Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

The problems I see with the idea that "It'll become cheaper for the rest in thirty years!" is a) A lot of people die in thirty years. AND b) With automation and AI going the way it is... Well, if you don't start with money to buy a robot workforce, or have enough money to make use of a human workforce until you can upgrade (depending on just how much better a robo-force is, that might not even be feasible, you could be out-competed by the robo-force before you get enough money)... You're not going to get enough money to buy even the cheapest life-extension/robo-body, let alone one competitive enough to drag you out of poverty. In fact, I don't really see how that'd be sustainable in the first place, 70+% of people not having jobs nor even having the potential to GET jobs? And by extension, money. That's a recipe for atrocity.

[Helgoland]

Well yeah, that's why I like Social Democracy so much! My point is that reform is better than revolution, that antagonising the 'class enemy' leads nowhere. It's a difference of methods, not (necessarily) of goals.

scriver: I could do without the name-calling. And unless you want to call Marx and Chomsky right-wingers, you're simply wrong about that terminus.
(As it turns out, the proper English term is 'class conflict' or 'class struggle', with 'class warfare' being a less-used synonym. I directly translated from the German Klassenkampf, which by the way is the term originally used by Marx himself )

[Descan]

I'm wondering what you're trying to say then, Helgo. Because 'class warfare' is the generally used term, with 'class conflict' used less, and 'class struggle' used in different circumstances (Basically only when people are talking about/quoting Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviet Union.)

[Reelya]

It's also more relevant in the USA than in Europe or Australia. In Australia, like Europe, we have heavily subsidized state universities. Whereas in the USA it's self-pay, and extremely expensive to get a degree. Unless you're from a rich family in the USA you're looking at taking out an average of $20000-$30000 of loans per year of study, then you have interest payments on top of that. And because of the amazingly low minimum wage, flipping burgers to pay your way through college isn't viable. You'd have to do 40 hour+ weeks and that wouldn't even cover half the basic tuition. So, an American would work about 80 hours / week to pay your kids school fees. Seriously, I get more on the dole here than a 40 hour/week full time American basic worker, and they pay my tuition for free, too.

The severe costs of education in the USA above bare-bones shitty highschool causes a lot of inequity.

Then, remember that the median wealth per adult in the USA is $44000, or less than two years tuition at a typical college. Basically the life savings of a the average "middle class" American will only pay for two years of college. So for over half the country, they'd have to sell everything they own to put the kids through college, or take out loans which are basically triple the median adult's life savings per child they want to go to college.

On the other end, you have a concentration of the richest people on the planet in the USA. They have shitty average wealth but extreme mega-wealth in a small group. This disparity is FAR greater than Europe, so the Americans have a right to bitch about it.

[Sheb]

Helgo, I do know you, but you still came out as a self-righteous rightwing oppressor with that comment to SalmonGod, jumping on a small part of his argument to try to make him look like the secret son of Stalin and Pol Pot. I know that was not your intention, but that's how it came out.

[Helgoland]

I'm wondering what you're trying to say then, Helgo. Because 'class warfare' is the generally used term, with 'class conflict' used less, and 'class struggle' used in different circumstances (Basically only when people are talking about/quoting Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviet Union.)

I'm trying to use the Marxist term - 'class struggle', I guess - which is not made easier by the American Right's appropriation of the word 'class warfare'.

Using that Marxist term, I want to show SG that his phrasing indicates he's in an antagonistic mindset, and that furthermore this antagonistic mindset has proven itself much less effective at solving the problems he's concerned about than the corresponding non-antagonistic mindset.
This I tried to illustrate by the example of Communism vs Social Democracy, and that was when scriver swooped in and called me an ignoramus.

[Bauglir]

I mean, Helgo, you're not exactly wrong, but you're missing the context in which SalmonGod is making the remark. You're right that an antagonistic mindset is not representative of an ideal world. The thing is, though, what you're advocating is a blind mindset. Public policy around these parts consistently demonstrates an overwhelming distaste for the poor, a belief that they deserve their poverty because they don't work hard enough to get out of it, and a preference for protecting the power and wealth of the people who already have it. Moreover, there's a striking absence of "class warfare" in the reverse direction because poor people often imagine that they will become wealthy, and so they tend to identify with the upper class more than their actual peers and support policies that actually stifle their chances of getting there.

It's all well and good to say that wolf populations shouldn't be hunted down arbitrarily and are important to local ecosystems, but when a wolf is actively chewing my leg off I'm not going to be so strongly concerned with preserving ecological diversity.

EDIT: And it doesn't mean I hate the wolf or think it's evil, either. I just don't want to die.

[SirQuiamus]

That "non-antagonistic mindset" is the pith and marrow of neoliberalist ideology, and the driving force behind the current doctrine of "politics-as-effective-management," regularly accompanied by a refusal to acknowledge the democratic deficit. Taken to the extreme, this mindset promulgates the absurd idea that absolute, universal liberty leads to universal equality, while disregarding the fact that liberty is largely antithetical to equality: If, for example, people are absolutely free to make as much money as they can (and are also provided with the positive freedom to do so), the populace will still be unequally divided into those who actually want to spend their lives grubbing for money, and those who'd rather become artists, farmers, fishermen, or whatever non-lucrative trade they choose. It's absolute freedom all right, but you'd better choose wisely because there's only one right choice in a capitalist society! And if your individual talents are not suitable for money-making, well, that's too bad.
There will always be conflict between opposing world views, but the present ideology is bringing about the "end of antagonism" by making the same variety of commodity fetishism compulsory to everyone, while opportunities to amass wealth are getting slimmer and slimmer for the lower classes. We need genuine political alternatives, and therefore we need more antagonism.     

[SalmonGod]

I've intentionally not participated in the previous discussion because that wouldn't have led anywhere, but here I feel I have to chime in:

Today we have to compete in the workplace against people who had [upper-middle-class stuff].

we [...] against people who had [...].

we

Does anyone else see a big problem here? This is the rhetorics of class warfare, and that's a horrible path to go down ideologically. Salmon, how am I supposed to even talk with you, have a discussion with you if you label me The Enemy? And do you really wish to do politics just for the specific group that's being oppressed in a specific way right now instead of for everyone? It's the collectivist thinking I slammed whatshername for so often, and it leads to revolution instead of reform.
Look at Social Democracy, and look at Communism. Look at their respective ideologies, perspectives, and track record. Think about which ideology your in-group has profited from more. And then think about which of the two aligns more closely with your way of thinking.

I read this just before I left for work, but didn't have time to respond.  On my lunch break now, and don't have time to do more than quickly skim through everything said afterwards.  So take that into account with my response.

I don't understand how I'm supposed to make use of an all-inclusive political rhetoric within the framework of a system designed around competition as its core concept.  At least not without ceding continued economic control to the upper classes at my own expense.  I can't just pretend that these things don't exist.

I admit I don't understand fully what you mean by the ideologies and perspectives of Social Democracy within this context.  My best understanding is the essence is still competitive.  There is still an upper class.  But it's not so far out of reach of the lower class as it is here in the U.S.  There are regulations that keep things from going too far.  And those in the upper class don't make nearly so much fuss about giving back (although one of my favorite quotes from a politically radical businessman is "If you have to give back, you took too much"), in order to keep society livable for everyone.

And what I don't think you're understanding here is that the U.S. is so far removed from that set of social agreements and circumstances, that to suggest matching them is a revolutionary proposition.  If you think my rhetoric is divisive, you should here how a rich person in the U.S. responds if it's suggested to them that they should pay the tax rates even so much as equal to those paid by the middle class.  The situation here is such that it is not going to change without either monumental collective political action or revolutionary conflict.

[Helgoland]

Okay, I think I know what went wrong: I'm not criticizing the content of anything SG said in particular, mostly because I actually agree with a lot of it, at least in principle. But there are several ways of approaching conflicts, and I'm saying that the one SG chose has a comparatively low success rate.

I admit I don't understand fully what you mean by the ideologies and perspectives of Social Democracy within this context.  My best understanding is the essence is still competitive.  There is still an upper class.  But it's not so far out of reach of the lower class as it is here in the U.S.  There are regulations that keep things from going too far.  And those in the upper class don't make nearly so much fuss about giving back (although one of my favorite quotes from a politically radical businessman is "If you have to give back, you took too much"), in order to keep society livable for everyone.

Well yeah, that's what my ideal society looks like - but I was talking more about methods to reach a goal, be it a fully egalitarian society or the exact opposite, or something in between.
Let me try phrasing it as machiavellistically as possible:
If you're trying to reach a political goal, you have two options: Either gather enough force to sweep aside any resistance, or gather enough allies, support, mutual understanding to reach a workable compromise.
The first one seems better, right? You don't need to compromise, you get all you want and not just half or three quarters, you can free yourself of previous societal and political limitations, you don't have to listen to special interests groups... And all you need to do is get enough support in the first place. That may be hard, but it's worth it, right?
That would be true if the decision-making process happened only once. That's why this is a wise choice in an outright revolution, such as the 1917 one: You grab power once, and then you run with it.
In democratic systems however (and I don't think anyone here seriously wants to violently overturn them) the decision-making process happens again and again and again. Sure, you can ram through one thing, but you'll antagonise such a load of people and scare even those who supported you: You'll be able to ram through a second and third thing as well, but ultimately you're bound to fail.
This is why you need to adopt a less confrontational stance: Always make it easy for your adversary to give in. Always make him think he's won, that you didn't fully get what you wanted. Don't insist on 100% all at once, but aim for 70% and then birng up the issue again at some later point. Always make sure that what you did doesn't hurt your adversary too much: Always make fighting you the worse choice for him. Embrace salami tactics instead of blitzkrieg ones.

And that's what the Social Democrats did: They didn't insist on violent revolution, they were content - at least for a time - with better wages, better working conditions, better political participations for the workers. And look where they got Western Europe! And look what FDR did for the US! Giving up two birds in the bush got them one bird in the hand. And then another one. And then another one... It allowed them to build bigger coalitions, to be accepted by people they needed as allies. In the end they achieved much more than their Communist sister movement.
Setting up a certain group of people as 'the enemy' is going to push many other groups you'll want on your side away from you. I understand that the current state of the Republican Party makes inclusive politics much harder, but maybe that's the key to breaking their strength: Eating away at their base. By emphasizing how the bible and ecological preservation can go hand in hand, by pointing out how big businesses, when not kept in check, destroy the very communities that Republicans pretend to protect... By making it easy for people to join you without radically breaking with their previous political beliefs. By reducing or eliminating the mental difficulties with switching political allegiance. By giving up some ideological purity for a lot of tangible political gain.

[Bauglir]

That hardly seems incompatible with merely recognizing that there is a cognizable division (which seems to be what triggered this whole discussion) and that the current state of affairs is a disturbingly one-sided antagonism.

EDIT: I'll happily distract the metaphorical wolf with a tasty steak instead of bullets, but all anybody seems to be doing is recognizing that the animal is there and its hunger is kind of a problem.

[Helgoland]

Sure, no argument there - the question is whether shooting the wolf is a wise option if there's a whole pack of smaller wolves nearby. Again, I don't dispute the analysis of current American society, and neither the desirable goals, at least in broad strokes: I'm only questioning whether the antagonizing path is likely to lead to desirable results.

[Bauglir]

How antagonistic is merely recognizing the distinction? That's what seemed to set this whole chain of reasoning off.

[SalmonGod]

This is why you need to adopt a less confrontational stance: Always make it easy for your adversary to give in. Always make him think he's won, that you didn't fully get what you wanted. Don't insist on 100% all at once, but aim for 70% and then birng up the issue again at some later point. Always make sure that what you did doesn't hurt your adversary too much: Always make fighting you the worse choice for him. Embrace salami tactics instead of blitzkrieg ones.

You just perfectly described how I've survived my marriage

In other words, I really do understand what you're describing.  Applying this to widespread political action is pretty difficult, though.  Especially given cultural attitudes that are prevalent in the U.S..  There is a lot of difficulty there that I'm not going to get into full detail on at the moment.

I'm also not sure I completely agree with your account of the rise of Social Democracy in Europe.  From the outside looking in, Europe looks to me like they're much, much more class conscious than the U.S..  I constantly see European examples brought up as models of collective action.  European workers are also much more likely to collectively negotiate than us in the U.S.. 

Not only are unions and strike actions demonized here by the wealthy and working class alike, but we have a very deep and disturbing history of shutting those things down with violence.  Anti-union organizations hired by employers to infiltrate, threaten, and murder unions and striking workers were a huge part of the 1870-1940 industrial era, and they never really went away in this country so much as they merged with and evolved into our modern law enforcement.  Even during Occupy only 4 years ago, individuals and businesses on Wall St made huge donations to the NYPD and covered legal expenses for the city, while they violently and often flagrantly illegally oppressed the protests.  Labor struggle in the U.S. is characterized by lots and lots of workers peacefully offering themselves up for murder until everyone gets tired of it and agrees to improve things little by little.  Eventually we got the New Deal, but did it last?  Labor rights and wages have been in decline here for roughly 40 years now, and attitudes towards the working class are once again resembling the gilded age.

Then I look at European history and more contemporary attitudes, and I see a much more confrontational attitude from workers during the industrial era (Spanish Civil War?), leading into much stronger proclivity for collective action and class consciousness in the modern era, coinciding with more respect for workers by the upper class.  So I'm just not sure I can agree with you.  You know I'm not a Communist (we've been over that), but there's just no precedent in America for wealth and power giving itself up on the basis of enlightened mutual interest.

I think the thing a lot of people are missing is the fact that the advancements that take place in the 1% don't just stay there. Back in the 50's and 60's the only people who had cell phones were the extraordinarily rich and those who were on special government payrolls (like spies). 20 years later they spread to the point that many members of the middle class had them, and now, 60 years later, we're just about at the point where everyone, even our bottom 10%, are beginning to carry around a cell phone with them everywhere they go. I see no reason why developments in the fields that transhumanism contains would preclude that from happening.

I want to believe this, and it may turn out to be true... but I don't think it can be taken for granted.  Private jets have been around longer than cell phones, but those haven't made their way to the middle class yet.  Not everything works out that way. 

[Kearn]

I want to believe this, and it may turn out to be true... but I don't think it can be taken for granted.  Private jets have been around longer than cell phones, but those haven't made their way to the middle class yet.  Not everything works out that way.

probably because 100 million jets would be an impractical nightmare for a number of reasons