I see you're digging in on this. I was just looking for where your red line really is. It's obviously not self defense, but what? I'm guessing you tend to approve of violence when it's perpetrated by your allies? — frank

Where the red line is in terms of when exactly violence is justified? I can't possibly have an absolute answer for that, so I just use the initiation of violence as a rule of thumb, especially within civilization.

It's a really tough subject, and especially when you get into international relations or violence between large civilizations or groups that things get really, really murky. Like it can seem that pre-emptive strikes can be justified, and that's likely the initiation of violence. I supported Israel pre-emptively striking down the Egyptian Air Force in...I believe it was the war of 1973 when it was clear that Egypt & the Arabs were mobilizing to destroy Israel.

However, in normal civilization we don't really face this problem. Ideally, in a functioning society if someone is plotting to hurt you you can report that police and they'll take care of it. If I'm genuinely afraid or I notice someone else is in danger I can call social workers or police. Violence between different civilizations is very different than violence between individuals within a functioning society with a legal system & rules.

The George Floyd protests were centered around racial justice and the issue of police treatment of minorities.

The Boston Tea Party happened because wealthy New England merchants like John Hancock were getting their prices undermined by the British who subjected them to unfair economic practices.... the two issues are quite different. The American revolution was violence towards the British government which was the mother colony.

Nobody is really supporting violence against American cops due to George Floyd, at least not sane people.

The American revolution started out as random violence (against property) culminating in a million dollars worth of tea being dumped into Boston Harbor. There was no self defense to it.

So your line isn't self defense, is it? — frank

The American revolution was a struggle between a colonizer and her colony. I'll certainly condemn some methods that American patriots used against the British though. In any case the American revolution isn't a good comparison to draw to today's situation. I also think the violence that the Americans used was coordinated.

So you DO think I'm obliged to treat all your points but you are free to shrug off the ones you "didn't feel like" responding to? Do you see how dual standards is endemic throughout your thought? — Kenosha Kid

If you don't want to address one of my points then fine, but that particular point I thought was a pretty strong one. Our discussions will never end if we insist on responding to every little sidetrack. Like this little sidetrack into the constitution it's not really that relevant to our main argument. Like below.

Okay, so you agree then that an amendment is a change to the founding principles your country was based on. You also seem fine with the founding principles your country was based on changing. It seems now quite a hollow complaint. — Kenosha Kid

I could respond to this but I'm forgetting its relevancy. An amendment could just an addition and it could not contradict the essential founding principles. Freedom of speech is an essential founding principle. Check out the bill of rights. Future amendments can't contradict the bill of rights.

Your right is that the government will not pass laws that allow you to express your persona beliefs. Antifa is not a reformist group. How have they then breached your first amendment rights? Explain it, rather than just repeatedly claiming it, because as far as I can see Antifa has resulted in precisely zero government legislation against your freedom of expression. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, antifa not being a reformist group and instead being a revolutionary group basically means that they have no respect for laws. That is why I do not like them.

Alright, I am blaming antifa for their actions. Even if its not a first amendment issue they are just being thugs. Is that an acceptable explanation?

Wait, now you're back to saying that you have a right to be heard. I thought we'd dispensed with that. You're essentially arguing against the right for people to protest, as long as they're the wrong people. — Kenosha Kid

If someone is in a private forum like a university or a governmental hearing you need to abide by the rules. A public protest is a different matter. If you're in a public protest of course other people can shout you down.

Antifa has also assaulted journalists.

Is it your view then that the anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-white-supremacist movement as a whole must be considered as such? I ask because you don't seem to have such concerns about far-right groups such as neo-Nazis and the KKK who have a more consistent history of violence (consider Charlottesville, for instance). — Kenosha Kid

I obviously condemn the KKK and neo-Nazis, that goes without saying. Obviously I like to judge people more as individuals but I'm most worried about the increasingly violent tendencies of that leftist movement. It's also much more popular and powerful than the right I think and it has roots on college campuses. If it were the other way around the far right was capturing young people's minds on college campuses everywhere I'd be extremely alarmed and I'd go after them, but it's somewhat scary to me when mainstream thinking is increasingly in favor of violent suppression of ideas and rejects traditional liberal values.

There's a difference between violence for national defense or in the case of a civil war versus violence within a society. It's a very different kind of thing.

Good luck even getting a KKK rally on the college campus. Now that'll be the day.

But no I don't believe in violence unless its self defense.

Good, so you understand that you are not protected in defacing property you don't own, or to assemble free from counter-protestors. And presumably you're not going to suggest that fascists should be free to engage in violent acts but Antifa not free to defend themselves. — Kenosha Kid

:100:

What threat do you actually perceive from Antifa then? It can't be their anti-fascist position which, by your own argument, must be as protected as anti-black sentiment. — Kenosha Kid

Because they commit violence on college campuses and disrupt college speakers such as Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. Those aren't fascists.

Anyway, it's a non-starter to use the first amendment as an argument against Antifa since they're a direct action group, not a reformist group. The first amendment protects citizens from laws made by the government, and Antifa do not seek to reform those laws. — Kenosha Kid

Antifa is using violence and intimidation to shut down the rights guaranteed to us.

Really? Let's take your right as an 18+ year old American to vote. Your argument is that this amendment, passed in the early 1970s, was one of the founding principles of your country? Or that every amendment since the Bill or Rights is an attack on the founding principles of your country? — Kenosha Kid

Neither. An amendment can be added and it's not an attack on the founding principles. Obviously something being passed in the 1970s wouldn't be a founding principle....

And, believe it or not, I didn't feel like getting into a point that wasn't relevant to my argument. It's rather hypocritical to think I was obliged to respond to everything you have to say, yet you are not. — Kenosha Kid

"What constitutes fascism" is an extremely relevant question. If you believe it's good to punch a Nazi or a racist and violent suppress that type of speech, what about Zionism or capitalism? Can we punch capitalists if capitalism is essentially white supremacy? This is a really important question.

Meat & potatoes of our discussion is at the bottom.

I'm making the demographic claim that social democratic liberals can be antifascist actors — fdrake

Ok.

and that the majority of contemporary antifascist actors are not smash the state anarchists or revolution now communists; — fdrake

If by "antifascist actors" you mean actual members of antifa or the ones that dress in black and go to protests I'd like to dig a little deeper into this. I'd love to have these statistics.

and that antifascist organisers as a demographic category are (historically) even more likely to have more hard line positions. — fdrake

Absolutely.

I bet you'd like David Hahn's "Physical Resistance: a Hundred Years of Struggle", a history of antifascist movements. — fdrake

Interesting. I've been using Mark Bray's book on antifascism for my main source. Bray himself is very sympathetic to the movement and a leftist himself. I'll look into your source when I get the time.

It strikes me that someone who commits to antifascist praxis does so from a principled place of understanding, study and experience. — fdrake

Wouldn't you say that depends on the person though? We have some antifascists on this site who have made some very violent, gruesome statements towards people like Biden and others. I think it's disingenuous to group in every modern antifascist with, say, a Jewish anti-Nazi fighter around the time of WWII. Even as a Jew not every anti-Nazi fighter was good; there was a famous plot that was foiled when a group of Jewish partisans after WWII sought to poison the German water supply.

I'm sure from their perspective it is actually protecting the liberal rights you hold dear, cf paradox of tolerance. The only conditions under which a "free marketplace of ideas" could exist sustainably are ones with well enforced rules and laws of conduct. When those rules are rejected wholesale or too weak, the fragility of "the free marketplace of ideas" is laid bare; cf "money as speech". Whenever absolute decorum for speech is desired, enforcement of the principles that uphold it is required too. In that context, antifascist action is a democratic check-and-balance. — fdrake

I get what you're saying and you make a good conceptual point here. I don't disagree with what you write here.

A major idea of antifa is "punch a Nazi." For me it's very emotionally satisfying to see a Nazi get punched, but ultimately it's not an effective way to deal with Nazism or racism in a non-emergency environment. I hate to say it, but the antifascism movement, much like the neoconservatives of the Bush years, have a habit of viewing the current era as Germany, 1933 and that it is incumbent on us now to act immediately and decisively (with the neocons it was Saddam in Iraq, today it is the far right in America.) If you believe that America today is basically Germany, 1933 I don't know what to tell you. In war there is no talk, only violence.

It really should be an absolute last resort to start punching Nazis or white supremacists. It's much, much better to try to educate them... not even that but befriending them can make a huge difference. A black guy named Darryl Davis managed to befriend over 200 KKK members and as a result got them to turn away from their beliefs. If someone believes black people are vicious, stupid animals how is them getting punched by a black person going to change that??

Secondly, I believe racism is inherently undemocratic. It makes sense to me that antifascists would want to ban racism/white supremacy just like they'd want to ban fascism. The problem is with the enforcement - what constitutes racism/white supremacy? On today's college campuses they make the argument that Zionism, European cultural pride and capitalism are all manifestations of white supremacy. Do we ban advocacy of those too? Today's white supremacists are much more crafty - they're much more likely to "advocate for white people" or "support a white homeland" than saying that they think blacks or minorities are inferior. I'm okay with informing people's bosses that their workers are doing racist activities, but punching them is ineffectual at best and banning X sort of speech sets a dangerous precedent. How exactly do you define it?

I know that freedom of speech doesn't give the right to whatever platform you want, but you're still allowed to express your ideas verbally and in writing. The first amendment goes far beyond just the right to believe, which is very weak.

I avoided your first point because it was wrong but I didn't feel like getting into it because your second point was more more egregious.

but the first amendment protects your right to personal belief: it does not protect your perceived right to make the world a platform for those beliefs, and it certainly does not protect your perceived right to act to make a world that is violently hostile to others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Take your undemocratic trash elsewhere. Very convenient of you to avoid my second point, as well.

I was saying that what antifa is doing is contrary to our first amendment. In any case it sets an extremely dangerous precedent as more and more ideas could under some interpretations fall under the banner of "white supremacy" - zionism, european cultural pride, capitalism.

I suspect you're using liberal in the "classic liberal" sense and not the sense I meant it; by a liberal social democrat I intended a reformist believer in the institutions of liberal democracy. Someone who broadly approves of the way things are set up fundamentally, but criticises/protests flaws when they see them. Those people who will act against resurgent nationalism, political oppression and systemic issues without wanting to overthrow states (anarchism) or the world order of capitalism (communism) [or both]. — fdrake

Yeah, this was the sense of liberalism that I was using. I wasn't talking about classical liberalism. I don't believe that a liberal social democrat would fit in in the modern antifascist movement in the US, or the black bloc elsewhere. Antifa fundamentally seeks to stifle certain views, and I get it - in Europe they do this but in America it's against the principles our country was founded on and moreover it sets a dangerous precedent.

An important part of a liberal arts education is genuinely exploring views which we don't like. Antifa is not fundamentally a movement about discourse and the free exchange of ideas; it is about stifling any potentially dangerous idea before it is allowed to spread. It is a fundamentally illiberal movement.

it a hodgepodge of liberal social democracts, anarchists, communists and others; doctrinally mixed; the united front politics of Stalinism was notorious for its commitment to doctrinal purity (whatever the doctrine was at the time). — fdrake

While there may be social democrats in antifa, the ideology of the group is not liberal in the least. A liberal who wants to join the antifa movement in america and maintain their liberalism honestly has no idea what's going on. Look at some of the users on this forum who are actually antifa/black bloc members and ask yourself whether you are really the same.

Nice post. I'm also a chess player (around 2000/2100 on chess.com) and I agree with you in some respects and disagree in others. I agree that life is not really like chess; chess to me is basically war, especially under short time controls. The more calculated, careful player does not always win. Chess really ought to be played under some sort of time control, it's just a matter of what time control we're talking about. One absolutely must manage their thinking and calculation time efficiently/treat it as a resources, and resources are not endless and require proper management.

I am not too sure that there is an objectively best move in every situation. I remember Hikaru Nakamura commented on his stream one time that there's typically 3-4 'good' moves in a normal, non-sharp position and my own thinking more lends itself to pragmatism so until that "objectively" best move is demonstrated I'll probably remain a little skeptical. I would also ask what makes a certain move in a non-sharp normal middle game superior to another when considering 2-3 candidate good moves. I think perfect chess on both sides would just always result in a draw. We're really just talking about the ability to navigate a game tree and hoping your opponent screws up, but if your opponent is perfect then he'll navigate the game tree perfectly and so will you... so draw.

Anyway your points about Tal and Tarkatower were spot on - how chess has evolved!

I tend to agree with Mr. Carlos, that suffering and tragedy are simply part of life, and that having to endure them can be beneficial; but it seems liberal democracy has no taste for this, as there are always public awareness campaigns being waged in them against one or another of the societal ills that exist and will always exist despite our most strenuous efforts to eliminate them, for example, “the war against poverty”, or against homelessness, or hunger or racism, the call for world peace, etc, etc, each of which hopes to put an absolute end to the evil it strives against, rather than simply diminish it. — Todd Martin

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding in terms of what I was saying here. I am not against fighting poverty or homeless and I don't view these as inevitable parts of society. When I wrote that life is suffering I wasn't saying that certain social conditions are inevitable; I was saying that even if we managed to eliminate these social problems suffering is still intrinsic to the human experience.

No matter what your background is you're going to have to go through the deaths of your grandparents as well as parents, unless you die first. You're going to outlive your pets. We all have peers: What, are we going to be better than our peers in everything imaginable? That would probably be its own form of suffering. We're all deeply connected with the welfare of your families and communities, so any misfortune there has ripple effects. Freak accidents happen and they always will happen. Nobody - and I don't care what the society is - is coming out of life without a scratch.

I can’t think of any reason such a Power would find suffering to have any purpose. And if it did I could not accept a world like from such a Power. — Brett

IMO suffering often does have a purpose and it can teach us important lessons. That's one of the reasons children are so naive; a lot of them haven't really struggled with making ends meet or experienced tragedy either. Often growth comes from suffering or struggle.

Tragedy is a part of life, no way around it. Your parents are probably (hopefully) going to die before you and that's gonna suck. If you want an existence with absolutely no suffering you're talking about non-existence, and you're in the same boat with one of our users named schopenhauer who always argues it would be better if humans never existed but continues to exist himself.

I’m not sure if that’s your question or if it’s addressed to me. — Brett

The question.

Not because it’s the God of Abraham, because a true Higher Power would be total, no cultural interpretations. — Brett

Apparently he just doesn't reveal himself. I don't know, maybe he thinks its more fun that way, who knows.

If my choice is a Higher Power then the suffering must continue, which I could not agree to. So I reject my possible choice of a Higher Piwer. — Brett

This is just the question that I'd like to know the answer to the most. The abrahamic God either exists or he doesn't, no choice to it besides me just choosing to ask the question.

I still have a problem with the suffering that has always existed which is not caused by the folly of man, like children being born with health problems, or anyone for that matter. — Brett

I get what you're saying. A lot of things don't make sense to us, but maybe when you consider the bigger picture things change a bit. Sure a baby might die a terrible death, but who knows that baby could be spending an eternity in eternal bliss. Maybe his death was necessary, who know are you to say it wasn't? Even a long, 100 year life full of suffering is nothing compared to eternity. I mean even if this universe had basically no suffering except that people got paper cuts sometimes we could still ask God why he would allow for something like that. The God of the Old Testament never gives us the message that we can really understand him and this frustrates a lot of people.

The Christians make God into a heavenly father full of infinite love, but Christianity has its roots in the old testament, and one should never forget their roots.

"Does the God of Abraham and Isaac exist?"

I read "Political Theology" some time ago, but I believe that Schmitt did not synthesize the very foundations of Italian Fascism, and I think it is clear that German fascism was pretty different. — Bertoldo

Yeah, I wouldn't have expected Schmitt to draw on Italian fascism, but interestingly in his major works - Political Theology and Concept of the Political - he doesn't push for fascism along racial lines despite being an anti-Semite personally. I'm utterly uninterested in any sort of racial justification for fascism. It's when philosophers make the case for fascism in their own abstract terms that things become interesting. You can still see echoes of some of Schmitt's thoughts, particularly the emphasis on friend/enemy distinction, in later neoconservative thinkers like Strauss.

But yeah when it comes to the Italians I'm lost. I was never assigned any of them in undergrad nor is it my cultural background.

I haven't read any Italian fascism, but I did read Carl Schmidt years ago so if we're talking German fascism I might have something to contribute but I'd have to jog my memory a bit.

Should we seek to overcome attachment, to what extent, and can it be achieved ? Whether or not one adopts these worldviews, we can ask whether attachment is a problem and, should we seek to overcome our attachments at all? — Jack Cummins

Lets assume you reach some sort of Nirvana state if you manage to sever all forms of attachment - is that something most of us would even want? It would mean abandoning family, love, friendships. It would just be you, and, I guess, the universe.

Here's the thing: We're situated whether we like it or not (i.e. we have a family, a community, sexual/romantic bonds or desires, etc.). However, we can't let that situated-ness dominate our every action. As humans we're split between a universalism and this "situated-ness" and its up to us to make a healthy balance. It's not easy, I get it. Go too far in any one direction and it's not good. The human mind naturally drifts towards certainty or extremes and we need to be careful with that. We like things black and white - good and bad, it makes the world more intuitive.

As far as I'm concerned a life without love or music isn't one with living, nirvana or not. In life you're naturally intimately connected with a network of people or a community and we should be extremely careful about throwing that all away to pursue absolute perfection. I don't believe in perfection in this world.

I don't know about beheading specifically but on more than a few occasions he's wished death on political opponents. Also of note is that he flat out refuses to engage the other side in discussion, which I think certainly speaks volumes. I know he's going to see this post and a snarky remark is coming, but I don't really have anything against the guy I just wish he'd get some help.

And that might be reasonable, were I doing that. But is there anyone you wouldn't shorten by a head? if not, then you're not especially reasonable. — tim wood

Come on Tim, that's a silly question, we both surely know that there would be at least........ five people still left with their heads attached if Streetlight took power.

You're not going to get to any entrenched incels with reason. — Echarmion

Oh yeah - I'm not expecting to. I was just saying since we're on a philosophy forum.... but yeah, in practical reality I'm not spending my time trying to convert any incels. I just thought this line of thought has some implications on bodily autonomy that some people might not initially recognize.

Fate here is genetics, and genetics has randomly given them the "never get loved" ticket in the genetic lottery. There was nothing they could have done (isn't that nice?) and there is no way out. — Echarmion

Gotta be tough to think this way when you do see burn victims and seriously disabled people still getting married and getting into relationships. Oh well, maybe they're just secret Chads, who knows. It's just those Chad genes.

By the way, I think the most interesting topic with ties to philosophy and incels is probably how online dating, or perhaps more accurately dating between people who are always online, is changing the way relationships form, develop and end. — Echarmion

This would be a worthy discussion topic. It would be fruitful than seeking to understand a worldview with a perpetual victim complex that divides the world into Chads, Staceys and incels and wallows in its own victimhood, because, you know, genetics.

They claim getting laid ( not by escorts but someone you love ) is a fundamental need of life, similar to getting food and having a shelter. Since their basic needs are not met, they tend to give up on life and don't see a purpose in developing their personhood. — Wittgenstein

Here's what you do, you ask them this simple question: Are you entitled to someone else's body? If they answer "yes" you just ignore them because they're insane. If they answer "no" you then ask them if fate has somehow pre-determined that they'll never get laid. If they again answer "no" it goes back to the individual in question. If they answer "yes" to the fate question you've got to wonder why fate has conspired to punish them in particular and what the story behind that is. It sounds like it would sure be an interesting story.

Those problems include looking ugly , mental disorder, terrible childhood or just bad luck ( being born as an ethnic in a dominant white culture, being born in a poor family etc.) — Wittgenstein

Yes because ugly men, men with mental disorders, bad childhoods or ethnic minorities or poor men can't get laid. It's obviously impossible. Only 6'4 Chads get laid.

My point here is that I suspect you find homelessness unacceptable period, regardless of whether the economy is capitalistic, which means your real argument is that no society should force the poor to go without shelter, regardless of whether their homelessness is caused by their own freely made poor decisions. — Hanover

Something to keep in mind that is that being homeless is not the same thing as being without shelter. Some homeless people live with friends/family and others live in shelters. I'd actually be interested to know what % of the homeless actually live out on the street. I don't know the numbers, but I would be inclined to say that the ones truly without shelter are only a small fraction of the homeless.

Ok, I feel like we're talking about 2 different things. I was more talking about homelessness in general, you're talking about COVID and homelessness. Personally with COVID, I'm fine giving aid and allowing more government intervention even in the form of stimulus checks to people. We're in a pandemic. We're in an extraordinary circumstance; this isn't capitalism's fault.

This to my understanding of current and impending problems a tangential consideration and peripheral problem. Not the less of a problem, just not the big one that's arriving as we write. — tim wood

Yeah Tim, you're right. Obviously mental illness and trauma have essentially no relation to the homeless problem faced in America today.

If only we could become a socialist nation we'd no longer have schizophrenia, PTSD, trauma, bipolarism, or widespread physical/sexual abuse among the homeless population. These are really only just problems under capitalism, because capitalism is so terrible and it drives people to commit these kind of abuses. It's just the system, obviously.

COVID didn't invent these problem, Tim. My comments are directed towards the issue of homelessness in America as a whole, even outside of COVID.

Could you go a little more into detail in terms of what you mean by authorities being irrational? Which authorities? Who are these exploiters and how do they exploit?

Citizens should not be "institutionalized" in an attempt to corral them with a stereotype if that's what you mean, institutions should be designed to empower them to overcome their addiction, mental illness or whatever it might be, giving them legitimized social standing so they can maximize involvement in the community. Supporting those who are vulnerable but with good enough motives is not a detriment to social welfare, but should be accompanied by opportunity. — Enrique

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating for forcibly institutionalizing homeless people with mental problems. I do however think that for better or for worse the de-institutionalization that America went through in the 1960s likely contributed to the problem we have now.

In any case I just believe any serious discussion about homeless in America needs to involve mental health.

Very interesting documentary done by Vice a couple years ago on homelessness where they film a homeless shelter in Louisianna:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUfNbNBFwRI

TLDR: Any discussion about homelessness must take into account mental illness and drug addiction and the role it plays in facilitating it. We have homeless shelters here, but the fact is those homeless shelters have rules and standards that often don't mesh with the local homeless population. If I could remember correctly rates of mental issues or trauma or sexual trauma or something along those lines was around 85-90% in the homeless shelter. I think the "solution" if there is one could be forcibly institutionalizing some of these people, but of course this brings up significant human rights issues.

Stop straw manning capitalism.

What Geo said to you isn't a straw man. He was just sharing his opinion. He wasn't reframing your argument in a ridiculous manner and responding to that.

If you were to say "capitalists believe that the profit motive is a universal and inherent to human nature" that would be a straw man. It would be ascribing an unrealistic assumption to capitalism and then debunking that and viewing that debunking as a blow to capitalist ideology.

If you just say "the game is illegitimate" and someone just shares an unrelated point with you that's not a straw man. Geo didn't try to defend every aspect of the current system.

This is such a ridiculous argument, can we go back to something a little more productive?

Within the context of this system, one may very well come to believe that the "profit incentive" is an essential feature of human nature. But this system, and that very belief itself, has a history. It's been beaten into our heads for generations, until it finally shows up in the warped worldview you represent. — Xtrix

I personally don't believe the profit motive is an essential feature of human nature. I do, however, believe that it's an essential feature of any modern, successful economy.

See? I don't even believe in the position that you're ascribing to me.

Everything you're seeing isn't intended to be an argument or a direct rebuttal to you. We're just making our position clear. Us expressing our position isn't a "straw man." If you agree that's great, if you don't we can talk about it.

Typically how a straw man works is you'll say something and then someone else will respond by reframing that point in a much weaker sense and then respond to that instead of addressing your point.

If we really are straw manning you or some point then please directly state 1) The original point 2) How we are misinterpreting it and instead only countering a weaker version of it.

You make references to "the game" or "the system" but you're not too clear about it exactly.

And what a profound point it is. Too bad those "leftists" can't understand your very stable genius. — Xtrix

Thank you! I knew we'd see eye to eye! /s

Why don't the two of you go have fun arguing against your straw men. When you're ready to join the real world, we'll be waiting. — Xtrix

What straw man are you talking about? No one is saying that only profit motivates people. We are saying that the profit motive is essential to growing the economy though and particularly investment, which makes up an enormous chunk of economic activity.

It is a fact that there are wide disparities in outcomes of wealth/income. It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others. There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth, just as there is nothing morally superior about those who don't. — geospiza

Finally someone speaking some sense.

I'll agree with this like 99% with the possible caveat that if someone is capable of accumulating wealth, but instead blows it it reflects very poorly on them. Despite what some of the other commentators are saying, saving and particularly investment are absolutely essential to civilization. Leftists do not understand this point. The profit motive is absolutely central to the concept of investment, i.e. delaying gratification to reap benefits later.

Without profit on investment you are effectively losing money, even if you break even. I make this point frequently and leftists never quite seem to understand it.

You should perhaps look at those people that man the various administrations: there is a small group of people (let's remember that the US has 330 million people) that get a position in the administration after their party has gotten into power again. Or how many of them are multimillionaires (when it came to the Trump administration). — ssu

Could you give me examples? I agree that they exist, I'm honestly just curious as to how many there are and whether they all have the same goals. Typically when I think of "class" I'm thinking of like tens of millions of people, maybe at the very least a million. Anything smaller - especially if its only in the hundreds, would just be a group of people. Additionally, I'd like to know how much power these people have in the grand scheme of things. Virtually every remotely big figure in politics or business or the intersection of the two is a multi-millionaire (defined as net worth at least $3-4mm) so this label doesn't mean much to me.

Sorry to bombard you with all of these questions. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm actually curious as to the extent of this.

My conclusion is that ruling elite in the US wants the country to be divided.

And the elite is extremely successful in this.

Many people go along with this, thinking that they can simply win the other side as they are right and the others are wrong.

Hence nothing changes and the elite prevails. — ssu

It's interesting you say that. When I think "ruling elite" the group that comes to mind would be people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, Buffet, the Waltons... I keep a loose attention to these people but unless I'm missing something I don't see them as having one common interest in keeping the country divided, but who knows I may be missing something. I view them more as unique individuals with their own plans and goals.

The Chinese govt does that with political prisoners. After they claimed they'd stopped, watchdog groups say the number of transplants taking place indicates theyre still doing it. I don't think it reflects communism, though. Does it? — frank

The practice of harvesting organs from sometimes living prisoners is just a reflection of the genocidal, sociopathic nature of the Chinese leadership today. As much as I hate communism, I don't specifically blame communism for the organ harvesting happening today in China. I don't blame capitalism either. I blame the leadership.