A class war is a conflict between social or economic classes, especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes. This rather common definition of class war uses older terms, but otherwise is proper. Capitalists have been replaced by entrepreneurs, employers (non-governmental), the rich or the private sector. A good name for this side is the “Haves.” The proletariat has disappeared and was replaced by blue collar workers, unionized workers and white collar workers that are not “the rich.” A good name for this side is the “Have Nots.”
For a conflict to exist, one needs at least two sides opposing each other actively. A class war exists when the Haves fight the Have Nots and vice versa. Determining whether we actually witness a class war in the country is important for the understanding of the current social and political environment. Evaluating the Haves and the Have Nots as warring entities might shed light on the whether the conflict exists or whether it lives only in the rhetoric of interested parties.
The Haves are well organized through a large network of organizations. First and foremost, the Republican Party is the strongest, probably most ferocious and long standing supporter and protector of the Haves. Other organizations are the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, a collection of right and extreme right wing think tanks, many loud and mostly hysterical radio talk hosts, the Tea Baggers, etc.
The support the Haves enjoy is total, constant, unwavering and increasing. The support comes in many forms. The Republicans are constantly fighting for tax cuts for the haves. They also try to free the haves from responsibility and consequences of their economic and personal misdeeds and failures. If that is not enough, the Party never stops to demand to put the Haves above the law. Other Haves supporting organizations such as Fox, WSJ and radio talk show hosts propagandize for the Haves using shrill voice and little regard for the truth, facts and the good of the country. The right wing think tanks astonishingly produce reports, opinions and individuals with little regard to “think” and with absolute loyalty to the Haves; once again truth and facts are not considered essential to being think tanks.
The Haves openly advocate for their position no matter how out of bounds it is. Being above the law is not a commonly supported view. Even undemocratic societies where the rule of law is typically ignored pretend to be law abiding. The Haves have abandoned the pretense; they openly demand removal of safety laws, accountability for financial and human loss and special treatment under the law. They also demand a special tax status that lowers their taxes relative to the rest of the population. Huge governmental subsidies are requested by the Haves and the government responds by forking out trillions of dollars with no strings attached. Recently, Haves companies have acquired the status of voters and can use the overwhelming financial force to influence elections.
The Haves, and their political arm – the GOP, are unified solidly behind their goals and methods. Since 1992, there is no dissent in ranks of either the Haves or the Republicans. If there were a few exceptions, they were white noise. Although, the many of the Haves are Democrats, e.g. in Aspen, CO, Obama got 70% of the votes; in matters of having more they simply are for more. No social conscious, no misgivings and no regrets.
The country has a politicized justice system by design. The senate has to approve judge candidates nominated by the executive branch. Many states have elections for local judges. After 30 years dominated by the Haves, our judicial system is dominated by the Haves. Political control of the judicial system has lead directly, after 30 years, to a system that decides cases politically with a strong tendency towards the Haves and their interests and downright despise for the Have Nots. It is not only the Supreme Court, with its more than 20 years of political decisions lacking any basis is the law; appellate courts and district courts also support the Haves.
The Have Nots are loosely supported by the Democratic Party, although in the last 30 years this support declined time and again until it became quite tenuous. Most Have Nots are unorganized; only a small percentage of them belong to unions. Another loose group includes unorganized workers working for small companies, temp jobs, low paying jobs and retirees on limited income. Many other Have Nots are in in suspended animation. They are neither poor nor comfortable; their middle class status tends to make them feel way better than the poor. The left Have Nots, solid middle class and even upper middle class, consider themselves, at least conceptually, Haves or semi Haves.
Politically, the Have Nots do not constitute a coherent whole and are hardy a warring front. It is a collection of fragments and sects that are way too weak to fight successful for anything meaningful. If that were not enough, some fragments are openly at war with other fragments. President Clinton, who belonged to a centrist fragment, faced constant abuse by Democrats in congress and by those who name themselves progressives. Politically, Democrats include blue collar workers, their supporters and the labor union we call the Cesar Chavez Democrats. Also present are solid middle class white collar workers, well off white collar workers, some business owners or principals, media people and other, relatively “elevated” people who consider themselves progressives. Their concept of progressives does not necessarily conform to the universal concept of progressives. In the presidential elections of 2008, the “progressives” demeaned and despised blue collar worker. There are also centrist Democrats who are on average less socially liberal than progressives and their fiscal view is way more conservative. Then there are the Blue Dog Democrats who side with Republicans way more frequently than other Democrats.
The “progressives” seems to be fighting with every other group with the Party. Blue Dogs are in many cases in opposition to the rest of the Party and cause everyone a lot of aggravation. The unions are not fully accepted even within the Party. The new education reform is also a slap in the face of the teachers unions. The Democrats look more like a defeated force in retreat than a forceful fight one.
Of particular interest is the role of the media in world of Haves and Have Nots. In democratic societies the media treats the Haves and Have Nots, at the very least, equally. Typically in democratic societies, the media tends to side with the underdog, namely the Have Nots. Our media would have none of it. It openly sides with the Haves; it ridicules or ignores the Have Nots. It shockingly resembles the media in dictatorships. It intervenes in elections on the side of the Haves, typically, using the same lies and techniques used by the Haves themselves. In other words, the media is member of the Haves support network. That state of affairs robs the Have Nots of one of the crucial weapons in potential class war in which the importance of the media cannot overstated.
Financially, the Have Nots are at a standstill the last 30 years. The country, during these 30 years, made substantial progress in areas such technology, medicine, media, huge loss of industry and an almost cancerous growth of the financial sector. The progress has produced a windfall that went almost without exception to the Haves. Consequently, the affluence gap between the Haves and the Have Nots has increased without any sign of stopping any time soon. The growth of the gap implies that the Haves portion part of the national pie increased, while the Have Nots, at a standstill, have been left with the pie’s crumbs. In other words, the Have Nots family average buying power has decreased for 30 years without any sign of stopping any time soon. The trajectory of this process is clear. In the end, the Haves will own the pie and the Have Nots will have nothing.
A class war between the Haves and the Have Nots, if it were to exist, would cause a collision between the two camps. It would most likely find the warring sides at each other throat. Since the two camps have been supposedly warring a long time, one would expect the warring sides to be matched about equally as the history of prolonged wars shows. Prolonged wars also tend to cause wide spread damage and destruction inflicted on both sides. Not surprisingly, the scars of war are apparent only on the Have Nots side. Quite clearly, what is happening is not a class war. The Haves rule over the Have Nots. This rule increases oppressively, the law has been abrogated and the Have Nots are punished by disappearing services, added taxes and campaigns to blame them with the trouble of the day. Trying to fit the oppression and abuse into a framework of a class war is downright ridiculous.
The current oppressive regime cannot last forever. Once the Have Nots deteriorate into abject poverty, the country will start to resemble North Korea. While North Korea is carried by the much larger and prosperous China, no one can carry us. At that point the country will simply deteriorate into complete chaos. The country founded by Jefferson will become a collection of gangs roaming the streets on the lookout for food and water. Hopefully, the Have Nots will rebel way before that happens. In 2008, we missed a golden opportunity to start to dismantle the Haves monolith and redistribute the pie according to real free market rules. The major banks were almost bankrupt, the Haves financial and market philosophy was on the ropes and the Republicans could have been justifiably blamed for pillaging, robbing and harming the country. The opportunity was missed because the president was elected, influenced and owned by the Haves. The Haves were and are in total control of the system.
The Haves cannot control everything forever; they are a small minority. Elections are not the only way to topple oppressive regimes. Remember Egypt and Tunisia.
No comments:
Post a Comment