How Can the Richest 1 Percent Be Winning This Class War

[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.

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.

Eh, I wouldn't agree. At least not with the type of "voting" which goes on in capitalist liberal democracies (ie. those with cash win).

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this NOT voting DOES NOT EQUAL FOLDING YOUR ARMS, STICKING OUT YOUR TONGUE AND DOING NOTHING. There is NO equivalence there. Some of the most politically active people I know would never vote, mainly out of principle. If anything, those people who feel like "they have done their part" by voting are the ones folding their arms and doing fuck all. Also, the "if you don't vote don't complain" line is such utter bullshit. Complain all you want if you don't vote, complain about the system itself, not the individual parties which are all the same anyway.

[Ian]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this NOT voting DOES NOT EQUAL FOLDING YOUR ARMS, STICKING OUT YOUR TONGUE AND DOING NOTHING. There is NO equivalence there. Some of the most politically active people I know would never vote, mainly out of principle. If anything, those people who feel like "they have done their part" by voting are the ones folding their arms and doing fuck all. Also, the "if you don't vote don't complain" line is such utter bullshit. Complain all you want if you don't vote, complain about the system itself, not the individual parties which are all the same anyway.

I wasn't inferring that cynicism and apathy are the same thing! Not sure how many times I have to say that.

Complaining about the system itself is fine. I have some very serious complaints about the Electoral College, for example. But "not voting out of principle" is a pathetic principle. It's nihilistic, and in the end it's just a way of whining about the world. Go ahead and complain about the system and engage in other activism all you want... but vote anyway as well. It's something - and with enough people thinking the same way, something can become everything.

And the idea that the parties are basically all the same anyway - that's really blinkered. I totally agree that, in comparison to many parties around the world, the Democrats and Republicans have much in common to the exclusion of minority opinions. But would nothing of significance have changed if McCain were in office right now? How about if we had Gore instead of Bush jr.? What if Carter won re-election in 1980 and Reagan retired? Suppose Nixon was in charge in the early 60s instead of Kennedy? The world could be different in so many ways I find it hard to even get my mind around it. And yet the cynics and nihilists complain "oh, nothing really changes anyway. It doesn't matter that I don't vote. But I'll complain all I want." Call it a flaw with me if you like, but I don't have much respect for such disaffected grumps.

[sandinista]

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this NOT voting DOES NOT EQUAL FOLDING YOUR ARMS, STICKING OUT YOUR TONGUE AND DOING NOTHING. There is NO equivalence there. Some of the most politically active people I know would never vote, mainly out of principle. If anything, those people who feel like "they have done their part" by voting are the ones folding their arms and doing fuck all. Also, the "if you don't vote don't complain" line is such utter bullshit. Complain all you want if you don't vote, complain about the system itself, not the individual parties which are all the same anyway.

I wasn't inferring that cynicism and apathy are the same thing! Not sure how many times I have to say that.

Than what does this mean? "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." Sure seems like thats what you are implying.

Complaining about the system itself is fine. I have some very serious complaints about the Electoral College, for example. But "not voting out of principle" is a pathetic principle. It's nihilistic, and in the end it's just a way of whining about the world. Go ahead and complain about the system and engage in other activism all you want... but vote anyway as well. It's something - and with enough people thinking the same way, something can become everything.

How is it "pathetic", in no way are you correct. Explain. Again, you equate it with "whining", far from the truth. The way voting is set up in capitalist liberal democracies is precisely so there can be no real change. Not voting is a political action, if enough people don't vote, if the numbers drop to 30 percent voter turnout that will go a long way in de-legitimizing the entire sham of a system. Even though, at the moment I think 50 percent voter turnout is saying pretty much the same thing.

And the idea that the parties are basically all the same anyway - that's really blinkered. I totally agree that, in comparison to many parties around the world, the Democrats and Republicans have much in common to the exclusion of minority opinions. But would nothing of significance have changed if McCain were in office right now? How about if we had Gore instead of Bush jr.? What if Carter won re-election in 1980 and Reagan retired? Suppose Nixon was in charge in the early 60s instead of Kennedy? The world could be different in so many ways I find it hard to even get my mind around it. And yet the cynics and nihilists complain "oh, nothing really changes anyway. It doesn't matter that I don't vote. But I'll complain all I want." Call it a flaw with me if you like, but I don't have much respect for such disaffected grumps.

Not "blinkered" at all. The faces change, the policies do not. Imperialism, war, bombing, embargo's, torture, drug war, etc, no change, democrat/republican, no difference in policy. Nothing would have changed with Gore, or McCain etc. The US would still be at war, still be bombing people, still be occupying countries etc. Not about "grumps" it's about reality.

[Ian]

Complaining about the system itself is fine. I have some very serious complaints about the Electoral College, for example. But "not voting out of principle" is a pathetic principle. It's nihilistic, and in the end it's just a way of whining about the world. Go ahead and complain about the system and engage in other activism all you want... but vote anyway as well. It's something - and with enough people thinking the same way, something can become everything.

How is it "pathetic", in no way are you correct. Explain. Again, you equate it with "whining", far from the truth. The way voting is set up in capitalist liberal democracies is precisely so there can be no real change. Not voting is a political action, if enough people don't vote, if the numbers drop to 30 percent voter turnout that will go a long way in de-legitimizing the entire sham of a system. Even though, at the moment I think 50 percent voter turnout is saying pretty much the same thing.

The notion of protesting an imperfect democracy by boycotting it is pathetic. I don't see how it voter turnout ever drops enough to de-legitimize the entire system. If that ever happens, fine. But in the meantime, somebody's going to win those elections. And that somebody won't care much that you didn't vote out of protest. At least cast a ballot for the lesser of two evils, and maybe in a few election cycles you'll find a candidate who genuinely appeals to you.

And the idea that the parties are basically all the same anyway - that's really blinkered. I totally agree that, in comparison to many parties around the world, the Democrats and Republicans have much in common to the exclusion of minority opinions. But would nothing of significance have changed if McCain were in office right now? How about if we had Gore instead of Bush jr.? What if Carter won re-election in 1980 and Reagan retired? Suppose Nixon was in charge in the early 60s instead of Kennedy? The world could be different in so many ways I find it hard to even get my mind around it. And yet the cynics and nihilists complain "oh, nothing really changes anyway. It doesn't matter that I don't vote. But I'll complain all I want." Call it a flaw with me if you like, but I don't have much respect for such disaffected grumps.

Not "blinkered" at all. The faces change, the policies do not. Imperialism, war, bombing, embargo's, torture, drug war, etc, no change, democrat/republican, no difference in policy. Nothing would have changed with Gore, or McCain etc. The US would still be at war, still be bombing people, still be occupying countries etc. Not about "grumps" it's about reality.

Like I said: disaffected, nihilistic and grumpy. Not to mention focused only on negative events and subjective interpretations of history. Your "reality" is my idea of fantasyland.

Would Gore have insisted on invading Iraq? Would McCain have blown a ton of political capital in an effort to reform health care or financial regulations? Would Carter have put defense spending through the roof in the early 80s? Would Nixon have opted for a blockade instead of air strikes in '62? The answer to some of these and a thousand other important questions might be yes. The idea that ALL of this history would have turned out the same regardless of who won what election - well, that's blinkered!

[Coito ergo sum]

Eh, I wouldn't agree. At least not with the type of "voting" which goes on in capitalist liberal democracies (ie. those with cash win).

What's the alternative? Nobody votes and those with the military wins? What? You tell me.

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.

Again, not sure how many times I have to say this NOT voting DOES NOT EQUAL FOLDING YOUR ARMS, STICKING OUT YOUR TONGUE AND DOING NOTHING. There is NO equivalence there. Some of the most politically active people I know would never vote, mainly out of principle. If anything, those people who feel like "they have done their part" by voting are the ones folding their arms and doing fuck all. Also, the "if you don't vote don't complain" line is such utter bullshit. Complain all you want if you don't vote, complain about the system itself, not the individual parties which are all the same anyway.

I don't mind if people don't vote. Not voting can be a form of voting.

Also, if people don't know anything about what they're voting for, I'd rather they didn't vote. Picking random or essentially random choices is not a good thing.

It's better, however, to have system where you can vote in a relatively clean election if you want to, than a system where you can't vote even if you think it would be worthwhile.

[sandinista]

Complaining about the system itself is fine. I have some very serious complaints about the Electoral College, for example. But "not voting out of principle" is a pathetic principle. It's nihilistic, and in the end it's just a way of whining about the world. Go ahead and complain about the system and engage in other activism all you want... but vote anyway as well. It's something - and with enough people thinking the same way, something can become everything.

How is it "pathetic", in no way are you correct. Explain. Again, you equate it with "whining", far from the truth. The way voting is set up in capitalist liberal democracies is precisely so there can be no real change. Not voting is a political action, if enough people don't vote, if the numbers drop to 30 percent voter turnout that will go a long way in de-legitimizing the entire sham of a system. Even though, at the moment I think 50 percent voter turnout is saying pretty much the same thing.

The notion of protesting an imperfect democracy by boycotting it is pathetic. I don't see how it voter turnout ever drops enough to de-legitimize the entire system. If that ever happens, fine. But in the meantime, somebody's going to win those elections. And that somebody won't care much that you didn't vote out of protest. At least cast a ballot for the lesser of two evils, and maybe in a few election cycles you'll find a candidate who genuinely appeals to you.

No, actually it is NOT pathetic. No matter how many times you repeat yourself it doesn't make it so. Yah, in the meantime someone will win those elections, and that someone doesn't matter.

Like I said: disaffected, nihilistic and grumpy. Not to mention focused only on negative events and subjective interpretations of history. Your "reality" is my idea of fantasyland.

Would Gore have insisted on invading Iraq? Would McCain have blown a ton of political capital in an effort to reform health care or financial regulations? Would Carter have put defense spending through the roof in the early 80s? Would Nixon have opted for a blockade instead of air strikes in '62? The answer to some of these and a thousand other important questions might be yes. The idea that ALL of this history would have turned out the same regardless of who won what election - well, that's blinkered!

Like I said, not disaffected, many political actions can be taken daily and voting is the lowest on the list. Your "reality" is my idea of a fantasyland. Truly. Yes the answer to your question "might" be yes..."might" be no as well. Makes no difference. Of course all of history wouldn't have been exactly the same, small changes would be there, no doubt, but the overall foreign policy decisions and ideology would remain the same. No changes of significance would have occurred regardless of who the corporate figure head was.

[Ian]

Makes no difference. Of course all of history wouldn't have been exactly the same, small changes would be there, no doubt, but the overall foreign policy decisions and ideology would remain the same. No changes of significance would have occurred regardless of who the corporate figure head was.

And that, in a nutshell, is nihilism.

Even in the most grandiose, big-picture analysis of geopolitical history, individual leaders nevertheless make some important differences. The Cold War was the world's major geopolitical issue for five decades, and it pit two systems against each other for global influence. But it wasn't just about one faceless system against another. How might the Cold War have unfolded if Eisenhower lost to Adlai Stevenson, or Kennedy lost to Nixon, or Reagan lost to Carter? What if Stalin had died as early as 1946, or lived until 1964? How might World War II have unfolded if Lord Halifax became the British PM instead of Churchill? Do you honestly believe "no changes of significance would have occurred"? If you honestly think individual leaders create or instigate no real change, that's it's all somehow just a will of a collective society conducted through interchangeable figureheads (actually that sounds like a functioning democracy!), then I question how closely you have really read any history. Individual leaders can amount to a lot.

[sandinista]

Makes no difference. Of course all of history wouldn't have been exactly the same, small changes would be there, no doubt, but the overall foreign policy decisions and ideology would remain the same. No changes of significance would have occurred regardless of who the corporate figure head was.

And that, in a nutshell, is nihilism.

No, actually it's not, it's realism.

Even in the most grandiose, big-picture analysis of geopolitical history, individual leaders nevertheless make some important differences. The Cold War was the world's major geopolitical issue for five decades, and it pit two systems against each other for global influence. But it wasn't just about one faceless system against another. How might the Cold War have unfolded if Eisenhower lost to Adlai Stevenson, or Kennedy lost to Nixon, or Reagan lost to Carter? What if Stalin had died as early as 1946, or lived until 1964? How might World War II have unfolded if Lord Halifax became the British PM instead of Churchill? Do you honestly believe "no changes of significance would have occurred"? If you honestly think individual leaders create or instigate no real change, that's it's all somehow just a will of a collective society conducted through interchangeable figureheads (actually that sounds like a functioning democracy!), then I question how closely you have really read any history. Individual leaders can amount to a lot.

I'll agree that individual leaders made a difference in the past, just not since the global turn to capitalist liberal democracy. That ideology is what really changed the importance of individual leaders. I am speaking, mostly, about canaduh. The states is very much the same when it comes to leaders having the same policies, but canaduh is a prime example.

[Coito ergo sum]

Makes no difference. Of course all of history wouldn't have been exactly the same, small changes would be there, no doubt, but the overall foreign policy decisions and ideology would remain the same. No changes of significance would have occurred regardless of who the corporate figure head was.

And that, in a nutshell, is nihilism.

Even in the most grandiose, big-picture analysis of geopolitical history, individual leaders nevertheless make some important differences. The Cold War was the world's major geopolitical issue for five decades, and it pit two systems against each other for global influence. But it wasn't just about one faceless system against another. How might the Cold War have unfolded if Eisenhower lost to Adlai Stevenson, or Kennedy lost to Nixon, or Reagan lost to Carter? What if Stalin had died as early as 1946, or lived until 1964? How might World War II have unfolded if Lord Halifax became the British PM instead of Churchill? Do you honestly believe "no changes of significance would have occurred"? If you honestly think individual leaders create or instigate no real change, that's it's all somehow just a will of a collective society conducted through interchangeable figureheads (actually that sounds like a functioning democracy!), then I question how closely you have really read any history. Individual leaders can amount to a lot.

I love alternative history -- ever read any novels by Turtledove?

[sandinista]

Makes no difference. Of course all of history wouldn't have been exactly the same, small changes would be there, no doubt, but the overall foreign policy decisions and ideology would remain the same. No changes of significance would have occurred regardless of who the corporate figure head was.

And that, in a nutshell, is nihilism.

Even in the most grandiose, big-picture analysis of geopolitical history, individual leaders nevertheless make some important differences. The Cold War was the world's major geopolitical issue for five decades, and it pit two systems against each other for global influence. But it wasn't just about one faceless system against another. How might the Cold War have unfolded if Eisenhower lost to Adlai Stevenson, or Kennedy lost to Nixon, or Reagan lost to Carter? What if Stalin had died as early as 1946, or lived until 1964? How might World War II have unfolded if Lord Halifax became the British PM instead of Churchill? Do you honestly believe "no changes of significance would have occurred"? If you honestly think individual leaders create or instigate no real change, that's it's all somehow just a will of a collective society conducted through interchangeable figureheads (actually that sounds like a functioning democracy!), then I question how closely you have really read any history. Individual leaders can amount to a lot.

I love alternative history -- ever read any novels by Turtledove?

what is "alternative history"? What is taught in US and canadian high schools? What is reported on corporate news channels? You love that shit...for humor value I assume.

[Coito ergo sum]

Makes no difference. Of course all of history wouldn't have been exactly the same, small changes would be there, no doubt, but the overall foreign policy decisions and ideology would remain the same. No changes of significance would have occurred regardless of who the corporate figure head was.

And that, in a nutshell, is nihilism.

Even in the most grandiose, big-picture analysis of geopolitical history, individual leaders nevertheless make some important differences. The Cold War was the world's major geopolitical issue for five decades, and it pit two systems against each other for global influence. But it wasn't just about one faceless system against another. How might the Cold War have unfolded if Eisenhower lost to Adlai Stevenson, or Kennedy lost to Nixon, or Reagan lost to Carter? What if Stalin had died as early as 1946, or lived until 1964? How might World War II have unfolded if Lord Halifax became the British PM instead of Churchill? Do you honestly believe "no changes of significance would have occurred"? If you honestly think individual leaders create or instigate no real change, that's it's all somehow just a will of a collective society conducted through interchangeable figureheads (actually that sounds like a functioning democracy!), then I question how closely you have really read any history. Individual leaders can amount to a lot.

I love alternative history -- ever read any novels by Turtledove?

what is "alternative history"? What is taught in US and canadian high schools?

No, what you read on some boneheaded conspiratorial website.

But, I should add - yes - a lot of what is taught as history in the US ain't true. Very sanitized and airbrushed versions of actual events.

[sandinista]

Makes no difference. Of course all of history wouldn't have been exactly the same, small changes would be there, no doubt, but the overall foreign policy decisions and ideology would remain the same. No changes of significance would have occurred regardless of who the corporate figure head was.

And that, in a nutshell, is nihilism.

Even in the most grandiose, big-picture analysis of geopolitical history, individual leaders nevertheless make some important differences. The Cold War was the world's major geopolitical issue for five decades, and it pit two systems against each other for global influence. But it wasn't just about one faceless system against another. How might the Cold War have unfolded if Eisenhower lost to Adlai Stevenson, or Kennedy lost to Nixon, or Reagan lost to Carter? What if Stalin had died as early as 1946, or lived until 1964? How might World War II have unfolded if Lord Halifax became the British PM instead of Churchill? Do you honestly believe "no changes of significance would have occurred"? If you honestly think individual leaders create or instigate no real change, that's it's all somehow just a will of a collective society conducted through interchangeable figureheads (actually that sounds like a functioning democracy!), then I question how closely you have really read any history. Individual leaders can amount to a lot.

I love alternative history -- ever read any novels by Turtledove?

what is "alternative history"? What is taught in US and canadian high schools?

No, what you read on some boneheaded conspiratorial website.

But, I should add - yes - a lot of what is taught as history in the US ain't true. Very sanitized and airbrushed versions of actual events.

hahhaha, you know someone is done when they start throwing around "conspiratorial". worse than the "like Hitler".

[Coito ergo sum]

hahhaha, you know someone is done when they start throwing around "conspiratorial". worse than the "like Hitler".

LOL - go ahead and tell us the "true" history that "they" don't want us to know...

Needless to say:

Hugo Chávez has sent out troops to take over farms and urged the poor to occupy "unused" land in wealthy areas of Caracas, prompting a wave of squats that is rattling Venezuela's middle class.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... ts-caracas

Chavez says to just go out and steal what you want.

[sandinista]

hahhaha, you know someone is done when they start throwing around "conspiratorial". worse than the "like Hitler".

LOL - go ahead and tell us the "true" history that "they" don't want us to know...

haha, go and tell us the "true" history that "they" want us to know.

so, you agreed with me "But, I should add - yes - a lot of what is taught as history in the US ain't true. Very sanitized and airbrushed versions of actual events." but...you don't? You admit that the history that is taught is BS...but the history that isn't taught is also BS? WTF? You are make less sense as the days pass.

[Coito ergo sum]

hahhaha, you know someone is done when they start throwing around "conspiratorial". worse than the "like Hitler".

LOL - go ahead and tell us the "true" history that "they" don't want us to know...

haha, go and tell us the "true" history that "they" want us to know.

so, you agreed with me "But, I should add - yes - a lot of what is taught as history in the US ain't true. Very sanitized and airbrushed versions of actual events." but...you don't? You admit that the history that is taught is BS...but the history that isn't taught is also BS? WTF? You are make less sense as the days pass.

Much of what you post is BS.

Some of the history taught in American schools is BS, not all. Some. They sanitize and simplify, and leave out some unsavory details here and there. But, if you're relying on any public school to educate you, then that's you're first mistake. But, by the same token, zcommunications.com would not be my first source - it is, however, quite often yours.