3 ms·

So you agree with this statement?: > The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (

So you agree with this statement?: > The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). I was with him until there... I'd like to believe things like that and blame it all on the "evil politicians," but I'm really not sure the "ruling class" is that organized. Then, at the end of the article, he says something that seems much more reasonable to me, although contradictory: > Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. So I'm not sure what exactly he's trying to say is the cause.

shkkmo 12y ago
I believe he is implying that the goal, "keep the general population employed/occupied to prevent unrest" is consciously held by some 'oligarchs'. However, the systems which accomplish that goal have emerged via trial and error and were not consciously designed by the 'oligarchs'. The 'oligarchs' watch the broad trends and have supported changes to the system that supported their goal and have hindered changes to the system that do no support their goal on a case by case basis. I suspect the 'oligarchs' striving for the above goal is not a 'conspiracy' among the elite so much as a shared cultural belief in stability.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  Of course, one oligarch's stability is another working man's stagnation...
jahaja 12y ago
As always the written word is open for interpretations and that statement is no exception. What I read from that statement, and knowing a bit about the author's background and sharing much of the same political ideas myself, is that it's in the interest of the ruling class that people do not have much time on their hands to actually start enjoying not working. Unemployment, and retirement for some, would clearly be more managable if friends and family were not working so much. Just to discover a way of life that's not centered around working. I also think that a working class with more time on their hands would inevitably become more organised with increased class conciousness as a side-effect. So basically the idea is that less working time may be a "slipperly slope" that goes against the interests of the ruling class both in the short-term and even more so in the long-term. The second statement is, as I understand it, that this is not driven by some organised unit of capitalist but rather by the idea that the higher classes are more aware of what is in their interests that no central organisation is needed.
dragonwriter 12y ago
A group collectively realizing something and individually acting to prevent it, and those individual actions aligning, doesn't require much pre-existing organization (or even much after-the-fact organization, though if they are aware of each other, you'd expect some organizations as they also recognize the alignment of interests.) So since organization isn't really necessary for the proposition at issue, I don't see your disbelief in the organization of the "ruling class" as even relevant to the issue, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is justified.

shkkmo 12y ago

I believe he is implying that the goal, "keep the general population employed/occupied to prevent unrest" is consciously held by some 'oligarchs'. However, the systems which accomplish that goal have emerged via trial and error and were not consciously designed by the 'oligarchs'. The 'oligarchs' watch the broad trends and have supported changes to the system that supported their goal and have hindered changes to the system that do no support their goal on a case by case basis. I suspect the 'oligarchs' striving for the above goal is not a 'conspiracy' among the elite so much as a shared cultural belief in stability.

wavefunction 12y ago
Of course, one oligarch's stability is another working man's stagnation...

jahaja 12y ago

As always the written word is open for interpretations and that statement is no exception. What I read from that statement, and knowing a bit about the author's background and sharing much of the same political ideas myself, is that it's in the interest of the ruling class that people do not have much time on their hands to actually start enjoying not working. Unemployment, and retirement for some, would clearly be more managable if friends and family were not working so much. Just to discover a way of life that's not centered around working. I also think that a working class with more time on their hands would inevitably become more organised with increased class conciousness as a side-effect. So basically the idea is that less working time may be a "slipperly slope" that goes against the interests of the ruling class both in the short-term and even more so in the long-term. The second statement is, as I understand it, that this is not driven by some organised unit of capitalist but rather by the idea that the higher classes are more aware of what is in their interests that no central organisation is needed.

dragonwriter 12y ago

A group collectively realizing something and individually acting to prevent it, and those individual actions aligning, doesn't require much pre-existing organization (or even much after-the-fact organization, though if they are aware of each other, you'd expect some organizations as they also recognize the alignment of interests.) So since organization isn't really necessary for the proposition at issue, I don't see your disbelief in the organization of the "ruling class" as even relevant to the issue, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is justified.