Classism

So Raw, what is this about?

Basically, I think he's stating his attitudes on class for others to poke holes in.

It is true that belonging to a certain class encourages certain attitudes and behaviour. However, it is not fair to judge people on the basis of belonging to certain class, or consider people from certain class to be automatically better than others.

'Class Warfare' is not perpetuated by the poor against the rich, it is perpetuated by the rich against everyone else.

The rich in this country hold too much power and too much wealth. We're quickly devolving into a Plutocracy.

edited 30th Oct '10 10:55:54 AM by CommandoDude

^ Dude, humanity has been devolving into a plutocracy ever since it was possible to accumulate riches! Seriously, that comment could apply to ANY era, in ANY country... including the USSR-tachi.

Look, it's not a matter of prejudice, it's a matter of lawmaking for our Hypothetical Country: should there be discrimination based on statistics? For example, if the poorest setion of the population is the most likely to commit violent crimes and felonies, should they be forbidden from having weapons, by the expedient of making the permit extremely expensive? Same thing for drugs: whould we make them legal but overtaxed so that only certain incomes can afford them?

'Class Warfare' is not perpetuated by the poor against the rich, it is perpetuated by the rich against everyone else.

I find it quite hard to believe that rich people make a habit of stepping on the little guy, I'm afraid.

Right, we're talking about a group of people hellbent on making sure our votes don't count, or that we vote against anything that would benefit us and hurt them. Corporate media constantly diverts attention away from the real issues to scare tactics. Our politicians vote how their campaign donors want them to. The regulatory industries that are suppose to keep us safe stand clear aside from their payers. Hell, the GOP repeats the US Chamber of Commerce talking points word for word. Rich oilmen like the Kock brothers release memos to other influential people on how to distract or misinform the public.

Various high echelons of our government flat out simply answer to corporate America.

And you wouldn't call that Class warfare?

Dude, humanity has been devolving into a plutocracy ever since it was possible to accumulate riches! Seriously, that comment could apply to ANY era, in ANY country... including the USSR-tachi.

Frankly it sounds like you don't understand what a Plutocracy is. Because there is a difference between a country in which the wealthy control the power, and the powerful control the wealth. The USSR was a clear example of the latter, not the former.

All of this started with the Reagan administration in the 80s.

edited 30th Oct '10 11:45:07 AM by CommandoDude

More like class rape, I'm afraid. They're fucking all of you over, you enjoy it, and you dream of taking that role and fucking other people too.

I find that offensive because I don't. Nobody enjoys it. Everyone just pretends that it isn't happening because reality is more painful then an illusion.

"DEY TERK AWR JERBZ"? You may be right, but it has been hammered into the minds of Americans that objectivism hardwork personal freedom guns car cowboys ranch our values manliness liberals are pansies entrepreneurs make the economy go round yadda yadda. When they see a "liberal" it's all they can do not to shoot them on sight. Except when that liberal is Kenneth Yamaoka.

So do I, but for different reasons. Power... I won't be able to handle it, I'm fine with authority, you know, ideological influence. You can't be a Paragon AND a Science Hero, that's not compatible. There's practically no way of getting your hands dirty on the street without losing Obligation.

Basically, I think most people find your arguments a Chewbacca Defense.

I mean if poor people actually try to start a revolution, well, maybe things are bad enough where we need one. That's a big part of why it's in the constitution.

And before you go OMG, the military'll curbstomp us! I don't know about hypotheticals, but Iraq could fit in a Illinois. The whole idea of a military is really powerful enough to subdue a reasonably large, spread out, armed guerilla populous, seems very far fetched.

What weith the lessons of the American Revolutionary war, The American Civil War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

As you said in the other thread, ideally the poor are respected, or at least have stronger insentive to act through other means, but it's there.

Guns have an important role in civil rights movements as Malcom X would attest. The right to bear arms protect a citizens life when the government fails from ritualistic failure to fulfill it's duties all the way up to genocide.

The poor are the most likely to get stomped on, and the ones who need the constitution the most to protect them.

edited 31st Oct '10 4:15:11 PM by Roman

Its difficult. For one thing, its hard enough to prosper when you start off with little, its even harder if people are actively stepping on you.

I'd like to see some examples of this kind of corporate warfare... I'm reluctant to call it class warfare per se.

Businesses, like everything, should be geared towards, ideally, making the people running the business, from the guy who mans the till to the CEO, as prosperous as possible. Skill levels have to be taken into account, its much harder being a high level manager than it is to man a till and clean shop, but I don't like people getting paid an exorbitant share of the money. There's a point where the amount you are paid exceeds any possible benefit you could be giving to society.

But at the end of the day, unless you want to legislate directly on how much more of a companys profits one person can take home compared to the other people in the company, it comes down to the nature of the company... and thus, the people running it. Companies are dictatorships or oligarchies, not democracies. And as long as that structure exists, we will always, to some extent, be ruled by oligarchies.

Irak and Afghanistan rebels had foreign aid and foreign bases. The Confederates LOST the Civil War. The British had to bring their armies from another continent, at such an era. So, yeah, I'm rather certain a revolution based on a minority becoming violent will be crushed. A revolution based on a majority will not need to get violent, because it will win the elections.

Not if the elections are already so badly mired in smokescreens and self-interested parties that the people can never get what they want. Democracies have failed and fallen into rebellion before, it can happen again. However, I have never seen a rebellion lead to something positive in the first hundred years after its establishment. No, not even the US, though that one did work out better than any other I've seen.

The idealistic rebels usually either mutate into the new cynical upper class or get backstabbed and broken by cynical or, in the case of the Russian communist revolution, down right sociopathic "comrades". You end up with the same situation, or usually even worse, only with more blood and treasure wasted.

Yes, but is it worth it, to let it happen? A government that fears its people is easily paranoid and brutal... and short-lived.

Let what happen? And it is true that a government that fears its people will take steps to silence them unless the leaders are very restrained.

Let the technical conditions for a revolution to be able to happen if not for psychological/ideological/logistical reasons, that's what.

How would that ever happen? It would require the existing authorities to deliberately make their position as vulnerable to revolution as possible. Democracy, sort of, already allows that, to a limited extent (as we've seen, that is limited by the powers of interested parties.)

It seems to be an impossibility.

Of course, they had foreign aid. So did America 1770s. The world's been global for a long damn time. Someone will always stick their oar in.

The point is, countries are big, and there isn't enough man power on the planet to secure a country with police much bigger than Lichtenstein or so.

Now, odds of it happening in most decent countries? Pratically nothing, but that's because they're decent countries. Unpopular uprisings always get crushed, but popular uprisings always have a shot.

The civil war went on for years, even though the north was a far stronger industrial base, as long as you want to secure a place and not nuke it or burn it all down (as Sherman or Truman had to) then rebellion has a very good chance of succeeding.

The Late King of Morocco Hassan II struck down ALL rebellions For Massive Damage and never failed to rule the country with an iron fist. So have many lifelong tyrabts, but his regime is outlasting him by at least a decade, which is exceptional. So, no, you CAN secure countries of any size (ask Stalin or Mao).

Because they lacked access to weapons. This is sort of the point. Also, all Wikipedia says about Hassan is a single coup and a couple assassination attempts. This does not a popular uprising make.

edited 31st Oct '10 6:09:32 PM by Roman

Wikipedia is being horribly unexhaustive. One year: 1981.