#class-war

Today’s links The enshittification of tech jobs: Our last line of defense has fallen. Hey look a...

Pluralistic: The enshittification of tech jobs (27 Apr 2025)

As I read more and more about different “occupy movements” in various cities across the country, I am filled with a desire to help these mostly well-meaning, but disorganized folk.  Not that I feel I am above them in any way…but as with any “movement”, a decisive step must be taken in order to gain a solid foothold in any direction.  It doesn’t seem any of them know which direction to take. 

Matters are complicated by the appearance of, and alignment with, the Anarchists.  Bandana-wearing, identity-hiding, authority-hating provocateurs for whom disorder is the goal, and not simply a means to an end.  When something doesn’t work, it sometimes must be dismantled before it is reassembled.  While most people who desire change have, at least, some sort of plan or idea to achieve their goal of change after dismantling, the anarchy movement does not.  Their wish is for a permanent state of disorder in which everyone fends for themselves.  This does not make it any easier for the majority of others in the peaceful assembly–who have goals to instill change in a new order, legally and peacefully– to be taken seriously by the establishment.  Standing side by side with anarchist creates an even more volatile situation, facing police who are lined up in riot gear and ready at a moment’s notice to initiate a conflict, as they did in Oakland, CA last week.  I’m not sure why police chiefs around the country continue to think that a “preemptive show of force” is a good idea and will simply dissuade people from protesting or assembling peacefully.  Showing up in riot gear is, and has always been, an inflammatory affront to folks, whoever they are; whatever their goal.  The police in Oakland went too far by intentionally throwing an exploding tear gas canister right at an already-injured victim, whom others were gathered around trying to help.  There should be at least one cop in jail right now.

So there are two major problems with the movement right now: 1) It is extremely unorganized, very nearly directionless, and thusly…goalless.  2) Authorities are not permitting people’s right to peaceful assembly.  Well, this second issue can be addressed right away, as it has a clear direction and answer:  People must keep assembling.  For whatever issue that We, the People, deem fit–we need to assemble. And there are many issues that warrant assembly in this time of failing “leadership”, failing economy, and enormous greed. Otherwise we, the People, may lose our right to assemble–another usurped power by a government that continues to step toward authoritarianism…and possible tyranny.  I never thought I would actually use the word “tyranny” to describe mainstream actions by mainstream authorities in the United States, but authorities seem to be taking more and more, year by year.  People have the right to peaceful assembly in this country, and are free to do so.  We should be free to do so without being physically endangered by authorities, as was the case not only in Oakland recently, but in New York City where it started, and other cities as well. 

The first problem of being goalless, however, is a big one.  It is not insurmountable, but someone either needs to step up as a leader, or the group needs to create and agree on an agenda as a set of realistic demands.  For example, one of the most commonly heard issues among the protesters is inequity of wealth.  They could start by passing around a petition which limits the compensation of CEOs and other high-level executives to say…50 times that of the average worker they oversee (the current average CEO in the U.S. takes home 475 times that of their average worker).  This would provide more incentive to pay the average worker more, as well as address the issue of: How much money does a CEO deserve to make?  (If the average worker in a company is making $30,000 per year, does the CEO really need to take $14.25 million?)  How about petitioning for the eradication of all tax-breaks for companies and industries which need absolutely no financial aid… such as oil, pharmaceuticals, or any of the financial giants or insurance companies.  This was proposed in Obama’s “Job’s Bill” but must have really scared off not just Republicans, but all members of Congress whose campaigns are funded by enormous contributions from these companies/industries.  Which leads to an important, or possibly the most powerful and promising change that this country could enact…one that could actually put our country back on track in 10-20 years: a complete separation between private interests and campaign contributions–a “separation of corporation and state” as I have seen already suggested on an occupy-movement sign. 

Could we imagine a United States without corporations throwing big money into both “lobby movements” (what the corporations do when they organize for change), or throwing money directly into a senator’s pocket as a “campaign contribution”?  Can we imagine our representatives in Washington, and around the country actually reading up on the news and deciding for themselves, in their hearts, what might be the best course of action for a particular issue, or set of issues?  We might actually get politicians in office who have hearts again!  Indeed, it is hard to imagine a corporation sending a strongly-worded letter, just as you and I would do to voice our concern to a politician, without having control over our lawmakers, like puppets.   The job might begin to attract people who wish to serve their community, their country, and their constituents for the first time in a long time–instead of attracting people who wish to serve themselves and their cronies, and to be at the center of a “bidding war” of big-money private interests that serve only a few.

Another suggestion might be to petition for our “bailout” money to be returned to us, the taxpayers…and to be used in the form of jobs creation, or enhancement of small-business loans, or other true economic stimulus (the bank bailout did not stimulate anything, as the banks failed to loan anything after their giant receipt).  Perhaps they could petition for the downsizing of our enormous federal government, starting with the biggest cash cow of all–the Pentagon.  $460 BILLION…for what??  To make the decision to get into war in IRAQ and spend an additional $1.2 TRILLION??  Another suggestion: Get rid of “Homeland Security”, which has become such a giant elephant of bureaucracy, that law enforcement all over the U.S. has even gone on record to say is “useless”–delivering “intelligence” so slowly and so late, that those dangers have already been made public. 

Another not-so-far-fetched idea… Start your own political party, and get on the ballots.  There is nothing in the constitution which stipulates an only two-party system.  It has created gridlock in the past, and is doing so now.  A three-or-more party system would help move things along immeasurably, as one of three parties would always lean one way or the other.  Some true debate, and real progress would be possible in mitigating two nearly always-opposing sides.  Get some signatures and elect someone into office in the next election.  If you can’t beat the system, join ‘em, right?

This week President Obama said the obvious: that wealthy Americans, many of whom pay remarkably little in taxes, should bear part of the cost of reducing the long-run budget deficit. And Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan responded with shrieks of “class warfare.”

It was, of course, nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it’s people like Mr. Ryan, who want to exempt the very rich from bearing any of the burden of making our finances sustainable, who are waging class war.

The final pre-point I want to make here - before tooling off to France in 1789 - is more in the form of a question. How did we get into a situation where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is portrayed as Satan incarnate?

Yes, yes. I spend a lot of time around libertarians and I know that their current version is all about hating government. No other agenda or priority. See my earlier challenge (two postings back) daring libertarians and decent conservatives to consider taking on a positive goal instead of a purely negative one - fostering competitive enterprise and not just reflexively hating all civil servants, under all circumstances, all the time, while ignoring every other threat to freedom. That may by Ayn Rand, but it sure ain't Adam Smith.

If government is always and automatically evil, then yes, Franklin Roosevelt was the antichrist, because he sure expanded its reach. If, on the other hand, you judge by outcomes... defeating Hitler, ending the Great Depression, starting the process of racial justice and - above all - engendering a society that both fostered vast amounts of competitive enterprise and kept the social order flat, then maybe we should consider cutting the man some slack. (Wasn't he admired by the "greatest generation"?) I'd like to see you -- or any ruler/leader across all of human time -- do better.

Sure, some of FDR's bureaucracy got cloying. Or else it got "captured" and stifled competition. Democrats themselves axed many New Deal and Progressive agencies - the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, for example, had to go! Others needed trimming and so did the pre-1960 tax rates that JFK slashed. Indeed, about half of the Reagan-era government prunings seem pretty much called for... a process culminating in the Clinton-Gingrich Welfare Reform, another time that the moderate-right had a strong point. And was listened-to.