Seldom in recent history has class war been waged so blatantly. Generally, billionaires and hectomillionairesemploy conciergesto attack the poor on their behalf. But now, freed from shame and embarrassment, they no longer hide their involvement. In the US, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, will lead the federal assault on the middle and working classes: seeking to slash public spending and the public protections defending people from predatory capital.He shares responsibility for the Department of Government Efficiency with another billionaire, Vivek Ramaswamy. They have beenrecruitingfurther billionaires to oversee cuts across government. These plutocrats will not be paid. They will wage their class war pro bono, out of the goodness of their hearts.Musk, with a fortune of more than $400bn (£330bn),has warned: “We have to reduce spending to live within our means.” But he doesn’t mean “we”, he means you. Trump and Musk want to cut the federal budget so they can slash taxes for the ultra-rich. This benighted class needs all the help it can get. Since 2020, the wealth of the 12 richest men in the US has risen by amere 193%. Collectively, the poor dears now own only $2tn.Musk’s stated aims may be impossible to realise. When he took the role, he claimed he would cut the$6.75tn in federal spendingby $2tn, which is actually more than the entirediscretionary budget. But the intention is clear: a contraction whose consequences would be devastating for most Americans. Trump’s election was a response to the cruelfailures of neoliberalism, but it will also be their ultimate expression. It was a response to the corruption of the political system by private money. And it will be the system’s ultimate corruption.If Musk’s programme succeeds, we hardly have to imagine its impacts on human life and the living world, because for the past year a similar plan has been enacted in Argentina. There, Javier Milei has beenwaging his class waron behalf of international capital. The results include a horrifyingsurge in poverty; a collapse in the number of people with health insurance, coupled with critical underfunding of thepublic health system; proliferatinghate crimes; a coordinatedassault on scienceandenvironmental protection; and a free-for-all for the foreign corporations hoping to seize the country’s minerals, land and labour.In the US, the motherfrackers will be released to do as they please. Trump’s nominated energy secretary, Chris Wright, runs a fracking services companyand claims:“There is no climate crisis.” Already, banks and corporations are gleefullytearing up their environmental commitments.The massive programme of cuts and deregulation that Musk and Ramaswamy seek extends the sadomasochistic politics now ascendant on both sides of the Atlantic. Demagogues have found that it doesn’t matter how much their followers suffer, as long as their designated enemies are suffering more. If you can keep ramping up the pain for scapegoats (primarily immigrants), voters will thank you for it, regardless of their own pain. This is the great discovery of the conflict entrepreneurs, led by Musk himself: what counts in politics is not how well people are doing, but how well they are doing in relation to designated out-groups.There are plenty of willing executioners. One of the convicted ringleaders of the Southport riots in the UK, which wereencouraged by Elon Musk,was describedafter his sentencing as “a man so consumed with hate and violence that he could find little satisfaction in activities that did not immediately quench his desire for harming others”. Maga fanatics, whipped up by the frenzy of hatred on X and other pro-Trump media, might gain nothing from Trump’s presidency except the satisfaction of inflicting pain. But this small prize is sufficient to ensure their absolute loyalty. It will induce them to commit any atrocity Trump demands.Why has the class war been unleashed now, not just in the US, but in much of the rest of the world? Because the democratising, distributive effects of two world wars have worn off. We fondly imagine that the semi-democratic era (exemplified in rich nations by the years 1945–1975) is the normal state of politics. But it was highly atypical, and made possible only by the wars’ erosion of thepower of the ruling classes. The default state of centralised societies, to which nations are now reverting, is oligarchy.Move fast, break things – sprint to kiss Trump’s ring. It’s the tech bros inauguration derby | Marina HydeRead moreIn the 20th century, we called this reversion fascism. Fascism possessed some grotesque and peculiar features of its own. It used new tools and modes of organisation. But in key respects it represented a revival of the pre-democratic order: a world in which absolute power was vested in kings and emperors and their courts. We canendlessly debatewhether or not Trump and his acolytesare fascists, as if that somehow solves the problem. It is more useful to recognise them as representatives of a much longer tradition, of which fascism was just one iteration. The emperors are back.Because Trump and Musk are such volatile characters, it’s tempting to imagine that their grip on power will be chaotic and contingent. But the billionaire class will move swiftly to consolidate the oligarchy, and will meet almost no resistance. US institutions, the established media and foreign governments are completely unprepared. Despite copious warnings over many years, they know only how to appease oligarchic power, not how to resist it.I startedusing the term “anticipatory compliance”in 2008 to describe the media’s kowtowing to undemocratic forces. The man who coined the phrase, Bruce Dover, explained to me that “an emperor who inspires fear in his followers need not raise a hand against them”. Now, wherever in institutional life we might hope to find resistance, we see obedience, even before Trump has taken power. Almost everyone instinctively accommodates the new dispensation.In nations that have not yet fully succumbed to oligarchy we need to recognise, and recognise fast, that democratic politics do not emerge spontaneously. Our systems achieve a quasi-democratic character only with an active citizenry, whose engagement is largely defined by protest, and an independent media. But, at the directbehest of capital, governments are criminalisingpeaceful protest, while many independent media, such as the BBC,shut out dissenting voices.If governments like the UK’s are to invest in their own survival, they must free their citizens to rebuild democracy, and we must seize every opportunity to do so. There is no demilitarised zone in this class war. We must all decide where we stand.George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
Trump and Musk have launched a new class war. In the UK, we must prepare to defend ourselves | George Monbiot
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Elon Musk and Donald Trump Lead Federal Assault on Middle and Working Classes"
The Guardian
4.9
TruthLens AI Summary
In recent times, the blatant class war waged by billionaires has become increasingly apparent, particularly as figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump lead a federal assault on the middle and working classes in the United States. Musk, who has amassed a fortune exceeding $400 billion, is advocating for significant cuts to federal spending, ostensibly to ensure fiscal responsibility. However, these cuts are aimed at benefiting the ultra-wealthy by slashing taxes and reducing public protections that safeguard the less fortunate from predatory capital. Alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, Musk has been recruiting other billionaires to oversee these government cuts, all while cloaking their actions in a facade of altruism. The proposed budget reductions could have devastating consequences for many Americans, as they would disproportionately affect essential services and public welfare, further entrenching economic inequality. Musk's ambitious plan to cut $2 trillion from a $6.75 trillion federal budget raises questions about its feasibility and the real intentions behind such drastic measures.
The situation mirrors troubling developments occurring in Argentina, where similar austerity measures have resulted in a sharp rise in poverty and a collapse of public health systems. This has led to increased hate crimes and a deregulation of environmental protections, as corporate interests exploit the chaos for their gain. The rise of demagogues like Trump and Musk is seen as a return to a pre-democratic order, reminiscent of historical fascism, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. The article warns that institutions and media in the U.S. are ill-prepared to resist this oligarchic shift, often complying with the demands of the powerful rather than standing against them. As governments like that of the UK navigate this landscape, the call for active citizen engagement and the protection of democratic values becomes paramount. In this class war, the article emphasizes that there is no neutral ground; individuals must determine where they stand and actively participate in defending democracy against encroaching forces of oligarchy.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a critical viewpoint on the actions of billionaires like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, framing their policies as an overt class war against the middle and working classes. It suggests that these wealthy individuals are no longer concealing their intentions to cut public spending and protections, which primarily benefits the ultra-rich. The author, George Monbiot, emphasizes the implications of such actions on society and the economy, particularly drawing parallels with similar policies enacted in other countries, such as Argentina.
Class Warfare Rhetoric
The article portrays Musk and Trump's actions as a direct assault on the working class, suggesting that their proposed budget cuts will disproportionately affect those with lower incomes. The language used evokes a sense of urgency and alarm regarding the potential consequences of these policies, aiming to mobilize public sentiment against the perceived threat from the wealthy elite.
Public Sentiment and Response
By highlighting the drastic increase in wealth among the richest individuals, the article seeks to generate outrage and a sense of injustice among readers. It implies that the current economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthy, encouraging a narrative of resistance among the general public. The intention appears to be to galvanize support for social and economic reforms that protect the interests of the working and middle classes.
Hidden Agendas
While the article is focused on critiquing Musk and Trump, it may also divert attention from other systemic issues within the political and economic landscape. By framing the discussion narrowly around these two figures, there could be an attempt to simplify complex socio-economic dynamics and limit the discourse on broader systemic change.
Manipulative Elements
The article employs emotionally charged language and stark comparisons to evoke fear and indignation. The use of terms like "class war" and "predatory capital" serves to polarize the audience, potentially leading to a manipulation of public opinion. This rhetoric can create an "us vs. them" mentality, which can be a powerful tool in shaping political narratives.
Credibility Assessment
The claims made in the article are bold and provocative, yet they lack comprehensive data to support every assertion. While the discussion about wealth inequality is valid, the extent to which Musk and Trump are responsible for these systemic issues might be overstated. This raises questions regarding the overall reliability of the assertions made.
Comparative Analysis with Other News
In comparison to other news articles addressing economic disparity, this piece stands out for its direct confrontation of specific individuals rather than focusing on broader economic trends or policies. This particular approach can create a narrative that is more accessible to a general audience but may also oversimplify complex issues.
Impact on Society and Economy
If the policies advocated by Musk and Trump were to be implemented, the consequences could be significant, potentially leading to increased poverty levels and reduced public services. Such outcomes could provoke social unrest and a push for more radical reform movements.
Target Audience
The article likely resonates more with progressive audiences who are concerned about wealth inequality and social justice. It seeks to engage those who are already inclined to view billionaires with skepticism, thereby reinforcing existing beliefs.
Market Implications
The rhetoric surrounding cuts to public spending could influence investor sentiment and market stability. Companies that depend on government contracts or public funding might face uncertainty, potentially affecting their stock performance.
Global Context
In the broader context of global economic shifts, this article aligns with ongoing discussions about the role of wealth concentration in modern democracies. The allusion to events in Argentina serves to illustrate the potential real-world effects of such policies, making it relevant to contemporary debates about economic governance.
Potential AI Influence
It's conceivable that AI tools could assist in crafting the narrative or analyzing data trends to bolster the article's claims. However, the emotional and rhetorical style suggests a human touch in the writing, aimed at stirring public sentiment rather than purely presenting data. In conclusion, while the article raises important issues regarding wealth inequality and the actions of powerful individuals, its manipulative language and focus on specific figures may detract from a more nuanced understanding of the systemic problems at play.