How would you enforce this, how would you manage human behaviour? — Brett

What exactly are you attributing to "human behavior"? The profit motive? Seems like the age-old argument that capitalism aligns better with human nature than socialism or other systems.

It's utter nonsense, in my view, but I'm willing to hear you out if that's not your argument.

To achieve that they would need to do what 1% did, which is build a business from scratch and produce the same wealth that so many resent the 1% having. — Brett

You're giving yourself away when you talk like this. So many tacit assumptions.



Thanks for the recommendations.

There are a number of studies about who these people are, and how they operate. If you want to know more (much more) about wealth and power, start with G. William Domhoff, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His four books are among the highest rated titles in sociology (OK, not the same as the best selling books on Amazon).

Who Rules America? (1967, #12)
The Higher Circles (1970, #39)
The Powers That Be (1979, #47)
Who Rules America Now? (1983, #43) — Bitter Crank

Thank you -- I'll check these out. Much appreciated.

This isn’t admiration. It’s an attempt to work out what sort of people they are. I also posted the negative aspects of such people. — Brett

Yes but this is hardly research, Brett. Your list of positive or negative attributes doesn't tell us much, other than your own intuitions about the matter. Without historical or documentary evidence, etc., it's not very helpful.

I have a hunch that most of the wealthiest people, the people making the real decisions in corporations, abide by a neoliberal ideology. I suspect most of them are from the Protestant tradition, etc. But I can't prove any of this -- hence why I started this thread. I'm looking for research. Jane Mayer has done some good work on this, but in a narrower sense.

I'm not sure you're understanding what is being called for here. I'm not interested in individual biographies.

What makes you say that?
— Xtrix

What do you mean? — Brett

What makes you say any of the characteristics you mention?

Class mobility is still certainly a thing in this country. — BitconnectCarlos

Where's the scholarship on this? I'd like to see some evidence. Because it's often claimed, and of course there are examples and thousands of anecdotes, but I have a hunch it's complete nonsense -- at least when talking about what we're discussing here, which is the 1%.

It's a lot like talk about voter fraud -- yes, it happens, but so rarely as to be imperceptible.

The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands is not only unnatural (it's a result of state intervention to protect capital and wouldn't happen in a truly free market), — Pfhorrest

Massive state intervention.

Also, the idea of a "free market" is often invoked as an ideal of some kind, by Rand and Friedman and others, but it's pure fantasy, as you know.

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are.
— Xtrix

It seems to me that everyone’s done everything except address the OP. — Brett

True, but still interesting. As for your list -- I was thinking more in terms of ideologies and values, not necessarily the character attributes you mention. But where do you get that list, may I ask? What makes you say that? In fact, I'm sure a significant percentage were already born into wealth. You don't have to be a hard worker or very future-oriented for that.

But regardless, even if this were true for the majority, isn't most of your list also true for many people you know?

In the 1% you certainly have successful people but I'd hardly call someone with a net worth of $10MM one of the "masters of the universe." — BitconnectCarlos

That's a good point. I wanted to add that the more accurate figure is a tenth of 1%, but thought it was too specific. So I'm using "1%" more to signify the masters fo the universe, as in the Occupy slogan and as a shorthand. But you're right.



Excellent, as usual.

These are all things I believe: 1) The rich, on balance, have more opportunity than the poor. 2) Even in a completely economically equal society, there would be no equality of opportunity. 3) The notion of "equality of opportunity" is a dubious one. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not a matter of "opportunity," which is basically meaningless; it's a matter of conditions. Sure, a kid in the ghetto can become a millionaire -- plenty of examples of things like that happening.

I notice people of conservative and libertarian ideologies loves to speak about things like "opportunity" and "access" (access to healthcare, for example). Gotta watch the language. It's really a sneaky way of defending a savage variant of capitalism, in my view.

What you say sounds a lot closer to what people understand as Chomsky's approach. — Bitter Crank

If by "people" you mean most laypeople, I don't know where you get that. Besides some vague notions of innateness ("nativist") tendencies and the LAD (language acquisition device), "people" don't really have a clue. And again, I'm essentially repeatedly verbatim what Chomsky himself says.

It makes sense to me that the capacity and operation of language would reside in the brain as directed by our species' genetics. Our very complex brains were not built 'de novo'. The need for, and means to communication existed in our predecessor species. We are not born with a ROM-stored language (Chinese, Urdu, Swahili, Norwegian...) but we are born with instructions to acquire the available languages which present themselves to us. We don't have to be taught' it's more like "language falls into place in our brains". — Bitter Crank

Besides taking minor issue with terms like "communication" and "instructions," that sounds about right. Chomsky repeatedly will say that his main claim shouldn't be controversial and is, in fact, a truism. Yet it continually gets misinterpreted.

It’s not me talking but professor Shravan Vasishth, an Indian-origin professor of psycholinguistics at the University of Potsdam in Germany.

How would you describe Chomsky’s approach? — Olivier5

Chomsky's approach is best described as "biolinguistics." He's interested in universal grammar, the innate (genetic) structure of language. This presupposes the brain and treats language as a "system" (on par with the visual system), with its own set of properties -- properties described using theories of computation and mathematics. It has nothing to do with "intuition" about "what is possible or not possible." Whoever Vasishth is, he has no clue what he's talking about in this regard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbKO-9n5qmc

This methodology involved consulting your own intuitions about what is possible and what is not possible in language. This was a brilliant new way to unpack the structure of languages, of your own native language. — Olivier5

What nonsense. Chomsky's approach isn't anything like this whatsoever.

But truly, I am looking more specifically for philosophers who have surpassed him in terms of his ethic and his transvaluation of values. — Coryanthe

I realize I responded without really understanding the question. What would constitute deeming something as "surpassed" or "beyond" Nietzsche's ethical thinking? How would we know it surpassed him, or is simply different -- not necessarily farther, shorter, better, worse, beyond, etc. Those terms don't seem to me to have much meaning when engaged with past thinkers.

I will say that although Heidegger doesn't specifically discuss ethics (at least in my reading), ethics is still very much tied with the thoughts of the thinker in general. In this sense, I do argue that Heidegger was interested in something that is, in some ways, "bigger" than Nietzsche -- namely, being -- but even here it's difficult to say exactly why, other than the topic of being is literally everything since it permeates all beings -- including ethics. (Including music, nature, physics, matter, energy, God, etc., as well.)

Other than that I have no idea what "beyond" means in terms of Ethics. Niezsche's thinking on values, if anything, simply says we need to question the values of the past and create new ones for the future. He favors moralities of strength, courage, nobility, self-overcoming, creativity, pride, etc. There have been plenty who disagree, plenty who agree, plenty who come up with something different...

That's true. In terms of ethics, Heidegger, when talking about the authenticity of dasein, does seem to be talking in almost ethical terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this interpretation is justified. Heidegger seems almost Aristotelian in some ways, although he almost never speaks of happiness or the "good" or morals much, so far as I've read. I'd also argue that "authenticity" is related in some way with non-conformity, thinking outside the box, developing a style and identity for oneself, thinking for oneself, and things like that -- things which he mentions without moral judgments but which I and many others would consider "good" and valuable in many respects. It relates to skills and (good) habits that make up much of our lives, in fact. One can become an individual, spontaneous and situation-driven, without always needing to conform to the culture -- yet also not insane and inappropriate. By contrast, "inauthenticity" does seem rather bland, conforming, unthinking, unexamined, etc.

I don't think Heidegger puts it this way, but so far as I can tell it's as good an interpretation as any. What I know most in this case is from Hubert Dreyfus, who I think is a credible authority.

Heidegger goes beyond Nietzsche in some ways, but not necessarily in terms of ethics.

There was never a firm partition between science and philosophy. As academic disciplines they only became distinct relatively recently. Natural science used to be called Natural Philosophy (hence Ph.D.), and this nomenclature was a true reflection of the state of scholarship, which knew no boundaries between what we today call "science" and "philosophy." — SophistiCat

Very important to keep in mind.

And the GOP will be better positioned for the midterms than perhaps any party at any midterm ever. Seriously. This could be a midterm swing that approaches 1894 levels. — Baphomet

That's pure hysteria. The senate map in '22 looks decent for Democrats. 2024 isn't as good.

Yes, keep being an apologist for corporate ideology and Donald Trump. You forfeited any credibility long ago.

It’s because your fake concern for the poor is really self-interest. Little socialists such as yourself want the government to take wealth from others and give to whatever class you like, all so you don’t have to. — NOS4A2

More tired neoliberal cliches.

Enjoy four years of Biden.

Where do you live again?

The election is going to Biden. I think that's pretty clear now. Hardly a mandate, but a good thing.

The rest is pretty much a sign that Democrats need to put aside conventional wisdom and start running candidates that excite people. They need to start putting their resources behind such people, just as the Republican party (and media) did with Trump. Imagine if they had? They'd have had a Bernie Sanders as president -- who did far better with Latinos. Given that all pundits and all the conventional wisdom (and polling), Biden has pulled it off mainly because people have grown weary of Trump. And that's all.

Now with Trump out of the way, but the Senate in GOP hands, and the House even closer in power, and the state legislatures remaining fairly the same -- I see next to nothing getting done legislatively. As far as the judiciary -- I imagine it'll be 2 more years (at least) of GOP stonewalling all nominations to the courts. Which is very irritating.

No amount of wealth can enslave you or I because the wealthy do not possess a monopoly on violence. The wealthy are subject to the same laws, and, at least where the law is faithfully executed, the same punishments. So I cannot see how the wealthy are the “masters of mankind” when they are unable to force mankind to do anything. — NOS4A2

The amount of evidence one has to overlook to really believe something so naive is staggering.

Rather, we must look to which class has expropriated the means of political organization and domination, and have convinced us of its legitimacy. These people can force us to give it our earnings, can imprison us if we disobey, and kill us should it choose to do so.

This master is the state. — NOS4A2

Yes, the same state that is owned by the wealthy. The same state that gives tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, etc., to the corporate sector and the wealthiest Americans. The nanny state for the rich -- which to the rich (and the gullible who go along with their logic against their own interests) should be the only property of the state -- is certainly a major instrument in maintaining private power. "Capitalism" wouldn't survive three seconds without it, and they know it.

Little neoliberals like you have all bought into the propaganda of the last 40 years that says that "government is the problem," which is what you're repeating here. That just shows how Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other peddlers of free-market fantasies -- together with intense media indoctrination -- have influenced the world. That's about all that's interesting, and takes about 30 seconds to figure out.

Run along and vote for Trump again.

One of the main points we get from reading Nietzsche is that we come to sever the connection between "weak" and "good." We very often associate these things in our minds, but if I remember correctly Nietzsche associates this connection with living within a Judeo-Christian culture which naturally associates the two. I think severing the association between "weak" and "good" is actually a very profound point that is often overlooked today. — BitconnectCarlos

A very important point.

I'm a bit of an odd duck, so the onus is on me to explain myself clearer. Normally what I say doesn't get challenged to this level, so it never matters, but ultimately I agree with Nietzsche as well. I'm not married to the idea that all of history is determined by class or class struggle, although I adopt it as an axiom when analyzing the industrial age (to the present). There is no question in my mind that the true power in the world today lies in the hands of a small group of plutocrats. Thus, I often say I'm an "anarchist pro tem." I think we do need to overthrown the capitalist system and move towards a more collectivist society, as an counterweight to the last 300 years.

The reason this is temporary, however, is that ultimately I believe class, rank, and hierarchy are incredibly important and useful and can be turned into something quite beautiful and remarkable. A look at the Roman era is proof enough that a highly hierarchical society can achieve great things. But this will entail we discard old values and create new ones. But that's another story, when even the overthrowing of capitalism itself is only a pipe dream.

The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed in one way another. Nobody is just a member of a given social class or just a person with a disability or just a good-looking person who therefore has everything in life easy for them. All of this should lead us to considering others on the level of the individual which will always blur this black-and-white notion of oppressed/oppressor The individual contains multitudes and trying to reduce those multitudes so everyone can fit neatly into one of two categories is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. — BitconnectCarlos

This point is less compelling to me. It's essentially a truism. Yes, of course things don't fall into neat categories. On the other hand, I don't see how anyone can deny where real political power lies -- where the orders are coming from, where the decisions get made, etc. Look no further than the business world today and, within this world, the corporation. Is there any question who is giving the orders and who's following them within a corporation? Sure there's various gradations of rank, but it's still a top-down structure. The majority have no say in the important decisions (what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, what to do with the profits, etc), which lay in the hands of the owners -- the major shareholders (who appoint he board of directions).

That's about as neat and clear a difference as you're going to get, I think. It doesn't always have to be "oppression," either. It's simply one person (or a few) that gives the orders, and one (or many) who follows the orders. One commands, one obeys. That's power dynamics, and that's what is being analyzed. In fact it ultimately overlaps a bit with Nietzsche (and others -- Foucault, etc), who as you know took power as a central theme in his analyzes.

It's interesting to me that you say "class struggles" here as opposed to just "class background" or something like that. — BitconnectCarlos

Good point -- perhaps "class background" is a better way to say it.

It's one thing to recognize class differences and differences in outlook that emerge from that, it's another to describe the class system as a "struggle." — BitconnectCarlos

True...but a pretty compelling historical argument (in my view) can be made that it has indeed been a series of struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. But since there are long periods of stability within any system -- whether with slavery, feudalism, capitalism, etc. -- it's probably not as accurate as saying "class" in general.

When does history begin?
— Bitter Crank

Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. — BitconnectCarlos

The invention of writing, according to the Communist Manifesto. That's what was meant. (Footnote by Engels on page 1.)

The idea that there is a "driving force" behind history leads to teleological delusions -- like those embedded in the cliché that so-and-so or such-and-such "changed the course of history". The invention of dynamite changed the course of history. John F. Kennedy's assassination (or 9/11) changed the course of history. Facebook changed the course of history. As if anyone knew where history intending to go before dynamite, JFK, 9/11, or Facebook came along, from outside of history, to redirect the course of time. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed.

So I asked Xtrix how economics is the driving force, and he responded that it was just an "essential" force and not the driving one. I think a lot of people view economics as an essential force, but couldn't we just as easily portray sexuality or gender relations or even the ways in which difference is treated (e.g. disability) an essential force as well? We're all free to choose the lenses through which we view the world. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not that any of those things aren't important, it's a matter of generality. I think economic factors has a wider explanatory breadth. It's like asking about incarceration rates based on race. Well yes, that's true and an important factor. Until you look at class -- which is even more predictive and explains a wider data set.

I think class struggles is one of those factors that is particularly important in studying human history, for these reasons. It accounts for more phenomena. Not everything, of course, but more than the making of shoes -- even though an argument could be made that the history of human beings has been a struggle to make shoes. The reason why this is absurd should be obvious.

There are all kinds of specific reasons for specific structures -- again, in the real world. It's up to us to ask if we accept them or not.
— Xtrix

My point is you or I do not know what the real reasons are. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, we do know what the reasons are. If you're looking for 100% certainty in life, you won't walk out the door, because you don't know for certain if the ground won't cave in. Likewise with real people, in the real world, we know very well what the "real reasons" are behind actions. To take a non-trivial example, the invasion of Iraq -- the reasons were the exploitation of the country's oil fields.

True, you can always counter with "well we don't know with 100% certainty" -- but that's only employed when it's something we don't want to face. We never use it in any other aspect of our lives. It would be absurd. "Well I'm not sure I want to drive to work today, because I don't know for certain if a meteor will hit me."

Trump uses this all the time as well. It's just childish sophistry. I think we should grow out of that.

Doesn't it seems strange to you to judge something you only have partial knowledge about at best? — ChatteringMonkey

When something is supported by overwhelming evidence, no I don't think it's strange. But take this "partial knowledge" attitude about the Holocaust or climate change or the sphericity of earth. All partial knowledge, really. Do we know with 100% certainty that any of this is "real"? Technically (in academic, abstract discussions), no. But who cares? Come back down from space, and those questions disappear.

We know that the wealthiest people get most of the legislation they want. We know rich people get lesser sentences than poor people. We know major shareholders are the ones appointing the boards of directors in corporations. There are all kinds of things in the world that we know. You can see it just by looking -- but there are also systematic studies that confirm the obvious.

The only one talking about a "zero-option" is you.
— Xtrix

No you did, in asking for a justification for something to exist. — ChatteringMonkey

I said nothing about "zero-option" -- you did. Your words.

That was my point, that you seemed to advocate some kind of flat a-historical evaluation via the principles set out in the OP. If that's not what you are advocating, than my point is moot and I apologize for the trouble. — ChatteringMonkey

Apology accepted, then. I never once said ANYTHING about an "a-historical" evaluation. There are many, many factors that come into play, and I'm interested in applying the basic principles I mentioned to our current world:

Applying these abstract premises to the real world -- particularly our current secular, technological situation -- we see them manifest in new ways. Taken out of order, our current "masters of mankind" (#2) are, indisputably, the wealthy. — Xtrix

Thank you.

If we are to make abstraction of all of history and pretend like there is a world in which power relations between people don't exist, then I don't think we will get anywhere. — ChatteringMonkey

No one is pretending this -- quite the contrary. Power structures are indeed real and should be questioned. Authority should be questioned, in general. That's all this principle says. And you yourself use it all the time. You're over-complicating it by getting hung up on the specific wording.

There is no zero-option, I don't know why this is so hard to understand. — ChatteringMonkey

The only one talking about a "zero-option" is you. No one is advocating for such a thing, whatever it means. Yes, government exists. Power differentials exist. Government, power, and authority should be questioned for legitimacy. The burden of proof is on the person or entity exerting control to show that it is reasonable and justified -- just like in acts of war. Just like when a doctor wants to perform surgery. Just like when there's a ruling from a court.

True, there's always some kind of justification and pretext for all kinds of rotten behavior. It's our job as human beings to decide whether we're convinced by the rationalization or not. Some of the time, the burden can be met. Most of the time, it can't.

I'm not sure at this point what you're arguing against. Perhaps you're doing so for the sake of arguing -- otherwise, I fail to see the trouble, besides confusing the term "justify" with some kind of Socratic philosophical notion.

Let's look to the political and economic structure of our society. Let's look to the structures of our workplaces, where we, in the real world, work for a salary or a wage. Then let's ask if these structures should remain in place or not. If we find that they have no real justification for existing, then we should discuss alternatives.
— Xtrix

See I'd like to have this conversation, but I think you are asking the wrong question... and I just can't get past that because i think it skews the dialogue. I think you are making the philosophers mistake (also not meant as an insult btw) that everything can and needs to be justified. — ChatteringMonkey

Forget the word "justification," then. Think of it this way: someone tells you to do something, and you question why. The "why?" question is asking for an explanation, a reason, a rationale, or any other way you'd like to phrase it.

I think the real mistake is getting too hung up on words. Yes, that has it's place and is often very important, but in this context it derails the real world situation I'm trying to discuss, which is our current political and economic situation in the United States.

Maybe it's a political compromise that an organisation is the way it is, maybe there are practical reasons that aren't readily visible to someone viewing it from the outside, maybe there are reasons long forgotten... or maybe there is indeed no apparent reason at all. In any case, no one persons can possibly know the full reason for how the way things are... and so it's not really a fair question. — ChatteringMonkey

Again, you're off in space. Asking something like "Why do things happen?" isn't even a question. Others are so abstract and general it's nearly impossible to talk about. You have to ask about the real world, which we all live in -- not some hypothetical world. So in this world, there certainly is a reason and a history for the existence of corporate structure. There is a reason we subsidize the fossil fuel industry. There's a reason the wealthiest 0.01% get nearly all the legislation they want passed. Etc. etc. There are all kinds of specific reasons for specific structures -- again, in the real world. It's up to us to ask if we accept them or not. So when Kennedy or LBG told us that by invading Vietnam we were defending Vietnam, we had a choice to accept or reject that explanation. When W. Bush told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that too was a justification for war. We had a choice to accept that or not.

And so on.

I don't understand this attitude of "we'll never know the full reason," etc. It's very strange. Let's keep it down to Earth for a while -- we can discuss more abstract things later.

So yeah, I don't know how to argue this point any better, it just seems obvious to me that this is not the way to be approaching these issues. — ChatteringMonkey

And I'm still a bit baffled at that.

The ones who take the orders from above should question not only the orders, but why it is we're listening to this person (or these people) in the first place.
— Xtrix

I just want to add that this is a very modern and recent notion, and not something that really plays out like you might think in practice, even today. — ChatteringMonkey

The notion doesn't play out how you think, because you're certainly not listening to mine.

As far as it being modern and recent -- formulated as such, perhaps. But these issues have been discussed since the Greeks. Justice, politics, power, etc. Hardly "modern."

Ok, let me specify that I don't think it does anything philosophically. I don't think you get there by referring back to the concept of justification either. It's not as if there is agreement on what counts as proper justification. — ChatteringMonkey

You, and other philosophy hobbyists (not meant insultingly), often fall back on reasoning like this. What difference does it make whether there's "agreement"? Not everyone agrees that Donald Trump is a terrible president. Not everyone "agrees" that the world is round. If you're waiting around for certainty before acting, you'll do nothing indeed.

But of course we dismiss nonsense like this in the real world. If someone orders you to do something, and you believe it unjust, you question the orders. You ask for an explanation until it makes sense to you. It's also context-dependent. Pulling your child by the arm because you're angry that they turned on the television is one thing -- pulling them away because they ran into the street and there's an oncoming car is another. The world is a complex place, and we use practical judgments all the time. So let's take the conversation away from abstract, academic discussion -- where we will find no agreement whatever, and which will divert us from the real situation we find ourselves in, politically or otherwise -- and look to what's actually happening. Let's look to the political and economic structure of our society. Let's look to the structures of our workplaces, where we, in the real world, work for a salary or a wage. Then let's ask if these structures should remain in place or not. If we find that they have no real justification for existing, then we should discuss alternatives.

I was saying that according to Marx "human nature" is essentially just the product of the economic system. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't see him saying this either, really. Things that may appear "natural" are largely conditioned by economic factors and class, yes. But human beings have been around for 200,000 years, long before any real "economy." Was there no human nature prior to the industrial or agricultural revolutions?

In evaluating a society, according to Marx, look first and foremost at its economic structure or system. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. That's quite different than attributing things to "human nature."

If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground.
— Xtrix

Tell that to Marx. — BitconnectCarlos

No need, because he doesn't say this. His famous phrase that "all hitherto history is the history of class struggle" itself is very quickly qualified by Engels in the footnote, but it doesn't mean class struggle is the ONLY aspect of history. An essential one, yes.

If you were to say I want to overthrow plutocracy because I don't like it, or because it's bad for me and a lot of people, I'd be fine with that. I just don't think the concept of legitimacy does anything really. — ChatteringMonkey

I think there could be many reasonable solutions for the particular problems we face, but it takes questioning and working together to discover and implement them. The concept of "legitimacy" you're hung up on is a simple one: asking if this power structure is a legitimate one says is it justified, is it earned, are the decisions being made and actions being undertaken rational ones? etc. If you can justify to someone why you make a decision or take an action, then do so. Orders should be questioned. If you can't, you shouldn't be in power, take that action, etc. Who's the judge and jury? The people are -- namely the people who have to abide by the judgments and decisions of another. The ones who take the orders from above should question not only the orders, but why it is we're listening to this person (or these people) in the first place. Call it whatever you like, but to say you don't think it "does anything" is pretty strange. You do it all the time. Or should, anyway,

The thing I take issue with is that you think there is a solution, not the fact that you question legitimacy. — ChatteringMonkey

A solution for what? Where do I say I think that? If I had a magic, general solution, I assure you I would have given it by now.

Our current situation isn't any different from times past. Those in power want to keep it and tell stories to that that effect, and those that don't believe those stories want the ones in power gone because.... well, they want some of that power too. — ChatteringMonkey

Not necessarily. They may simply not want to live under oppression and tyranny.

But yes, almost any system of power since the neolithic revolution has been "justified" in some way, and almost all of it has been completely bogus. That doesn't mean we stop questioning.

Questioning legitimacy is fine and all, because there really is no reason to just accept any of it, but i'm not sure what kind of 'solution' you expect? — ChatteringMonkey

That depends on what you're asking. In the easy case of an Adolf Hitler, I think the solution is easy enough: don't allow people like that to have any power whatsoever.

If someone is a head coach and his team goes 0-12, you're likely to fire the coach. Etc. There are almost infinite solutions. You can't ask about a "solution" in a vacuum -- you have to discuss specific cases.

If we ever would manage to overthrow the current 'rulers' you will invariably get a new class of rulers, which will effectively only be legitimized by the fact that they managed to overthrow the previous rules, by power in short... rinse repeat. — ChatteringMonkey

Says who? This is just a lack of imagination, really. It's been beaten out of people's heads for years, but there are plenty of ways to organize people.

Take corporations. There's no reason why corporate organization has to be a top-down, un-democratic structure. But people don't even consider questioning that because an alternative (to them) is unimaginable. But alternatives do indeed exist.

Take a look at the Spanish Revolution for political organization, too.

True, we can just say that illegitimate power is a fact of human history that will never go away. In that case, go to sleep.

I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles.
— Xtrix

Well are you a woman or disabled? — BitconnectCarlos

No, but nor do I have to be in order to see that they're much less broad and less impactful than class. I'm not a cooper, either -- and I suppose one could make the argument that barrel-making is on par with class as well -- but we would rightfully laugh at that. There are various degrees of generality we're talking about. This isn't to say women's experiences, or disabled people's experiences aren't important -- they are -- but that they do not account as well for the historical trends as do, say, politics and economics. I think we can all agree with that -- or should. If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground.

There's a reason Marx's analysis was so influential. Nietzsche and Heidegger take a similarly broad view of history as well -- in terms of morals (values) and understandings of "being," respectively -- and are rightly influential because of it.

What Marxism does, however, is it places the economic as the essential characteristic of the society as well as human nature. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a misrepresentation, in my view. To attribute class to "human nature" doesn't make sense. Class is a kind of social organization and categorization. Perhaps the drive for power, domination and control are aspects of human nature -- but then so is love, cooperation, empathy, etc. Marx's analysis stresses the importance of class in his analysis, but because he's not insane he wouldn't deny other aspects of history or human nature.

Power I think is an interesting issue and I don't think it's completely synonymous with class, although the two are related. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think it's synonymous either.

To put social class head-and-shoulders above all the other topics out there has always seemed dubious. — BitconnectCarlos

There are many aspects of history, of course. Whether class is the issue isn't relevant. What matters is that it is an essential part of the progress of history. It necessarily implies power structures, which I believe is even more fundamental than class. Class is a manifestation of power systems, and so easier to analyze.

I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles. Perhaps an argument can be made for the role of thought and ideas, of technology, and of values, but if anything they seem on equal footing.

It all matters. Some aspects are broader than others. Class, when taken as an object in its own right, happens to be one which explains a great deal of historical trends.

Agreed. However, since society, especially American capitalist society, has a heterogeneous demographic as a country, I believe that there is no clear answer to these questions. — The Questioning Bookworm

That's beside the point if the questions aren't being asked.

If the system is broken, which I believe in some areas it is, then we need to prioritize, demonstrate, motivate people to vote for officials that are aligned, and try our best to elect. — The Questioning Bookworm

Sure. And we can do so on tentative assumptions -- we don't have to work out the answer to every question before we act.

The problem I find interesting in general political philosophy is: attempting to control, eradicate, and block injustice. Yet injustice always persists in any nation, country, and local. There is always a group that is marginalized. — The Questioning Bookworm

Well the main issue, in my view, is power. Whoever controls the major decisions of a society (usually only a "few") wields disproportionate influence over the everyday lives of the "many." Power dynamics and structures are everywhere, from families to marriages to the military to corporations to government. There's nothing necessarily morally "wrong" or "bad" about this. But they should be questioned for legitimacy. If authority, domination, and control are found to be illegitimate, they should then be dismantled, eradicated, blocked, etc.

Anyhow, thanks for making this thread. Political philosophy is one of my favorite subjects to plumb the depths of. Cheers! — The Questioning Bookworm

Thank you -- cheers to you.

More so in the irony and humor. — Merkwurdichliebe

I fail to see the humor in the destruction of the planet and possibilities of human life. But that's me.