3 ms·

Social capital is not something you 'equalize' by raising taxes on the rich; it's something you build by introducing the norms and institutions of civil society

Social capital is not something you 'equalize' by raising taxes on the rich; it's something you build by introducing the norms and institutions of civil society even among people who were formerly socially excluded and marginalized. As one example, unions are a notable case of an institution which has played a non-trivial role in improving social capital/civil society among the "underclasses" of many developing countries.

leereeves 8y ago
Oh, that's what you meant by social capital. I meant things like jobs, health care, education, and most importantly, opportunities to excel. I think any attempt to blame the underclass for their situation is simply ignorant of the problems faced by people who don't have access to those things, and the reasons why people whose best hope appears to lie outside the "norms of civil society" choose not to obey the norms of a system which is set up primarily to preserve wealth - that is, to preserve their exclusion and subjugation.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  Actually, it's pretty much both. And I absolutely agree that any attempt to blame individuals for their plight is absolutely misguided. Not least because it's rather misleading to even talk about people "choosing not to obey" the norms of civil society as a relevant issue - the fact that this is even a plausible choice simply shows that the self-sustaining aggregate of norms, solid institutions, real opportunity to be economically productive and even to excel (and not just pointless make-work) and the like were never properly established in the first place - that these people, in a way, are indeed being excluded and subjugated, if perhaps only via inaction. It's nonetheless a mistake to presume that such subjugation "preserves" wealth. It actively destroys wealth, whether or not it functionally preserves an existing social hierarchy.

leereeves 8y ago

Oh, that's what you meant by social capital. I meant things like jobs, health care, education, and most importantly, opportunities to excel. I think any attempt to blame the underclass for their situation is simply ignorant of the problems faced by people who don't have access to those things, and the reasons why people whose best hope appears to lie outside the "norms of civil society" choose not to obey the norms of a system which is set up primarily to preserve wealth - that is, to preserve their exclusion and subjugation.

zozbot123 8y ago
Actually, it's pretty much both. And I absolutely agree that any attempt to blame individuals for their plight is absolutely misguided. Not least because it's rather misleading to even talk about people "choosing not to obey" the norms of civil society as a relevant issue - the fact that this is even a plausible choice simply shows that the self-sustaining aggregate of norms, solid institutions, real opportunity to be economically productive and even to excel (and not just pointless make-work) and the like were never properly established in the first place - that these people, in a way, are indeed being excluded and subjugated, if perhaps only via inaction. It's nonetheless a mistake to presume that such subjugation "preserves" wealth. It actively destroys wealth, whether or not it functionally preserves an existing social hierarchy.