Class War

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
-- Dom Helder Camara, a Brazilian bishop[1]

There's a strain of rhetoric going around that would be amusing if it wasn't so deceptive. Earnest looking concerned journalists ask left-leaning advocates of income redistribution if they are, in fact, fomenting 'class war'. It's one of those ridiculous word games phrased in just such a way that there seems no question that such a thing would be a heinous public ill that no-one could admit to. Consider that we no longer have a War Department anywhere in the great state bureaucracy, just a Defence Department. Clearly anyone involved in a war is doing something wrong.

Everyone from John Birmingham to Tony Blair[2] and New Labor has distanced themselves from class war. And a quick google will turn up any number of bloggers careful to point out that they are not class warriors[3], apparently this is super-extra-passe. US lefty rag, The Nation, in an article on the disconnect between evangelical support for George Bush and his 'moral values' and support by the same evangelicals for a ballot measure to raise the national minimum wage, notes that like Camara anyone who draws attention to the plethora of statistics which record the continually growing gap between rich and poor is accused of "fomenting class warfare."[4]

Like the humble Lonely Planet, which informs visitors to the USA that the bottom 60% (ie. the majority) of Americans earn 23% of income and own less than 5% of the wealth. More amazingly, "since 1975, nearly all gains in household income have gone to the top 20%[5].

But now consider Bush's recent tax 'relief' agenda: "For the bottom 60 percent of Americans, the average tax cut was just $304. The median tax cut for all Americans was only $470. In contrast, the average tax cut for those making over $1 million a year was $112,925."[6] The rich will still pay more tax in dollar terms but their tax burden has been disproportionately lessened by Bush at the same time as their relative earnings have been increasing for the last 25 years. That is, Bush is deliberatly continuing to favour the rich and widen the rich-poor income gap. Keep in mind that the top US tax bracket was 39% or so which Bush tried to cut to 33% before his Senate revised this to 36%. This is compared to 49% in Australia; though business interests are lobbying hard for a flat 30% once Howard has a Palpatine-like grip on the Senate (July 1, 6 days from time of writing). And, as we all know, Howard has already announced widespread tax cuts along the same vein as Bush's.

Now, if we are to apply the rhetoric mentioned above consistently, is this not class carpet-bombing? Weapons of mass class destruction? Should the UN send in economist inspectors to monitor the regime that is known to deploy these WMCD's against their own people?

And what of the other side of the coin, the incomes of the poor. The American president has been banging on about the viability of Social Security in the US, despite the fact that its problems are - by the most widely accepted estimates - 40 years or so in the future[7]. Quite a turnaround for an administration that didn't even plan the Iraq invasion beyond the defeat of the Iraqi army, and also quite a surprise given that Bush saw fit to take US$500 bn or 40% of the funding for his tax cuts from the Social Security system. Bush's tax cuts were supposed to 'stimulate the economy' while risking the life-support system of America's poorest. Of course across the pond John Howard has his eyes on award wages, likely with similar justifications[8]. Not to mention widespread talk of disability welfare 'reform'.

So the rich get tax cuts and the poor get welfare and wage cuts? All supported by hanging the dread of some economic disaster over their heads that can only be avoided by accepting these government decrees.

The whole tradition of absurd and manipulative rhetoric reached a new low recently when democratic debate within the Liberal Party over refugee legislation was branded 'political terrorism' by Sophie Panopoulos, a Victorian Liberal backbencher. When circumstances - specifically a report detailing some of Vanstone's ham-fisted cockups - forced Howard to acquiesce to some of the demands of Georgiou and his 'rebel MPs' Crikey was miffed that none of the journalists present asked the obvious question: "Does the Coalition Govt negotiate with political terrorists?".

Given this transparently manipulative wordplay is taken up by the papers then surely the power-play demanding "income cuts for the poor or economic collapse" deserves the description of economic and political terrorism; perhaps class terrorism?

Some very interesting questions come to mind when you start thinking like this:

• Is class war permitted under these kind of attacks or are the underclass expected to negotiate with terrorists?


• Does the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war apply in this case?


• Rather than talking about class war when unions and others attack wealthy elites could we describe it as a pre-emptive class counterattack? (as the US military describes it's acts of aggression)


• Should Australian unions - those that still have members - ignore Howard's ban on cooperative strikes and gear up for some shock and awe?

It makes you wonder: am I allowed to think these thoughts - am I committing thought crime by bucking the rails of the mass media liturgy?

It's interesting to reflect on the rhetoric that has evolved as the PR-industry infection has continued to spread through politics. It has developed in a way that allows real war (remember that's 'defence' not people killing) to be pardoned so that moral middle-class armchair tacticians can enthusiastically discuss 'blowing them away'. Then, on the other hand, when it comes to the abstract 'war' between classes the same elitist conservatives who tell us 'defence' is good turn into veritable beatniks, appalled at anything less than complete (abstract) pacifism in (political) class conflicts...

"Two nations, between whom there is no discourse and no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by different breeding, are fed by different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws. I speak of the rich and the poor."
-- Benjamin Disraeli, past British Prime Minister

[5] USA, 3rd Ed., Jeff Campbell et al, Lonely Planet, 2004, p. 50.

Related Link