Forum Post: Class War alive and well in Dallas
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 8:06 p.m. EST by darrenlobo
(204)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A true classless society can exist only in the libertarian definition of capitalism, the laissez-faire free market system where the interventionist coercion of the statist/corporatist/unionist ruling class is absolutely forbidden to intrude.
Without recognizing that government is the enemy, without recognizing that both the 1% and the 99% are composed of honest earners and politically connected takers, the 1% vs. 99% class war is just simplistic goofiness.
http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-dallas/class-war-alive-and-well-dallas
We were all born with a natural instinct to gather and store for survival. A natural instinct to care for family and community. This is human nature.
When modern society was formed, we began to sell out our natural instincts. Survival turned into survival with a little more elbow room. Then survival with a little more elbow room and a nice view. Then survival with a little more elbow room, a nice view, and something pretty to hang around our neck.
Fast forward a few thousand years. With the industrial revolution, came mechanized transportation, modern housing, air conditioning, and television.
We had become somewhat spoiled. Somewhat motivated. Still relatively down to Earth. Still modest enough to appreciate one another, care for one another, and work towards a common goal.
Along the way, the potential for increased personal wealth became more and more intoxicating. Now, the vast overwhelming majority want to be rich. They want it so badly, they are willing to sell out basic morality to attain it. They WILL sell out basic morality if given the opportunity.
How can I be so sure? That's easy. Human nature plus years of corrupt influence plus opportunity.
Mother Nature did not plan for modern society. She did not plan for extreme personal wealth. Once attained, we become fully intoxicated. We simply can not process the concept without being corrupted by it. Without compromising our basic morality.
Extreme personal wealth is the single greatest corrupt influence of modern society. With every 'zero' on the paycheck, our basic instincts to care for family and community are compromised.
Those of you who still aren't convinced, consider this:
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, and take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, would you do it?
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, OR take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, which would you choose?
Which would the vast overwhelming majority choose?
Why are the richest men and women in the world so incredibly determined to get even richer?
How did the world's wealth become so incredibly concentrated?
Why is the concept of a partial redistribution for the good of humanity so incredibly divisive and controversial?
How is it that virtually every developed nation in the world has become riddled with fear, instability, and rising debt?
How have so many world leaders and those affiliated become even richer as their own economies falter?
The answer is greed. An obsessive desire for extreme personal wealth. It's become a worldwide epidemic.
Not only is the greatest concentration of wealth in world history the single greatest underlying cause of economic instability. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most intoxicating and corrupt influence in the history of mankind.
Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=XgygaG87rZY
This site is being ruined by trolls. It's no accident. It's no game. It's about money and PR. The rich don't want our messages read. They don't want people to understand. They don't want to accept responsibility for any of this. They will say or do anything to divert our attention.
Don't let them get away with it.
Search the AM dial day and night for local call in talk radio shows. There are dozens of them. Call in and be heard by thousands at once. Its easy. I've done it over 800 times. Just don't bother with Limbaugh, Hanity, Levin, Beck, Ingraham, Savage, Doyle, Harley, Mcnamera, Bortz, or Bruce. Those guys are a waste of time. The others are ok. You are welcome to use anything I post.
I agree all but one thing though, i would not be GOD that would be giving you that choice....BE careful...the snake is very deceptive. I do understand what your saying though. and yes your right on. When i fought my suit in court, i settled out, and sighed off , Banks will say it never happened. while im forced too.
Further to your 'cris de coeur' above and with an eye to the forum-poster's reference to "Class War", perhaps we should realise and reflect upon the fact that The Only "Class War" is the one that has been waged by a Truly Parasitic 0.01%, using a 1% against The 99%. The 'Standard Capitalist Model', halcyon days of 'Trickle Down' and Wage Slavery have now morphed into 'Hoover Up' ; 'Wage Slave (if you're lucky) but Now In Permanent, Generational 'Debt-Bondage'.
In The U$A, UK etc., The 99% have bailed out private Banks, who had private contracts and private commercial positions which became unsustainable (due to their inherent 'Ponzi' nature!) after which The 99% Public had to pick up the tab to the mass detriment of all of us. The current Mass Austerity and Cut-backs are somehow sold as inevitable and NO mention of The Bank Bailouts and their Deep Impact On Public Finances, is made by The Political Class or The Corporate MSM.
The Privatisation of Benefit, Profit and Opportunity and the simultaneous Socialisation of Costs, Loss and Risk is happening throughout 'Western Capitalism' (Kaputalism?) is unconscionable and untenable. This Larcenous Oppression Can NOT Abide !!!
'Struggle' is the name of the game and Agitation, Education and Organisation are The Way Forward for us all IF we are to avoid Totally Succumbing to Unfettered Corporatism !!
Its "Jubilee Year" in The UK and perhaps all of us - throughout the world, would be well advised to research and re-discover, just what the original Old Testament "Jubilee" was and what it entailed !
fiat justitia ruat caelum ...
Billionaire businessman Warren Buffet said on CNBC about a year ago already: “There's CLASS WARFARE, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
On CNN, he later stated : "Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically. If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."
@T : Thanx for your Excellent Addendum !!
Enjoy it while it's there... :)
Thrasymaque is still VERY actively using his bot to collapse most of my comments and nothing is being done to stop him.
At last check, I have lost 1,200 "karma points" in ten days and he admits it's the work of his bot. Let's elect Thrasy-la-Terreur "tinpot tyrant" of this forum! LOL
As evidence of what you are saying in your post above, I submit the following :
"[-] -6 points by Thrasymaque (2864) 1 week ago :
I do. Sometimes I even use a bot of my own design to aggressively follow and down vote all the comments of a spammer." ;
from http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-publicly-calling-out-modestcapitalist-to-stop-s/ .
'TrashyMinge' seems to have appointed himself judge and jury on this forum and he seeks to disguise his own essential 'conservative and reactionary' nature (eg. as evidenced by his recent posts in support of SOPA) with accusations of 'conspiracy' and 'spamming'.
From his lair in Bali, he professes 'pseudo-anarchist ideals' while actually behaving like an anti-progressive, feudalist (IF you are aware of Bali or have been there beyond the 'tourist facade', you'll easily understand my phraseology!).
'Trashy' is a reactionary, self-righteous hypocrite and despite his intelligence, a disruptor on this forum.
ad iudicium ...
AGREE!
Here are a few more genuine "thrasymaquisms" to add to your collection:
"Wealth inequality isn't a problem (...) OWS is missing the mark by focusing so much energy on this false problem." (Troll Thrasymaque, January 13, 2012) http://occupywallst.org/forum/there-is-hope-more-evidence-that-ows-message-on-in/#comment-586292
"I have to be honest, I'm really sad this forum has become infested with mentally ill paranoid schizophrenics." (Troll Thrasymaque, January 6, 2012) Note from TIOUAISE : Infested? Really? That must be why in our last discussion he wanted to put all forum members who disagree with him ON MEDS...LOL http://occupywallst.org/forum/there-is-now-an-organized-andor-obsessed-effort-to/#comment-577868
"I have a bot that shadows you from time to time and down votes all your comments to -9." (Troll Thrasymaque, January 8, 2012) Note from TIOUAISE: That must be why I lost 1,200 points over the last two weeks! LOL http://occupywallst.org/forum/there-is-now-an-organized-andor-obsessed-effort-to/#comment-577868
I referenced a very recently active thread, so re. "Collection" ?! No Way !! If I were to have such a thing, I'd have access to his posts of indecent-material with which to beat him with !
See, what's happened here ? Mere mention of him causes dissension and umbrage ! 'Trashy' is a dissembler and caustic influence on this forum for sure !!
honi soit qui mal y pense !!!
That's the first time I am accused of being a feudalist. Interesting.
For your information, the only down voting I am doing is against TIOUAISE because he is stalking me. I do not control anything else on the forum. Iv'e told TIOUAISE on many occasions that he only need to apologize for stalking me and I will stop. Otherwise, his comments will continue to be collapse. Sadly.
Gee, I didn't know you had a lair! Would that be like the place for a wild animal, or a place of hiding? Or both.
I wasn't addressing you or even referring to you 'Cephalus', as my post was directed at OWS 'disruptor in chief' 'TrickyMonkey' ! There is really no need whatsoever for you to take offence or be defensive about anything at all !! Gnothi Seauton !!! ~{;-)
I guess you've never read Plato's Republic.
I already guessed that you're more 'phalus' than anything else !!!
Oh, or was I really referring to some of your "alter ego's" indecent picture posts ?!!
Dissembling Dick !
You shouldn't call other users names.
That article is polemical. It twists what capitalism is and how it works.
Capitalism is set up to benefit those who have capital first. So, if you are so keen on having libertarian/Austrian free-wheeling unregulated capitalism ask you dear leaders if they'd be willing to even everyone out first. This means that everyone would have exactly equal wealth (capital) at the outset.
Your fearless leaders would never agree to this. Why? Because they know damn well that unregulated capitalism would benefit them because they already have a good amount of capital. They don't care about people who don't have capital. They will be their little work dogs. They use these sickening stories of how the hamburger flipper can make it into the one percent. No he can't. Okay, in theory he can, but, it's a one in a million chance because he'll barely be able to pay his rent.
The article puts down Karl Marx's assessment of capitalism. Why don't you read "Das Kapital" and then think for yourself who is right? It doesn't mean your a communist if you read Marx. He just really does give a very good explanation of how capitalism works.
I know this is nitpicky, but I actually know a woman who started out flipping burgers @McD and now owns three of them. Three McD's, not burgers
That's great for her, but still a very rare story. That will not happen for the majority of people. One of the fundamentals of capitalism is that it requires the labor of workers. She couldn't run her restaurants without all the workers, right?
so? she pays them . she started out that way,.....as an employee, now she's an employer.
I didn't want to nitpick either, but who knows what she had when she started out. She may have inherited money, who knows? It could be that she was planning to buy the McDonald's and wanted to understand the process from the bottom up and that's why she flipped burgers.
My point about the employees is that you always need to have employees, they can't all be employers.
Excellent points.
Thanks. Basic economics, methinks.
No thanks, I don't believe in using violence on peaceful people nor do I advocate theft so I can't agree with "even everyone out first". I'll pass on your egalitarian police state.
The aritcle states, "Marx's original definition of "capitalism" was a system in which ruling class elitists used government coercion to grant monopoly powers to their politically connected cronies."
Marx was wrong. That's a definition of the present corporatist system not free market capitalism. The libertarian goal is to remove the govt's ability to grant monopoly powers to their politically connected cronies. In that way we can have fairness & equality of opportunity. There will never be equality of outcome nor should we try to achieve it.
I'd like to know where that article got Marx's "original definition" of capitalism. That is not from "Capital," I don't think, though it's been a long time since I read it. I think that is a bastardization of his theory. Read "Capital" for yourself.
And, if libertarians want to put in place a free-wheeling unregulated capitalist economic system the only fair way to do so would be to even everyone out in terms of capital. The only fair way. To argue against this makes no sense. I would question any libertarian leader who would not say, of course, that is what we have to do to implement this system in this manner. It has nothing to do with theft, unless of course you want to let the people with all the capital rob you blind when they implement this crazy idea.
I found this, "According to Marx, who has given us the best analysis of capitalism, capitalist competition presumes monopoly, i.e., capitalist monopoly over the forces of production." http://libcom.org/library/economics-politics-and-the-age-of-inflation-mattick-four From a Marxist source saying the same thing.
In a free market the competent will rise & the incompetent will fall, how much capital they have is irrelevant. This great leveling by police state that you advocate is not only immoral but impractical. You would just end up destroying the economy & making everyone poor. Maybe that's what socialists want, everyone equally poor.
I think what he means by competence is human capital or the labor part of the equation. Competence meaning the quality of the labor that is part of the production process. He doesn't mean the smartest, most competent capitalist.
There is never a level playing field for long in a capitalist system - too many factors come into play. I'm just saying that if you're ever going to implement free-wheeling unregulated Austrian capitalism you would have to have everyone start out on a level playing field. Otherwise, those who head into it with capital would have an unfair advantage.
You're not addressing the fact that your great leveling would destroy the economy, not to mention our rights because of the police state that would be necessary to accomplish it. Where's the fairness in that?
Why would you need a police state to accomplish that? The only reason you would need that is because the folks with the capital won't part with it because they know they will have an extreme advantage. That's why you need to question libertarianism. Socially, it sounds good, economically, it would be hell for most people.
OK, you just addressed it, people don't want to part with what they have. Using force to take from them is called theft & you need some thugs to pull off your great armed robbery. That's the police state I'm talking about. Just look at how thuggish the IRS is to get an idea of what it will look like.
It's not just the rich, the middle class & even working class people have capital too. (Think of the contractor with a truck & some tools or the small business owner.) Do you really want to take from them? Is this really going to make us better off?
Perhaps you can explain how my libertarian free market that will create unprecedented prosperity will be "hell for most people"
If a free market unregulated capitalist system is implemented the people with the most capital at the onset will be at the greatest advantage. That's why they want it. It will not create unprecedented prosperity for most people. It will exploit most people.
The present elites don't want free markets, they like having a strong govt to protect them. For example, when was the last time you heard a pharma company say we should ditch the FDA? Does the insurance industry lobby to end its regulation? Never & no. The military-industrial complex needs big govt. As does the prison-industrial complex. I could go on but you get the idea. Corporatism isn't free market capitalism.
That is all true because they can't have free-wheeling unregulated capitalism, so they like to control the regulations, yes.
Mises is wrong. Austrian economics may sound good on paper but if you look deeper at how capitalism really works, the nuts and bolts, you will see that it would be deleterious for most people. This is why Austrian economics has never been implemented....anywhere!
& the Keynesian alternative is better? That's why we're in the mess we're in. The closer we've come to implementing free markets the better the results have been. The reason we don't see wider acceptance of Austrian economics is that the 1% doesn't like being told no, you shouldn't do that, like the Austrians do. They prefer & promote the Keynesian view which says yes, you should do things like bailouts & central banking.
Yes, the 1% does control the govt. It always will. That's why regulation doesn't work. That's also why they don't want a free market, they can control the govt.
I disagree. The past 30 years has seen the biggest decline in regulation of our economy, especially the past 10 years. Hence the big problems. The 1% does not always have to control our economy. Hell, that's why I'm here on this forum and supporting OWS. It does not have to be this way.
The free market, Austrian system will not work because of the basic premise of capitalism which is exploitation. Those with the most capital will buy up everything and extract profits through exploiting their capital and labor. Think of the Industrial Revolution and Darwinian times. That is the closest you will get to unregulated capitalism....What happened? Hell, for most people and regulation to temper it.
The past 30 years has seen an increase in regulation, don't listen to Republican BS about their commitment to free markets. They say one thing then do another:
Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off
Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon.
(snip)
Figure 1 shows the real increase in regulatory spending by full presidential term between 1960 and 2009. During both his terms, President Bush outspent every one of his recent predecessors. In his first term, he increased spending on regulatory agencies by $8.3 billion, almost doubling what President Clinton—the second biggest spender—spent during his second term.
The data also show that, adjusted for inflation, expenditures for the category of finance and banking were cut by 3 percent during the Clinton years and rose 29 percent from 2001 to 2009, making it hard to argue that Bush deregulated the financial sector.
(snip) http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
Then came Obama, no deregulator either.
I like the industrial revolution. It created wealth like no other time before it. Even Marx knew that only capitalism could achieve that. Perhaps you should look at the preindustrial eras with their short life expectancy, high infant mortality, hunger, & disease. Look at the improvement achieved by the market. We're seeing things going the wrong way during this era of govt control.
Okay. You liked the Industrial Revolution with child labor and tenements and extreme poverty. Just be careful what you wish for.
First, I didn't read the article but, actually, Marx was right. Well, one, he invented the word so he could give it any definition he
wanted. And, two, I'm not knowledgeable enough in the history of any other system of capitalism besides America's, but in our
system the ruling elite certainly did use their powers to further their own interests and if not able to entirely run out the competition
of the small and middle class businessman and farmer, they certainly didn't further his interests, either.
So 'crony capitalism' was apparently what Marx meant when he coined the word 'capitalism'.
Crony capitalism is, of course, just another way of saying corporatism, corporatism being the modern-day version of the old, wealthy ruling elite crony capitalism, which unfortunately, included most of our forefathers.
Free market capitalism -- now that's another critter altogether. Give me that! We never had it.
@darren...take a deep breath, put down the Ron Paul newsletters and complimentary Kool-Aid, remove your hooded sheets, and try to calm yourself. Libertarianism does not create a classless society. It actually encourages robber barons, bread lines, dust-bowls, and high unemployment.
Not to mention, you are an idiot if you think that unions are in the ruling class, or the state. The Corporations own this country. And unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is what enabled them to buy wholesale.
Put down the red flag & stop drinking the Molotov cocktail. Since the progressive era there has been progressively more regulation of the economy. It is no coincidence that there has been more concentration of wealth & less opportunity. We agree that corporations own the country. They do it by owning the powerful govt, you know, the entity empowered by the left. Stop allowing yourself to be played by the 1%. They will always control the govt & you never will. Only by advocating liberty (freedom from govt control) can you help achieve anything good.
actually there has been increasingly less regulation and lower taxation on Corporations since the Progressive Era. If only we could back to the ideals of that era, we could save our democracy from crony-capitalism/financialism.
Exactly!
I don't know where you get your history but it's way off. I never knew that FDR was the great deregulator. LOL Just a look at the number of pages in the federal register shows how wrong your view is:
Federal Register Hits 75,000 Pages http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/02/federal-register-hits-75000-pa
& no corporate taxes are higher now than they were before the Depression: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
I don't want to keep repeating myself so I'll just say I stand by my last comment.
The top marginal tax rate during the New Deal era was around 90%. Up until Reagan. Reagan lowered it to about 50%. Then Bush, Clintion, and Bush II lowered it further to around 30%. That is a massive decrease in generated wealth for the 1%.
Furthermore, in the new Deal era, corporations had to re-certify their charter years, by proving they were working in the public good. That was ended during the Reagan Era.
Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, were all deregulators.
If the 4 clowns you mention were deregulators why did they increase the number of pages in the Federal register? See also:
Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon. http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
You can see from the chart linked to in my last comment that corporate taxes are higher now than they were before the Depression: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/us-tax-rates-1916-2010/
Face the reality that the govt regulates the economy to benefit the 1%.
[Removed]
There will always be some distinction between people. Even in simple tribal egalitarian societies, there is always someone better at some things then anyone else. Most people in the US still believe we have the ability to move up to a higher socioeconomic group.
Larger corporations have shown they need to be regulated to some extent. The total laissez-faire approach has shown itself to be imperfect.
Actually, corporations themselves are creations of the govt. They wouldn't exist without them. A "total laissez-faire approach" wouldn't have corporations to begin with.
Regardless, the corporations control the regulators. They use regulation to their benefit. It is regulation that has failed not the free market.
Your verbage is also goofiness.
Right on the money, Darren. It should be the 99.9% vs the .01%, anyhow, and even that may not always be true... just a lot closer. Thanks.