There are three objections I get over and over from people over and over when you try to bring up any notion of how bad the inequality in our country and the world really is. It doesn't matter how vague I am they inevitably pick up on the idea and come up with variations of these three things:

1. Most of the wealthy people worked hard for everything they have. See, corporate America is like the NFL: sure there are only a select few bigwig execs at Fortune 500 companies but for everyone that made it there are thousands more who aspired to get there but just couldn't cut it.

Sure, maybe not everybody has access to that world, but the ones who rise to the top are special and talented and there's just no denying that. If they weren't someone else would be there in their place.

Or take Bill Gates. He is unique and came up with something no one else could've and look at how hard he has worked. He didn't start out with the advantages of rich parents, he dropped out of college! He changed the world, he should be compensated for that!!!!

Besides look at all the charity work hes done, look at the money he and Buffet are giving away for chrisakes!

Or what about inventors, don't they deserve to be compensated? If everybody has everything handed to them, why would anyone want to do anything? There are alot of lazy people in this world, just look at all the ones who don't want to work, just wanna pop out babies, and live on welfare.

2. You are wrapped up in idealism. The cure for this country is reigning Corporate America. Its those greedy bastards who are responsible for where we're at today, and legislation has to be passed to stop it. Look at all the stuff the Republicans let them get away with and now the Democrats are coming in and already putting a stop to it!

3. What do you plan to do about it? You are expecting me to do something about it, but what are YOU doing about it? What am I supposed to do?? I'm not talking about this anymore, you are crazy.

Any thoughts about this? Anybody else get the same reactions? This is so frustrating because its the same things again and again with slight variations no matter who you talk to amongst 'liberals'

Those are such dead ends, aren't they?

I don't run into those ideas very often. Who are those people - age, background, career, how do you know them, etc.?

I don't run into those ideas very often. Who are those people - age, background, career, how do you know them, etc.?
college students, especially kids in poli sci and to some extent the profs in poli sci although I am more familiar with some non-mainstream ciriculuums where those attitudes aren't as prevalent.

Friends of my parents too, although I mainly consider them to be assholes.

I've found that true across the board even amongst blue collar people who more align themselves with the white collar world.

I guess the quick n dirty would be

1. they think what people have reflects how hard they worked and how smart they are. Remember David Mills comment about "hey rich people work really hard too?"

2. corporate america is the only real problem

3. anything other than traditional political action is pie-in-the-sky bleeding heart crap that should be ingored and discouraged because it is a dead end. Maybe not in so many words but thats the gist of it.

EDIT: and everything I typed was me attempting to channel what people have said to me as precisely as possible. For instance the NFL allusion was not my idea.

EDIT#2: as an aside I've found anybody who uses the word 'compensation' in the sense outlined above is either a Republican or else holds views close to those of Republicans regardless of how they identify themselves.

EDIT#3: to foster and maintain the notion that rich people are just more motivated and work harder look at how hard they're pushing this crap about how they only sleep 3 hrs a day. Thats how dedicated and hardcore they are. People respond to that and believe it in my experience.

Well, they are wrong.

If they had integrity and were solid in their ideas, they wouldn't need to spout that crap to justify their own existence. They are defending themselves from accusations that are not being made.

There is little or no connection between what people have and "hard work." The trend is toward money being increasingly concentrated in the hands of 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation people who never worked a day in their lives. The ideal of capitalism is to make money without doing anything.

Gates is a complete joke as an example or a role model. He is a robber baron and a monopolist. I think many nerdy people admire him, because they can identify. If he can "make" it, then maybe their is hope for them. Pretty sad commentary on his admirers. The pittance that he gives to charity, with great fanfare, is all for self-promotion. His good image with the public is his main bulwark against ant-monopoly action against him. The average American doesn't think he is a monopolist and a robber baron, but the Europeans do, and he knows that they do. People who admire Gates betray themselves to be very shallow, ignorant and pathetic.

Not sure what people mean by "corporate America is the real problem." That is new. I suppose because of Enron et al being in the news.

Saying that "anything other than traditional political action" betrays deep ignorance. What they are calling "traditional political action" is very modern, involves no action, and is not even political.

The "you are an idealist" is horse shit. So are they. Your ideals are for the benefit of others, their's are for their own selfish benefit only. You admire the truth, they admire success however gained. You value people, they value things. Their idealism says that the mad selfish pursuit of materialism will save us – or at least save those worth saving. That is some fucked up idealism, and they should be forced to defend it and not be allowed to hide behind "I am being realistic."

"I am being realistic, I am being practical, I am not an idealist" are all ways to say "I am a selfish ignorant asshole and proud of it."

Gates's parents were wealthy and connected, his dad a millionaire corporate lawyer. He had a million parental dollars in his pocket to finance developing msdos from cpm (which is how he and Allen were able to do it at all), and when the guy who owned cpm went fishing rather than meet with the guys from IBM (it may not have been fishing, but he blew them off anyway) Gates's mum called up her connections at the top of IBM and introduced her kid to them. Exit cpm, enter msdos, and the rest is history.

What exactly is the question? Or what exactly is being advocated? No one should have more wealth than anyone else? If someone has "more" than someone else they are automatically suspect and must've taken advantage of people to obtain it? At what point does "more" become "too much"?

There are economists and philosophers who believe that if the worlds wealth were distributed equally among everyone that over time an imbalance would occur naturally because not everyone would use their wealth in the same way.

I'm playing devil's advocate here because as much as I hate the inequality in the world, I wonder what the answer is regarding the capatilist model. Regulation? Earnings caps? Everything over and above a fixed dollar amount goes into a public trust? Who decides what the cap should be? Is it flat across all occupations? Are some contributions worth more than others (ie Curing cancer is worth more than innovations in education or the arts)?

Could be a very slippary slope.

The problem is I am friends or acquaintances with most of the people in question, want ot get in the pants of at least a couple, and generally find the compassion and generosity they show in their day to day lives is not reflected in their talk. Partially I think it is because there is such a separation between things that are "real" to them and things that they only know about in the abstract.

The fact that they don't really care if the police beat minorities, if the poor in New Orleans live or die, how many Arabs get killed in the ME..that is wrapped up with this somehow. It is easy to surround ourselves with people who are conscious of these things on the internet and overlook that most Americans really don't think Katrina was that big of a deal as it relates to issues of racism, classism, and overt power grabs by the government.

The same goes for Palestine and Iraq obviously

What exactly is the question? Or what exactly is being advocated? No one should have more wealth than anyone else? If someone has "more" than someone else they are automatically suspect and must've taken advantage of people to obtain it? At what point does "more" become "too much"?

There are economists and philosophers who believe that if the worlds wealth were distributed equally among everyone that over time an imbalance would occur naturally because not everyone would use their wealth in the same way.

I'm playing devil's advocate here because as much as I hate the inequality in the world, I wonder what the answer is regarding the capatilist model. Regulation? Earnings caps? Everything over and above a fixed dollar amount goes into a public trust? Who decides what the cap should be? Is it flat across all occupations? Are some contributions worth more than others (ie Curing cancer is worth more than innovations in education or the arts)?

Could be a very slippary slope.

Thanks I'm glad I drew someone out who would give a better voice to this than me. My answer to this is that I don't think its about that at all. I think once the EXTREME disparity is acknowledged and recognized as the problem, people are smart enough to come up with alternatives.

Personally I don't favor a super-strict regulatory approach, but I'd be kidding myself and everybody else if I pretended I have any high-level insight to offer on that front.

Certainly I think one thing we can all agree on is that the playing field should be level to the extent that everyone has the ability to live without coming to total ruin in the process and no one has a right to so much influence, power or control that they can use it to dick everybody else around. I'm not good at stating this, so hopefully Mike or someone else can pick up on what I mean and phrase it better and/or flesh it out more.

Gates's parents were wealthy and connected, his dad a millionaire corporate lawyer. He had a million parental dollars in his pocket to finance developing msdos from cpm (which is how he and Allen were able to do it at all), and when the guy who owned cpm went fishing rather than meet with the guys from IBM (it may not have been fishing, but he blew them off anyway) Gates's mum called up her connections at the top of IBM and introduced her kid to them. Exit cpm, enter msdos, and the rest is history.

Yeah, Bill Gates isn't my first choice as an example, but he is so iconic hes an obvious example. Others might be Buffet or even Michael Dell, there are people who worhip the guy for coming up with his 'brilliant out-of--the-box" marketing strategy.

Gates's parents were wealthy and connected, his dad a millionaire corporate lawyer. He had a million parental dollars in his pocket to finance developing msdos from cpm (which is how he and Allen were able to do it at all), and when the guy who owned cpm went fishing rather than meet with the guys from IBM (it may not have been fishing, but he blew them off anyway) Gates's mum called up her connections at the top of IBM and introduced her kid to them. Exit cpm, enter msdos, and the rest is history.

Yeah, Bill Gates isn't my first choice as an example, but he is so iconic hes an obvious example. Others might be Buffet or even Michael Dell, there are people who worhip the guy for coming up with his 'brilliant out-of--the-box" marketing strategy.
Dell was there at the right time. He was a uni student. Where'd he get the money? I don't know, but I bet if we look it'll turn out that he was quite far from living a hand-to-mouth existence -- that he had resources available to him that others never have.

Buffet has pointed out that, if he and the office receptionist had both been born in (I don't remember the country, let's say) Afghanistan or Somalia, their net worths would probably be quite similar. He was born in the right place and time to make use of his particular talents. His, as he points out, is an extremely narrow, specific skill---he doesn't have a broad range of capabilities that would have made him a success anywhere.

The mythology of capitalism is a lot like the mythology of other religions. If we look at how well Xian mythology recycles earlier mythologies, and then look at capitalism, we see the same thing taking place. It's pretty fascinating!

Hey Q. Happy new year.

Of course "no one should have any more wealth than anyone else" is an extreme absurdity. So is the notion that wealthy people are suspect. The reality, as opposed to the various theories, is that people are suspect because they are poor, and that extreme wealth disparity is bad for all of us.

Would we justify mass murder by saying “well gee isn't it ever justified to kill someone?” Killing is neither 100% right or 100% wrong. Killing in self defense is justified, for example. We wouldn't say that you can't defend yourself because mass murder is wrong, nor would we say that mass murder is OK because defending yourself is justified.

The question here is not should the wealthy be defended – they don't need our help The question is this – are the workers exploited, yes or no? Do they they a right to defend themselves, yes or no? Is the possibility of a just and humane society threatened by the amassing of wealth, yes or no? Is the ability of the planet to sustain human survival threatened by unbridled corporate capitalism, yes or no? Do we have a right to defend the human race?

There isn't any hard and fast or simple solution, so it is not helpful to imply that unless we have a simple solution we should accept the status quo. Characterizing the problem as either/or all or nothing sabotages any consideration of the issue before we can get started discussing it.

These are questions that have been considered since forever. It is the fact that they are no longer being seriously considered that is the problem. We are defaulting to a return to feudalism for fear of tampering in any way – or even considering tampering – with a system of unjust inequality and oppression. Why would we want to bend so far over to defending the few at the expense of the many? Why would we want to shit down all discussion and consideration of social issues and throw our hands up in the air?

Perhaps in theory asking the rich to pay back to support the infrastructure that nurtured, supported and defended their ability to amass wealth for the benefit of future generations might cause some hardship for a few people. Maybe, But it is absolutely certain that this unprecedented amassing of wealth without obligation and regulation is causing terrible suffering and misery for millions and is threatening the sustainability of the human race. That is happening, it isn't a theoretical fear.

There is no class warfare going on against the rich. The rich are not being persecuted or discriminated against. Less and less is it true that they are "working hard" for their wealth. Less and less is it true that each new generation has the same chances and opportunities that the last generation had. This is the reality, and it is not a mere idle observation on my part. We are rapidly approaching a crisis that threatens all of us. No theory makes that OK or justifies not responding to the crisis.

I let you in, as you can see.


Where ya been hiding? How did you find out about us?

Yes, I did see - thanks! I was worried.

I don't want to hijack/clutter this thread with the story of my perambulations, so I'll mail you later.

I think this is the most important discussion that needs to be had regarding a mission and charter because if this isn't addressed, the rest of the conversations will meander along for a while and then fall apart because its underpinnings were so tenuous.

For whatever reason responses like yours don't resonate with people. Tinoire's videos on the front page of PI, however visceral, don't either. Or I suppose they do, but it just leads to people becoming outraged and indignant and insular in terms of saying "I got mine" and the victims must've been lazy, or stupid, or naive, or..something!

Maybe its a denial because they don't want to think it could've been them. Or they don't want to admit all the lesser ways they've been victimized and quietly acquiesced. I dunno, but its weird to say the least

I think this is the most important discussion that needs to be had regarding a mission and charter because if this isn't addressed, the rest of the conversations will meander along for a while and then fall apart because its underpinnings were so tenuous.

For whatever reason responses like yours don't resonate with people. Tinoire's videos on the front page of PI, however visceral, don't either. Or I suppose they do, but it just leads to people becoming outraged and indignant and insular in terms of saying "I got mine" and the victims must've been lazy, or stupid, or naive, or..something!

Maybe its a denial because they don't want to think it could've been them. Or they don't want to admit all the lesser ways they've been victimized and quietly acquiesced. I dunno, but its weird to say the least
I posted the TOS from Assata Speaks to show an example of how you can take a stance as opposed to taking positions. The typical thing among liberal groups is that there is a grab bag of unexpressed and presumed correct positions on a bunch of issues, but no overtly stated overall stance. The unspoken stance is this: "we're doin' pretty darn well and are awfully smart, and have only theoretical objections to the system, and a few tweaks that we would like to see made, and mainly we think that we are superior and should be calling the shots in this plutocracy." That can't be overtly stated, because that would expose the hypocrisy and open up the possibility of a true Leftist movement forming and making the liberals irrelevant.

It is not so that my responses do not resonate with the people. They don't resonate with a very small segment of the population who are lost to us in the class struggle in any case.

If you are saying that we need to somehow recognize, make allowances for and accommodate ourselves to the people you are describing, then we might as well just give it up from the start. What would be the point? Just because they say we have to go through them, take their “arguments” seriously, make room for them at the table, does that make it so?

For whatever reason responses like yours don't resonate with people
Take a look at the stances Assata Speaks takes right out of the gate. Those resonate with people. What do you see as the difference between the people on that board and the people you are worried about?

Notice that the statements aren't a grab bag of positions on issues. The statements are foundational and general, and then move from that to the specifics, not the other way around. Why are they able to do that, yet we are supposedly not? What is the difference between the two groups?

For whatever reason responses like yours don't resonate with people
Take a look at the stances Assata Speaks takes right out of the gate. Those resonate with people. What do you see as the difference between the people on that board and the people you are worried about?

Notice that the statements aren't a grab bag of positions on issues. The statements are foundational and general, and then move from that to the specifics, not the other way around. Why are they able to do that, yet we are supposedly not? What is the difference between the two groups?

I have no idea Mike. That statement wasn't a critique of what you're saying I think its dead on and I don't think restating it or putting it in more palatable terms or nice-ifying it is the answer or that it would work.

I think newswolfs comments about the KGB concluding that there was no potential for revolutionary action in white america are a clue though.

Maybe we are also disagreeing on what % of people fall under this umbrella. We are dancing around with the idea that jargon is one of the bigger obstacles. For instance if we don't call it socialism, people be more receptive to those ideas. If we never invoke the name of Marx or Lenin or whoever. I personally think the conditioning is more pervasive and goes deeper than you are acknowledging in white America.

Complacency is the smoke alarm that ensures white cities never burn.

EDIT: I blame Lloyd Carr, that boring bastard

There are three objections I get over and over from people over and over when you try to bring up any notion of how bad the inequality in our country and the world really is.
You hear the polite sanitized liar's version.

Look at this thread, and you can see the truth revealed behind these "objections" that people have.

http://www.topix.net/forum/afam/TBPPL9748V7BHKH73

EDIT: I blame Lloyd Carr, that boring bastard
Boring is right. Run Hart to the short side again and again. It came down to USC pressuring the UM QB, and the USC QB having all the time in the world.

There are three objections I get over and over from people over and over when you try to bring up any notion of how bad the inequality in our country and the world really is.
You hear the polite sanitized liar's version.

Look at this thread, and you can see the truth revealed behind these "objections" that people have.

http://www.topix.net/forum/afam/TBPPL9748V7BHKH73

Well..

Look at what happened with David Mills. He threw up his hands and left in a huff. Was he part of the problem? I really don't know but I don't think so, certainly not by intention.

Trust me, telling people they are elitist, authoritarians, supporters of white privilege or even calling them Republicans is about the quickest way to drive them away. Presenting them with information or literature that would force them to conclude those things to accept it seems to produce the same effect: they will reject the ideas that conflict with their view of how tolerant they are, how permissive they, how enlightened they are.

Chlamor had a very interesting article he posted on PI from Russell Means a native american activist who pins the blame on the philosophical foundations of Western thinking going back to Descartes, Newton, and that set. In particular in the context of understanding the imperialism and expansion at any cost mentality.

Thats a bit deep for me, but I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea.

EDIT: and these thoughts are made with the assumption that most of white america can be covered with this broad swath. I can only speak from personal experience on that, but I believe that to be true.

EDIT#2: this kind of goes back to a conversation on PI between you and Raphaelle. I think there are alot of white people who believe the American Dream is true and believe they are going about things the right way to realize that dream. So extremist political factions aside (Dem faithful, Repub faithful) I would say that characterizes our target audience - if it doesn't then we are essentially conceding it won't involve very many white people.

I have no idea Mike. That statement wasn't a critique of what you're saying I think its dead on and I don't think restating it or putting it in more palatable terms or nice-ifying it is the answer or that it would work.

Hmm, kid I am getting frustrated here. I woke up this morning with one of those crystal clear insights that you aren't sure you dreamed, or did it come from another galaxy or what?

Politics sucks. The whole thing is rigged. It is impossible to get anywhere the way we are going about it.

So toss the whole thing, Politics - the real thing - doesn't depend upon the existence of this ridiculous thing that modern people think of as politics. It is all a crock. Toss it all and start over.


I think newswolfs comments about the KGB concluding that there was no potential for revolutionary action in white america are a clue though.


C'mon kid. You don't fight because you think you have a pretty darn good shot at winning. You fight because it is the right thing to do and so much better than the alternative - craven and cowardly surrender.

Maybe we are also disagreeing on what % of people fall under this umbrella.

Maybe. I say that 70% of the population falls outside of what you are seeing.


We are dancing around with the idea that jargon is one of the bigger obstacles. For instance if we don't call it socialism, people be more receptive to those ideas.

The concepts are one thing, the label for the concepts is another. If the label ois not communicating the thing to people, dump the label. If "rock" stops meaning a large stone to people, and starts meaning, oh, say, a type of music, so that when you yell "rock!" to warn a person that a rock is about to fall on their head, and they start playing air guitar, do you then stop warning people that a rock is about to fall on their head?


If we never invoke the name of Marx or Lenin or whoever. I personally think the conditioning is more pervasive and goes deeper than you are acknowledging in white America.

Yep. That is the trap. On the one had, it is supposedly not so big that we need to worry about it, and on the other hand it is so big that it is hopeless and we might as well give up. Liberals somehow manage to take both positions simultaneously. Calls to action are met with “you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and it is not really that bad” and then “it is so big that you are being too idealistic to think it can be overcome.”

Liberalism requires one to think of things as just so bad, but no worse. Bad enough to justify whatever idiotic things we are doing, but not bad enough to require us to actually accomplish anything. So if we are fund raising we say “OMG it is the end of the world!!!” but if we are talking about radical action it is “well we are making small steps and there is no reason to be alarmist or go off the deep end.”

\If we are promoting Kerry we say “OMG! Don't you understand??? Bush is a fascist!!!” but when it comes to actually forming an anti-fascist league, we say “oh well you know these things take time and I don't see any tanks in the street or people goose-stepping or anything.”

We have the luxury of fine-tuning our reality to keep us safely out of harm's way, while at the same time assuaging our conscience and telling ourselves that we are a person who “cares.”

But conditioning on words – jeez who is afraid of that? Why on earth do we have to use the word “Marx” with the public? Are we promoting book sales for his publisher or something? The man is dead. We aren't interested in promoting him. The ideas, on the other hand...

I think newswolfs comments about the KGB concluding that there was no potential for revolutionary action in white america are a clue though.


C'mon kid. You don't fight because you think you have a pretty darn good shot at winning. You fight because it is the right thing to do and so much better than the alternative - craven and cowardly surrender.

Oops, I wasn't turning that into a concession speech, I was pointing out that I think it really does characterize white america, and this thread was basically started asking if/how we can start changing that.


The concepts are one thing, the label for the concepts is another. If the label ois not communicating the thing to people, dump the label. If "rock" stops meaning a large stone to people, and starts meaning, oh, say, a type of music, so that when you yell "rock!" to warn a person that a rock is about to fall on their head, and they start playing air guitar, do you then stop warning people that a rock is about to fall on their head?

Well, I'm not very good at this so my point doesn't come across right. What I'm saying is we think they are conditioned to reject the label and not understanding the idea. Instead, I think they acknowledge the idea on one level but are conditioned to reject it on a more important level (the level of doing anything about it, or even caring about it).

Trust me, telling people they are elitist, authoritarians, supporters of white privilege or even calling them Republicans is about the quickest way to drive them away.

Look, David chose to take it as a personal insult. I wasn't calling him anything. He left in a huff because he isn't ready to get to know himself better, not because I mistreated him .He wants to be free to spout a Republican philosophy but have us all pretend that it isn't a Republican philosophy.

If people are coming into the fruit stand, and I say "we have apples" am I driving away people who are shopping for meat? Do I care if I do? If they hang around telling me "no, no meat is what you should be selling" and I finally say "look I think you are a meat eater, and you need to go down the road to the butcher shop" am I insulting them or running them off?

David's political philosophy is Republican. Nothing wrong with that. He is welcome to have a Republican philosophy. But am I required to have him aggressively define what I am for me? Why is his characterization of the Left and the opinions of people on the Left not to be seen as insults or name calling, but when we try to defend ourselves it is?

I think David is a good Republican and a good person - mainstream conservative, decent person, humanitarian. I wish people such as him would take back the Republican party. But he is telling people on the Left what they should or shouldn't think, how they should or shouldn't be, what they should or shouldn't say, and bases that on principles of conservative and Republican politics.

I never tell people that they are authoritarians, etc. I tell them that the opinion they are expressing is authoritarian, etc. It is not a rational comeback for them to object to being “called” an authoritarian, rather than defend and support their authoritarian statements.

What I'm saying is we think they are conditioned to reject the label and not understanding the idea. Instead, I think they acknowledge the idea on one level but are conditioned to reject it on a more important level (the level of doing anything about it, or even caring about it).

I am sure that isn't true. I know that there are millions who don't fit the mold you are describing. Not asking you to agree, but are you willing to allow for the possibility and give it a chance before you shut the door and give up?

You know how one crystal forms, and that triggers crystallization that spreads through a large mass?

I never tell people that they are authoritarians, etc. I tell them that the opinion they are expressing is authoritarian, etc. It is not a rational comeback for them to object to being “called” an authoritarian, rather than defend and support their authoritarian statements.

In general though, that distinction is lost on people, and they can be counted on to reliably react exactly as David did. I don't want to turn that into a federal case and I agree with your assessment that he wasn't ready to admit some basic truths to himself. But that's the point, to me at least:

Is there a way to get him or anybody to the point that they are ready to admit those truths?

What I'm saying is we think they are conditioned to reject the label and not understanding the idea. Instead, I think they acknowledge the idea on one level but are conditioned to reject it on a more important level (the level of doing anything about it, or even caring about it).

I am sure that isn't true. I know that there are millions who don't fit the mold you are describing. Not asking you to agree, but are you willing to allow for the possibility and give it a chance before you shut the door and give up?

You know how one crystal forms, and that triggers crystallization that spreads through a large mass?

Well I can only go from (limited) personal experience so I have to leave open the door that I'm wrong by default. But actually I don't think it means I have to close up shop and quit if its true, its just something that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.

I think we are having a very hard time figuring out how to deal with it, even if I concede its more limited in scope than I think.

EDIT: I definitely do not want to pick on Q but can you explain his response in this thread? I mean it was so timely, I couldn't have done it better if I'd registered as an alter ego and posted it myself. That would have to be some kind of remarkable happenstance if the percentage of people who do think that way is so negligible..or speak to some inherent bias towards that viewpoint from people on the internet, people prone to posting on leftist blogs

Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying or what you are seeing.

What is it we are having a hard time figuring out how to deal with? What would deal with it mean? Have something to say in response, you mean? Why does it need to be dealt with?

Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying or what you are seeing.

What is it we are having a hard time figuring out how to deal with? What would deal with it mean? Have something to say in response, you mean? Why does it need to be dealt with?

I am hoping Raphaelle or someone else will eventually jump in because I think it is too jumbled in my own head to get down what I mean in words. My observation is that not many white people are going to be sympathetic to the reasoning or the message of this post:


Hey Q. Happy new year.

Of course "no one should have any more wealth than anyone else" is an extreme absurdity. So is the notion that wealthy people are suspect. The reality, as opposed to the various theories, is that people are suspect because they are poor, and that extreme wealth disparity is bad for all of us.

Would we justify mass murder by saying “well gee isn't it ever justified to kill someone?” Killing is neither 100% right or 100% wrong. Killing in self defense is justified, for example. We wouldn't say that you can't defend yourself because mass murder is wrong, nor would we say that mass murder is OK because defending yourself is justified.

The question here is not should the wealthy be defended – they don't need our help The question is this – are the workers exploited, yes or no? Do they they a right to defend themselves, yes or no? Is the possibility of a just and humane society threatened by the amassing of wealth, yes or no? Is the ability of the planet to sustain human survival threatened by unbridled corporate capitalism, yes or no? Do we have a right to defend the human race?

There isn't any hard and fast or simple solution, so it is not helpful to imply that unless we have a simple solution we should accept the status quo. Characterizing the problem as either/or all or nothing sabotages any consideration of the issue before we can get started discussing it.

These are questions that have been considered since forever. It is the fact that they are no longer being seriously considered that is the problem. We are defaulting to a return to feudalism for fear of tampering in any way – or even considering tampering – with a system of unjust inequality and oppression. Why would we want to bend so far over to defending the few at the expense of the many? Why would we want to shit down all discussion and consideration of social issues and throw our hands up in the air?

Perhaps in theory asking the rich to pay back to support the infrastructure that nurtured, supported and defended their ability to amass wealth for the benefit of future generations might cause some hardship for a few people. Maybe, But it is absolutely certain that this unprecedented amassing of wealth without obligation and regulation is causing terrible suffering and misery for millions and is threatening the sustainability of the human race. That is happening, it isn't a theoretical fear.

There is no class warfare going on against the rich. The rich are not being persecuted or discriminated against. Less and less is it true that they are "working hard" for their wealth. Less and less is it true that each new generation has the same chances and opportunities that the last generation had. This is the reality, and it is not a mere idle observation on my part. We are rapidly approaching a crisis that threatens all of us. No theory makes that OK or justifies not responding to the crisis

In general though, that distinction is lost on people, and they can be counted on to reliably react exactly as David did. I don't want to turn that into a federal case and I agree with your assessment that he wasn't ready to admit some basic truths to himself. But that's the point, to me at least:

Is there a way to get him or anybody to the point that they are ready to admit those truths?

If the discussion was allowed to go on unimpeded at PI, eventually all would come to that point. But if, when it gets a little uncomfortable for people, they call in the authorities to swing the baton and fire off tear gas grenades, then the misconceptions and confusion are reinforced and the discussion ends.

A few people did not want to go where we were going. Unfortunately, the owner of the board was one of those few, so fear had teeth and the minority bullied the people who were leading the group in a scary direction.

So it isn't a case of not knowing how to respond to the people you are describing, we do know how and would succeed if given a chance, doing what we were already doing. We weren't defeated by logic or arguments. We were defeated by brute force and pandering to people's fear to whip up a lynch mob.

That tells us that it is easy, not difficult to respond, and that the opposition is weak and that the ideas are not deeply ingrained. They have to resort to force and cheating and violation of their own espoused principles to stop us. That comes from weakness, not strength. That is an acknowledgment that the ideas are weak and not very deeply held, and are very vulnerable.

My observation is that not many white people are going to be sympathetic to the reasoning or the message of this post

Still not quite following you. That was a message to you and to Q, not to white people at large. Are you sympathetic with it?

Kid, I have spoken that message all over the country to all kinds of people. I go months and months and talk to thousands of people and don't run into what you are describing.

I have spoken in little red neck fundy churches in the South, in AA churches in the northern cities, at meetings of farmers, and of blue collar workers and get a good reception for this message. There is one place, and only one place that I go where I once in a while get the response you are heating, and that is in the more upscale preposterous suburban neighborhoods. That represents about 10-15% of the population, I think.

Many people who are well off, or who hope to be well off, or who admire people who are well off are resistant to that message. That shouldn't be surprising. It also shouldn't be seen as a limitation or barrier. Quite to the contrary. If people could hear defenders of privilege and class debating with advocates for the working class, they would overwhelmingly find their sympathies to be with the working class. What the upscale activists want to do is to make sure that the people never hear that debate and never hear the alternative message. The message defending the ruling class isn't winning because people are choosing it ir are sympathetic to it, it is winning because there is an ongoing suppression of any alternative.

Close to 70% of the people in the country at one time supported that message, and there is no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't again. But they need to hear that message. If all of us who could be putting out that message shy away because it isn't instantly popular before we even start, then it never will get out there.

The issue is that this message is not getting out there. No one is trying to stop David's message from getting out. His message is not at risk. The issue is, can this message be given a chance, or is it to be rejected before it has been gotten out to the public?

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ience.html (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science.html)


So, if the projects of those who self-define as leftists have mostly failed, especially in recent years, why don't they try something different? The first possibility is that they may be right in believing that nothing else would work any better than what they are doing now. They may have a realistic assessment of the power structure. If that's the case, then the current strategies used by leftists make sense: organize into small groups focused on specific issues and then hassle the authorities with a wide variety of tactics, including the threat of some sort of property damage or physical confrontation. Be a nuisance. Be costly. Try to force concessions. As Todd Gitlin wrote in his recent book, Letters to a Young Activist, that is in effect what the New Left did in the 1960s. The one difference is that the New Leftists were closer to the power structure of their era due to family connections or their elite educational backgrounds, giving them some access to the authorities.

But let's also be clear about the underlying assumption of this approach. It is very elitist. It is not aimed at changing the minds of everyday people and winning their allegiance, although that's what some leftists claim they are trying to do. It's about attacking authorities in the name of everyday people because the leftists know what is good for everyone. The approach is justified in leftist minds because they are doing it for greater equality for everyone, not for their individual advancement, so they do not feel elitist. Furthermore, they take their actions with great confidence because they are certain that their theoretical analysis is correct, which is very intellectually elitist underneath it all. They know best.

The conclusion that the leftists are doing the best they can under the circumstances is not only plausible, it is comforting. They can be proud of what they have been able to accomplish, and proud that they keep trying against all odds. Since they have made no mistakes, they don't need to think about trying something different.

Always understood that Gates stole the entire format which was actually a lousy operating system. Like the old VHS vs Beta--so much for the best product being propelled by the invisible hand of the market.

Gates was confronted often about his ZERO contribution back. One of his explanations was that he was still consumed by making money--this was when he was already light years ahead of anyone else while actively putting forth efforts to deny anyone else competition.
Typical crock. The rhetoric about working hard is trumped by corrupted ambition, open theivery and squelching true innovation preventing better ideas and designs from emerging.

Mike
My questions to KBH were not said in defense of the rich. I abhor the inequalities that we all are living with. What you characterized as oversimplification was my attempt to get at some answers that many people will want. My queries are exactly what will be run up against, IMO. It was not meant as an endorsement of those ideas.

The problems are much deeper than administrative. The problems aren't just systemic. Those are the symptoms, but not the root cause of the illness. Is it class warfare? Yes, but that doesn't delve deeply enough into the problem. That is the surface effect. I'm not trying to be callous here. I understand and witness the very real suffering of that effect, but this is not the problem at it's root. We are up against an evolutionary hurdle. A human nature hurdle. An enlightenment deficit. I wonder if our task is "solving" the problems or spurring on and accelerating the evolution of the human species. Sounds a bit Messianic, I know. The issue is partly education, which is what getting the message out would hope to achieve, but there is also the issue of our own competative/survivalist nature which I believe gets in the way of the message being received and or processed in an actionable way. Capatilism appeals to something much more primal in our human nature and that is something that only time can evolve. It's instinctual. I fight these instincts, not always very successfully, but in my awareness of them and the potential harm that they can cause if left unchecked, I make some strides.

This is not an appeal to throw up our hands and walk away, but instead to approach this as something requiring a slightly different point of view.

Mike
My questions to KBH were not said in defense of the rich. I abhor the inequalities that we all are living with. What you characterized as oversimplification was my attempt to get at some answers that many people will want. My queries are exactly what will be run up against, IMO. It was not meant as an endorsement of those ideas.

The problems are much deeper than administrative. The problems aren't just systemic. Those are the symptoms, but not the root cause of the illness. Is it class warfare? Yes, but that doesn't delve deeply enough into the problem. That is the surface effect. I'm not trying to be callous here. I understand and witness the very real suffering of that effect, but this is not the problem at it's root. We are up against an evolutionary hurdle. A human nature hurdle. An enlightenment deficit. I wonder if our task is "solving" the problems or spurring on and accelerating the evolution of the human species. Sounds a bit Messianic, I know. The issue is partly education, which is what getting the message out would hope to achieve, but there is also the issue of our own competative/survivalist nature which I believe gets in the way of the message being received and or processed in an actionable way. Capatilism appeals to something much more primal in our human nature and that is something that only time can evolve. It's instinctual. I fight these instincts, not always very successfully, but in my awareness of them and the potential harm that they can cause if left unchecked, I make some strides.

This is not an appeal to throw up our hands and walk away, but instead to approach this as something requiring a slightly different point of view.

That human evolution idea is fascinating, and mirrors what I think almost exactly, other than I am strongly suspicious of (re)education today. There is such a lack of consciousness about that problem however - do we even know where to begin?

At first I couldn't tell if your post was where you were coming from or if you were just playing devil's advocate. When Mike told me who you were on PI I put it together though.

What you characterized as oversimplification was my attempt to get at some answers that many people will want. My queries are exactly what will be run up against, IMO. It was not meant as an endorsement of those ideas.

Yeah, thats probably a better way to frame this whole discussion than what I was starting with. I am kinda pissed about it though, because the questions people throw out there are so intellectually lazy and almost always get used as a smokescreen.

EDIT: ET, I was thinking about this independently yesterday and Mike mentioned a book by Edward Bond you gave him on the subject, and I see your sig quote and I'm wondering if consumerism doesn't deserve its own thread because it plays into this so much. I don't know how to start that discussion really, but I would love to hear your take on that topic.

1. Most of the wealthy people worked hard for everything they have. See, corporate America is like the NFL: sure there are only a select few bigwig execs at Fortune 500 companies but for everyone that made it there are thousands more who aspired to get there but just couldn't cut it.

Sure, maybe not everybody has access to that world, but the ones who rise to the top are special and talented and there's just no denying that. If they weren't someone else would be there in their place.

Or take Bill Gates. He is unique and came up with something no one else could've and look at how hard he has worked. He didn't start out with the advantages of rich parents, he dropped out of college! He changed the world, he should be compensated for that!!!!

Besides look at all the charity work hes done, look at the money he and Buffet are giving away for chrisakes!

Or what about inventors, don't they deserve to be compensated? If everybody has everything handed to them, why would anyone want to do anything? There are alot of lazy people in this world, just look at all the ones who don't want to work, just wanna pop out babies, and live on welfare.


It is not people who make money... it is money that makes money, or more accurately capital (money set in motion) which makes capital. Consider this simple example:

A man works hard and makes $40,000 per year. Through the most strenuous exertions, he manages to save $20,000 per year and lives on the remainder. At the end of 10 years, he has accumulated $200,000. He now stops working but continues to live at the same modest level. At the end of 10 years, his accumulated cash is gone. 10 years of scrupulous savings and 20 years of frugal living have paid for 10 years of time without the need to work. An equilibrium, of sorts, has been achieved.

But... the above does not describe a realistic situation. The person in our example, above, isn't really likely to save his money and stuff it into his mattress. Let us say that at the end of 10 years of saving, he invests his money in shares of a public stock company which averages a return of 10% per year. Now, at the end of 10 more years of leisure, the man in our example still has $100,000 worth of stock and may extend his retirement indefinitely. But where did this $100,000 of stock magically come from? If the first $100,000 came from his frugality and exertion, whose exertions begat the second $100,000?

But... let's complicate our example still further. Let us say that the man above decides not to stop working but to continue. And, let us also say that instead of investing in stock, he begins to buy apartments that yield 14% per year or a business that employs others and yields 19%. What happens now? How long does it take for the independent augmentation of his capital to entirely supercede any individual efforts he may undertake and claim responsibility for?

In truth, what the man in our example actually does quickly becomes an issue of personal recreation... much like becoming a Baptist. Whether he works hard and innovates greatly, or whether he works not at all, quickly becomes a quirk of personal preference. How much of Bill Gates' status, as the world's richest man, comes from what he does and how much comes from what he owns?

In reality, it is exceedingly rare for the initial accumulation of capital to come from personal exertions, as others have pointed out. The exceptions prove the rule. Still... the issue is moot. People become capitalists by virtue of commanding capital... and even if that initial accumulation is a byproduct of individual efforts, it is still only the larval stage of a magical metamorphosis at the end of which capital makes and continues to make capital and... takes flight without regard to what its "owners" may now chose to do.

...And even this riddle of capital, and returns, and investments, and accumulation, still continue to hide what is really going on in the underlying society:

The fundamental social relationship of "being rich" is not defined by what you do but by what "others" are forced to do for you... and the social organization which makes all of that as "natural" as sea or sky.

My questions to KBH were not said in defense of the rich. I abhor the inequalities that we all are living with. What you characterized as oversimplification was my attempt to get at some answers that many people will want. My queries are exactly what will be run up against, IMO. It was not meant as an endorsement of those ideas.
Thanks. I see.

A few people did not want to go where we were going. Unfortunately, the owner of the board was one of those few, so fear had teeth and the minority bullied the people who were leading the group in a scary direction.

So it isn't a case of not knowing how to respond to the people you are describing, we do know how and would succeed if given a chance, doing what we were already doing. We weren't defeated by logic or arguments. We were defeated by brute force and pandering to people's fear to whip up a lynch mob.


What is so scary about the direction? In their individual views on every issue--do they disagree with us?

No.

So then, what is so scary about the issue? Too real when they would prefer to wear their politics as a fashion statements?

The fundamental social relationship of "being rich" is not defined by what you do but by what "others" are forced to do for you... and the social organization which makes all of that as "natural" as sea or sky.


Survival of the fittest is a crock, but we raise destructive bullies on the pedestals of deities. Latest studies determine cooperation, and not competition, creates the circumstances for survival. Evidence of the destruction of the planet is the obvious consequences of conventional acceptance of the laws of the jungle.

We are up against an evolutionary hurdle. A human nature hurdle.
Many people say this, but it can be shown to be untrue. "Human nature" is to be adaptive. That's about it. That, and the big memory that supports it, is about the only really outstanding difference in "nature" (i.e. the collection of traits and attitudes that make up personality) between us and other species.

I'd bet it can be shown that what we're really up against is having allowed psychopaths to gain social control. People who are incapable of having scruples are at a big advantage when it comes to the Ruthlessness Stakes. They'll do things that the rest of us find very hard to do, and they won't even bother to think twice about it. Of course, many psychopaths are stupid socially, and then they usually end up dead or in prison...but if they're not socially stupid, or they're handled by not-stupid people, they end up in the ruling class.

The right wingers have this thing going - "the "blame America first crowd." You are asking, I think, how we get through to certain people, such as people in your life. Over at PI there was a chronic argument, that never erupted into a full blown marathon war like the organic threads did, but it threatened to. That blame America first idea really plays with people, and a lot of people on the Left play right into it. I kept asking the question - what is America? - and pointing out that the average person sees America as the people, while the activists betray their unconscious allegiance to the ruling class by seeing "America" as the government and the ruling class. When the activists attack “America” they are attacking the ruling class. But the average person hears that as an attack on the people and on the ideals. The activists then run through the litany of how the country has failed to achieve the ideals. The average person then comes back with “well it may not be perfect, but it is better than a loot of other places” and the communication completely breaks down.

The simple expedient of making it clear that it is the wealthy and powerful who are being criticized, not “America” and not the everyday people, and suddenly the right wing propaganda is neutralized and people are open to hearing the criticisms. Yet the supposedly radical left wing activists won't do this, and insist upon criticizing “America” and alienating most people. Why is this? Why the reluctance to identify and criticize the ruling class, yet the enthusiasm for attacking anything and everything “American?” Why the insistence on defining America as the power elite, without making that clear, when being critical? At the same time, the activists will go on and on about the WalMart shoppers and NASCAR idiots and fundies etc. So everything bad about the ruling class is called “America,” and that is to be trashed as much as possible in order to “enlighten” people, yet the white trash is somehow to be seen as to blame for the actions of the ruling class – called “America” rather than called “the ruling class” - and practically everyone in the country has been thoroughly alienated, and alienated over hidden and ridiculous criteria.

My view of this is that the liberal activists are saying that a better elite, a better aristocracy – them – would be running things if only the average person wasn't so crude and stupid. They are saying that the problem is not that we have an aristocratic elite running things, but rather that we have the wrong aristocratic elite running things, and that the reason we have the wrong aristocratic elite running things is because the people are worthless and don't understand that they should dump the one elite group and back a different one. Therefore, the people are not to be trusted, the ruling class is not to be attacked as a ruling class, but on other criteria – having the wrong beliefs - and that the people need to be re-educated and converted to the right beliefs, and that political activism consists of gathering together the right minded – like-minded – liberal elites and forming organizations for the purpose of assuming power over the people.

All of this requires leaving the system in place the way that it is, so that it can be used by the liberal elites for gaining power. If the ruling class is attacked, then the working people might get uppity notions into their minds and throw off the yoke of all of the elites – including the beautiful New Age liberals. So the liberals have to walk this fine line - attack “America” sufficiently to galvanize the cadre of militant New Agers, smear the working class and poor sufficiently to appeal to the liberal activist elitists on a deep emotional level, yet pose as “radical” and in opposition sufficiently to fool people such as us, who take the principles and ideals of justice and equality seriously, and who are advocating for the poor and working class.

The average person is deeply resistant to all of this, with good reason.

"Those are the fuckers who voted in Bush..TWICE!!"

There is no way to get around that response from liberals at any suggestion that the everyday American might not be a backward, asshole idiot like they think.

How does that relate to the fact that they won't admit that they identify with the aristocracy over the man on the street. There's the superficial reason (mairead's UCSC link sort of touches on that - they're so sure they're right therefore eveyone else must be wrong), but its deeper than that.

Lifestyle and perception have to be biggies. Their lifestyle is lionized -- but its one where status is defined by possessions and overdone displays of affluence. They perceive themselves to be above the fray maybe.

Free association here, just trying to figure how this stuff links together.

"Those are the fuckers who voted in Bush..TWICE!!"

Kill them all!!! In the name of peace and tolerance, they must be destroyed!

Speaking of which, can anyone doubt that had the pack at PI had the power to do so and could get away with it, that they would literally execute the heretics?


There is no way to get around that response from liberals at any suggestion that the everyday American might not be a backward, asshole idiot like they think.

I still maintain that they represent a very small number of people, relatively speaking.


How does that relate to the fact that they won't admit that they identify with the aristocracy over the man on the street. There's the superficial reason (mairead's UCSC link sort of touches on that - they're so sure they're right therefore everyone else must be wrong), but its deeper than that.

It is a religion masquerading as politics. That is the only explanation I can come up with. They talk in religious terms - about conversion and enlightenment and purity and perceptions and epiphanies, of good and evil, of sinners and believers. There are winners and losers, as measured by clever negotitaion through life toward the goal of self-improvement and self-perfection.

Newswolf had the insight that the word "progressive" means a progressed individual, and that advancement of the individual will always be contradictory to all of the principles of cooperation and civilization, and lead the true believers to a deep and profund hostility to anything on the traditional political Left and to the people.


Lifestyle and perception have to be biggies. Their lifestyle is lionized -- but its one where status is defined by possessions and overdone displays of affluence. They perceive themselves to be above the fray maybe.

Sometimes it is not a matter of more stuff, but having the right stuff. Our sin was that we were interfering with people's self-actualization and spiritual development with our talk of community and solidarity and advocacy for the have nots and the nobodies, the blue collar people and the outcasts.

You can't have a cult of enlightened individuals if you allow just any old person into the inner circle.

We are up against an evolutionary hurdle. A human nature hurdle.
Many people say this, but it can be shown to be untrue. "Human nature" is to be adaptive. That's about it. That, and the big memory that supports it, is about the only really outstanding difference in "nature" (i.e. the collection of traits and attitudes that make up personality) between us and other species.

I'd bet it can be shown that what we're really up against is having allowed psychopaths to gain social control. People who are incapable of having scruples are at a big advantage when it comes to the Ruthlessness Stakes. They'll do things that the rest of us find very hard to do, and they won't even bother to think twice about it. Of course, many psychopaths are stupid socially, and then they usually end up dead or in prison...but if they're not socially stupid, or they're handled by not-stupid people, they end up in the ruling class.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the only difference between us and other species is our intelligence. I would agree with that, but I don't believe that our "intelligence" has proved to be useful thus far. What we have is a gap between our intellectual growth and our evolution. Our intellect has grown tremendously, but our nature has not. Other species have not evolved intellectually, but there is a balance between their natural tendencies and their intellect. Humans have evolved technically, but not naturally. The imbalance between our technical achievment and our natural evolution have put the capability of bringing about our own extinction. Either immediate with weapons or slowly through environmental and social neglect. Other species do not starve each other, they do not wage war, they do not act out of malice. There is no way of knowing, but perhaps their level of intelligence acts as a natural governor. Or perhaps they don't posess the same destructive instincts that humans do. Whatever the case, they understand on an intinctual level that cooperation equals a better chance of survival. They did not need to "learn" this. They know it. So while humans may be adaptable, there is, in my opinion, an instinct that we have yet to evolve out of which prohibits us from fully embracing cooperative, balanced, and peaceful habitation.

There are many examples in the history of our species where our intelligence has pointed the way to better societies. Modes of thought, systems of government that espouse equality for all. These have not yet been succesful. What is standing in the way? Our ability to adapt to them? More likely, our ability to adopt them. We have failed to adopt them not because we do not understand them, but rather because they go against something in our nature. Something primal which we have yet to biologically yield. I believe that it is this instinct that makes conservatism so attractive. The conservative philosophy is geared toward that base instinct. It geared toward conserving the primal. To me this is obvious in the systems of economy and society that they advocate as well as the mores they espouse. This is a generalization, but not entirely inaccurate in my experience.

I don't believe that our "intelligence" has proved to be useful thus far. What we have is a gap between our intellectual growth and our evolution. Our intellect has grown tremendously, but our nature has not.
I might be misinterpreting what you mean, here, because it looks completely off. Our accumulated knowledge has grown with our ability to record and pass on the things we've learned as a species, but I don't think it can be shown that our intelligence--our level of cognitive functioning--has changed at all. I'm only guessing, but I'd bet most paleoanthros would agree that we were just as smart when we started as we are today. What we didn't have then was a way to share information much beyond the clan cave. So probably techniques for, e.g., solving disagreements peacefully were discovered a myriad of times, but lost again when the knowledge-keeper died unexpectedly. Technology--new weapons, new tools--are often self-recording, so they would have been passed on more reliably. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we've ever privileged that kind of knowledge.


Other species do not starve each other, they do not wage war, they do not act out of malice. ... Whatever the case, they understand on an intinctual level that cooperation equals a better chance of survival. They did not need to "learn" this. They know it. So while humans may be adaptable, there is, in my opinion, an instinct that we have yet to evolve out of which prohibits us from fully embracing cooperative, balanced, and peaceful habitation.
Have you ever fed the local bird population? It's very interesting. Some species are indeed cooperative...but others are not. Rock doves (aka pigeons) are, starlings are, titmouses are, but robins are fiercely competitive.

There's a little story from ethology about that, maybe you've read it? In the UK, when milk was still delivered by the dairyman onto the doorstep, both robins and titmouses discovered that the cream at the top was wonderful food. But when the dairies started sealing the bottle mouths with foil, both individual titmouses and individual robins learned how to punch through the foil...but only the titmouses were able to pass on their knowledge. Within a couple of decades, every titmouse in Britain knew how to get through the foil to the cream. Most of the robins never learned because those who were smarter or luckier had no way to pass on their knowledge. It wasn't that robins are a more limited species with fewer or lower-bandwidth communication channels, it's that their inbuilt drive to compete takes precedence.

We don't have such an inbuilt drive to compete. We do cooperate (libraries being one type of evidence). That's why I suggest that our key problem is letting psychopaths gain power--they're competitive (predatory really), and they exalt competition as a way to make themselves look more normal to the rest of us (I think there's an analogy from birds, but I can't remember it right now. Maybe it's cowbirds.).


There are many examples in the history of our species where our intelligence has pointed the way to better societies. Modes of thought, systems of government that espouse equality for all. These have not yet been succesful. What is standing in the way? Our ability to adapt to them? More likely, our ability to adopt them. We have failed to adopt them not because we do not understand them, but rather because they go against something in our nature. Something primal which we have yet to biologically yield. I believe that it is this instinct that makes conservatism so attractive. The conservative philosophy is geared toward that base instinct. It geared toward conserving the primal. To me this is obvious in the systems of economy and society that they advocate as well as the mores they espouse. This is a generalization, but not entirely inaccurate in my experience.
I'm not sure the examples from history impeach my thesis about psychopaths, Q. It's notable that the Roman Empire lasted quite a long time in part because they had inbuilt protections against psychopaths gaining power. It wasn't until they got stampeded into elevating one person (I can't remember his name) to unchallengeable power that things started to go to hell. There's solid experimental evidence from social psych about this, too: the greater the percentage of people that share power in a group, the flatter the graph of group decisions will be.

Is falling on your sword a risk worth taking? Sometimes it just needs one voice to call it like it is to open the flood gates, but what happens when that voice is silenced by political expediency to operate within the sytem that advocates psychopaths in power to enlarge the bottom line?

Is falling on your sword a risk worth taking? Sometimes it just needs one voice to call it like it is to open the flood gates, but what happens when that voice is silenced by political expediency to operate within the sytem that advocates psychopaths in power to enlarge the bottom line?
Damned good question. I don't know the answer. Maybe it depends on whether it's likely to actually make a difference? I wouldn't (e.g.) set myself on fire to protest either Vietnam or Iraq because I know that the people taking the decisions are psychopaths and don't care, and regular people would interpret the act as my being out of my mind and therefore disconnected from reality. So the sacrifice is too big.

Would you make such a sacrifice?

Probably not so literally, but I might not do the politically expedient thing especially if I knew that wave was about to crash.

Is falling on your sword a risk worth taking? Sometimes it just needs one voice to call it like it is to open the flood gates, but what happens when that voice is silenced by political expediency to operate within the sytem that advocates psychopaths in power to enlarge the bottom line?
Damned good question. I don't know the answer. Maybe it depends on whether it's likely to actually make a difference? I wouldn't (e.g.) set myself on fire to protest either Vietnam or Iraq because I know that the people taking the decisions are psychopaths and don't care, and regular people would interpret the act as my being out of my mind and therefore disconnected from reality. So the sacrifice is too big.

Would you make such a sacrifice?

I wonder if you caught this post the first go-round..

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... g_id=26918 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=26822&mesg_id=26918)

I wonder if you caught this post the first go-round..

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... g_id=26918 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=26822&mesg_id=26918)
No, I didn't (fortunately!). My guess is that he's never been burnt. I say that because this past summer I burnt the crap out of my hands putting out a cooking-oil fire in the kitchen (I had too little baking soda to do the job neatly). I thought I was going to lose the end off my thumb, which didn't appeal at all, and I have a lovely network of scars now. It only took me a few seconds to do the job, and I could feel myself cooking, but I had such a huge hit of fear and adrenaline that I was able not to attend fully to the pain. Once the fire was out, though, and my task focus no longer consumed the entire bandwidth of my nervous system, the pain got its innings and engaged my attention fully. And I do mean fully. Yet, on the continuum of burn severity, mine were well toward the ho-hum end.

Probably not so literally, but I might not do the politically expedient thing especially if I knew that wave was about to crash.
Which wave was about to crash? I'm not picking up on your metaphor.

Some populist movement brewing beneath the surface reflected in the deep divide between the government and the governed.

Some populist movement brewing beneath the surface reflected in the deep divide between the government and the governed.
So you wouldn't do it if you were probably going to win anyway? Okay, that makes sense. What about if you were probably going to lose anyway?

I wonder if you caught this post the first go-round..

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/d ... g_id=26918 (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=26822&mesg_id=26918)
No, I didn't (fortunately!). My guess is that he's never been burnt. I say that because this past summer I burnt the crap out of my hands putting out a cooking-oil fire in the kitchen (I had too little baking soda to do the job neatly). I thought I was going to lose the end off my thumb, which didn't appeal at all, and I have a lovely network of scars now. It only took me a few seconds to do the job, and I could feel myself cooking, but I had such a huge hit of fear and adrenaline that I was able not to attend fully to the pain. Once the fire was out, though, and my task focus no longer consumed the entire bandwidth of my nervous system, the pain got its innings and engaged my attention fully. And I do mean fully. Yet, on the continuum of burn severity, mine were well toward the ho-hum end.

There was a story recently about some guy in Chicago who set himself on fire as a protest and that post got me to wondering. My Mom told me about a neighbor boy who fell into a fire pit when she was growing up. Horrific doesn't cover it.

Some populist movement brewing beneath the surface reflected in the deep divide between the government and the governed.
No doubt in my mind about that. Also no doubt in my mind that the liberals are not only completely missing it, but are actively suppressing it.

Some populist movement brewing beneath the surface reflected in the deep divide between the government and the governed.
No doubt in my mind about that. Also no doubt in my mind that the liberals are not only completely missing it, but are actively suppressing it.
Well, yeah...they're the ones Phil Ochs was on about, the "Love me, I'm a Liberal"s.

Is falling on your sword a risk worth taking? Sometimes it just needs one voice to call it like it is to open the flood gates, but what happens when that voice is silenced by political expediency to operate within the system that advocates psychopaths in power to enlarge the bottom line?
When it is clear cut. The events at PI presented a very clear opportunity in my view. I could see that if I failed to fall on my sword, the community would be very different, that any hope of making progress at PI would be ended, that I would be contributing to something negative. There was an opportunity presented to wither carry the day, or sacrifice myself in a way that would be constructive and powerful. Those who could get the significance of it did, those who never will and are therefore just confusing everyone, didn't. Those who were confused and caught in the middle will move towards us later. What was achieved was a moment of clarity. It forced everyone to show their hands. Look how much more clear it is now to see where everyone stands on things that were otherwise hidden from view.