Occupy Wall Street

[nab]

If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.

So that means we have class warfare, right? 



Since I used the term "class warfare", I'll tell you what I mean by it and why the context of my use in critiquing Moore's suggestions is entirely appropriate.


Marxism has dominated the social sciences for the last 150 years.  One of the reasons for this is that our modern conception of class owes much to the way that Marx defined the term in his various explanations of class conflict and its role in breaking down the capitalist system.  Class warfare, as defined by Marx, and as applied to the study of modernity, is nessesarily a "bottom up" as opposed to a "top down" concept due to the vision of modernity presented by Marx in his works.  Marxist theory rests on a dual conceptualization of the capitalist system as both an inherantly injust and as an evolutionary dead end in the formation of human society.  Marx also advocated the awakening of class conciousness in the proletariat, a process he envisioned as the begining of the end for capitalism and a progression toward a system that would favor the proletariat. 

In this light, when I use the term "class warfare" I mean the intentional use of communication to incite class conciousness in an attempt to bring people to your side of the argument.  I saw Moore's first two suggestions as platitudes aimed mainly at inciting class conciousness and not serious suggestions due to the difficulty in implimenting them in real life.  The first suggestion attacks "the rich" and the "wealthiest Americans" without explicitly defining who he is talking about.  The second suggestion again throws together the generalities of "profit" and "penalty tax" and makes an emotional appeal at the end of the suggestion to jobs as "a national treasure" while completely ignoring the difficulty that following his suggestion to the letter would take in real life.  For instance, if a foriegn owned company makes profit in the United States and moves a successful manager out of the United States for a peroid of time to help in another area of the world, should they be assigned a penalty tax for that personell movement? 

[Superfreakie]

Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW).

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

[Hicks]

Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW).

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

In any event I never said Halliburton killed anyone, I said they  profited from those deaths. 

Also, fixed your quote. 

[sls.stormyrider]

Halliburton didn't kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, the US Army did (commanded by both Republicans and Democrats, BTW).

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

true, true

profit-ocracy
commerce - ocracy

[mbw]

[Hicks]

Why should we Occupy Wall Street when we can Occupy Target for piece of shit memory cards that are worth $5?

[Superfreakie]

[susep]

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

Thank you.  And what was the one event, the new "pearl harbor" that catapulted Cheney's master plan?  9/11

[Superfreakie]

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's a little too much like research, which I spend my days doing. However, the above statement is one I would tread lightly around. When one of your former CEOs is essentially the unelected President of the United States and had developed, prior to coming into office, an energy strategy (while at your company) in conjunction with a neo conservative policy agenda (Policy for a New Century PNAC) of setting up US hegemony in the 21st century, a policy lying in the wings waiting for the opportune moment to be executed by government once the levers were in the right hands, a policy that, once enacted, would kill hundreds of thousands while concentrating unbelievable amounts of wealth amongst a select group, then I would say yes. Out damn spot, out, out damn spot. The democracy you (and I) live in must be qualified, it is a capitalist democracy, so yes, businesses can influence decision making which ultimately kills people.

Oh, and free market, LOL.

Thank you.  And what was the one event, the new "pearl harbor" that catapulted Cheney's master plan?  9/11

But it must be realized that had there not been 9/11 there would been some event down the road that would have "necessitated" an enactment of the agenda so that energy might be secured and guaranteed in advance of the Chinese and Russians. The oil game is zero sum until we find an alternative, and the US will do whatever it takes to keep the market balanced. The "problem", if you will permit me using the term, is that it is extremely difficult to convince the population of a democracy to go to war, unless it is for evident self defense. It is hard to tell the public - "we are going to put in plan a motion that is going to kill thousands but our gas at the pump will stay at a level whereby our economy will keep afloat, millions will retain their jobs and you will not have to sacrifice your present lifestyle". Consider what would happen to the US economy if you paid as much for gas as the Europeans. You think you are in a recession now? It would pale by comparison.

Let's take a quick glance at historical events that have drawn the US into war:

The USS Main anchored near Cuba accidentally sunk after some explosives near the steam room caught alight. The US, however, would lay the blame at the feet of the Spaniards; an "act of war". The US would then proceed to attack and wipe out much of the Armada, establishing the US as one of the great sea powers.

Prior to the US entrance into WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania, an ammunition boat with 139 passengers aboard. Passenger vessels were not to be targeted, but any serving a military purpose were fair game. The US and British, however, purposely neglected to tell the public in the aftermath of the sinking that there were munitions aboard. This event would be used to set the US public on the path to war.

The Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964, whereby the Americans accused North Vietnamese boats of torpedoing the USS Maddox. McNamara would eventually admit that they were never attacked, that the incident was a fabrication to turn the US population in favor of launching the Vietnamese War.

Prior to Gulf War One, there was a possible miscommunication between Saddam and the US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie. When Saddam queried her about his border dispute with Kuwait, she stated that the US had no intention of regulating border disputes in the Arab world. Although she and others have since argued that this should never have been perceived as having given the green light for the invasion, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write in the January/February 2003 edition of Foreign Policy that Saddam approached the U.S. to find out how it would react to an invasion into Kuwait. Along with Glaspie's comment that "'[W]e have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.' The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had 'no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did." Sure this, in and of itself, is not much but the US then went to the Saudi's as Saddam was launching his offensive and showed them satellite photos with Iraqi tanks massed along the Saudi border, proclaiming that the Saudis were next. Years later we would discover from Russian satellite imaging at the exact time of the purported US photos, that there were never tanks at the Saudi border. These events, however, "allowed" the US to destroy the majority of Saddam's military might while setting up permanent military bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the US now the "rescuer of the Middle East". Interestingly, they never deposed Saddam when they had the chance. Better a weak and impotent dictator than having an Iranian proxy take over the country, which just might happen two decades later as the US prepares to withdraw from Iraq..........

Round and round we go, where it stops know one knows. The only people who have seen the end of war are the dead.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming....OWS. (sorry for the thread hijack) 

[gah]

If I see another fucking right winger cry class warfare when the left tries to level the playing fuel I'm going to flip the fuck out.

The rich have been kicking the shit out of the rest of us for ages now. we've already got class warfare. It's time we fired the fuck back.

This.

Especially when those that are declaring class warfare are themselves lower or middle class.

It blows my fucking mind how people can take positions that are so diametrically opposed to their own self interest.

It's because we're all divided up left and right arguing social issues. It's a great distraction from the economic swindling that's occurring.

Also, SF, thanks for your posts. Your comments are always very insightful in regards to world affairs and an excellent outsiders perspective looking in on America.

Also, a random, but relevant quote I saw the other day, "When plunder becomes a way of life, for a group of men, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

[rowjimmy]

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz1fINJrzIO

That's the beginning of a great article.

[nab]

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109#ixzz1fINJrzIO

That's the beginning of a great article.

yeah, the very beginning.



Read this a while back.  Informative and insightful.   

Also a bit on the long side, unapologetically partisan, and rambly at times.   The democrats get off practically scott free and the time tested historical analogy (paraphrasing "see, you call yourself Reagan republicans but you really aren't") approach to contoroling dialog is heavily used throughout the piece.

On the whole though, I thought the piece was a good first step in examining one of the ways that Washington keeps the elite (this time the financial elite) in power. 

[gah]

Listening to a piece on npr this morning and in regards to the GOP arguing against increasing taxes on the wealthy to balance out an extension on the payroll tax, they said something to the effect of them wanting to tread lightly so as to not appear too obviously defending the wealthy. Thing that gets me is, they're completely aware of it and adjust their rhetoric accordingly, enough to get their way but not raise any suspicion amongst the clueless american idol/mickey d's crowd of supporters. Ah well...let's keep arguing about gay marriage though.

[kellerb]

Listening to a piece on npr this morning and in regards to the GOP arguing against increasing taxes on the wealthy to balance out an extension on the payroll tax, they said something to the effect of them wanting to tread lightly so as to not appear too obviously defending the wealthy. Thing that gets me is, they're completely aware of it and adjust their rhetoric accordingly, enough to get their way but not raise any suspicion amongst the clueless american idol/mickey d's crowd of supporters. Ah well...let's keep arguing about gay marriage though.

They don't want to marry poor people, just continuously fuck them in the ass.

[iamhydroJen]

Adam Carolla is hilarious  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard