|
asdf32 posted:2) The type of class solidarity the rich are supposedly engaging in is near impossible because it requires the sacrifice of (perhaps short term) selfish interests. This is unlikely on a wide scale. That's the key issue as I see it, yes, humans are inherently greedy and selfish and given the chance will take what they can for themselves and drat the rest, and so the lifeboat situation persists. Just look at Russia: while the revolution was flawed, in the long term it would have greatly improved living conditions across the board in conjunction with the destruction of the wealth class. Instead, Stalin and his cohorts saw an opportunity to seize unimaginable power and wealth for themselves and were able to do so thanks to the power vacuum left by the destruction of the nobility, and thus we saw the genocidal nightmare of the USSR followed by the oligarchy ruled hell that is modern Russia. While this self-serving mentality is also present in the wealthy it never (or only very rarely) manifests itself in a way which would present widespread risk to the upper class. While someone from a lower class can sacrifice a progressive movement in return for personal gain and elevation to the upper class, a member of the upper class would derive no benefit from similarly sabotaging something which benefits their class as a whole. The vested interest of the wealthy is maintaining their status quo, whereas the vested interest of the poor (especially in the extreme example of north american "everyone is a millionaire in waiting" mentality) is to replace the currently wealthy with themselves.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Rime posted:That's the key issue as I see it, yes, humans are inherently greedy and selfish and given the chance will take what they can for themselves and drat the rest, and so the lifeboat situation persists. Just look at Russia: while the revolution was flawed, in the long term it would have greatly improved living conditions across the board in conjunction with the destruction of the wealth class. Instead, Stalin and his cohorts saw an opportunity to seize unimaginable power and wealth for themselves and were able to do so thanks to the power vacuum left by the destruction of the nobility, and thus we saw the genocidal nightmare of the USSR followed by the oligarchy ruled hell that is modern Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I have a hard time taking this as a serious comment. You could call almost any evangelical Christian that votes against their own interests due to a political stance on a religious issue like prayer or abortion or whatever they want to use their religion to justify. Or have you seen those guys with the "keep your government hands off my Medicare"? Agency is important, I get that, but the entire point of what I was talking about regarding capitalism was that money can be used to fool people into voting one way while the actual policy is another. There is no doubt there is a lot of noise in the signal of democracy, and religion is a great example of ideological based decision making. But I'd really caution you against a simple true versus false narrative or elite versus everyone else narrative. Religion itself is a great example of the complexity of the media and ideological landscape. Religion may often align itself to the right, but it's hard to argue that it's their tool. And whose driving the loony, anti-GMI, anti-vac, anti-nuclear left - how does that fit the ideological goals of any elite? I don't think the media reality neatly fits this narrative at all. Mornacale posted:You seem to be disregarding the fact that the poor operate under a level of systemic oppression that works against them 1) achieving class consciousness, 2) organizing together to work in their collective interests, and 3) actually achieving their interests. As I cautioned earlier, this gets somewhat circular. My question was why the rich are better than the poor at class solidarity. Your answer is that the rich are more powerful. When I ask why the rich are more powerful, one answer is class solidarity. There were 7 parties with enough ballot access to win the last presidential election. No it wouldn't actually happen immediately, or in one election. But sustained political action in our current system could, theoretically produce rapid changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Do you believe that's an accurate summary of Russian history, given the increases in literacy, life expectancy, women's rights, university education, infrastructure, winning WWII and the space race? It was all of those things you charge at various times but that is a very dark (and simple) picture you paint. Other countries achieved these without the scale of genocides (The Holodomor, for example) and forced labor seen under Stalin. Russia could have as well, with time, and would probably be a far less post-collapse-esque region today, were it not for the greed and avarice of a very small group who seized power at the expense of the greater good for everyone else. In the long run, the sabotaging of the revoltion by Stalin and his cohorts has simply put Russia squarely back in the same place it was under the Romanovs and their ilk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Rime posted:That's the key issue as I see it, yes, humans are inherently greedy and selfish and given the chance will take what they can for themselves and drat the rest, and so the lifeboat situation persists. Just look at Russia: while the revolution was flawed, in the long term it would have greatly improved living conditions across the board in conjunction with the destruction of the wealth class. Instead, Stalin and his cohorts saw an opportunity to seize unimaginable power and wealth for themselves and were able to do so thanks to the power vacuum left by the destruction of the nobility, and thus we saw the genocidal nightmare of the USSR followed by the oligarchy ruled hell that is modern Russia. If Soros and Buffet were pouring billions into class conscious lobbying then why should you, Koch, bother? You can benefit from their spending without raising a finger. Or, more generally, there is typically a better return to lobby for/pursue something that benefits you than something that benefits everyone. Buffet is nearly always going to get better returns lobbying for beneficial railroad regulations for his latest big acquisition than spending his personal money lobbying for things that benefit his entire class - lots of people. And the same applies to corporate competition. It's a tragedy of the commons and it's certainly applicable to the rich. And the greedier you think the rich are, the less likely they are to sacrifice short term personal gains for class wide benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Rime posted:Russia could have as well, with time, and would probably be a far less post-collapse-esque region today, were it not for the greed and avarice of a very small group who seized power at the expense of the greater good for everyone else. Yeah gently caress Yeltsin 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
There is a whole thread and consensus on why asdf32 and his friends are wrong.
Pohl fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Mashed taters and pork chops are an amazing dinner.
Pohl fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There is no doubt there is a lot of noise in the signal of democracy, and religion is a great example of ideological based decision making. But I'd really caution you against a simple true versus false narrative or elite versus everyone else narrative. Actually, honest question, regardless of your opinion on the anti-GMO, anti-vax, anti-nuclear left, when is the last time you saw a major media or political stance on any of these issues? Framing matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Actually, honest question, regardless of your opinion on the anti-GMO, anti-vax, anti-nuclear left, when is the last time you saw a major media or political stance on any of these issues? I havn't. I don't think there has been. To whatever extent there has, I don't see who it serves and don't think it serves the right or the elite. My point by bringing up those issues is the general complexity of the landscape here where stances such as these crop up independent of any larger narrative or goals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:As I cautioned earlier, this gets somewhat circular. My question was why the rich are better than the poor at class solidarity. Your answer is that the rich are more powerful. When I ask why the rich are more powerful, one answer is class solidarity. There's no need for a formal conspiracy. They go to the same schools, are raised in the same environments, and deal with the same banks. The wealthy and aristocracy would always have greater solidarity than the poor, simply because their interests revolve around retaining their wealth and power vs. the perpetual crisis the poor face on a daily basis. It's hard to engage a society that struggles through poverty. What's most particular to the United States is that we set pay walls on basic things such as access to healthcare and higher education, which makes it even harder to energize a populace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:There's no need for a formal conspiracy. They go to the same schools, are raised in the same environments, and deal with the same banks. He's asking where the disparity originates from. The answer is intelligence, ruthlessness, luck. Humans are clearly very adept at capitalizing on minor gains over a long period of time. Look how we took over the world!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I havn't. I don't think there has been. To whatever extent there has, I don't see who it serves and don't think it serves the right or the elite. No one is better, gently caress you. Clinton or Bush in 2016?!?! Are you excited? Pohl fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:He's asking where the disparity originates from. The answer is intelligence, ruthlessness, luck. Humans are clearly very adept at capitalizing on minor gains over a long period of time. Look how we took over the world! The disparity comes from people trying to keep the disparity. It gets to the point where the mob reaches the tipping point of their tolerance, and then the upper echelon get overthrown. Capitalist economies are no less susceptible to getting violent revolutions than feudalism or dictatorships. The only reason that we haven't is that we have this thing that everyone claims exist but doesn't: The middle class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:The disparity comes from people trying to keep the disparity. It gets to the point where the mob reaches the tipping point of their tolerance, and then the upper echelon get overthrown. Capitalist economies are no less susceptible to getting violent revolutions than feudalism or dictatorships. If Zizez wasn't joking I'm going to be too depressed not to post for 50 hours straight. Bah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
I don't doubt any previous disparity explanations, but what about just the idea of number of people? It's a lot easier to get enough people out of 3 million people behaving in a relatively similar way than it is to get enough people out of 290-ish million, especially when that 3 million has access to more resources on a per-person basis than the 290-ish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:I don't doubt any previous disparity explanations, but what about just the idea of number of people? It's a lot easier to get enough people out of 3 million people behaving in a relatively similar way than it is to get enough people out of 290-ish million, especially when that 3 million has access to more resources on a per-person basis than FTFY
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I havn't. I don't think there has been. To whatever extent there has, I don't see who it serves and don't think it serves the right or the elite. Now you are just trolling. Edit: This is what it looks like when the poor infect your life. I wonder if people will join me? Pohl fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:The disparity comes from people trying to keep the disparity. It gets to the point where the mob reaches the tipping point of their tolerance, and then the upper echelon get overthrown. Capitalist economies are no less susceptible to getting violent revolutions than feudalism or dictatorships. I'm not sure what your point is here. Clearly, some humans are more adept at amassing wealth/power than others (via ability, luck, etc.). Technology allows people to extend their power to an area greater than themselves. If we never gained technology beyond hunting/gathering, there would be no elite, no exploitation, no capitalism, etc. And that's it, our technology advanced faster than we evolved. So peoples' brains still tell them that hierarchy is good, that strongmen are good, that we need "leaders," etc. Our brains are still stuck in the savannah. Edit: A caveat -- people also naturally dislike inequality, due to the primitive communism of our prehistoric selves. So there is the tension: dislike of inequality vs. submission to authority. Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
NM Pohl fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Do you believe that's an accurate summary of Russian history, given the increases in literacy, life expectancy, women's rights, university education, infrastructure, winning WWII and the space race? It was all of those things you charge at various times but that is a very dark (and simple) picture you paint. I'm not sure women's rights in the USSR is an example you want to cite...
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Is capitalism anti humanism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not sure women's rights in the USSR is an example you want to cite... Compared to the Tsarist era, sure. It was off to a great start at the beginning, opening of universities to women, ending polygamy in the Caucasus and Central Asia, making women full participants in Soviets and creating networks for the sharing of childcare and domestic labor so they could have careers and educations. Stalin ruined that part of course. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Majorian may be right or wrong , but the US is also behind a lot of counties in a lot of areas. If Capitalism and America are so great, why is America failing in so many important areas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Majorian may be right or wrong , but the US is also behind a lot of counties in a lot of areas. You realize every country which is "beating" America is capitalist right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Do you believe that's an accurate summary of Russian history, given the increases in literacy, life expectancy, women's rights, university education, infrastructure, winning WWII and the space race? It was all of those things you charge at various times but that is a very dark (and simple) picture you paint. Tsarist Russia in 1914 was a rapidly industrializing society which averaged annual growth approaching double digits before WWI happened. In all most of those things (barring maybe the militarization required to win WW2 because history would be so radically different without Oct.1917 that WW2 might not happen)was probably going to occur without Communism. But this isn't even all that relevant, historically Communism was a force for modernization and westernization in the developing world and was an alright choice for doing so. But once you hit a certain level of development/industrialization the system just wasn't that great anymore. Typo fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Didn't you and Ardennes already discuss the flaws with that little counterfactual or was it someone else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Didn't you and Ardennes already discuss the flaws with that little counterfactual or was it someone else? I have no clue but I honestly think it's not even all that relevant to the OP's topic at hand because nobody (even ITT) seriously wants to build Soviet America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:I'm not sure what your point is here. Clearly, some humans are more adept at amassing wealth/power than others (via ability, luck, etc.). Technology allows people to extend their power to an area greater than themselves. There's no need for merit. I'm saying that there doesn't need to be a justification for the upper class to act against the rest of society other than the risk losing their status as the upper class. It's nothing unique to capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Let's take the example of Occupy Wall Street to see these forces in action. First, of course, you are raised from birth with propaganda via education, the media, and prevailing societal mores to adopt a pro-rich ideology. Next, when some group does gain consciousness of their situation, they are immediately vilified as "lazy whiners" and met with derision for not having a grand unified plan. Finally, militarized police are used to assault the protests and drive them back out of the public sphere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Typo posted:Well, actually OWS failed because its members are unwilling to take part in the political process in any meaningful way and failed to present an even somewhat unified political platform because its own members would probably tear each other to pieces given the chance. It's rather like the left during the Spanish Civil War. Yes, those are some of the memes that I just mentioned sprang up to support the aristocracy in the face of protest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Yes, those are some of the memes that I just mentioned sprang up to support the aristocracy in the face of protest. That doesn't make them not true
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Typo posted:That doesn't make them not true The whole point of this thread is that the American political process exists to serve the interests of the aristocracy, basically Occupy existed because the underclasses can't participate in a "meaningful way". Do you think that Occupy would have fared better if every single person who attended any protest signed on to a petition reading "expropriate all capital from private ownership" or even something as milquetoast as "actually prosecute the criminals that destroyed the world's economy, caused famines, etc"? What about "we want to create a community center for people in poverty"? This is my point. Part of the reason that there is no unified class-conscious movement among the working class is because entrenched interests work to delegitimize them before they can accomplish anything. Hell, just look at the history of labor in America and you'll see the same poo poo: try to prevent them from organizing in the first place, vilify them if they so much as think about striking, and then send in the Pinkertons. And now we've gotten so used to it that even the idea of striking, or boycotting, or unions in general are being run into the ground on a routine basis. People can recognize that their situation sucks very easily, but if you teach them that there is no alternative or that they can never achieve any alternative, then you can still oppress them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
People too often use "capitalism" as a synonym for "modern society." Capitalism is the exploitation of labor power. It has many consequences for society as a result, but that core concept is what it is. And of course capitalism is antidemocratic. The worker has no say in the operation of the business, with only the smallest wiggle room.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:The whole point of this thread is that the American political process exists to serve the interests of the aristocracy, basically Occupy existed because the underclasses can't participate in a "meaningful way". Do you think that Occupy would have fared better if every single person who attended any protest signed on to a petition reading "expropriate all capital from private ownership" or even something as milquetoast as "actually prosecute the criminals that destroyed the world's economy, caused famines, etc"? What about "we want to create a community center for people in poverty"? You might for instance, try to do the tea party thing of busing people to party primaries and political murder people not far enough to the left for you. Primaries are small enough that a determine effort by a relatively small number of people could make a real actual difference at a local level. But as far as I know OWS never even tried this. Typo fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Typo posted:No, first of all, petitions are useless. The first goal you named is completely and utterly alien to most people in America (and probably in the movement too) and would fail fine without the upper class oppressing you or w/e, the second point is incredibly vague but might actually work as the basis for a political platform but nobody took up on that, the last one is something which is concrete enough, but you are better off trying to achieve it through means other than protests. So just to be clear you concede that OWS did not fail because of a lack of a "unified political platform" but rather because its methods did not suit the prevailing power structure in the United States? Do you think that the Tea Party would be able to succeed at anything if it wasn't created and financed for the express purpose of furthering the ideological aims of the rich? Can you fill in, for instance, Fox News:Tea Party::_____:Occupy in this hypothetical world where they just "politically murder" Democrats who aren't left-wing enough? Do you believe that an armed militia on the streets of Oakland would have been handled the same way as the lunatics swarming around Nevada right now, by either the media or the government, especially if someone in charge said something as stupid as Bundy's comments on race? (e: I agree that petitions are useless, by the way, the point was having everyone sign on to support one goal. Which, it should be noted, is a higher standard than anyone holds any other movement to, most especially the drat Tea Party.) Mornacale fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:So just to be clear you concede that OWS did not fail because of a lack of a "unified political platform" but rather because its methods did not suit the prevailing power structure in the United States? quote:Do you think that the Tea Party would be able to succeed at anything if it wasn't created and financed for the express purpose of furthering the ideological aims of the rich? Can you fill in, for instance, Fox News:Tea Party::_____:Occupy in this hypothetical world where they just "politically murder" Democrats who aren't left-wing enough? Do you believe that an armed militia on the streets of Oakland would have been handled the same way as the lunatics swarming around Nevada right now, by either the media or the government, especially if someone in charge said something as stupid as Bundy's comments on race? I mean, I guess I can't prove that the left-wing version of the tea party won't get oppressed by the bourgeois or w/e, and you can spend all day on the internet convincing yourselves that "overthrowing the system" is the only way. But the point is that you guys aren't even trying to use the tactics which worked for the other side, and of which is order of magnitude easier to do than fomenting the revolution or w/e. If you guys actually win a primary or two and then the rich stole the election from you then you'd have a point, but as things stand you guys just look like you don't want to do it because it takes more time/work and isn't as fun as protesting. quote:(e: I agree that petitions are useless, by the way, the point was having everyone sign on to support one goal. Which, it should be noted, is a higher standard than anyone holds any other movement to, most especially the drat Tea Party.) But you definitely need to get to the point where people everywhere can say "OWS wants to reinstate glass-steagall" as a real achievable goal as oppose to something vague about economic injustice. Typo fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Typo posted:The tea party actually emerged as a social conservative group explicitly pissed off about the financial bailout. Which means that they were against the interest of the Republican business wing. They took off because they were able to work within the system to achieve the political results they desire. Surely you aren't that credulous. "We're regular folks, and we're mad! Mad about capital gains!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:People too often use "capitalism" as a synonym for "modern society." Well, but the reason why this is the case is because throughout most of the Cold War, "capitalist countries" meant "countries with market economies," since Communist countries were assumed to have command economies. That may be an oversimplification of what actually constitutes "capitalism," but most people in the US, at least, still consider "capitalism" to mean "not Communism."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Typo posted:No, and I have no idea how you got this impression. A unified political platform which presents a vision politically acceptable to the people of the US in general (and yes, this means you need to ditch that poo poo about abolishing private capital) have a much better chance of leaving a lasting effect on the US political system. You admitted that even if OWS did have one unified political platform, even something as simple as building a community center, it would not have been successful. So therefore the criticism that it didn't is a canard. And, I mean, in this thread we are discussing whether or not capitalism is anti-democratic. So yeah of course if you use a pro-capital political process to push a pro-capital agenda, then you don't get hosed over, it's a question of what happens if popular opinion starts to swing against capital. And your rhetoric continues to be a good example of the way that propaganda is invariably deployed to delegitimize working-class movements, hence why there is a larger hump to get over than "just convince the majority of people to understand their class interest." Of course, it is obvious that the majority of Americans do not possess class consciousness, hence why it would have been pointless indeed to try to offer a serious goal like blowing up capitalism. But even if the majority did nominally support such a goal, the same tactics that are now used to try to marginalize their ideas would be used to keep people from joining the movement and actually making changes. quote:The tea party actually emerged as a social conservative group explicitly pissed off about the financial bailout. Which means that they were against the interest of the Republican business wing. They took off because they were able to work within the system to achieve the political results they desire. If you think of the Tea Party as primarily a movement opposed to Wall Street then I'm not sure we can find common ground. Besides which, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the strategy of political movements, just to illustrate that different levels of class consciousness are not by themselves sufficient to explain a disparity in political power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 08:39
|
|