Conditions ripe for uprising across America

[Ian]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

What is it then?

The masses don't own anything and all the profits go to the privileged and foreign corps.

Seems like a mature capitalist economy to me.

Also sounds like any number of leftist dictatorships in history.

[Robert_S]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

True. The official name for the country (since Qaddafi took over) is The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

If anything, Libya might wind up becoming more of a free market state after the Leader and Guide of the Revolution is finally thrown out or killed. I'm guessing that'll be a matter of days.

Yah. Tin-pot Marxist dictators are still dictators, even if they use capitalistic economic ideas to support their kleptocracy.

So it's a mixed economy dictatorship?

[laklak]

The playing field may not be flat, but it's hardly a cliff. I can give any number of examples from my own experience of people who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They're not super rich, but they live comfortable, middle-class lives despite (in some cases) absolutely horrendous upbringings. That doesn't mean that we can sit back and say "they're poor because they're lazy" any more than we can say "everyone who is successful has rich parents". As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

Only, your second statement is far more accurate than your first. Not sure what "truth" your referring to.

By "second statement" do you mean "everyone who is successful has rich parents"?

What I mean that both the hard left and hard right (if those terms even mean anything any longer) are guilty of the same sort of hyperbole. There are undoubtedly people who are poor precisely because they are lazy, and there are undoubtedly people who are successful only because they are from wealthy families, but the majority of reasonably successful people are successful because of their own efforts. The guy who cuts my lawn and just bought a new truck and equipment and hired additional workers - he's certainly not from a wealthy family, but has moved into the middle class by dint of hard work. Same for my future son in law, who came from an abusive, drunken, drug addicted family but now owns a motorcycle repair shop and manages a wine shop (kid works his ass off).

To view the world in strictly Marxist or strictly Libertarian terms misses the point that neither are workable political or economic systems.

[nojesusknowpeace]

Conditions for an uprising have been "ripe" for about 230+ years.
We have already had a civil war over a major issue and there were two decades full of social unrest in the last century (the 1930's and the 1960's).

Most people in the US are too complacent or under the illusion that they possess (or can achieve) the "American Dream."
This mindset will prevent civil unrest in all but the egregious of political,economic or social crises, IMO.

[JimC]

The playing field may not be flat, but it's hardly a cliff. I can give any number of examples from my own experience of people who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They're not super rich, but they live comfortable, middle-class lives despite (in some cases) absolutely horrendous upbringings. That doesn't mean that we can sit back and say "they're poor because they're lazy" any more than we can say "everyone who is successful has rich parents". As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

Only, your second statement is far more accurate than your first. Not sure what "truth" your referring to.

By "second statement" do you mean "everyone who is successful has rich parents"?

What I mean that both the hard left and hard right (if those terms even mean anything any longer) are guilty of the same sort of hyperbole. There are undoubtedly people who are poor precisely because they are lazy, and there are undoubtedly people who are successful only because they are from wealthy families, but the majority of reasonably successful people are successful because of their own efforts. The guy who cuts my lawn and just bought a new truck and equipment and hired additional workers - he's certainly not from a wealthy family, but has moved into the middle class by dint of hard work. Same for my future son in law, who came from an abusive, drunken, drug addicted family but now owns a motorcycle repair shop and manages a wine shop (kid works his ass off).

To view the world in strictly Marxist or strictly Libertarian terms misses the point that neither are workable political or economic systems.

I agree in general, particularly that there are a fair number of "rags to riches" stories, which require dedication and hard work. There is some tendency on the left to sneer at such folk, or even (at the extreme) deem them to be "class traitors"

However, I am still disturbed by the fact that it takes so much more effort for the children of the poor to achieve both educational and economic goals in life. The children of the wealthy, in the main, can achieve their (usually higher) economic aspirations with considerably less effort, riding on the back of their parent's wealth and privilege, and easy access to superior quality education.

Even with some moderate degree of upward mobility, the monied classes on average cement their continuing places in the upper echelons with relative ease...

However, Marxism is not an answer...

Or at least not a realistic answer here and now, given its historical track record of virtually inevitable totalitarianism...

I lean towards society putting a lot more effort and money into education for people who usually do not aspire to live their dreams.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

Let's assume this is true, and that only some people in the US effectively have opportunity.

Your suggested replacement would do what, exactly, to improve that? How would communism give everyone more opportunity than they have now?

there are many different ways to enable people to do what they want

The best way it to

ASK THEM

not tell them.

So, how would communism give everyone more opportunity than they have now?

Are you under the impression that under communism, there will be a group of people going around "asking" what each individual wants to do, and that whatever they want to do, they'll get to do? Is that it? Or, if not - what is it?

[Coito ergo sum]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

You're under the impression that they have free market capitalism in Libya?

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

They are under the bootheel of a totalitarian dictator who is the sworn enemy of the western capitalist states, particularly the US who blew up his fucking house and had air raids on his territory after he masterminded and carried out the Pan Am airplane bombing over Lockerbie Scotland, killing hundreds of Americans.

Are serious?

Fucking Libya has socialist "command economy" not a free market, Morticia. Jesus fucking tap-dancing christ! It's economy is "planned" and "controlled" - the government has complete control over the allocation of resources.

Libya's official name is: Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya It's government is a de facto military dictatorship, and free market capitalism is effectively impossible there.

[Coito ergo sum]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

What is it then?

A socialist command economy wherein the military dictatorship (the state) controls and plans the economy and allocates all resources.

The masses don't own anything and all the profits go to the privileged and foreign corps.

That's what generally happens in extreme socialist economies (as opposed to western European mixed economies). Like - in soviet socialist countries - the masses didn't own jack-shit. Like in Cuba, the masses don't own anything and the profits go to the privileged, and the state (dictatorship).

Seems like a mature capitalist economy to me.

And, that shows that you don't know what capitalism is. Capitalism means that private individuals get to own stuff and do what they want with it. That's why the "poor" in the US still generally have houses, cars, microwaves, air conditioning, wide-screen televisions with digital cable, have cell phones, internet access and food enough to make 67% of them overweight.

[Seth]

However, I am still disturbed by the fact that it takes so much more effort for the children of the poor to achieve both educational and economic goals in life. The children of the wealthy, in the main, can achieve their (usually higher) economic aspirations with considerably less effort, riding on the back of their parent's wealth and privilege, and easy access to superior quality education.

This falsely presupposes that wealth and privilege are automatic generators of character and work ethic. I think Paris Hilton is an authoritative refutation of that notion. On the other hand, Donald Trump's children have never been a free ride in the working world. Yes, they enjoy luxury and opulence, but their father makes them work for their living, and he's a harsh taskmaster. He's also said publicly that none of his children will inherit a dime from him when he dies. They are responsible for making their own way, and wealth, in the world. Trump's a great man, and a good father.

There are too many bankrupt trust-fund babies to make the broad comment that family wealth guarantees economic success. Too many dead celebrities too.

Adversity breeds character, and the very best among us of the ultra wealthy have made their fortunes all on their own, like Warren Buffet and even people like the founder of Texaco, John W. "Bet a Million" Gates, who started out selling barbed wire in Texas and Oklahoma before the turn of the century. He would buy a few acres of land near a ranching community and would erect a barbed-wire enclosure and then challenge ranchers to put their meanest livestock inside, just to prove the fencing could contain them. He sold a lot of wire, but in the process, he ended up owning patches of land on some of the richest oil fields in the United States. When the oil boom happened, Gates took advantage and made his fortune by virtue of hard work and luck.

Even with some moderate degree of upward mobility, the monied classes on average cement their continuing places in the upper echelons with relative ease...

Not really disputed, but the US is nothing if not a meritocracy, and anybody with the moxie to build their own fortune can move to the top quickly. Just look at Bill Gates.

However, Marxism is not an answer...

Or at least not a realistic answer here and now, given its historical track record of virtually inevitable totalitarianism...

Yup.

I lean towards society putting a lot more effort and money into education for people who usually do not aspire to live their dreams.

Yup. If I'm going to have to redistribute my wealth to the poor, then I want them sitting in a classroom learning a useful trade for eight hours a day. When they graduate the course, their public assistance is cut off and they go looking for work. That's something I could live with.

[Seth]

That's why the "poor" in the US still generally have houses, cars, microwaves, air conditioning, wide-screen televisions with digital cable, have cell phones, internet access and food enough to make 67% of them overweight.

And that ought to be the metric for cutting off aid to the "poor;" if you are obese, you have too much public money.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

This falsely presupposes that wealth and privilege are automatic generators of character and work ethic. I think Paris Hilton is an authoritative refutation of that notion. On the other hand, Donald Trump's children have never been a free ride in the working world. Yes, they enjoy luxury and opulence, but their father makes them work for their living, and he's a harsh taskmaster. He's also said publicly that none of his children will inherit a dime from him when he dies. They are responsible for making their own way, and wealth, in the world. Trump's a great man, and a good father.

There are too many bankrupt trust-fund babies to make the broad comment that family wealth guarantees economic success. Too many dead celebrities too.

Adversity breeds character, and the very best among us of the ultra wealthy have made their fortunes all on their own, like Warren Buffet and even people like the founder of Texaco, John W. "Bet a Million" Gates, who started out selling barbed wire in Texas and Oklahoma before the turn of the century. He would buy a few acres of land near a ranching community and would erect a barbed-wire enclosure and then challenge ranchers to put their meanest livestock inside, just to prove the fencing could contain them. He sold a lot of wire, but in the process, he ended up owning patches of land on some of the richest oil fields in the United States. When the oil boom happened, Gates took advantage and made his fortune by virtue of hard work and luck.

Anecdotal examples of this nature do not change the overall picture. For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

[laklak]

Ignoring for a moment inherited, generational wealth ala Paris Hilton (a more useless twat would be hard to imagine), is it possible that the children of those that are reasonably well off have "inherited" a work ethic? My sister and brother in law are attorneys, he was the son of off-the-boat Italian immigrants, she is the daughter of a civil engineer who pulled himself out of grinding, lace-curtain Irish poverty by dint of a lot of hard work and the GI bill. They're successful people, and both worked their asses off for years to finish law school and establish successful practices. Their children are also successful - in athletics, academics and personal relationships. Their parent's money hasn't "bought" them anything, both attended Florida public schools. The oldest is on full scholarship (premed) at a State university and is pulling a 4.2 overall average. The younger has just started high school, in the gifted program, plays football, baseball and basketball. My sister and her husband will simply not tolerate anything other than exceptional performance.

[Atheist-Lite]

Ignoring for a moment inherited, generational wealth ala Paris Hilton (a more useless twat would be hard to imagine), is it possible that the children of those that are reasonably well off have "inherited" a work ethic? My sister and brother in law are attorneys, he was the son of off-the-boat Italian immigrants, she is the daughter of a civil engineer who pulled himself out of grinding, lace-curtain Irish poverty by dint of a lot of hard work and the GI bill. They're successful people, and both worked their asses off for years to finish law school and establish successful practices. Their children are also successful - in athletics, academics and personal relationships. Their parent's money hasn't "bought" them anything, both attended Florida public schools. The oldest is on full scholarship (premed) at a State university and is pulling a 4.2 overall average. The younger has just started high school, in the gifted program, plays football, baseball and basketball. My sister and her husband will simply not tolerate anything other than exceptional performance.

They sound a bit anal to me.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

This falsely presupposes that wealth and privilege are automatic generators of character and work ethic. I think Paris Hilton is an authoritative refutation of that notion. On the other hand, Donald Trump's children have never been a free ride in the working world. Yes, they enjoy luxury and opulence, but their father makes them work for their living, and he's a harsh taskmaster. He's also said publicly that none of his children will inherit a dime from him when he dies. They are responsible for making their own way, and wealth, in the world. Trump's a great man, and a good father.

There are too many bankrupt trust-fund babies to make the broad comment that family wealth guarantees economic success. Too many dead celebrities too.

Adversity breeds character, and the very best among us of the ultra wealthy have made their fortunes all on their own, like Warren Buffet and even people like the founder of Texaco, John W. "Bet a Million" Gates, who started out selling barbed wire in Texas and Oklahoma before the turn of the century. He would buy a few acres of land near a ranching community and would erect a barbed-wire enclosure and then challenge ranchers to put their meanest livestock inside, just to prove the fencing could contain them. He sold a lot of wire, but in the process, he ended up owning patches of land on some of the richest oil fields in the United States. When the oil boom happened, Gates took advantage and made his fortune by virtue of hard work and luck.

Anecdotal examples of this nature do not change the overall picture. For every example like these, there would be hundreds of a much more typical situation, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy, often with some, but not excessive, pressure from their parents, do enough (perhaps without setting the world on fire, but without being slackers either) to take their place in Dad's law firm etc. This is the pattern expected on average, and the quirky departures from it (the lazy drones, or the driven parent) just that...
It's certainly true that they can be joined by the sons and daughters of the poor, and in somewhat greater numbers than sandinista would have it, but entrenched wealth, on average, still marches happily down the generations...

And why shouldn't it? What do parents work for but to make life better for their children?

[laklak]

They sound a bit anal to me.

Hell, I think they are. My kids are completely different. We drink and smoke a lot, but that's just us. My point is that the perceived differences in "success" or "accomplishment" cannot simply be put down to "wealth". It's much more complex than that, and the attitudes of the parents, whether wealthy or not, are a better predictor of success than their economic status.