Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Is a real class War going to happen?

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 4, 2011, 1:25 p.m. EST by ChuckDarwin (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It seems like the government is escalating the actions being used against the common people trying to participate in America's politics. I hope that the violence doesn't continue or spread but that is the story line of a new fictional book out suggesting that a civil war or class warfare could indeed happen over social inequalities. The book is the 1st class Warrior and it definitely adds a new perspective on the conversation to end social inequality. Violence has no place in the fight for social change but any discussions need to accept that the possibility does exist and how expensive it would be for all sides of American society. The book preview is available here at http://1stclasswarrior.com/.



Read the Rules
[-] 13 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

Billionaire businessman Warren Buffet said on CNBC about a year ago already: “There's CLASS WARFARE, all right, but it's my class,. the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”

On CNN, he later stated : "Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically. If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won."

[-] 3 points by demcapitalist (977) 12 years ago

It's hard to argue with that , especially with the revolving door of X Goldman execs who end up in government. The thing that amazes me is how politicians convince a good chunk of the middle class to fight for the %1

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

“There's CLASS WARFARE, all right, but it's my class,. the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”

I have been saying the same thing in a slightly different way for years...

Class warfare has been going on in this country since the beginning. Sadly, only one class knows they are fighting it.

[-] 0 points by doctorlove (-10) 12 years ago

your crazy. do you even have a clue on economics/tax rates? If you did, you wouldn't post that garbage above. What a bunch of horseshit. You ought to be embarrassed.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

Typical semantically-challenged TROLL: "crazy", "horseshit", etc.

"doctorlove" doesn't even realize that my comment is limited to two word-for-word QUOTES BY BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN WARREN BUFFETT. If you think Buffett "doesn't have a clue on economics/tax rates" and is talking "a bunch of horseshit"... then why don't you take it up with him directly? If you're too cowardly to challenge him, then eat that horseshit and shut YOUR BIG TROLL SNOUT.

[-] 0 points by doctorlove (-10) 12 years ago

tiousse, you are a scum sucking dirty troll bastard. Enjoy your life of unhappiness and loserness. Get a job and a life you loser

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

Aw shucks... I bet you say theat to ALL the girls! wink wink wink

[-] 1 points by doctorlove (-10) 12 years ago

Excuse me Ms. smarty pants. I want you to know that you and ows are complete morons. You haven't got the faintest idea of what you are protesting. If you really gave a shit about the 99%, you would pack your tent and shit, clean up after yourselves and allow the local businesses (99%) to start having customers come back into their shops/ businesses. You disgusting hippies have ruined public parks all over the U.S.A. (my great country) and because of that, you all should be arrested and deported to Canada/Mexico. If you don't like what we have to offer in my great country, then get the fuck out of here you losers. The Doctor!

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Aren't they paying more with the increased paycheck even though they are paying less taxes? 11600000 versus 47670000.

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 12 years ago

not the point, they earned more, and by paying less % tax we have to pay more.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

But its quadruple what they used to pay.

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 12 years ago

so what.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

So they contribute more in a year than you do in 10

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 12 years ago

they make more in a year than I'll make in 1alot of zeros here years.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

And why is that? Who do you choose to blame?

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 12 years ago

!!!!!!!!!!! R U Numb or just brain dead , them, them them!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

And the reason you blame them is?

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 12 years ago

thank you, deep breath, ok Im not retorical and would probably lose any argument maybe even with you. You cant go into every little problem here .ive been around long enough to know that this world is f** up we kill babies in the womb but protect spotted butterfly or some stupid thing like that. thats why ows seems without direction there are a lot directions. whats the answer I dont know. I do know its not to squash the actions of brave people. Its our right to demonstrate. sure its a little dysfuncional at times LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS THERE TRYING TO ADDRESS.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

I'm sensing you are a Christian which is perfectly fine with me. I agree with you on the butterfly's and similar situations. There is no reason to spend money on it. OWS is disjointed. The reason Martin Luther King was successful was because had several ideas set in his mind that he worked towards until they were achieved. I never said it was not your right to protest. However, I am of the idea that you should have a set of ideas that you want to happen. I know you've at least read it before and I hate to copy everyone else, but without a plan you won't get anything done.

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 12 years ago

I dont have enough time or space here to list effectivly a bloodless revolution. Acctually we have it or had it, a fair and democratic government, that is now a Capatilistic/totalitarian/police state. Your a sheep with the wool pulled over ur eyes. I sense you have some inteligance. Yes King worked for his goals peacefully and they killed him. Historically change has been bloody, we can do this peacefully, how I dont know . I sense your young , fight for your free world.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

I know we have had a fair government. And the constitution was not set up to give people the power they have now. However, the constitution does not give the people the right to steal money away from people who have made it big just because they have made it big.

[-] 8 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 12 years ago

Going to happen? WTF its been class warfare for 30 years. JC What planet are U on.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

The ONLY 'Class War' in The U$A is the one that has been waged for at least the last forty years BY 'The Parasitic 1% OF The 1% [the 0.01%!!]' Against The 99% Working Class {because if we Need To Work in order to pay our bills, that is what we are !}


per ardua ad astra ...

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

how about hundreds of years - same fight different century - different goals (since we have come a long way - still a long way to go!)

[-] 2 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

wow - a reasonable comment - unusual on this site sadly. montclair huh - i play hockey there sometimes

[-] 4 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

We've been in Class Warfare for 30 years, only the 99% didn't know it.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

A real class war has been going on in America for over one hundred years. It's mostly just been one sided. No longer!

[-] 3 points by barb (835) 12 years ago

As much as most do not want to resort to violence, it is a real probability in the near future. The proof of this is global in the history of all past wars.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 12 years ago

The risk is real, That's why it is so important to keep pushing people to stay non-violent. And convince them of the power of non-violence over the loss of focus that violence would cause.

[-] 2 points by WarmItUp (301) 12 years ago

Yeah class warfare has been happening since the mid 70's the rich have been oppressing the middle and lower class for a very long time, why when the lower class try to defend them selves from decades of being attacked by the rich is it now referred to as classwarfare, it is class warfare buy the rich, the poor are just trying to defend the tiny amount of money and things they still have left after the rich pillaged everything with trickle down economics, or should I say trickle on economics

[-] 2 points by joe100 (306) 12 years ago

There is no revolution without violence, without force. And again, violence has the huge connotation of being "evil", yet its legal definition is completely different than the dictionary definition.

Legally violence can be almost ANYTHING - can be a touch, or a voice yelling.

I hope violence continues to spread - its the only thing that will make change. This idea of non-violence isn't true about Occupy. OWS is, and has been violent, but must call it self "non-violent" for legal reasons, and to keep its members from doing ABUSE and INJURY.

Pushing back horses is violent. OWS did it. It wasn't wrong, was not abusive, did not cause grave bodily harm. But it was violent.

Violence is unavoidable for social change.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

"Violence is unavoidable for social change" = B U L L S H I T

See Gandhi, Martin Luther King, The Carnation Revolution (Portugal, 1974), The Velvet Revolution (Vaclav Havel), Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi, etc., etc.

[-] 2 points by joe100 (306) 12 years ago

Gandhi was shot - that was violent. MLK was shot, that was violent. Both revolutions were filled with violence. I also think your definition and my definition of violence is different. To me, Occupying places and shutting down businesses is violent. It's not bad, but its violent.

violence noun assault, attack, brutality, clash, disorder, eruption, explosion, ferocity, force, furiousness, fury, inclemency, manus, onslaught, rage, rampage, ruthlessness, savagery, severity, unlawful force, vehemence, violentia, wildness

Occupy is how many of those? Occupy is certainly causing disorder.

The use of physical force, especially physical force utilized with malice and/or the attempt to harm someone. Some courts have ruled that in labor disputes, violence includes picketing with false information on the placards, in an attempt to harm a business.

That was the court's definition. The actual definition is here: vi·o·lence [ v ələnss ]

physical force: the use of physical force to injure somebody or damage something

destructive force: extreme, destructive, or uncontrollable force, especially of natural events

fervor: intensity of feeling or expression

According to those definitions Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and us - we are ALL violent.

I think what you really mean, is that we don't want to go around killing people and beating them up. And we don't. But we certainly MUST be violent according to the legal and dictionary definitions.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

We must be PASSIONATE about our cause - but not physically violent. Violence would play RIGHT IN THEIR HANDS.

Anyway, Joe100 is a T R O L L....

To understand WHAT MAKES A TROLL TICK - AND have a chuckle while you're at it - go to:


[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 12 years ago

And tiouaise is a troll too. She doesn't understand the reality of the world. Here you are, being quite immature, and not understanding that ideas are not people. You think I am my ideas - grow up and try to understand that Occupy IS VIOLENT.

See if I don't like your idea, I don't call you a troll. I just merely say your idea is incorrect. Where "you are wrong" is a personal attack. "I think your idea is incorrect" is not a personal attack.

I am sure if you knew me, or if you went to high school with me, you would like me, look up to me. I was athlete of the years, starred in hoops and track, was one of the most gifted students. See, when a group of minority girls were having problems in school, because some boys were saying very racists remarks to a black girl, a jewish girl, and a muslim girl, the girls decided to ask for help. Their choices were a police man, a teacher, a principal, or me. they chose me, because they knew how I protected the weak and those who got bullied.

Joe went up to the bad racists, and told them, violently, they were not allowed to do this anymore and the problem went away.

People like me are not trolls, we are heros, and we protect the weak, like you.

Grow up, and understand that this forum is about exchanging and attacking ideas, not attacking people, and pretending that ideas IS the person.

Next time a hero saves you, know, the hero uses violence to protect.


[-] -1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

Bye, bye, "athlete of the years" - or of the century, why not??? - HAPPY TROLLING!!!

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

Tiouaise....It seems to me he is reasonable and you are behaving like a troll.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

How is he trolling?

[-] 2 points by FalseFlag (121) 12 years ago

It has been going on for thousands of years since the times of Roman Empire. To make people accept their roles as slaves, peasants or servants, to make them wage the war of elite, to let them butcher each other to protect power structures. It is a game for the elite.

[-] 2 points by HoneyintheHeart (101) 12 years ago

yeah cant represent the violence i sense here...sorry

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 12 years ago

All we have to do is vote together. No need to bother with violence. 1 to 2 election and it could change everything.

Vote together we win

[-] 2 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

What if our vote is stolen?

[-] 2 points by HoneyintheHeart (101) 12 years ago

not true at all...voting is one of the least of our concerns... Concerns: 1) how we treat mother nature 2) how we treat each other 3) how we treat ourselves 4) how much energy the modern day man/woman puts into trangressing their "needs" and "wants" and so much more...voting is probably like number 567 on the list

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 12 years ago

Obama and Congress decided to extend the bush tax cuts for the rich for 2 more years and we were powerless to intervene on this agreement made in the back room. How do we prevent Congress and the President from signing anything without the publics vote?

[-] 1 points by Recycleman (102) 12 years ago

Rep congress has frozen any laws by refusing to allow them to be heard. To get any thing to pass the president has to bribe them with pet tax reduction.

We need to let them all know that the free money from corporate donations is over. They have giving the 1% enough.

By the way. The dem are just as guilty.

They all choose which party to join that they believe will give them the best chance to win. There are plenty of rich dems.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 12 years ago

I know the dems are just as guilty as the reps and sometimes it appears they are actually on the same team but to the media they act like they oppose each other. For example Obama made campaign contributions to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac in the amt of $105,849.00 from 1989-2008. So obviously he is not on our side and it is well known that republicans are worst.

[-] 1 points by doctorlove (-10) 12 years ago

Excuse me Ms. smarty pants. I want you to know that you and ows are complete morons. You haven't got the faintest idea of what you are protesting. If you really gave a shit about the 99%, you would pack your tent and shit, clean up after yourselves and allow the local businesses (99%) to start having customers come back into their shops/ businesses. You disgusting hippies have ruined public parks all over the U.S.A. (my great country) and because of that, you all should be arrested and deported to Canada/Mexico. If you don't like what we have to offer in my great country, then get the fuck out of here you losers. The Doctor!

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 12 years ago

I don't know at least the police action has been non-lethal, but until the cops start shooting live rounds into protesters and killing people, I doubt it's warfare at all.

[-] 1 points by forOWS (161) 12 years ago

No. The "class war" is propaganda put out by the extreme right-wing pundits on Fox News and the rest of the media they abuse. They want to fire-up their people like they did when Obama came into office and they were out protesting in DC with their guns. A small crazy minority that tries to give you the impression that they are the majority in this country with their extreme far-right views. Most Americans are not like that and I don't think that they would go with a "class war".

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

Class warfare has been going on since this countries beginning. Sadly, only one class knows they are fighting it and they are winning.

[-] 1 points by FirstLight (21) 12 years ago

Class warfare has been going on in the use since the inception of the US Constitution if you know your history. It actually got pretty even by the mid-1800's, and then the rich and powerful made a concerted effort to reclaim power (or rather, stop the decline of their own power), and by 1886 managed to score a decisive blow to lock in their power for good.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

Class war has already been happening. It is just that so far most of the 99% have not decided to partake in fighting back. I would say that we are just starting, but those of us who have woken up to the fact that we are in a war and are currently being slaughtered, need also to band together and go on record. I can't even get anyone to sign a petition. Everyone ( it seems ) is waiting for someone else ( anyone else ) to fight the war for them.

[-] 1 points by greatows (14) 12 years ago

Class war? 99 to one isn't a war its a slaughter

activist page http://url2it.com/jsne

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Not when a significant number of the 99% does not know who it is fighting.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

How do you figure it would be 99 against 1? You don't still buy the claim that Occupy represents the 99%, do you?

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

so 5% against 1% it is.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I don't even think 5% of America would actually take up arms in defense of the Occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

I didn't imply violence.

But there is a strong militia movement that's been going on for a while now.

I would side with either one.

oligarchs beware.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

For a militia to be successful, it would require the US military to be on it's side. And that is not happening any time soon because as bad as some may think it is, most people, especially those with military careers, have no desire to uproot their entire way of life.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

"For a militia to be successful, it would require the US military to be on it's side."

Not really.

But I wouldn't worry though. Unless the government declares them to be terrorists and imprisons them without trial it'll be more of the same.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

The way I look at it, the US military is either with a militia, or it is against it. And if it is against it, I would bet my money on the US military.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

I'd say the only chance the people stand against the US military is if enough soldiers defect to protect their friends and families. For now, things aren't quite pushed to that point yet (though we stand on the razor's edge).

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I agree. Though I don't think we are even close to that point though.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Where do you think citizens will draw the line? Obviously for many, the line has already been drawn. I tend to think when they come to round up firearms is when the majority will awaken, but by that point the only thing vaguely resembling balance will be gone.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

That's what they said in Vietnam.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

So you mean to tell me that you really believe there are militias out there with the capability to take down the US military?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

the Militias are on the side of the 1%, pay attention.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

No, the militias are pretty much defined as the 99%.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

Feds...you don't know much about Militias.................The militia movement is a right-wing movement that arose following controversial standoffs in the 1990s. It inherited paramilitary traditions of earlier groups, especially the conspiratorial, antigovernment Posse Comitatus. The militia movement claims that militia groups are sanctioned by law but uncontrolled by government; in fact, they are designed to oppose a tyrannical government. Adherents believe that behind the "tyranny" is a left-wing, globalist conspiracy known as the New World Order. The movement's ideology has led some adherents to commit criminal acts, including stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives and plotting to destroy buildings or assassinate public officials, as well as lesser confrontations.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

And I disagree. I've gone to several Tea Parties around me. Aside from being older and generally on the right they find the corporate intrusion into business and vice-versa to be outrageous and a huge problem.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

The Tea Party likely does have social conservatives as members however its defining political position is that they are Taxed Enough Already - an economic position not a social one. At the events I have attended the focus has been solely on economic issues.

Now since there isn't some monolith Tea Party organization its likely that there are Tea Party groups that are themselves very different from each other. I can only speak to what I have witnessed regarding half a dozen Tea Party organizational events.

I see nothing at all like what you or that author suggests. Having one an award doesn't make the author's statements factual.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

Febs...The majority of the Tea Party is made up of the Religious Right, re-branding itself....documented in this book....


Robert D. Putnam (Harvard) and David E. Campbell (Univ. of Notre Dame) have been awarded the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award for American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (Simon and Schuster). The Wilson Award of the American Political Science Assocation (APSA) recognizes the "best book published in the U.S. during the previous calendar year on government, politics, or international affairs".

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

My point is that they don't exclude people from the 99%. The math itself mandates that your exclusion not occur.

You don't even begin to address the reality that you need to unite on topics of agreement with others in which you have topics of disagreement. It is the only way to create change but you've been do conditioned that you cannot do this - which is precisely what the powers that be wish. You self-divide yourself which makes defeat automatic.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

febs....they are our mortal enemies. ...OWS is not a suicide pact.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

Replying here because I cannot respond to your last post of: "Febs...If you take the time to read and comprehend my reply, you would see that the Militias sympathies's lay with the Republican party, Tea Party. Most defiantly not 99%ers."

I wasn't aware that any of those disqualify someone from being in the 99%.

Like it or not your political adversaries will defend you at risk to their life against the end of Posse Comitatus. I fully understand the meaning of your reply - and I disagree with your conclusion. Yes militias lean right. They fundamentally want the government to be less intrusive - and so does this movement - the only disagreement is in where the government removes their nose and hands. Also almost half of Americans are in the Republican Party so I am sorry you can't see the complete folly in saying you stand for the 99% while saying that you don't stand for 40% and that they aren't welcome to stand for you.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

Febs...Well now your aware so no excuses for defending Tea Party Republicans.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 12 years ago

I know a great deal about militias - I've almost formed one. I and likely you are already classified as members of the militia.

You even state that they are formed by civilians to fight against the military imposing martial law.

How in the world is that not 99%. The militia act actually defines the unorganized militia as: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States ... (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. "

That is the 99%. You're likely part of the militia.

We weren't supposed to have a standing Army which our Founders knew would eventually be used against the body public by a political elite and their monied interests. The militia was activated by the Governor and in times of war fell under command of the President in addition to procuring (in two year increments) funding for a regular army.


[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

Febs...If you take the time to read and comprehend my reply, you would see that the Militias sympathies's lay with the Republican party, Tea Party. Most defiantly not 99%ers.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

The point of militias is not to win, but rather not to lose.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

ronimacrroni...The militias are the mortal enemies of the 99%. Their agenda is to support the status of the ruling elite.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

Violence has no place in the fight for social change

I think that if you look at history the reality is that most positive social change has been the result of violence. Successful non-violence has been the rare exception, confined to the last century, if I am not mistaken.

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 12 years ago

What? That's not true. What about the Bolshevik Revolution? That sure as shit wasn't positive. Non-violent means are becoming more widespread in our world today because people are realizing that they work. Violence should only a last resort option in a movement for positive social change.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I did not say:

  • violent revolution always produced positive results,

I did not say:

  • non-violence isn't a viable strategy.

What I was pointing out is that nonviolence is a completely new strategy when viewed from the vast historical context of human civilization.


[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 12 years ago

Class war is not inevitable within the United States. Mostly because there is not a clear division among what we might try to define as classes. However, most are now aware that the wealthy are attempting to protect their wealth through new laws and rules, and the application of the usual means of opinion and behavior control (media and advertising). All laws and rules abridge somewhat our freedom, and the freedom of the wealthy as well. But more importantly it is the means of opinion and behavior control that we must most aggressively counter. We do this by resisting our baser natures, and by encouraging others similarly. More specifically, not to borrow money, and not to support political candidates who pander to emotions.

While people remain selfish, good laws are useful to us all and should be respected. But bad laws should be eliminated as unnecessary if not harmful burdens. One way to change a bad law is to change the legislature members who produced it, and then lobby for the bad law’s revocation. We have the power to do this, but we may not have the will.

Another way is through civil disobedience, yet just like the disobedience of an economic law, to disobey a bad civil law requires some capital in reserve to make it through the period of time when people are still in the habit of enforcing it. Capital in our case would include lots of friends and a clear understanding among all parties of the errors in the laws that need rectifying. OWS is getting better at this accumulation of capital. Remember, the very wealthy (and almost wealthy) are people like you and me, and they value their opportunities and customs as much as we do. Do we really want to do away with their wealth, or do we want to end the bad laws, rules, and practices that prevent non-wealthy people from achieving their own goals and aspirations? So, continue to explain why certain laws, rules, and practices are bad. Then when these ideas have well permeated the American consciousness, begin to disobey those bad laws, rules, and practices.

Personally I would think that changing the legislature is easier than civil disobedience (for it is not so easy to target some of the bad laws in a way that would attract attention or arrest). Yet in either case, the education of the deficiencies of the laws, rules, and practices should go forward.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

Great user name Chuck !

In my opinion, the long term war is between man and machine. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-rise-of-the-machines/ .

We can fix most of our other problems by taking back our political power per http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ , but we must use both our political power and our consumer power per http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-power-of-the-people/ if we are to reshape the face of Corporate America and slow the rise of the machines.

[-] 1 points by kickthemout (83) 12 years ago

It may very well be but we can achieve our goals by a different way: become political (if we really want changes) organize our own political party along the line of the Global Revolution (OWS) movement and run our own people for all the available Village,City,State and Federal Offices. Then we will set our people's agenda in order. The momentum, and the numbers are there so let's do it. Unless we remove at least those tyrants in the U.S. Congress (they make laws regulating our economy) and in the State Houses, nothing will change. Let's kick them all out.

[-] 0 points by deGrene (199) 12 years ago

I just finished another post in reply to another reply on this issue. My general position in that post was that those advocating revolution in this country have not realistically thought it through.

for one thing, there is a huge difference in the weaponry between anything that can be obtained by a citizen's rebellion and the military -- even the local police forces have weapons comparable to military level ordinance. When you consider air power, armored units, intelligence networks, and, more than anything else, a centralized, experiened, well-trained command structure that oversees all operations, a successful rebellion, under existing circumstances would be no more effective than the Children's Crusade of 1212. That resulted in the simple slaugher of tens of thousands of children. The same, under today's conditions, would be the same.

With that said, there is something that needs to be considered as well and that is the simple fact that no military rebellion will succeed in a few weeks or a few months. If you look at Vietnam as an exmaple, those people fought for their independence for more than 20 years -- constant everyday, lifetime war.

I truly do not think that our society has the determination or the will to put on such a revolution. We celebrate 1776 as the year of our independence but we conveniently forget that the war went on for eight years (I'm not a great fan of Wikipedia, but there is actually a quite good article on the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolution)

I don't like the odds of a revolutiuon succeedng and I cannot support the idea of an armed rebellion as long as there is any other way of changing things. I think too many of those advocating armed reblleion are merely looking at it as an excuse to vent their anger and hopelessness rather than a true solution to the problems we face.

As many problems as I ahve with this country and the way it is run, I must say we are fortunate tht we can still change things without violence and without destruction. But -- and this is something many people do not realize -- it takes being informed, not allowing oneself to be persuaded by emotional/pschyological propagande, and working to advance the cause they believe in. If we are not willing to put in that kind of effort, what makes anyone think we have the will to fight a rebellion and make it work?

[-] 0 points by Marlow (1141) 12 years ago

Correction on Buffet's Quote.."BUFFET: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be."__CNN interview with Dobbs,

Rest of the comment went like this.. "BUFFET: The rich are winning. Just take the estate tax, less than 2 percent of all estates pay any tax. A couple million people die every year, 40,000 or so estates get taxed..." _ CNN

If you are going to Quote.. do you research Correctly.. I am soooooo one of the 99%, but i do try to get my facts right.. as THEY do the work for me!

[-] -1 points by brettdecker (68) 12 years ago

If there is a "class war" your General Saddam Hussein Obama will probably be out on the golf course. Because ginning up class envy and vitriolic hatred of the rich is really hard work and he's been doing this for many years now. You must be very proud of him. I can tell.

Class warfare brought to you by Obama,Adbusters,Democrats,Progressives,OWS and Anarchy for all.

[-] -1 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

BULLISH on shotgun shells. Guns were the hottest seller on Black Friday go figure. Hope Bloomberg is practicing his sharp shooting.

[-] -2 points by jiradog (92) 12 years ago

We don't need to resort to violence, which by the way would play into their hands. All we have to do is quit using their fiat money. Dr. RP has intoduced a bill to allow us to legally do just that.


[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 12 years ago

Agreed. Resorting to violence would result in a government backlash so fierce that this movement would be crushed, and some kind of orwellian police state would seize power.

If you want to challenge the government directly, like Leary did in the 1960s, you gotta make sure you have a movement large enough to withstand the counter attack. (and I don't mean the peaceful nature, I mean Leary basically pointed at the US government and said "we're taking over" and got responded to accordingly... this movement hasn't inspired that level of fear yet)

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

You're exactly right. However trying to get the sheeples to change their behavior ( for even ONE day) is most likely impossible. I believe that one of the problems is ' trust'. What I mean is that most sheeples are afraid that if they make some radical change they will be the only one and become a social pariah. We can thank our gov't in conjunction with big business for promoting fear and insecurity. We no longer trust each other to do the right thing. Look around..we are sold so much junk to keep us all in competition with each other. The family unit has been destroyed, people don't trust their friends or neighbors anymore and this works for the powers that be because it reduces the chance of a revolution. Most everything in our culture wreaks of distrust- car alarms, house alarms, fences, video cameras, fear of losing money, fear of losing a job, fear of getting sick and not having insurance, anyone could be a terrorist so keep your eyes open, etc... As the old wise Albert Schweitzer once said, " The only way out of today's misery is for people to become worthy of each other's trust".

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Well said Gillian. For change to truly take root, the masses need to change their behavior. Every day has to be a "Move Your Money" day. The fear tactics and systematic disenfranchisement of the American citizen have been executed exquisitely and now we are left in the wake. Remember "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"? We are far too divided in the present, but I hope what is happening today is a sign that we are swinging the pendulum in the right direction.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 12 years ago

Yes indeed...disenfranchisement is exactly what I was trying to say and could not think of the word! THANKS :D A couple of years ago I listened to Noam Chomsky give a talk about this systematic disenfranchisement and it became clear to me how so much of our culture fosters fear, competition and antisocial behavior. Toss in a massive dose of antidepressants ( from prescriptions and drinking water) and we end up right where are today...too much apathy, hopelessness, complacency and billions of lives where spiritual character and integrity have been replaced with meaningless cheap material things ( made in china of course). I often compare our CULTure to a cult and need we wonder why religion has become synonymous with politics anymore? My exhusband ( a psychologist) always says that the fastest way to get rich is to get a pulpit and a southern accent. There are so many broken, lost, confused, fearful people desperate for leadership that will promise them a better life and afterlife that they will flock to you for relief and salvation. I would bet that if the OWSers started preaching the gospel, relative to the current social injustices and economic crisis, they would have America bowing at their feet.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

Did you read " joe100" explanation of violence?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

No problem Gillian :) There is so much in our culture designed to separate us and drug us into some kind of lackadaisical state. The government tries to keep us cowering from the current boogeyman of choice while the pharmaceutical companies create a norm of prescribing away children's distinct personalities. Whether motivated by fear, apathy (or both), too many of us have had our eyes off the ball. The corporations are doing a great job at creating material dependency within us and are employing the best psychological experts to do so (which to me screams of abuse in a very sick form, but that's another battle). Unfortunately, I do agree that plenty of opportunists are preying on people's desperation and hitting them in their holiest holy places--their religion (pun certainly intended).

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

divineright...your conspiracy theory isn't even interesting, did you know that suicide rates have increased 3 fold in rural America for the lack of medical care and medication because of the rescission cut backs.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Not going for conspiracy theory...just empirically what's happening in my area (Wisconsin). It sounds like the problem is worse in your part of the country. It's a matter of horrible and worse and I don't think there's anything cloak and dagger about it. If you have some more information, I encourage you to post it.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 12 years ago

divineright.....Suicide is on the increase in rural America--nowhere so much as in western mountain states like Idaho, Wyoming and New Mexico. Mental health professionals attribute it in part to cutbacks in Medicaid funding, to the recession and to the culture of the rural West.

In Idaho, somebody kills himself every 35 hours, according to a 2009 report to Idaho's governor by the state's Council on Suicide Prevention. Their report calls suicide "a major public health issue" having a "devastating effect" on Idaho's families, churches, businesses and even schools: 65 students aged 10 and 18 killed themselves in a recent five-year period.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

Hi chuck1al. I wasn't trying to be insensitive to the issue you pointed out (I apologize if it came off that way). I wasn't aware of the statistics you provided. I am not referring to funding regarding individuals that need mental help, but rather the medicating of healthy children with unnecessary psychotropic drugs. I think the stats you provided are staggering and it is obvious some real help is needed there. Here is a link to a documentary discussing the problem I was describing:


[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 12 years ago

What if I don't have any gold, silver or other precious metal?

[-] 1 points by jiradog (92) 12 years ago

The competing currency could be backed by anything the market accepts. You can buy precious metals after the collapse or the switch to sound money but it will be more expensive because the banking cartel is suppressing the price now.

[-] -1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 12 years ago

You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold, mf'ers!

[-] 1 points by jiradog (92) 12 years ago

What? I know about the cross of gold speech, but don't understand what bearing it has on the sound money argument. They were arguing if silver should be used alongside of gold. Neither was a fiat currency. Don't know what I said that would provoke profanity.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I get emotional about people being hungry, without shelter, without medicine when there is no need for that to be the case.

[-] 1 points by jiradog (92) 12 years ago

So you are saying that if we went back to the gold/silver standard people would starve, be homeless, and have no medicine. Wow, that's rational.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Roubini: Here's Why a Gold Standard Won't Work Published: Tuesday, 9 Nov 2010 | 6:28 PM ET Text Size By: Ash Bennington NetNet Writer, Special to CNBC.com http://www.cnbc.com/id/40088925/Roubini_Here_s_Why_a_Gold_Standard_Won_t_Work





A gold standard would just make business cycles more extreme, according to co-founder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, Nouriel Roubini.

Photo: Oliver Quillia for CNBC Nouriel Roubini

What's more, a gold standard would make central banks unable to fight inflation or deflation, much less do anything to combat persistent unemployment, Roubini said in an interview with NetNet yesterday.

"A fixed exchange regime, even if it is not a gold standard… that world just doesn't work. Because in that world, monetary policy by definition instead of being countercyclical becomes procyclical," Roubini told NetNet. "Suppose you have a fixed exchange rate regime...it just exacerbates the business cycle."

Roubini asks us to imagine two countries: One that's growing very quickly, and one that's growing very slowly.

The economy that is growing quickly would tend to "overheat"—an economic phenomenon characterized by accelerated growth, inflation and the potential for asset bubbles. In the economy that is growing more slowly, there would be a tendency toward deflationary pressure and recession. So, instead of having a central bank with the capacity to successfully counter-balance these tendencies, an economy with a fixed exchange rate regime would continue to reinforce the existing negative trends in the business cycle, Roubini argues.

Although he is best known as an economist who challenges conventional views, Roubini pretty well lines-up the consensus view of mainstream economics on the gold standard or fixed exchange rate regimes: "You have the opposite of what any optimal rule about monetary policy will tell you," Roubini said.

The ranks of the gold standard advocates, which have long included many Austrian economists and others worried about central bank manipulation of the money supply, were seemingly joined this week by World Bank President Robert Zoellick. Hardcore gold standard folks, however, are skeptical of Zoellick.

RELATED LINKS Silver Rallies On: Three Things To Consider Gold, Silver & Why Paulson Hearts Bernanke Nouriel Roubini agrees with the skeptics. "In fairness to him [Zoellick], he was speaking about a wide variety of issues in the global economy…so it was not a proposal centered around going back to some modified gold standard," Roubini said.

Roubini seems to think a gold standard is a pretty awful idea. "There are many fundamental problems with any variant of a gold standard," he said.

A general summary of Roubini's position on the issue would likely begin by saying that, generally speaking, a fixed exchange rate regime or gold standard limits the flexibility and range of actions that central banks can take to improve a nation's economy in fundamental ways. (For example, in a fixed exchange rate regime, central banks have less ability to maximize employment, stimulate growth and manage price stability.)

And, as Roubini specifically pointed out to me, fixed rate regimes inhibit the ability of banks to provide lender of last resort support to an economy when necessary.

According to Roubini, there are other major feasibility issues with the proposals for a transition to a global gold standard. One of the principal problems with such proposals is the current level of central banks' gold reserves.

Roubini raises the following question: If you are on a gold standard, or modified gold standard, what do you do in the event of a bank run—if you don't have enough gold to fully back the currency? Roubini explains that most central banks in today's economy have far greater financial liabilities than gold in reserve. In fact, according to Roubini, in the case of most central banks today that ratio is about 40 or 50 to 1.

Of course, many who support a gold standard would say that limiting the ability of central banks to increase their leverage would be a benefit of adopting the gold standard.

Aside from the issue of central banks' insufficient current gold reserves, there are the issues that historically plagued gold standard economies. One of the most intractable of those issues was the impact that the gold standard had on traditional business cycles.

Historically speaking, Roubini says, during the days of the gold standard economies were constantly imperiled by spasmodic cycles:

"When you had a traditional gold standard, boom and bust with severe swings in economic activity were the norm—really big ones. It was only once we moved to fiat money that central banks were able to smooth the business cycle, and make it less volatile, as we did during the financial economic crisis," Roubini said.

Of course, this directly contradicts Austrian business cycle theory, which argues that boom-bust cycles are caused by central banks departing from the gold standard.

In short, Roubini's views challenge the Austrian economists where they live: at the intersection of monetary policy and the business cycle.

We eagerly await the response. Over to you Ron Lawl and the Mises Institute!

A monetary system that "won't work" means more, not less misery. But maybe folks who have gold think it will work for them....