Reflections of illegitimate power structures which rely on exploitation — rlclauer

Sometimes, as with Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan in the latter half of the 1800s.

Sometimes, as with Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan in the latter half the 1800s.

Thanks for your input, I agree it can be a mixture, although I did vote for the illegitimate one, because I believe the majority of those with power earned it by some method of exploitation.

some method of exploitation — rlclauer

McDonald's raised wages, but lessened the workers; I went to one of the newer ones, where they had no cashiers, but did have one person to help people figure out the kiosks and then bring them their food, via a number taken and put on their table. Now the cooks in the back have to be somehow gotten rid of. I could never cook there, with all those beepers going off all the time.

I think I have to disagree with that. Meaning the part where you say "the majority of those with power earned it by some method of exploitation".

There has been for quite some time an obsession with power and looking at everything through the lens of power, domination and exploitation. This narrative sells so well. Especially to young students.

Things like the practicality and usefulness of organization when it comes to huge societies isn't something that is at all tolerated by this "Power-play" crowd, who see "Master-slave" situations everywhere. Typically these people believe in their view of the World so much that they would be the worst kind of leaders you can find.

here has been for quite some time an obsession with power and looking at everything through the lens of power, domination and exploitation. This narrative sells so well. Especially to young students. — ssu

what you say is true enough. The current crop of students (and maybe the theorists from whom they get ideas) seem to think that power comes by way of race and gender. Power iS connected to race and gender, but the source of power remains exploitation of resources--mineral, plant, and animal--including our esteemed animal selves.

The source of power is the desire of those it subjugates.

I think there is plenty of evidence to justify what I view as exploitation, and you would probably disagree with my definition. For example, we are told we live in a meritocracy, however, the majority of the Forbes' billionaire list inherited their income. They started on 3rd base so to speak. I would categorize this as an "exploit," or a way to game the system in a way. Like using a game shark on a video game. The rules are set up to supposedly "reward merit" yet some hack in cheats and appear claim to be meritorious.

Economic mobility has decreased since the middle class has begun to diminish, which is directly related to the adoption of neoliberal economic policies. This exploits working populations by expropriating would be benefits to them in the form of tax cuts for the rich. Exploitation, and this generates massive wealth at the top.

The idea of a kind of economic determinism, is powerful in our society. This means there are feedback loops, spiraling up and down. This simply means the trajectory you are set on early in life has the biggest impact on where you end up as an adult. That's why the greatest predictor of wealth of an adult is the income and education levels of their parents. This is all a type of exploitation, and when we maintain a narrative of rugged individualism, and meritocracy, this become perniciously exploitative, in my opinion.

As I said I think where we will diverge is how we define exploitation, with my definition being much broader than your's I would imagine.

In my opinion this trend is only going to continue which is why I advocate for reimagining the idea of labor for income. As automation increases, aggregate demand will be displaced enough that the owners of corporations, as their consumer base loses buying power, will begin to use their political power to engineer some sort of baseline for the displaced workers. Their bottom line will demand it.

No, individuals determine their own fate, collectivism is a hindrance — rlclauer

I disagree with this option.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. JOHN DONNE, 1572 -1631

You understand, of course, that "man" is the generic for humankind, which includes men and women.

Certainly, individuals play a part in their becoming; we are not automatons. "Fate" is a really old-school concept; Fate deprived the individual of ultimate autonomy. (Or in the words of the Roman poem, La Fortuna, "Fate crushes the brave".) Our 'fate' for better or worse was determined by The Fates – or Moirai – who were a group of three weaving goddesses who assign individual destinies to mortals at birth. Their names are Clotho (the Spinner), Lachesis (the Alloter) and Atropos (the Inflexible).

The 'self-made individual' is a fiction of the narcissistic personality, the rugged individualist, the deluded loner.

We are social creatures, and without society and everything involved in society, we are no more than wolf-children, clods.

Exploitation is a recurrent feature of human behavior -- whether it is exploiting the land, the sea, the air, animals, plants, or other humans. It's what we do; it is a feature of our species, not a bug. So, as much as we depend on collective society for our existence, we also can count on probably getting screwed by our society. No one is exempt: one is either a member of the small group of beneficiaries of past and current exploitation (rich people) or one is the object of exploitation (that's most of us).

Now, despite all this verbiage about collectivity, it is also the case that individuals, singly and in combination, are critical drivers of society. Being a driving force doesn't mean one wasn't affected by membership in the collective community. Indeed, their particular community is where individuals learn how to be drivers/leaders.

The source of power is the desire of those it subjugates. — Tzeentch

How does that work for slaves?

If you are talking about physical coercion: the desire to continue material existence.

That was very well stated, and I appreciate your input. One thing I would ask for you to comment on, because it gets to the heart of the intersection of this individual driving force and the collective one.

The 'self-made individual' is a fiction of the narcissistic personality, the rugged individualist, the deluded loner.

Given that humans have and do exploit one another, and certain economic factors could insurmountably supplant one's capacity for achieving their potential, where do we begin to create a system which enables free enterprise and the rewarding of ingenious or hardworking person's, while not allowing the weaker members to be washed from the collective continent, speaking to the poem you quoted?

I think this strikes to the heart of the relationship between social responsibility, and individual liberty. I do not think it is controversial to state that your childhood really sets a lifelong trajectory. Can we abandon this narrative that if you just work hard and make good choices you will succeed? I believe we should temper the western narrative of everyone deserves where they end up, and place more emphasis on social responsibility and economic determinism. I would be interested in reading your thoughts.

Give employees stock shares in the company?

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. JOHN DONNE, 1572 -1631 — Bitter Crank

So I have heard that "no man is an island" phrase hundreds of times. I just assumed it was some idiom. Thanks for the cultural learnin'.

If you are talking about physical coercion: the desire to continue material existence. — Tzeentch

So ants and fish have that same desire? Not sure if it counts as a desire at that point?

where do we begin to create a system which enables free enterprise and the rewarding of ingenious or hardworking person's — rlclauer

Well a simple start would suggest that "rewards" should come in millions (of dollars) while leveraged power for future exploitation comes in billions. When 100 people own as much as HALF THE WORLD combined, it has NOTHING to do with "rewarding" their genius; they are using their "genius" to exploit the rest of the world.

I do not think it is controversial to state that your childhood really sets a lifelong trajectory. Can we abandon this narrative that if you just work hard and make good choices you will succeed? — rlclauer

One's parents, and the head start they give their children (or not), does indeed plot much of one's trajectory. There are enough exceptions, though, to warrant working hard and making good choices. Up to the spring of 1964, I did not, could not plan on going to college. Several fortuitous events happened that made it possible for me to begin college in the fall. I did work reasonably hard (could have, would have, should have worked harder) and I could have made better choices about careers. I thought I would become a high school teacher, but I did not know myself well enough to realize how stupid that choice was for me. Things eventually worked out OK after graduation, without me teaching so much as 15 minutes of 12th grade English.

Children can often exceed their parents economic achievements under some circumstances, especially during a vigorous growth economy, and if one's parents weren't very high achievers. It's possible to exceed one's own predicted trajectory through life if one has at least normal intellectual assets and a lot of drive, and not too many unfortunate accidents.

Greatly exceeding one's own expectations and parental achievements shouldn't be counted on. In the long run of history, continual speedy upward progress is NOT normal. (In the long run of history, people more or less match their parents' achievements when things are going well.). Centuries have passed with no net economic growth. That doesn't mean life was terrible during those hundreds of years. Life was just very stable. One's life was like one's great grand parent's lives. Another angle to remember is that when economic growth does occur, it is never evenly distributed. The rich get richer, of course, and the poor get poorer. When England colonized North America, it was not the riff raff that benefitted economically; it was the leading families of England who owned the colonies, and made investments. "It's not the Earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt."

I believe we should temper the western narrative of everyone deserves where they end up, and place more emphasis on social responsibility and economic determinism. I would be interested in reading your thoughts. — rlclauer

Anglo-America, at least, has been fairly strongly flavored by Calvinist theology which holds that material success is a sign of God's grace. The successful man is successful because he was predestined to receive God's grace of salvation, and material success is a sign of grace. The poor couple with 5 sickly children are also evidence of God's plan of salvation. Their wretched state is a sign of their damnation by God, and their poverty is a mark of God's displeasure.

God's pleasure or displeasure is a flying fickle finger of fate, as it happens. It is quite often IMPOSSIBLE for us to perceive the virtues of the elect and the flaws of the damned. I mean, a lot of assholes seem to be among the elect, and a lot of very decent people seem to be among the damned. I say fuck John Calvin and his theology of fucking predestination.

So I have heard that "no man is an island" phrase hundreds of times. I just assumed it was some idiom. Thanks for the cultural learnin'. — ZhouBoTong

And now you also know where Ernest Hemingway got the title for his novel, "For Whom The Bell Tolls".

The movie wife of W. C. Fields, who played comic drunks, said in her usual harsh, stentorian voice, "You're going to drown in a barrel of whiskey." Fields' movie reply was "Drowned in a barrel of whiskey! O death where is thy sting?" Another line from a John Donne poem.

So ants and fish have that same desire? Not sure if it counts as a desire at that point? — ZhouBoTong

Presumably they do, though I am not that familiar with the psychological machinations of insects and fish. Why wouldn't it count as desire?

I think it is possible for us to have a stimulating conversation about the outcomes of individual lives within our current economic and political system. — rlclauer

As an individual, the national system that you face, is a given. You cannot hope to change it. On the other hand, there are 200+ such national systems. In terms of what matters to me, at least 100+ of these national systems work absolutely fine.

Therefore, at a systemic level, it is much more important to me that one such national system cannot impose their possibly misguided views elsewhere.

In terms of geopolitics, it probably means asking powers like Russia and China to be much more confrontational with the USA, as to force them to stay more within their own national borders.

What we certainly do not want, ever again, is a repeat of removing arsehole Gaddafi in Libya in 2011, resulting in over two thousand militia still shooting at each other and vying for power, almost nine years later.

In Libya, the shelves are still empty in the supermarkets, there are shortages of everything, and nobody has a real job except for shooting other people. Can we, please, urgently dig up Gaddafi's dead body, resurrect him, and put him back on his throne?

People act in a manner they deem ‘worthy’.

The systems of hierarchy are products of human social activity. Where the most people can attach to a sense of ‘worth’ more the system is perpetuated - humanity is perpetuated. We’re not static creatures though; we’re surprisingly adaptable and able to refine our systems and replace them.

I didn’t answer the poll because the first question needs at least several hundred nuanced options and the second does little more than show some people to read the question to suit their beliefs (it’s a pointless poll).

Why make such a weird poll? It would’ve made more sense to just express your ideas and concerns in plainer words than have people play pin the tail on the donkey.

Re the first poll question, I don't see how anyone could argue that an individual's status/outcome couldn't be aided by assistance/cooperation from others.

Re the second poll question, I think both options you present are misconceived. It's neither "accurate" nor "illegitimate." It's simply a symptom of the way we've set things up and some common belief/idea tendencies in the context of how we've set things up.

I agree, I believe people should try their best. I just view economic location as much more a function of deterministic trajectories than you do. When you say children often exceed their parent's economically, I do not share your optimism.

Furthermore, I believe the outcomes we experience, are really expressions of inherent flaws in the configuration of our system. That is to say, we look at someone on top and conclude, "there must have been something of merit in them, otherwise they would not be there." and the same logic, just reversed, applies to those on the bottom. I do not view the world this way. I view the inequality of the economic game, it's rigged nature if you will, is played out in the inequality of outcome we witness. The flaws which are baked in diminish equality of opportunity, which most people seem to believe in.

So the point is, I do not even think we have an accurate way of evaluating people's competence (as a function of their economic position), because their position economically was more or less determined, and so you cannot determine who is more or less competent. We cannot know who is more or less competent until we have a competition in which all of the players are equal. Therefore, economic outcomes, in my view, are just the final product of a system of sanctioned illegitimate inequality, and the hierarchies we experience cannot be a function of competence.

As an individual, the national system that you face, is a given. You cannot hope to change it. On the other hand, there are 200+ such national systems. In terms of what matters to me, at least 100+ of these national systems work absolutely fine.

I disagree on both accounts. I do not believe it is a given, and I think people can absolutely change it. I would also disagree that 100+ work completely fine. When there is an accumulation of gross wealth at the top, deaths of despair and, for the first time in the history of developed countries, decreasing life spans in many regions, and the rise of populism, I think to say it is working just fine is highly inaccurate. Unless what you mean by "working just fine" is, "well me and the people I care about still got our paychecks," then if that's what you mean, sure, I could see why you would think that way.

As far as your other arguments about global geopolitics, I am not well read on the subject and cannot comment.

People act in a manner they deem ‘worthy’.

This might be true if everyone had an equal amount of freedom with which to actuate their desires and potential, but there are structural elements within the economy which grant almost complete freedom to a few, while limiting the majority to practically losing their autonomy, as a function of the constraints on their range of options.

The systems of hierarchy are products of human social activity

On my view, the hierarchies are product of historic exploitation and violence. Hardly benign, even if what you mean by "human social activity," is morally neutral, it's fairly easy to see in my opinion, that the products of the historic activity is illegitimate given the cost paid to generate wealth for a few.

Why make such a weird poll?

I hoped to stimulate conversation. For the most part, the majority of people take our current system for granted. Framing the poll questions how I did can open someone's mind to potential structural flaws. Usually, we atomize all economic activity. So if you have a good job, you must be smart. The way the poll questions were framed in the context of one another, should cause you to consider the structural influences which can change the trajectory of individual outcomes. This is obviously going to be seen through the lense of your current ideology, and so the affect would be different on each person. I really appreciate you taking the time to share your insight.

Re the second poll question, I think both options you present are misconceived. It's neither "accurate" nor "illegitimate." It's simply a symptom of the way we've set things up and some common belief/idea tendencies in the context of how we've set things up.

It sounds like you are viewing it as neutral. That is fine, but do you think there could be a more improved version of what we call economic organization?

I would like something a bit more radical

When there is an accumulation of gross wealth at the top, deaths of despair and, for the first time in the history of developed countries, decreasing life spans in many regions, and the rise of populism, I think to say it is working just fine is highly inaccurate. — rlclauer

Well, I did not say that the 100+ national systems, that work fine in my opinion, are the ones of developed countries. I certainly do not live in one. I tend to live in SE Asia. I have been here for longer than a decade now. For various reasons, I do not like living in developed countries. My own experience of living in the European Union is quite negative.

Unless what you mean by "working just fine" is, "well me and the people I care about still got our paychecks," then if that's what you mean, sure, I could see why you would think that way. — rlclauer

Of course, I survived until now. So, I have clearly managed to make and spend enough to stay afloat.

I personally think that they have got it all wrong in "developed" countries. They are not even that much more "developed" any longer. The gap is gone, really.

It is rather that each country has segments of the population that move at different speeds. Some people here still live as subsistence farmers, while others fully participate in the global economy; pretty much undistinguishable from what people do in New York or London.

Then the question rather becomes: What do you prefer? Bangkok or New York? Well, in my case, Bangkok any day of the week. Furthermore, anybody I meet here in SE Asia who has also previously lived in a developed country (EU, USA, ...) does not want to go back. You would have to drag them back by their hair, kicking and screaming.

Sure I agree, penalizing actions which come at great cost to people or the environment is a great start. The funny thing about our current system is when you consider what are called "externalities," if these were actually factored into a companies cost to do business, many of the companies that are currently profitable, (often through accounting voodoo) would no longer be profitable.

but do you think there could be a more improved version of what we call economic organization? — rlclauer

Yes. I'm not a fan of the way we've structured things at all. I'd do a socialized (but otherwise libertarian) structure, not based on money in any traditional way, where the competition is instead focused on helping people out and rather directly providing things that people want, where we regularly poll that.

Well thanks for sharing some of your personal experience. One of the things my poll was trying to get at, was not simply describing that some countries and individuals have different outcomes, and to think about which outcomes are better or worse. The point is how are those different outcomes generated? In my opinion, much of these outcomes are the products of the structure of the society, and other factors which have nothing to do with someone's merit or lack thereof. Of course people prefer to live in comfort rather than a pile of garbage, but the whole subject I am trying to get at, is what produces these outcomes? In my opinion, inequality is baked into the system, and this is not the fault of individuals not being good enough to succeed or "participate in global economies like New York or London." Hence, I believe changing the way the economy is structured from the ground up can generate more equality from the starting point, which will translate to more equality at the finishing line, and I believe considering how individuals are constrained or propelled by their circumstances is a good way to see that the current system generates illegitimate hierarchies.

I think the whole idea of atomizing individuals into market logic competition is fundamentally dehumanizing, although I am please to see you suggesting a social-libertarian philosophy. I am not necessarily agreeing completely, but I like to see people thinking about ways to have more humane economic organization.

In my opinion, much of these outcomes are the products of the structure of the society, and other factors which have nothing to do with someone's merit or lack thereof. — rlclauer

In my own case, I do not feel that I have particularly been obstructed or favoured in SE Asia, while doing the things I have been doing. It's not that I can turn around and point to some evil society that threw a spanner in the works. It has worked out absolutely fine.

Of course people prefer to live in comfort rather than a pile of garbage, but the whole subject I am trying to get at, is what produces these outcomes? — rlclauer

On the short run, outcomes look arbitrary and heavily influenced by the environment. On the long run, however, there is probably a real pattern to it. The common denominator is probably yourself.

My own take is as following. If you ask a teenage girl why she is wearing these clothes, she will say: because all my friends are wearing them too. I think that this pattern is actually very general. Failure-inducing behaviour gets often copied wholesale from others. Furthermore, in the background, there certainly are people who benefit from spreading lies and manipulating the masses. I have always been quite immune to manipulative mainstream media and education systems, but I do not really know why.

Hence, I believe changing the way the economy is structured from the ground up can generate more equality from the starting point, which will translate to more equality at the finishing line, and I believe considering how individuals are constrained or propelled by their circumstances is a good way to see that the current system generates illegitimate hierarchies. — rlclauer

Wherever there is a herd of sheep, you will see packs of wolves materializing out the blue. Wherever there are gullible people, you will see manipulators gearing up to manipulate. Go to facebook and watch how the adverts, commercial, social, and political start flying in your face. Pick https://www.reddit.com/r/popular. It won't take long before you will read or see very manipulative messages. You won't see them at https://www.reddit.com/r/epistemology because the crowd there is less manipulable. So, the manipulators avoid wasting time there, because their attempts would be pointless anyway.

You will not be able to change anything to that phenomenon. Even if you change the hierarchy, the same crowd is going to sink to the bottom, and the same crowd is going to rise to the top. The wealthy datsha bureaucracy of the Soviet Union were obviously the former factory owners, while the factory workers themselves became even worse off than before.