mattacme said:
1. The so called class war that we are witnessing is quite similar to others before it in the Capitalist age, in which the cult of money is dominant. The French Revolution, our own War of Independence, the labor movement that began in the late nineteenth century; these are all manifestations of the struggle that builds when one group has something that the other want and need. It is coming clearer at present because the consolidation of wealth is still in full swing, and will continue for the next half generation at least.
I'm sorry, but this sounds ridiculous. Especially considering that the major European powers of the time had mercantilist economies, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, the steam locomotive wasn't built until the consummation of the two revolutions, and paper money wasn't dominant in the United States until well after the ratification of the Constitution. Sounds intelligent, though...
It also sounds like the same Leftist "soon the proletariat will be SOOOOOOOO pissed they'll rise up and destroy the instruments of their enslavement!" boiler-plate that has been repeated since Marx.
The original article, in my opinion, really shows the importance of adopting an intersectional analysis rather than strictly a gender, race, or class analysis.
The sad thing is this is just reflecting society as a whole. The one that is get rich and then you are worthy of children. Low income families we may have to support so they do not have the right to have children. this is not a race issue, white black red all have low income workers. This country would fall apart without us. Who woudl do the things without us that are required that keep our society togather. From the garbage man truck driver or housekeepers waitresses, to the farm workers all who have the desire and the right to have children. To me this a societal problem that needs to be adddressed.
Americans like to believe there are no class differences in our country. Most Americans will tell you they are middle-class. Anyone is said to be able to move up in class with hard work. While there is a little bit of truth to that in comparison to other countries, reality is that it is not as easy as that. The whole "mommy wars" is based on the idea that women or parents in general have a choice. Most do not no matter which middle-class you are on.
mattacme said:
1. The so called class war that we are witnessing is quite similar to others before it in the Capitalist age, in which the cult of money is dominant. The French Revolution, our own War of Independence, the labor movement that began in the late nineteenth century; these are all manifestations of the struggle that builds when one group has something that the other want and need. It is coming clearer at present because the consolidation of wealth is still in full swing, and will continue for the next half generation at least.
I'm sorry, but this sounds ridiculous. Especially considering that the major European powers of the time had mercantilist economies, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, the steam locomotive wasn't built until the consummation of the two revolutions, and paper money wasn't dominant in the United States until well after the ratification of the Constitution. Sounds intelligent, though...
It also sounds like the same Leftist "soon the proletariat will be SOOOOOOOO pissed they'll rise up and destroy the instruments of their enslavement!" boiler-plate that has been repeated since Marx.
The original article, in my opinion, really shows the importance of adopting an intersectional analysis rather than strictly a gender, race, or class analysis.
Sorry it sounds ridiculous. It seems obvious to me. I don't understand what your references have to do with anything I said. Please explain.
As for the "Leftist" reference, that would be one form (of potentially many) that a shift in power could take but as a rule I would suggest that it would be exceptional and only likely if the separation of haves/have nots rose to the heights they did in pre revolution Russia. I certainly hope that this does not come to pass.
Just to pigeon hole myself for your easy digestion, I am a New Deal Democrat.
31
LostLucy
USA
December 2006
SEP 03, 2007 02:49 PM
This is a good article, and one of the issues often overlooked in terms of women & choices in the workforce.
I'd like to point out that at times middle-class more priviedged women *and* men also find that they are stay at-home caregivers (mothers or fathers) due to the cost of a caregiver being higher than what they can earn themselves (with the PhD in the humanities, etc).
Mankarlen said:
The sad thing is this is just reflecting society as a whole. The one that is get rich and then you are worthy of children. Low income families we may have to support so they do not have the right to have children. this is not a race issue, white black red all have low income workers. This country would fall apart without us. Who woudl do the things without us that are required that keep our society togather. From the garbage man truck driver or housekeepers waitresses, to the farm workers all who have the desire and the right to have children. To me this a societal problem that needs to be adddressed.
It will be addressed by technology absorbing the jobs that low-income workers do, and this will happen probably within 50 years.
Low skill jobs are going away quickly, either to technology, or going to other countries, due to increases in technology (such as call centers and drivethrus being outsourced).
I know it sounds assholish, but looking at the progress that has been made over the past 50 years, it just seems like the next 50 years will become even more so
xazapdmytinu said:
Man, there's that "war" thing again...it's like adding "gate" onto every presidential scandal...any struggle is automatically made into a "war"...why is it that everything has to be a battle with only a few ways to victory and at the end there is a winner and a loser? Because that's what WAR implies...that somebody loses.
From Mirriam-Webster:
war - b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
gcash056 said:
You don't HAVE to have kids, ya know...
I'm perfectly happy without a squalling rugrat and I wish a lot more people either didn't have them, or actually spent time teaching their brats class and manners.
Something that would be much easier if one had the choice to stay home with their children... only rich people should be able to have children now?
mattacme said:
Sorry it sounds ridiculous. It seems obvious to me. I don't understand what your references have to do with anything I said. Please explain.
As for the "Leftist" reference, that would be one form (of potentially many) that a shift in power could take but as a rule I would suggest that it would be exceptional and only likely if the separation of haves/have nots rose to the heights they did in pre revolution Russia. I certainly hope that this does not come to pass.
Just to pigeon hole myself for your easy digestion, I am a New Deal Democrat.
My point in the first paragraph is that the French and American Revolutions occurred in a pre-Capitalist world, and that the catalysts for Industrial Capitalism (Wealth of Nations, locomotives) didn't exist yet.
Of course, continuing in your line of misinterpreting history, you also say that the October Revolution had to do with class. Pre-Revolution Russia hadn't even industrialized, there was no way a socialist revolution ought to have occurred there according to Marx's model. It was a revolution by bourgeois vanguardists, not workers and not have-nots.
this might not be an issue if women were given time off and government support while they are pregnant. the pre-requisite would, of course, be that they were employed to begin with. i cant say this without coming off as racist or sexist, but i dont really care. give the mother the last six months of pregnancy off, as well as the first three months of the childs life, and pay her for it. maybe with this relief she would be happy to return to work after the kid is born?
its like unemployment, but she gets to return to the job. unless she doesnt want to, in which case she cant collect again until she has another job. the maximum number of times she can collect is two or three. theres a system similar to this in austria, and to my knowledge it works very well. then again, there are different cultural problems here.
you guys managed to turn this into an academic discussion about socialism. while i understand, its nowhere near the original topic. this is symptomatic of people who are smart enough to talk theory, but not experienced enough to understand practice, and a large reason why wading through current events message boards is difficult.
As I understand it, Sweden and Norway have much more generous systems for parental leave from work. Parental leave ought not be an obscure, little-spoken of topic in America, but it is for whatever reason. Now, is parental leave a matter of gender, class, or race? Well, in America, it involves all three to varying degrees, and it would behoove those discussing and forming policy about such issues to keep that in mind.
And frankly, I'm insulted by your assertion that I'm not "experienced enough to understand practice," especially considering that I wasn't talking about theory as much as I was talking about history.
j1mdot said:
As I understand it, Sweden and Norway have much more generous systems for parental leave from work. Parental leave ought not be an obscure, little-spoken of topic in America, but it is for whatever reason. Now, is parental leave a matter of gender, class, or race? Well, in America, it involves all three to varying degrees, and it would behoove those discussing and forming policy about such issues to keep that in mind.
And frankly, I'm insulted by your assertion that I'm not "experienced enough to understand practice," especially considering that I wasn't talking about theory as much as I was talking about history.
mattacme said:
Sorry it sounds ridiculous. It seems obvious to me. I don't understand what your references have to do with anything I said. Please explain.
As for the "Leftist" reference, that would be one form (of potentially many) that a shift in power could take but as a rule I would suggest that it would be exceptional and only likely if the separation of haves/have nots rose to the heights they did in pre revolution Russia. I certainly hope that this does not come to pass.
Just to pigeon hole myself for your easy digestion, I am a New Deal Democrat.
My point in the first paragraph is that the French and American Revolutions occurred in a pre-Capitalist world, and that the catalysts for Industrial Capitalism (Wealth of Nations, locomotives) didn't exist yet.
Of course, continuing in your line of misinterpreting history, you also say that the October Revolution had to do with class. Pre-Revolution Russia hadn't even industrialized, there was no way a socialist revolution ought to have occurred there according to Marx's model. It was a revolution by bourgeois vanguardists, not workers and not have-nots.
Did he claim there was a socialist revolution in Russia?
It is pretty clear that the October Revolution had to do with class; just not necessarily Marx's classes.
The presumptuousness of many who would imagine themselves either "Liberals" or "Feminists" (or any number of other labels) is deeply disturbing. Thanks for citing the SF Chronicle article.
Two points of my own to add...
1. The so called class war that we are witnessing is quite similar to others before it in the Capitalist age, in which the cult of money is dominant. The French Revolution, our own War of Independence, the labor movement that began in the late nineteenth century; these are all manifestations of the struggle that builds when one group has something that the other want and need. It is coming clearer at present because the consolidation of wealth is still in full swing, and will continue for the next half generation at least.
2. Its not a Feminist or Womens's issue any longer; it is a class war.
I'm a little puzzled by this. What makes it a class war? I'd be grateful for sources.
Hi. I'm tied up feeding kids but will reply when I have a moment. Is mid-week too late? Another respondent posted some interesting sources as well.
SockPuppet said:
Did he claim there was a socialist revolution in Russia?
I made reference to Marxist revolutionary banter, he said that was just one path of revolution and indicated that such a revolution "would be exceptional and only likely if the separation of haves/have nots rose to the heights they did in pre revolution Russia." So, yeah, he said there was some sort of Marxist revolution in Russia.
SockPuppet said:
It is pretty clear that the October Revolution had to do with class; just not necessarily Marx's classes.
Yes, the peasantry was herded, albeit willingly, from the Czar's pen to the Commissar's pen; that doesn't make it their revolution.
Bill_the_Cat
New Zealand
May 2005
SEP 03, 2007 03:30 AM