"Does anyone doubt that what we are witnessing is a pre-emptory counter-revolution by the 1%?"

[snagglepuss]

This is a line from a comment left on Guardian CIF by Dreamon in response to a piece outlining massive and worrying changes being planned to the British justice system.

Dreamon's post listing the drastic changes Cameron has undertaken makes the question of whether we are witnessing a pre-emptory revolution by the 1% salient. Dreamon is referring to the UK but the question he raises can also asked on this side of the pond, just look at the similiarities. Here's his list of what has been happening and will be happening in the UK:

snip

Individually, every policy seems wrong, but not obviously outrageous to the disinterested voter. But once you add them together . . .

* Changes to employment laws will make it easier for bosses to sack workers
* Austerity measures will mean a continuing lack of jobs
* University policy will make it harder to afford to go
* Welfare reform will make it easier to take JSA away, unless the unemployed accept unpaid work at the likes of Poundland (cheap, subsidised work for corporations)
* Challenging unfair decisions will become harder with removal of Legal Aid from such cases
* Mass expansion of secret courts will prevent transparency of corruption and allow the State to repress activism against these policies

Meanwhile:

* Michael Gove will continue to create unaccountable "Free" Schools, producing a new generation of cheap labour
* National pay bargaining in the Public Sector will be ended - workers in poorer areas will lose pay (along with continued overall pay squeeze)
* Ten of thousands will be forced out of their homes with HB cuts
* Disabled children and cancer sufferers will be told they're on their own
* Privatization and outsourcing will continue - after one half of Norther Rock was sold off on the cheap, the Royal Mail is to go, NHS opened up to vultures etc etc
* Tax breaks for the rich quietly sneaked out
* MPs to be culled by 50 - but no reduction in government ministers (the payroll vote), so less scrutiny assured

and on and on.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/15/henry-porter-ken-clarke-bill-of-rights

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[ewagner]

2. No doubt whatsoever...n/t

[Prophet 451]

3. And this is why I despair

I'm on disability for physical and mental problems right now. They've also added a new wrinkle where the DWP's assessor can simply tell an appeals tribunal that you said to drop the case with no evidence of any sort and you have a very short time and a lot of hurdles to get it reinstated.

Honestly, this makes it ever more difficult to find a reason to keep living at all.

[kentuck]

4. The Revolt of the Elites

I suppose it is true?

[mwooldri]

5. Most of what is stated is already here in the USA.

It's easy to get fired, unemployment benefits have been cut already, it's too expensive to go even to a state university paying state fees, plenty of people can't get Section 8 (i.e. housing benefits), lots of disabled people and cancer sufferers are already on their own.

The only way for the Tories to get back into power in Westminster come next election would be if the economy is actually doing rather well. I don't see it happening. I'd much prefer it if Cleggo pulls the rug under the Tories feet, pull a vote of no confidence, and take the country to the polls sooner. The way I see it though is that both the Tories and the Lib Dems are doing what they can - Tories having the major ministries of course - until they know their time is up and Ed Milliband comes in with some new faces. The other way for the Tories to stay in power in Westminster is for Scotland to completely devolve from the UK - pushing the balance of power more in favour of the Tories as they have little to no representation at the Westminster level from Scotland.

Mark.

[NNN0LHI]

8. We sure do already have it in America, and it began during the early 1980's

Does this sound familiar to what is being discussed in the OP?

Don

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html  

In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state. This objective was carried out by the Reagan administration (Abramovitz, 1992). After taking office in 1981, the administration set out on a course to alter the (relatively) labor sensitive political economy to be more business friendly. Reagan appointed anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board, "implicitly {granting} employers permission to revive long shunned anti-union practices: decertifying unions, outsourcing production, and hiring permanent replacements for striking workers" (102). Reagan himself pursued such a policy when he fired eleven thousand striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Regulations designed to protect the environment , worker safety, and consumer rights were summarily decried as unnecessary government meddling in the marketplace (Abramovitz, 1992; Barlett and Steele, 1996). Programs designed to help the poor were also characterized as "big government," and the people who utilized such programs were often stigmatized as lazy or even criminal. With the help of both political parties, the administration drastically cut social welfare spending and the budgets of many regulatory agencies.

The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives " (Abramovitz, 1992, 101). Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment. Business was thus free to lower wages, benefits, and the length of contracts. The overall result was that the average income for the average American dropped even as the average number of hours at work increased (Barlett and Steele, 1996; Schor, 1992).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Do you mean pre-emptive or peremptory? N.T.

[snagglepuss]

10. Thanks for raising this question. I didn't know these are two similiar but different words.

As I quoted someone else, I can't answer your question, however for anyone like myself who isn't aware these are two different words the following snippet will be illuminating


snip

The purpose of this article is to explain the meaning of and distinguish between the words preemptory and peremptory.

Preemptory (also spelled pre-emptory) [pree-EMP-tor-ree]

Preemptory is defined as pertaining to preemption. To preempt is to take action in order to prevent (an attack or other anticipated event) happening; or to forestall.

snip

Peremptory is an adjective with a number of meanings:

Precluding or putting an end to all debate or action.
Not allowing contradiction or refusal; imperative; absolute; decisive; positive; conclusive; final; not admitting of question; not open to appeal, challenge, or delay.
Insisting on immediate attention or obedience.
Expressive of urgency or command.
Offensively self-assured or given to exercising usually unwarranted power; dictatorial; dogmatic; brusque; imperious.

Cause for confusion between the two:

Peremptory is often misspelled and mispronounced “preemptory”. This confusion is caused by the influence of the verb “preempt”, but as noted, the adjectival form of preempt is actually premptive.



http://www.legaltree.ca/node/516

[kenny blankenship]

7. The 2001-2008 crisis should've resulted in New Deal 2.0

In other words, capitalism had completely discredited itself for the second time in history- to the point where even Alan Greenspan would publicly admit that the capitalist theory of the superiority of self-regulating markets, governed optimally by the enlightened self-interest of market players alone was fundamentally & empirically disproved. The result should have been the reemergence of democratic socialism, commonly called The New Deal.

Instead, by voting for fraudulent "Change" agents, America has just been sucked further up Reagan's cold, dead asshole. Same thing has been going on in Britain.

They were way ahead of us, and probably even knew when the lid would blow off of the eCONomy, to the quarter.

[ladjf]

9. I don't believe that there is a counter revolution eminating from the 1%. Rather, they are

just continuing their ongoing processes of doing everything possible to make themselves richer while impoverishing everone else. nt

[bvar22]

15. Make themselves richer, AND

..put in place mechanisms to protect their wealth in the coming Hard Times
with Police State legislation such as The Patriot Act, and more recently, the NDAA.

A large and hungry peasant class is no threat,
unless they have leaders, and are organized.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Wind Dancer]

35. +1

[Initech]

11. The 1% are destroying themselves by hoarding all the wealth.

I mean if no one has money to buy anything, how are they going to continue to make profits?

[Zalatix]

16. Then they simply starve the poor out of existence. Social Darwinism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Alas this is what revolutions are made off

and I do not mean peaceful either.

[Zalatix]

21. Peasant rebellions usually fail

But not in THIS century.

Tunisia, Egypt and Libya (and the Oktober Revolution, for that matter) are serving as huge wakeup calls. Of course they won't call the Arab Spring peasant revolts, but really, that's what they started out as.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. They are peaceful

But sooner or later we will move into a nasty violent phase. That is my fear.

[Zalatix]

23. Like in Syria, the violence will probably be started by the police gangs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Just an FYI, it wasn't police gangs

but yes.



Over the last ten days I have learned far more about Syria than I ever wanted to know.

[Initech]

32. What makes this different is we now have far more effective means of communication.

Facebook and Twitter didn't exist centuries ago, but they do now and they're getting us organized.

[Zalatix]

34. And guns. This was a big factor in Libya. The peasants shot back.

[AZ Progressive]

24. "if no one has money to buy anything"

That's why they are focused in markets in the rest of the world, like in Brazil, Russia, India, and China, as well as the other 11 emerging countries in terms of international economic prominence, like Turkey, South Korea, Iran, Mexico, Philippines, etc...

Capitalism knows no patriotism.

[Initech]

33. I think it's more vulture capitalism.

Sure everything is outsourced to China and Mexico and India now but when the workers there start getting restless, they'll turn to an even cheaper source of labor - Ecuador? Brazil? Southern Africa? And so on - profiteering is an endless cycle to benefit only the few and proud.

[Dawson Leery]

12. No, they are hoarding and stealing every last cent they can.

[white_wolf]

13. The 1% are overplaying their hand.

They've been overplaying for the past 3 decades in the U.S. and it's going to cause them trouble in the end. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I really think that in a decade from now America will be a very different place. I don't think we'll see the emergence of a socialist state in the Marxist sense, I simply don't think the American people are ready for that yet, capitalism is and will still be seen as a good thing by a lot of Americans. I do think we will see the rise of a very strong social-democratic party that will reform the system greatly and remove a lot of the stigmata the country has about socialism.

[cyglet]

14. Not suprising

it worked very well for them here, so they're moving on to other targets...

[T S Justly]

17. The counter-revolution is often violent, too, as encounters ...

With Occupy by cops would suggest. At least on this side of the pond.

[Quantess]

18. Absolutely!

I also see a last-chance doubling-down of class warfare from the ruling elite.

[deutsey]

19. I think it's a coordinated effort to erase the progressive gains of the 20th century n/t

[snagglepuss]

29. I too think it's coordinated. I think there is probably massive

pressure by China and perhaps India for the West to dramatically reduce the standard of living. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to refer to the global 1% rather than just the 1%, as the 1% suggest the 1% is confined elites within each country.

[deutsey]

31. +1

[knowbody0]

25. and soon they will resort to eating their own

[pepperbear]

26. in other words, becoming American.

[AZ Progressive]

27. Thats why I think that the saying should be "war against the 99%" rather than just "we are the 99%"

[snagglepuss]

30. The war against the 99% is the bottomline, however

what has made the slogan so sucessful is that it doesn't come across as "radical" and therefore threatening to people. Even people who are earning 6 figures, unless delusional, know they are not part of the 1%. The immediate crisis is the growing powers of the global 1%. Anything that isolates them while drawing together everyone else is a good thing.