Haven't really waded in, but want to unequivocally co-sign Maj's take here. He's also more than bent over backwards to protect the precious feelings of the wealthy, some of whom may be nice while they participate and thrive in a system of death capitalism.
No war but class war, and all that.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
I don’t think Wally’s point is a bad one. Don’t assume things about people without really knowing them and where they come from. It should be applied to all people, including those least in need of the benefit of the doubt (the rich).
We're not talking about prejudicial assumptions about the character of wealthy people.
That’s is exactly what was being talked about and the sole reason I posted in the thread.
Basically, it comes down to this single idea:
a) there should be absolutely no millionaires and we should oppose them all as our foes
b) some millionaires are nice
The confusion seems to be rooted in this interaction:
Being a millionaire doesn't mean you suck, or that you're an awful person.
Agree to disagree.
You seem to be saying in your two posts that millionaires are capable of being nice yet are awful people. I see what you are saying, they are awful people by prospering in such an awful system, but are capable of of doing good things. You can see why this might seem contradictory.
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.
I don’t think Wally’s point is a bad one. Don’t assume things about people without really knowing them and where they come from. It should be applied to all people, including those least in need of the benefit of the doubt (the rich).
We're not talking about prejudicial assumptions about the character of wealthy people.
That’s is exactly what was being talked about and the sole reason I posted in the thread.
Basically, it comes down to this single idea:
a) there should be absolutely no millionaires and we should oppose them all as our foes
b) some millionaires are nice
The confusion seems to be rooted in this interaction:
Being a millionaire doesn't mean you suck, or that you're an awful person.
Agree to disagree.
You seem to be saying in your two posts that millionaires are capable of being nice yet are awful people. I see what you are saying, they are awful people by prospering in such an awful system, but are capable of of doing good things. You can see why this might seem contradictory.
It's a dialectic, not a dichotomy.
a lifetime serving one machine
Is ten times worse than prison
Chaps - I was talking about millionaire musicians and whether they sucked when they made some money and therefore became awful people. I thought that's what Murph was talking about originally too. As it's, ya know, a music thread.
The rest is so much dancing about architecture.
Strong shoes is what we got and when they're hot they're hot!
- Marky Dread and his fabulous Screaming Blue Messiahs
I can’t co-sign unequivocally because there’s a distinction between owning capital and land and having wealth from record sales, acting gigs, athletics etc. The natural tendency or pressure of the system is for the latter to end up investing in capital and land and thus join the owner class, which means the difference can elide over time, but there is an initial distinction.
An athlete who gets a good contract with whatever team is not automatically in the same class as a business owner who makes an equivalent income. The exploitation is much more indirect in the former case and the former can be the subject of exploitation even though they are comparatively more well off than the typical wage laborer.
Now, the argument can be made that any wealth concentration at all is immoral even if it doesn’t directly derive from exploitation. The idea is that one should give away that money upon acquiring it, but I am doubtful as to the overall utility of the minor rich giving away their income. I don’t think philanthropy does anything to combat capitalism as a system.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
I can’t co-sign unequivocally because there’s a distinction between owning capital and land and having wealth from record sales, acting gigs, athletics etc. The natural tendency or pressure of the system is for the latter to end up investing in capital and land and thus join the owner class, which means the difference can elide over time, but there is an initial distinction.
An athlete who gets a good contract with whatever team is not automatically in the same class as a business owner who makes an equivalent income. The exploitation is much more indirect in the former case and the former can be the subject of exploitation even though they are comparatively more well off than the typical wage laborer.
Now, the argument can be made that any wealth concentration at all is immoral even if it doesn’t directly derive from exploitation. The idea is that one should give away that money upon acquiring it, but I am doubtful as to the overall utility of the minor rich giving away their income. I don’t think philanthropy does anything to combat capitalism as a system.
I can sympathise with your fair and reasonable position. I do think that wealthy writers, athletes and performers do capitalism a great service as water carriers of goodwill, but that's hardly their fault.
a lifetime serving one machine
Is ten times worse than prison
I can’t co-sign unequivocally because there’s a distinction between owning capital and land and having wealth from record sales, acting gigs, athletics etc. The natural tendency or pressure of the system is for the latter to end up investing in capital and land and thus join the owner class, which means the difference can elide over time, but there is an initial distinction.
An athlete who gets a good contract with whatever team is not automatically in the same class as a business owner who makes an equivalent income. The exploitation is much more indirect in the former case and the former can be the subject of exploitation even though they are comparatively more well off than the typical wage laborer.
Now, the argument can be made that any wealth concentration at all is immoral even if it doesn’t directly derive from exploitation. The idea is that one should give away that money upon acquiring it, but I am doubtful as to the overall utility of the minor rich giving away their income. I don’t think philanthropy does anything to combat capitalism as a system.
I can sympathise with your fair and reasonable position. I do think that wealthy writers, athletes and performers do capitalism a great service as water carriers of goodwill, but that's hardly their fault.
I can’t co-sign unequivocally because there’s a distinction between owning capital and land and having wealth from record sales, acting gigs, athletics etc. The natural tendency or pressure of the system is for the latter to end up investing in capital and land and thus join the owner class, which means the difference can elide over time, but there is an initial distinction.
An athlete who gets a good contract with whatever team is not automatically in the same class as a business owner who makes an equivalent income. The exploitation is much more indirect in the former case and the former can be the subject of exploitation even though they are comparatively more well off than the typical wage laborer.
Now, the argument can be made that any wealth concentration at all is immoral even if it doesn’t directly derive from exploitation. The idea is that one should give away that money upon acquiring it, but I am doubtful as to the overall utility of the minor rich giving away their income. I don’t think philanthropy does anything to combat capitalism as a system.
I can sympathise with your fair and reasonable position. I do think that wealthy writers, athletes and performers do capitalism a great service as water carriers of goodwill, but that's hardly their fault.
The problem with wealthy artists and athletes is that they seemingly demonstrate that capitalism is fair and rewards talent. Again, that the market is not just a means of distributing material goods but assigning morality and justice. So, yeah, musician sells a gorillion records and we say he or she has earned it, good for them, as opposed to, say, the Wal-Mart heirs who do fuck all but grow wealthier. But they earned it via a dirty system whereby the money they earned can inevitably traced to someone else's impoverishment (the whole commodity fetish thing, if you want to go that route). It's that determined looking away at the nature of how resources are divvied up that grates.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
I can’t co-sign unequivocally because there’s a distinction between owning capital and land and having wealth from record sales, acting gigs, athletics etc. The natural tendency or pressure of the system is for the latter to end up investing in capital and land and thus join the owner class, which means the difference can elide over time, but there is an initial distinction.
An athlete who gets a good contract with whatever team is not automatically in the same class as a business owner who makes an equivalent income. The exploitation is much more indirect in the former case and the former can be the subject of exploitation even though they are comparatively more well off than the typical wage laborer.
Now, the argument can be made that any wealth concentration at all is immoral even if it doesn’t directly derive from exploitation. The idea is that one should give away that money upon acquiring it, but I am doubtful as to the overall utility of the minor rich giving away their income. I don’t think philanthropy does anything to combat capitalism as a system.
I can sympathise with your fair and reasonable position. I do think that wealthy writers, athletes and performers do capitalism a great service as water carriers of goodwill, but that's hardly their fault.
The problem with wealthy artists and athletes is that they seemingly demonstrate that capitalism is fair and rewards talent. Again, that the market is not just a means of distributing material goods but assigning morality and justice. So, yeah, musician sells a gorillion records and we say he or she has earned it, good for them, as opposed to, say, the Wal-Mart heirs who do fuck all but grow wealthier. But they earned it via a dirty system whereby the money they earned can inevitably traced to someone else's impoverishment (the whole commodity fetish thing, if you want to go that route). It's that determined looking away at the nature of how resources are divvied up that grates.
I agree that success stories have a legitimating effect, but I also think one has to distinguish between classes in order to have an effective position of “no war but class war,” i.e. discerning which classes are actually in struggle with each other versus piecing out who possesses the higher moral standing. I don’t think the latter is equivalent to the former. The well-to-do athlete or writer is like the petit-bourgeois and can sometimes sign on for radical action. Others enjoy the social access too much and get assimilated into the owning class.
In regards to the bolded, you can levy the same charge on any first-world worker under dependency theory. That’s why some groups refer to the first-world working class as the labor aristocracy and deny that they have any revolutionary potential at all. Instead the locus of revolution is the third world. I think most of us would hesitate to call the average American or British worker a member of the labor aristocracy, but it is true that any (meager) wealth and security they enjoy also rests upon global imperial exploitation of the periphery. Not to mention in America the whole heritage of colonization.
I think my point is that one can winnow it down as much as one likes on sound moral foundations but that also is not in itself a clear guide to action and the dynamics of class struggle. Some class interests are antagonistic and some are non-antagonistic even if the classes involved have disparity in wealth.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
I agree that success stories have a legitimating effect, but I also think one has to distinguish between classes in order to have an effective position of “no war but class war,” i.e. discerning which classes are actually in struggle with each other versus piecing out who possesses the higher moral standing. I don’t think the latter is equivalent to the former. The well-to-do athlete or writer is like the petit-bourgeois and can sometimes sign on for radical action. Others enjoy the social access too much and get assimilated into the owning class.
In regards to the bolded, you can levy the same charge on any first-world worker under dependency theory. That’s why some groups refer to the first-world working class as the labor aristocracy and deny that they have any revolutionary potential at all. Instead the locus of revolution is the third world. I think most of us would hesitate to call the average American or British worker a member of the labor aristocracy, but it is true that any (meager) wealth and security they enjoy also rests upon global imperial exploitation of the periphery. Not to mention in America the whole heritage of colonization.
I think my point is that one can winnow it down as much as one likes on sound moral foundations but that also is not in itself a clear guide to action and the dynamics of class struggle. Some class interests are antagonistic and some are non-antagonistic even if the classes involved have disparity in wealth.
You're correct, of course, in complicating my very simple assertions. I suppose I'm arguing more for, as an initial step, consciousness raising, which is only required because of the perceptual divorce between a wealthy person being a good egg and the rotten egg smell of the means by which they became wealthy. Once we're there, then the sensible distinctions should be investigated, even tho that can and often does encourage a certain circular firing squad effect.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
I retract my unmitigated endorsement of James' positions.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
