Why Don't the Poor Rise Up?

[swilton]

Key to understanding the contemporary phenomenon of increasing income inequality is what sociologists are studying - individualization - the notion of having the luxury of choices - in one case multiple cheap consumer goods - at the expense of solidarity and community.

Instead of boosting prospects for the poor and working class, the agenda associated with individualization works in tandem with rapid technological advance, the internationalization of commerce and the demise of the paternalistic or loyalty-based workplace to exacerbate inequality. This agenda has contributed to an upheaval in traditional family structures. And the well educated and the affluent are better equipped to adapt to such upheaval while the less well off and the less well educated bear the brunt of change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/opinion/why-dont-the-poor-rise-up.html?_r=2

[elehhhhna]

1. religion has typically been a huge pacifying factor

Read Napoleon's reasoning for reintroducing the church in France after his ascension...

But religion is dying. And good riddance.

[jwirr]

6. Religion has little to do with it today. Sunday is the only day we get to sleep in.

[PRB]

9. Ha ha

Me too.

[4dsc]

2. Why don't they vote..

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[jwirr]

7. The ones I know do.

[fasttense]

11. Because of poll taxes and voting machines

Poll taxes were not about charging a large amount of money to be able to vote. It was about figuring out how and to whom you pay the tax. You have to hunt down that small hidden office that will give you a reciept so you can show it at the polling location. That is the exact same affect all these voter ID laws have. You have to find the right place to get the correct ID. You have to do it far enough in advance to meet the arbitrary deadlines. And you have to carefully research to make sure you get the correct one.

Then there are all the little failures in the machines designed to make a skeptic out of intelligent voters. The machines are so full of problems and cheating opportunities that it makes you wonder if it is even worth the effort to vote.

Then there are election day last minute changes like closing down or moving voting locations and fellon lists that are merely methods of getting liberals not to vote. Then there is gerrymandering and caging lists.

Then there is crossover voting designed to prevent valid primaries.

I could go on. None of these scams by themselves would significantly reduce the number of voters. But taken as a whole they significantly impact the number of voters who are poor.

The only way to overcome them is for massive turnout of a motivated electorate. And that is difficult to orchestrate unless you have the possibility of an historical outcome. Like the 1st Black president or the 1st woman president.

[appalachiablue]

3. K & R. Marking-

[Igel]

4. Solidarity?

Also called social trust. A bit different in some ways. Mostly in perspective.

In the OP, sociologists look at government. Before government, it was society where NGOs--by one name or another--provided a common formal framework and shared values and norms provided a social framework.

More rights = more responsibilities, because each right is an obligation which, unless voluntarily given, is accompanied by a resentment. Historically, if there's a lack of social trust the only binding factor is government.

Then government has to go big or social trust leaves a lot of people on their own.

Now, the "wealthy" can handle it. Not mostly because they're wealthy but because they've networked, they have resources when necessary, but most of all they have social resources. People who they went to college with; coworkers in allied fields and friends of friends. If you're poor, you mostly have immediate family; as one writer put it whose work I read recently, if you're in a poor neighborhood you may act like your in solidarity but you know inside that the guy next to you is trying to find an advantage. So you don't trust him. This breaks down quickly and it's hard to re-establish.

The "wealthy" also tend to have better educations and know the system better. So if there's systemic support for them, they can find it and access it. If you're poor, you usually have less education and can't find your way around the system and use it to good advantage.

And yet "STFU" is often the mantra that you hear because, well, we have our rights and you have responsibilities, and if you want a democracy then you have to do what I want--no, what I demand. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016125804

And we wonder where social trust goes. It managed to make it through the '50s and into the '60s. Then ...

[jwirr]

5. If you are poor that is easy to answer. We are too tired and too damn busy trying to make ends

meet even if we had enough money to buy a gun. Pitchforks will not work today - they have tanks. And we are smart enough to know that if we did it first no one else would follow. They would let us stand out there alone. Any more questions?

[840high]

8. Amen.

[nxylas]

10. That Steinbeck quote springs to mind.

You know, the one about temporarily embarrassed millionaires?

[Cal33]

12. "Why don't the Poor Rise UP?" Because the Multinational Corporations have been well prepared for

this -- their moment of triumph that's right around the corner. Their Wall Street is raking in profits
by the trillions at the expense of the rest of the nation, and the 90%-Main-Stream-Media owned
by them keeps much of the general population misinformed and misguided about their dirty and
crooked deals.

Then there is the police dep't which has been militarized from coast to coast. Whose side do
you think they will take, if there should be an "uprising by the people?" Will the police be for the
Multinational Corporations or will they be for the people? For an answer, all we need to do is to
look back to 2011 when a large group of non-violent Occupy Wall Streeters (OWS) sat peacefully
in protest at a park nearby to Manhattan's Wall Street. The police, nevertheless, tear-gassed
them, etc., and they were hauled off to jail -- even though the OWS protesters didn't raise a
finger to threaten the police. That was 4 years ago. OWS is still alive today, but very much
out-of-sight.

I think November, 2016 will be crucial. If Progressive Democrats should win the Presidency
and Congress at that time, the long, slow and difficult process of removing some of the Multinational
Corporate Power will begin. OWS may play its role again. And it will be an uphill battle - all the way.

But if the Multinational Corporations should win in 2016 -- God help us!!