Class Warfare...

[Medius]

[Sandman]

As I've said in other threads, I think the term "class warfare" just becomes a red herring no matter who uses it, for whatever purpose. But the underlying concept is certainly something that the Obama campaign utilized to sell a certain narrative about the causes of the financial crisis. I see a lot of that narrative in the OP, and I just disagree. I think partly the sales pitch of this narrative hinges on painting the top 1-10% as shadowy "robber barons", instead of the goofy schmoes (read: actual regular humans) on, say, the show Undercover Boss, who may be seriously disconnected from the human consequences of their bean counting, but aren't consciously trying to do anything but be successful managers. But more importantly, it hinges on this completely fantastical casting of one of the most regulated markets on earth (wall street) as some anarchic money orgy. This narrative has been so successful that even when you ask the large majority of those who describe themselves as well-informed on the causes of the housing crisis and ensuing recession, they aren't even aware that the entire purpose of the existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the biggest players in the housing crisis by anyone's estimation, are government-sponsored regulatory agencies. That's what they do. They regulate secondary markets. That's their entire purpose.

I'd say Obama's re-election wasn't so much an embrace of class warfare as it was a slim rejection of all the social conservative hijinks that dominated the media for months and months. And rightfully so, we're just not that country anymore where an old white dude can talk about God and rape on national TV and not creep people the f*ck out. But I also think there is this general popular drive for "equality", or more specifically "income equality". It has become the refrain of all of our tax discussions, for reasons I'm still not entirely clear about based on the math, but as Kurt Vonnegut hilariously pointed out decades ago, most people just don't consider the real life social implications of any kind of government forced equality, much less financial equality. It would require a level of authoritarianism in government that even the dialectic wizards on this site wouldn't be able to morally justify. Besides that, the problems we are facing with income inequality between corporations and workers in America are not being caused by unfettered capitalism, but by this incestuous revolving door relationship between business and government in this country. People in this thread are talking about tax loopholes and corporate law as if these aren't the domain of the US government, and then turning back around and, with a straight face (figuratively speaking) offering LACK of government oversight as the problem. It's insane. The concentration of wealth from a handful of multinational corporations isn't a result of the free market, it's a result of government shielding those special corporations FROM the free market. From the consequences of their own failures. It's not capitalism, it's not socialism, it's this frankenstein's monster of a system where gains are capitalized and losses are socialized for the biggest companies, while everyone outside the bubble is left with a lopsided table with strict instructions to play the game right. It's a cold fact that the majority of congressmen and women eventually leave public service to work in the lobbying sector. This isn't some weird anomaly. The game IS rigged. By the only ones with the keys to the machine.

[stripe66506]

[Medius]

[Professor]

[John Galt]

[Homer]

[Medius]

[Boris Johnson]

[Boris Johnson]

Anyway, I think its the lazy way of looking at society (well one of, there are lots. Largely because we don't have a properly scientific picture of the human social animal yet, and people have careers to make as thinkers and commentators DAMMIT. How dare i suggest something like insufficient data and inadequate methodology should get in the way of conducting a ham-fisted model and making grand societal analysis and predictions based upon it. Bad fra.. I mean boris).

Sorry but even if you use the modified British way (years of careful development) of Lower/Working, Middle, Upper/Rich and giving these their own 3 strata its still drawing random circles around people.

People are not snowflakes, but their situations and behaviour cannot be captured by 2 or 9 categories. So whilst there can occasionally be useful as shorthand, largely when slandering people. The notion of class as a fundamentally scientific and predictive tool. Narp. I don't care how many Marxist scholars or sociologists say otherwise. I've studied enough cog sci, social psy, applied ethics and general political philosophy to convince me whilst people are not infinitely complex, there not that simple either. For one it next to completely denigrates the power of ideologies and prehaps to borrow a term for lack of a better one (I need to do more research on grandmother neurons thats the actual naturalistic emperical rubber hits road bit of this) memes. Which you know being highly thinerking organisms, might actually play a part.

That is unless you want to fool yourself into think you've found a just solution to all societies problems. Then by all means, to the barricades comrade! Take Hari Seldon with you.