TMMOT Thunderdome

[Silent Majority]

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.

I think this is one of the rare times dogmatism is actually a little helpful. To draw a line in the sand and say that all millionaires suck. The rich are not your friend and it is most likely that you will never join their exalted ranks.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think this is one of the rare times dogmatism is actually a little helpful. To draw a line in the sand and say that all millionaires suck. The rich are not your friend and it is most likely that you will never join their exalted ranks.

It does illustrate, I think, how some (probably most) will default to "whatabout?" counters in order to avoid the deeper intent of your statement. And in so doing, humanize a cruel system designed to dehumanize. Just as a rhetorical device for making a core point, I think it's quite effective, as your opponents in this thread have shown (all due respect to those on the other side).

[eumaas]

Just to be clear I consider myself more on James’ side than on his opponents’. I just think having a more discriminating class analysis helps coalition-building for political action. By way of contrast, consider how Stalin and Trotsky viewed peasant smallholders.

[muppet hi fi]

Question: am I on James' side or am I one of his opponents?

[Heston]

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 mostly agree with Gene, but also...

EVERYBODY SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THAT NONSENSE. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

I'm chuckling but it's even better at 1:25 speed.

[Silent Majority]

Just to be clear I consider myself more on James’ side than on his opponents’. I just think having a more discriminating class analysis helps coalition-building for political action. By way of contrast, consider how Stalin and Trotsky viewed peasant smallholders.

Yeah, that's one of the many examples where dogmatism and a lack of thoughtful flexibilty was as ridiculously dumb as it was tragically harmful.

[matedog]

Just to be clear I consider myself more on James’ side than on his opponents’. I just think having a more discriminating class analysis helps coalition-building for political action. By way of contrast, consider how Stalin and Trotsky viewed peasant smallholders.

I don't think there are really different sides. I think people have a different understanding of James' points as I noted earlier.

[eumaas]

Just to be clear I consider myself more on James’ side than on his opponents’. I just think having a more discriminating class analysis helps coalition-building for political action. By way of contrast, consider how Stalin and Trotsky viewed peasant smallholders.

I don't think there are really different sides. I think people have a different understanding of James' points as I noted earlier.

If you want to make that point, you should reply to Neil’s post. I was just following his usage.

[matedog]

Just to be clear I consider myself more on James’ side than on his opponents’. I just think having a more discriminating class analysis helps coalition-building for political action. By way of contrast, consider how Stalin and Trotsky viewed peasant smallholders.

I don't think there are really different sides. I think people have a different understanding of James' points as I noted earlier.

If you want to make that point, you should reply to Neil’s post. I was just following his usage.

Paging Dr. Shit For Brains...

[eumaas]

Also that there are different sides to a discussion doesn’t imply factional sides or anything all that antagonistic. You know, like a classroom discussion.

[Silent Majority]

I want to be clear that I'm grateful for this discussion and appreciate everyone for contributing. It's not an argument.

[Wolter]

I want to be clear that I'm grateful for this discussion and appreciate everyone for contributing. It's not an argument.

Yes it is.

[Silent Majority]

I want to be clear that I'm grateful for this discussion and appreciate everyone for contributing. It's not an argument.

Yes it is.

You are the one who is an argument.

[muppet hi fi]

I want to be clear that I'm grateful for this discussion and appreciate everyone for contributing. It's not an argument.

Yes it is.

You are the one who is an argument.

Look you fish brained wee gorse, your mother's a - oh, sorry, this is abuse. Arguments are down the hall to the left. Ta.

[Dr. Medulla]

Just to be clear I consider myself more on James’ side than on his opponents’. I just think having a more discriminating class analysis helps coalition-building for political action. By way of contrast, consider how Stalin and Trotsky viewed peasant smallholders.

I don't think there are really different sides. I think people have a different understanding of James' points as I noted earlier.

I'm less certain that we're all actually in agreement. Yes, there may be some differing interpretation of what James was saying, but that different interpretation, I think, speaks to ideological inclinations, as I said above. How we interpreted him reveals our perspective. And, to be clear and echo Gene's comment, this isn't about antagonistic, even if those of us more ardently anti-capitalism can come off as more passionate or urgent, but basic conversation. Discussions go in strange and often productive places, so the goal, imo, isn't about persuading or dominating, which fundamentally seeks to shut down discussion, so much as nurturing a topic to encourage odd explorations.