Log in

View Full Version : How the ruling class betrayed the workers



ComradePonov
19th July 2011, 04:41
How the Ruling class betrayed the workers

Comrade Ponov

Throughout history, the rich of all nations have been repeatedly proven to work directly against the aims of the people. This point is, after all, logical as the very existence of the ruling class is dependent on the exploitation of the worker by the bourgeois. While the bourgeois media persuades one to believe that the rich now live in harmony with the workers, the current situation in America is undeniable proof that the aims and goals of the workers are in a direct collision path with the aims and goals of the bourgeois.
In order to understand this hypothesis, one must first look at the so called “debt ceiling” crisis in America. If the United States House of Representatives and Senate fail to increase the debt ceiling by August 3rd, the United States will automatically enter a state of default. To understand the consequences of such an event, we must examine the United States economy.

Out of every one dollar which is spend by the United States government, forty cents is borrowed money. In other words, the United States spends about 20% more than it generates, and as a result, the extra 20% is money which was borrowed from an outside source. If the United States enters a state of default, this borrowed money will cease to exist, and as a result, funding towards major programs such as health care, social care, social security, education, and the pay of soldiers will simply stop.

Let us now examine the reluctance of the Republican Party, one of the two major parties in America, to pass a bill which would raise the American debt ceiling. In a nutshell, the majority of Republicans refuse a raise on the debt ceiling as they do not want an increase in the taxation of individuals who make more than $250,000 per year. The true irony of this situation is that only 2% of the American population can be classified in this category.

A sane reader might ask; how is it logical that the Republican Party asks the people to withstand so much pain through cuts in health care, social security, and education, but is instead reluctant on raising taxes on the rich as a means of generating revenue? The answer, of course, is that the goals and interests of the rich differ greatly from the goals and interests of the workers and people of America.


Let us examine the “Tax payer protection pledge”, a pledge which forces all Republicans running for office to vote down any proposal which would result in an increase in taxes. The person who first started this pledge is Mr. Norquist, an individual who has in the past proven to be actively involved with the ruling class and illegally funding politicians in the senate. The lobbying power of Mr.Norquist has grown to a point where any Republican who wishes to succeed in the general elections is, for the lack of a better word, forced to sign this pledge which then allows him to gain a slight majority over his democrat opponent.

As a result of the “tax payer protection pledge”, the majority of Republicans in the American House of Representatives simply refuse to vote for a bill which would raise taxes on the rich. The simple argument here is that “raising taxes hurts the American people” (the term “people” is used loosely here, as the rich , in the views of this author any way, are not the American people.) Dear reader, ask yourself this; What is more damaging to the workers; raising taxes on the 2% of Americans who make more than 250,000 dollars a year, or cutting funding on healthcare and other necessities of life?

As can be seen in this case, what benefits the rich, as a rule of law, is directly against the aims and goals of the people. In this case, refusing a raise on the taxes of the rich is beneficial to the rich, however it is also greatly damaging to the workers. The very fact that American politicians are willing to betray the workers, simply to protect the interests of the rich, is great proof of the dire circumstances the people face at this time. The politicians have clearly shown that they are nothing but slaves of the rich, showing that the rich, if given the chance, time and time again will betray the workers for personal gain.

As stated by Lenin, the American politicians, along with the rich and capitalists of America, are in an alliance to “oppress, crush, rob, and disunite the workers.” This has never been as clear as it is today, where the rich are so easily ready to crush the American economy and people, in exchange for personal gain. Shame on American politicians who allow the rich to directly undermine the interests of the people. Shame on the rich who are willing to destroy the lives of millions. Shame on all supporters of Capitalism. Long live the eternal alliance between the workers of all nations to break free of the oppressive grip of capitalism.

thesadmafioso
19th July 2011, 04:45
Does your title not imply that the ruling class was at some point allied with the workers? When exactly was that?

Also, who really cares about the posturing of the bourgeois actors of the political stage?

Martin Blank
19th July 2011, 04:45
I think the author is looking at this question all wrong. One cannot betray those he or she opposes in the first place. Now, so-called "workers' leaders" -- like union officials, leaders of alleged "labor", "socialist" or "communist" parties -- can arguably be seen as betrayers, but only of trust, since most of them also are not a part of the working class.

It is important to be clear on a point like this, or else you begin to sound like you're appealing to the ruling classes' "better nature".

ComradePonov
19th July 2011, 05:15
The title was designed to appeal to the average American who might still think of the rich as an "ally" of the people. If you read the first line of the article, I start by mentioning the repeated exploitation of the workers by the rich at different time periods in history.

ComradePonov
19th July 2011, 05:18
One must also keep in mind that the average American thinks that cutting taxes on the rich will result in a corresponding increase in pay. Of course we all know this is false, but I assumed that the line of thought of the reader was what I stated above.

Now that I think about it, I should have edited the article a little since I posted it on Rev Left. But you must understand that the article was not originally intended for revleft, I just decided to share it.

Martin Blank
19th July 2011, 05:21
I think that's understandable. It's a draft and you sought out suggestions and comments.

thesadmafioso
19th July 2011, 05:26
I know that you were obviously trying to come up with a catchy title that will stand out to a broad mass of people, but the fact remains that it is logically inconsistent with a materialist interpretation of history, a method of analysis which you seem to agree with to some extent.

And it is much more accurate to say that the average supporter of tax breaks on the rich either does so out of a misconception of the wealthy 'creating jobs', the delusional notion that they will one day be rich and thus benefit from such policy, or out of a factually incorrect notion that tax breaks for the rich actually mean tax cuts for all. This position is hardly ever held out of the described reasoning to which you refer.

If its any reassurance though, I have seen much worse in terms of grammar and sentence composition in similar submitted works on the site. This was actually somewhat refreshing to read in regards to style and the like. The content is still horrible bourgeois in its focus, but it was quite readable from a comparative standpoint.

Stalin Ate My Homework
19th July 2011, 10:29
Top Article! :) Found it easy to follow even though I am not from America.

cheguvera
20th July 2011, 12:56
Ruling parties are not working towards interest of working class.In capitalists world there is wide inequality among working class & middle class.Captialism replaces the born elite class to earned & fortune elite class.This will not benefit the common class.

ComradePonov
21st July 2011, 00:10
Ruling parties are not working towards interest of working class.In capitalists world there is wide inequality among working class & middle class.Captialism replaces the born elite class to earned & fortune elite class.This will not benefit the common class.


I completely disagree.

James Murdoch did not earn his place in the elite. Robson Walton didn't earn his vast fortune. The elite often always originate from the ruling class.

Jumping from class to class is extremely rare under capitalism. An individual who is born into the middle class will likely never become part of the elite under Capitalism. It is the fault of the system.