You should see what the farmers do if there's an attempt to reform the CAP - major riots and they burnt down a town hall the last time.

Violence certainly does not represent the entire working class, but it is rare that you see Wall Street bankers rioting in the street.

> but it is rare that you see Wall Street bankers rioting in the street

That's more about privilege than about class. I'd love to see what Wall Street bankers as a class would come up with if they felt their livelihoods were at risk.

A recession, a bailout, and a capital-making boom while the world recovers, maybe?

Yeah, because if anything hasn't been at risk in the last 5 years, it has been the livelihood of bankers. Oh wait, no, they just jump off buildings.

They riot by calling the White House.

"Too big to fail!" And yet, surprising, not too big to be considered a security threat to the entire United States. My, what lovely clothes you're wearing today, Emperor!

You don't need to riot in the street when you own the street.

"We don't own the street. We are the street."

They commit acts by other means. Why risk your pretty face when you can hire a thug? Why Protest in the street and risk bad publicity, hire someone else to do it. I'm not trying to pass judgment on which is "better" or right/wrong. Simply trying to indicate that different classes have different tools to achieve their aims.

So if you agree the different classes act through different means, then do you disagree that rioting is pretty blue-collar, i.e. proletariat?

Neither do you see the lottery winners rioting.

> it is rare that you see Wall Street bankers rioting in the street.

For the same reason you don't see CEOs snatching purses.