I've said it before, now I'm saying it again...

[Mythsaje]

Why do the Dems seem so afraid of being accused of "Class Warfare?"

It's not like we fired the first shots. The wealthy corporatists have launched a salvo against the middle and working classes and we're supposed to stand there like a bunch of dunces and take it?

Hell yeah it's class warfare. This is our LIVES we're talking about. Our lives and the future of our children. They're putting holes in our safety net, shipping our jobs overseas, running up the national debt to unprecedented amounts, ignoring the country's infrastructure, and doing everything they can to marginalize anyone who doesn't make over 100,000 a year.

Yet, somehow, WE'RE the ones practicing Class Warfare? Are they fucking kidding?

Let's just start calling it what it is. When they scream "Class Warfare!" we need to look 'em in the eyes and say:

"You should know. You started it."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. Excellent reply!

"You should know. You started it."

perfect!

[Mythsaje]

2. Thank you...

Seems like an obvious one to me.

[charlyvi]

3. What's so bad about class warfare?

When you're the class being "warfared" against? Personally, I wear it as a badge of honor to speak against power in this country today. And by "power" I mean those folks who think poverty is somehow a moral lapse, that anyone who is wealthy in this nation did it by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps with no help at all (the biggest myth going), and that everyone should sacrifice themselves on the altar of the global economy. Using money as a measure of moral worth is repugnant. So goes the famous quotation:

F Scott Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.

Hemingway: Yes. They have more money.


I say, bring it on.

[Mythsaje]

4. My point exactly...

Don't dodge the charge, embrace it. Make it your own. "Class Warfare? Damn straight. And we both know who declared it, don't we?"

[Raksha]

7. My sentiments exactly--what's wrong with class warfare?

In our case ("us" being the middle and working class), class warfare is nothing but self-defense.

And yeah...they DID start it!

[bobbieinok]

5. in campaign 2000 there was a good article on classwarfare

......in the LA Times, I think

it basically said the rich have won...they have $$$$ for education, medical treatment, fire and police protection, etc, and see no reason to pay taxes so that all in the society can have these.....I think the article at one time was at truthout

if anyone can find a link to the article, I would appreciate it

[Mythsaje]

6. It's not hard to win

when you're fighting people who refuse to fire back.

[OneBlueSky]

8. Dems seem to be afraid of ANYTHING that might possibly . . .

prompt someone to criticize them . . . this is what we call the "chickenshit approach" to politics and government . . .

Dems will only start winning again when they resolve to start telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . . truths like . . .

- the American way of life is going to undergo a drastic change . . . we can either manage that change, or allow it to destroy us . . .

- Americans' use of energy must drastically reduce . . . and alternative energy must become a national priority of the highest order . . .

- the war in Iraq is phony, and has killed not only several thousand Americans, but tens of thousand of Iraqis for no discernable reason . . .

- the official version of what happened on 9/11 is fiction, and the investigation must be re-opened to find the truth . . .

- the economy is a mess and getting worse . . . drastic measures (including tax increases, and ending the war) are required immediately to forestall disaster . . .

- the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is creating a dangerously weak economy and consequently, a dangerously weak nation . . . it must be corrected . . .

- protecting the environment must also become a national priority of the highest order . . . we're destroying the sustainer of life for humans and all other species . . .

- the Congress is pretty much owned by corporations, whose employees and lobbyists actually write much of the legislation that Congress considers -- and all too often enacts . . .

- the U.S. has committed crimes against international law, against the Geneva conventions, and against humanity under BushCo . . . one of the most damaging is the use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the devastating impact it's having on our troops, on Iraqis, and on the Iraqi environment . . .

these truths -- and many others -- are extremely difficult to face up to . . . when confronted with their reality, many Americans choose to look away and not believe . . . watching "American Idol" is much more comfortable than actually thinking about the world you live in and your personal responsibility to it as a member of the human race . . .

no, Americans don't want to hear it . . . but the party that tells them is the one that at least has a chance of changing course before it's too late . . . although it may already be . . .

just a rant . . . thanks for listening . . .

[rman]

15. Dems seem to be afraid of ANYTHING that might possibly . . .

prompt the RW to criticize them.

Which is exceedingly odd to say the least.

[Greyhound]

23. The Democratic Party cannot say these truths because they're

just as guilty. I know it's hard to remember, but the march to totalitarianism has continued through Democratic as well as Republican regimes.

[raccoon]

55. Thank you for pointing that out. nt

[KT2000]

9. Everybody is afraid of

mentioning class warfare. It is just not spoken about - tsk - tsk.

But we better start talking about it. RW has been using it in every issue but with their code words.

[nonconformist]

10. Agreed. I don't understand why we don't hit them on it all the time. nt

[PassingThrough]

11. Class Warefare sounds to Socialist. Needs a sexier name.

[jimshoes]

16. Let's turn it into a negative for them

by calling it "class welfare", since the moneyed class are the ones benefiting from it.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. That is exactly the defeatest acceptance of their framing

that they count on. The trick is to reframe it. As the OP said, accept their term: Class Warfare, and turn it right around: "you bet it is and you started it and we are the party of Working Families and we are going to fight you every step of the way."

[PassingThrough]

21. Well the term was widely used by Karl Marx which is why it sounds

Socialist to some.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Actually I think that is not true.

The marxist term would be 'class struggle'.

However I will take the bait. So what? If defending the interests of working families is socialism, I'm all for it.

[PassingThrough]

24. Not bait. Just an observation.

[Katherine Brengle]

42. You are more or less correct, but there's one problem with this...

We have come to accept that anything even remotely "Marxist" in nature is negative.

When it comes right down to it, Marx had many interesting and important ideas. The key problems were his refusal to look beyond people's ideological and spiritual reasons for voting certain ways--he, like many Democrats these days, expected that all people would vote according to their most fundamental (as he saw them) interests--economic interests being number one, and also that his ideas were fairly outdated by the time they were put into serious actions--the world was up against fascism, which Marx had never encountered (of course he encountered oppression, but this alone does not make fascism), and therefore his ideas could not capably counter it.

Socialism is not bad, per se, but it does have some drawbacks, just as every other economic system we have come up with has had its positive attributes and its limitations.

We need to throw out the idea of "socialism=bad" right along with "conservatism=good."

[Mythsaje]

45. True enough...

There are things about socialism I like, and things I don't. Pretty much the same way I feel about capitalism.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Democratic regulation of economic activity is socialism.

If you are an absolutist, opposed to all forms of socialism, then you are against social security, universal health care, occupational safety regulations, minimum wage regulations, work hour regulations, environmental regulations, product health safety and effectiveness regulations, and on and on and on. We allow the use of the word 'socialism' as a code word for totalitarian communism, and in doing so we permit the framing of all democratic regulation of economic activity within the 'bad commie' meme. We are in a class war, and the other side's propaganda campaign has us so confused that we can't even talk about the war being waged against us.

[Mythsaje]

48. Never said I was an absolutist...

There are some concepts of socialism I don't care for, and some I do.

I don't do absolutes.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Not the point and not intended as an accusation about you.

Sorry for the obvious misinterpretation. The point was that we allow them to define socialism as 'badness' when in fact the vast majority of people support all sorts of socialist programs. Thus we got the original poster in this subthread complaining that we have to use a different word than 'class warfare' because it sounds like 'socialism'. That comment, and I've heard it frequently, drives me nuts. It is a classic example of accepting their framing and allowing them to set the terms of the debate.

[Mythsaje]

53. Ah, I gotcha...

And I agree for the most part. Socialism, like just about every other "ism" is generally neutral, with good and bad being dependant on who's operating its mechanisms.

I do think that Americans have been given a lot of bunk about what socialism entails, and many have bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

[stepnw1f]

50. What's Wrong with Socialism?

Be proud of who you are and what you stand for. If the word becomes an insult, then it's because people chump out of defending socialism. Socialism is a huge reason this country has remained so strong for so long. Without it to counter fascism, Democracy will die.

[Lasher]

12. Typical puke tactics

I remember when the pukes started sending out this talking point for all their mindless brownshirts to babble, over and over. It's typical, in that they are accusing us of something they themselves are guilty of. It is they who have long engaged in warfare against the middle and lower classes.

[GaYellowDawg]

13. Hell YEAH!!!

100% right on all points.

I think that a lot of rank and file Repukes are convinced that they're going to join the party. They can't seem to get it through their thick heads that the people who have the wealth aren't going to let it go - they're going to pass it on to their worthless Paris Hilton type kids.

[Starfury]

14. Warren Buffet on Lou Dobbs last year

BUFFETT: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be.

(...)

BUFFETT: The rich are winning. Just take the estate tax, less than 2 percent of all estates pay any tax. A couple million people die every year, 40,000 or so estates get taxed.

We raise, what, $30 billion from the estate tax. And, you know, I would like to hear the congressman say where they are going to get the $30 billion from if they don't get it from the estate tax. It's nice to say, you know, wipe out this tax, but we're running a huge deficit, so who does the $30 billion come from?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffett/index.html

Warren Buffet may not be everyone's favorite, but he certainly gets it. Why don't the Dems?

[BlueEyedSon]

18. No to mention the social benefits of slightly impeding dynastic wealth

[BlueEyedSon]

17. Because the entire political system is fueled by MONEY

Until that is fixed, no "real" change is possible. At the federal level, the dems & repubs are 2 heads of the same snake.

[raccoon]

56. What a fitting figure of speech!

"the dems & repubs are 2 heads of the same snake."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

19. Because of poor party leadership. No other explanation. Can't let the

other guy set all the rules.

[Deja Q]

25. Won't happen; I'm not wasting my life voting again...

Not until there's a politician, and I don't give a fuck which side he's on either, who can really prove he'll make a difference.



Oh, and spare me the PC diatribes about me being an evil sexist pig. "he" accounts for both genders, unless there's a new word made that's 2 letters long that counts for all.

[Dr Ron]

26. Beware of the battle lines

The danger is that the right wing noise machine spins this to make it sound like it is the poor versus the middle class, and all my upper middle class friends rush out and vote Republican to perserve their way of life,not realizing that we are also getting screwed. (Obviously we are not getting screwed as bad as the people with less, but the point is that Republican policies designed to help the ultra-wealthy do not help us).

Democrats must make it very clear that it is virtually everyone versus the ultra-wealthy, but the Republican noise machine will always be out to distort this. For example, during the 2004 campaign when Kerry made it clear his tax policies would only increase taxes on those with taxable income over $200,000 per year (and most of the hit would be on those making much more than this), the Republicans still made it sound like his plans would have hurt small businessmen. Not many small businessmen have taxable incomes over $200,000 to the point where they would be hurt by repeal of Bush's tax cuts.

The original post mentions $100,000 which is dangerous politically. If Republicans are seen as representing everyone making over $100,000 Democrats risk losing a lot of supporters. This includes not only those making over $100,000, which I bet is a lot of Democratic voters, but also many of those making less who hope to make this much in the future.

[Mythsaje]

27. Good point...

Maybe 100,000 dollars IS a little low of a figure. You're right about how we frame the message...it's not about the lower classes going after the middle. It's about the wealthy going after the middle and lower classes, and that's what needs to be stressed.

[Sparkman]

52. $100K or $200K...when a political party dominates, statesmenship dwindles.

The ETHICS of leadership standard has to be imposed upon ANY candidate FIRST.
Since both Dems & Repukes fail miserably, next is the "will do less harm" assesment, only to be followed by the "but is their less harm is still unacceptable" test. Sometimes voting 3rd party is more important than getting a dirt bag elected, for the Dems anyway, because NO standard matters with the 1st tier monied party.

[mongo]

28. How about class RESPONSIBILITY?

The people in the upper class have reaped the rewards of capitalism, and only by the sweat and blood of all of us below.

They have the most to lose by the destruction of America and they need to pay the most to keep the country together.

[Tsiyu]

29. Honestly, Greed Over Principles.

That is the GOP. These are a collection of individuals who are greedy beyond measure. They don't hate the lower classes; they don't even acknowledge them except by necessity.

And Dems are speaking out. If a Democrat makes a speech in a basement in the House, will the media cover it?

I cope by giving the fools as little of my money as possible. I have lowered my expectations as to material wealth, and I refuse to pay for any cable, I buy gas at Citgo, I use Progressive Insurance, and I try to help out other people who are struggling.

These psycho-wealthy-welfare kings and queens will find some ugly streams of revenue: prisons, war-mongering, thievery, extortion. They can do without getting back the meager dollars they pay us.

But we can still refuse to give them any more $$ and instead invest that money in local businesses and community enrichment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Because it would lose them the election.

Most Americans, even those who have left-wing sympathies, hate anything that sounds reminiscent of communism, or even socialism - the terminology far more than the policies.

It doesn't matter if that's what's going on. If the Democrats ever admit to being in favour of it, the Republicans will walk to victory in the next round of elections with ease.

[Mythsaje]

32. Hard to say, isn't it,

since they've never even TRIED.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. No, it's easy to say.

There are some things the Democrats haven't tried that might work. There are lots that clearly wouldn't; advocating class warfare to an American electorate is very definately one of the latter. Discussion forums, independent cultural commentators who are only interested in preaching to the choir rather than convincing people hwo don't initially agree with them to change their minds, think tanks and the like can get away with it; people runnig for local office possibly can in a few places, although not many at all; anything that lets the Republicans connect the natioal Democratic Party with the concept of "Class Warfare" in the national subconscious would undoubtedly be calamitous.

[Kurovski]

31. Molly Ivins once wrote that very same thing...

"If Republicans didn't want class warfare, they never should have started it." {Paraphrasing.)

[eppur_se_muova]

33. Felt that way for a long time. When the upper class sneak attacks...

that's the "unfettered free market", "freedom of speech" (=$$$), etc.. When the lower and middle classes try to defend themselves, THEN they call it "class warfare".

[eppur_se_muova]

34. Maybe call it "Upper Class Warfare", that's what it is. nt

edited from a dupe post. odd server(?) behaviour today.

[lostinacause]

35. The idea of class warfare is foolish given the circumstances that people

currently face. Most Americans have a decent standard of living especially compared with other nations. Thus given the circumstances Americans are not doing sufficiently badly that the wealth situation warrants class warfare based on the level of wealth.

Thus the situation depends on the relative level of wealth. When looking at the relative level of wealth it is foolish to blame the situation on the wealthy. The institutions in place are what is causing the problem. The wealthy are responding to the institutions in place. Sure you can blame the responses on the wealthy but the middle class and the poor and also making the decisions that give these outcomes. Much of the time all three groups don't even understand the effect of their actions. Other times they don't care or have no choice.

None of these are sufficient to make the case that people should not be inclined to believe in class warfare. It is just enough to establish that class warfare is used to accomplish a goal. Thus finely getting to the point of my argument the idea of class warfare is foolish in that it does not accomplish the goal in the optimal way. In fact given the alternatives both parties do worse then the best achievable outcome.

Class warfare is a fight against wealth to gain wealth. The fight is focused on the people with money. From a behavioral standpoint this brings out attitudes that are harmful. People are willing to do things that decrease the level of wealth that the wealthy for anywhere from little gain to a loss that they incur because of their actions. One such example is that people who believe that they are being oppressed by the wealthy will on average perform worse at their job. If such behavior is significant in aggregate the result would be a lower equilibrium wage (market clearing condition). If this behavior is not significant in aggregate it would likely lead to less promotion opportunities for the group of people choosing this behavior.

From a political standpoint the desire typically becomes wealth transfers. These are foolish because they are typically inefficient and are difficult to implement in that they are met with a great deal of resistance. Taking part in a transfer that is done through institutions is both more efficient and more politically viable but is not typically approached by those who call for class warfare.

In short, the idea of class warfare is foolish because any improvements through it come and a high cost and are typically met with resistance. It also leads to behaviors that are anti-productive. Although a certain degree of equality is beneficial it is not beneficial to attempt to achieve it though the ideas of class warfare given the current situation in America today.

I should stress that I do believe that the relative wealth inequality in America (especially among certain demographics) is a problem. I just think that the method suggested in this post of trying to solve this problem is substandard.

[Mythsaje]

36. And the alternative, of course,

is to allow the wealthy to get MORE wealthy at the expense of those who are not, whose only technical value to the system is their labor and their status as consumers?

I think not.

[Mythsaje]

37. In retrospect, my initial response was a bit flippant...

How about this?

When the system that is in place operates to enhance the wealth of a privileged few, while undermining basic standards of living, between the loss of jobs, job security, and the notion of a living wage, it IS class warfare being enacted against those least capable of resisting it.

When money equals influence, and that influence is used to manipulate legislation that specifically targets the least protected to the benefit of the most protected, that could also be considered class warfare against those least capable of resisting it.

Your argument seems to suggest that class warfare can ONLY be instituted from the bottom up, a suggestion with which I fervently disagree. One CAN blame the wealthy if they vote for, contribute to, and publically support candidates who they KNOW will act in their best interests regardless of how it affects the rest of the country.

The idea that somehow giving money in tax breaks to the wealthy stimulates the economy seems a strange one, since they have an abundance of tax shelters in which to hide it, both in the U.S. andd abroad, and no real motivation to spend it, while the average working class and middle class person and/or family has every motivation to spend money on things they need or want rather than sticking it away where it cannot do anything to stimulate the economy.

I believe it's class warfare, instituted by, for, and of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, though, in the long run, the repurcussions will tear across every class. A society in which only the wealthy can afford to spend money on anything but the bare necessities is bound to self-destruct.

[lostinacause]

43. It is the nature of the institutions that cause the problem not the

wealthy. As I have said before, it is not only the wealthy who vote for these things. The system is not in place solely because of the wealthy because they alone lack the power to put such a system in place. I don't think that you can really blame people for acting self-interested as it is part of human nature. People will, when the benefit is large enough, support those who benefit them. This is something that all people do and is just a fact of life. There is really nothing gained in blaming people for doing it the large majority of people would do the same.

The way that they are acting self interested is not class warfare. There is no sinister cooperation to oppress the average person. The situation has been developed through a series of independent decisions most being relatively small losses to each individual with what amounts to a sizable gain to the small group of gainers. (There are some inefficient (in the economic sense) transfers that go the other way such an welfare payments that actually combine to further reduce social welfare.) Once more liberal people get into power we will see the reverse. The reason I speak out against the idea of class warfare is that if the policies that are put in place are from a class warfare perspective it will generally be done with a disregard of the effect on an individual’s wealth. This will increase the incentive for the people with money to put effort to remove the people who choose these types of policies. These policies often have spillover effects that are detrimental as well. When doing any type of policy it should be done in the most efficient way possible. The idea of class warfare does not facilitate this process.

When you look at the tax breaks that you mentioned they don’t make sense. The cost of implementing them is excessive given that it is just a transfer. The idea of class warfare runs on the same principle that the wealth of a certain group individuals doesn’t matter leading to policies that are inefficient and wasteful.

[Mythsaje]

44. I think I see what you're saying...

And I should mention that I'm not much of a socialist, or even a "social democrat." I see a value in the acquisition of wealth as a motivator for innovation, but I also believe that it is in the best interest of the country, in all citizens, to seek out ways to make everyone's life better.

I do think we're seeing the construction of a system that IS creating a stark dividing line between the wealthy and the middle class that's growing wider all the time. If one considers that education is the key to climbing the social ladder, one has to really examine the effects of the policy of reducing student loans and financial aid in general on the ability of the lower classes to pull themselves up to a higher rung.

Fewer and fewer Americans are going to be given the chance to "bootstrap" themselves, and many who do manage it are going to find themselves swimming in debt for the privilege, only a minor catastrophe away from plunging back down to where they started, or even farther.

I understand that you're referring to a backlash if the privileged feel they are being threatened, but I'm not sure they understand what's at stake here. Part of the reason they're so high is because they've been lifted there by the general advantage of all American citizens, and the huge middle class that's helped generate this economy. Without that the whole damn house of cards is likely to fall.

[lostinacause]

62. My point is that there are two ways to get an equal amount of wealth

transferred; the efficient way or the inefficient way. The idea of class warfare would lead to action that would be more aggressive and predatory likely being more inefficient. It would also create greater resistance from the wealthy. Thus there would be a greater cost associated with action and it would be met with a greater resistance. It sounds to me like a loose – loose situation.

[raccoon]

57. How are they making these decisions? It's their Congress criters

who are casting the votes that favor the wealthy, big pharma, insurance companies, etc.

" Sure you can blame the responses on the wealthy but the middle class and the poor and also making the decisions that give these outcomes. "


"One such example is that people who believe that they are being oppressed by the wealthy will on average perform worse at their job."

Source?

[lostinacause]

61. The issue with congress critters comes down to whether voters hold

politicians responsible for their choices and again comes back to putting the right institutions in place.

The source - What you quoted is something that is characterized in many different ways in different disciplines. It has been referred to in the context of economics (in both behavioral and labor economics), psychology (cognitive dissonance), sociology, and business (human resources – compensation and benefits).

[BigBearJohn]

38. The wealthy would have NOTHING without the working class

[Mythsaje]

39. I agree...

But it's not as though you can convince THEM of that. We're the "rabble."

And, as my dad said not too long ago, I'm a "rabble-rouser."

Go figure.

[CAG]

40. Why is it that its usually some rich guy complaining about the dems

playing "class warfare"??

And why is it the 'murkin people can't quite make this connection that there may be a conflict of interest in a rich guy complaining about this?
They swallow it hook,line, and sinker though, which explains why they believe Phillip Morris is such a nice company putting up those "don't smoke" ads to teenagers and why Big pharma is so nice to give us these new drugs nobody can afford and take off a whopping 20% profit margin.

The rich advertise much more effectively than the poor. Bottom line.

[Katherine Brengle]

41. This is a part of the "PC Revolution"----

We have had "political correctness" drilled into us for such a long time that it is becoming difficult to call a thing or situation what it actually is.

All of have been re-educated to use clever euphemisms--it's "helping the disadvantaged" (i.e., most of us, to some degree or another), not "raising class consciousness" or "class warfare."

We need to be the leaders in restoring an acceptance of realistic terms.

[CAG]

60. Its politically correct to be politically incorrect. nt

[Yollam]

51. Because most elected dems are members of THEIR class, no ours.

When it really counts, most of the elected dems are enjoying the tax cuts, and they probably feel like they pay their help well and don't need to feel guilty about it.

It's been a long time since a majority of elected dems even made a pretense of caring about poor/working people.

At least they still vote for meager increases in the minimum wage, but even the idea of pegging that to inflation and having a higher minimum wage in areas where the cost of living is higher would be seen as radical.

Wouldn't it nice to live in a country that had an active political left?

[earth mom]

54. Dems don't care-most of them are Rich Elites-just like the rethugs.

And they are NOT fighting for the middle class and the poor-I've been saying that for a long time around here. :grr:

Here's a good commentary about the Class War from last summer:
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/War/London.htm

[raccoon]

63. I second that. nt

[boot@9]

58. when the rich take from

the poor(the current situation) its called economic reform or good tax policy!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. It's either a misnomer or a bad idea, depending on what you mean by it.

The point of warfare is that you actively want to hurt the other side. There *are* left-wingers who regard making the lives of rich people worse as a desirable thingin itself, but I thing they're fairly despicable. What I, and most left-wingers, think is that making the lives of rich people worse is an acceptable price to pay to make the lives of poor people somewhat better, especially given that you could achieve quite a lot of the latter for relatively little of the former.

If you're one of the first type, "class warfare" is a reasonable description of what you're advocating. If you're one of the second, it isn't, especially because a non-trivial fraction of the second type of left-winger are themselves above the level of income which they're advocating taxing more heavily, and *most* right-wingers are below it, and thus many people would be "on the other side" in a "war between the classes".

If you're one of the second type, what you mean by "class warfare" is probably
"increase the higher levels of income tax, and spend the money thus raised on things such as publicly-funded, free-at-point-of-use healthcare, better state education, and the like".

I think that that's a very good idea but not especially analogous to warfare - in fact, there's a strong case to be made that the rich would also benefit from a more stable society reducing crime, and *possibly* from an increase in consumer spending boosting the economy and enlarging the cake, although I think that's probably rather dodgy economics on my part, and as I've said above