How should we help the super rich?

[Angst]

Lifestyyyyyyyyyyyyles of the rich and the famooooooooous

 

[Gorbles]

I see we're completely skipping past the "there are other countries than the US", so, okay, outta my depth but let's see how this goes.

People literally chose to stop voting. "Both parties are the same".

Where do you think that came from? While I'm sure there's nihilism, exhaustion, etc, pure cynicism at play, you can't extrapolate that to any kind of useful model. At least without data, that you haven't provided.

So I have to ask you, using a blunt example. When you compare someone being racist, and someone being not, who does "they're both the same" benefit?

(this is significantly less nuanced than the US political setup where both parties have a significant amount of overlap but one is into hardcore everybody dies accelerationism vs. the other, which is not / noticeably less so)

The amount of since-then, because-of-that disenfranchised voters has been enough to swing elections, but is still less than cynical non-participation making those elections swingable.

Pressing X to doubt on this one, sorry. You're making assumptions based on what you feel is correct. You've taken some stats that I have provided, and you're running with cause. I could do the same in a different way (again, more at home with the UK and perhaps European dynamics generally). How do you measure cynical non-participation? How do you rate "cynical" vs. "disenfranchised". There could be overlap depending on the opinion polled.

For example, I am at my heart an idealist. Heart on my sleeve kind of person. But I am less overt with it these days. Am I cynical, or disenfranchised? The framing seems to point to the same state, but one is a negative descriptor (where you apportion blame, effectively), vs. the other is not really a positive descriptor, but one that doesn't apply blame (someone who is disenfranchised is considered valid, vs. your ongoing criticism of those that are "cynical").

Cynicism isn't inherently unwarranted, especially when it comes to politics. It can be, but that's far beyond the realm of the gross generalisations you're relying on to make your point.

 

[Hygro]

So I have to ask you, using a blunt example. When you compare someone being racist, and someone being not, who does "they're both the same" benefit?

The racists. Always the racists. Don't be siding with the racists. "Both are the same" is 10000% to the benefit of oligarchy over democracy.

 

[Hygro]

I see we're completely skipping past the "there are other countries than the US", so, okay, outta my depth but let's see how this goes.

Where do you think that came from? While I'm sure there's nihilism, exhaustion, etc, pure cynicism at play, you can't extrapolate that to any kind of useful model. At least without data, that you haven't provided.

So I have to ask you, using a blunt example. When you compare someone being racist, and someone being not, who does "they're both the same" benefit?

(this is significantly less nuanced than the US political setup where both parties have a significant amount of overlap but one is into hardcore everybody dies accelerationism vs. the other, which is not / noticeably less so)

Pressing X to doubt on this one, sorry. You're making assumptions based on what you feel is correct. You've taken some stats that I have provided, and you're running with cause. I could do the same in a different way (again, more at home with the UK and perhaps European dynamics generally). How do you measure cynical non-participation? How do you rate "cynical" vs. "disenfranchised". There could be overlap depending on the opinion polled.

For example, I am at my heart an idealist. Heart on my sleeve kind of person. But I am less overt with it these days. Am I cynical, or disenfranchised? The framing seems to point to the same state, but one is a negative descriptor (where you apportion blame, effectively), vs. the other is not really a positive descriptor, but one that doesn't apply blame (someone who is disenfranchised is considered valid, vs. your ongoing criticism of those that are "cynical").

Cynicism isn't inherently unwarranted, especially when it comes to politics. It can be, but that's far beyond the realm of the gross generalisations you're relying on to make your point.

Here you are "calling X to doubt" and exemplifying the very thing. Not only are both parties the same, but enfranchisement and disenfranchisement are the same.

Under no circumstances are you actually disenfranchised. I suppose you could at a high level make the case "My psychology fell victim to an exogenously transmitted, self-fulfilling belief that I am powerless, therefore I am" but uh, as we said that's siding with the racists. So take a goddamn prozac and keep in the fight. And ask others to do the same.

I'm talking to a few of you here, but I reiterate. If you feel too tired to believe in voting, the rest isn't even on the table.

Reconstruction started and ended with legislation. Don't let the Klan win via literal terrorism, that's the lesson we know today. Don't let the Klan win telling you it's hopeless, pointless, that you're already disenfranchised and cynicism is the tell. That little voice in your head justifying your non participation? That voice is wearing a white pointy hooded robe telling you to save your energy for the night you and everyone else are going to spontaneously kill all the rich people and that somehow that will sort itself out. Don't listen to that voice.

But Hygro, I'm telling you I still vote and I'm pro voting ok so argue with me and not against me. Most rich people are not in between you and freedom. Most rich people are not between anyone and freedom. They are by definition few, they don't lobby, they vote mostly the way their parents' did. A few are, plus a few hundred million, maybe a billion, not-rich people who vote are as well. They vote more consistently. They love voting. They get about 40% of what they want, which is mostly to piss us off. But they lost the Senate because a small percent began to believe since 2020 that voting doesn't matter. Nice. Let them think that, but not us.

The two parties will always find a way, by competition, to be about 50% of the game at any given time. Any concentration of non-participation moves the party away from that part of the political spectrum. Progressives have values and the Democratic Party has progressives, but the literal parties themselves have no values. They only serve to agglomerate voters.

Take 10% of Americans would-be-voters are all leftwing and think voting is a sham: the Democratic Party, as a mindless institution designed to survive with 51% of the vote 50% of the time, now has to fight to get 5% of the Republican vote to stay alive. And every vote deeper they have to fight for, they have to fight harder for, which means every percent we go to make up for a lost voter requires an increasing amount of the party message and effort. 2 lost leftists makes us 1 person more rightwing and each right-winger requires a reallocation beyond one person in messaging. To sketch the idea: if 20% of left voters were genuinely checked out, no matter what, something in the water, Democrats would be spending the majority of their party efforts advertising to those 10% over and therefore 20% deep into rightwing territory. To get that final right winger they party would need to be so loud at appealing to that person. And since the party soldiers need their animus to do it, they would have to buy into that messaging, which would echo painfully in the future. We'd end up with some kind of Third Way fetish where... ohhhhhh nooooooo. People still think deficits are bad because it makes the compromised Democrats look good on that issue.

I don't really have a solution for making it attractive to lure some of you back into the fight. But I am warning you the math checks out: when you're checked out, they win. They win as literal Republicans and they win as the Democratic Party has to find voters in their ranks. Every time they win they figure out a way to disenfranchise (for real) a few more voters, and then we need two wins, one to undo their damage and a second to make forward progress.

Obviously my message to the Democratic Party is, in a manner, the opposite. Stop spending so much to win over one more center-right person, give up the corporate wing, go back to invigorating the real base. But there's only so much when good first steps are derided "not enough" and fickle impatience drives non-commitment.

 

[Lexicus]

@Gorbles You are, however, endorsing that opinion.

You are arguing legislation cannot address income inequality, and showed a graph that makes it look dire. As I am educated in the topic of American income inequality, I was able to recognize that that graph deserves some context, i.e. basically the same basic graph that includes the years before where it was already that high, and then dropped. It dropped due to legislation done through America's less enfranchised democratic America through democracy in the 1930s-1950s.

You are arguing that legislation has reached its limits. That's obviously not true, non-participation is huge, and actively promoted by those whose participation would get the whole thing iterating the correct direction.

If you aren't strong enough to coordinate a vote in a country where that's possible, thanks to those who fought for your to do so, you definitely are not organized enough kill all the rich people and then meaningfully redistribute their, what, documents of ownership in a legal fiction you're already circumventing? their cars you can't all share and don't need in order to replace the ones you have? And then not end up with a new tyranny governing a population traumatized and going to continue to traumatize thanks to the echos of their mass violence.

It was also down to central bank actions which, I would say, were not subject to meaningful democratic control.

People literally chose to stop voting. "Both parties are the same". Then the reversal happened and we got to see how not the same the parties were. The amount of since-then, because-of-that disenfranchised voters has been enough to swing elections, but is still less than cynical non-participation making those elections swingable. The particular disenfranchisement we've seen over the past 20 years in the USA has been a slow and steady chipping, each victory makes their next victory possible. Which is the same for us, which is why lifelong participation and non cynicism is a requirement. Freedom will never be free.

You want labor laws enforced? Laws on the books already created against past opposition with the original intention of enforcement? You make sure your prosecutors have the party's endorsement. The party responds to the people in it, that's how it works. If getting critical mass at any local level seems difficult, creating an entire new replacement government to conspire and organize successfully a critical mass is going to be exponentially harder — yet made easier by a concurrent electoral movement.

This is kinda the point though, and linked to the graph of the rich people share of income. I would argue the underlying cause of both the return to pre-Depression levels of inequality and the change in voter behavior are ultimately caused by the concentration of power enjoyed by the capitalists, and afact liberals don't have a compelling answer to how that is going to be dealt with by working within the system.

Note that I'm not opposed to working within the system, I'm only arguing that working outside it is frequently necessary. And I think that, as @schlaufuchs was saying earlier in the thread, it's not that I want to see anyone dead, it's that I really do think that ultimately the kinds of changes I want to see are only likely to happen over the bodies of the rich and probably of a lot of their non-rich simps too.

It's not like we have no historical precedents. Think about what likely would have been required to "win the peace" after the American civil war.

Incidentally, US labor law is at best a mixed bag because while it does protect workers from some of the worst abuses (at least in theory, in practice it does little of this) it is also designed to allow the state to crack down directly on some of the more effective tactics available to organized labor.

Most rich people are not between anyone and freedom.

Gotta disagree on this one. Rich people have unjust power over others through the structure of capitalism, independently of their participation or non-participation in parliamentary politics.

 

[sophie]

It was also won atop literal mountains of dead at Ludlow and Haymarket and Pullman and Blair Mountain, and carried through the force of the frequently very explicitly extra-legal activities of organizations like the IWW and ILWU and the Black Panthers.

To say “voting delivers the goods” because of the new deal is as insipid as saying it delivered the goods on abolition, or claiming Aunt Woo was right in Avatar

 

[Hygro]

Yes, call me insipid.

 

[sophie]

Yes, call me insipid.

you think aunt woo was right??

 

[Hygro]

fair enough

Look, no one is disagreeing that politics outside that ballot have been crucial. I wasn't referring to votes when I said "we fought, they fought back". But laws along the way are also crucial, the vote matters, the parties change according to whomever volunteers themself, and the game theory is real. There's a quote I read from Malcolm X, take one step toward God and he takes two toward you. Step away from the Democratic Party and it steps away from you and toward to whoever is ready to vote for it.

Like all machine learning, children, etc, repetition and positive affirmation for all things in the right direction, regardless of landing something spot on or conclusively,

It's up to us the educated to give it the input, but we have to interface correctly or it won't function. Withholding attention doesn't work on machines, nor kids, nor political parties.

 

[Narz]

Considering how rich he still is, he doesn't appear to be doing a good job.

Warren Buffet net worth in 2010: 47B
Warren Buffet net worth in 2022: 110B

Cool more money to give away when he kicks the bucket.

If Buffett actually wanted to do something good for society he would have ordered BNSF to accede to the rail workers’ demands and given them 10 days sick leave a year.

Maybe that's what you would do if you were rich.

Homeboy giving away 99% and you're like, what a dick, he should give to my choice of charity.
[snipped] Moderator Action: Birdjaguar

 

[Narz]

Under no circumstances are you actually disenfranchised. I suppose you could at a high level make the case "My psychology fell victim to an exogenously transmitted, self-fulfilling belief that I am powerless, therefore I am

I agree that the learned helplessness and obsession w hating particular rich individuals is lame (altho Elon is fun to rip on I have to admit) but voting as the answer? Meh. Every1 thought Obama was a savior but he bailed out the banks just as anyone else would've done (probably even Bernie Sanders tho who knows how he would've handled it)

 

[Narz]

it's not that I want to see anyone dead, it's that I really do think that ultimately the kinds of changes I want to see are only likely to happen over the bodies of the rich and probably of a lot of their non-rich simps too.

How does this slaughter work in practice? I've heard you talk about it for years so I'm curious how fleshed out the fantasy is in your mind

 

[Birdjaguar]

ultimately the kinds of changes I want to see are only likely to happen over the bodies of the rich and probably of a lot of their non-rich simps too.

And the significant changes you want to see will have a low probably of actually happening. The new rich will rise from the ashes of the old.

 

[Narz]

And the significant changes you want to see will have a low probably of actually happening. The new rich will rise from the ashes of the old.

Don't you know history man? Read about the Russian revolution, once they got rid of those corrupt czars benevolent people could finally rule and an era of national peace and prosperity was ushered in

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't you know history man? Read about the Russian revolution, once they got rid of those corrupt czars benevolent people could finally rule and an era of national peace and prosperity was ushered in

Heh.

Anyway tax cuts have been overdone. How abouth throwing poor people into volcanoes? Will that work?

 

[Narz]

Since I haven't directly offered my take and people have asked, it's this :

We're all in the same boat.

Unless the rich want their grandkids to live in bunkers due to runaway climate disaster they should realize that.

But many of then don't.

Simply going to the polls isn't enough. Taking out all the bad guys like the montouge from breaking bad when Walt has the nazis wipe out potential snitches in one foul swoop is a teenage boy dream.

Only thing that will work imo is penetration of their brains and belief systems.

That's what's cool about what's happening w Musk now. He's getting mocked, booed irl, having to deal w his own hypocrisy. Now he may be too autistic and surrounded by sycophants to be affected but others w more awareness are noticing.

But coordinated action is required. Like a psych-op to get into the heads of those in power. Could be non-profits that take donations, perhaps each one aimed at inflicting a particular individual or corporation (and communicating and cooperating w each other of course)

I'm just making this up, hadn't thought it thru til just now

 

[Angst]

Don't you know history man? Read about the Russian revolution, once they got rid of those corrupt czars benevolent people could finally rule and an era of national peace and prosperity was ushered in

the trick is to change the system before discontent becomes so bad that someone good at fighting rather than good at ruling forces the end this way

the trick is also a trick because we haven't learned it yet

 

[Gorbles]

Not only are both parties the same

Again, incorrect. Like I said there's significant overlap but this is more of the "benefits one party and not the other". This line benefits the Republicans (in the US).

Under no circumstances are you actually disenfranchised.

Incorrect.

I'm talking to a few of you here, but I reiterate. If you feel too tired to believe in voting, the rest isn't even on the table.

It's not just about being tired. I really don't think you're trying to understand the reasons, here. Plenty have been given. Do you think civil rights activists were "tired"? Are "tired"? Is that the lens to examine this discussion through?

I don't think it is.

But Hygro, I'm telling you I still vote and I'm pro voting ok so argue with me and not against me.

I can't, because you're suggesting a binary when I, sophie and I'm pretty sure Lexi are pointing out someone can vote and still look for answers outside of that system.

They are by definition few, they don't lobby

Incorrect.

Like, maybe you can split a semantic hair and claim they don't lobby in the conventional, as it is defined in the US sense, but like Lexi said they use their wealth and general leverage afforded to them by their wealth to affect policy. Happens all the time.

Cool more money to give away when he kicks the bucket.

That's hilariously naive. First it was "he's giving it all away", and when that was proven incorrect you're pivoting to the hope it'll magically distribute itself when he passes?

History, the thing you're a big fan of providing analogies from, doesn't back that up. It'll pass to the next generation, but his next generation. Or some other ancient rich person in his current generation.

 

[Narz]

and when that was proven incorrect

Try n read before making as ass of yourself next time.

First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death.

 

[Lexicus]

How does this slaughter work in practice? I've heard you talk about it for years so I'm curious how fleshed out the fantasy is in your mind

Again, the historical precedent would be the Civil War, where much of the southern planter class literally consumed itself in the bloodiest war in US history rather than accept a restriction on slavery in the territories (let alone the actual abolition or even end-with-compensation of slavery where it already existed). (edit: actually, this should read: rather than accept the legal election of a President they didn't like).

And the significant changes you want to see will have a low probably of actually happening. The new rich will rise from the ashes of the old.

Yes, after all, the natural superiority of some over others will be expressed no matter the social conditions - isn't that what you mean here?