How Can the Richest 1 Percent Be Winning This Class War

[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.

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

I know...it's just neither funny, clever, or correct.

[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.

I know...it's just neither funny, clever, or correct.

LOL - and I'm sure you'll give us your erudite explanation about how the "class war" is merely the top 1% vs. everyone else...

[PsychoSerenity]

No idea how accurate this is, but it's a nice visual representation.

[Rum]

In this country the upper classes are well in charge again. Grammar Schools, which were invented after WW2 were meant to give a chance on a 'meritocratic' basis to kids who had ability. Harolod Wilson, a Labour Party Prime Minister in the 60s was the first not to have gone to a Public school ( For Mericans and others, bizarrely, in terms of language - this means a 'private' school).

This state of affairs lasted a generation or so after which in a bizarre twist grammar schools were abolished because they were viewed as elitist. The result? At the moment the 7% of kids who go to private ('Public') schools make up the majority of our government and opposition senior members - a massive majority in fact.

The fees for these schools are above the national average annual income.

Revolution looks attractive to me at the moment I have to say.

[hadespussercats]

Rum wrote: "( For Mericans and others, bizarrely, in terms of language - this means a 'private' school)."

Public as in owned/funded by the public, private as in owned/funded by private individuals. Nothing too bizarre about that.

Voting in America isn't much power at all, considering structures like the Electoral College, explicitly designed with an eye to limiting the influence of the opinions of the masses. But it is some power-- I agree with Ian on that. Coupled with other grassroots efforts to educate and mobilize the public, and fund candidates favorable to a cause, I have to hope it adds up to something substantial. But you're right-- it's hard to win if you don't have the money, and the deck is stacked.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rum wrote: "( For Mericans and others, bizarrely, in terms of language - this means a 'private' school)."

Public as in owned/funded by the public, private as in owned/funded by private individuals. Nothing too bizarre about that.

Voting in America isn't much power at all, considering structures like the Electoral College, explicitly designed with an eye to limiting the influence of the opinions of the masses. But it is some power-- I agree with Ian on that. Coupled with other grassroots efforts to educate and mobilize the public, and fund candidates favorable to a cause, I have to hope it adds up to something substantial. But you're right-- it's hard to win if you don't have the money, and the deck is stacked.

Agreed, voting is not much power at all, but it is infinitely greater than the alternative.

Regarding the Electoral College - yes, it is was designed to limit the influence of the masses. However, it allows more influence of the masses than allowed in Parliamentary systems when they "elect" a Prime Minister. At least in the electoral system, we vote for the President separately from our Congress people. In Parliamentary system, they vote for a member of Parliament for their district/precinct/riding and then the Parliament itself picks a prime minister (generally the leader of the party with most seats in Parliament). So, if we were to do it like they do it in Parliamentary systems, we would can the Presidential election altogether and just let the Senate Majority Leader or the Speaker of the House be Prime Congressman instead of President.

Also, when the Electoral College was created, it was created in light of a very large country without telephones, and transportation exclusively by horse. There were no direct elections of chief executives anywhere else in the 1780s. It was not an aristocracy seizing power for itself and denying a popular voice - it was the glowing light of a republic really being formed for the first time since the Roman Republic (no offense to Iceland - I know I'll hear from someone on that...but, you get my point). The idea that the citizenry would elect "electors" to go and exercise sound judgment in choosing a leader was (and arguably still is) a good thing. Those electors would then travel to D.C. and cast the ballots in person. The system makes a good deal of sense when viewed in light of the times in which it was created. Could it stand changing now - sure. Quite possibly.

As for the common person being unable to have influence without money, that may be. But the money is out there, and the common person, with work and luck, and a modicum of skill, can become influential. In Obama's SOTU address he pointed out two folks - the two that were sitting behind him - VP Biden, born to a middle class family in Scranton, Pennsylvania, who wound up rising to US Senator and to VP -- and Speaker Boehner - a middle class guy who had an early job sweeping floors - he made it to Speaker of the House. President Bill Clinton was born, most have said, relative modestly if not "poor." Richard Nixon was born to middle class parents. Obama is always touted as having come from a middle class, mixed-race family. Abraham Lincoln. Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson were born poor. Harry Truman was born middle class and worked as a haberdasher for a while. Eisenhower was born to a relatively poor family.

Yes, it takes money - but, it takes more sweat than money to become a council member in your city or town. From there, it takes more sweat than money to become mayor. Once one is mayor and participates in Democratic or Republican, or now Tea Party or Libertarian Party, functions, funding can be available for a run at a State House seat, or even a US Congressional seat.

It is most assuredly possible for middle class folks to be elected to low and high office alike. Is it likely that a given individual is going to be a Bill Clinton - no, of course not. but, only 44 men have been President of the US in 235 years, so the odds are bound to be slim no matter what. And, to be influential one doesn't have to be President. City Council and Mayor are influential positions where one can help one's community - people ought to run for election more often. I think the main obstacle that people face is basically the one thing that people like least: it takes work, dedication, determination and willpower. Unfortunately, many people want things to just happen for them.

[sandinista]

Rum wrote: "( For Mericans and others, bizarrely, in terms of language - this means a 'private' school)."

Public as in owned/funded by the public, private as in owned/funded by private individuals. Nothing too bizarre about that.

Voting in America isn't much power at all, considering structures like the Electoral College, explicitly designed with an eye to limiting the influence of the opinions of the masses. But it is some power-- I agree with Ian on that. Coupled with other grassroots efforts to educate and mobilize the public, and fund candidates favorable to a cause, I have to hope it adds up to something substantial. But you're right-- it's hard to win if you don't have the money, and the deck is stacked.

Agreed, voting is not much power at all, but it is infinitely greater than the alternative.

Which is? What is the alternative to voting? Let me guess "doing nothing". Either vote or do nothing.

[Robert_S]

Rum wrote: "( For Mericans and others, bizarrely, in terms of language - this means a 'private' school)."

Public as in owned/funded by the public, private as in owned/funded by private individuals. Nothing too bizarre about that.

Voting in America isn't much power at all, considering structures like the Electoral College, explicitly designed with an eye to limiting the influence of the opinions of the masses. But it is some power-- I agree with Ian on that. Coupled with other grassroots efforts to educate and mobilize the public, and fund candidates favorable to a cause, I have to hope it adds up to something substantial. But you're right-- it's hard to win if you don't have the money, and the deck is stacked.

Agreed, voting is not much power at all, but it is infinitely greater than the alternative.

Which is? What is the alternative to voting? Let me guess "doing nothing". Either vote or do nothing.

There is no alternative to voting except on election day. On all the other days, it is either do something or do nothing.

I vote because those who look at the results will put down to laziness and apathy what might be due to disgust and disillusionment.

[sandinista]

There is no alternative to voting except on election day. On all the other days, it is either do something or do nothing.

I vote because those who look at the results will put down to laziness and apathy what might be due to disgust and disillusionment.

Not sure what you mean by "There is no alternative to voting except on election day"

I could care less what those who look at the results think. If they think not voting is lazy I would counter and say voting is naive. Doesn't much matter. There are much better ways to be politically active than voting for Mr.cash or Mr.money.

[Robert_S]

There is no alternative to voting except on election day. On all the other days, it is either do something or do nothing.

I vote because those who look at the results will put down to laziness and apathy what might be due to disgust and disillusionment.

Not sure what you mean by "There is no alternative to voting except on election day"

I could care less what those who look at the results think. If they think not voting is lazy I would counter and say voting is naive. Doesn't much matter. There are much better ways to be politically active than voting for Mr.cash or Mr.money.

I mean, it's never an either/or decision except on election day.

Also, voting on the local level has real results, at least in my experience, that have tangible effects on the lives of real, observable people. I mean, my city fucking decriminalised weed, spends a lot on education, and put a lot of money toward a bike lane from a low-income neighbourhood to the downtown area.

That didn't happen because people stopped being too naive to vote.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rum wrote: "( For Mericans and others, bizarrely, in terms of language - this means a 'private' school)."

Public as in owned/funded by the public, private as in owned/funded by private individuals. Nothing too bizarre about that.

Voting in America isn't much power at all, considering structures like the Electoral College, explicitly designed with an eye to limiting the influence of the opinions of the masses. But it is some power-- I agree with Ian on that. Coupled with other grassroots efforts to educate and mobilize the public, and fund candidates favorable to a cause, I have to hope it adds up to something substantial. But you're right-- it's hard to win if you don't have the money, and the deck is stacked.

Agreed, voting is not much power at all, but it is infinitely greater than the alternative.

Which is? What is the alternative to voting? Let me guess "doing nothing". Either vote or do nothing.

The alternative to a system where we can vote is a system where we can't vote. The former is infinitely preferable to the latter.

[Robert_S]

Actually, I think the richest fraction of a percent has al that money because they're either the ones who want that much money that badly or their offspring.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no alternative to voting except on election day. On all the other days, it is either do something or do nothing.

I vote because those who look at the results will put down to laziness and apathy what might be due to disgust and disillusionment.

Not sure what you mean by "There is no alternative to voting except on election day"

I could care less what those who look at the results think. If they think not voting is lazy I would counter and say voting is naive. Doesn't much matter. There are much better ways to be politically active than voting for Mr.cash or Mr.money.

Maybe that's how it works in Canada. But, here, we have lengthy ballots with many, many candidates for many, many positions. I participated in a fund raiser for a city council candidate in my city recently. He's a good guy, and isn't part of some moneyed Illuminati conspiracy that you think controls all the elections. He can win and move on from there, possibly to become mayor. Voting for him counts, because the total number of votes cast in city council elections are fairly low. The people running for city government, including mayor, are generally middle-aged professionals who worked there ass off either in a profession or by running a business.

There's also state representatives, attorneys general, judges, and other elected officials to chime in about. Many times - quite commonly - third party, fourth party, and fifth party candidates get elected to those positions.

One of the things voting in the US actually does is provide people with an impetus, at least once every few years, to take at least a quick look look at the issues, the structure of government, and politicians in the offing. Most folks don't know shit about any of the candidates and can't be arsed to spend 5 minutes learning a damn thing about a judge or a mayoral candidate. That's the real problem - an idiot electorate that votes almost at random, or like we saw in South Carolina's democratic primary last year, votes for someone who sounds like a singer, "Al Green."

[Pappa]

I was thinking about this thread while walking to work this morning and was wondering if anyone had mentioned The Matrix yet (and specifically the metaphor it presents for what's being discussed in this thread).

[Ian]

Maybe that's how it works in Canada. But, here, we have lengthy ballots with many, many candidates for many, many positions.


There's also state representatives, attorneys general, judges, and other elected officials to chime in about. Many times - quite commonly - third party, fourth party, and fifth party candidates get elected to those positions.


One of the things voting in the US actually does is provide people with an impetus, at least once every few years, to take at least a quick look look at the issues, the structure of government, and politicians in the offing.

Not to mention all the down-ticket items. I can understand how someone could be cynical enough to think all politicians, from whichever party, are slimy and inherintly corrupt, and that John Q. Citizen can't make a difference. If that's what you think then fine - fold your arms, stick out your tongue and don't vote for any of them. But in every election, beneath all the candidates for various offices, there are some propositions the public gets to vote on directly. Rare instances of (nearly) true democracy instead of republicanism. And those who don't even bother to make their voice heard on such issues have no business complaining about them after the fact.