CDZ Every voice of division is the enemy.

[B. Kidd]

At this moment, for this time, we need to pull together. All this bitter discord over trivialities is what is protested in this thread.

Pull together and do just what???

Sleepwalk into a Venezuela state of being?

Riighht.........

 

[Olde Europe]

I understand the calls for 'unity' but I believe what most really mean is peace. Yet by our very nature we are not a peaceful species...

That's a very valid insight, and calls for the former should wisely be seen in light of the latter.

The ordinary population calling for "unity" (or peace) usually mean tranquility. Namely, those who are routinely getting a raw deal should not muck up (too much), not disturb the comfortable life circumstances of the well-to-do. That's odious, and brings with it a host of problems on the path towards progress, but harmless by comparison.

With politicians and political animals it's another matter entirely, as calls for unity are calls to unite on the caller's turf, that is, attempts at dominating the discussion over what it is that divides (and also what unites) us. Whoever refuses to comply, or so we were informed, is "the enemy". That's all the more dangerous the farther to the right the one who calls for unity stands, culminating in "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer!" That call to unity was the most vile, most lethal threat ever issued. And it never came without pointing out against whom that unity was supposed to protect, namely enemies within and without. If that expression doesn't give you shivers, you have yet to understand it in full, and a politician's call for unity invariably has at least a whiff thereof.

 

[gipper]

At this moment, for this time, we need to pull together. All this bitter discord over trivialities is what is protested in this thread.

Pull together and do just what???

Sleepwalk into a Venezuela state of being?

Riighht.........

Silly.

In these divisive times, you think uniting is socialism.

Pull together and remove the power structure that runs the country. You may think you live in a democracy, but you would be wrong.

 

[gipper]

This a good description of our times. By Caitlin Johnstone.

This is the reality of living in a world that is profoundly psychologically unhealthy. If you make a career out of facilitating wars which cause explosives to be dropped from the sky on top of innocent human beings causing their bodies to be ripped to shreds and buried in rubble, then you are treated as an exemplar of ideal leadership and rewarded with prestigious positions in politics, punditry, book publishing and think tankery. If you oppose those same wars, you are marginalized and smeared as at best an extremist whack job and at worst a literal traitor conducting psyops for a foreign government.

Because the plutocratic class owns the political class which advances depraved plutocratic agendas and the media classwhich normalizes and justifies those agendas, a mainstream consensus has been forcibly manufactured that maintaining the oppressive, exploitative, omnicidal, ecocidal status quo is a good and sane thing to do. Voices which point out that this is bat shit crazy are marginalized and ignored when possible and smeared and demonized when necessary.
In An Insane World, Madness Looks Moderate And Sanity Looks Radical

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

If we assume that “the plutocratic class owns the political class which advances depraved plutocratic agendas and the media class which normalizes and justifies those agendas” as Gipper quotes Caitlin Johnson, then we are still faced with the question of what to do. How to fight a powerful plutocratic class of capitalists when the country is so polarized? Polarized in ways that plutocratic class has proved masterfully able to manipulate?

Without a united and more enlightened population there is simply no possibility of overcoming the system. The U.S. never had a class conscious labor movement or a political party remotely capable of challenging the two party duopoly and class power of capitalism. Any talk of “revolutionary socialism” is absurd, and “MAGA” is a utopian fantasy of rightwing authoritarians. Crisis caused by U.S. economic, social and international decline will likely strengthen reaction, at least initially.

That is why the present false divisions between parties and racial/ethnic groups has to be fought. Not because peace and unity is always good, but because the present partisan political and social divisions in U.S. society are so invidious and destructive.

 

[Mac-7]

to repeat:

Every time you see or hear any encouragement to continue division in America, you see or hear our common enemy. America has everything needed to be safe, happy and free. Anything that works against that is attacking us all. Humanity has always been full of errors. Yet, we have clawed up from simple survival to tall towers of knowledge, wisdom, compassion and enlightenment. The ominous shadows of our limited past still cause fear, but we are almost to the point where we can all be free of it. Every binary, divisive urge is one that would hold us back, or, worse, seeks to plunge us back into the past. If you want to destroy our Republic, continue with a divided mindset.

You are speaking gibberish

stop beating around the bush and clearly id who you are condemning and why

 

[there4eyeM]

It is not so much a matter of whom is being condemned as what. Division is being engendered by those who insist upon separation along 'racial' lines, 'covid' lines, 'gender' lines, economic level lines...
There are serious economic, social and political matters that need to be discussed and resolved. This must happen in an atmosphere of determination that the debate be civil and with the intention of arriving at what is best for the country. The two political parties are not contributing to that. Special interest groups are not contributing to that.

 

[gipper]

If we assume that “the plutocratic class owns the political class which advances depraved plutocratic agendas and the media class which normalizes and justifies those agendas” as Gipper quotes Caitlin Johnson, then we are still faced with the question of what to do. How to fight a powerful plutocratic class of capitalists when the country is so polarized? Polarized in ways that plutocratic class has proved masterfully able to manipulate?

Without a united and more enlightened population there is simply no possibility of overcoming the system. The U.S. never had a class conscious labor movement or a political party remotely capable of challenging the two party duopoly and class power of capitalism. Any talk of “revolutionary socialism” is absurd, and “MAGA” is a utopian fantasy of rightwing authoritarians. Crisis caused by U.S. economic, social and international decline will likely strengthen reaction, at least initially.

That is why the present false divisions between parties and racial/ethnic groups has to be fought. Not because peace and unity is always good, but because the present partisan political and social divisions in U.S. society are so invidious and destructive.

It is not so much a matter of whom is being condemned as what. Division is being engendered by those who insist upon separation along 'racial' lines, 'covid' lines, 'gender' lines, economic level lines...
There are serious economic, social and political matters that need to be discussed and resolved. This must happen in an atmosphere of determination that the debate be civil and with the intention of arriving at what is best for the country. The two political parties are not contributing to that. Special interest groups are not contributing to that.

The slow inevitable decline of the Empire just might lead to unifying enough Americans to take action, to end the ruling Oligarchy. It could be as more and more Americans realize the scam that is our economic and governmental system, while they toil in or near poverty and in debt serfdom, that actions will surface. It’s likely the establishment/Oligarchy won’t go peacefully.

 

[SeaGal]

It is not so much a matter of whom is being condemned as what. Division is being engendered by those who insist upon separation along 'racial' lines, 'covid' lines, 'gender' lines, economic level lines...
There are serious economic, social and political matters that need to be discussed and resolved. This must happen in an atmosphere of determination that the debate be civil and with the intention of arriving at what is best for the country. The two political parties are not contributing to that. Special interest groups are not contributing to that.

Perhaps part of the problem is disagreement over what is best for the country. I agree that many in both political parties think the best thing for the country is for them to be in charge. I also agree that pitting one group against another - or several groups against another is damaging to a Republic.

This is not the first time in our nation's history that we have had violent dissent, nor is it the first time that one segment has demonized another. It's okay to acknowledge differences between us, it's unnatural to deny them. The key is to accept and move on. Politicians who seek political power using identity politics to divide would have no influence if we refused to be pawns. That's an awfully big 'if'. No one likes 'special interest' groups unless that group is advocating on behalf of their interests.

Our system of justice (though not perfect) works very well, so well that it is a threat to the power hungry. Power over others is a far greater narcotic than mere 'wealth', imho.

 

[there4eyeM]

The U.S. is the richest country ever. There is everything here for everyone to have enough and be happy. We need a renewal of spirit in order to appreciate what we have and reform our obsessions with excess. The childish egoism so commonly seen must give way to a larger scope of self and sharing.

 

[gipper]

The U.S. is the richest country ever. There is everything here for everyone to have enough and be happy. We need a renewal of spirit in order to appreciate what we have and reform our obsessions with excess. The childish egoism so commonly seen must give way to a larger scope of self and sharing.

Agreed, but we know the problem with this kind of thinking. Much of the population has been trained to believe this is socialism, and thusly bad. I find it rather convenient that so many Americans find helping their fellow citizens to be bad, since we know who benefits from this. The wealthy ruling class.

Some Americans still believe we all start out with a fair and equal shot at success. They can’t bring themselves to accept the dark truth of our terribly unfair system.

In addition, many Americans haven’t figured out that wealth equals political power. They are unaware that the billionaires and all who support them, have attained enormous political power and this has resulted in the slow degeneration of our democracy.

 

[Olde Europe]

If we assume that “the plutocratic class owns the political class which advances depraved plutocratic agendas and the media class which normalizes and justifies those agendas” as Gipper quotes Caitlin Johnson, then we are still faced with the question of what to do. How to fight a powerful plutocratic class of capitalists when the country is so polarized? Polarized in ways that plutocratic class has proved masterfully able to manipulate?

Say, Tom, is Senator Warren owned by the plutocrats? How about Representative AOC? Or Senator Sanders? If they are not, why would you "assume" the plutocrats own the "political class"?

Moreover, you have no direct way to influence the plutocrats, not short of lynching them.

Moreover, watching corporate bosses canceling ad buys at Faceshit, it would appear the "plutocratic class" isn't as homogeneous as the talk about "plutocratic class" would make it appear. So, perhaps, the fight isn't all that difficult as you seem to assume?

Finally, it would appear that the plutocrats (assuming they exist as a class with outsize but far from coordinated influence) are not all that capable of manipulating the public, following the eternal insight that no one can be made to believe that which they aren't yet predisposed to believe anyway. I am far more convinced that the manipulation we are seeing right now by and large comes down to the population in the form of the White grievance industry, and most forcefully represented in the Oval Office. That's the origin, and most of the drive amplifying the current divisions. Anyway, analyzing who owns whom, who manipulates whom, the evidence for it, and the (de)merits of such an approach to politics, could easily fill a very long thread, indeed.

That is why the present false divisions between parties and racial/ethnic groups has to be fought. Not because peace and unity is always good, but because the present partisan political and social divisions in U.S. society are so invidious and destructive.

Who are you to declare that the current divisions are "false"? I mean, really, the divisions as felt by the population are as real for them as they can be, up to and including folks moving to live with "their own kind", in neighborhoods of like-minded people. As much as I sympathize with your view that the real division should be between plutocrats and a (hopefully strengthened) working class, it would appear the population overwhelmingly disagrees with you.

 

[gipper]

If we assume that “the plutocratic class owns the political class which advances depraved plutocratic agendas and the media class which normalizes and justifies those agendas” as Gipper quotes Caitlin Johnson, then we are still faced with the question of what to do. How to fight a powerful plutocratic class of capitalists when the country is so polarized? Polarized in ways that plutocratic class has proved masterfully able to manipulate?

Say, Tom, is Senator Warren owned by the plutocrats? How about Representative AOC? Or Senator Sanders? If they are not, why would you "assume" the plutocrats own the "political class"?

Moreover, you have no direct way to influence the plutocrats, not short of lynching them.

Moreover, watching corporate bosses canceling ad buys at Faceshit, it would appear the "plutocratic class" isn't as homogeneous as the talk about "plutocratic class" would make it appear. So, perhaps, the fight isn't all that difficult as you seem to assume?

Finally, it would appear that the plutocrats (assuming they exist as a class with outsize but far from coordinated influence) are not all that capable of manipulating the public, following the eternal insight that no one can be made to believe that which they aren't yet predisposed to believe anyway. I am far more convinced that the manipulation we are seeing right now by and large comes down to the population in the form of the White grievance industry, and most forcefully represented in the Oval Office. That's the origin, and most of the drive amplifying the current divisions. Anyway, analyzing who owns whom, who manipulates whom, the evidence for it, and the (de)merits of such an approach to politics, could easily fill a very long thread, indeed.

That is why the present false divisions between parties and racial/ethnic groups has to be fought. Not because peace and unity is always good, but because the present partisan political and social divisions in U.S. society are so invidious and destructive.

Who are you to declare that the current divisions are "false"? I mean, really, the divisions as felt by the population are as real for them as they can be, up to and including folks moving to live with "their own kind", in neighborhoods of like-minded people. As much as I sympathize with your view that the real division should be between plutocrats and a (hopefully strengthened) working class, it would appear the population overwhelmingly disagrees with you.

Those pols you mention are obviously owned plutocrats. How could you not know this? They all just just voted for the CARES Act, that enriched the rich massively. All support Biden who has made it clear he’s against MedicareForAll, Green New Deal, UBI, etc.

Wake up!

 

[Natural Citizen]

We need a renewal of spirit in order to appreciate what we have and reform our obsessions with excess.

Let me guess. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

Who decides what is excess for someone else.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Every time you see or hear any encouragement to continue division in America, you see or hear our common enemy.

I want as much division as possible. Division is liberty's last stand against the growing Marxist collective who wants to tell you what you can have and who wants to decide whether you have too much or not. Among other things...

The most dangerous faction to Individual liberty in America today is the moderate vote. No doubt about it.

 

[gipper]

Every time you see or hear any encouragement to continue division in America, you see or hear our common enemy.

I want as much division as possible. Division is liberty's last stand against the growing Marxist collective who wants to tell you what you can have and who wants to decide whether you have too much or not.

The most dangerous faction to Individual liberty in America today is the moderate vote.

The most dangerous faction to individual liberty in America today, is the wealthy oligarchy that controls everything.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

If we assume that “the plutocratic class owns the political class which advances depraved plutocratic agendas and the media class which normalizes and justifies those agendas” as Gipper quotes Caitlin Johnson, then we are still faced with the question of what to do. How to fight a powerful plutocratic class of capitalists when the country is so polarized? Polarized in ways that plutocratic class has proved masterfully able to manipulate?

Say, Tom, is Senator Warren owned by the plutocrats? How about Representative AOC? Or Senator Sanders? If they are not, why would you "assume" the plutocrats own the "political class"?

Moreover, you have no direct way to influence the plutocrats, not short of lynching them.

Moreover, watching corporate bosses canceling ad buys at Faceshit, it would appear the "plutocratic class" isn't as homogeneous as the talk about "plutocratic class" would make it appear. So, perhaps, the fight isn't all that difficult as you seem to assume?

Finally, it would appear that the plutocrats (assuming they exist as a class with outsize but far from coordinated influence) are not all that capable of manipulating the public, following the eternal insight that no one can be made to believe that which they aren't yet predisposed to believe anyway. I am far more convinced that the manipulation we are seeing right now by and large comes down to the population in the form of the White grievance industry, and most forcefully represented in the Oval Office. That's the origin, and most of the drive amplifying the current divisions. Anyway, analyzing who owns whom, who manipulates whom, the evidence for it, and the (de)merits of such an approach to politics, could easily fill a very long thread, indeed.

That is why the present false divisions between parties and racial/ethnic groups has to be fought. Not because peace and unity is always good, but because the present partisan political and social divisions in U.S. society are so invidious and destructive.

Who are you to declare that the current divisions are "false"? I mean, really, the divisions as felt by the population are as real for them as they can be, up to and including folks moving to live with "their own kind", in neighborhoods of like-minded people. As much as I sympathize with your view that the real division should be between plutocrats and a (hopefully strengthened) working class, it would appear the population overwhelmingly disagrees with you.

Lots of good points and questions here.

As for the existence of an U.S. “plutocratic class” — a class whose power comes from its wealth — I personally don’t think it is politically cohesive in the ordinary sense of party politics, or even on attitudes toward nationalism, trade, ecology, etc. There are plutocrats in different countries too.

The very wealthy in the West, professionals and the upper middle classes, the lower middle class and workers, even lumpenized criminal elements, all can share life-styles and attitudes, have similar fears, but still lack uniform political allegiance. Billionaires don’t have to be political at all, but usually are savvy in protecting their wealth. How groups get and protect whatever greater or lesser wealth and security they have, how they develop a group identity, of course this is key. We are all prisoners of the system in one way or another.

As for Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, AOC, I consider them more or less exceptional. I disagree with gipper here. They are not “bought out.” Influenced by the system they say they want to change? Of course. No matter how independent or honest a politician may be, their understanding about “what is possible” shapes the compromises they are willing to make. Long before most get elected they have a world view shaped by their place in the system. In a “democracy” like ours, even the smartest young “idealists” and “radicals” who arrive in D.C. ... usually end up as cynical cogs in the wheel. It is an occupational hazard. Like being a cop.

I certainly concur the U.S. population — whether they are Liberal or Conservative, Trump fanatics or Trump haters — mostly rejects my perspective. But it seems to me you understand where I’m coming from. I don’t claim to have all the answers. Far from it. I have very few. I’m not a politician, not rich enough to be even a tiny player in local politics, and I haven’t the energy, ambition or courage anymore to be active in any organization that aspires to transform things.

So I just try to share my views and the benefit of my life experiences. An old radical, once a union activist in a thoroughly integrated industry, an internationalist, somebody who has lived in China for eight years, who has family there and in Latin America, I’m still just an ordinary retired working man troubled by the state of the world, and by the lunatic views of so many fellow Americans.

 

[Olde Europe]

Lots of good points and questions here.

As for the existence of an U.S. “plutocratic class” — a class whose power comes from its wealth — I personally don’t think it is politically cohesive in the ordinary sense of party politics, or even on attitudes toward nationalism, trade, ecology, etc. There are plutocrats in different countries too.

The very wealthy in the West, professionals and the upper middle classes, the lower middle class and workers, even lumpenized criminal elements, all can share life-styles and attitudes, have similar fears, but still lack uniform political allegiance. Billionaires don’t have to be political at all, but usually are savvy in protecting their wealth. How groups get and protect whatever greater or lesser wealth and security they have, how they develop a group identity, of course this is key. We are all prisoners of the system in one way or another.

As for Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, AOC, I consider them more or less exceptional. I disagree with gipper here. They are not “bought out.” Influenced by the system they say they want to change? Of course. No matter how independent or honest a politician may be, their understanding about “what is possible” shapes the compromises they are willing to make. Long before most get elected they have a world view shaped by their place in the system. In a “democracy” like ours, even the smartest young “idealists” and “radicals” who arrive in D.C. ... usually end up as cynical cogs in the wheel. It is an occupational hazard. Like being a cop.

I certainly concur the U.S. population — whether they are Liberal or Conservative, Trump fanatics or Trump haters — mostly rejects my perspective. But it seems to me you understand where I’m coming from. I don’t claim to have all the answers. Far from it. I have very few. I’m not a politician, not rich enough to be even a tiny player in local politics, and I haven’t the energy, ambition or courage anymore to be active in any organization that aspires to transform things.

So I just try to share my views and the benefit of my life experiences. An old radical, once a union activist in a thoroughly integrated industry, an internationalist, somebody who has lived in China for eight years, who has family there and in Latin America, I’m still just an ordinary retired working man troubled by the state of the world, and by the lunatic views of so many fellow Americans.

As usual, your well-crafted posting is a pleasure to read, from well-written arguments to the admission of the limits of your knowledge, which sure aren't narrower than most on here.

Just realize you, emphasizing the plutocrat-worker divide, are the enemy. So, reconsider your stance!

On to more serious things: We can conclude by now that the good Caitlin Johnson is just spouting stupid, shallow nonsense. With just some creativity we could conclude the political class "owns" the plutocrats. Just look how much money the politicians extract from them! Politicians have them by the whatevers, and the plutocrats are coughing it up by the billions.

Okay now, really seriously: Politicians could get rid of the plutocrats on this very day. Just make any dime found in any politician's pocket not derived from his public office a criminal offense punishable by ten years in prison, and make political campaigns exclusively publicly funded. The plutocrats' influence is going toward nil immediately. Politicians hate spending hours every day on the phone begging for money anyway, along with the occupational hazard this brings about, as you note. Question is, why don't they change things? It's in their hands, and still... So much for "owned".

Now, the more interesting point (or so it appears to me) is whether or not the plutocrats are really the cause of the divisions prevalent these days. Do they care about abortion? Or gun rights? Or the current brouhaha about face masks? Or BLM? Do they care about the black-white income and wealth disparities? Methinks, neither of these "issues" is of any import to them. Of course, they are sharply divided over climate change, as some stand to benefit, others to lose, contingent on the approach taken. As you note, they want their wealth / security preserved, and generally an environment in which their businesses run smoothly, with as little interference as possible. I would further conclude, they'd much prefer a united, at least not overly divided population, because the latter might prove disruptive to businesses, as we can see right now with the second coronavirus surge within the first wave, and businesses forced to shut down again. A population united behind efforts to control the virus spread would be much to the plutocrats' benefit. No?

I still conclude, most of the current manipulation emerges from the political class, and there predominantly from the White grievance fueled right. "Manipulation" meaning to feed to a gullible portion of the population intentionally deceptive disinformation in order to advance a hidden agenda. That makes, say, the Koch Bros' climate denial mendacity for pecuniary gain different from BLM and their very overt and public agenda, and that also distinguishes politicians going along with the former from those supporting the latter.

So, where are we heading with this?

The ownership of the political class is not what it's made out to be. I'd describe plutocrats and politicians (at the federal level) in large measure as joined-at-the-hip, with the lower ranks of the latter, with very little by way of influence, largely hostages to the system at large.

The way to solve this, short of refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots would be the usual: The long, arduous work of meticulous analysis, followed by the even longer, even more arduous work of political organization and advocacy in the hope that, over time, the arc of history bends towards justice. What else is there?

 

[sartre play]

Revolutionary Socialism & its polar opposite MAGA are destroying are ability to accomplish anything positive. And is the reason we are not even close to getting a handle on this Virus, the constant killer.

 

[there4eyeM]

We need a renewal of spirit in order to appreciate what we have and reform our obsessions with excess.

Let me guess. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

Who decides what is excess for someone else.

It wasn't a biblical quotation that was being thought of (Acts 11:29), but if that is what you want as a model, perhaps.
The post was addressing mental states, not directly material redistribution.