How real is class war?

[Pangur Bán]

Here is the fable that nicely summarises the anti-democratic propaganda espoused by Mister Cooper and elements of the US media:

The sheep and the wolves were at war with one another but the sheep could not be defeated because the dogs' protection kept them safe. The wolves sent ambassadors to the sheep, pretending to offer an end to the hostilities if the sheep would let the wolves serve as their guardians. Hoping that this would establish an accord once and for all, the sheep agreed to all the wolves' demands. Afterwards, the wolves broke the treaty and were able to devour the sheep now that they no longer had anyone to protect them. The sheep recognized their error too late and regretted the decision they had made.
If you depend on someone else for help, you will be in trouble when that help is nowhere to be found.

Whatever you think of actual politicians, democracy and democratic institutions are the only thing standing between ourselves and medieval-style serfdom to a handful of job lords.

 

[useless]

As for teachers and bureaucrats, they are nothing but parasites living off theft from the general weal. In a free society teachers would exist but they would be nothing like the prison guards we have today.

Tell us more about how you benefit society as a whole, have never claimed entitlements (or had family who need government assistance). don't use public roads, police etc...

 

[Abegweit]

Tell us more about how you benefit society as a whole, have never claimed entitlements (or had family who need government assistance). don't use public roads, police etc...

Of course, I use public roads. I use the public sewers and water supply too. I have no choice. The fact that they cost far more and deliver poorer service than private industry would is beside the point.

As for police, I stay as far away from them as I possibly can. They are not there to protect you. Their primary job is to serve as enforcers for the PTB. Secondarily they act as shakedown artists, for example working as highwaymen extorting money from passersby. Finally, they work in the criminal-production industries. The Drug War is an excellent example of that part of their duties, although there have been plenty of others.

For the rest, I guarantee you that far more has been stolen from me in comparison with the pathetic benefits I have received in return.

 

[Abegweit]

This is just what actually happens. The point is that it can be fixed; in most Western European countries democracy is much healthier and politicians aren't as corrupt.

It can't be fixed. Politics is inherently corrupt. And if you think that Western European politicians aren't corrupt, you aren't watching. Take Ireland, for example, where the people threw out the bums who bailed out the banks. The got another set of bums who did exactly the same thing. It is inherently corrupt. After all, its purpose is divvying up stolen loot.

Americans are too distracted from their democratic obligations at the highest levels, don't understand what's going on sufficiently; this is both a product and cause of their corrupt media and the obsession with ideological nonsense rather than the uncharming detail a critical voter needs to look at.

The main difference between the Congressional and the Parliamentary systems is that the former has far more points of entry for corruption to happen. Every congresscritter is his or her own corruption machine. Special interests lobby them. They bargain with each other. Support my project and I'll support yours.

In a Parliamentary system, you really have to get to the guy at the top - or at least a party leader. Of course, all that really means is that you have to be an insider to get heard. There's a reason why new companies are founded far more frequently in the US than in Germany.

 

[JohnRM]

These "lessons" don't teach anything. History is an endless story of the great achievements of the state. Literature is much the same. As for the rest, no one remembers anything out of public school that they don't use in their every day lives. Even the illiterate understand money. They learn the math they need without going to school.

I can name highlights of my public school career; 8th grade math, 10th grade logic, 11th grade music, 12th grade chemistry. But 12 years of prison scarcely makes up for this.

I live among some Mennonites. They send their children to school half days for eight years. The other half of the time, they are expected to work. Sounds like a fine arrangement to me. Unsurprisingly their kids are invariably polite and well-behaved; this in sharp contrast to the spoiled brats in public school. The school and the teachers are chosen by parents instead of bureaucrats. Undoubtedly has a lot to do with it as well.

With this, we are in complete agreement. I especially enjoyed the "12 years of prison" remark, which is exactly what it is. However, I would contend that our spoiled brats, in the public school system, are so because of the public school system. It drives them insane having to be locked in a room, sitting down in uncomfortable chairs, listening to someone talk for eight hours a day. But, brainwashing children ain't easy, I guess.

 

[JohnRM]

Jesus lived at a time when the only way to get rich was to exploit and oppress the common people. The Robin Hood story comes from the same fundamental truth. Today, with the advent of industrialization and capitalism, this is no longer true.

In the modern industrial economy, the wealthy make a profit off of the labor of others. It is still exploitative and oppressive, just not as blatantly so as in the past.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It can't be fixed. Politics is inherently corrupt. And if you think that Western European politicians aren't corrupt, you aren't watching. Take Ireland, for example, where the people threw out the bums who bailed out the banks. The got another set of bums who did exactly the same thing. It is inherently corrupt. After all, its purpose is divvying up stolen loot.

Politics is not "inherently" corrupt. Either people are, in which case the system can moderate it. Or the systems is, in which case fix it. If you are unhappy with the your voting system, go out and change it. No, they're not "divvying up stolen loot", you vote for them; they decide what collective services are necessary, raise money for the purpose without a profit. Collective services are always gonna be necessary, so the question is not whether you have these but whether or not you have control over it.

 

[JohnRM]

Whatever you think of actual politicians, democracy and democratic institutions are the only thing standing between ourselves and medieval-style serfdom to a handful of job lords.

No, democracy and democratic institutions conceal the fact that we still exist under medieval-style serform to a handful of job lords.

 

[Abegweit]

I would contend that our spoiled brats, in the public school system, are so because of the public school system. It drives them insane having to be locked in a room, sitting down in uncomfortable chairs, listening to someone talk for eight hours a day. But, brainwashing children ain't easy, I guess.

I agree but I think there are other factors. The Mennonite kids work, teaching them responsibility. Public school kids have no clue how to do anything. It's astonishing just how amazingly stupid they are about anything, even something as simple as changing a light bulb.

They learn a culture of entitlement. That, after all, is what the democratic state is all about - how some people are entitled to live off the work of others. Children, especially girls, learn this lesson very well.

I found school easy and expect that it is true of the vast majority of the people on this forum. My son was quite different. He never learned the three Rs, never mind anything else. Then one day he discovered Harry Potter... Schools teach nothing.

 

[Abegweit]

Politics is not "inherently" corrupt. Either people are, in which case the system can moderate it. Or the systems is, in which case fix it. If you are unhappy with the your voting system, go out and change it. No, they're not "divvying up stolen loot", you vote for them; they decide what collective services are necessary, raise money for the purpose without a profit.

Good lord. You think they don't make profit? They do very well living off the stolen loot.

Collective services are always gonna be necessary, so the question is not whether you have these but whether or not you have control over it.

Collective services don't exist and, in any case, I am not among those who decide what to do with the loot.

 

[Core Imposter]

I smell a lot of flavors in the comments here, from anarchy to libertarian to plain old socialist red.

Mostly fresh. I remember when I was young and knew everything. Thats a place you travel through. A place to visit. Enjoy it.

 

[Verbose]

Good lord. You think they don't make profit? They do very well living off the stolen loot.

Collective services don't exist and, in any case, I am not among those who decide what to do with the loot.

You do end up pretty much claiming representative democracy has failed in the US. OK. That's the US sorted then. Representative democracy may have to get by without it.

At some point the elected stopped representing the electorate, no? Queary: How about getting back to the former situation? Or has democracy in the US always been a sham?

 

[Abegweit]

I smell a lot of flavors in the comments here, from anarchy to libertarian to plain old socialist red.

Mostly fresh. I remember when I was young and knew everything. Thats a place you travel through. A place to visit. Enjoy it.

Yeah. I remember too. There is something I learned over the years. Either the free market is right or socialism is right. There really isn't any middle ground.

People who think there is inevitably come up to erroneous conclusions. Take your list of conservatives:

Goldwater: a Cold Warrior, defeated because of his libertarian leanings. In an ironic twist on history the infinitely better Ron Paul will be defeated, not because of his radical libertarianism, but because he isn't a war monger.

Nixon? OSHA. EPA. Abandoning the Gold Standard. Lots more.

Reagan? Vast increases in taxes and spending across the board, most notably "fixing" socialist security by stealing from the poor. He did have good rhetoric though.

George H.W. Bush. Mr Read My Lips. The guy who gave us ADA. Please.

George W. Bush. OMG. Just OMG. No Child Left Behind. Medicare Part D. Sarbanes/Oxley. Massive attacks on civil liberties. The concept of preemptive war.

 

[Abegweit]

You do end up pretty much claiming representative democracy has failed in the US. OK. That's the US sorted then. Representative democracy may have to get by without it.

At some point the elected stopped representing the electorate, no? Queary: How about getting back to the former situation? Or has democracy in the US always been a sham?

Representative democracy is everywhere and always a sham. It is corruption incarnate. I did point out that there are differences in the kinds of corruption you find in the Congressional system vs those found in the Parliamentary system. They have at least one point in common: you can't kick the bastards out. There's always another gang ready in the wings. Corruption corrupts, as Saruman discovered.

Direct democracy does have its points. The people do actually get to choose, even if they still are choosing what to do with stolen loot. It's not an accident that Switzerland is just about the best example of democracy anywhere.

 

[Verbose]

Representative democracy is everywhere and always a sham. It is corruption incarnate. I did point out that there are differences in the kinds of corruption you find in the Congressional system vs those found in the Parliamentary system. They have at least one point in common: you can't kick the bastards out. There's always another gang ready in the wings. Corruption corrupts, as Saruman discovered.

Well, that's self-fulfilling at least. It's simply the kind of society you will get with your attitude to it.

Administrative transparency (all adminstrative actions are public information, which however requires people paying attention to what they do) and legislation might otherwise be avenues to explore in a political system.

There's also this, I presume to the US, mythical beast of grass-roots mass-movement political parties based on common interests of ordinary citizens. But with your jaded view of things I presume that's just mob-rule?

Politics is about interests after all, which is just as true in democratic systems as in any other. How these interests get channeled, how people are mobilized, and how minority interests get protected does make for differences however.

But it's all a POS and corrupt since it ain't perfect and ideal? Do people have collective interests (oh, I don't know, like fair representation, lack of corruption, transparency, efficient administration)? If they do, can they be relied upon to discern collective interests?

 

[Cutlass]

Aw, I was just being a little provocative. I mean no harm or offense.

The thing is that it is a struggle to explain that capitalism isn't a problem here but serves the role of whipping boy.

I don't know how to rise to the task of explaining it to people who have no knowledge of markets and running a business.

If a man is swiming underwater and needs air he must surface or drown. If a man is running a business and going into the red, he must cut costs or go out of business. Its very simple. The credit crisis destroyed a lot of wealth, the housing bust put an end to having a strong consumer demand based on equity in rising asset prices. The economy is just smaller and no amount of borrowed government spending can fix it for a long long time.

So to be angry at capitalism is a product of a lack of knowledge. Capitalism didn't cause this. Markets simply operate. Garbage in, garbage out. Business operates in the system set up by the government. The system is the fault. Blame the Congress. Immoral, corrupt politicans are the author of all of this carnage. Period.

You can say business lobbys and corrupts Congress but all of us have special interests and their are lobbys for all of them. It is all just a great moral failure and one that is not being addressed.

Now I understand that its human nature when suffering to point fingers and assign blame.

Really, its one of the worst aspects of our nature. Better to exercise some critical thinking processes.

The economic pie is not fixed in size.

The economic pie cannot be decreased by concentrating wealth in a few percent of successful people who attain it by merit. This segment of the population is best able to invest it wisely and least likely to let it set around fallow.

Ergo, its good when people get rich.

Also, economic downturns never occur because wealth concentrates in the hands of the few, rather, economic downturns increase concentration of wealth at the top because the system that distributes it has broken down.

And that is never the intent of the rich, who do not want to be more rich relative to the poor, they want to be more rich than their peers.

But, on the other hand, the rich are a good target for the politicans, having screwed everything up with poor policies adopted as a side product of institutional corruption. And some of us are good dogs more than ready to be unleashed upon the villain of the moment.

I happen to endorse common sense. I think it just a matter of common sense for a man to act like a man rather than a dog.

As with all the things you get wrong, the ones I marked are the ones that you got the furthest wrong.

The part in red, "Capitalism didn't cause this", is utterly and completely ridiculous. Capitalism exactly caused this. It is the inherent nature of financial systems to cause banking crises exactly like this one. And no examination of what happened in the recent financial crisis can get away from the fact that nearly all of what government did wrong was to let capitalism do any damned thing that it pleased.


The part in blue is the worst thing you could possibly have said. Concentrating wealth on that scale is specifically and deliberately what you choose to do if you have by specific intent and full knowledge of the consequences trying to put a stop to all economic growth. Let's be clear, if your intent is to end economic growth, your actions will be to get the maximum possible concentration of wealth. That is the way to prevent business investment. Because the potential investor will have zero incentive to ever invest again.

Wealth in the US is far more concentrated now than it was 30 years ago. Is there more business investment? No. The Bush years saw essentially no business investment.

Instead of investment when wealth is that concentrated we get bubbles.

The part in green is just fantasy land. Common recessions happen because of lack of aggregate demand. Which means that wages are too low at the bottom and incomes are too high at the top. That's the basic cause of recessions.

 

[Abegweit]

It's simply the kind of society you will get with your attitude to it.

No. It's the kind of society you get with your attitude towards it

Administrative transparency (all adminstrative actions are public information, which however requires people paying attention to what they do) and legislation might otherwise be avenues to explore in a political system.

Tell me. Why exactly is Bradley Manning in prison?

There's also this, I presume to the US, mythical beast of grass-roots mass-movement political parties based on common interests of ordinary citizens. But with your jaded view of things I presume that's just mob-rule?

No. It is rule by elites. The mob are just grist for the machine,

Politics is about interests after all, which is just as true in democratic systems as in any other.

You mean it's true of all states? I agree with that.

But it's all a POS and corrupt since it ain't perfect and ideal? Do people have collective interests (oh, I don't know, like fair representation, lack of corruption, transparency, efficient administration)? If they do, can they be relied upon to discern collective interests?

Fair representation, lack of corruption, transparency, efficient administration... are the antithesis of the state. It is all about seizing other peoples' property for the benefit of the powerful. That's all it has ever done in the last ten thousand years. Aside, of course, from forcing the ordinary people to bow down to their rulers.

 

[Abegweit]

And no examination of what happened in the recent financial crisis can get away from the fact that nearly all of what government did wrong was to let capitalism do any damned thing that it pleased.

Nonsense. What government did wrong was to steal from ordinary people and give the ill-gotten gains to their cronies in the banks. Letting people do whatever they want is called "freedom". The bankers had the right to "do any damned thing that [they] pleased". Stealing from from the rest of us when they screw up is not among their rights. Do you know what a "Greenspan put" was? Those who made millions, if not billions, betting on it were proved entirely right.

The part in green is just fantasy land. Common recessions happen because of lack of aggregate demand. Which means that wages are too low at the bottom and incomes are too high at the top. That's the basic cause of recessions.

Recessions are caused by massive distortions of the market. Agreed that wages are too low at the bottom and too high at the top, but you have absolutely no clue why this is. Hint: the purpose of the state is to provide a legal means for the powerful to steal from the powerless. The meaning of powerful is not always clear under a democracy but those on the bottom are not among them.

 

[Arwon]

Clearly what America needs is an old style Labour Party.

 

[luiz]

Clearly what America needs is an old style Labour Party.

If they're so great one wonders why everybody, europeans first and foremost, got rid of them.