"Let’s Get This Class War Started"

porsche959

Class struggle defines most of human history. Marx got this right. The sooner we realize that we are locked in deadly warfare with our ruling, corporate elite, the sooner we will realize that these elites must be overthrown. The corporate oligarchs have now seized all institutional systems of power in the United States. Electoral politics, internal security, the judiciary, our universities, the arts and finance, along with nearly all forms of communication, are in corporate hands. Our democracy, with faux debates between two corporate parties, is meaningless political theater. There is no way within the system to defy the demands of Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry or war profiteers. The only route left to us, as Aristotle knew, is revolt.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/10/21

Obviously he is talking mainly of the US. However while In Europe (in general) there are better social protections than in the US (so far) much of his argument is applicable here I would argue.

tomdempsey200

the peasants are revolting...

Jonny7

Are dreadlocks and small dogs mandatory? can we bring our own guillotines or how are we doing this..

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/10/21

Obviously he is talking mainly of the US. However while In Europe (in general) there are better social protections than in the US (so far) much of his argument is applicable here I would argue.

Have to admit I was reading Time magazine recently, and they'd written a piece on Michael Bloomberg. A couple of things were said in the piece that I regarded as strikingly true, yet were almost throwaway lines - that billionaires have more political clout currently than any rich people since the heyday of unrestrained Victorian capitalism, and the line "it's their world. We just vote in it".

Yet the piece went on to cover Bloomberg's political efforts in an almost entirely uncritical way, as if it was completely acceptable for a man who simply has a lot of money to be calling on David Cameron to discuss policy, and totally OK for him to spend hundreds of millions backing his candidates both in the US and elsewhere.

I appreciate, mind you, as per the OP, that these things are rather starker in the US - here, Declan Ganley and Libertas made a point of claiming (falsely, it turned out) to be funded by grassroots donations rather than out of Ganley's pocket, which presumably indicates a lingering antipathy to the idea that democracy should be for sale.

But we do seem to have reached a point where the slide to oligarchy in the West is becoming normalised, which is definitely a problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Karl Stein

Read it a couple of nights ago and thought it was an excellent piece.

Wrote this earlier:

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Obama is little more than Republican lite. The US is ****ed. Income inequality is only going to get worse and that will lead to one of two outcomes.

1. Social movements grow from grass roots (not astro-turf Tea Party dupes) and demand a greater share of the pie and it will be respected (unlikely).

2. Social movements will grow from grass roots and they will be suppressed by the 'have mores' and their ready-to-go surveillance state and there will be trouble (likely if history is anything to go by).

I'm convinced that the US is a tinderbox. The riots in the UK a couple summers ago seemed to appear from nowhere and there's a pretty robust welfare state there; if something similar kicked off in the US there are a lot more people with access to weapons and with a hell of a lot less to lose.

ppshay

The seesaw of history has thrust the oligarchs once again into the sky. We sit humiliated and broken on the ground. It is an old battle. It has been fought over and over in human history. We never seem to learn.

We haven't learned. But they have, and learned well.

The oligarchs are turning us—as they did in the 19th century steel and textile factories—into disposable human beings. They are building the most pervasive security and surveillance apparatus in human history to keep us submissive. ...Dissent is once again a criminal act.

The noose on our collective necks has been gradually and unnoticeably tightened and is now so tight that pliancy is necessary for life (of any kind) and revolt means death.

Once I would have held a forlorn hope that they would succeed in a progression to a truely global rule, thus have an identifiable and vulnerable point of power that could be attacked by a common global resistance. However, I have come to believe they are far too clever for that and that, finally, they have got it expertly right.

It is too late.

nesf

The issue is as it has always been. There are some very powerful people. By definition most people can't be in this group. How are we going to make this work? (i.e. give the powerful enough that they're happy and masses enough that they're content).

There's probably a Nobel Prize of some sort for coming up with a decent solution.

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

I'm convinced that the US is a tinderbox. The riots in the UK a couple summers ago seemed to appear from nowhere and there's a pretty robust welfare state there; if something similar kicked off in the US there are a lot more people with access to weapons and with a hell of a lot less to lose.

Well, it's really just wishful thinking. As long as I've been interested in politics, anti-establishment types have been pining for some sort of revolution. The Rodney King riots or the UK riots are about as close as it'll get.

Black Swan

Social stratification based upon wealth in Ireland does not appear to be as pronounced as found in the United States (which the article cited by porsche959 in the OP primarily focused upon). Years ago C. Wright Mills researched the distribution of wealth in the US and concluded that approximately 2% of Americans controlled 80% of the wealth. We would probably find similar percentages for this extraordinary concentration of wealth by a few today.

This observation by Mills appears consistent with that of Will and Ariel Durant in The Lessons of History: "Americans... the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is now greater than at any time since Imperial plutocratic Rome."

In examining thousands of years of recorded history, the Durants concluded that concentrations of wealth by a few was inevitable in all societies, and that such concentrations were "periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution."

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, it's really just wishful thinking. As long as I've been interested in politics, anti-establishment types have been pining for some sort of revolution. The Rodney King riots or the UK riots are about as close as it'll get.

If you're going to quote me try to relate the points you make to, you know, what I've actually said instead of putting words in my mouth.

Scofflaw

Black Swan wrote: »

Social stratification based upon wealth in Ireland does not appear to be as pronounced as found in the United States (which the article cited by porsche959 in the OP primarily focused upon). Years ago C. Wright Mills researched the distribution of wealth in the US and concluded that approximately 2% of Americans controlled 80% of the wealth. We would probably find similar percentages for this extraordinary concentration of wealth by a few today.

This observation by Mills appears consistent with that of Will and Ariel Durant in The Lessons of History: "Americans... the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest is now greater than at any time since Imperial plutocratic Rome."

In examining thousands of years of recorded history, the Durants concluded that concentrations of wealth by a few was inevitable in all societies, and that such concentrations were "periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution."

There's quite a good run-down of US stats here: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

One point worth noting from that is that financial wealth is different from total wealth or income, when we're talking about inequality. The inclusion of house prices can easily distort apparent wealth distribution, particularly during a bubble, and what really counts in terms of influence is financial wealth:

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America; see Table 3 and Figure 2 for the details.

Another article, which perhaps the Occupy people should have put about a bit more: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

There's also a hyper-concentration at the top. A fairly well-known statistic at this stage is that the top 400 wealthiest people in the US own more than the bottom 60% (180 million people), which seems absolutely obscene.

More broadly, there have been some historical studies which have concluded that about 5% of the population dominate the public life of their society in virtually all periods and places, although that's not quite the same thing as the concentration of wealth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

I think Scofflaw that perhaps what defines wealth has changed rather than the concept itself.

For example, you often see an oft-toted young billionaire. The thing is 99% of their money is tied up in their company and if they liquidated their position they might only see 60% or less (the owner selling off all their stock being a bad market signal). They are fabulously wealthy, but only on paper, and as many found out during the dot-com bust being wealth on paper and having the money in the bank can be quite different things.



The other thing that's often missed is that this measure of inequality isn't very interesting. I couldn't care less about how many times wealthier the top guy in society is than me, I care about whether my quality of life is getting better or worse on a long term trend. What's scary in the US isn't the inequality it's what the real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) curve looks like for the bottom 50%.

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

If you're going to quote me try to relate the points you make to, you know, what I've actually said instead of putting words in my mouth.

Normally I'd say couldn't fool me, but anyway

The whole article is essentially about communism and how revolution is inevitable or something. Yah those in the system he espouses would grab their pitchforks but they are most likely too valuable.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I think Scofflaw that perhaps what defines wealth has changed rather than the concept itself.

For example, you often see an oft-toted young billionaire. The thing is 99% of their money is tied up in their company and if they liquidated their position they might only see 60% or less (the owner selling off all their stock being a bad market signal). They are fabulously wealthy, but only on paper, and as many found out during the dot-com bust being wealth on paper and having the money in the bank can be quite different things.

I'm not sure there's any large change there, really, at least over the last 50 years, given that wealth at the top of the heap has consisted for a long time of things like stocks and shares, which are also 'paper wealth'.

nesf wrote: »

The other thing that's often missed is that this measure of inequality isn't very interesting. I couldn't care less about how many times wealthier the top guy in society is than me, I care about whether my quality of life is getting better or worse on a long term trend. What's scary in the US isn't the inequality it's what the real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) curve looks like for the bottom 50%.

I'd agree that that's the major underlying issue - indeed, I was originally going to add that into my post, but went to sleep instead! As long as the quality of life for everyone is improving, most people would consider it irrelevant whether other people's is improving faster.

However, that's not all there is to strongly unequal wealth distribution - it correlates with a good number of other undesirable factors, and I think that the amount of political clout wielded by the top tier in society is definitely detrimental to the quality of life of those below them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

The whole article is essentially about communism

No it's not.

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

No it's not.

This guy is a first-rate loon

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_country_needs_a_few_good_communists_20100531

I mean

My hatred of authority

I learned, as a boy, who were my enemies

The rich have a snobbish disdain for the poor

These lower classes are viewed as uncouth parasites

groundbreaking stuff

It's not corporate types that's the problem, it's handing all the power to the govt who seem largely unanswerable to anyone for all the theatre we have about votes. Two party system here and in the states
No wonder they use govt to get what they can get, just like everyone rings up the local TD to get something overturned or to attempt to use them to get mortgage approval
http://www.thestar.ie/star/enda-kenny-stuns-bank-staff-with-loan-request-for-mum-20559/

Jonny7

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not corporate types that's the problem, it's handing all the power to the govt who seem largely unanswerable to anyone for all the theatre we have about votes. Two party system here and in the states
No wonder they use govt to get what they can get, just like everyone rings up the local TD to get something overturned or to attempt to use them to get mortgage approval
http://www.thestar.ie/star/enda-kenny-stuns-bank-staff-with-loan-request-for-mum-20559/

It's the ultra-simplistic black and white scapegoating of complex problems that really takes the biscuit

"The rich are to blame", and he wrote for the New Yorker? sweet jesus

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

This guy is a first-rate loon

You're at the lazy ad-homs again Johhny. I guess we shouldn't expect anything less from you when it comes to your disdain for anyone who speaks truth to power.

Christopher Lynn "Chris" Hedges is an American journalist specializing in American politics and society. Hedges is also known as the best-selling author of several books [...] Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years (1990–2005).

In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure there's any large change there, really, at least over the last 50 years, given that wealth at the top of the heap has consisted for a long time of things like stocks and shares, which are also 'paper wealth'.

I was thinking back much further than 50 years ago.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd agree that that's the major underlying issue - indeed, I was originally going to add that into my post, but went to sleep instead! As long as the quality of life for everyone is improving, most people would consider it irrelevant whether other people's is improving faster.

However, that's not all there is to strongly unequal wealth distribution - it correlates with a good number of other undesirable factors, and I think that the amount of political clout wielded by the top tier in society is definitely detrimental to the quality of life of those below them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Be careful here. Those correlations do exist but they are very dependent on how extreme the inequality is. Also, once you go below a certain inequality level they're no longer particularly correlated (if using Gini coefficients or whatever as a measure).

It's not enough to say "very high inequality = bad" when your (unsaid) examples are some tinpot dictatorship in Africa and you're talking about Irish inequality increasing. You're not saying this but I've often seen these kinds of points being made.

czx

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm convinced that the US is a tinderbox. The riots in the UK a couple summers ago seemed to appear from nowhere and there's a pretty robust welfare state there; if something similar kicked off in the US there are a lot more people with access to weapons and with a hell of a lot less to lose.

I'm convinced that it's not. How do they have less to lose than the UK 'rioters'?

Jonny7

Carlos Roca wrote: »

You're at the lazy ad-homs again Johhny. I guess we shouldn't expect anything less from you when it comes to your disdain for anyone who speaks truth to power.

I know all about his bio, I am amazed that someone with the mind of an angry twenty year old sociology can write such nonsense - I guess there's a market for it eh

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

I hate rich people and this extends to my political beliefs - therefore rich people are to blame

Except for Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, or any of the hundreds of entrepreneurs responsible for all the technology I am using to rant about "rich people"

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lefty ideology has always worked on a divide and conquer impulse, while also using strict us and them labelling between genders, races and classes in order to change and control the conversation in such a way as to regulate and impose massive cognitive dissonance among well meaning people, while installing barriers in their own minds to access to privilege and encouraging dependencies. Its the marxist ideologies which convince people they are impostors and don't belong.

clairefontaine

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not corporate types that's the problem, it's handing all the power to the govt who seem largely unanswerable to anyone for all the theatre we have about votes. Two party system here and in the states
No wonder they use govt to get what they can get, just like everyone rings up the local TD to get something overturned or to attempt to use them to get mortgage approval
http://www.thestar.ie/star/enda-kenny-stuns-bank-staff-with-loan-request-for-mum-20559/

Some of the corporate types in the heart of our financial system (US)have turned business into a new kind of feudalism. Granted the young 22 year olds they manage to burn and spit out are financially well rewarded, the ruthlessness cannot be denied. But then again, no one is forcing you to work there.

The problem is that they are also tied up with the government. And were able to receive huge bailouts when if they were actually allowed to crash and burn, their hubris would have been taught a lesson, instead our government saved them. And god only knows how much money they have invested in Saudi and other contracts, earblending, etc where the government and military can be used as loan collectors.

nesf

clairefontaine wrote: »

Some of the corporate types in the heart of our financial system (US)have turned business into a new kind of feudalism. Granted the young 22 year olds they manage to burn and spit out are financially well rewarded, the ruthlessness cannot be denied. But then again, no one is forcing you to work there.

Well to be fair, I've known a couple of people to go in with the attitude of I'll kill myself working for a decade and then be financially independent. This was pre-crash obviously. It works out ok for some people, others don't make it and aren't in that position after a decade and face the decision to keep on or quit and try something else.

Malibu Stacy

nesf wrote: »

The other thing that's often missed is that this measure of inequality isn't very interesting. I couldn't care less about how many times wealthier the top guy in society is than me, I care about whether my quality of life is getting better or worse on a long term trend. What's scary in the US isn't the inequality it's what the real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) curve looks like for the bottom 50%.

I don't think you can separate the two, however. Extremely disproportionate economic power quite often leads to disproportionate political power, as those who have the means bend the political system to their will.

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not corporate types that's the problem, it's handing all the power to the govt who seem largely unanswerable to anyone for all the theatre we have about votes.

Per my previous point, let's not pretend that 'corporate types' have no effect on the behavior of the government.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Lefty ideology has always worked on a divide and conquer impulse, while also using strict us and them labelling between genders, races and classes in order to change and control the conversation in such a way as to regulate and impose massive cognitive dissonance among well meaning people, while installing barriers in their own minds to access to privilege and encouraging dependencies.

This isn't leftist, it is a universal political tactic. You've just described the 'Southern Strategy' of the GOP in a nutshell.

SamHarris

Carlos Roca wrote: »

No it's not.

It is pretty par for course Marxist analysis.

It always strikes me as worrying, and even immature, that so many are willing to wholeheartedly endorse some amorphis "revolution" to deal with social or economic problems. There are not many cases in history that lead to the issue in question being addressed, much less one that gave rise to a more desirable political and social situation. Whats wrong with addressing it through the many institutions that already exist? Yes, yes - change is designed to be hard through said institutions but when attempts are made to engender social or economic change that you disagree with, it's easy to see why that is ultimately a GOOD thing.

If one of the worst things that can be said about the current system (in it's broadest sense) is that there is inequality then we should count our lucky stars. Clearly it is something that needs to be addressed to a greater degree, but it's very hard to see how a "class war" would create a system in which there is far less of that and far easier to see how any other of number systems could be in place that would create far greater, more intractable problems. And inequality would almost certainly still remain, perhaps with different elites.

Karl Stein

SamHarris wrote: »

It always strikes me as worrying, and even immature, that so many are willing to wholeheartedly endorse some amorphis "revolution" to deal with social or economic problems.

Who? Where? Chris Hedges advocates non-violence.

There are not many cases in history that lead to the issue in question being addressed, much less one that gave rise to a more desirable political and social situation.

Human history is one of revolution - both physical and social. It's pointless to look at any one revolution and say 'that was a mess'. Gains are incremental. The French and American revolutions are perhaps two of the most important as regards the development of constitutional democracies with crazy ideas like equality, secularism, elected representatives etc.

Whats wrong with addressing it through the many institutions that already exist?

Corruption is built into the institutions to perpetuate the structures they serve. Look at the most recent presidential debates between Obama and Romney. Punch and Judy bull****. Is it any wonder people get disillusioned with politics? We don't get to vote on whether the banks and unsecured bond-holders get rewarded for their economic destruction.

inequality would almost certainly still remain, perhaps with different elites.

There will always be elites. It's how to make them afraid of the masses that makes them cede ground. There were incredible gains made in the early 20th Century because there was a genuine fear of the unwashed masses simply taking everything.

There is no fear nowadays. The elites have become so detached from reality that they believe, and have others believing, the very system they've derived their wealth and power from is a burden to them. Ask any idiot Randroid and they'll tell you as much.

SamHarris

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Who? Where? Chris Hedges advocates non-violence.

Class warfare is a strange phrase to use then. But this guy subscribes to Marxist theories, in which case the meaning he attaches to certain words would be in some cases would be very different to that in modern vernacular. Thats fine, it comes with the territory, but to most "class warfare" is indicative of violence and revolution.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Human history is one of revolution - both physical and social. It's pointless to look at any one revolution and say 'that was a mess'. Gains are incremental. The French and American revolutions are perhaps two of the most important as regards the development of constitutional democracies with crazy ideas like equality, secularism, elected representatives etc.

The developments made by the French revolution, whilst important, were quickly reversed and directly lead to one of the most violent periods in French and the European history. Equality quickly went out the window.

The American revolution is very much an exception to the rule. I did not claim EVERY revolution ended in famine, oppression and incredible violence. Just the vast majority.

They are an extremely important part of human history, I agree, but hardly a tool that should be whipped out to deal with most problems. Particularly as we know how much more ideal our system is with regards to things like personal freedoms, freedoms that allow us to effect social and economic change in a much more manageable, peaceful and ultimately better way.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Corruption is built into the system to perpetuate the structures they serve. Look at the most recent presidential debates between Obama and Romney. Punch and Judy bull****. Is it any wonder people get disillusioned with politics? We don't get to vote on whether the banks and unsecured bond-holders get rewarded for their economic destruction.

Becoming disillusioned with politics, and party politics in particular is very different than starting to believe class warfare or revolution is a valid or desirable method of addressing issues. Particularly something like inequality, which exists (often to a far larger extent) in any other system that has been attempted.

Again, I'm not defending every aspect of our current system, I do find it irritating that a great deal of our money was wasted on such things (and much more) I just think there is far, far more to lose from some massive shaking up of modern systems than there is to gain. This particular problem could easily be addressed within the framework of what is already there.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

There will always be elites. It's how to make them afraid of the masses that makes them cede ground. There were incredible gains made in the early 20th Century because there was a genuine fear of the unwashed masses simply taking everything.

There is no fear nowadays. The elites have become so detached from reality that they believe, and have others believing, the very system they've derived their wealth and power from is a burden to them. Ask any idiot Randroid and they'll tell you as much.

I don't feel like having people terrified their property will be taken from them will exactly help effect economic change. Or, at least, that it is not necessary to do so. Yes, many social changes in the early and late 20th century came about because people with power feared how popular far left ideologies might become but then other massive changes (the civil rights movement) came about through much more laudable and replicable means.

I don't know anyone who people may consider an "elite" - that is to say the uber wealthy. But my understanding would be that they (and many middle class) support the system now in place (and why not?). Perhaps you mean they resent taxation? Probably, but then pretty much everyone does to one extent or another. Still far from a good reason to foment class warfare, much less the complete replacement of a system that has more people, with a greater degree of wealth, safer, better educated and with more personal freedom than the vast majority of people in the world can dream of today, to say nothing of people from the past.

Again, yes it would be wonderful if wealth was more evenly distributed (up to a point) but that it's even close to the point where complete change is needed? Probably not.

SamHarris

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm convinced that the US is a tinderbox. The riots in the UK a couple summers ago seemed to appear from nowhere and there's a pretty robust welfare state there; if something similar kicked off in the US there are a lot more people with access to weapons and with a hell of a lot less to lose.

It seems to me that the media and politicians are far more divided and a "tinerbox" than American society at large. Your right, the UK riots came out of nowhere but the vast majority build over time, with many warning signs before a proper explosion. There have been a few movements recently that people could have rallied around if these fomenting problems in the same way. Occupy, obviously, and the shooting of Trayvon Martin was very similar to the shooting of the man in the UK that sparked their riots. Instead the vast majority of people continued as they were.

Many European countries seem to be far closer to that sort of explosion than the US with astronomical youth unemployment and the success of extreme parties.

A lot less to lose? The vast majority of the country is a great deal wealthier than the UK, if that's what you meant by having something to lose.

nesf

Malibu Stacy wrote: »

I don't think you can separate the two, however. Extremely disproportionate economic power quite often leads to disproportionate political power, as those who have the means bend the political system to their will.

The problem is defining and agreeing on what extremely means in that statement. Also, barriers to changing your economic power "level" are also important.


My point is that real wages changes are a better indicator (not the only one) of problems with economic power distribution than mere inequality in incomes.

hatrickpatrick

Wealth can be separated from power through designing the right political system, something which for some reason always seems to slip past such debates.

Any debate about the unchecked power of certain entities or people seems to always end up as a debate about wealth and inequality thereof. I find this rather strange. Power and wealth are linked, but they're not one and the same. At the end of the day, the wealthy are only politically powerful as long as our system of government allows them to be.

djpbarry

Carlos Roca wrote: »

There were incredible gains made in the early 20th Century because there was a genuine fear of the unwashed masses simply taking everything.

There is no fear nowadays.

You think a society in which people live in fear of others breaking into their homes and stealing their property is something to aspire to?

Karl Stein

djpbarry wrote: »

You think a society in which people live in fear of others breaking into their homes and stealing their property is something to aspire to?

Do you like big massive strawmen with bells hanging off them?

djpbarry

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Do you like big massive strawmen with bells hanging off them?

Seems pretty clear that you are advocating fear as a means to effect change:

Carlos Roca wrote: »

There will always be elites. It's how to make them afraid of the masses that makes them cede ground.

Maybe I'm missing something?

clairefontaine

SamHarris wrote: »

It seems to me that the media and politicians are far more divided and a "tinerbox" than American society at large. Your right, the UK riots came out of nowhere but the vast majority build over time, with many warning signs before a proper explosion. There have been a few movements recently that people could have rallied around if these fomenting problems in the same way. Occupy, obviously, and the shooting of Trayvon Martin was very similar to the shooting of the man in the UK that sparked their riots. Instead the vast majority of people continued as they were.

Many European countries seem to be far closer to that sort of explosion than the US with astronomical youth unemployment and the success of extreme parties.

A lot less to lose? The vast majority of the country is a great deal wealthier than the UK, if that's what you meant by having something to lose.

Just wait till the food stamp cuts a week before Thanksgiving[nice timing btw Obama]. Let's wait and see. I think I may spend it in Vancouver.

djpbarry

NS_Irish wrote: »

...stop the integration of non-European races with Europeans.

Well, all Europeans are descended from non-Europeans, so...

Karl Stein

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something?

Yep. The well documented history of struggle between the have mores and have nots. Do a little reading up on Conflict Theory if you're really interested.

Muahahaha

NS_Irish wrote: »

Now, in 2013 AD, we are White Europeans, not Arabs or Africans. The other races are destroying Europe. They rape women and children, and beat and murder young people in schools, on the streets, everywhere. "Class War" is another distraction. Before addressing so-called "Class" issues, let's address the colonisation and Africanisation of Europe.

Hey I've got news for you, White Europeans rape and murder too, have you never heard of the Crusades where Europeans went down to the Middle East and Africa and butchered the local population at the behest of the Vatican ?
And it was white Europeans who were at the steering wheel of our banks when they went about their economic destruction of Europe, I didn't see any Africans on the boards of directors, did you ?

Please leave the xenophobia in check, people come here for a proper debate, not gutter slinging and broad generalisations.

djpbarry

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Yep. The well documented history of struggle between the have mores and have nots. Do a little reading up on Conflict Theory if you're really interested.

So you are saying fear is good? Great, glad that's settled then.

Karl Stein

djpbarry wrote: »

So you are saying fear is good? Great, glad that's settled then.

Why are you automatically equating struggle with seizure of property and violence?

When Black people were agitating for civil rights in the US were they threatening to take people's stuff? When Catholics in Derry were agitating for civil rights did they take people's stuff?

Think about where the violence came from in both cases. No really think instead of trying, and failing, to channel the 'debate' to the conclusions you've already reached.

Black Swan

NS_Irish wrote: »

Now, in 2013 AD, we are White Europeans, not Arabs or Africans. The other races are destroying Europe. They rape women and children, and beat and murder young people in schools, on the streets, everywhere. "Class War" is another distraction. Before addressing so-called "Class" issues, let's address the colonisation and Africanisation of Europe.

MOD ACTION:
NS_Irish banned from Politics for breach of charter and boards.ie Terms of Use.

nesf

The Economist has been nice enough to run a long article on real wage differences lately and how they've been bad for workers: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588860-labours-share-national-income-has-fallen-right-remedy-help-workers-not-punish?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/ashrinkingslice

Enjoy.

SamHarris

clairefontaine wrote: »

Just wait till the food stamp cuts a week before Thanksgiving[nice timing btw Obama]. Let's wait and see. I think I may spend it in Vancouver.

Again, it's not exactly a good thing. Tragic even, but I seriously doubt it will end in some form of class warfare. Not least because, despite there being more inequality in the US than here, social mobility is much greater. I think it's more the interplay between those two factors that causes class conflict, rather than one or the other.

SamHarris

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Yep. The well documented history of struggle between the have mores and have nots. Do a little reading up on Conflict Theory if you're really interested.

Class struggle as a model for historical understanding has been pretty much disproved for awhile now. It can be useful as part of a holistic understanding of pressures and forces, among many others. But if your argument is not particularly convincing, or your language is being misunderstood perhaps you should be more clear and use more evidence rather than reaching for the patronizing "Do a little reading up". To most resorting to that is just proof of a weak overall argument.

Karl Stein

SamHarris wrote: »

Class struggle as a model for historical understanding has been pretty much disproved for awhile now.

So someone has set up a grand experiment and disproved Conflict Theories? Total nonsense and patent denial of reality imho.

djpbarry

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Why are you automatically equating struggle with seizure of property and violence?

I'm not. I'm questioning why people should live in fear of others?

SamHarris

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So someone has set up a grand experiment and disproved Conflict Theories? Total nonsense and patent denial of reality imho.

Yes thats what I meant.

Karl Stein

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes thats what I meant.

I don't think you understand what you're saying. Conflict theories are a way of considering human history - such theories cannot be tested in a lab for their veracity. They cannot be proven right or wrong.