Prager: why is class hatred okay?

[billc]

Here is another great article by Dennis Prager:

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns..._class_hatred_morally_superior_to_race_hatred

The major difference between Hitler and the Communist genocidal murderers -- Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot -- was what groups they chose for extermination. For Hitler, first Jews and ultimately Slavs and other "non-Aryans" were declared the enemy and unworthy of life. For the Communists, the rich -- the bourgeoisie, land owners, and capitalists -- were labeled the enemy and regarded as unworthy of life.
Hitler mass-murdered on the basis of race, the Communists on the basis of class.
Because the Holocaust was unique in its industrialization of death and in its targeting of every Jew, including babies, for death, the post-World War II world has been rightly obsessed with eradicating racism (but not anti-Semitism!), i.e., the hatred of another solely because of race. But the world has not been obsessed with eradicating the other source of genocide: classism, or the hatred of others based on class.

 

[Sukerkin]

"America is also a place where the rich by and large legally acquired their wealth through hard work and entrepreneurial enterprise"

I've said it before here, to much tongue-lashing I must point out, that no-one ever got rich working for a living. That's the part of the American Dream which is founded on sand. To be clear, I am not here talking about millionaires - ludicrous as it might sound to most of us, that isn't 'rich'.

Whilst it might have been the case back in the early years of the USA that you could get rich "through hard work and entrepreneurial enterprise", a couple of centuries is enough time for the money to start to coalesce into the hands of the few and for those few to start controlling the game and determining who gets to join their club. It's not as bad as Europe yet, I hope, but it wont take all that long before it is.

 

[elder999]

"America is also a place where the rich by and large legally acquired their wealth through hard work and entrepreneurial enterprise"

I've said it before here, to much tongue-lashing I must point out, that no-one ever got rich working for a living. That's the part of the American Dream which is founded on sand. To be clear, I am not here talking about millionaires - ludicrous as it might sound to most of us, that isn't 'rich'.

\

And that's the truth.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"America is also a place where the rich by and large legally acquired their wealth through hard work and entrepreneurial enterprise"

I've said it before here, to much tongue-lashing I must point out, that no-one ever got rich working for a living. That's the part of the American Dream which is founded on sand. To be clear, I am not here talking about millionaires - ludicrous as it might sound to most of us, that isn't 'rich'.

Whilst it might have been the case back in the early years of the USA that you could get rich "through hard work and entrepreneurial enterprise", a couple of centuries is enough time for the money to start to coalesce into the hands of the few and for those few to start controlling the game and determining who gets to join their club. It's not as bad as Europe yet, I hope, but it wont take all that long before it is.

I find it interesting that on a thread that asks why class hatred is OK, you differentiate between the rich and the ultra-rich, describe how the ultra-rich do not 'earn' their vast wealth, and justify continuing hatred.

Imagine if the question was "Why is racial hatred okay?" and your answer was that some races, well, deserve it.

Not a tongue-lashing, really. Just an observation.

Now as to the veracity of your assertion about how the ultra-rich got that way...

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/

I see some on that list, nobably the Kochs and the Waltons, who inherited at least a portion of their wealth. I also see a lot of those who inherited their wealth are first-generation offspring themselves; their wealth has not been concentrated in their families for generations; perhaps one or at most two generations besides themselves. I'm not seeing a lot of Vanderbilt or Rockefeller surnames on this list.

In any case, I still wonder how the source of wealth alters the morality of having it.

 

[Sukerkin]

It is an interesting moral connundrum I do agree, Bill, tho' I'd be pleased if you'd be a little softer when smacking me up the side of the head . I was just responding to the part of the diatribe that resonated with me as being one of the most common misconceptions of the modern age.

On-topic, all that I can say is that, for me, the morality of how wealth is obtained has a very great bearing on the matter. That's not hatred, that's a judgement based upon my own principles.

Also, you misunderstood my thrust going by the tail end of your post. The common phrase (seemingly not common in America) that no-one gets rich by working for a living derives from the fact that, mostly, great wealth comes from the exploitation of others and that is something that tweaks the Daily Mail gene (not that there's a great deal I can do about it). So, whilst I don't quite hold drug dealers and investment bankers as morally equivalent, it's not far off.

 

[WC_lun]

I think for most people the class warfare tag is just nonsense. It makes for good rabble rousing at political rallies. I do think there is an issue with there are different standards for the rich and everyone else. What would get a poor or middle class person many years in small room does not even get a rich person a slap on the wrist. Now obviously not every rich person does anything wrong. In fact, more of us would like to be rich. But when different classes in society are held to different standards there are going to be issues. To think otherwise means to ignore both human history and human nature.

 

[JohnEdward]

I concur with Sukerkin's responses. I think sometimes we get suffer from the fishbowl effect here in America where our structure for acquiring of wealth is different then Europe, well the whole world really. We really lack the insight to the other structures of wealth in the world that are repressive. That don't provide opportunity of any kind for gain. Often when I read articles like Bill posted I see a disconnect when events happen over seas that we have no connection to, because of our different wealth structure that isn't similarly oppressive or repressive (take your pick) as the rest of the world. We have no defined or implemented cast system for example. The point of discussion here for me, is about how much the structure this country was founded on has erred. I believe that is the contention, and not a "hatred."

If it was a true hatred people in the is country had for the wealthy, people wouldn't be complaining to return to the wealth structure this country was founded on. That we don't slide into a European wealth structure that people have the opportunity to gain wealth, and not be treated unfairly. People complain not because they want to "hate" as denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice, i.e. a hate campaign. As implied by the article. If that was so there would be an aversion to any monetary increase.

More accurately what is perceived by some as "hate" of the wealthy in this country is in error , but instead it is a matter of crying foul!. That the wealth structure this country has been founded is being abused. Not that this is the first time or it the last time this has happened. It just seems those who are taking advantage of the wealth structure, i.e. abusing it, wish to change the wealth structure to that of old Europe.

I think the misnomer here is the word and the idea of "hating" the wealthy. It is not a matter of hate, if that was so we would have killed off the rich hundreds of yeas ago. There would be a great aversion to wealth. But, instead what we have is a call for a correction within our wealth structure. But unfortunately, there are those who are fighting to prevent such as correction, and convincing other there is no need for a correction in our wealth structure.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is an interesting moral connundrum I do agree, Bill, tho' I'd be pleased if you'd be a little softer when smacking me up the side of the head . I was just responding to the part of the diatribe that resonated with me as being one of the most common misconceptions of the modern age.

On-topic, all that I can say is that, for me, the morality of how wealth is obtained has a very great bearing on the matter. That's not hatred, that's a judgement based upon my own principles.

Also, you misunderstood my thrust going by the tail end of your post. The common phrase (seemingly not common in America) that no-one gets rich by working for a living derives from the fact that, mostly, great wealth comes from the exploitation of others and that is something that tweaks the Daily Mail gene (not that there's a great deal I can do about it). So, whilst I don't quite hold drug dealers and investment bankers as morally equivalent, it's not far off.

I actually thought I was being gentle. Sorry!

You might note that this is yet another of my many hot buttons. We humans have such an interesting love-hate relationship with money, power, and those who have these things. We think money is good; until it is bad. We think power is needed; until it is too much. We think people should strive to succeed, which brings with it (in a capitalist society) money and perhaps power; until they achieve it.

And everyone, it seems, has a different idea about what 'too much is'. Most arguments about economic class and wealth eventually devolve into the basic concept (as stated even by President Obama, but he's just like the rest of us) that there is a number, call it "X", which represents an amount of money which is 'too much'. The implication of 'too much' is that it is a) bad and b) should be taken away. We just seem to have different ideas about the value of X.

We also and coincidentally tend to place moral value upon how money comes into the possession of individuals. Although you mentioned criminal income, I would set that aside and talk only about legal income. The moral implications are several. Among them, the concept that there are things which are legal to do, but which we ought not do because they are immoral. The "junk bond kings" of the 1980's come to mind, or the mortgage brokers of recent years. There is also a concept that one who receives their money from streams that do not involve their own effort (such as through invention, discovery, hard work, and so on) are immoral in an of themselves. That daddy worked himself into an early grave to provide for his children does not change the fact that to many of us, those children are now bad people because they did not come by their wealth the way daddy did. Of course, there are sub-rules here as well, it gets very complicated. For example, when a poor person wins the lottery, we say "Good for him!" even though he did nothing to earn it but buy a lottery ticket. We seem to have a real problem with the notion of children born into privilege, even though many of us strive to leave our children in as good financial position as we are able to manage ourselves.

We often call it class hatred, or class envy, but neither one of those words really adequately describes how many of us apparently feel about those who have wealth or power out of proportion with what we think they should have, given the amount of money / power they have and how they came to have it. It is more of a sense of being offended or affronted in general.

And I typically have no problem (although I like to argue) with people who have a lower threshold than I do with regard to wealth / power and how a given person came to acquire it. I do tend to have more of a problem when people attempt or suggest that we fit action to words and, well, take it away from them if we think they ought not to have it.

With regard to the most recent issues confronting it as a society, I note an even more odd conundrum that perhaps few else seem to be noticing, and that is this: We seem to be objecting to the wealth and power of the 1% and suggesting that something ought to be done about it (that is, take it away, through taxation, penalties, or dragging them into the street and beating them with shoes, apparently), but at the same time, nearly all of the people suggesting that they be stripped of their wealth over X agree also that IT WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. If it won't make anything better, then it seems to me that it's just a stupid vent of emotion with no point whatsoever. Is that not odd?

It's like the freaking French Revolution. "Kill all the nobles! Will that lower the price of bread? No, it won't! We don't care! Kill all the nobles!" Oh, I see. Well good luck storming the castle.

 

[Tez3]

In America what class you are seems to be decided by whether you have money or not, in Europe it's more decided by 'breeding', here you can have the upper and middle class people who are fairly poor and you can have working class people who are stinking rich, having money never changes what class they are. Paul McCartney for example is hugely rich but will always be working class but we have Dukes who are struggling to pay to keep a roof over their heads and they will always be upper class even if they lived on the street. A lot of European aristocracy are improverished, they work for a living, earn the same as most of us so the 'class' war thing isn't so relevant these days. It is more between the haves and the have nots, this is nothing to do with class. The Middle class stays the same, they are rarely rich in fact often struggling because their values mean they send their children to private schools etc and that costs. Middle class values still hold and while many sneer those values are better than many, the middle class is rarely rich as traditional middle class jobs and careers provide comfortable livings though often hit by taxes etc. The rich here now are the footballers, the 'celebrities' and the bankers, not middle class at all, mostly chavs.
Class in Europe and the UK isn't set by how much money you have, we have very different definitions from America. Killing the nobles would do no good, most here are 'land rich, cash poor', however killing the bankers and stock market traders would bring immense satisfaction to many people if not most!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Class in Europe and the UK isn't set by how much money you have, we have very different definitions from America. Killing the nobles would do no good, most here are 'land rich, cash poor', however killing the bankers and stock market traders would bring immense satisfaction to many people if not most!

As I said; it satisfies some desire for revenge, perhaps, but fixes nothing.

 

[Tez3]

As I said; it satisfies some desire for revenge, perhaps, but fixes nothing.

Nothing wrong with revenge as we see the banks and bankers as being largly responsible for our current plight. I don't think anyone would imagine it fixes anything unless it comes with responsible banking from those replacing the late unlamented bankers.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nothing wrong with revenge as we see the banks and bankers as being largly responsible for our current plight. I don't think anyone would imagine it fixes anything unless it comes with responsible banking from those replacing the late unlamented bankers.

Actually, there's quite a bit wrong with revenge, IMHO, but isn't it interesting how some people see having wealth as immoral and others see taking out their anger on anyone with money as immoral.

 

[Sukerkin]

I actually thought I was being gentle. Sorry!

Fear not, my friend; some days I am just more 'English' than others, reading a 'tone' where none was intended and thus 'bruising' more easily .

 

[Tez3]

Actually, there's quite a bit wrong with revenge, IMHO, but isn't it interesting how some people see having wealth as immoral and others see taking out their anger on anyone with money as immoral.

It has nothing to do with the bankers having money and others not, it's about those who exploit others to make that money, that's where revenge is justified. If you make your money honestly why would there be a problem? If however you make your money and ruin others in the making of it then justice can rightly be called for. If you are a banker on these obscene bonuses gained by losing peoples hard earned life savings and houses then yes you should be shot.If you work in a bank that has just been bailed out by tax payers money should you be collecting big bonuses for losing the money in the first place? If you are living a champagne life style off the backs of hard working people you deserve to be shot. Earn your money yourself and live well on that money, you can be proud of your achievements and act as an example.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It has nothing to do with the bankers having money and others not, it's about those who exploit others to make that money, that's where revenge is justified. If you make your money honestly why would there be a problem? If however you make your money and ruin others in the making of it then justice can rightly be called for.

Justice and revenge are not at all the same thing; even though some may gain personal and emotional satisfaction from seeing justice done. In a society of laws and not men, justice is to be preferred. Revenge is taken by the lawless upon they rightly or wrongly believe have committed crimes deserving of punishment.

If you are a banker on these obscene bonuses gained by losing peoples hard earned life savings and houses then yes you should be shot.If you work in a bank that has just been bailed out by tax payers money should you be collecting big bonuses for losing the money in the first place? If you are living a champagne life style off the backs of hard working people you deserve to be shot. Earn your money yourself and live well on that money, you can be proud of your achievements and act as an example.

Of the two, lawless Lynch mobs represent a greater immediate threat to society than bankers without adequate regulation and facing no repercussion for their actions. Which is why, though I have no allegiance to, or love for, bankers or politicians, I would defend them from the hands of the lawless rabble intent on revenge.

 

[JohnEdward]

Of the two, lawless Lynch mobs represent a greater immediate threat to society than bankers without adequate regulation and facing no repercussion for their actions. Which is why, though I have no allegiance to, or love for, bankers or politicians, I would defend them from the hands of the lawless rabble intent on revenge.

Truly a no man more noble that Bill. I wouldn't jump in and save those institutions of fault sorry asses like the government did without heavy penalties like strict regulations and restrictions. And for politicians and we know who they are that allowed this mess, should have went the way of Blagojevich. Lawless rabble intent of revenge would be too good from them, cause you usually find them blogging and posting on the internet.

 

[Tez3]

I see tongue in cheek posting isn't working on this thread.

Actually when you talk about mobs killing off nobles, the rich etc not being of any use, it quite often is. If those aforesaid nobles, rich etc are actually making their money off the backs of people as happened in Europe not that long ago then the removal of those people would make lives better. If a wealthy landowner for example takes most of his tenants crops, livestock etc in 'taxes' from them leaving them with only starvation rations then of course the removal of the landowner and the redistribution of the wealth would go a long way to saving the people. This was the idea behind the French and Russian revolutions. That it didn't turn out well afterwards is neither here nor there, the idea of getting rid of the rich in cases like these is very tempting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia

 

[Josh Oakley]

It has nothing to do with the bankers having money and others not, it's about those who exploit others to make that money, that's where revenge is justified. If you make your money honestly why would there be a problem? If however you make your money and ruin others in the making of it then justice can rightly be called for. If you are a banker on these obscene bonuses gained by losing peoples hard earned life savings and houses then yes you should be shot.If you work in a bank that has just been bailed out by tax payers money should you be collecting big bonuses for losing the money in the first place? If you are living a champagne life style off the backs of hard working people you deserve to be shot. Earn your money yourself and live well on that money, you can be proud of your achievements and act as an example.

Vengence and just are not the same thing. Revenge is two wrongs trying to make a right. It appeals to the naser instincts of man. Justice is based on reason, and a restoring of balance. So do you really look so highly value revenge?

 

[Tez3]

Vengence and just are not the same thing. Revenge is two wrongs trying to make a right. It appeals to the naser instincts of man. Justice is based on reason, and a restoring of balance. So do you really look so highly value revenge?

I assume you either posted when you were tired or in a hurry?

Am I a vengeful person if someone hurts people dear to me? Oh yes, I am, very much so.

 

[JohnEdward]

More harm was done in the 20th century by faceless bureaucrats than tyrant dictators.
-Dennis Prager

One of the great mind destroyers of college education is the belief that if it's very complex, it's very profound.
-Dennis Prager

The major difference between Hitler and the Communist genocidal murderers -- Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot -- was what groups they chose for extermination. For Hitler, first Jews and ultimately Slavs and other "non-Aryans" were declared the enemy and unworthy of life. For the Communists, the rich -- the bourgeoisie, land owners, and capitalists -- were labeled the enemy and regarded as unworthy of life.
Hitler mass-murdered on the basis of race, the Communists on the basis of class.
Because the Holocaust was unique in its industrialization of death and in its targeting of every Jew, including babies, for death, the post-World War II world has been rightly obsessed with eradicating racism (but not anti-Semitism!), i.e., the hatred of another solely because of race. But the world has not been obsessed with eradicating the other source of genocide: classism, or the hatred of others based on class.

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns....to_race_hatred



Prager makes a living stirring up sophomoric political controversy, an antagonist in the biblical sense. He will say anything within a slanted religious and conservative context for a buck. Sad, such an intelligent mind has laid to waste. If you read his bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager you see he is well versed in Russian history, an expert. It shows to me he is about twisting history, facts, and truths to fit his audiences view which he feels isn't educated enough not to realize he is an instrument of the corporate baser self-interests, agendas and designs. His audience and followers blindly eat up every word he crafts just as the quote that started this thread located above. They don't see how Orwellian he is, functioning within the "Big Brother" propaganda machine. As great of a seducer as Mata Hari. If people knew their history like Tez points out they would immediately dismiss Prager.