Poor right wingers

[promethean]

From what I know, not all right wingers are rich. A significant portion are poor workers.

When poor and working class right wingers defend the wealth of a few rich people, why don't they realise that none of that wealth can ever be theirs?

In spite of remaining poor, why do they continue to support the super wealthy?

[it_ain't_me]

false consciousness yo

[Invincible Summer]

Why can't you stupid pinko Nazis see that Americans have a right to pay $1000 for a vaccination if they want to?! It's an American right to have my house burn down because I didn't pay for fire services! That's what fucking freedom is! Can't you fascist commies see?!

[Jimmie Higgins]

From what I know, not all right wingers are rich. A significant portion are poor workers.

When poor and working class right wingers defend the wealth of a few rich people, why don't they realise that none of that wealth can ever be theirs?

In spite of remaining poor, why do they continue to support the super wealthy?As Marx said: the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class.

Considering all the ruling class ideas that are pumped in our direction every day (schools that teach us in History class that what we have is the best we can ever hope for and things get better over time if we just leave them to the progress of history's natural course; to television which ignores workers - or mocks them - and shows a life without any visible class conflict; to the media who just straight up lie; to the politicians who lie and tell us anything outside their narrow pro-status-quo policies is just fantasy and "not realistic") it's kind of amazing that people reject the system as much as they have done historically and even today (though largely on an individual and atomized basis).

Our ideas don't get much positive play compared to reactionary ones which even get their own news network and all the AM radio stations, so basically that is a major factor as to why those ideas tend to be the dominant ones by default.

When these ideas have not dominated, it was because people organized a viable alternative way to look at things - they build a massive union movement, the IWW, the USCP, the Civil Rights movement, and so on which could provide counter-arguments to the ruling class as well as practice that showed that you didn't have to settle for the back of the bus or a 12 hour workday.

[Conquer or Die]

Low-income voters tend to favor the Democratic Party while high-income voters tend to support the Republican Party. President George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%.

Democrats have focused on identity and gender politics so this has lead to a disenfranchisement of some in the lower class (specifically working class white males).

The Democratic party has done its best to run Progressivism out of town. This is opportunistic for left wing parties to take advantage of if there was a coherent rebuttal. Unfortunately the remainder of the left wing is divided between ineffectual communist parties, Liberal and Libertarian parties, and the Green Party. The easiest way for progressives to be heard will be to let the conservative democrats and moderate democrats lose elections. The Democrat party has been a poor vehicle and its handlers need to be culled from the herd in order to produce better results.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Del Boy syndrome... this time next year we'll be millionaires.

[¿Que?]

I think it has in part something to do with the Cold War, and the fact that the Soviet Union (and China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc) billed as communism specifically, and the radical left generally, was considered such an enormous threat. People were afraid that the world could end any day, and obviously it couldn't be the US's fault.

[Revolution starts with U]

Vote out the baby-killers or they'll take Jesus' gun away!!!!!!!

[RGacky3]

Look at the polls, amung poor people actual right wingers (i.e. those on the economic right) are the vast minority, most people in the United States are relatively progressive, and most people in the US are poor.

[Revolution starts with U]

And most people don't vote

[Dean]

Naw man having a few rich people proves that you can get whatever you want if you only try.

[Robert]

In spite of remaining poor, why do they continue to support the super wealthy? I don't know exactly whom you're referring to. "Poor right winger" is pretty broad, and includes, in my mind, the male Hispanic farm laborer who goes to Mass on Sunday and is against anything that conflicts with: 1) what his father and grandfather taught him in Mexico (machismo); and 2) his reading of the Bible.

Poor "right wingers" are also reclusive rural whites living in ramshackle trailer parks in north Louisiana, western Kentucky, eastern Arkansas, and southern Ohio. They have nothing in common (culturally) with the Mexican migrant worker. They have a general mistrust of all government going back to the frontier days. They don't like unions much either. You say "let's organize!" and they grab their shotguns and say "we're already organized. Now git!":lol:

I imagine the majority of them envy the wealthy because they have nice cars and comfortable houses with swimming pools.

Poor right wingers are also, I suppose, urban black church ladies that are against drug legalization, homosexuality, and the godlessness of communism. Or what they think is communism. I don't know that they even think about the super wealthy. Best I can tell, they have nothing but contempt for wealthy rap artists and anyone else who flaunts his wealth.

[synthesis]

In my opinion, a lot of it has to do with the mythology of social mobility - i.e., the "American Dream" and its global counterparts.

Many people really believe that they will be the next Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson, so on and so forth. They oppose anything that would limit the ruling class because they believe they will sooner or later become a part of it.

They don't understand that capitalism, as a system, by definition precludes 99.9% of the population from joining the ruling class. Promoting class consciousness isn't enough, because class is perceived to be much more fluid than it actually is. People need to know about the nature of capitalism as an international system, or they'll stay ankle-deep in bullshit while thinking they're swimming in gold.

[Robert]

precludes 99.9% of the population from joining the ruling class.

Does it preclude 99.9% of working class Americans from leading secure, comfortable lives? That's the test.

They will revolt if their material conditions become sufficiently intolerable.

But they will NEVER revolt merely because they "can't join the ruling class."

[Conquer or Die]

Does it preclude 99.9% of working class Americans from leading secure, comfortable lives? That's the test.

They will revolt if their material conditions become sufficiently intolerable.

But they will NEVER revolt merely because they "can't join the ruling class."

Exactly. Anybody who entertains this idea is simply an idiot. They have no intelligence nor contact with the real world to assume such a thing. As long as the collective material value rises in a given country then the prospects for defeat of capitalism will not exist. It's that simple. No amount of propaganda is going to change their minds. People need *real* conditions of squalor and deprivation in order to be motivated to act in accordance with programs of change.

You think Socialism/Socialists will be getting any play outside of depression years? Definitely not.

[synthesis]

Does it preclude 99.9% of working class Americans from leading secure, comfortable lives? That's the test.

They will revolt if their material conditions become sufficiently intolerable.

But they will NEVER revolt merely because they "can't join the ruling class."

Of course. We are materialists, not idealists, after all.

[Robert]

No comprendo.

[synthesis]

No comprendo.

I'm saying that no Marxist worth his or her salt is going to argue that the working class will revolt just because they are class conscious. Class consciousness is just one side of the coin:


They will revolt if their material conditions become sufficiently intolerable.

True. The point is to promote class consciousness because of the fact that deteriorating material conditions will breed radical politics - but the working class is also vulnerable to the radical politics of the far right. Conditions and consciousness therefore go hand in hand.

[RGacky3]

Does it preclude 99.9% of working class Americans from leading secure, comfortable lives? That's the test.

They will revolt if their material conditions become sufficiently intolerable.

But they will NEVER revolt merely because they "can't join the ruling class."

Except it is starting to preclude that, its the nature of capitalism, ultimately it leads to that.


People need *real* conditions of squalor and deprivation in order to be motivated to act in accordance with programs of change.

You think Socialism/Socialists will be getting any play outside of depression years? Definitely not.

Perhaps, but mant socialist movements have come after the working class has gotten victories, they get confidence and want more of the pie.

[Lt. Ferret]

capitalism has not led to that for most of the world. people have only gotten wealthier as time went on. especially in countries that did not overthrow their capitalist systems.


it may "ultimately" lead to it, but this wont be for a long, long, long time and by then there will probably be another answer than marxism.

[RGacky3]

capitalism has not led to that for most of the world. people have only gotten wealthier as time went on. especially in countries that did not overthrow their capitalist systems.

Nope, actually the rich have been getting richer and overall the poor have been staying the same or getting poorer.

Look at the world, Capitalism IS'NT working.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But they will NEVER revolt merely because they "can't join the ruling class." Yeah I think you are right about this. Most people would rather live their life in peace if they can and they expect to be able to do that and have stability and a little security. So what does it mean when after a generation of a living standard that has stagnated at best, shrunk in many cases while the demands of work and the wealth of business has increased dramatically? What does it mean when in the US, the pundits are telling people that they probably shouldn't expect to own their own home anytime in the near future and it's better to rent? What does it mean when people who thought they were "middle class" realize that they can not afford to send their teenagers to college as they had planned because tuition has doubled in a decade?

It doesn't automatically mean a revolt or renewed labor movement and certainly not a revolution, but it does mean that things are highly unstable, class interests and conflicts are coming to the surface of society, and that things are going to hit the fan hard one way or the other.


As long as the collective material value rises in a given country then the prospects for defeat of capitalism will not exist.Well it hasn't been for the working class at the same time that industry has reaped incredible amounts... that's inequality, and that, more than squalor creates conditions for social upheavals.


It's that simple. No amount of propaganda is going to change their minds. People need *real* conditions of squalor and deprivation in order to be motivated to act in accordance with programs of change. Then why isn't there a revolution in Haiti? Poverty doesn't matter as much as big swings in the economy (up or down) and relative poverty or inequality. Under more stable conditions people tend to adapt or give into the conditions. But no amount of instability or inequality matters as much as people's belief or disbelief that they can change their circumstances. So "propaganda" and what radicals and union militants and anti-racist activists and so on does matter in showing in practice that it's possible to fight back rather than take the pay cut the bosses, union officials, and politicians are telling you is "the only option".


You think Socialism/Socialists will be getting any play outside of depression years? Definitely not.I grew up in California were you can usually find people in LA or the central valley or Bay Area selling fruit by the side of the road, migrants sleep in shelters made from holes in the ground in agricultural areas. And near the foreclosure capitals (west of Detroit) like Sacramento, Stockton, and Modesto, there are literally hooverville-like shanty-towns: in downtown LA (made from donated tents), along the river in Sacramento from tends and boxes and so on.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/05/article-1159677-03C00365000005DC-555_634x418.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/05/article-1159677-03C003FB000005DC-702_634x371.jpg

In Capitalism, it's always the Depression for somebody.

[RGacky3]

I grew up in California were you can usually find people in LA or the central valley or Bay Area selling fruit by the side of the road, migrants sleep in shelters made from holes in the ground in agricultural areas. And near the foreclosure capitals (west of Detroit) like Sacramento, Stockton, and Modesto, there are literally hooverville-like shanty-towns: in downtown LA (made from donated tents), along the river in Sacramento from tends and boxes and so on.

Yeah, but they don't count.

[L.A.P.]

McCarthyist propaganda...oh yeah and just plain stupidity.