Classism on DU is getting silly.

[Finder]

Generalizations about "the rich", or about business owners and corporations make no sense. Much of the Dem base are rich and/or in the business sector.

[Armstead]

1. This thread is a meaningless generalization

Some of my best friends are rich. No one is saying everyone who is rich is evil. Nor are most people saying business is a bad thing.

But that does not negate the fact that there is a class war that has been going on for at least 30 years. Or that we have become so enslaved to the business sector that all otehr social and human values have been dumped into the shithouse.

You ignore that fact at your peril.

[leftofthedial]

3. a class war is at the root of all that is wrong in our culture

a wealthy elite are waging war on the masses.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. I despise sociopathic capitalists.

Not all of them are rich, and not all rich people are sociopathic capitalists. However, in symbolic logic terms, the intersection of the two sets is rather large.

[Trillo]

20. Longer than 30-years.

"We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm

He was a Democrat. His statement would seem like Koolaid, except the payscale data and other markers from our society today indicate that it is precisely accurate.

[xultar]

2. I agree. People don't like when I generalise African Americans..

and I'm an African American...

People don't like generalisations of men, women, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Religions etc

But why they accept generalisations in CLASS is asinine.

[Warpy]

4. Deny the class war of the past 30 years at your peril

because you are NOT on the winning side.

[Jara sang]

9. Well said.

[gorbal]

73. It's like the top 1% against the rest of us

Let's not get confused. There is rich, and then there is horribly stupendously, unbelievably rich. People are literally profiting from our pain and making a killing; look at how much the "BIG" Oil companies are making while I for one could barely afford heat this winter.

However while Democrats may receive funds from some big spenders, people who made less money per year voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

You can study the results here-

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Scroll down to the end-it gets real in-depth. Interesting to note that those who wanted someone intelligent and caring voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, while those who valued religious faith went 91 percent for Bush.

Since when is faith better than caring? I somehow doubt jesus would approve.

[Finder]

29. I am not denying, just saying...

potential donors may be scared off.lol Most small biz or small corporation owners are not rich by any means.

[More Than A Feeling]

34. The only donors being scared off

are the ones who want a Republican-lite party.

[Hamlette]

38. past 30 years?

interesting you would pick that time frame...considering feudalism, the French Revolution, hell, the Russian Revolution, our revolution...ALL revolutions....all history. It's all about class.

[northzax]

52. um, no offense

seems to me like you have your scoreboard mixed up- I don't know what planet you're counting, but it seems to me that, over the past 30 years, the middle and working classes have LOST every major battle in the 'class war' name one developed country in which income disparities are smaller than they were 30 years ago? heck, name one country.

your 30 year class war is a rout, and the rich are winning. but I'm sure the tide is about to turn, right? any day now.

[teknomanzer]

67. Don't be so sure...

With the arrival of peak oil production we may see further erosion of the middle class. The situation is dire, and unfortunately no one has to will to speak about the impending changes that need to be made in order to create a sustainable economy. People would have to give up their automobiles and opt for public transportation and reduce the amount of petroleum based enery intensive entertainment they currently enjoy. The government would have to reduce spending on military expenditures and channel the money toward a serious overhaul of our nations infrastructure, transportation, and seriously fund research into the creation of a non-petroleum based energy economy. The business sector would have to forgoe many of its subsidies and tax exclusions due to a shift in governemnt priorities and further expenditures would have to be made toward refitting industry for a non-petroleum based economy. Wall Street would be looking pretty bad during that state of transition... which would affect financial institutions and policies, but those are the facts. It will have to been done. Or the middle class will simply disappear and the economy will stagnate or even enter into a long term depression.

[Deja Q]

70. And in the end, winning is the only safety.

[Ian David]

5. I'll give you five bucks to self-delete your post.

(I'm kidding)

[Coventina]

6. How come it's only "class warfare" when the poor strike back?

I'll generalize about "the rich" and corporations all I want.

They are greedy, heartless, selfish, evil, destructive, and criminal.

[FormerDittoHead]

13. You go!! Since when do the rich need defending? Those poor rich people! nt

[libhill]

24. Thank ya -

well said, generalizations be damned

[Hoping4Change]

26. That comment is just plain dumb. Many people who

have fought for the oppressed throughout history have been priveleged and there are countless examples of poor people exploiting their own.

[justice1]

7. Wealth isn't the problem, behaving unethically to obtain it is.

[salin]

11. bingo!

Nor is that to say that all who have wealth have done so -

but it is to say that in the current GOP culture - there is a whole lot of lack of ethics and harming of others in order to accumulate wealth going on - and worse yet using the weight of govt as the vehicle to accumulate said wealth at the expense of other govt programs that have traditionally been for the good of all, and/or to provide at least some minimal supports to the most in need.

[Finder]

22. Agree. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

23. Who said, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime?"

Anybody?

[redqueen]

108. French author... wasn't it?

Perhaps a philosopher?

I don't recall...

[mitchum]

112. Balzac

[MADem]

8. The Democratic rich tend to be a bit more compassionate, though

They may be limo libs, but they speak out on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised. They call attention to injustice, they donate to worthy causes and they live lives that have as a priority to improve the lot of all. That's the difference between them and the GOP.

Nothing wrong with being rich, but the rich folks who don't make their lucre on the bloodied backs of the poor sleep better at night, and pull the lever for the person with the (D) beside their name.

[FormerDittoHead]

10. Some generalizations are fair...

Like our present tax system doesn't charge the rich proportionately for the government services which they use.

Like corporate mergers for the sole purpose of reducing competition isn't a good thing.

Like the problems we have relating to health care costs (esp insurance and drugs), pollution, gas guzzler vehicles, etc etc are directly related to the disproportionate power that corporations have over individuals.

I don't think the rich are inherently bad, but it's very fair to say that their economic (and political) interests stand in opposition to the other 99%.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Agreed. But Some Just Always Have To Have Something To Gripe About

It is just deflected bitterness rooted in misguidance.

I, personally, can't stand generalizations like that either. None of what you listed above is inherently evil as some here make it out to be.

[saltpoint]

15. "...in the business sector" -- maybe, but not as owners and not as

beneficiaries of Bush's tax cuts. As bus drivers, coal miners, burger flippers, and so on, yes.

There are certainly rich Democrats, but one very consistent characterization of rich Democrats is that they believe in supporting the working class. Few Republicans have ever stood up in Congress for hiking the minimum wage, support for mass transit, and so forth.

The GOP protects the owner class. Working people and poor people traditionally hear their concerns voiced by Democrats, not Republicans.

There's more than a few differences between Charlie Rangel and Newt Gingrich.

[Solon]

16. Corporations are legal constructs that are REQUIRED to be AMORAL...

That's not a generalization, that's a fact, any Corporation that attempts to act moral will face shareholder lawsuits and the sacking of their boards. So, by law, a corporation is actually required to act in its best interest, regardless of regulations, morals, ethics, or anything else, all for the sake of profit and its shareholders. The only exceptions are when following said regulations or laws is less expensive than violating them, that is called a "Cost Benefit Analysis". The only other exception are corporations that are not publically traded, or have ONE shareholder who holds 51% of the stock, in both cases, they act as moral as their primary owner allows.

[eomer]

101. So, by law, a corporation is required to break the law?

Are you sure?

[mdmc]

17. most of DU

has internet access and computers. We are a affluent bunch.

[Breeze54]

53. I built my own

computer from 'discount' parts and internet access isn't that expensive anymore.

I think this 'classism' isn't just about $$ but also education level.
In fact; I've been 'talked down to', here at DU because of my POST COUNT!!! :rofl:
What a fuckin' riot!!!
:P
There are snobs here and well; everywhere, who need to feel...'superior'.
Even among the poor!

Isn't that just being human? :shrug: A human trait?

[wtmusic]

18. Let me guess...you'd be considered "well-to-do"

Call me psychic.

[devilgrrl]

19. So what are saying? That the GOP is looking out for the DU wealthy?

????? wtf are you talking about??????

[KharmaTrain]

21. This Place Is Full Of Stereotypes

And those who get offended if you pick on theirs.

Too bad. I first came to DU in the wake of the 2002 elections looking for a sane place to discuss issues and the future of democracy and the Democratic party. Initially there were many others here who were looking for the same and there were some great discussions and contact made.

Now this place is lives for the "flavor of the moment"...it's not discussions, it's rants and flames...whose issue is more important that someone elses or who feels that they've been "dissed" by someone else. Fortunately there are discussion forums on other sites that have picked up on the need for dialogue, not personality contests.

[Ladyhawk]

25. Care to direct me?

I'm getting kind of sick of the meaningless flame wars.

[KharmaTrain]

28. I Would But I'd Get In Trouble...

The only post I've ever had here that was deleted was a reference to another site...I don't like to get the PTB upset. Let's say just check out the comments sections in some of the major blogs and the links to some of those sites are there.

Cheers...

[brentspeak]

43. There's a lot disruptors and trolls on these boards

("Disruptors" and "trolls" I guess being the same thing).

Hence, there's little here on DU -- or on any other political board, for that matter -- that people should get bent out of shape about. An internet board is not a true reflection of The Real World.

[lonestarnot]

27. Where have you been while the class war has been going on?

[Hoping4Change]

30. I so agree. I've been dumbfounded when over the years

I come across posters who state the Democratic Party is for poor people. That IMHO hands an advantage to the repukes and that notion should be tossed out the window.

The operating principle should be intelligent people are Democrats. And need I add, intelligence is not a synonym for wealth.

[Rex]

31. If you don't fear people who run companies like Halliburton or Carlyle.

Then you're lost... :(

[Finder]

32. Halliburton and Carlyle are not DUers...

and I do fear the military/industrial types.

[Rex]

33. So you do fear the rich and powerful.

Good. You should.

[Eric J in MN]

35. The issue is how we structure society.

Not that individual rich people are bad.

Some DUers are rich. Some famous liberals such as Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo are rich compared to the average person.

The question is how much is too much in terms of wealth/income?

How much is too much in terms of the rich being able to influence public policy?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Classism exists in the U. S., and has since the Revolutionary War...

...and party affiliation doesn't matter.

Yes, SOME wealthy Dems practice what they preach...but most do not when push comes to shove.

[guinivere]

37. The middle class is disappearing fast.

As more people slide toward poverty, the gap between rich and poor gets bigger. The middle classers, now poor/barely making it are scared and worried. And probably kind of angry that their 20 bucks doesn't even buy much anymore. The rich ones just keep getting richer. The rich Dems get the same tax breaks or shelters that the rich rethugs get.

[newswolf56]

39. To defend the rich is to defend capitalism. To defend capitalism...

is to defend not only an economic system based on the elevation of infinite greed into ultimate virtue, but an economic system so toxic to liberty that capitalists are chronically insecure unless they are protected by absolute tyranny: first unapologetic fascism, now theocracy to give fascism the imprimatur of the Abrahamic god. This state of affairs should surprise no one who recognizes that the cult of the economic ubermenschen and the cult of the geopolitical ubermenschen are parallel manifestations of the same might-makes-right impulse that is the doctrinal core of Abrahamic religion: the spiritual ubermenschen -- the chosen people of the god (whether Yehveh, Jesu or Allah); their presumed right to murder and enslave those of us they deem "unsaved" and to hog all "creation" as their own; their belief that wealth is proof of divine favor.

Thus to criticize the rich is to criticize not only capitalism but fascism, theocracy, Abrahamic religion -- and ultimately the Abrahamic god himself.

To acknowledge the historical truth of class struggle is to acknowledge what (from the perspective of Abrahamic dogma) is the ultimate heresy of all: the notion that the "unsaved" -- the poor (that is, those of us who have not been blessed by the Abrahamic god) -- have a right to challenge the ubermenschen: the "select" or "god's chosen" aka the rich. To acknowledge the historical truth of class struggle is the first step toward seizing the time and shaping for ourselves a better life -- and therefore also the first step toward overturning the Abrahamic god's infinitely oppressive "divine plan for human redemption," whether manifest as capitalism, fascism or theocracy; whether personified by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet or George Bush.

Many of us are at long last awakening to the fact that recent U.S. history not only proves the relevance of Marx but that -- precisely because of the ever-more-defiant savagery of the corporations -- Marx is more relevant now than ever. Some of us are even reflecting on how Marxist principles might be fit into the U.S. framework of constitutional governance. And by the acknowledgment of class struggle we are monkey-wrenching the central cog in the entire machine.

Thus I'm not at all surprised when some defender of the tyrannosauric status quo denounces me for "classism" and asserts that Marxist analysis and its "generalizations about 'the rich' or about business owners and corporations make no sense." Not only am I not surprised; now that Marx is again relevant, I expect much more such criticism -- and a lot worse.

This is because class warfare is the ONLY principle of analysis that explains how and why the rich have been victimizing the rest of us in this nation since the end of World War II: downsizing; outsourcing; pension-looting; wage-reduction; elimination of collective bargaining rights; increasing restriction of individual liberty; destruction of the social-service safety net; ever more brazen subjugation of workers; ever more blatant genocide against the disabled, the elderly, the chronically poor; and of course through it all the skyrocketing prices that push ripoff-inflated profits to ever more obscene heights -- all of it in service to the concentration of wealth: the ultimate goal of the ruling class, the corporate/Big Business lords of the boardroom -- the rich.

Not "no sense"; perfect sense.

But in class warfare there are only two sides: one is either oppressed or oppressor; one is either part of the solution or part of the problem. Hence in the coming struggle we will all have to answer the challenge posed by that fine old United Mine Workers' song:

They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there
You're either in the Union
Or you scab for J.H. Blair:
O which side are you on,
Which side are you on?


_________
Edit: typos.

[Finder]

44. I don't play "us vs them" games very well. n/t

[newswolf56]

46. Apparently you've never been outsourced or downsized, and are...

not among the vast majority of U.S. workers (myself included) who have not gotten a real raise since 1973 -- this while executive pay has increased by at least 951 percent, and the ratio of executive pay to wages has soared from 41:1 -- that is, 41 dollars for every dollar earned by a worker -- to 431:1. Doubt these outrageous, infuriating numbers? Google "executive pay versus worker pay" and scroll attentively.

(A "real raise," by the way, is defined as an increase in disposable income. Even the very best paid U.S. workers -- those of us with unions to strong-arm the bosses -- have just barely managed to stay abreast of inflation, and this often at the price of surrendering to huge healthcare and pension take-backs imposed by the corporations: a net loss -- while the 'zecutives wallow obscenely in the ever-increasing portion they hog for themselves.)

[Finder]

47. Sure I have, at different times throughout my life...

and thankfully don't have to deal with that anymore. I am one of the rare executives who makes less than those who work for me.

[newswolf56]

54. Thank you for your honesty. Your answer -- "I am one of the rare...

executives" -- tells us everything we need to know, completing your defense of capitalism by acknowledgment of motive and perspective. Thank you again.

(No offense, but your boast of having overcome downsizing and outsourcing is tacitly elitist: "I did it -- why can't you?" -- which not only implies that those of us who cannot lift ourselves by our own bootstraps are by definition inferior, but also thereby excuses capitalism for its savagery, deftly shifting the blame onto its victims. Could it be that, in your rejection of Marx, you never encountered the phrase, "identification with the oppressor"? Understanding one's part in the mechanism and process of oppression is often the first step toward liberation.)

[Finder]

57. Where did I reject Marx?

I am one of the idealist types that believes there is a happy medium to be found between communism(not soviet style) and capitalism.

[newswolf56]

63. Seems to me your initial post and many subsequent comments...

all reject the historical truth of class-struggle, which is the core principle of Marxism: after all, it was you who wrote, "I don't play 'us vs them' games very well."

Something that many folks don't realize is that class-struggle was also, by the way, the core principle of the New Deal: the notion that -- precisely because of the innately predatory nature of capitalism -- the protective functions of constitutional governance had to be expanded to include protection of the people against capitalist savagery. Where Marxism seeks to eliminate both capitalism and capitalists, the New Deal sought instead merely to contain capitalism and regulate capitalists -- and for its liberal-minded folly suffered total failure: not only the loss of itself but the forever-loss of the American Dream and the probably-now-irreversible undoing of the American Experiment itself: the Bush Regime as the ultimate achievement of U.S. capitalism -- its purpose the imposition of theocratic fascism to safeguard the ruling class through the coming eons of environmental collapse and dwindling natural resources.

The issue is not restoration of the American Dream or avoidance of the apocalypse: the former is dead beyond resurrection -- murdered by the very ruling class that spawned it as a disincentive to revolution -- and the latter is now unavoidable. The ultimate issue therefore is as much the apportionment of hardships as the distribution of wealth. Will the ruling class -- the very people responsible for the impending apocalypse -- concentrate sufficient wealth they will escape the burdens of their crimes against humanity and nature? That is precisely their purpose -- the purpose reflected in downsizing, outsourcing, soaring prices, Iraq, etc. Or will the ruling class be overthrown -- and forced to share their wealth equally and thus justly suffer the same burdens that will afflict all the rest of us?

(Again posted with utmost respect -- and, if I somehow misread your meaning, an apology too.)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

66. Is it possible that large parts of what you write are part of

a dogma other than the conventional liberal or conservative dogma?

At any rate it does read to me like dogma of a kind.

As an old hippie person, who used to joke with my fellows about "radical rhetoric" that we at times lapsed into, I tend to notice patterns of writing and speaking.

[newswolf56]

74. Dogmatism is often in the dogma (or the doghouse) of the beholder.

And in any case I'm not sure whether you're accusing me of plagiarism or merely rote repetition -- or even if you are accusing me of anything.

Ergo (and for the record), while I freely admit being influenced by Marx -- a default influence mandated by the abject and infinitely corrupt failure of liberalism to control capitalism (and the corollary facts that the ruination of the planetary ecology, the destruction of the American Dream, the end of the American Experiment and the replacement of that experiment with the present wage-slave torture-state is therefore entirely liberalism's fault) -- my synthesis is wholly original, with inputs including history, sociology, the principles of constitutional governance, the specific works of Langer, Jung, Graves and Gimbutas (to name only a few) and the developing insights of eco-feminism. I am a writer -- not a recitationist. But I have to run now to beat the 7 p.m. closing of Office Depot. Sorry; back later.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

78. I have cats, so perhaps it should be catmatism...

I had hoped to not seem to be accusing, but rather asking.

"...while I freely admit being influenced by Marx -- a default influence mandated by the abject and infinitely corrupt failure of liberalism to control capitalism (and the corollary facts that the ruination of the planetary ecology, the destruction of the American Dream, the end of the American Experiment and the replacement of that experiment with the present wage-slave torture-state is therefore entirely liberalism's fault) ..."

Taking one part of the above from your post:

"the abject and infinitely corrupt failure of liberalism to control capitalism"

You seem to be talking about these "isms" like they are active entities themselves, whereas I consider them to be concepts that can be manifested in a variety of forms by various people and/or groups.

I'm also unsure what "infinitely corrupt failure" means in this context. Unless it is hyperbole.

[newswolf56]

80. Three points in response and (I hope) explanation:

(1)-Because ideas have consequences, they are in a sense active entities; the consequences of capitalism, for example, include genocide and environmental destruction unprecedented in human history. (Your notion that "concepts...can be manifested in a variety of forms by various people and/or groups" seems to me to be merely a restatement of the thoroughly discredited notion of free will: in this instance the notion that people can transcend the determinism -- which includes the consequences -- inherent in any given idea. Of course this is not to deny the wholly unpredictable hybridizing effect of a true heterogamy of ideas; but we have not had such freedom in the United States since the beginning of the anti-Communist purges: literally hours after the end of World War II.)

(2)-My phrase "the abject and infinitely corrupt failure of liberalism to control capitalism" contains not one scintilla of hyperbole: it describes, in summary, precisely what happened between 1945 and the inauguration of the Bush Administration, which I believe future historians will mark as the end of the American Experiment with libertarian governance and indeed the onset of something for which I have no adequate name but which bears an ever-more-terrifying resemblance to the perhaps-not-so-mythical Fourth Reich. Depending on events elsewhere on our planet, it may well also mark the restoration of the Christian Dark Age that began with the Edict of Milan and continued relentlessly until the Church was overthrown by a succession of violent revolutions: the essential precursor to what we call -- because of its huge contrast to the forcibly maintained darkness that preceded it -- the Enlightenment. Bush is thus not only the ultimate achievement of American capitalism; he is also the initiator of a New Dark Age of Christian theocracy (no doubt abetted by its Islamic counterpart), the sole purpose of which is to protect capitalism and which, if fully imposed, will therefore literally last forever -- that is, until Homo sapiens sapiens becomes extinct. And what brought the American Experiment to its present denouement is precisely what I said: though President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fully understood the nature of the capitalist threat (and structured the New Deal accordingly), his successors were either in denial, were phonies from the very beginning or were terrified into submission by the magnitude of the forces Big Business was mobilizing not just against Communism but against all Left-of-center ideology; hence (because of the implicit corruption of their ideals), the liberals allowed themselves to be bought off (the psychological corruption now turned physical), with the bribery taking the form of campaign contributions. This unprecedented sell-out had three consequences: (A)-the total destruction of the New Deal; (B)- the total destruction of the U.S. Left (and its replacement by a pseudo-Left that by global standards is merely centrist-Right); (C)-the freeing of capitalism -- that is, Big Business -- to run amok, savaging workers and environment alike. Hence too the absolute accuracy of my description: "the abject and infinitely corrupt failure of liberalism to control capitalism": the capitalists and their servants in the Republican Party were merely doing what they always do -- lining their pockets and bank accounts at everyone else's expense. But it was the failure of the liberals to defend the New Deal that allowed the capitalists to win the struggle.

(3)-Having lived through most of the events I summarize -- I am 66 years old -- I believe the cause of American liberty is truly lost, and I write accordingly. I believe that if the Bush Regime is confronted by the possibility of a genuinely progressive victory now or in 2008 -- "progressive" defined as accurately expressing the economic grievances of the electorate (even without the ability to restore the New Deal) -- the regime will simply cancel the elections. Nevertheless I persist in hoping for a miracle: that (perhaps through foreign intervention) there will nevertheless be free elections here this fall and in 2008, that We-the-People will thus be given a final chance to take back our country, and that this time -- especially with the help of long-tabooed ideals (not just Marx but Lenin, Trotsky, Eugene Debs and the works of socialism in general) -- it might be possible to build a United States that can successfully resist the threat of capitalism while simultaneously harnessing its potential: not coincidentally the goal of the New Deal itself. But for this to happen, the intrinsic evil of capitalism must first be fully recognized: the analogy of nuclear power comes quickly to mind. Marx in such a process would be a starting-point, not an ending, and the mechanism would be our own Constitution -- the Constitution that has (despite constant capitalist subversion) kept our liberty alive until the present regime chose to discard it.

(I hope this answers your questions; it is the best I can do off the top of my head. Unfortunately I have other work to do tonight -- rather a lot of it in fact -- but I will nevertheless check back in a couple of hours.)

[redqueen]

107. I agree with you completely.

I'm so glad I happend upon this thread, and your posts.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You have nearly moved me to tears.

[struggle4progress]

76. We're in an awkward situation politically right now: the Rs and ..

.. especially the rightwingers have systematically demonized the rest of the country, and failure to fight back is apparently considered a sign of weakness by much of the population.

So while I strongly agree that "Us v. Them" is an ugly game, I don't see how to conduct the essentially cultural resistance to the rightwing agenda without acknowledging, and to some extent taking advantage of, the polarization the Bushista regime has created.

[Finder]

92. Good point, but...

the divisions in society are numerous and generalized. Neither of the major parties have a solid position on any of the divisions. Trying to divide into rich and poor is impossible since there seems to be multiple bases for both parties.

You use the term rightwing agenda but what is that exactly? There seems to be more than just one agenda although there is only one strategy...tap into peoples fears and bias whether they be xenophobic, economic or personal. The Dems seem to attempt to tap into people's compassion and common sense but any psych 101 student will tell you fear is more powerful.

[Hubert Flottz]

59. I'm on the union side!

I always have been.

Big Money protects the "NON PRODUCTIVE" and the lazy.

Wall Street is the home of the real Organized Criminals and Organized Crime in America. They own the politicians and judges like Al Capone owned them. Most CEOs are as ruthless and self serving as Al Capone EVER was. And then they all go to church on Sunday and forgive each other. I hope there really is a "God"...and I'll bet you a damned dollar, that the CEO types hope there isn't a "God."

[Walt Disney]

72. To defend capitalism is to defend the economic system that

has created the highest standard of living in the history of the world.

Without capitalism, there would be no middle class. Just ask any undocumented worker. :)

[struggle4progress]

77. Historically, this is of course true. It is also true that the progress ..

.. has been accompanied by some vicious exploitation of human and natural resources ...

[Walt Disney]

82. That is, of course, the nature of mankind;

for we are not creatures of perfection.

Still, that which is good has a greater chance to flourish under capitalism than other any other economic system.

[rinsd]

103. Explotation that did not abate under supposedly Marxist regimes

Beware the pied piper selling you dreams of equality, its more likely he's out to purchase you.

[newswolf56]

81. There's hardly a "middle class" now -- all methodically destroyed...

in the name of the concentration of wealth. As for standards of living, check this:

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/B/bourke-white/b-w_living_full.html


_________
Edit: better link.

[Walt Disney]

83. I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the Louisville flood of 1937

was caused by capitalism?

[newswolf56]

85. No, I'm saying Bourke-White told an ironic truth for all the ages:

not just Louisville in 1939 or New Orleans in 2005 but everywhere capitalism is subjugating the working class: every one of us who is not independently wealthy. That the hideous truth of capitalism was so often hidden by glitz and glitter, or that it is only now (due to the cancerous tyranny and obscene greed unleashed by the Bush Regime) we are finally beginning to recognize it for what it is -- none of this makes what Bourke-White understood 67 years ago any less true, or the truth she revealed with her exquisite talent any less powerful.

Which side are YOU on?

[Walt Disney]

94. I'm on my family's side.

Capitalism has not subjugated the working class to anything. Rather, it is socialism and/or communism that has condemned people to lives of destitution and hardship everywhere it has been tried.

There are several examples where the two systems have been tested side by side with people with the same heritages and experiences. These "tests" offer irrefutable evidence as to which economic system is superior. And it isn't even close.

- East vs. West Germany
- North vs. South Korea
- China vs. Taiwan or Hong Kong

[newswolf56]

95. Are you and your family are part of the ruling class? You write as if...

you are. You deny not only history -- the multiple "panics" of the 18th and 19th centuries, the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed, the multiple recessions of the 1950s and 1960s, the Nixon/Big Oil Recession of the 1970s, the Reagan Recession c. 1981-1984 (which in some parts of the U.S. was a genuine depression with unemployment approaching 25 percent), not to mention the present economic crisis capitalism is inflicting on U.S. workers: outsourcing, downsizing, pension-looting, wage-reduction, take-backs, destruction of the social-service safety net -- the concentration of wealth by whatever means possible, the concentration most clearly visible in greed-driven price-gouging and the fact executives now get 421 dollars for every one dollar earned by a U.S. worker. Nowhere else in the industrial world are the worker-boss disparities so huge (and so rapidly growing) as they are in the U.S., and no other industrial nation has a health care, education or public transport system as bad (that is, as savagely discriminatory) as the U.S.

While you are correct that capitalism for a time bought off the U.S. workforce, the capitalists were merely biding their time, sedating the American working class until they could defeat the Soviet Union and then -- with the socialist alternative presumably destroyed forever -- resume the customary tyrannosauric viciousness for which capitalism has always been known: not just the end of the American Dream, but the end of American Liberty too.

What is happening is that the ruling class is concentrating its wealth in preparation for the now-unavoidable environmental apocalypse: global warming and the exhaustion of oil and other natural resources, the result of which will be an economic, technological and cultural collapse without human precedent. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire is a mere glitch compared to what is coming; the capitalists know this (after all, they are the very people who have savaged the environment beyond all repair), but they have no intention of altering their obscene lifestyle. Instead they are taking all they can from the rest of us: subjugating us, reducing us to a degradation unseen in the Western World since the Dark Ages -- the aftermath of Katrina spread nationwide. The capitalists are sucking us dry to line their pockets and bank accounts and then, just as they abandoned the people of New Orleans, they will abandon us to homelessness, starvation, disease and extinction all so they can continue riding in their limousines and -- once the oil is used up -- their gilded Marie Antoinette horse-drawn carriages. All this is class-struggle in action, and it is unfolding precisely as Marx foretold 155 years ago.

I'm truly sorry you can't see this. Unless you are insulated from it by great wealth, you have a rude and bitter awakening in your not-very-distant future.

[Walt Disney]

96. The ruling class? Hardly...

I think that it is you that denies history as well as the current facts of reality. You seem to have bought into the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" theory that was debunked long ago. Marx was not wrong because of this understanding of economics; rather, it was because he failed to understand human nature. I have always maintained that in a perfect world, socialism would be the way to go. Perhaps mankind will evolve into a more perfect creature in a few million years or so; but we certainly are not there yet.

To address your criticisms of our health care, education and public transport systems, I simply do not agree with you. While not perfect, the US has the best health care system in the world. It is far too expensive, but when you consider that we carry the rest of the world’s burden for research and development, it is easy to see why.

I agree that our education system has problems, but I believe they are the kind of problems that governments cannot cure. Most of them have to do with parental involvement and whether or not a child actually wants to learn. You certainly can’t say that we don't spend enough money since we spend about 40% more per child than any other industrialized nation. What our schools need is more discipline, not more money.

The reason we do not have an extensive public transportation system is due to the fact that we are Americans and we just don't do it that way. Most of us rely on our own means because of our love of independence and freedom. However, in highly congested areas, where public transportation is a necessity, there are exceptional public transportation systems. As for myself, I abhor congestion, so I would never live in an area that required me to use public transportation. Those of who enjoy that sort of thing will not have to worry about me getting in their way.

I just cannot identify with your apocalyptic view of the world. Sure, we have a mediocre (or worse) chief executive at the head of our government. But that is just a small hiccup and hiccups always pass. Moreover, hiccups do not cause the sky to fall. Then again, if you are like some of the "abandoned" people of New Orleans, you probably think it's the government's job to hold the sky up. If that is the case, the resurrection of Karl Marx would not be enough to make you happy.

Compared to other times, survival in these times is a simple matter.

[newswolf56]

105. Thank you for revealing your conservatism. Unless you are here...

to troll and goad, I doubt you will be very happy here. (I won't trouble myself with a defense of my knowledge of history because it is a matter of fact -- not propaganda.) However if you want to take advantage of the synchronicities that brought you here and begin to open your mind a bit, you might start by reading Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States. Or Google the following: "coal creek war", "ludlow massacre", "mingo county war", "triangle shirtwaist fire", "fraterville mine disaster" -- all pictures of the pale and carefully hidden underbelly of capitalism.

Refuting your claims point-by-point:

I said nothing at all about "dictatorship of the proletariat." And I regard Marx as a beginning, not an ending.

Your claim that the U.S. "has the best health care system in the world" is too ludicrous to respond to with anything save laughter. As to carrying "the rest of the world's burden for research and development," that is simply another of capitalism's Big Lies. Two examples just off the top of my head:

Alexander Fleming, a Britisher, discovered penicillin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming

The French are on the leading edge of developing drug therapy for AIDS:

http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/vaccines/120104_b.html

Also there was a mid-1980s controversy in which the French claimed the Reagan Administration had stolen -- and suppressed (or attempted to discredit) -- earlier French AIDS research, but this (like so many pre-Internet events) appears to have fallen down the memory hole.

As to public eduction, U.S. high school and college graduates are the most ignorant (allegedly-educated) people on the planet. What is required to change this dismal fact is indeed massive government intervention: transformation of the schools from zombie-hatcheries (to produce the docile workplace drones demanded by Big Business) to genuine education centers -- entirely a matter of standards (and therefore of government policy and action) in the realms of both teachers and students.

As to public transport -- a "beat" I covered for most of my newspaper career -- your assertion that "Most of us rely on our own means because of our love of independence and freedom" is not only flat wrong but is especially revealing of your conservative bias. Study after has study has shown that U.S. citizens are FORCED into dependence on the motorcar by the fact public transport is DELIBERATELY made unavailable. I personally have covered the deliberate, capitalist-mandated political sabotage of major public transport proposals on four separate occasions. The late Jack Anderson wrote extensively about this nationwide malaise during the oil crises of the 1970s -- work that, sadly, is not available online -- and in fact exposed the effectively secret Congressional hearings c. 1948-1949 that laid bare the capitalist (chiefly Big Oil/Big Automotive) scheme to destroy and/or obstruct public transport to force total dependence on the automobile. Destroyed it was: during the 1940s, even small U.S. cities -- for example Roanoke, Virginia -- had extensive electric streetcar systems, all of which were dismantled as a result of the Big Oil/Big Auto manipulations. As to present-day attitudes, here is a landmark study you might find informative (if you can but set aside your bias). Though completed in Canada -- this to safeguard against its suppression by Big Oil and Big Automotive -- the study and its conclusions relate specifically to U.S. cities:

http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf

Lastly, as to whether the forthcoming apocalypse is "just a small hiccup" -- the ruinous combination of global warming and the exhaustion of petroleum and other natural resources -- every credible scientist on the planet vehemently disagrees with you. The only argument is about the magnitude of the consequences. The two primary factions are those who believe (as I do) that humanity will be reduced forever to mid-19th Century technology (steam and horse-and-buggy propulsion, no flight or very limited flight via Zeppelin only, de-electrification, radical de-population) or to the Neolithic (total collapse of all industry and agriculture, radical de-population, reduction of human social organization to the tribal, hunting-and-gathering level).

Which brings us back to the ever-more-vital question of what kind of post-apocalyptic world we want to inhabit: one in which the ruling class lives in obscene luxury behind the walls of its impregnable fortifications and damns all the rest of us to slavery and degradation no doubt enforced by theocracy; or one in which the dwindling resources and growing hardships are shared and shared alike: from each according to ability, to each according to need.

[Walt Disney]

106. A love of freedom and independence are now the credentials

of a conservative?

Well, sir, in your mind, that may indeed be the case. But may I remind you? It was King George and the Torries who were the conservatives, while Adams, Jefferson and others were the liberals. And if I am not mistaken, those liberals were all about freedom and independence. But I suppose you would view that historical fact as mere propaganda.

If you are a "liberal," then liberals are no longer liberal. For what you advocate is dictatorial control over all facets of human activity. And that, my friend, is antithetical to liberalism. I find your advocating for "massive government intervention" with respect to education quite frightening. Although I normally consider references to Nazism to be over the top, that sounds eerily similar to that which Hitler advocated in Mein Kampf. As I stated before, there are problems with education, but the remedy will not be found in a central authority.

It is interesting to note that you had to reach back to 1928 to find something to hang your hat on that relates to an other than American medical breakthrough. I don't have to go quite that far back to point to Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine.

But come with me to the present. Let's talk about MRI's, CT Scans, the Heart Lung Machine or many of the other breakthroughs in medical technology that were invented by Americans. And research continues relating to the artificial heart. It was invented by an American and it will be perfected by Americans. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Let's talk about GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly or one of the many other American pharmaceutical companies that are leading the way when it comes to inventing drugs that help people all over the world live better lives. Tell me, what other country even comes close?

Let's talk about DNA cloning/genetic engineering, where many scientists believe the next leap forward in medicine will occur. It too, was invented by Americans.

So, yes, the US does carry the load for the rest of the world when it comes to advancing the field of medicine. The facts of reality speak for themselves.

I will not even speak to the transportation issue other than to say, if public transportation is your thing, relocate to a large northeastern city. You will find what you are looking for. As for me, I rather enjoy country living, riding my horses and driving my trucks.

The apocalypse is not coming, my friend. Not as long as we remain free to think, invent and discover. Have confidence in yourself. Have confidence in your fellow man. You ain't seen nothin' yet!

[newswolf56]

110. The medical inventions you cite most assuredly do NOT...

"help people all over the world live better lives." They benefit ONLY the rich -- the obscenely rich at that -- who are the ONLY people who can afford to pay for them. Thus for the rest of us these inventions are nothing but useless baubles, impossibly priced trinkets viewed as through some Tiffany-glass window. Which illustrates perfectly the difference between U.S. medicine and medicine elsewhere in the industrial world: U.S. medicine is ever more brazenly for the rich only, while medicine elsewhere is -- as a matter of policy -- practiced for the common good.

Speaking of policy, I find it surprising anyone would brand the notion of a national education policy as "similar to...Mein Kampf" when in fact some of its earliest advocates were American. Indeed what is truly fascistic about U.S. education policy is its present oppressive purpose:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm

As to public transport, it is its very lack that causes gasoline and heating-fuel prices to bankrupt and permanently impoverish ever more U.S. workers -- prices that even restrained estimates now project will reach $5 per gallon by fall: prices that, since we are running out of oil, will never again be reduced by more than a few pennies. The human ruination this is inflicting -- and will continue to inflict -- is without precedent in U.S. history.

And as to the rest of your assertions -- especially your curious notion that economic democracy is tantamount to "dictatorship" and your flat-earther-like denial of the incontrovertible scientific proof of the impending environmental apocalypse -- I again thank you for your honesty. Your comments surely speak for themselves -- as will my silence in response.

[Walt Disney]

113. Tell the millions of people in Africa that American medical innovation

has done nothing to help poor people.

But as long is you hold on to that concept of classism that the OP references, you will never appreciate that which is good.

Anyway, have yourself a mint julep, some derby pie and enjoy the run for the roses this afternoon. :)

[LWolf]

86. I'd like to be part of the solution, myself.

And, like many, I'm not really sure how.

I'll just start by recognizing and acknowledging the organized efforts to keep an "underclass" of cheap labor available, and work from that awareness. Both of my parents, and their forebears, came from that class. While further education has moved me into a slightly higher income bracket, I don't forget who I am or where I've sprung from.

[Blue_Tires]

87. well said n/t

[rinsd]

102. Wit us or agin us mentality.....

..while trying to sell Marx.

Orwell was indeed right.

[pitohui]

40. discussing class issues is not classist, is discussing race racist?

the rich don't need you to fight for them and it's sad you feel that they do

why don't you try to fight for the working man for a change, they are the ones in need

it is a sick american tradition to try to squash open discussion of class and caste in usa by pretending you must be a communist for noticing our classist society and the difficulty people have in changing their caste, we are supposed to lie abt it and pretend we have a mobile society based on merit

well you know what? i'm sick of lying and being lied to in order to keep the rich happy

they have everything already, what they need is someone whispering in their ear, even you caesar are mortal they don't need their asses kissed, there are some rich democrats, indeed, of course there are and not a one of them would tell you that class is not a reality in this country

every GOP small business owner would bluster about merit and bootstraps tho, every damn one

[Finder]

45. I agree, discussion is good...

and I was talking more about the generalizations. Blustering about merit and bootstraps is not necessarily a GOP only bluster.

[brentspeak]

41. "Much of the Dem base are rich"????

What gave you that idea?

[welshTerrier2]

42. see what you think about this ...

it's a repost from another thread ...

i'll spare you my 10,000 word ramble on limiting wealth ...

see if this fits: our goal should be to ensure that each and every citizen has equal, or as equal as possible, access to petition the government ... our goal should be a system of jurisprudence that treats both rich man and poor man in the same way ... our goal should allow no citizen, or commercial venture representing a "congress of citizens", a disproportionate degree of access to or influence on legislation or government policy ...

there is nothing implicitly rigid or absolutist about these ideas as goals ... we should not become so fanatical or doctrinaire that we over regulate our lives and constrict our humanity ... perfection, while a nice ideal, can at times become an abusive mistress ...

but still, i fear that "moderate", bureaucratic effort to limit the abuses of massive wealth and the corruption it enables within our democratic institutions has always failed ... indeed, even efforts to restrict wealth itself may be defeated by the power that massive wealth enables ... again, the view here is NOT that great wealth is inherently evil or that its pursuit is somehow inherently undesirable ... i'm for allowing limitless acquisition of wealth AS LONG AS we are able to adequately buffer our most cherished institutions from those who abuse it ...

historically, efforts at lobby reform and campaign finance regulation, the "darlings" of "liberals", have failed miserably ... i am 100% supportive of promoting these liberal policies but, and it's a very big but, we have to commit ourselves to the idea that failure in the arena of protecting our democracy is NOT an option ...

you show me a government that really is NOT for sale, and i'm 100% for limitless wealth ... you show me a government that succumbs to the power and influence of massive wealth, and the access and preferential legislation and policy that it purchases, and i will start capping the greatest wealth and i won't stop until the problem is solved ...

this is consistent with the idea that the goals and values of the society, when they conflict with the goals of any individual, must take precedence ...

i would make special note that this, of course, does not conflict with the idea of respecting the rights and liberties of the individual ... the Bill of Rights must be adhered to ... calling for restrictions on wealth accumulation where it continues to "buy the government" is very different than depriving individuals of their civil liberties, for example the current NSA spying crimes of the bush administration, for a "so called" national objective ... that distinction must not be lost ...

[Finder]

48. Excellent post--reasonable and logical. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

56. i think your OP sent a mixed signal

i had an opportunity to speak to a woman yesterday who's very likely to be the next Attorney General in Massachusetts ... I wanted to tell her why i oppose the death penalty hoping to talk her out of her support for it ... she surprised me by telling me she's changed her position and no longer supports it because there have been too many mistakes made ...

i told her i hoped to convince her to expand the reason she opposed the death penalty beyond a mere evidentiary problem ... i told her our local DA candidate said he would support the death penalty if they ever perfected DNA testing and could be absolutely certain about who committed the crime ... but this, i said, did not take into account the imperfections and biases of juries ... related to this thread, is it not reasonable to conclude that we have a system of rich man's justice and poor man's justice ... even if prosecutors were to go after both rich and poor in the same manner, are we not still faced with the rich man buying better lawyers and better research to defend himself? do juries not see a poor man in tattered clothing in a very different light when the death penalty is being considered?

and then, as discussed in my previous post, we have the whole arena of money corrupting our legislative process and buying preferred policies ... what kind of democracy is that? and we have tax policy that caters to capital at the expense of workers ... we allow companies to move freely about, even overseas, while whole towns and regions of the country, and the individuals who live in them, suffer tremendously ...

i don't see ideas like these as anti-business at all ... until, and it's become a cliche, we really put some meaning behind "people before profits", our society will never realize its potential ... business should have as much freedom as possible as long as it supports the goals of the society ... make social progress and a genuine sensitivity to the human condition job number one, i.e. fill that requirement, and then business should get as free a hand as possible ... but NOT UNTIL the first mission is fulfilled ... i have no idea what label gets stuck on such thoughts ... i call it democratic socialism with a capitalist back-end ... but who needs labels ...

so, while perhaps its true that some here overgeneralize against the rich or corporations, and i have no doubt some do, still it's important to understand that our country's democracy is being threatened by giving too much power and influence to big money, big oil, big pharma and just plain old big corporations ... it doesn't mean massive wealth or businesses are inherently evil; it means that they need to be adequately regulated to protect the deepest values of our society ... there can be no compromising about that ...

[Finder]

58. OP was to generate discussion...

otherwise, I would have got stuck between a Colbert and a Colbert.B-) I agree with the premise of democratic socialism.

[ulysses]

104. I was going to post in this thread

but you pretty much nailed everything I might have said in this post. :thumbsup:

[marions ghost]

61. we CANNOT depend on the rich to help...

we --as a society, have failed to realize the most basic tenets of "democracy" at this point.

Corruption and the abuses of wealth have undermined just about every democratic ideal we hold. We live like abused, downtrodden victims in a dysfunctional family, treading water. Our country is on the skids morally and financially. It's a Lord of The Flies nightmare.

Defensive disclaimers like "There are good rich people" or whatever, don't really impress me. Those rich people who are REALLY doing something to help don't have a need to be so defensive. More to the point, what are good rich people doing with their wealth and clout to STOP the bad rich people from criminal exploitation of the rest of us?" Obviously, whatever it is, it's not making much of a dent. Doesn't even amount to a finger in the dike, much less a safety net.

You know, maybe we don't need the big money. We have the numbers and we can raise money with small donations. It's going to take a lot of effort to turn this thing around. But I don't look to the rich, of any party, to really get us out of this.

-------------------
just expounding here (no need to reply)

[seabeyond]

49. i couldnt agree more. but then i ignore it or challenge it, depending

well on a lot of factors. but i agree

[Finder]

50. Me too, usually...

but some of the "us vs them" stuff is--as I said silly. A mom and pop store is not anything like Halliburton and lumping them together makes no sense. There are a lot of small biz owners here at DU.

[El Fuego]

51. It's class warfare alright

If what's being done to the middle and lower classes in America to make the rich richer isn't class warfare, I don't know what is.

[Iniquitous Bunny]

55. People on here are individuals.

Besides, if Democrats don't look after the needs of the poor and working class, exactly WHO WILL? :wtf:

Or is is just going to trickle down? :rofl:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

60. Money is the root of all evil, or

not having money is the root of all evil.

George Soros and the Kennedy's don't fit. And there are others of course.

Sweeping generalizations and absolute rules of thumb do make life seem a lot simpler.

But they rarely contribute much to an exchange of ideas, to real communication.

In fact the attempt to argue by the use of absolute rules is silly IMHO. I get frustrated by the use of any statement, ie if we don't support speech regarding beliefs we abhor we don't believe in free speech, as an absolute. Rather than a considered, reasoned, opinion regarding a particular situation under discussion these kinds of statements are an easy way out.

Like most people I would agree that statement is usually true, but not always.

Robert Kennedy Jr. among others, goes directly to corporations and has at times made remarkable progress in effecting new and environmentally better practices.

[marions ghost]

64. you have to appreciate those few

rich Dems who make an effort...but the fact remains that it's not making enough difference. Or we wouldn't be where we are now.

I don't want to have to depend on "noblesse oblige" and the crusades of a few rich people with a conscience, regardless of party.

Nah, I want democracy.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

65. I don't think anyone said it is making a difference.

I'm just saying that generalizations are a double-edged sword.

It seems to reinforce the us and them world view. And that isn't good.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says there are NOT Republicans, just Democrats waiting to be informed.

[marions ghost]

68. Like it or not

money divides.

You can't expect the middle class, slipping into debt and financial insecurity these days, to feel kind and generous toward the rich. The "Us vs Them" worldview is only human in a society of such great and glaring inequities. If the rich feel a little defensive, then it is up to them to find solutions. Those with any conscience left, will do that. It is not up to the rest of us to be real Christian about getting ripped off and all.

But my point is that we don't need to worry about appeasing the rich of any party anyway. We have the numbers to take this country back.

[lukasahero]

91. I believe the quote is "Love of money is the root..."

Money is not inherently evil. One can do great things with money - like give it away to help those who have less, use it to fight injustice, preserve the earth, defeat warmongers.

But when one "loves" money (in and of itself), they aren't likely to give it away. They only want to stockpile more. Therein lies the danger.

[johnfunk]

62. Better classism at DU than no class at Free Republic...

n/t

[Deja Q]

69. Exactly. There is no difference between D and R when M becomes a factor.

Money.

[walldude]

71. "Rich" ain't what it used to be.... or is it a matter of perspective?

The class war is raging, if you don't think so, well you are blind. Sorry. The middle class is being dismantled, even the "rich" are struggling. The class war isn't between the rich and middle class/poor. The class war is between the Super-Ultra Disgustingly Insane Rich and the rest of America. 1% of the people control all the real wealth in this country. Maybe you missed the story about the 400 million dollar severence package that went to the head of GM. Thats 400 million from a company that is taking in record profits in the billions. Meanwhile I'm paying $3.00 a gallon for gas to get to work. I think I can safely generalize that the 1% has no interest in anything but gouging the middle class into the ground.

[struggle4progress]

75. Real class analysis, to be useful, has to do better than "rich/poor" or

"boss/worker."

The point of class analysis is to identify social groups and their interests. Thus, at one point in American history, "slaves," "plantation owners," and "freedmen" might have been some of the classes. At another point, "rural farmers," "big city workers," "small town businessmen," and "monopoly capitalists" might have been some of the classes.

An analysis like this is part of an effort to understand the political situation, including what is likely to happen, and whether there are opportunities for useful coalitions that can press for useful change. But the bigger picture requires understanding of historical and cultural matters also, because peoples' ideas are often formed from experiences they had decades ago, that may reflect conditions that no longer exist or may be based on irrational traditional views.

[BiggJawn]

79. Aww, the poor widdle richies...

Fuck 'em.
They'd be wise to built a back escape route in those lovely gated "communities" they live in, for when people like me come knocking at the gate...

[Yollam]

84. Spoken like a member of the "right" side of the class divide.

Who else would consider class issues "silly"?

Isn't Muffy waiting at the cabana for her martini?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

88. "Much of the Dem base are rich"??? Amazing comment.

[ScreamingMeemie]

89. I'd like to see him/her say that on any given street corner in S/E MI

on any given day.

[Bridget Burke]

90. Most generalizations make no sense....

And much of the classism I see here is against "rednecks" or "trailer trash."

Does being in the business sector mean you are rich? There's a difference between running a small business & being Ken Lay. And there's a difference between the upper middle class & the REALLY rich.

[blindpig]

93. Haves &have mores, eh?

Perhaps therein lies the problem?

[blm]

97. There are good, honest corps and thieving ones - we KNOW the difference.

We can discern.

[sweetheart]

98. Please do credit the reader's may have grey matter

Come on. Are you telling me that you can't read through
someone's mistakes and follies? Can you credit the reader
with multiple entendre, and an appreciation for the mysterious
subject we all love to talk about.

In any given moment, the context of the collective chat carries
a stream of repeated memes, like a stained glass river,
the GD flows like the screen in the matrix, and reading in
the tea leaves, the crickets of the night.

[ComerPerro]

99. If you think you're one of "the rich", chances are you are mistaken

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. Just the other day some jerk told me

"poor people are bad for neighborhoods."

If you want to worry about classism, worry about the poor. The rich can fend for themselves.

[mitchum]

109. Fuck the rich

[ourbluenation]

111. My pops was lucky enough to make a fortune and he's a damn

fine man and a damn fine liberal...fuck him? really?

[Walt Disney]

114. There is definitely some juvenile behavior around here.

But I guess that is the nature of anything that doesn't have an age requirement. :)