4 ms·

The preface to all further discussion: wealth is power, and nothing else. In our highly capitalist society, monetary wealth is perhaps the only useful form of p

The preface to all further discussion: wealth is power, and nothing else. In our highly capitalist society, monetary wealth is perhaps the only useful form of power, from which all other power (violence, social influence) ultimately flows. The Soviet Union attempted to produce equality of income, but not power: power was highly centralized. The equality I want is one that is diffusive.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> The preface to all further discussion: wealth is power, and nothing else. Okay, you made a dogmatic statement. That proves nothing, except that you are capable of making dogmatic statements. Wealth is the promise (perhaps false) of satisfaction, it is (perhaps false) identity, it is security, and it is the freedom not to have to work. I suppose you can say that all those are forms of power, but... If you define everything to be power, then yes, wealth is power, but that tells us nothing interesting except what your definition was. > In our highly capitalist society, monetary wealth is perhaps the only useful form of power, from which all other power (violence, social influence) ultimately flows. Democracy is another form of power. It is influenced by money, but not totally. That is, the little people can in fact vote against the money, and will do so if the money pushes too far. Campaign ads won't be enough if the little people get fed up enough. Social influence largely flows from money, I'll give you that. Violence? Money gives you a greater ability to use violence and still escape the law, but you can't go very far no matter how much money you have.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  >Wealth is the promise (perhaps false) of satisfaction I think, perhaps, you are speaking of the kind of wealth accumulated by middle class families. I'm speaking of the billions accumulated by Jeff Bezos, which allows him to purchase the Washington Post (etc). You might call this "satisfaction", but at this scale it's raw power - the ability to command resources and bend them to your purpose. >Democracy is another form of power. It is influenced by money, but not totally. Democracy is quite strongly influenced by money. I'm sure you've seen this study: http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil... which purports to demonstrate that American democracy responds exactly to the interests of economic elites and not to popular will. Popular will is much weaker than the influence of money. There is an entire (unelected) arm of government that is devoted to lobbying and writing legislation on behalf of monied interests; half of Congress leaves and joins this arm when their term is up. I'm not saying these things are inevitable, that monetary wealth cannot be constrained by democratic power, etc., just that this is not how things currently stand.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> The preface to all further discussion: wealth is power, and nothing else. Okay, you made a dogmatic statement. That proves nothing, except that you are capable of making dogmatic statements. Wealth is the promise (perhaps false) of satisfaction, it is (perhaps false) identity, it is security, and it is the freedom not to have to work. I suppose you can say that all those are forms of power, but... If you define everything to be power, then yes, wealth is power, but that tells us nothing interesting except what your definition was. > In our highly capitalist society, monetary wealth is perhaps the only useful form of power, from which all other power (violence, social influence) ultimately flows. Democracy is another form of power. It is influenced by money, but not totally. That is, the little people can in fact vote against the money, and will do so if the money pushes too far. Campaign ads won't be enough if the little people get fed up enough. Social influence largely flows from money, I'll give you that. Violence? Money gives you a greater ability to use violence and still escape the law, but you can't go very far no matter how much money you have.

astazangasta 11y ago
>Wealth is the promise (perhaps false) of satisfaction I think, perhaps, you are speaking of the kind of wealth accumulated by middle class families. I'm speaking of the billions accumulated by Jeff Bezos, which allows him to purchase the Washington Post (etc). You might call this "satisfaction", but at this scale it's raw power - the ability to command resources and bend them to your purpose. >Democracy is another form of power. It is influenced by money, but not totally. Democracy is quite strongly influenced by money. I'm sure you've seen this study: http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil... which purports to demonstrate that American democracy responds exactly to the interests of economic elites and not to popular will. Popular will is much weaker than the influence of money. There is an entire (unelected) arm of government that is devoted to lobbying and writing legislation on behalf of monied interests; half of Congress leaves and joins this arm when their term is up. I'm not saying these things are inevitable, that monetary wealth cannot be constrained by democratic power, etc., just that this is not how things currently stand.