10 ms·

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ― Ronald Wri

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ― Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

Roritharr 6y ago
The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. Both views are flawed, of course.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. That's not the flip side of that view, because the socialist view of an exploited proletariat in an advanced industrial democracy is not one of “helpless victims”, but of a powerful force that has the power to reverse the power structure once they realize it exists and act in solidarity against it.
  - treerock 6y ago
    > socialist view of an exploited proletariat is one of...a powerful force May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', with no real power? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', No, the lumpenproletariat, in Marxist theory is an underclass beneath and contrasted with the proletariat consisting largely of the unemployable (not due to economic system or structure, or physical capacity, but personal character and inclination), career criminals (of more than mala in se than malum prohibiting sense), and the others who neither make nor are inclined to make a positive contribution to society, and which unlike the proletariat is not viewed as a fertile ground for developing class consciousness and is viewed as a dangerous class at best useless to revolutionary organization of the proletariat, and also having a great potential, largely for pay, to individually be recruited as agents by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.
      - ivanhoe 6y ago
        Ohh, so something like Bachelors of Arts, right? :P
  - Anthony-G 6y ago
    I don’t understand why this post is being down-voted as it clearly states one of the foundations of socialism. A quick (and very) simplified summary of the traditional socialist perspective is that in capitalism, the vast majority of the population must work as wage-earners (proletariat) to provide the means to sustain their life. A much smaller group of people (capitalists or bourgeoisie) own the means of production and do not need to work. The material interests of these two groups are in opposition (class struggle): value is created by work done (labour theory of value) and it is in the interest of capitalist owners to exploit workers as much as possible, i.e., maximise the amount of value they can extract as profit. As economic value is created by the labour of workers, in an advanced industrial society, they are the class with the potential to consolidate this economic power: if they were to unite (in unions and socialist parties), they could use this economic power to take political power from the capital class. The goal of the socialist is to unite workers across boundaries so that they understand that their material interests coincide with other workers (class consciousness) – what they have in common is more important than what divides them. If workers don’t see that their material interests lie with the vast majority who have to work to live, the class will remain divided (as illustrated by the Ronald Wright quote). As well as these two primary classes, there are other (smaller) classes in capitalist society, such as - petit-bourgeoisie (small capitalists who own their means of production, e.g. shop-keeper) who can employ workers but don’t possess sufficient capital to not have to work themselves. Their class interests can lie with both capitalist and worker. - lumpen proletariat – the underclass of the proletariat who don’t provide economic value, e.g., thieves, beggars, criminals; they lack class consciousness and act in their individual self-interest; they can be used by capitalists against the interests of the proletariat (e.g., strike-breaking, inciting racism to divide workers).
    - chongli 6y ago
      I understand why socialism appeals to people when they see so much suffering and inequality in the world. What I do not understand is why any scholars would cling to the labour theory of value in light of such things as multi-billionaire startup founders. It should be pretty clear to anyone at this point that all you need is a laptop, programming skills, a good idea, and a lot of luck to become a billionaire. You don’t need thousands, let alone millions, of employees labouring for you.
negamax 6y ago
Yes and there's no socialist country that has produced Amazon, Google, Apple, Tesla, SpaceX to name a few. This platform, keyboard, routers in the middle are all US made. And there's a good reason for that
- pnutjam 6y ago
  You mean no socialist country that hasn't been under constant attack by the majority of non-socialist countries.
  - negamax 6y ago
    Please create your socialist utopia and make it work. Why change US and other successful countries?
    - pnutjam 6y ago
      Never claimed I could or wanted to, just pointing out that it's disingenuous to claim these systems fail in a vacuum because they are inherently flawed.
      - negamax 6y ago
        Or maybe they do fail because they are flawed. And foreign interest weakening them is just a story. People suffer under socialism. Maybe you should liver under a socialist regime before preaching them.
        pnutjam 6y ago
        Yes, people suffer under embargo. We'll never know how much is scary socialism and how much is pile on effect.
        negamax 6y ago
        I am happy to have this debate in a more fluid channel and with a wider group. May be that's the best way to understand this. HN leaks into wider culture and people here do have voice and impact. So definitely arrange for a discussion for wider participation if you can.
malandrew 6y ago
The converse involves temporarily embarrassed Bolshevik central planners. The truth is that any system has winners calling the shots and losers at their mercy. What matters is figuring out which system (or blend of systems) produces the best outcomes for its worst off constituents.
tibbydudeza 6y ago
So true.
hamilyon2 6y ago
Social mobility is a thing. the fact that becoming rich has non-linear payout (e. g. it is expensive to be poor) encourages hard work. If there are no real barriers in upward social mobility, it will quickly be apperant that earning a little capital and putting it to work is the best way to spend your life. Over time it will compound and produce even more. Of course, often the best capital to accumulate is skills and education. If the is no real upward social mobility, people will feel indifferent to the idea of producing more value, right now.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." ― Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress

Roritharr 6y ago

The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. Both views are flawed, of course.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The flip-side of this truism is that this point of view is probably healthier for the individual than seeing themselves as helpless victims. That's not the flip side of that view, because the socialist view of an exploited proletariat in an advanced industrial democracy is not one of “helpless victims”, but of a powerful force that has the power to reverse the power structure once they realize it exists and act in solidarity against it.
- treerock 6y ago
  > socialist view of an exploited proletariat is one of...a powerful force May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', with no real power? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > May be mistaken, but historically didn't socialist view proles as a 'lumpen mass', No, the lumpenproletariat, in Marxist theory is an underclass beneath and contrasted with the proletariat consisting largely of the unemployable (not due to economic system or structure, or physical capacity, but personal character and inclination), career criminals (of more than mala in se than malum prohibiting sense), and the others who neither make nor are inclined to make a positive contribution to society, and which unlike the proletariat is not viewed as a fertile ground for developing class consciousness and is viewed as a dangerous class at best useless to revolutionary organization of the proletariat, and also having a great potential, largely for pay, to individually be recruited as agents by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.
    - ivanhoe 6y ago
      Ohh, so something like Bachelors of Arts, right? :P
- Anthony-G 6y ago
  I don’t understand why this post is being down-voted as it clearly states one of the foundations of socialism. A quick (and very) simplified summary of the traditional socialist perspective is that in capitalism, the vast majority of the population must work as wage-earners (proletariat) to provide the means to sustain their life. A much smaller group of people (capitalists or bourgeoisie) own the means of production and do not need to work. The material interests of these two groups are in opposition (class struggle): value is created by work done (labour theory of value) and it is in the interest of capitalist owners to exploit workers as much as possible, i.e., maximise the amount of value they can extract as profit. As economic value is created by the labour of workers, in an advanced industrial society, they are the class with the potential to consolidate this economic power: if they were to unite (in unions and socialist parties), they could use this economic power to take political power from the capital class. The goal of the socialist is to unite workers across boundaries so that they understand that their material interests coincide with other workers (class consciousness) – what they have in common is more important than what divides them. If workers don’t see that their material interests lie with the vast majority who have to work to live, the class will remain divided (as illustrated by the Ronald Wright quote). As well as these two primary classes, there are other (smaller) classes in capitalist society, such as - petit-bourgeoisie (small capitalists who own their means of production, e.g. shop-keeper) who can employ workers but don’t possess sufficient capital to not have to work themselves. Their class interests can lie with both capitalist and worker. - lumpen proletariat – the underclass of the proletariat who don’t provide economic value, e.g., thieves, beggars, criminals; they lack class consciousness and act in their individual self-interest; they can be used by capitalists against the interests of the proletariat (e.g., strike-breaking, inciting racism to divide workers).
  - chongli 6y ago
    I understand why socialism appeals to people when they see so much suffering and inequality in the world. What I do not understand is why any scholars would cling to the labour theory of value in light of such things as multi-billionaire startup founders. It should be pretty clear to anyone at this point that all you need is a laptop, programming skills, a good idea, and a lot of luck to become a billionaire. You don’t need thousands, let alone millions, of employees labouring for you.

negamax 6y ago

Yes and there's no socialist country that has produced Amazon, Google, Apple, Tesla, SpaceX to name a few. This platform, keyboard, routers in the middle are all US made. And there's a good reason for that

pnutjam 6y ago
You mean no socialist country that hasn't been under constant attack by the majority of non-socialist countries.
- negamax 6y ago
  Please create your socialist utopia and make it work. Why change US and other successful countries?
  - pnutjam 6y ago
    Never claimed I could or wanted to, just pointing out that it's disingenuous to claim these systems fail in a vacuum because they are inherently flawed.
    - negamax 6y ago
      Or maybe they do fail because they are flawed. And foreign interest weakening them is just a story. People suffer under socialism. Maybe you should liver under a socialist regime before preaching them.
      - pnutjam 6y ago
        Yes, people suffer under embargo. We'll never know how much is scary socialism and how much is pile on effect.
        negamax 6y ago
        I am happy to have this debate in a more fluid channel and with a wider group. May be that's the best way to understand this. HN leaks into wider culture and people here do have voice and impact. So definitely arrange for a discussion for wider participation if you can.

malandrew 6y ago

The converse involves temporarily embarrassed Bolshevik central planners. The truth is that any system has winners calling the shots and losers at their mercy. What matters is figuring out which system (or blend of systems) produces the best outcomes for its worst off constituents.

tibbydudeza 6y ago

So true.

hamilyon2 6y ago

Social mobility is a thing. the fact that becoming rich has non-linear payout (e. g. it is expensive to be poor) encourages hard work. If there are no real barriers in upward social mobility, it will quickly be apperant that earning a little capital and putting it to work is the best way to spend your life. Over time it will compound and produce even more. Of course, often the best capital to accumulate is skills and education. If the is no real upward social mobility, people will feel indifferent to the idea of producing more value, right now.