history, or the people making it etc.

the corporations are asking for saul because they will then be able to be "o.k." with Saul's audience- people who would normally demonize that very corporation.

this is the essence of co-option- they negate their opposition by buying out the people who give power to the opposition.

I find it sad that that this is even defenseable

you dont want to scrub your toilet anymore so youre down to sellout-

thats the whole point- paying people nothing so they have no choice but to give in if they want to have a comfortable life


yall are so easy to control

You're not considering the positive aspects of co-optation. If Nike wants to co-opt Saul, then they will have to adopt (or at least feign the adoption of) certain principles and values. Saul's fanbase would not remain his fanbase if he were to advocate (explicitly) slavery and oppression. Therefore, slave-owners and other oppressors cannot co-opt Saul in order to garner support for their enterprises - that is, not without it being utterly unsuccessful. Saul attracted the fanbase that he has because of the principles and values he was espousing (and because of his talent in expressing those espousals). Therefore, Nike will have to appeal to those principles and values in order for their commissioning of Saul to be worthwhile. This can be very positive for Nike's role in the global community (though, not necessarily so - I am merely suggesting that there can be positives).

Take capitalism in general for example. Capitalist institutions began co-opting socialist movements in order to quell the rising possibility of revolt. In order to achieve effective co-optation, however, they needed to adopt some of the principles and values of the socialist movement: unions, minimum wages - or, more generally - "worker's rights," etc. That co-optation became the birth of modern social-democracies. Some might argue that those social-democracies fall short of the communist ideals that birthed them; but, few would argue that they are worse than the capitalism they replaced.

Just something to consider.

so now that that movement has been co-opted, so graciously so

what are union numbers like right now? lower than ever...

who took over the unions? teamsters....

what is minimum wage? = less than it costs to live, kless than the povert line

who has access to health care coverage? people in the "middle class" barely can afford it, let alont people living in poverty

african americans now make less money (when adjusted for inflation) than they did in the 1970's

prison populations are up, high school graduation rates are pitiful

the U.S. has the highest violent crime rate out of any "first world" country

co-option of th movements you speak of has only resulted in a wdiening gap between rich and poor....

im glad saul can eat off his music now that hes done a nike commercial.....im guessing that cat was making some money, and probably enough to live on without it

i feel bad for the man, cuz i dont blame him personally for his decision. i blame a much greater system for forcing that option

dunno bout the U.S. but here in Canada even lowly Labourers like where i come from are doing o.k. through the Unions. and healthcare isn't just for the rich here, even if it might still need an overhaul.

i can't accept that the union members are worse off now than before ...

you dont live in the states. Unions are not the same beast they started out as, for the most part. Better then the alternative? Probably. Proof that co-option is a good thing....see silence's last post....its largely correct.

A lot of black and white on both sides, that makes no sense.

i'm in the exact same union as the rest of the Labourer's in the U.S. L.I.U.N.A. is international and run outta Chicago. i know how they've developed and seen their strengthes and weaknesses from the inside. my point was what you just said, it's "better then the alternative".

[hired gun]

^^^

But let's be real. Its still insufficient and mediocre. I should say its better then the alternative in the system we've chosen or considered to be the best..even though its not meeting everyone's needs. The argument that its better then anything else to me is dumb, because its saying that we accept that this is the best that can be done, when its clearly not the case.