How Can the Richest 1 Percent Be Winning This Class War

[Tero]

In our two party system all candidates will be mostly in the center. Sometimes the national mood is slightly to the left (Obama) sometimes way to right (Bush II, Reagan).

[maiforpeace]

In our two party system all candidates will be mostly in the center. Sometimes the national mood is slightly to the left (Obama) sometimes way to right (Bush II, Reagan).

It seems to me that elections, are much more neck to neck these days too...whatever happened to landslides?

[Warren Dew]

how so?

I'm pretty sure the people who benefit from Ronald McDonald House, which you lambaste over in the other thread, are generally not in the top 1% of income.

[sandinista]

how so?

I'm pretty sure the people who benefit from Ronald McDonald House, which you lambaste over in the other thread, are generally not in the top 1% of income.

unlike the ceo's of mcshit. Still...how so? Whats your point? Oh...you have none. People benefit from religious organizations ("charities) all over the fucking world and they are "lambasted" here on a daily basis why would mcshit be any different? Unless, of course, you want people to stop "lambasting" religious organizations in which case, I'm sure there are more appropriate forums.

[.Morticia.]

The oligarchy is winning (sic) because they are psychopaths and because they collude.

[Twiglet]

To the original question about the value of voting, the votes only have power to select between competing options. The grassroots of democracy is about what those options are and how they are decided. Who decides them. Class struggle has always been an active process. Rights to sick leave, holiday pay, healthcare - where they exist - have all been fought for and need to be perpetually defended or be eroded.

The British labour party was born from the unions and the cooperative movement in the late 1800s and until the 1980s the unions remained very influential in selecting what candidates would be fielded for general election - a process which was destroyed under Kinnock under the "one member, one vote" scheme. There are shining examples of individuals who have bucked the party system to win seats in parliament, but that isn't enough to give them much influence - still - it does show that democratic influence can be won.

Generally the rich and powerful have capitulated to the masses only when it was the least financially painful option for them, hardly ever through philanthropy. Politics and big business can hardly be separated these days.

[Azathoth]

The oligarchy is winning (sic) because they are lizards and because they collude.

[.Morticia.]

The oligarchy is winning (sic) because they are lizards and because they collude.

Thank YOU.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Because 80% aren't even aware there is anything they can or should fight for, and even if they were, wouldn't have any time to do it as they are pretty much enslaved by the need to fight with their equals just to stave off an ever growing debt.

True. Also it's often very hard to get most humans to think about anything from a long-termist point of view on any issue. So for most people the short-term individual gains (such as they are) of playing the game the way the rich have set it up, outweigh (in their minds) any long-term collative gains they might gain by trying to change those rules.

The oligarchy is winning (sic) because they are psychopaths and because they collude.

I don't actually think as much active collusion is probably necessary to maintain the oligarchy in power as you might think. Most members of the oligarchy know pretty much by instinct as much as anything else what steps are needed to keep themselves at the top of the pile, I doubt much actual active discussion on the matter takes place among them at all.

I'd say the vast majority of the 'collusion' that takes place at the unspoken level. Never assume conspiracy where greed and human nature are all that's needed.

[Svartalf]

Sandi... you understand that the only way for the 99% downtrodden to get their way is through violence, and that history has shown that revolutions don't lead to a betterment of the general condition of the people, only a shift in the actual membership of the wealthy ruling elites, and that a state of constant civil war is not really the best thing for a country to be in, right?

[Warren Dew]

Unless, of course, you want people to stop "lambasting" religious organizations in which case, I'm sure there are more appropriate forums.

I haven't seen anyone criticizing the genuinely beneficial charitable work done by churches. If I do see such criticism, I'll disagree.

The fact that one is atheist does not require that one be intolerant about religion.

[sandinista]

Sandi... you understand that the only way for the 99% downtrodden to get their way is through violence, and that history has shown that revolutions don't lead to a betterment of the general condition of the people, only a shift in the actual membership of the wealthy ruling elites, and that a state of constant civil war is not really the best thing for a country to be in, right?

History has shown? Revolutions can leas to the betterment of the "general condition" of the people. Cuba is but one example. Besides that, as with most things in politics and life in general, because something hasn't happened yet does not mean it will not.

Unless, of course, you want people to stop "lambasting" religious organizations in which case, I'm sure there are more appropriate forums.

I haven't seen anyone criticizing the genuinely beneficial charitable work done by churches. If I do see such criticism, I'll disagree.
The fact that one is atheist does not require that one be intolerant about religion.

Really? I am sure you HAVE seen people criticize religion and religious institutions though. Does a religions "charity" work discount the wrong doings of the religion or religious institution? Of course not. Thats the point, not so hard to understand. Also, church charity work is widely criticized in atheist literature and web sites. For good reason. Their "charity work" (in the same way as multinationals) is a PR scheme. Little soup here, little jesus there. The guise of "charity" is in reality just another way to push the religion/product. You may not be, but I am intolerant of religion. I see no need for it and believe the world would be better off without it.

[Coito ergo sum]

The answer is that the war is about the middle class being attacked by the lower class, not the middle class against the "top one percent."

When we talk of a "class war" in the socialist sense - socialism does not offer an upgrade for the middle class. It offers a downgrade. They don't want a downgrade. So, in the socialist class struggle, the middle class has nothing to gain but chains.

[sandinista]

The answer is that the war is about the middle class being attacked by the lower class, not the middle class against the "top one percent."

When we talk of a "class war" in the socialist sense - socialism does not offer an upgrade for the middle class. It offers a downgrade. They don't want a downgrade. So, in the socialist class struggle, the middle class has nothing to gain but chains.

chains! so ridiculous no comment is needed, speaks for itself.

[Coito ergo sum]

The answer is that the war is about the middle class being attacked by the lower class, not the middle class against the "top one percent."

When we talk of a "class war" in the socialist sense - socialism does not offer an upgrade for the middle class. It offers a downgrade. They don't want a downgrade. So, in the socialist class struggle, the middle class has nothing to gain but chains.

chains! so ridiculous no comment is needed, speaks for itself.

It's a rhetorical allusion to the socialist call to the proletariat that they have nothing to lose but their chains.