…. via Xymphora.
Prosaic in a somewhat different way than Hugh Macleod’s reflection on New York social hierarchies, but worth considering with respect to all of us who are muttering (blogging ?) about our perceived need for major changes in the structure, goals and dynamics of societal governance.
The rest is here.
For a more comprehensive, and more damning-in-the-details treatment of the same issue, see Canadian author Linda McQuaig’s newest book It’s The Crude, Dude – War. Big Oil, And The Fight For The Planet.
Conrad Black, no less, has publicly stated she should be “horsewhipped”.
From an analysis of the American election by Stirling Newberry (I’ve fixed a bit of the spelling):
“The campaign hinged on this – the Swift Boats and marriage attacks were not distractions, but encapsulations of two simple points. The first was a way of saying that Kerry would betray the military, and therefore he would cut the military to balance the budget. Simple terms: make the cost fall on someone else. The second was a way of saying that the social changes that come with a high production, high value added economy – namely a cosmopolitan society – would happen under Kerry.
That is Kerry was presented, accurately, as being a threat to the social and economic hierarchy to the land owning classes. Land, which holds its value through having cheap gasoline, demands a military machine to obtain the oil and to maintain the social inequality should it come to that. Kerry was, accurately, presented as someone who would not go to war for oil.
If one looks at the map – the division – between the large blocks of the country whose value is sunk into rent and the smaller city areas that generate value through capital – is clear.
This social structure – paralleling the ancien regime of France is based on two alliances. The oligarchic rich place their faith in Church and State, they ally with the landowning peasants that stock the army, against the tradesman and the very bottom day laborers. The hierarchical society tries to tax by forced savings the tradesmen, and keep the ‘rabble’ in line with force.
The hierarchy is not a mere marriage of convenience – each knows that it needs the other. The reactionary side of the ledger is not cleavable between ‘economic and social conservatives’ – because the wealthy knows it needs a military, and the military knows it needs someone to batter the rising professional classes into line.”
Laisser un commentaire