5 ms·

The twelve occurrences of "we" in your comment imply agency and consent where little to none existed. "We", which is to say a majority of residents and citizen

The twelve occurrences of "we" in your comment imply agency and consent where little to none existed. "We", which is to say a majority of residents and citizens of the US, constituting the working class, had these things imposed on us by others who have systematically and successfully manufactured the appearance of consent over a period of decades, the ongoing results being consistently undermining the working class and incepting a kind of learned helplessness that justice can never be found. The "cult of the MBA" is apt, although a more appropriate appellation might be the "cult of Mammon".

roughly 4y ago
As Warren Buffet put it, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." I agree with all of what you've said, although I think folks have been more willing contributors to the process than you suggest.
- ineptech 4y ago
  This makes it sound like the wealthy colluded against the masses, which I don't think is accurate. It's a coordination trap: each individual is doing what's in their individual best interest, but the result is collectively bad for everyone. The solution is to change the incentives, e.g. laws that make it more profitable to clean up pollution than to pollute, but it seems unattainable because a feedback loop has concentrated power in the hands of the people who are most insulated from the problems, which is sort of the opposite of the intended outcome of democracy.
  - Guthur 4y ago
    They colluded to enrich themselves without end. Seeking monopoly rents and pushing infrastructure, social and environmental costs on to others to increase the margin. We allow the rewarding of truly psychotic behaviours, there is a reason why most executives seem to exhibit these traits.
    - webmaven 4y ago
      I don't think "psychotic" means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant "psychopathic"?
  - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
    There's events like Davos and the Bilderberg meetings where the rich and powerful literally do get together and define their agenda. But for the most part, yeah they don't need to be centrally coordinated and probably aren't, because they are very good at identifying their interests and have the resources to work towards it. I would hold a more charitable view towards this all, however, if it wasn't for the fact that the media, their sponsors, and the politicians are intentionally using wedge issues to disrupt and divide the masses.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 4y ago
      > There's events like Davos and the Bilderberg meetings where the rich and powerful literally do get together and define their agenda. Here's the website for the latest davos meeting: https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2023 https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-m... What type of "wealthy colluded against the masses" is happening there?
      - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
        Look at the board of trustees from your very link. They are all highly placed execs in multinationals and political world leaders getting together to discuss Stakeholder Capitalism - ie; how to make capitalism palatable enough so that revolution does not take place. They dress it up to make it sound like they're only interested in being ethical, but it's really about how to ensure that their position in society is maintained. I'm not saying they will be sitting in dingy, cigar smoke filled rooms discussing how to crush the working class, but I am saying this is far more coordination than you will get from a mixture of people from the general population.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Class warfare doesn't imply collusion. It's just people acting in their own self interest in a system where some incentives are aligned along a class system. The dichotomy between conspiracy theory and and innocent coincidence is false. The point of class warfare is that no, it's not collectively bad for everyone. It's good for whoever wins the class war (see: the quote above). By far what terrifies the average person in the shareholder class the most is having to live the life of an average worker. The revealed preference they have is that, yes, they would rather live as rich in a world with the issues that entails than as an average worker in a more equitable world. And from a selfish perspective that's a perfectly rational position. When shareholders or whole owners decide to do something immoral for profit - or even to prevent bankruptcy - what that actually reveals is that they would rather hurt whoever it is they are hurting than live their life in your shoes. This is the essence of the idea of class warfare.
iforgotpassword 4y ago
Yet somehow, "we" as the people not consenting still put up with it because we're too busy to make ends meet, of if we do, picking the next toy to distract us from reality with. And when it comes to freedom of speech or gun laws, it's suddenly all about "muh freedom" and that we need all this in case the government turns rogue to defend ourselves. Which is absolutely true but at the same time, how much more messed up do things need to get to actually get us on the streets in masses and protest this madness? Probably as long as there is some third would country doing worse than us left somewhere on this planet, we can paint over this cognitive dissonance with some good old "at least we're not $county"

roughly 4y ago

As Warren Buffet put it, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." I agree with all of what you've said, although I think folks have been more willing contributors to the process than you suggest.

ineptech 4y ago
This makes it sound like the wealthy colluded against the masses, which I don't think is accurate. It's a coordination trap: each individual is doing what's in their individual best interest, but the result is collectively bad for everyone. The solution is to change the incentives, e.g. laws that make it more profitable to clean up pollution than to pollute, but it seems unattainable because a feedback loop has concentrated power in the hands of the people who are most insulated from the problems, which is sort of the opposite of the intended outcome of democracy.
- Guthur 4y ago
  They colluded to enrich themselves without end. Seeking monopoly rents and pushing infrastructure, social and environmental costs on to others to increase the margin. We allow the rewarding of truly psychotic behaviours, there is a reason why most executives seem to exhibit these traits.
  - webmaven 4y ago
    I don't think "psychotic" means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant "psychopathic"?
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  There's events like Davos and the Bilderberg meetings where the rich and powerful literally do get together and define their agenda. But for the most part, yeah they don't need to be centrally coordinated and probably aren't, because they are very good at identifying their interests and have the resources to work towards it. I would hold a more charitable view towards this all, however, if it wasn't for the fact that the media, their sponsors, and the politicians are intentionally using wedge issues to disrupt and divide the masses.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 4y ago
    > There's events like Davos and the Bilderberg meetings where the rich and powerful literally do get together and define their agenda. Here's the website for the latest davos meeting: https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2023 https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-m... What type of "wealthy colluded against the masses" is happening there?
    - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
      Look at the board of trustees from your very link. They are all highly placed execs in multinationals and political world leaders getting together to discuss Stakeholder Capitalism - ie; how to make capitalism palatable enough so that revolution does not take place. They dress it up to make it sound like they're only interested in being ethical, but it's really about how to ensure that their position in society is maintained. I'm not saying they will be sitting in dingy, cigar smoke filled rooms discussing how to crush the working class, but I am saying this is far more coordination than you will get from a mixture of people from the general population.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Class warfare doesn't imply collusion. It's just people acting in their own self interest in a system where some incentives are aligned along a class system. The dichotomy between conspiracy theory and and innocent coincidence is false. The point of class warfare is that no, it's not collectively bad for everyone. It's good for whoever wins the class war (see: the quote above). By far what terrifies the average person in the shareholder class the most is having to live the life of an average worker. The revealed preference they have is that, yes, they would rather live as rich in a world with the issues that entails than as an average worker in a more equitable world. And from a selfish perspective that's a perfectly rational position. When shareholders or whole owners decide to do something immoral for profit - or even to prevent bankruptcy - what that actually reveals is that they would rather hurt whoever it is they are hurting than live their life in your shoes. This is the essence of the idea of class warfare.

iforgotpassword 4y ago

Yet somehow, "we" as the people not consenting still put up with it because we're too busy to make ends meet, of if we do, picking the next toy to distract us from reality with. And when it comes to freedom of speech or gun laws, it's suddenly all about "muh freedom" and that we need all this in case the government turns rogue to defend ourselves. Which is absolutely true but at the same time, how much more messed up do things need to get to actually get us on the streets in masses and protest this madness? Probably as long as there is some third would country doing worse than us left somewhere on this planet, we can paint over this cognitive dissonance with some good old "at least we're not $county"