The Return of Class War

In the US, the trend has been pretty constant since the sixties of wealth and power concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And in fact many of those hands have always had power and wealth. There might have been some redistribution but a hard core of people never lost out, at least not significantly.

And those same people, the people who created the myth of Horatio Alger, the myth that anyone can make it in America, they've been around for a long time.

They constitute a class.

Now in the US there's this horrible knee-jerk thing, "ckass analysis=Marxism=Commies=EVILLLLL"

But to me the foregoing chain of reasoning is pretty rock solid. You might have been able to deny the existence of a class for a while in the post WWII period where there was some social mobility, but that's going out the window. A recent study (sorry, feeling lazy) found that "the American dream" of making it out of your humble roots was actually much easier in Sweden, a moderately socialist society.

But class analysis has long been a part of American history. The Wobblies were a fantastic bunch and in the article linked later, you'll see some historical context for what's going on now.

So what I'm saying so far really is that the situation is so obvious now, where wealth and poverty are so extreme in the US and much more so in most of the rest of the world, with Western Europe catching up... that class analysis is an idea whose time has come around again.

And who should pop up but Cindy Sheehand talking about Myth America: 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution.

The ten myths, IMO, are excellent:

# Myth One: America: Greatest Nation in the Universe!
# Myth Two: Elections Matter
# Myth Three: There’s a huge Difference Between Dems and Repubs
# Myth Four: It is Noble to Die in Robber Class Wars
# Myth Five: The Federal Reserve Cares About You
# Myth Six: It’s a Privilege to pay Income Taxes to the Robber Class
# Myth Seven: Housing, Health Care and Education are Privileges, too
# Myth Eight: America has a Free Press
# Myth Nine: The Environment, Who Needs it?
# Myth Ten: 19 Muslims with box cutters were responsible for 9/11

The link is to an interview. I can't see it because of my web browser, so comments would be appreciated.

And, yes, I know Cindy Sheehan will set off the usual pitchfork-toting mob.

Class exists in America.

In terms of economic class what has separated America from some other cultures since our nation began is the fluidity of class and the opportunity for upward mobility.

Abraham Lincoln would be a good example of a man rising from humble beginnings, as would Bill Clinton.

Currently, the Democrats are trying to convince us that the rise from humble beginnings along with racial minority status are important conditions for choosing a supreme court justice.

Class conflict is the defining tool of Marxists for implementing social change. Marx insisted that class conflict was the major source of social change and Marxists don't stand around waiting for conflict to arise among the masses. They foment it.

Also, there are all kinds of classes, not just economic classes, so any old demographic will do as long as conflict can be incited.

Race, gender, sexual orientation, age, region, religion, you name it and there's a Marxist out there looking to exploit it for its incendiary value.

That's it in a nutshell.

Cindy Sheehan is not really a rational person by my observation. It seems that she is influenced heavily by Marxists, but doesn't possess the G-2 to really pull off her campaign against America.

Her ten myths are a study in straw man arguments. I don't know anyone who would buy into her ten myths as they are stated in your post. They are preposterous.

Furthermore, she doesn't seem to understand the theoretical substrate of her supposed position adequately and she certainly lacks the requisite rhetorical skills.


[edit on 2009/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I have to concur she is not rational and is heavily influenced by Marxists.

Points 7 and 9 just scream communist.

A rational person would conclude that since government is the root of all our problems, it makes no sense to give them total power over those supposed "rights".

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


You seriously have to be kidding me......You use Abraham Lincoln as an example. How about you do us all a favor and give an example from the last hundred years

Bill Clinton-- is that supposed to be funny? It is statements like that, that makes it obvious that you get your heavy dose of Fox News on a daily basis.

Seldom mentioned, although known: the Rockefellers own and operate Arkansas, a very poor, backward state that is quite sizeable with a comparatively small population. Several terms before Bill Clinton held that position, Winthrop Rockefeller was Arkansas Governor; Winthrop being the grandson of John Davison Rockefeller, founder of what some call the evil empire of Standard Oil. By U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1910, based on Rockefeller's corrupt and violent monopoly practices, the Standard Oil Trust was broken into various parts. Although the names of the resulting parts have been changed around to confuse naive people, the Rockefellers still control them all, such as Standard Oil of New Jersey, now called Exxon; Standard Oil of Indiana, now called Amoco, and Standard Oil of Ohio, now merged with interests of the British royal family and called British Petroleum; and so on.

The person now known as Bill Clinton: his maternal grandmother, believed to be quite a beauty, and reportedly having some link to British royalty, had a great love affair with Winthrop Rockefeller. Hence, Bill Clinton is apparently the illegitimate great grandson of old John D. Rockefeller. Another great grandson is John D. Rockefeller IV, called Jay, to be cute. Is Jay a secret power co-conspirator with Bill Clinton or a rival for occupying the White House?

Up to now, Bill Clinton's background, as portrayed by the Rockefeller-controlled monopoly press, is apparently just another fairy tale of a kid from a nothing place, Hope, Arkansas, somehow rising to high position by great effort and merit. A recent book points out that Bill Clinton was moreso linked with Hot Springs, Arkansas, and was dominated by his uncle Raymond Clinton. The uncle was a wealthy and influential so-called "auto dealer" (some contend that sometimes is the title or role of the local or regional bagman) with ties to the Ku Klux Klan and organized crime. Along with other figures from the vice-ridden, mob-controlled Hot Springs of the 1940s and 1950s, Uncle Raymond financed Bill Clinton's first campaigns.

This isn't about Marxism or communism, it's about the fact that literally 1% own 99%.

The ten myths mentioned are all 100% accurate and are exactly the reason why this country is going down in a ball of flames.

Wake up and understand that the real TPTB in America are built on deciet, greed, nepotism and world dominance

[edit on 13-7-2009 by OnTheFelt]

Originally posted by OnTheFelt


You seriously have to be kidding me......You use Abraham Lincoln as an example. How about you do us all a favor and give an example from the last hundred years

Bill Clinton-- is that supposed to be funny? It is statements like that, that makes it obvious that you get your heavy dose of Fox News on a daily basis.

I suppose your reading skills are impaired by your presumed dire poverty at the hands of the ruling class.

Did you not notice my reference to the hallowed Sonia Sotomayor?

Bill Clinton's beginning were quite humble in my opinon, even though he was adopted by a well-to-do man after his own father was killed in an automobile accident. Even then, he was hardly a member of that wretched one percent you despise so much. Maybe I bought into that "Boy from Hope" speech too much.

Nevertheless, Bill for all his faults worked his behind off from a very early age to gain national prominence in the political sphere. You don't get a Rhodes Scholarship by being lazy.

I don't know what Fox News has to do with it all.

Oh, by the way, you could learn some manners.


[edit on 2009/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


If my words come off as harsh to you I apologize as I am not here to attack you...but I am here to attack your inaccurate statements. We don't have time to be cordial during the present crisis we are living in.

On another note, I find it distasteful that you dismiss the content of the OP because you do not care for the source. I am so tired of people dismissing the truth just because they have a personal unlikeness to the person that speaks the truth.

I am unfamiliar with Cindy Sheehand, so don't mistake me for her loyalist...and at the same token don't mistake me for a democrat or a socialist. I am an American, a veteran at that, and guess what, in this instance she hit it right on the head.

Originally posted by OnTheFelt


If my words come off as harsh to you I apologize as I am not here to attack you...but I am here to attack your inaccurate statements. We don't have time to be cordial during the present crisis we are living in.

There is always time to be cordial. The situation is not that dire.

It is helpful if one is going to discuss class conflict to have some sense of what the term means and where it came from.

"Class war" is not returning. It's been here all along and it is fomented and exploited by the left.

I agree with the OP that it is incorrect to equate class analysis with communism, but then I don't think anyone who counts does that.

The study of class and its impact on society, especially change, cannot be underestimated.

I clarified some of the issues at hand. That's what I'm here for.

The observations about Sheehan are completely my own.

[edit on 2009/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Class conflict is the defining tool of Marxists for implementing social change. Marx insisted that class conflict was the major source of social change and Marxists don't stand around waiting for conflict to arise among the masses. They foment it.

Also, there are all kinds of classes, not just economic classes, so any old demographic will do as long as conflict can be incited.

Race, gender, sexual orientation, age, region, religion, you name it and there's a Marxist out there looking to exploit it for its incendiary value.

[edit on 2009/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Sorry, but this is just not true. Marx was only interested in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and this conflict was a predicted, inevitable force. Not something that can be "formented" (i think you meant fermented) by individuals over the grounds of age, gender or race.

For reasons as to why the "inevitable" class conflict has never actually happened, see Gramsci's theory of Hegemony.

So it clear that you do not actually have a grounded understanding of Marxism, and your assertion that "there's a Marxist out there looking to exploit it for its incendiary value" is nothing more than reactionary sensationalist nonsense.

Originally posted by CRB86


Sorry, but this is just not true. Marx was only interested in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and this conflict was a predicted, inevitable force. Not something that can be "formented" (i think you meant fermented) by individuals over the grounds of age, gender or race.

What I said is true. I did not say that Marx was interested in anything but economic classes. In fact, I did not say.

The fact is that today the various class movements are Marxist-based and a reading of the source materials of these movements will reveal their Marxist roots.

It is you that seems to have a lack of understanding of the far-reaching effects of Marxist conflict theory in American society.

Trust me. I was trained by and with these people.

The word is "foment."

Oh. You forgot the capitalist class, without whom Marx would have been up a creek without a paddle, or maybe that's with a paddle, but no creek.

Originally posted by CRB86
...your assertion that "there's a Marxist out there looking to exploit it for its incendiary value" is nothing more than reactionary sensationalist nonsense.

I think you're probably just naive. I was 45 years old and up to my ears in Marxists before I saw the light. It's possible that you're one of "them," but I'm going with naive.

[edit on 2009/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

return?

did it ever go away?

Well, not the scintillating discussion I'd hoped to provoke. The cues I was trying to leave in the OP were intended to provide a basis to discuss the concept of class without necessarily dragging in Marxism, And of course Marxism=EVIL for most Americans.

I'm not really fond of any "ism"s, and that includes Captialism too.

My point was that things had come to such a pass that Sheehan's analysis is going to make sense to people.

As for her ten myths, I certainly go for them.

Myth One: America: Greatest Nation in the Universe!

The only people who seriously believe this are some Americans. This kind of hyper-patriotism is the reason most of the rest of the world despise those Americans who hold it. There's a pomposity and piousness that's part and parcel of the attutude that's particularly off-putting.

When it comes to standard of living and education, the US is NOT the greatest in the world, not by a long chalk. It breaks records in military spending, governments overthrown... ugly stuff. And as I said earlier, there's more class mobility in Sweden and, I would think, many other countries in Europe.

Myth Two: Elections Matter

Setting aside all questions of electoral fraud (I'm using the word "questions" in deference to those heads in the sand who slept through the two Bush II "elections"), although the cast of characters may change, the agenda remains, and it's not an agenda set by either party. It's set by the corporations who've bought US "democracy" and are pimping it out like a raddled whore. Just look at what happened with the banks. Bush started it, Obama continued. Same thing with the War on Terra. Particularly to an outsider, there's little difference. Pepsi and Coke. They both rot your teeth and get you hooked on refined sugars.

Myth Three: There’s a huge Difference Between Dems and Repubs

As noted above, this is a corollary to Myth Two.

Myth Four: It is Noble to Die in Robber Class Wars

This of course depends on your point of view. If you've been brought up in a system that puffs you full of nonsense about the US being a beacon of democracy, and you've managed to brush away what little evidence to the contrary intrudes through carefully controlled mass media, then the mere sight of the flag makes you puff your chest with pride and wipe away a tear for all those who've made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.

However, a more clear-eyed perspective was given by one of America's truly great soldiers and citizens, General Smedley Butler, who said:

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Source

Myth Five: The Federal Reserve Cares About You

Whoever stands by this myth needs their head examined. The Fed is a private bank run by people who have had effective control of the US for almost a hundred years now. They now have the US indebted to the third and fourth generation thereof.

Myth Six: It’s a Privilege to pay Income Taxes to the Robber Class

Think about where that tax money goes. Well, lots of it gets simply lost. I mean the week before 9/11 Rumsfeld managed to misplace a couple of trillion. Then all was forgotten. Think about all the graft, the black budget, the pork, the sleaze. It's a putrid mess.

Plus there's also the possibility that income tax has no constitutional basis whatsoever, as tested by Aaron Russo. That was such a powerful loophole to expose and such a potent meme to plant that David Rockefeller himself cosied up to Russo.

Myth Seven: Housing, Health Care and Education are Privileges, too

Most European nations have fee health care available to all. Or did, before the lobbyists started to try and pry juicy outsourcing contracts from their governments.

If the US didn't spend more than half of all the money spend in the world on the arms trade, it might be able to provide simple services to its people. Like proper education, better housing, that sort of thing. More parks, perhaps. In my travels in the US, lack of decent public spaces was quite annoying at times. It's kind of a hallmark of civilisation. In my small town there are over a dozen good sized parks for people to enjoy.

Myth Eight: America has a Free Press

I've spent plenty of time in the US and the sheer audacity of the propaganda amazed me. I knew a Polish guy who, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, said, "it's like what the Soviets used to do when they were going to do something. Much slicker obviously, but still so easy to see."

The standard work on this is Manufacturing Consent. There's no defence.

Myth Nine: The Environment, Who Needs it?

I was brought up thinking about green issues by a very enlightened science teacher at school. The situation is complicated by the fact that the corporations have figured out another way to siphon unearned money out of the system through carbon trading. They're therefore pushing the global warming issues while remaining silent about things like what if memory serves is called the Pacific Gyre, a massive whorl of plastic particles getting broken into smaller and smaller pieces by the action of sunlight but never really going away... and eventually entering the food chain... with us at one end of that chain.

Myth Ten: 19 Muslims with box cutters were responsible for 9/11

Good for Cindy. There are plenty of people who are coming out against the official nonsense and here's one more. She will of course attract even more ridicule and opprobrium from the mainstream but I'm sure she's used to that by now. And it will get her more support at the grass roots.

Sheehan's ten myths are sophomoric and irrelevant.

She hates America and that's it.

She should move.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Sheehan's ten myths are sophomoric and irrelevant.

If I were writing them I might have done things a little differently here and there, but they cut to the heart of the beliefs that many US citizens cherish in the face of copious evidence to the contrary, which beliefs are central to propping up the profligate and destructive ruling class in their society.

She hates America and that's it.

When in doubt, resort to absolutes. I rather think if you asked her, she'd say she hated the things being done in the name of the country she loves. No doubt you'll simply refuse to believe it. That's fine.

She should move.

Ah yes, America: love it or leave it. Or as I like to recast it, America, loathe it or ignore it, you can't live with it.

So someone born in your country has no longer any rights if she disagrees with Government policy?

This state worship really needs to stop. That way you can make progress as a society.

as long as there has been distinguishable character and a social pecking order there has been a caste system. among primitive tribes and clans select individuals and groups are placed in higher regard. so not much has changed.

it's probably hardwired.

[edit on 15/7/2009 by gravykraken]

The entire premise..."return of class war" is flawed to start with. The class "war" never really ends, no matter what names you assign classes and no matter how many classes there are. So the middle class is shrinking and the lower class is getting larger...so what? Other than the social status of some, nothing else really changes.

As for the comments about and alluding to communism or socialism, those in practice are also fallacies. There were always classes in any example of either in this world, and again how large or small those classes were or are, or whether those classes are actually individuals or organizations or corporations matters not.

If the goal here is utopia, that isn't happening. Not on this planet and not given any set of circumstances apart from total annihilation and reseeding, and even then if humans in their current form are involved odds are there will still be classes.