Your Thoughts on Class Warfare

[GracieRuth]

The wallstreet protests have a certain element of class warfare, although obviously it's not the Russian Revolution. I curious where on the spectrum the forum falls in terms of the protest of the "99% against the 1%" (I suspect those stats are not accurate, but this is what is being voiced).

 

[Norton]

To have "class warfare" there must be defined divisions between the classes. That is, there must be barriers between the classes that prevent movement from one class to another and the classes must be identifiable. We don't have "classes" in the US in this sense. Indeed, here there is still significant social mobility or, at least, optimistic aspirations for such. Dreams of wealth keep most people docile.

The whole idea of "class warfare" is nonsense and the phrase has been coined purely for political purposes by Republicans who care for the 2% that fill their coffers and not the 98% who are merely targets to be bamboozled. Since when does resenting the wealthy (common in bad times, uncommon in good times) get translated into "warfare?" Furthermore, people don't generally resent people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who became wealthy by inventing and producing products that have met the needs of society. Rather, it is the wealthy merchant bankers and traders who are most resented because they appear to many people to become rich just by moving money around while adding nothing to the general welfare of society. These are the guys whom we bailed out and yet, they never suffered from their stupid mistakes and graft. When the economy is good, the 2% profit. When the economy is bad, the 98% rescue the 2%. That's not capitalism. That's reverse welfare. The only jobs most of these guys ever created were for butlers, cooks, and maids. I say tax 'em.

 

[bamf]

The Wall Street protesters are there because of the class warfare that has already been waged.

 

[GracieRuth]

Yes we have social mobility. The left underates it; the right overrates it. During some decades there is more mobility than others -- i.e. the 1950's were fabulous for allowing unskilled workers to be able to afford homes, cars, and TVs. But let's face it: the main way to make money is to start with money and invest in a business or stocks. The poor don't have the capital to begin with, and no we can't get loans. I know because one of my dreams is to open a healthy foods restaurant and even with a great business plan, I can't get a loan unless I have a lot of money of my own to add to the mix.

One of my pet peeves is that even in the 21st century, our society is still marred by monopolies and trusts: collusion by corporations to price fix or drive out competition. We know the economy thrives when individuals and families start up small businesses/farms. But everything in the present has driven small farms and businesses into the ground. Now we have these gigantic empire corporations that are owned by zillions of stock holders who only care about the short term bottom line, instead of long term policies. That is where I'd like to see real change: governmental limits on corporate practices that do not benefit society and better supports for small entrepreneurial endeavors. And it really irritates me because NEITHER party is championing this.

Wallmart is the anti-christ! He he he he.

 

[Norton]

I began with no money. I ended up with a lot. Started three companies. On the way, worked my ass off, took ridiculous risks and failed over and over. For our first company, we got reamed 54 times by 54 different venture capitalists before we got funded. Most people have no idea how persistent you have to be to succeed. Every time you hear a success story, it's the exception because hundreds of people fail for the one who succeeds. Until you've risked everything and taken a second mortgage on your house to meet payroll, you're just on the sidelines. The rich don't "create jobs." It's those who begin as middle class, entrepreneurial maniacs who do. And, I'm fine with paying 39% instead of 35% for the highest marginal tax rate. If you're wealthy and can't figure out how to live with an additional 4% income taxes, you're an idiot.

 

[gps]

The wall street protests have a certain element of class warfare, although obviously it's not the Russian Revolution.
I'm curious where on the spectrum the forum falls in terms of the protest of the "99% against the 1%" (I suspect those stats are not accurate, but this is what is being voiced).

`Class warfare' is a term meaningful in England where the press uses it.
In the US the press seems reticent to use the term ... as if not talking about it could prevent the same real-world results avoided by an ostrich with its head in the sand.

George Orwell's Animal Farm did a pretty good job of portraying Stratification of classes which emerge in any-every hierarchy.
All animals are created equal ... and may remain so until a hierarchy emerges in which more-equal pigs emerge.

I'm one of the 1% who does not have mod or admin privileges which render me more-equal in THIS socio-impolitical setting.
Shhhhh ... let's not talk about he elephant in the living room and only notice the `class warfare' in effect elsewhere ... yeah, that Occupy Wall Street thingy.
Pay no attention to `the man' behind the curtain ... with `Super Mod' class here in this forum or the more-equal status provided by a 6 or 7-figure income on Wall Street.
Same shit ... different context.

Surprise! Classes and inequalities emerge in hierarchies.
People simply LOVE Orwellian more-equal status while paying lip service to fairness, equality, law & order, etc.
There was an asshole in another group who had Super Mod status and used it to issue me an infraction via that more-equal class status ... now he's over here as a penny stinker raising issues about moderation after abusing more-equal `moderator' status elsewhere.
My point?
Whether its `class warfare' or interclass competition or interclass interaction ... a person's class/category derived power CAN and DOES greatly effect their de facto rights and privileges.

By way of an experiment how about asking the owner of this group how much of a `donation' you'd have to make to have the Admin and mods all flushed out and a slate of candidates put up for election.
My guess is that you'd find out about `class warfare' and how money can buy (im)political favors.
A bank made a `donation' of several million dollars to the NYPD before the Occupy Wall street protests commenced.
Though how could anyone suspect that such a `donation' bought them any influence or favoritism with the police commissioner or mayor?

Yes, Virgina, classes DO exist or SEEM TO ... and every hierarchy in which you ever participate will find you with status, power, and influence commensurate with your `class' within the hierarchy.
All that bullshit you've heard about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is just that when more-equal others can censor you and/or prevent you from assembling (EG signing on and reading the (by)products of others using freedom of speech/expression).
A more-equal paternalist may not behold his or her suppression, suspension, or ever-so-slight `revision' of your would-be Rights or privileges as `warfare' ... though you might.
One man's experience of (class) `warfare' might be another man's notion of `good governance'.
Feel free to ask each member of the `staff' class here just to get their individual takes on `class warfare' vs paternalistic nondemocratic `good governance' ;-)

 

[Gaze]

It pretty much comes down to fairness. What people are concerned about his how fair the current system is. Unequal distribution of wealth may not seem fair but it's allowable under our current economic system. There is no law which says everyone must have the same income level. But there are regulations of the economy in place to avoid restrictions on opportunities for every person. There are also regulations, however inefficient in some cases, to limit abuses of the system. One side of the coin asks "how much should the state be allowed to regulate human behavior in economic interactions - marketplace, even if there are inequalities". Another side says, how much should the free flow of capital and the potential to make enormous wealth be regulated to prevent one group or corporations from creating monopolies or solely benefitting from the work of other, more economically dependent groups, or from continuing to establish and support inequalities in opportunities, resources, or choices for individuals or groups without these capital advantages.

Don't think it's a simple question.

 

[gps]

It pretty much comes down to fairness.
What people are concerned about his how fair the current system is.

I'm not sure its about `the' current system qua system so much as the widespread experiencing of discontentment, dissatisfaction, and injustice.

Unequal distribution of wealth may not seem fair but it's allowable under our current economic system.
There is no law which says everyone must have the same income level.
But there are regulations of the economy in place to avoid restrictions on opportunities for every person.
There are also regulations, however inefficient in some cases, to limit abuses of the system.
One side of the coin asks "how much should the state be allowed to regulate human behavior in economic interactions - marketplace, even if there are inequalities".
Another side says, how much should the free flow of capital and the potential to make enormous wealth be regulated to prevent one group or corporations from creating monopolies or solely benefiting from the work of other, more economically dependent groups, or from continuing to establish and support inequalities in opportunities, resources, or choices for individuals or groups without these capital advantages.

I don't think it's about `capital' per se.
It seems a lot of those depicted as the 99% are those with strapping debt from college loans and no means to pay them back.
Housing/shelter is also at issue.

I recently attended a legal meeting with a woman friend who HAD owned the land a single-wide trailer had been located upon.
She owned the land and had a title to the trailer home.
When `the bank' (mis)used to obtain a loan stepped in the option for a `title' for the double-wide trailer was overlooked and a `mortgage' -- involving the land rather than just personal property in the form of the double wide -- jeopardizing ownership of the land previously owned outright was signed.
The job required to pay the mortgage disappeared and rather than the bank having title to the double wide -- and thus legally able to come and haul it away -- they had legal title to the land AND the double wide trailer as HOME sweet home.
People KNOW they are all too dependent on the undependable dynamic duo of employers and banks.
The mortgage holders and college students KNOW the bank owns them and the potential employers can snub them and prevent them from paying the banks.
Toooooo many individuals find themselves in dire straights.

For many it's WAAAAY more up close and personal than `income', `the system', `the economy' or any other abstraction.
People have been evicted from homes OWNED by banks and unemployed by former employers and denied employment by potential future employers.
When emotion runs high mere abstractions become ... well ... mere abstractions.
Most folks want a home and a means of paying the loans which keeping them afloat or for upward mobility through formal education.