5 ms·

It's odd, because when I suggest that money and power stays within a handful of wealthy families, nobody seems to disagree. When I call that a "class-based syst

It's odd, because when I suggest that money and power stays within a handful of wealthy families, nobody seems to disagree. When I call that a "class-based system" or use words like aristocracy, then people disagree... There's a ruling class that people are born into, same as how the old Indian caste system works, at best it's a "democratic aristocracy" because you get your choice of elite. Of course, that's just semantics...

zepto 5y ago
It’s not just semantics. Yes, wealth tends to remain with the wealthy. That is a consequence of economic processes, and to the extent that it limits what is possible, it would be good to alter those processes. Analyzing society into ‘classes’ of people has nothing to do with it. They aren’t real things. That analysis is a political tool whose value is to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain. The animals you can see in cloud formations are not responsible for the drought.
- calibas 5y ago
  So economic processes and analysis create the illusion of a wealthy elite who run everything, but there's not really a ruling class... I disagree, and the fact that "wealth tends to remain with the wealthy" combined with some nepotism doesn't just create the illusion, it creates a system functionally the same. Your implication of some nefarious plot to convince the ignorant that there is a ruling class sounds a bit delusional to me. A little ironic in the context of you accusing me of seeing things that aren't there...
  - zepto 5y ago
    > So economic processes and analysis create the illusion of a wealthy elite who run everything, but there's not really a ruling class... Right. Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, they are not rich and powerful because they were anointed by an elite who runs everything. Nepotism is irrelevant and nothing to do with wealth. It is ubiquitous. You can apply a label to them post hoc as a ‘ruling class’, but that is like I suggest, like thinking of cloud formations as animals. You are bringing a pre-conceived image and seeing it where you look. > I disagree, and the fact that "wealth tends to remain with the wealthy" combined with some nepotism doesn't just create the illusion, it creates a system functionally the same. This is just affirming the consequent. There is no class system established. The fact that wealth pools in a few places is a problem in itself. You can easily see the economic mechanisms which cause it. There is literally no need to appeal to a labeling of different kinds of people. The groups don’t exist. The processes do. > Your implication of some nefarious plot You are imagining that. Why do you think I’m implying something nefarious? > to convince the ignorant By definition, if someone is convinced of the existence of something that doesn’t exist, they must be ignorant. > that there is a ruling class Weasel words. There are rulers, and there are wealthy people, but they are not there because of a ‘class system’. Thinking about it this way perpetuates ignorance. They are there for reasons. Not necessarily good ones. Those are what matters, not a conspiracy theory about elites and ruling classes. Conspiracy theories are what we turn to when we want to stop thinking and just have a bad guy to blame, or when we want to manipulate others into doing so. To suggest that class analysis is not used as a political tool, is clearly absurd.
    - calibas 5y ago
      > Why do you think I’m implying something nefarious? Maybe because you literally just said: > a political tool whose value is to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain No offense, but I can't take your arguments seriously. I'm not saying the elite are there because our politics are some kind of official "class system", I'm saying the elite have become entrenched, which functionally creates a separate class. > Conspiracy theories are what we turn to when we want to stop thinking and just have a bad guy to blame, or when we want to manipulate others into doing so. Says the person who just accused me of spreading a nefarious conspiracy "to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain"... This is getting silly! What I'm saying isn't a conspiracy, it's not even hidden...
      - zepto 5y ago
        > a political tool whose value is to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain Where is there mention of a conspiracy or anything nefarious? Examples abound of class ideology being used in exactly this way. It’s not some kind of secret. > No offense, It’s generally not a good sign of honesty when people say this. > but I can't take your arguments seriously. Obviously not true, since you then go on to do so. >> I'm not saying the elite are there because our politics are some kind of official "class system", >I'm saying the elite have become entrenched, which functionally creates a separate class. Obviously not true. The examples I gave are not there because of some kind of ‘entrenchment’. You simply chose to ignore that. Yes, statistical social mobility is low and varies depending on conditions. Yes, it seems like low social mobility limits what’s possible. That doesn’t magic ‘classes’ into reality. >> Conspiracy theories are what we turn to when we want to stop thinking and just have a bad guy to blame, or when we want to manipulate others into doing so. > Says the person who just accused me of spreading a nefarious conspiracy "to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain"... Continuing to repeat this doesn’t make it true. See above. That’s exactly how class ideology has been used historically. >> This is getting silly! >What I'm saying isn't a conspiracy, it's not even hidden... It’s a conspiracy if you blame a small group of people for the outcome, as opposed to understanding the processes. Obviously it’s not hidden. You can’t hide what doesn’t exist.

zepto 5y ago

It’s not just semantics. Yes, wealth tends to remain with the wealthy. That is a consequence of economic processes, and to the extent that it limits what is possible, it would be good to alter those processes. Analyzing society into ‘classes’ of people has nothing to do with it. They aren’t real things. That analysis is a political tool whose value is to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain. The animals you can see in cloud formations are not responsible for the drought.

calibas 5y ago
So economic processes and analysis create the illusion of a wealthy elite who run everything, but there's not really a ruling class... I disagree, and the fact that "wealth tends to remain with the wealthy" combined with some nepotism doesn't just create the illusion, it creates a system functionally the same. Your implication of some nefarious plot to convince the ignorant that there is a ruling class sounds a bit delusional to me. A little ironic in the context of you accusing me of seeing things that aren't there...
- zepto 5y ago
  > So economic processes and analysis create the illusion of a wealthy elite who run everything, but there's not really a ruling class... Right. Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, they are not rich and powerful because they were anointed by an elite who runs everything. Nepotism is irrelevant and nothing to do with wealth. It is ubiquitous. You can apply a label to them post hoc as a ‘ruling class’, but that is like I suggest, like thinking of cloud formations as animals. You are bringing a pre-conceived image and seeing it where you look. > I disagree, and the fact that "wealth tends to remain with the wealthy" combined with some nepotism doesn't just create the illusion, it creates a system functionally the same. This is just affirming the consequent. There is no class system established. The fact that wealth pools in a few places is a problem in itself. You can easily see the economic mechanisms which cause it. There is literally no need to appeal to a labeling of different kinds of people. The groups don’t exist. The processes do. > Your implication of some nefarious plot You are imagining that. Why do you think I’m implying something nefarious? > to convince the ignorant By definition, if someone is convinced of the existence of something that doesn’t exist, they must be ignorant. > that there is a ruling class Weasel words. There are rulers, and there are wealthy people, but they are not there because of a ‘class system’. Thinking about it this way perpetuates ignorance. They are there for reasons. Not necessarily good ones. Those are what matters, not a conspiracy theory about elites and ruling classes. Conspiracy theories are what we turn to when we want to stop thinking and just have a bad guy to blame, or when we want to manipulate others into doing so. To suggest that class analysis is not used as a political tool, is clearly absurd.
  - calibas 5y ago
    > Why do you think I’m implying something nefarious? Maybe because you literally just said: > a political tool whose value is to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain No offense, but I can't take your arguments seriously. I'm not saying the elite are there because our politics are some kind of official "class system", I'm saying the elite have become entrenched, which functionally creates a separate class. > Conspiracy theories are what we turn to when we want to stop thinking and just have a bad guy to blame, or when we want to manipulate others into doing so. Says the person who just accused me of spreading a nefarious conspiracy "to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain"... This is getting silly! What I'm saying isn't a conspiracy, it's not even hidden...
    - zepto 5y ago
      > a political tool whose value is to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain Where is there mention of a conspiracy or anything nefarious? Examples abound of class ideology being used in exactly this way. It’s not some kind of secret. > No offense, It’s generally not a good sign of honesty when people say this. > but I can't take your arguments seriously. Obviously not true, since you then go on to do so. >> I'm not saying the elite are there because our politics are some kind of official "class system", >I'm saying the elite have become entrenched, which functionally creates a separate class. Obviously not true. The examples I gave are not there because of some kind of ‘entrenchment’. You simply chose to ignore that. Yes, statistical social mobility is low and varies depending on conditions. Yes, it seems like low social mobility limits what’s possible. That doesn’t magic ‘classes’ into reality. >> Conspiracy theories are what we turn to when we want to stop thinking and just have a bad guy to blame, or when we want to manipulate others into doing so. > Says the person who just accused me of spreading a nefarious conspiracy "to divide society and leverage ignorance for political gain"... Continuing to repeat this doesn’t make it true. See above. That’s exactly how class ideology has been used historically. >> This is getting silly! >What I'm saying isn't a conspiracy, it's not even hidden... It’s a conspiracy if you blame a small group of people for the outcome, as opposed to understanding the processes. Obviously it’s not hidden. You can’t hide what doesn’t exist.