Debates
13 Feb 11
13 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy point is that most people belong to both classes and so making this out as some sort of class struggle is meaningless.
Depends on the details. "Owning stock in Google" is not quite the same as "owning an apartment building" or "owning a factory". "Stock in Google" is an abstraction, not physical wealth.
Probably middle class. I'd need to know more details. What kind of work? Mr. Khosla, the venture capitalist I referred to in the other thread probably thinks he ...[text shortened]... What physical objects and resources can you make the police withhold from the market?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNow you're just being a goofball. The proletariat don't like being mocked!
It has everything to do with class warfare. It's instinctive. None of this intellectual collectivist Communist crap that the elites use to snare gullible but angry "useful idiots".
This is American style. He is a career criminal. Early on he decided to say "F* YOU!!!" to "society" and "the Man". Like they say in East L.A., he don't fake it, h ...[text shortened]... oesn't deserve it.
I'm sure he has lots of connections with impoverished people.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76Not really meaningless. It is argued on one hand that Marx failed to anticipate the extent to which the working classes would find political ways to secure a better share of the wealth created through their own labour. On the other hand it is argued that wealthy countries buy off their own population but export poverty to other parts of the world - so that it is the Third World that bears the harshest burden and serves as the "reserve army of labour," fear of which helps to discipline the productive workers.
My point is that most people belong to both classes and so making this out as some sort of class struggle is meaningless.
In any case Marx was concerned with the way Capital has a logic of its own by which wealth, generated through the productive labour of the many, becomes concentrated in the hands of the few. It is a slow and inaccurate process with leakage that benefits productive workers, but look at the extent to which the top 1% to 5% of the World's population has ownership of a phenomenal proportion of the total wealth in the world to appreciate how the remainder are left struggling for the scraps in an unequal fight. Look at the way a few companies manage to dominate each market despite some effort to control monopolies and permit some competition to survive. Those huge companies tolerate competition only to the extent that they are obliged to. Among ordinary people, life is harsh and highly competitive - just to survive in most cases.
The struggle is not primarily about people individually, who are often very nice and very worthy in their own way, but about the power of Capital itself, the way it poisons everything around it.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by finneganThe richest 1% owning a large % is not an evil in and of itself, as long as the others have plenty too. I'd rather have the richest be filthy rich and the middle class and poor be comfortable than everybody be equally miserable.
Not really meaningless. It is argued on one hand that Marx failed to anticipate the extent to which the working classes would find political ways to secure a better share of the wealth created through their own labour. On the other hand it is argued that wealthy countries buy off their own population but export poverty to other parts of the world - so tha ...[text shortened]... heir own way, but about the power of Capital itself, the way it poisons everything around it.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76False dilemma. You don't need economic oligarchy to have a healthy economy.
The richest 1% owning a large % is not an evil in and of itself, as long as the others have plenty too. I'd rather have the richest be filthy rich and the middle class and poor be comfortable than everybody be equally miserable.
14 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think the middle class is one of the biggest problems in this country. They think they deserve to live like the rich but when asked to shoulder more of the country's fiscal burden, they are suddenly "just barely making ends meet."
False dilemma. You don't need economic oligarchy to have a healthy economy.
Plus the middle-class robs a lot of the transfers that could be going to the poor.
Disclaimer: obviously not everyone of middle-class means fits this description, but many do and incendiary language is more fun.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungrich people are putting their money into Podunks outside Nashville?
Then how come poor people keep getting shot by cops in defense of rich peoples' capital?
EDIT - E.g.
http://www.wsmv.com/news/26259026/detail.html
POSTED: 12:57 pm CST December 23, 2010
UPDATED: 12:19 am CST December 24, 2010
Police said Charles K. Glover, 37, robbed two Fifth Third banks on Thursday. One of the banks was on Donelson P ...[text shortened]... he scene, and he didn't have a gun, police said in a news release Thursday evening.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by telerioni think we should buy some poor African country like Liberia or Zimbabwe and give our poor free one-way tickets to it.
I think the middle class is one of the biggest problems in this country. They think they deserve to live like the rich but when asked to shoulder more of the country's fiscal burden, they are suddenly "just barely making ends meet."
Plus the middle-class robs a lot of the transfers that could be going to the poor.
Disclaimer: obviously not everyo ...[text shortened]... of middle-class means fits this description, but many do and incendiary language is more fun.
the challenge of raising their own food should firm them up and make them better people.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by telerion"The country's fiscal burden" exists because of stupid capitalists, not the middle class.
I think the middle class is one of the biggest problems in this country. They think they deserve to live like the rich but when asked to shoulder more of the country's fiscal burden, they are suddenly "just barely making ends meet."
Plus the middle-class robs a lot of the transfers that could be going to the poor.
Disclaimer: obviously not everyo ...[text shortened]... of middle-class means fits this description, but many do and incendiary language is more fun.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf you move north across the border you'll find much less of that happening. Why do you think that might be? Canadians are more adept at waging class warfare?
Then how come poor people keep getting shot by cops in defense of rich peoples' capital?
EDIT - E.g.
http://www.wsmv.com/news/26259026/detail.html
POSTED: 12:57 pm CST December 23, 2010
UPDATED: 12:19 am CST December 24, 2010
Police said Charles K. Glover, 37, robbed two Fifth Third banks on Thursday. One of the banks was on Donelson P ...[text shortened]... he scene, and he didn't have a gun, police said in a news release Thursday evening.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by sh76I thought that research that (I think it was no1) was posted a while ago was quite interesting - most Americans think the poor should get a larger % of all wealth (though of course they don't think it should be spread equally), even though their own estimate of how much the poor currently own is several orders of magnitude off!
The richest 1% owning a large % is not an evil in and of itself, as long as the others have plenty too. I'd rather have the richest be filthy rich and the middle class and poor be comfortable than everybody be equally miserable.