Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to point this out, but Revolutions don't just suddenly appear.

Nor will one here.

And how is the situation really that different?

Different political system, for one. Different political classes, for another. Almost a complete reversal of the actual tax burden scheme between the two - unless you're really trying to argue that the poor in this country are burdened with the majority of crippling tax policies. The economic crisis of the French Revolution was largely in revenue, or the lack of it, while we have ungodly amounts of revenue. Want me to go on?

I just pointed out the many ways it was the same.

You pointed out about two ways that you think it's the same.

You have not disproved these, just attacked my intelligence, political leanings, and level of education.

I haven't disproved them, no. Just like I won't disprove that apple + hacksaw = dog. You're free to make as many nonsensical claims as you like. Fixing where that comes from would take years.

Clearly more education than you have, considering that I seem to be able to grasp the idea that the same political slogans can be used by both liberals and conservatives, and that liberals can be just as easily manipulated to serve an agenda as conservatives can.

Well, they didn't use the same political slogan, for one. For another, they were in favor of diametrically opposed goals. French revolutionaries weren't demanding massive spending cuts and less government services.

 Seaward wrote:

Nor will one here.

That remains to be seen. Since neither one of us are time travelers.

 Seaward wrote:

Different political system, for one.

The difference between what passed for feudalism in France at the time and what passes for democracy in some states in the US is marginal at best. The sheer level of gerrymandering to rig election outcomes in favor of incumbents is staggering. Hell, just TRY to run against an incumbent who's not retiring in some states. The only way you'll even get on the ballot is if you're independently wealthy yourself.

 Seaward wrote:

Almost a complete reversal of the actual tax burden scheme between the two - unless you're really trying to argue that the poor in this country are burdened with the majority of crippling tax policies.

No it isn't. The third estate is still paying the majority of the tax burden. It's just that the wealthy have replaced the nobility and clergy.

 Seaward wrote:

The economic crisis of the French Revolution was largely in revenue, or the lack of it, while we have ungodly amounts of revenue.

The issue was that outlays exceeded revenues. In the US the issue is the outlays exceed the revenues. Regardless of how much revenue you can claim the US has, the issue is the same for both.

 Seaward wrote:

You pointed out about two ways that you think it's the same.

I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling.

 Seaward wrote:

I haven't disproved them, no.

Because you can't.

 Seaward wrote:

Just like I won't disprove that apple + hacksaw = dog. You're free to make as many nonsensical claims as you like. Fixing where that comes from would take years.

I might point out hat I'm good enough with a hacksaw to pull off carving an apple in the shape of a dog with one. and by 'fix' I assume you mean 'brainwash'.

 Seaward wrote:

For another, they were in favor of diametrically opposed goals. French revolutionaries weren't demanding massive spending cuts and less government services.

Yup, clearly trolling at this point.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
That remains to be seen. Since neither one of us are time travelers.

By the same logic, we can declare that it's not impossible that pink unicorns will take over the government tomorrow.

The difference between what passed for feudalism in France at the time and what passes for democracy in some states in the US is marginal at best.

Speaking of trolling...

No it isn't. The third estate is still paying the majority of the tax burden. It's just that the wealthy have replaced the nobility and clergy.

And another one!

No. This is simply flat-out wrong.

Here's one of many, many, many, many, many articles you ought to read. I even chose one that leans deliberately towards your brand of, "Rise, proletariat!" nonsense.

The issue was that outlays exceeded revenues. In the US the issue is the outlays exceed the revenues. Regardless of how much revenue you can claim the US has, the issue is the same for both.

No, it quite simply isn't. France had massive issues with revenue generation, in large part because it hardly taxed the rich - which is the complete opposite of the US, where the rich unquestionably provide the overwhelming majority of tax revenue, and the poor come nowhere close.

Because you can't.

Just like I can't prove the pink unicorn thing. It's utter nonsense, and you can't argue against the sort of nonsense fiction that resides in someone's head.

Look, if you want to revel in the fantasy that someday soon your economic bracket will rise up and "take back" all that wealth that's rightfully yours by virtue of managing to remember to breath as much as necessary, go right ahead. Pretending that fantasy has any basis in reality because the French Revolution was such a smashing success isn't particularly well thought-out, though. You had your revolution. It's over. It was a bunch of people milling around in parks, being dirty and sexually assaulting each other.

 Seaward wrote:

Look, if you want to revel in the fantasy that someday soon your economic bracket will rise up and "take back" all that wealth that's rightfully yours by virtue of managing to remember to breath as much as necessary, go right ahead.

I hate to let you know this, but I think you mean 'our' tax bracket, unless you make more than 150k a year. (I gots me some business)


This was slightly more revealing to me that the one you posted earlier. I think you'll see what I mean about the middle class taking the biggest hit.




I want to try and draw your attention to the 500k to 1m range.

 Seaward wrote:
You had your revolution. It's over. It was a bunch of people milling around in parks, being dirty and sexually assaulting each other.

You clearly have no screaming idea what a revolution is. Let me ask you, who was assassinated? How many refugees did it generate? What was the body count? How much foreign aid was required to keep people from starving?

You might have flown a super bug, but you don't know gak about revolutions.


I think this discussion is over.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to let you know this, but I think you mean 'our' tax bracket, unless you make more than 150k a year. (I gots me some business)

I work in business development in DC. We're pretty firmly in the 1%. Because you know what a lot of the 1% is? Couples living and working in high cost-of-living areas like New York, DC, and San Francisco.

This was slightly more revealing to me that the one you posted earlier. I think you'll see what I mean about the middle class taking the biggest hit.

So now it's, "The Parisian poor are the same as the American middle class," and you're still claiming this is a valid historical comparison? This is getting better and better.

I want to try and draw your attention to the 500k to 1m range.

I'd be more interested if you drew my attention to your source. Because it disagrees with people who actually know what they're talking about and cites absolutely nothing.

You clearly have no screaming idea what a revolution is. Let me ask you, who was assassinated? How many refugees did it generate? What was the body count? How much foreign aid was required to keep people from starving?

Nobody was assassinated. Nobody was killed. That's sort of the point. It was the best you can do. It was utterly pointless, and irrelevant from the moment it started. That's the great moment you're searching for. A bunch of jackasses camping outside of banks.

You might have flown a super bug, but you don't know gak about revolutions.

I did considerably more than that, but I'll admit, I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about fantasy revolutions as some IT guy who fancies himself the next Che.

Now this is more like it!

 Seaward wrote:
It was utterly pointless, and irrelevant from the moment it started.

And yet so many people keep talking about it.

That alone makes OWS important, and its message pointed.

Seaward is just upset at OWS because he is the richest person on Dakka...

 d-usa wrote:
Seaward is just upset at OWS because he is the richest person on Dakka...

Also the toughest and most military.

 Seaward wrote:

I work in business development in DC. We're pretty firmly in the 1%.

If you see Jesse Helms' nephew Jack around,around tell him O'Reilly says Hi.

Here's one from CBO for 1979 to 2004. You were saying about how put upon the 1% is?

 Seaward wrote:

So now it's, "The Parisian poor are the same as the American middle class," and you're still claiming this is a valid historical comparison? This is getting better and better.

If you don't believe me, pick up a copy of Thomson's Europe Since Napoleon. He makes a very solid argument in the space he devotes the the Revolution and it's fallout that the prime motive force for the French Revolution was the middle class and wealthy, not the peasantry.

 Seaward wrote:

I'd be more interested if you drew my attention to your source. Because it disagrees with people who actually know what they're talking about and cites absolutely nothing.

It's from Budiansky, using the 2010 Tax Policy Center data.

 Seaward wrote:

Nobody was assassinated. Nobody was killed. That's sort of the point. It was the best you can do. It was utterly pointless, and irrelevant from the moment it started. That's the great moment you're searching for. A bunch of jackasses camping outside of banks.

The moment it goes beyond jackasses camping outside banks, I'm gone. You have no screaming idea how bad things like that can get, and I've seen all of it I care to.

 Seaward wrote:

I did considerably more than that, but I'll admit, I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about fantasy revolutions as some IT guy who fancies himself the next Che.

You really don't get it at all. All I can say is your arrogance and ignorance are truly breathtaking, and I don't want to be on the same continent as you if it ever catches up with you.

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Seaward is just upset at OWS because he is the richest person on Dakka...

Also the toughest and most military.

I have it on good authority that his dad can also beat up all our dad's combined.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm honestly defining it not that differently from the perspective of Marxist history. To often people boil 'class conflict' to rich vs poor, but then who can blame them cause that's all we tend to use the term for in our media. Historically, class conflict is broad. Societies comprise numerous classes and social orders, and to find them in conflict to some degree is pretty standard. EDIT: The problem with the Marxist view is that it focuses on economics of class to the exclusion of others. Class is economic, cultural, and political. Marx didn't complete ignore the later two, but he attempted to apply a modern economic system of class into timeline where that system was a very recent development.

That's a really good summation. Personally I find that after reading Marx people figure that explains everything and stop thinking, or realise it's a lot more complicated than that and stop thinking about what Marx hard to say. The latter is less of a problem, but still mistaken. As you say, class conflict is not simply economic, and what's also important is that not all class conflict ends in revolution or a change in the ruling order. Far more common is an evolution or adaptation of the system to some other form.

Well even after we conclude that Marx wasn't right about everything, he still holds a distinguished position in the development of numerous fields because he was one of the first to really look at class as a factor. Sociology, economics, and history owe him a lot, as the issue of class was often glossed over in the later two fields, and the former is kind of oriented around its study. Marx is an important person in the development of the humanities and social sciences.

Je ne suis pas Marxiste.

 LordofHats wrote:
Well even after we conclude that Marx wasn't right about everything, he still holds a distinguished position in the development of numerous fields because he was one of the first to really look at class as a factor. Sociology, economics, and history owe him a lot, as the issue of class was often glossed over in the later two fields, and the former is kind of oriented around its study. Marx is an important person in the development of the humanities and social sciences.

Yep.

He didn't just look at class, but was a key in putting an importance on economics in historical study, and highlighting where so many changes in history were driven by changing economic factors. He overstated the case in thinking economics drove everything (rather than it being interelated with other factors) but his impact was still massive.

 d-usa wrote:
Seaward is just upset at OWS because he is the richest person on Dakka...

I doubt it, but your envy's delicious.

 daedalus wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Seaward is just upset at OWS because he is the richest person on Dakka...

Also the toughest and most military.

I have it on good authority that his dad can also beat up all our dad's combined.

Not mine. No one s with Ghost Marine Frazzled Sr.

 Seaward wrote:

I doubt it, but your envy's delicious.

I doubt it too. Partially because I think it would bug you, but partially because wealth isn't just measured in income. (And to say, based on your posting, we can rule out 'spiritual wealth' in your case is an understatement, but I'm willing to bet you don't have a whole lot of material wealth outside income.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Not mine. No one s with Ghost Marine Frazzled Sr.

My money is on Frazz's Dad. Mine was something of a wuss, his only claim to fame, other than his book, is having a massive collection of rare antiques. He did other things before, no one talks about, other than shooting that arms dealer in the face. That story gets told a lot.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Seaward is just upset at OWS because he is the richest person on Dakka...

I doubt it, but your envy's delicious.

Feed on your fear that us poor peasants will one day trespass on your land and eat one of your royal deer.

 d-usa wrote:
Feed on your fear that us poor peasants will one day trespass on your land and eat one of your royal deer.

I don't know. I've seen a lot of pictures around here, but not exactly a lot of deer poacher physiques.

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Seaward is just upset at OWS because he is the richest person on Dakka...

I doubt it, but your envy's delicious.

Feed on your fear that us poor peasants will one day trespass on your land and eat one of your royal deer.

As my kinfolk said a long time ago in a country far far away:

 Seaward wrote:

I don't know. I've seen a lot of pictures around here, but not exactly a lot of deer poacher physiques.

I hate to ask, but what the hell do you think a 'deer poacher physique' is? The last guy I escorted off property for poaching was fat. A damn fine shot, but still fat.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

I don't know. I've seen a lot of pictures around here, but not exactly a lot of deer poacher physiques.

I hate to ask, but what the hell do you think a 'deer poacher physique' is? The last guy I escorted off property for poaching was fat. A damn fine shot, but still fat.

In my neck of the woods, anyone driving after dark outside of an interstate is a potential deer hunter. I became a skilled coyote hunter driving on 290 between Giddings and Elgin, and a bird killing machine Saturday morning on 290 as well.

Bird dudes! Seriously? How do you not see the large car in broad daylight on an empty highway?

You could say they're, bird brained *takes off hat*

 LordofHats wrote:
You could say they're, bird brained *takes off hat*

No,



but the birds have definitely been brained.

 Seaward wrote:

I don't know. I've seen a lot of pictures around here, but not exactly a lot of deer poacher physiques.

What is a "deer poacher physique"?

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

I don't know. I've seen a lot of pictures around here, but not exactly a lot of deer poacher physiques.

What is a "deer poacher physique"?

A implied personal attack on the fictional Robin Hood poor that Seaward simultaneously hates and claims doesn't exist.

 dogma wrote:
What is a "deer poacher physique"?

If we're talking about taking the king's deer, I'd say "lean and hungry."

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
What is a "deer poacher physique"?

If we're talking about taking the king's deer, I'd say "lean and hungry."

While venison is indeed quite lean, if you're making a habit out of hunting them, you're probably not too hungry (unless you suck at it). A good sized buck can give 100 pounds of meat.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
While venison is indeed quite lean, if you're making a habit out of hunting them, you're probably not too hungry (unless you suck at it). A good sized buck can give 100 pounds of meat.

I get that you feel compelled to comment regardless of if you know anything about what's being spoken on or not, but in order to get d-usa's reference and my subsequent response, you might want to go watch Robin Hood a couple times.