How real is class war?

[Mr. Dictator]

This does not answer my question at all. Bureaucrats do not pay taxes. They live off them. As an example, some tax-feeder might get gross $100,000 in stolen money and get $10,000 of that taken back in income taxes. So the net theft is $90,000. It's still theft. BTW his net gain is far less than that because there are many other ways that they steal.

But, taxes aren't theft.

 

[Crezth]

This does not answer my question at all. Bureaucrats do not pay taxes. They live off them. As an example, some tax-feeder might get gross $100,000 in stolen money and get $10,000 of that taken back in income taxes. So the net theft is $90,000. It's still theft. BTW his net gain is far less than that because there are many other ways that they steal.

Such as the traffic lights and public schools, I assume?

 

[Traitorfish]

Then there's those who vote Democrat. The morons still lose and the plutocrats still win. Different bunch of morons. Same plutocrats.

I've never really understood how one can be an anarchist ("anarchist"?) while holding the vast majority of the population in utter contempt. It seems, on some level, contradictory.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I've never really understood how one can be an anarchist ("anarchist"?) while holding the vast majority of the population in utter contempt. It seems, on some level, contradictory.

Anarchists dream of having the rest of the population starve to death so that they can skulk in a log cabin eating squirrels and payin' no taxes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Anarchists dream of having the rest of the population starve to death so that they can skulk in a log cabin eating squirrels and payin' no taxes.

I think you may be over-generalising just a tad, given that Abegweit's particular brand of anarchism is idiosyncratic in the extreme. I certainly can't see anything he's saying going down very well at in a CNT office or a Catholic Worker house of hospitality.

 

[peter grimes]

This does not answer my question at all. Bureaucrats do not pay taxes. They live off them.

Consider your own words:

"My guess here is that you don't pay taxes at all. You live off them. Correct me if I am wrong."
post #122

My response:

My overall liability last year (combined city + state + federal) was well over $10,000 (If you really really care I'll look it up tonight when I get home)

That's just income tax. Doesn't include FICA or sales tax.

I'm not sure how to quantify how much of my tax money I 'get back' in terms of city and state services.
[snip]
So please consider yourself corrected.

And you respond by saying I didn't answer your question?

WTH are you talking about? I answered your question EXPLICITLY.

I don't think your responses are rational. You responded to my careful enumeration of my tax position by claiming that you were really asking about bureaucrats?? I just went back 4 pages through the comments here and can find no question of yours that involves bureaucrats.

Your responses are incoherent, and therefore any reply I might make is a waste of my time.

 

[Dachs]

I've never really understood how one can be an anarchist ("anarchist"?) while holding the vast majority of the population in utter contempt. It seems, on some level, contradictory.

Hey, at least he can figure out what to think about the vast majority of the population. I sure as hell can't.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Dunno if these guys are still around

British Class War anarchist group. Not that I was ever a member

 

[Traitorfish]

Inflammatorist-in-Chief Ian Bone's still putting out stuff in that vein. (Not familiar enough with his work to know if he's brought his gender politics up to date.)

 

[Ayn Rand]

Inflammatorist-in-Chief Ian Bone's still putting out stuff in that vein. (Not familiar enough with his work to know if he's brought his gender politics up to date.)

Yes, I just stumbled over his blog - should be a funny read. I like the Mark Twain quote btw.

Has Weber come up yet? I want to use silly phrases like POUM which confuse George Orwell fans.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Has Weber come up yet? I want to use silly phrases like POUM which confuse George Orwell fans.

Is that like a CHUD?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

There is still class, divided by wealth, but because one's class is not as firmly entrenched as it used to be, there is far less class warfare than there used to be. There was a time, and it was not so long ago, that one's class was fixed at birth and nearly impossible to change. Since the Industrial Revolution, it has been possible to rise in social class standing more readily, as it is far easier to amass great wealth within one's lifetime. To amass that kind of wealth was earlier only possible by inheritance, which, once again, ensured fixed social class by birth. But social classes still exist, and the pattern remains the same today, with large numbers of poor at the bottom, and a tiny fraction of splendidly wealthy at the top.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm sceptical that social unrest can be pegged to social mobility like that. The developed world saw far more incidences of open class conflict in the post-war period than we see today, despite social mobility being considerably greater then than now (and social inequality rather lower). It seems altogether to reductive a model to explain how history has actually unfolded.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I'm sceptical that social unrest can be pegged to social mobility like that. The developed world saw far more incidences of open class conflict in the post-war period than we see today, despite social mobility being considerably greater then than now (and social inequality rather lower). It seems altogether to reductive a model to explain how history has actually unfolded.

First: what post-war class conflicts?

Second: I don't claim that class warfare necessarily shaped all facets of history. It is just one of many historical forces. And even social mobility, when it emerges, always has resistance from the established order, who try to maintain their existing privileges often by restraining said mobility.

 

[Traitorfish]

First: what post-war class conflicts?

Surely you're aware of the strength of labour unions and of union activity in the post-war period?

Second: I don't claim that class warfare necessarily shaped all facets of history. It is just one of many historical forces. And even social mobility, when it emerges, always has resistance from the established order, who try to maintain their existing privileges often by restraining said mobility.

I think you misinterpreted. What I meant is that a theory of class conflict cannot be reduced to the degree of social mobility in a given society, as you seemed to imply, without failing to explain how the history of class relations has actually developed.