Are we demonizing the rich or are just critical of them and the system they created?

[Slimboy Fat]

I'll take a good faith stab at this, then.

In plain English: Every overthrow of the aristocracy (or equivalent class) comes from the people just below the aristocracy with the aid of people at the bottom, who by nature of their class are simultaneously the most populous and the least prosperous and have only to gain from overturning the established order. Once overthrown, whoever was next in line, in terms of capital, establishes themselves as the new aristocracy. The nature of the overthrow involves "enlightening" the proletariat, usually in the form of increased industry, education, and technological potential. However, this shift also sends more people into the proletariat. The cycle continues gradually leading to the creation of two pen-ultimate classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Once this final revolution destroys the final class relation, class antagonism is dissolved.

This is Marx's "dialetical materialism" in a nut shell.

Click to shrink...

Indeed, although Marx got it wrong by basing his analysis on Locke's labor theory of property leading him to base his dialectic on capital stock rather than power. Further it is not "the people just below the aristocracy", this is another one of Marx's blind spots, the inability to clearly see central power or "The Minotaur" as Jouvenel put it. The true dialectic is the "High" of society allying with the "low" to destroy the "middle" imo. That is central power outmaneuvers competing power centers (the church, states in the US, anything between the "high" and the "low" subjects) by as you say arming the marginalized under the purview of the latter. It might seem like the bourgeoisie is perpetuating their own destruction at the hands of the "low" but in reality these "foot soldiers" are always directed at the enemy of central power. And should they become a threat this dialectic will simply be re-targeted at the new "middle" the proletariat of yesterday so to speak, a good example in contemporary America would be the white working class.

 

[samoyed]

There are people in the capitalist class who are not loyal to their class and throw in their lot with the working class, or they support the working class to further their own personal interests. I can't call any modern names to mind off the top of my head but for a historical example, the Union in the Civil War benefited from the support of the Northern industrial wealth who were politically opposed to the slave owning South.

There are also people in the working class who become capitalists through effort or fortune (or both) and abandon the interests of their origin class. Most social climbers fall into this, especially today in the tech industry.

There are social climbers who don't abandon their origin, Ocasio-Cortez is a clear example here, as after becoming an elected politician she could've done what nearly all elected politicians do which is enrich themselves.

There are working class people who believe in the capitalist class' right to rule and support them even in opposition to their own interests. This describes pretty much all Trump voters.

How does those of you that are supportive of a "progressive" agenda and simultaneously antagonistic towards our (capitalist) elite reconcile your beliefs with the fact that almost all emancipatory movements in history have had institutional support/security, funding or both from said elites?

Click to shrink...

Which is ultimately to say, "whatever is necessary to achieve justice".

Also:

There are no reactionary capitalists, why?

Click to shrink...

This is a really weird thing to say. What do you think the Koch brothers have dedicated their lives and indutries to doing? Rupert Murdoch? The vast majority of deregulation efforts comes from the capitalist class and qualify as "reactionaries".

 

[Old_King_Coal]

How exactly are you going to liquidate and extract Bill Gates wealth? It's mostly in Stocks. Transferring ownership of stocks isn't going to net any capital, you would have to liquidate it. Repeat this process for all the rich and you will just crash the market since there isn't enough liquid cash to buy up all equity at the market rate. Also, who is buying it and why would they under this system?

I also don't see how this incentivizes any entrepreneurship since your earnings are ultimately confiscating inversely proportional to the level of your success.

Click to shrink...

You seem to misunderstand. No one is buying the equity. The government is just seizing it and then giving equally to the population for free.

As for entrepreneurship, course there's still an incentive. If you create a successful new coop with your fellow workers and it generates great profits on the market, then you all get to share those profits.

Edit: or if you meant the banks have no incentive to loan, they would do it according to social needs, not based on profit motive.

 

[Hogger]

No policies impact the ultra-wealthy exclusively. They hit the $200k households that bust their ass and are trying to raise a family just like everyone below them on the wealth curve.

 

[samoyed]

That is central power outmaneuvers competing power centers (the church, states in the US, anything between the "high" and the "low" subjects) by as you say arming the marginalized under the purview of the latter. It might seem like the bourgeoisie is perpetuating their own destruction at the hands of the "low" but in reality these "foot soldiers" are always directed at the enemy of central power.

Click to shrink...

It comes down to whether you think this cycle will continue in perpetuity. In my estimation, no, it won't. Whether via internal forces (technology, demographics), or external ones (climate change, resource shortage), it trends towards equilibrium. Now, that's not to say that I believe the working class' victory is inevitable, but that either the working class will win once and for all or the capitalist class will win once and for all.

No policies impact the ultra-wealthy exclusively. They hit the $200k households that bust their ass and are trying to raise a family just like everyone below them on the wealth curve.

Click to shrink...

This is a failure of policymaking. A wealth tax of 2% annually for people worth $1 billion or more (adjusted for inflation) would easily sidestep your concern, unless you believe that it's possible to be worth $1billion and still be a "$200k household that bust their ass".

 

[Yasuke]

Then I think you and anyone else is rich if you make $16k or more if we're not going to factor in the nuance of things like cost of living.



How are we supposed to define what rich means if we keep changing the definition though? I think we'd be better off if we could define what rich means and actually stick to that definition rather than changing it and then everyone comes at it from a different definition hence we got that whole thread about debating who was and wasn't rich. I'm not being dense but pointing out we loosely use this word and as a result it loses its meaning to the point where being rich is anyone who makes more than I do.

Click to shrink...

If you're making six figures, you're making more than about 95% of the population. The ridiculous cost of living of certain places aside, that qualifies as rich.

It doesn't really matter though, because again, you're the only one here confused about which level of wealthy anyone is talking about in here.

I know you like Batman, but you're probably not gonna become rich enough to be Bruce Wayne, chief. You can quit heading the defense force.

 

[Cascadero]

No policies impact the ultra-wealthy exclusively. They hit the $200k households that bust their ass and are trying to raise a family just like everyone below them on the wealth curve.

Click to shrink...

While I am not a big proponent of excessive taxation, this does not seem true to me. It is certainly feasible to create tax policies where taxation of rich people is increased without immediately hurting middle class. It's a myth created by certain political parties that surprise surprise then to be very pro business / wealthy people.

 

[Mona]

No policies impact the ultra-wealthy exclusively. They hit the $200k households that bust their ass and are trying to raise a family just like everyone below them on the wealth curve.

Click to shrink...

marginal tax rates, how do they work

 

[Darknight]

If you're making six figures, you're making more than about 95% of the population. The ridiculous cost of living of certain places aside, that qualifies as rich.

Click to shrink...

If you make $16k, you're making more than 90% of the population. That makes you rich right?

Again, I'm not confused. I'm only coming down on how we throw around the word rich so it loses its meaning.

 

[Orayn]

No policies impact the ultra-wealthy exclusively. They hit the $200k households that bust their ass and are trying to raise a family just like everyone below them on the wealth curve.

Click to shrink...

How about increasing the top marginal tax rate that literally only applies to people making $10M or more? How does that affect the McMansion owning $200k households you're so concerned about?

 

[Slimboy Fat]

I'm not following your argument here. Having allies in the capitalist class doesn't mean we don't also have enemies in the capitalist class. It's also possible to share some ideals with people while also being concerned that their other ideas or actions may be harmful.

We recognize that having a police force is necessary, and we share with them the same general idea that just laws should be enforced. That doesn't mean we don't or should not decry them or attempt to limit their power when they attempt to overstep it or rig the system for their own benefit, though.

Also, there are reactionary capitalists, I'm not sure what you're on about there.

Click to shrink...

Ok sry if I came off as confusing, let's back up. LabouredSubterfuge said that the capitalists support emancipation for their own gain (true) and only for that reason (false but whatever) and then he (?) essentially said that what he cares about is morality. The problem is that the morals he cares about came about through a discourse funded by capitalists and sanctioned by the elite so where is his agency in all this?

You pointed out that there is a space for disagreement (Overton window) among sanctioned moral agents (media, academia, whoever sets the moral discourse at any given moment) but this "free speech zone" has limits set by the elite and is historically contingent so it's not a damning objection at all.

This begs the question: what revolutionary or subversive agency can you guys claim if your moral objectives are provided by the same elites you ostensibly oppose and any discourse that doesn't have patronage gets shut down? This includes the "progressive" agenda of yesterday for example the idea expressed by the slogan "kill the savage, save the man" (assimilate american indians rather than wage war against them) wouldn't fly today but were all the rage among progressives a century ago.

 

[Yasuke]

If you make $16k, you're making more than 90% of the population. That makes you rich right?

Again, I'm not confused. I'm only coming down on how we throw around the word rich so it loses its meaning.

Click to shrink...

Nobody here has lost touch with the meaning of the word rich.

No one but you.

 

[Renna Hazel]

How about increasing the top marginal tax rate that literally only applies to people making $10M or more? How does that affect the McMansion owning $200k households you're so concerned about?

Click to shrink...

It's a good start but most billionaires wouldn't pay any extra under this tax. Personally I think they should start taxing luxury items such as vacation homes worth more than a certain amount, private jets, yachts, etc. Instead those are actually write offs and lower the amount you pay. This shouldn't effect most people making 200k a year.

 

[Deepwater]

If you make $16k, you're making more than 90% of the population. That makes you rich right?

Again, I'm not confused. I'm only coming down on how we throw around the word rich so it loses its meaning.

Click to shrink...

90% Of the worlds population? Of America? The median adult income is like $34k in the US.

 

[Dennis8K]

"Demonize" what the hell?

The rich never had it so good. At least in the past they had to worry about the peasants rebelling. Not anymore. They assumed full and complete control of the narrative.

 

[samoyed]

This begs the question: what revolutionary or subversive agency can you guys claim if your moral objectives are provided by the same elites you ostensibly oppose and any discourse that doesn't have patronage gets shut down? This includes the "progressive" agenda of yesterday for example the idea expressed by the slogan "kill the savage, save the man" (assimilate american indians rather than wage war against them) wouldn't fly today but were all the rage among progressives a century ago.

Click to shrink...

This seems like a claim of "moral objectivity".

We are all, to some extent, products of our environment and our notion of justice comes from the conflicts that are most salient to us as observers of the world. If you're arguing that, because none of us are truly free from this soft-determinism, that none of us can claim moral truth (and so all of us are operating in inherently hypocritical contexts), then it seems as though you're just engaging in philosophical pedantry.

I see suffering and believe it to be real suffering and that suffices enough for my needs to demand justice. You would have to argue that human life in total has not been bettered by people who fought for what they believed, either subjectively or objectively, was right.

 

[Darknight]

Nobody here has lost touch with the meaning of the word rich.

No one but you.

Click to shrink...

That other thread seems to say otherwise. Look at it from the reverse. In this thread we talk about the problem being the rich and clearly people are talking about billionaires but now we go to that other thread and people who make $100k don't consider themselves rich because they view rich to be the billionaires that we're talking about in this thread and then a whole debate goes on whether they are rich. Is it any wonder why people who make $100k don't consider themselves rich when we use the term rich to label billionaires in threads like these? The word loses definition when you start using it to talk about a different class of people because we keep changing the definition in various threads. We just had this debate in another thread so clearly there is dispute on what constitutes as rich in the broader general sense on this forum.

90% Of the worlds population? Of America? The median adult income is like $34k in the US.

Click to shrink...

Yes, the world population because if you want to throw context out such as where you live and the cost of living, then you should be comparing against the entire world where 90% of the people make less than $16k.

 

[Billfisto]

This begs the question: what revolutionary or subversive agency can you guys claim if your moral objectives are provided by the same elites you ostensibly oppose and any discourse that doesn't have patronage gets shut down? This includes the "progressive" agenda of yesterday for example the idea expressed by the slogan "kill the savage, save the man" (assimilate american indians rather than wage war against them) wouldn't fly today but were all the rage among progressives a century ago.

Click to shrink...

Wait, where does the conservative agenda come from in this scenario?

 

[Orayn]

It's a good start but most billionaires wouldn't pay any extra under this tax. Personally I think they should start taxing luxury items such as vacation homes worth more than a certain amount, private jets, yachts, etc. Instead those are actually write offs and lower the amount you pay. This shouldn't effect most people making 200k a year.

Click to shrink...

I think we should expropriate the wealth of the ruling class, by force if necessary, I was just poking at a very obvious thing someone was missing.

 

[Deepwater]

That other thread seems to say otherwise. Look at it from the reverse. In this thread we talk about the problem being the rich and clearly people are talking about billionaires but now we go to that other thread and people who make $100k don't consider themselves rich because they view rich to be the billionaires that we're talking about in this thread and then a whole debate goes on whether they are rich. Is it any wonder why people who make $100k don't consider themselves rich when we use the term rich to label billionaires in threads like these? The word loses definition when you start using it to talk about a different class of people because we keep changing the definition in various threads. We just had this debate in another thread so clearly there is dispute on what constitutes as rich in the broader general sense on this forum.



Yes, the world population because if you want to throw context out such as where you live and the cost of living, then you should be comparing against the entire world where 90% of the people make less than $16k.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure it makes sense from an anthropological level to make that kind of comparison.

 

[Deleted member 7279]

No there are plenty of people out there saying capitalism is diseased and that it inherently creates situations like these. But the level of inequality between your average person and a CEO of anywhere is becoming more and more ridiculous. Rich shitlords like Bezos do what they can to keep the field tipped in their favor though. They play the system to their advantage in order to disadvantage people already getting fucked by society. They both are to blame. Unfortunately we can't very well guillotine capitalism and the things that plague it. We can however eat the rich.

 

[Darknight]

I'm not sure it makes sense from an anthropological level to make that kind of comparison.

Click to shrink...

My stance is you can't throw out the region, cost of living and the nuance of it all to simply throw out a fixed number makes you rich. All of that factors in to what your money can buy you and what it can buy you isn't the same from once place to another.

 

[Orayn]

My stance is you can't throw out the region, cost of living and the nuance of it all to simply throw out a fixed number makes you rich. All of that factors in to what your money can buy you and what it can buy you isn't the same from once place to another.

Click to shrink...

Let's use this as a starting point: If you don't have to work for a living like other able bodied people of a similar age group, you may be a member of the capitalist class.

This doesn't fully capture the situation of lottery winners, people who worked hard and also got lucky with a successful artistic career, etc. but there are plenty of idle rich who would be completely fine purely based off of generational wealth who were never in danger of running out of money and dying in their entire lives.

 

[Darknight]

How about this: Do you have to work for a living like other able bodied people of a similar age group? If not, you may be a member of the capitalist class.

Click to shrink...

On the surface without having given it much thought, I'm okay with that definition.

 

[samoyed]

How about this: Do you have to work for a living like other able bodied people of a similar age group? If not, you may be a member of the capitalist class.

Click to shrink...

 

[Deleted member 1248]

I'm doing both - demonizing them and being critical.

I hate the rich.

 

[Slimboy Fat]

There are people in the capitalist class who are not loyal to their class and throw in their lot with the working class, or they support the working class to further their own personal interests. I can't call any modern names to mind off the top of my head but for a historical example, the Union in the Civil War benefited from the support of the Northern industrial wealth who were politically opposed to the slave owning South.

There are also people in the working class who become capitalists through effort or fortune (or both) and abandon the interests of their origin class. Most social climbers fall into this, especially today in the tech industry.

There are social climbers who don't abandon their origin, Ocasio-Cortez is a clear example here, as after becoming an elected politician she could've done what nearly all elected politicians do which is enrich themselves.

There are working class people who believe in the capitalist class' right to rule and support them even in opposition to their own interests. This describes pretty much all Trump voters.

Which is ultimately to say, "whatever is necessary to achieve justice".

Also:

This is a really weird thing to say. What do you think the Koch brothers have dedicated their lives and indutries to doing? Rupert Murdoch? The vast majority of deregulation efforts comes from the capitalist class and qualify as "reactionaries".

Click to shrink...

What you think is just is an inherited stock of beliefs from the discourse funded and sanctioned by the elite that you claim to oppose. Marx understood this as the capitalist funded superstructure of society (it's power not class at the base though) i.e "Opium of the people" but even marxists have been supported by the elite when it suited them. Isn't it problematic for you if your beliefs about say intersectional feminism and human rights have their origin in think thanks funded by the same kind of people you ostensibly oppose, doesn't that deconstruct the morality of your cause? How can you be subversive or dissident when you are in effect supported by the elites of society?

By reactionary I meant opposing emancipation deregulation is always framed as emancipatory usually with recourse to liberalism. I'm sure you've heard platitudes such as "freedom" and "individual rights" thrown around in this context.

 

[Vic Damone Jr.]

See the narrative coming out about not punishing the wealthy, they know people getting fed up of this shit. Don't know why they scared though, there will never be a revolution.

 

[Deepwater]

What you think is just is an inherited stock of beliefs from the discourse funded and sanctioned by the elite that you claim to oppose. Marx understood this as the capitalist funded superstructure of society (it's power not class at the base though) i.e "Opium of the people" but even marxists have been supported by the elite when it suited them. Isn't it problematic for you if your beliefs about say intersectional feminism and human rights have their origin in think thanks funded by the same kind of people you ostensibly oppose, doesn't that deconstruct the morality of your cause? How can you be subversive or dissident when you are in effect supported by the elites of society?

By reactionary I meant opposing emancipation deregulation is always framed as emancipatory usually with recourse to liberalism. I'm sure you've heard platitudes such as "freedom" and "individual rights" thrown around in this context.

Click to shrink...

Do you think organizing against white supremacy is a hypocritical endeavor because white individuals support the organizing in some way?

 

[samoyed]

Isn't it problematic for you if your beliefs about say intersectional feminism and human rights have their origin in think thanks funded by the same kind of people you ostensibly oppose, doesn't that deconstruct the morality of your cause? How can you be subversive or dissident when you are in effect supported by the elites of society?

Click to shrink...

No, I mentioned why in another post above. I adopt consequentialism to clear up these conflicts which I consider, mostly, intellectual masturbation.

By reactionary I meant opposing emancipation deregulation is always framed as emancipatory usually with recourse to liberalism. I'm sure you've heard platitudes such as "freedom" and "individual rights" thrown around in this context.

Click to shrink...

Every reactionary couches their rhetoric in the language of "freedom" and "rights".

Freedom from "political correctness"
Freedom from "cultural marxism"
Freedom of "property rights"

There's nearly no reactionaries in existence, going by your logic. For me a reactionary is a person who operates towards reactionary ends.

 

[Orayn]

There are still some wrinkles to it. If I get a lucrative job, pay off my debts, and aggressively save until I can retire at an earlier than usual age, I'm probably just some guy who found a particular "hack" or "exploit" on the current system that I was fortunate enough to be able to use. This is the case for stuff like Mr. Money Mustache and similar ultra-frugal lifestyles who assume you aren't starting from poverty.

If I go from that situation into owning a business where I employ people at minimum wage, that plants me squarely in the petite bourgeoisie. I'm probably not living high off the hog, and may have to do some work of my own to keep it up, but I'm still aping the general structure of capitalism and benefiting from how it works.

 

[Slimboy Fat]

Do you think organizing against white supremacy is a hypocritical endeavor because white individuals support the organizing in some way?

Click to shrink...

It is hypocritical in the sense that those that are funding and supporting the contemporary discourse on race in the US are "white supremacists" themselves in that they are almost exclusively white (and jewish) and they are supreme in the sense that they are the ruling elite. Elite whites loathe and fear their racial brethren further down the social hierarchy and political activists and ethnic minorities are their weapons against them.

 

[Deleted member 7130]

I partake in both. Fuck 'em and the system they rode in on.

 

[Slimboy Fat]

Wait, where does the conservative agenda come from in this scenario?

Click to shrink...

The conservative agenda is truly pathetic. It's an attempt at counteroffensive using the "weapons" allowed to them by their enemies i.e making recourse to the tradition that defeated their predecessors. This is why conservatives always lose and why "progressives" are on the right side of history as they say. Think about it: yesterdays progressive is the conservative of today.

 

[Billfisto]

What you think is just is an inherited stock of beliefs from the discourse funded and sanctioned by the elite that you claim to oppose. Marx understood this as the capitalist funded superstructure of society (it's power not class at the base though) i.e "Opium of the people" but even marxists have been supported by the elite when it suited them. Isn't it problematic for you if your beliefs about say intersectional feminism and human rights have their origin in think thanks funded by the same kind of people you ostensibly oppose, doesn't that deconstruct the morality of your cause? How can you be subversive or dissident when you are in effect supported by the elites of society?

Click to shrink...

I dunno, man. It seems like you're just shitting in the pool and kicking up clouds, here.

If all our thoughts are inherited from the discourse funded by the elites, why are we thinking the elites are rigging the game? Why is this thinking becoming more prevalent? From your arguments, this would mean this is what the elites want us to do, because they're directing the discourse.

Also, I'm not sure anyone is shit-talking rich people because they want to be subversive.

 

[Angelus Errare]

If you make $16k, you're making more than 90% of the population. That makes you rich right?

Again, I'm not confused. I'm only coming down on how we throw around the word rich so it loses its meaning.

Click to shrink...

Too bad $16k doesn't mean you're making more than 90% of the population but hey by all means keep going lol

 

[SamAlbro]

The interviewer shouting over her guest and not letting him explain himself because "Oh- how will we fix anything if we hurt somebody's feelings?" had my blood boiling.

 

[Slimboy Fat]

This seems like a claim of "moral objectivity".

We are all, to some extent, products of our environment and our notion of justice comes from the conflicts that are most salient to us as observers of the world. If you're arguing that, because none of us are truly free from this soft-determinism, that none of us can claim moral truth (and so all of us are operating in inherently hypocritical contexts), then it seems as though you're just engaging in philosophical pedantry.

I see suffering and believe it to be real suffering and that suffices enough for my needs to demand justice. You would have to argue that human life in total has not been bettered by people who fought for what they believed, either subjectively or objectively, was right.

Click to shrink...

What suffering you "see" is mediated by those with the power to influence the moral discourse therefore it makes sense to take a step back and look at who controls the discourse rather than trying to assert one moral hierarchy with it's associated sign regime over another. consequentialism doesn't escape this as you would have to make recourse to a moral system to argue why one outcome is preferable over another.

 

[PrimeBeef]

To be fair, there are a lot of people that come from generational poverty where that amount sounds like an astronomical amount of money that you would have to be considered rich regardless of locale, career, etc.

Click to shrink...

$100k is not ultra wealthy, but it is rich. Unless you are trying to live way above your means or just plain can't manage your money well, you should never have a worry with $100K/yr.

 

[samoyed]

What suffering you "see" is mediated by those with the power to influence the moral discourse therefore it makes sense to take a step back and look at who controls the discourse rather than trying to assert one moral hierarchy with it's associated sign regime over another.

Click to shrink...

I don't see the point of this.


Do you want to talk about the contextual power differentials involved in this sniping or do you stand against the IDF? It's a pretty simple choice for me.

 

[Slimboy Fat]

I dunno, man. It seems like you're just shitting in the pool and kicking up clouds, here.

If all our thoughts are inherited from the discourse funded by the elites, why are we thinking the elites are rigging the game? Why is this thinking becoming more prevalent? From your arguments, this would mean this is what the elites want us to do, because they're directing the discourse.

Also, I'm not sure anyone is shit-talking rich people because they want to be subversive.

Click to shrink...

You can hold dissident beliefs but try acting on them and you will be shut down. The elites aren't omnipotent ofc and under liberalism they are barred from explicitly banning dissent and exercising power freely which is why they need private organizations (you can see the usefulness of the public/private dichotomy to power under liberalism) to fund Black Lives Matter in order to push police reform for example or private think thanks writing papers calling for global supervision of CO2 emissions. That's not to say these issues aren't real, power has a social role and a perennial incentive to centralize thus it will combine the two as Jouvenel writes:

The duality is irreducible. And it is through the interplay of these two antithetical principles that the tendency of Power is towards occupying an ever larger place in society; the various conjunctures of events beckon it on at the same time that its appetite is driving it to fresh pastures. Thus there ensues a growth of Power to which there is no limit, a growth which is fostered by more and more altruistic externals, though the motive-spring is still as always the wish to dominate.

Click to shrink...

 

[Slimboy Fat]

I don't see the point of this.

Do you want to talk about the contextual hierarchies involved in this sniping or do you stand against the IDF? It's a pretty simple choice for me.

Click to shrink...

And yet there is an exceedingly large group of Americans friendly towards Israel that genuinely believe they are in the right. You can understand that morality is linguistically contingent without abandoning your own aesthetic moral intuitions. Why would you oppose "hate speech" if you didn't understand that it inspires "hate" for example?

 

[Powdered Egg]

1, Protestant schism wouldn't have gotten anywhere without patrimony from sovereigns and kings. This is not historically controversial, Luther himself was shielded during his excommunication by Fredrick III of Sacshen and it was in his castle in Wartburg where he translated the new testament to German. I recommend really any politically oriented historical text on the reformation for further reading.

2, Liberalism, which can trace its lineage to the reformation, spawned from thinkers such as John Locke who had patronage from the English parliamentarians such as Alexander Popham. Again it's uncontroversial to recognize the political (power related) interests in liberal thought of the Whigs in their conflict with he Tory royalists. Obviously the latter lost the struggle. Really you can just read a biography on Locke if you're interested.

3, The civil rights movement was funded by a number of foundations key among them the Ford and Rockefeller. This is documented in many places but we can just read an excerpt from Malcom X's speech "Message to the grass roots":



Really there was such a flurry of foundations doing everything from paying bail of agitators under arrest and legal defense for activists to providing ghostwriters for King's public speeches. If you're interested in the Ford foundations activities during this era you could do worse than picking up Karen Ferguson's book "Top Down: The Ford Foundation, Black Power, and the Reinvention of Racial Liberalism". However you could study this for a lifetime, as with any of these 5 examples I've listed.

4, Ever thought about how there is no consistent definition of what a religion is? That's because the whole concept of secular society came about not through some kind of rational platonic dialectic but as a tool in the power struggle between central (royal) powers and the church. Secularism freed the state from religious purview and contained the religious in the private sphere as opposed to the influential ecclesiastical institutions. A good book on this is "The myth of religious violence" by William Cavanaugh.

5, It was a long process of centralization in Europe but ultimately the various monarchs succeeded in wrestling control from the aristocracy by engaging directly with their subjects. Ofc this development was framed as emancipation, A good book on this is "On power: it's nature and a history of its growth" by Bertrand de Jouvenel.

With all due respect I won't engage in long-winded historical discussion on a gaming forum but if you're interested in any of these epochs or the power dialectic that underlines these developments feel free to ask and I'll provide book recommendations if I have any.

Click to shrink...

Thanks, I'll take a listen to that Malcolm X speech and check out the Ford Foundation stuff. Question though, were Ford and Rockefellers main motivation for involvement to pacify Black anger? I may have heard some of the speech in the past but I recall Malcolm accusing the mainstream leaders of co-opting the movement.

 

[samoyed]

And yet there is an exceedingly large group of Americans friendly towards Israel that genuinely believe they are in the right. You can understand that morality is linguistically contingent without abandoning your own aesthetic moral intuitions. Why would you oppose "hate speech" if you didn't understand that it inspires "hate" for example?

Click to shrink...

Again, I don't see the merit in this discussion. Philosophy is fine, can be engaging, can be fun, but it's not the stuff reform and revolutions are made of. No doubt it's a contributing factor, but this kind of discourse is ultimately the purview of the, as Marx said, bourgeoisie.

If you want a discussion about epistemology this is probably not the ideal thread to find it.

 

[Slimboy Fat]

Thanks, I'll take a listen to that Malcolm X speech and check out the Ford Foundation stuff. Question though, were Ford and Rockefellers main motivation for involvement to pacify Black anger? I may have heard some of the speech in the past but I recall Malcolm accusing the mainstream leaders of co-opting the movement.

Click to shrink...

Yeah Malcolm got sidelined for being too radical and people like King got presented as the leader of the movement by his (white) patrons. I have a model for the motivations of the elites in supporting civil rights but it's unintuitive and radical (but convincing imo) more "mainstream" explanations would range from trying to reach a stable liberal equilibrium in race relations that mediated resentment as you suggest or that they genuinely believed in this kind egalitarianism (which just begs the question how they came to believe that). I think they were using blacks as proxy to weaken states and racist private groups like the KKK that were an obstacle and competitors to central power like how parlament used enlightenment liberalism to weaken the crown or the crown using the reformation movement to weaken the church.

 

[Baji Boxer]

It's a good start but most billionaires wouldn't pay any extra under this tax. Personally I think they should start taxing luxury items such as vacation homes worth more than a certain amount, private jets, yachts, etc. Instead those are actually write offs and lower the amount you pay. This shouldn't effect most people making 200k a year.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, multi-millionaires and billionaires require some extra solutions. For example, confiscate most of their wealth and throw them in prison when overseeing life wrecking financial crimes. Create a compensation cap tied to the compensation of your lowest paid employees (or some other rule to lessen the gap between them and the people doing the actual ground level work). Hold them responsible for overseas human rights abuses their companies are tied to. Campaign finance reform and other rules around politics. Got a lot of things to push towards, or find alternate solutions to.

 

[Slimboy Fat]

Again, I don't see the merit in this discussion. Philosophy is fine, can be engaging, can be fun, but it's not the stuff reform and revolutions are made of. No doubt it's a contributing factor, but this kind of discourse is ultimately the purview of the, as Marx said, bourgeoisie.

If you want a discussion about epistemology this is probably not the ideal thread to find it.

Click to shrink...

As Marx would have said: if you can't understand the dialectic of history you can't change it

 

[TaterTots]

So are we talking about people making $100k and more? Because that other thread had a lot of people defining that as rich.

Click to shrink...

It's not even just this forum thinking that. I was listening to the radio yesterday and the topic was, "how much money makes one rich?" The responses were overwhelmingly $100k. Some even said $50k.

To the OP its not demonizing or punishment until you hit a certain level of taxing these people.

 

[jsnepo]

Punishing success? Make sure opportunities are equal you dumb fuck!

 

[samoyed]

Punishing success? Make sure opportunities are equal you dumb fuck!

Click to shrink...

People who worry about punishing success rarely bring up "punishing poverty" in these discussions.

Because that's what the world is like right now. Your success in life is about 50% who you're born to, and this is just in America. In developing countries it's far worse.