Skip to main content

View Diary: Peasants as far as I can see (169 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The horrible part, they actually refer to us as (41+ / 0-)

    peasants.

    http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/

    And I just don't get the greed, just like in the clip you have to ask

    "How much shit do you need?"

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:20:58 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sure do. I use the phrase as both a stark reminder (22+ / 0-)

      Of where we are regressing to and a term of endearment towards the working class people I identify with. I hope using the word "peasant" doesn't come off the wrong way. I do not mean to offend.

      Regulate banks, not vaginas

      by MinistryOfTruth on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:11:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Will they ever have enough? (16+ / 0-)

      If you already have 50 million, why is it so important to get another 50 million?  

      And now some big corporations are buying foreclosed homes by the thousands.  The peasants will be fortunate if they are able to pay the rents that these corporations demand.

    •  Conservatism is a rejection of America's founding (5+ / 0-)

      principles. But conservatives have been able to cloak themselves in the mantle of the Founders because liberals allows them to! Since the financial crash, I've seen a growing number of liberals begin to spout Marxist and socialist nostrums. This is a disaster! Socialism and Marxist economies are just as likely to develop authoritarian social structures as capitalist democracies are. Just ask any Central European about that!

      If you go back and look at what a republic is supposed to be, you find lots of material relevant to our political and economic problems of today. Republicanism is supposed to be government of, by, and for the people, meaning that elected representatives are supposed to promote the general welfare. But conservatives, especially since Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, have directly attacked the concept of the general welfare as leading to socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism, ad nauseum. So conservatism is directly attacking one of the most important principles of the Revolution and the framing of the Union!

      But liberals don't recognize this, because liberals tend to accept the argument that the Founders were rich white males, many of whom were slave-holders, intent on building a structure of government that would above all else protect property rights. This is a crippling and mostly inaccurate view of American history. Crippling, because it leads liberals to forfeit the field of battle to conservatives when it comes to arguing about what the United States was originally intended to be. To understand this, you have to delve into the question of what a republic is supposed to be - something the Founders never really explicitly explained. You only begin to understand the answer -- and crucial, the overriding crucial importance of this issue (there is an explicit guarantee in the Constitution that the federal government gives to states that they shall have republican governments) -- when you realize that one way to understand what a republic is supposed to be is to look at what the antitheses of a republic: monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and plutocracy.

      Me belief is that by reviving the ideas of a republic, and the general welfare, we rip the cloak of legitimacy away from conservatives, and reveal them for the oligarchical toadies they are.

      A couple weeks ago I wrote:

      In the Founding era of the United States, the Founders had developed a "political economy of aristocracy, as Professor James L. Huston explains in "The American Revolutionaries, the Political Economy of Aristocracy, and the American Concept of the Distribution of Wealth, 1765-19000" (The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1079-1105):    
      The revolutionaries’ concern over the distribution of wealth was prompted by a tenet in the broad and vague political philosophy of republicanism. In contrast to nations in which monarchs and aristocrats dominate the state, republics embodied the ideal of equality among citizens in political affairs, the equality taking the form of citizen participation in the election of officials who formulated the laws. Drawing largely on the work of seventeenth-century republican theorist James Harrington, Americans believed that if property were concentrated in the hands of a few in a republic, those few would use their wealth to control other citizens, seize political power, and warp the republic into an oligarchy. Thus to avoid descent into despotism or oligarchy, republics had to possess an equitable distribution of wealth....

          The answer to how the social system of aristocracy generated wealth inequality was easily found. American political leaders applied the labor theory of property or value; an unjust distribution resulted when a few were able to transfer the fruits of other persons’ labor to themselves. Aristocrats (non-workers and therefore non-producers) stole the fruits of labor from the masses of toilers (laborers and therefore producers). Aristocrats effected the transference by political means. It was control of politics that enabled aristocrats to steal the fruits of labor, to enrich themselves and pauperize the multitudes. By the time of the writing of the Constitution, literate Americans had clearly voiced the idea that a misdistribution of wealth was almost entirely a political act.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:42:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think in our history we always see corrections (0+ / 0-)

        From the start of colonies shrugging off a Monarchy, to the solidification of a Federal Republic having gone through a civil war, to the peeling back of plutocracy with the New Deal.

        However this is not 1920, and with this new form of globalization (since its been around us since the Dutch created the futures market around Tulips), we have never been more interconnected as a world economy.

        Its because of this reliance on that global nature that makes me fear that no one nation can right plutocratic wrongs.

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:45:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site