Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 8:02amYeah, I hear Richard Branson's biography is a good read.Marky Dread wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 7:45amSilent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 7:03amBasically, it comes down to this single idea:101Walterton wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 6:33amThat’s is exactly what was being talked about and the sole reason I posted in the thread.Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 6:20am
We're not talking about prejudicial assumptions about the character of wealthy people.
a) Fuck you I'm rich.
b) Tough shit poor people!
TMMOT Thunderdome
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 58972
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35942
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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.
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
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
The confusion seems to be rooted in this interaction:Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 7:03amBasically, it comes down to this single idea:101Walterton wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 6:33amThat’s is exactly what was being talked about and the sole reason I posted in the thread.Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 6:20amWe're not talking about prejudicial assumptions about the character of wealthy people.
a) there should be absolutely no millionaires and we should oppose them all as our foes
b) some millionaires are nice
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.Silent Majority wrote: ↑10 Apr 2018, 11:57amAgree to disagree.muppet hi fi wrote: ↑09 Apr 2018, 8:02pmBeing a millionaire doesn't mean you suck, or that you're an awful person.
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.
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18734
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
It's a dialectic, not a dichotomy.matedog wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 9:58amThe confusion seems to be rooted in this interaction:Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 7:03amBasically, it comes down to this single idea:101Walterton wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 6:33amThat’s is exactly what was being talked about and the sole reason I posted in the thread.Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 6:20amWe're not talking about prejudicial assumptions about the character of wealthy people.
a) there should be absolutely no millionaires and we should oppose them all as our foes
b) some millionaires are niceYou 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.Silent Majority wrote: ↑10 Apr 2018, 11:57amAgree to disagree.muppet hi fi wrote: ↑09 Apr 2018, 8:02pmBeing a millionaire doesn't mean you suck, or that you're an awful person.
-
muppet hi fi
- Unknown Immortal
- Posts: 5190
- Joined: 19 Feb 2009, 1:10pm
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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.
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
- Marky Dread and his fabulous Screaming Blue Messiahs
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
EVERYBODY SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT NONSENSE. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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.
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
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
-
Silent Majority
- Singer-Songwriter Nancy
- Posts: 18734
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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.eumaas wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:07amI 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.
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
I mostly agree with Gene, but also...Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:18amI 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.eumaas wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:07amI 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.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116570
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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.Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:18amI 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.eumaas wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:07amI 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.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
-
muppet hi fi
- Unknown Immortal
- Posts: 5190
- Joined: 19 Feb 2009, 1:10pm
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
Strong shoes is what we got and when they're hot they're hot!
- Marky Dread and his fabulous Screaming Blue Messiahs
- Marky Dread and his fabulous Screaming Blue Messiahs
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:27amThe 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.Silent Majority wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:18amI 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.eumaas wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:07amI 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.
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
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
if I am bothering people that much with my posts maybe Inder can split the whole discussion into a new Dictator thread?
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
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116570
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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.eumaas wrote: ↑11 Apr 2018, 11:47amI 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.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35942
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: The Mighty Musical Observations Thread
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
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!