3 ms·

> Are we in a higher level of conflict between rich and poor now than in the past? I'd say no. I’d argue the drivers for the war are already here, but the only

> Are we in a higher level of conflict between rich and poor now than in the past? I'd say no. I’d argue the drivers for the war are already here, but the only reason the war isn’t class based is the rich and powerful have convinced the lower classes to attack each other instead of them. They’ve successfully driven in dividing lines such as race and religion to distract us as the plunder to their hearts content.

NamTaf 6y ago
I feel there's also an element of the divide of power between both parties being greater too. For example, the police force - which generally supports the status quo of the powerful - is far more able to control and suppress uprisings than in the past. This lends itself to providing a higher barrier to the poor pushing back, and thus necessitates those drivers (such as blatantly separate outcomes before the law, higher wealth inequality, etc.) to become stronger than in the past before conflict eventuates. I mean it sort of relates to the 2nd amendment idea that private citizens at home with firearms can overthrow a tyrannical government if need be. When it was minutemen vs foot soldiers that was a drastically different equation to now when it's AR-15s vs a military-industrial apparatus with drone strikes, tanks and automated mass surveillance.
PeterisP 6y ago
The way I see it the bet was about the statement that the drivers for the war were already there in 1995 and that it would actually materialize in the 25 years before 2020 - which it (IMHO obviously) has not. The struggle is still there, but a society-shattering escalation of the conflict has not happened (yet?). The observation that "the rich and powerful have convinced the lower classes to attack each other instead of them" seems like a reasonable tactic for the society (or the rich) to prevent such a war from occurring, and this might plausibly succeed for a prolonged time in the future - as you say, "successfully driven in dividing lines" that are long-lasting. I see Kirkpatrick Sale's position as essentially claiming that the tensions are stronger than the societal bonds that favor status quo and centralization, that these tensions can cause a society to collapse - and the last 25 years have shown the opposite, that an increase in these tensions is still tolerable and does not lead to a collapse.

NamTaf 6y ago

I feel there's also an element of the divide of power between both parties being greater too. For example, the police force - which generally supports the status quo of the powerful - is far more able to control and suppress uprisings than in the past. This lends itself to providing a higher barrier to the poor pushing back, and thus necessitates those drivers (such as blatantly separate outcomes before the law, higher wealth inequality, etc.) to become stronger than in the past before conflict eventuates. I mean it sort of relates to the 2nd amendment idea that private citizens at home with firearms can overthrow a tyrannical government if need be. When it was minutemen vs foot soldiers that was a drastically different equation to now when it's AR-15s vs a military-industrial apparatus with drone strikes, tanks and automated mass surveillance.

PeterisP 6y ago

The way I see it the bet was about the statement that the drivers for the war were already there in 1995 and that it would actually materialize in the 25 years before 2020 - which it (IMHO obviously) has not. The struggle is still there, but a society-shattering escalation of the conflict has not happened (yet?). The observation that "the rich and powerful have convinced the lower classes to attack each other instead of them" seems like a reasonable tactic for the society (or the rich) to prevent such a war from occurring, and this might plausibly succeed for a prolonged time in the future - as you say, "successfully driven in dividing lines" that are long-lasting. I see Kirkpatrick Sale's position as essentially claiming that the tensions are stronger than the societal bonds that favor status quo and centralization, that these tensions can cause a society to collapse - and the last 25 years have shown the opposite, that an increase in these tensions is still tolerable and does not lead to a collapse.