The 1% is an organizing principle for political agitation — geospiza

This is incoherent. What is the principle of "the 1%"? It's not a principle at all, it's a statistic.

and a scapegoat for those who lament poverty, or who resent wealth for a variety of reasons. These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; — geospiza

It has nothing to do with "resentment" -- a common accusation for those who don't want to face reality.

that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. — geospiza

Who has said that on here? Try arguing with real people instead of your self-constructed phantoms. Classic straw man.

My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten. — geospiza

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways...

If that's just your preference in terms of a corporate governance model that's fine. We all have our own preferences for how things ought to be ran. I personally don't believe in any one, universal perfect corporate governance model and in any case we're free to discuss the pluses and minuses of various models. — BitconnectCarlos

This is mentally lazy, to talk about "preferences" and "perfect systems." There are no "perfect" systems, and no one is claiming there is. To try to spin the discussion into a discussion of "preferences" is like a creationist arguing for different "models" of origins: the creationist model and the "evolutionist" model. "Just two explanatory preferences, nothing more, and we can 'debate' the merits of both." Nonsense.

Why not instead simply acknowledge that you're in favor of democratizing the workplace? (As anyone who professes to care about democracy should.) And if you're not in favor of it, then be brave enough to say so.

For instance in relation to an event like climate change how might people, workers/owners, view coal mines as a business venture? — Brett

It really can't be separated from talk of profits and expansion, because that's what drives the decisions of the owners, at the expense of everything else, including the environment -- local or global. Climate change is a good example fo a situation where, if it weren't for nihilistic greed and addiction to expansion/growth, we could have the situation solved already.

The system itself needs to be changed. But that's in the long run. That won't happen in our lifetimes. A step towards that, however, is a move towards the co-op model, expansion of unions, etc.

It’s very interesting as a thought experiment. I was really wondering, though I didn’t make it clear, how the business landscape would change morally. What would either away and what would thrive? — Brett

In that case, as I mentioned, I think we would see drastic changes for the better. And it's not because I think the major shareholders (the owners) are evil. It's not that I think they outsource jobs, shut down factories, lay of thousands of workers, replace workers with automation, cut or cap overtime, try to keep wages down, find ways around paying benefits, agree to huge mergers, use tax havens and other loopholes to avoid taxes, etc. etc., because they're sadists. They probably hate doing it. But the very nature of the system is to maximize profit and market share, and to continually grow/expand. If you don't do that, you're not fulfilling your obligations, according to the game we're all playing.

If instead the workers get to make the decisions, almost none of those things would happen. It's better for them, better for the towns and cities they operate in, better for the environment, and so on. Now, would this mean they won't be financially successful? Not at all. I think the difference financially would be a kind of "natural" cap on how much profit is enough.

There are real world examples, too. I could get you the details if you'd like, because I don't remember many specifics, but there was a scenario within the last 30 years or so where I believe a car factory was going to be shut down because it wasn't profitable enough for Ford or whoever, and the workers of the factory offered to buy it from Ford and then run it themselves -- because it was still making a profit, just not up to Ford's standards. Ford refused to do so, and the factory was shut down.

This goes on a lot, and it demonstrates the rot in our current system. There's really no good reason for it. But it'll go on if people are not aware of alternatives and allow it to continue.

Back to my original question then: Wouldn't all workers then be on the hook for debts in the case of bankruptcy then? Also, lets say there's 10 workers and 7 of them vote to take out a loan, do the other 3 have to chip in? — BitconnectCarlos

Are you unaware that small businesses and co-ops exist? Are the owners of a local maintenance company not "on the hook" for bankruptcy? What happened to those "on the hook" for bankruptcy over at GM in 2009? Would the result had made much of a difference if it were worker-owned? Why not first ask that question.

The workers are the businesses.
— Xtrix

Sure, and the CEO just sits up in his gold suite all day with his top hat and goes swimming in piles of gold coins while the workers do all the hard work. Apparently higher level employees like the founders and CFO or CTO just don't do anything all day. — BitconnectCarlos

The CEOs are chosen by the board of directors, and sometimes serve as board chairs alongside CEO duties.

No one is saying "higher level" employees aren't workers. They are. And they have their own set of responsibilities based on their capacities, interests, talent, etc. Just as every state has state representatives and state senators that the people vote to send to the capital, the employees should vote for their leadership -- from the CEO on down. Their compensation should be appropriately adjusted, with certain limits (at Mondragon, I think it's no more than 8 or 10X higher than the lowest compensation). There are plenty of good supervisors, administrators, etc. Why should they be chosen based on a handful of major shareholders rather than the people who actually produce for and (essentially) run the company?

If everything that existed now, in terms of business, factories, etc., was collectively owned what business do you think would remain and what would go? What would survive and what wouldn’t. What would happen to Goldman Sachs for instance, or coal mines? Apart from workers owning the capital how would the landscape change? — Brett

Good question. Obviously I can't say for sure, but my hunch is that a lot would change, but for the better. But not necessarily in terms of what is produced, or the daily routines. In other words, you could get rid of all the major shareholders in the country right now, and nearly everything would run exactly the same on the ground. No one would be the wiser.

Take Wal Mart. You can imagine that the Waltons disappear. What happens to Wal Mart? Does the shipping and receiving of goods change? Do the workers who provide security, stock the shelves, manage the scheduling, oversee the inventory, work as cash register, etc., stop dead in their tracks? Of course not.

Sure, maybe coal mines dramatically change. But if the workers are making the decisions, I'd imagine the working conditions, compensation, etc., would improve. If workers were in charge, would they choose to outsource jobs? Would they choose to shut a factory down because it didn't make enough profit, etc? As for Goldman Sachs -- most of these large financial institutions produce very little, and make most of their money from complex manipulations, moving money around, etc. So maybe they go under...good riddance.

Ok, I think I understand you better now. I'll say if an owner wants to structure his corporation like that I don't have any problem with that, it's the owner's choice. — BitconnectCarlos

No, you're not understanding. There is no "owner." That's exactly the point. The "owners" (if you want to call them that) are the workers themselves. The company is controlled and run democratically, by the workers themselves -- minus a bunch of major shareholders who produce exactly nothing, and whose privilege is obtained by legal maneuvering.

That's fine by me, when you have your own company you're free to tell your employees that they can vote whoever they want to be in charge. — BitconnectCarlos

It's educational to watch how difficult it is for people to even comprehend this. Might as well be speaking Swahili.

The workers already run the businesses, but don't "own" them (and don't make any of the major decisions). The proposal is simple: get rid of owners. It's not up to them to give "permission" to take over the businesses. The workers are the businesses.

Ok, I might have misunderstood you. When you say something like 'all workers should have ownership in the company' then yeah, obviously my mind goes to all the employees having that privilege. If that's not what you're saying then feel free to clarify.

I don't have anything against co-ops either. If a company wants to do that, that's fine. If you were to force every company to be structured like that that's where I'd take issue. — BitconnectCarlos

I am talking about all employees, yes. All employees run the company. How they choose to structure it, who they assign various responsibilities or leadership roles to, etc., are their business. Votes are conducted for various positions, and everything is decided democratically.

I also didn't mention "ownership."

It's not about "forcing" companies to do anything, no.

Yes. Along the the rest. So when the following is said, in response to "workers should be in control":

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. — BitconnectCarlos

the point is obvious. Or should be.

Whilst I don't understand it definitively, I understand that the concept ( self organisation ) could explain all those questions that you pose. All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. So in this regard, I believe it is worth perusing. — Pop

Yes, but you might as well call it "X" or "God," then. If we don't understand what it means, then what's the point? We're not interested in replacing one word with another, or defining things in a vacuum.

we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.
— Xtrix

Exactly, its time to understand all this under the one heading. :smile: — Pop

Why not call it "being," then?

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. New, inexperienced employees could be permanently damaging their financial future. — BitconnectCarlos

Who said anything about "new, inexperienced employees"? The fact that your mind goes immediately to a scenario like this, where "workers control the business" equates somehow to "inexperienced employees" is very revealing, and pretty standard.

Tell the Mondragon Corporation about how it's not possible to do what they do, or how damaging it is to their financial futures. Those "inexperienced workers" will be happy to hear from you.

And then there's this:



Workers are completely capable of controlling the companies they work for; they are the companies. This doesn't mean there is no longer any division of labor or leadership, or even that all wages are equal. Nothing like that whatsoever. It simply means that it is run -- shockingly -- democratically: the managers are elected, and decisions are not confined to 20 or so major shareholders. Nothing radical about this. And no, you won't find that it all collapses without the capitalist owners. The workers are perfectly capable of running the company -- why? Because they already do it.

One needs to look no further than the structure and operation of corporations to see how undemocratic and exploitative it is. This is the nature of the game. A few people (the major shareholders, the board of directors, and the CEO/executives) are the people making the decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits from all of this work.
— Xtrix

Yep, and these guys make $$$ when business goes well. If only the everyday employee could get some skin in the game.

But what happens when things go poorly? You don't just lose your pay and get fired; the company collapses and you could be on the hook for insane amounts of money - those debts don't just disappear into thin air when the company declares bankruptcy. Now you've got 18 year old employees dealing with bankruptcy lawyers. — BitconnectCarlos

What are you talking about? It's not some "skin in the game," it's a business that the workers control outright. Businesses make profits and declare bankruptcy all the time, regardless of who's running it. What's the difference?

Again, this is done in the real world. Co-ops are a good example.

I haven't anywhere said that it would not be possible to have an economy without rent or interest. — Janus

You’re just begging the question if you’re implying that we do depend on rent and interest, i.e. there is no possible way to have a society without it.

And contractual slavery has been a common institution in the past. We got rid of it and society didn’t collapse.
— Pfhorrest

There is no way to have the economy we have without rent and interest, and no foreseeable way to transition to an economy without it; that's what I'm saying. — Janus

So the first statement means: there's no way to have an economy with rent and interest without having rest and interest. Excellent insight.

Again, apologies for assuming you weren't stating the most banal of truisms.

If you don't see the conundrum then I'll conclude you are mired in fantasies, unless you can come up with a plausible plan of action for humanity's future trajectory. — Janus

There are plenty of plausible alternatives, for those not mired in capitalist fantasies.

The only thing changed between the real world and the hypothetical world is who owns what. — Pfhorrest

Yes. The capitalist system is one based on a relationship between employer and employee. A socialist system would be one where the "employees" (the workers) own and run things themselves. Very simple.

One needs to look no further than the structure and operation of corporations to see how undemocratic and exploitative it is. This is the nature of the game. A few people (the major shareholders, the board of directors, and the CEO/executives) are the people making the decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits from all of this work.

For those who say it's impossible or lack the imagination to picture an alternative, they already exist in the real world -- and they're very successful indeed.

Think about it and you wont need authority to guarantee its right, youll see it for yourself. Abolition of rent, and particularly interest, being such integral parts of the present economy would obviously bring enormous changes. — Janus

No kidding.

Enormous changes would mean we would no longer have the same economy. It's not diificult to understand. — Janus

Is this really your argument? That we wouldn't have the "same" economy? Because you didn't say the "same," you said the "economy we have" -- which can imply our growth rates, distribution of wealth, general well being, productivity, etc. etc. Forgive me for believing you weren't just stating truisms.

There's no reason to believe we can't have a functional economy without rent and interest. True, that hypothetical economy -- by definition -- will not be the same as our present economy, which does have rent and interest. I'm glad you figured that out for yourself. Well done. Let's now move on to adult questions.

There is no way to have the economy we have without rent and interest — Janus

Says who?

↪Xtrix

No, Bezos does not control your life and is master of no one. — NOS4A2

Like I said, in your childish world of course not. I have no direct contact with Bezos, etc. So if we're going to absurdly restrict the definition of "control" to your level, then he has no control over my life. But then, again to you, neither does Trump. Neither does the governor. Neither does your boss at work. Etc. Just tired word games to avoid the obvious: Bezos and other powerful people have an inordinate amount of power, and they make decisions that directly impact all of our lives. And not just United States citizens, but the world community and future generations as well.

You willingly use his services or you do not. — NOS4A2

Your entire worldview is so warped it should be considered a psychological pathology.

As if it's so simple as to be a matter of whether one shops on Amazon or not. What a joke.

So it’s utter nonsense to suggest these people control anything beyond their own company and property. — NOS4A2

Yeah, because there's no such thing as lobbying and no such thing as externalities. Just honest, hard working innovators and businessmen who operate their businesses.

Such pleasant delusions.

You have less of a say in the government than you do in the market. — NOS4A2

I was waiting for the "market" to come up, as is typical for neoliberal corporate apologists. But I never mentioned "markets" -- we're talking about the corporate sector and the government.

(1) Within corporations, you have zero say in the decisions. Zero.

(2) Within the government, you have some say, especially in local politics with direct access to town councils, state representatives, state senators, etc. When you get to the federal level, you have almost none, with the exception of voting. Not much, by any means.

But compare this to how a major corporation works. As a worker, you can willingly work or willingly quit. The rest of the major decisions is in the hands of the major shareholders (owners), the board of directors whom they vote in, and the top administrators whom they choose. None of this has anything to do with "markets."

But by all means keep defending those wonderful robber barons who you're eager to live under. I'm sure you're one of them, after all. Oh, wait.

You're a prime example of the extraordinary effectiveness of corporate propaganda. (Let me save you the time: "No, YOU'RE the one who's brainwashed by Marxism, socialism...." etc etc.) Keep trying. Go donate to Trump's election fraud fund while you're at it.

As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists.
— Xtrix

I agree, but that also sounds like a good description of much of the American populace as a whole. — Pfhorrest

That depends when it comes to the neoliberal part, at least according to polls. But there is still a good percentage, I imagine. But even if it is like many others who don't have as much power, we have to the account for the special problems and issues that arise from those who do have such power -- like, as has already been pointed out, the hyper-sensitivity to threats to the status quo, etc.

This sounds like a good explanation for the above. — Pfhorrest

Indeed. It's striking, too, that the people most ardently defending the corporate sector are the ones which are most negatively effected by their policies. That's quite an impressive feat.

I would rather live under robber barons — NOS4A2

What a shocker!

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. To say they're subjected to the "same laws and penalties" as anyone else is naive. Yes, according to cypto-neoliberals like you, "government is the problem," and so it's no surprise that you want to divert the focus to "bureaucrats." Very typical.

My only contention is that the so-called 1% are not your masters. Elon Musk is unable to assert any control over you, and if he did, he would be subject to legal penalty. — NOS4A2

Even put in these deliberately ridiculous terms, yes he does. Not only by the impact he has on his workers, on the automobile industry, on the stock market, on lobbying for legislation that he deems favorable, etc. -- all that has an impact on society of which you and I are a part. In the same way of singing out Mitch McConnell and saying "He doesn't have any control over you." Sure, if you mean coming to my house and pointing a gun at my head and giving me orders. But in that sense, no one has ANY control over me. But that's an absurd way to think about political and economic power.

It's also funny that you choose Elon Musk. Why not Jeff Bezos? Does he not control our lives to a large degree? Of course he does. Same for the Waltons. Same for the boards of directors across the country. Same for the thousands of lobbyists in Washington representing the interests of these privileged people.

At any rate, I become suspicious of hatred when it becomes indistinguishable from envy. — NOS4A2

This projecting on others of emotions of "hatred" or "envy" is also predictable and tired. I have no hatred or envy for these people. They can keep their money. What I want to understand (and change) is the system which produces such inequality of power and wealth. This is something you and other state-corporate apologists don't want to understand.

The reason the so-called 1% are able to seek their advantage from those in power is because those in power give it to them. — NOS4A2

Right, so once again put the blame on weak politicians and government, the one system in which we have at least some say. All the while completely ignoring the structural aspects which makes it nearly impossible to gain positions of major political power without first going through the filtration process of camping finance and major media use (both in the hands of the corporate sector). So yes, there are plenty of honest, brave politicians who refuse to accept money or give corporate-approved speeches to get a large audience, but we don't hear from them. Why? Because without conforming, they don't advance. A point people like you also conveniently ignore in favor of licking the asses of your corporate masters.

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. T
— Xtrix

Care to back that up, or is “essentially” your get out of jail card? — Brett

There's overwhelming evidence for this. Excellent scholarship has been conducted. Tom Ferguson is one of my favorites. Worth checking out his "Golden Rule" book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition.

By "essentially" I mean de facto, but it's not absolute. Contradictions do exist. Government and the corporate sector aren't completely the same. But when you see who's allowing those in government to take power, through the cost of campaigning and the access to media, there's really no question who's in charge and who's beholden to whom. True, with Bernie Sanders and some others, that's beginning to change a little in terms of camping funding, but the remaining structures stand. Without the support of those in power, it's extremely hard (though not impossible) to break through. In such a system, the vast majority will be in the pockets of those who have the resources and own the needed institutions.

Even the bad things. Because people in general are not shining bastions of morality, but will exploit a situation to their benefit when given the chance, even at someone else's expense, and then try to rationalize away why what they're doing is perfectly fine. — Pfhorrest

I think it's worth diverting the discussion a bit by discussing these rationalizations.

A criminal trying to rationalize his crimes would be laughed at in court, but with enough wealth one can afford the most complex rationalizations from the intelligentsia -- from the likes of Milton Friedman, for example...very nice person, likable, well-spoken, scholarly, etc. But a complete apologist for the ruling class. Employing the intellectuals is a very important piece of all this. It supplies the excuses they tell themselves and others, quite sincerely. So again we're in the realm of, essentially, philosophy. And we see how this propaganda tickles down to millions of people, including several on this forum.

But one impression I have of people with substantial wealth is that they tend to have their radar up for threats to their social, financial, political status quo. After all, their wealth may be threatened in the event of social turmoil, or they may at least be inconvenienced. If they feel entitled to deference, they won't take inconvenience lightly. — Bitter Crank

I think you've hit on something that simply has to be true once you've gained real power. Otherwise i's like being part of the board of directors and not caring about stock value. But this trait is an interesting one, because then the question becomes: which way would you prefer trends to go? Where are you going to put your power and resources? To a movement that challenges the status quo (which is working for you) or a countermovement? Fairly obvious, to me.

I think the economic externalities to the rest of society is the main reason why we shouldn't allow concentrated wealth to exist, but I think it's a worthwhile additional critique. — Saphsin

Externalities -- a VERY important point, yes.



This isn't quite what I was looking for in terms of differences in psychology -- I meant more their philosophies. But regardless, it's not shocking to learn.

If the 1% are parasites, it is not because they have any kind of behavioural disposition of any sort: they are parasites by virtue of their occupying a structural position in society with disparity as it is. The most lovely, talented, hard-working, virtuous, kind, and giving person could belong to this class: they would still be a fucking parasite insofar as their wealth would objectively be built off the backs of others. — StreetlightX

This is exactly right.

My expectation is that the 1% are ordinary people as far as psychology goes. — Pfhorrest

I'm not so sure about this. I don't think they're genetic mutants or that the quality of their brains are somehow different -- so maybe "psychology" isn't right. To put it simplistically, I wonder about their philosophy. As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists.

Why should we care about their beliefs, moralities, attitudes, etc? Because they're the ones making the major decisions that will influence the course of human history. Taking climate change, if most of the people responsible for rising emissions are motivated by personal gain and greed, disregarding the future consequences because God told Noah there wouldn't be another flood -- that's relevant. So their demographics are especially worth looking into.

it's worth understanding exactly who they are.
— Xtrix

Brett denies being interested in the question "who they are"; he says it is your question. — Bitter Crank

I'm not too concerned with what Brett thinks given his line of discussion so far. The question is simple enough: Who are the so-called 1%? Misleading, because it's most like 0.1%, but the "masters of the universe" comment is enough to contextualize what is meant: concentrations of wealth and power in the United States.

You've already supplied sources and given concise analyses, so where the confusion lies I have no idea.

The undifferentiated wealth sloshing around in the trough in 2020 has a history. You can trace the development of wealth backwards to sometime in the medieval period, probably not much before then. There are, for instance, a few companies in the world that have been in continuous existence since 1200. Some of the wealth in England goes back to grants that William the Conqueror (aka William the Bastard) made after he won the battle of Hastings in 1066. Some of the valuable land in New York City is owned by descendants of Dutch settlers before New Amsterdam became New York. Land is the original wealth. From land one can extract rent, food and fiber (like wheat and wool). England accumulated a wad of wealth by exporting fine wool to manufacturers on the continent. Later, it was coal and iron. The reason the British claimed North America was to have the land from which to extract wealth. The Germans wanted Lebensraum, and came close to getting most of Europe. Land is wealth. Nations are willing to go way out of their way to get it. — Bitter Crank

This is excellent. It's very important to know the history if we're to have any chance of fully understanding our current situation. There have always been those in power (since at least the neolithic revolution and the settling into villages), a "ruling class." Power has been taken through various means: brute force, greater numbers, the use of horses (or elephants or...), better weapons, monopolies on goods and services, an excess of capital, indebtedness, etc. etc. etc.

Our current situation, where the "ruling class" (the so-called "masters of the universe") don't take power by force but rather through their massive wealth and resources, gained through a system whose rules they've taken advantage of (and shaped in their favor) -- rules like private ownership -- and which they rely on the state to enforce, is what we are questioning.

During the neoliberal era, in reaction to the New Deal and the movements of the 60s, corporate interests have won out and we're living the results. The statistics since the late 70s onwards in areas of productivity, manufacturing, real wages, union participation, wealth inequality, etc., all tell the story. The RAND corporation estimated in a study on wealth transference that about $47 trillion has been moved from the bottom 90% of incomes to the top 10% in the last 40 years -- as just one example.

Nothing you don't know, but worth keeping in mind when asking the question about the 0.1%.

whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity,
— Xtrix

Self organization, according to all abiogenesis theories, led to life. The process of self organization has a process-centric, rather than anthropocentric, self awareness. — Pop

That's fine. Assuming we know what self-organization is, it could plausibly account for abiogenesis and the concept of the "self," and even consciousness generally. But we don't fully know what consciousness is, so describing a mechanism isn't yet telling us much. Furthermore, as I mentioned, it's arguable whether "consciousness" (in the sense of awareness of anything whatsoever) is really sufficient to define a human being, when so much of our lives are unconscious (looking strictly at what we typically do).

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.
— Xtrix

He came so close, that I believe he deliberately chose not to land on consciousness. — Pop

This is why I was referring:

"By the word 'thought', I understand all those things which occur in us while we are conscious, insofar as the consciousness of them is in us. And so not only understanding, willing, and imagining, but also sensing, are here the same as thinking. For if I say, I see, or I walk, therefore I am; and if I recognize this from seeing or from walking which is performed by the body; the conclusion is not absolutely certain: because (as often happens in dreams) I can think that I am seeing or walking, even though I may not open my eyes, and may not be moved from my place; and indeed, even though I may perhaps have no body. But if I deduce this from the action of my mind, or the very sensation or consciousness of seeing or of walking; the conclusion is completely certain, for it then refers to the mind which alone perceives or thinks that it is seeing or walking." - Principles of Philosophy, Part 1 section 9: "What thought is." —

but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness?
— Xtrix

This is where self organization comes into its own - it describes the whole process, from the first beginnings of life, all its unknown and subconscious elements, to its penultimate conscious expression.
Of course, all that remains is the minor task of understanding self organization! :cry: — Pop

Yes but if you don't understand it (and neither do I), then how can you invoke it? How can it "come into its own"? We understand so little, we could just as easily assert that "God did it," or it was the "Force," etc. True, self-organization (according to Wikipedia) seems more sensible than that, but apparently more in the social fields.

Regardless, I don't quite see how it changes anything about what I said above -- namely, that our lives are first and foremost unconscious activity, and that the rest of it (self-consciousness, the "self," the subject opposite an object, the "I," the ego, etc) is largely derivative.

So while Descartes doesn't necessarily take up Aristotle's zoon echon logon (rational animal), he will essentially say we're "conscious things" or the "res cogitans" (thinking/ conscious substance"; a.k.a., "minds"). Not long afterward, we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.

The 1% is not the “masters of the universe” because they do not possess the monopoly on violence. They are private citizens and are beholden to the same laws and penalties. — NOS4A2

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. To say they're subjected to the "same laws and penalties" as anyone else is naive. Yes, according to cypto-neoliberals like you, "government is the problem," and so it's no surprise that you want to divert the focus to "bureaucrats." Very typical.

If we think of the capitalist system as a game, then all of us are playing this game without knowing always knowing its structure and rules. We see it all around us; we live in it. But as in any power system, political or economic or whatever, those in particular who are not in power should oblige themselves to ask at least two questions:

a) What is the nature and rules of this system? (How does it work.)
b) Is it a just system? (Is it legitimate.)

I think you'll often find that those who benefit from system x will be much more likely, on average, to defend x and more often have the intellectual ability to do so; after all, those of privilege and power have access to higher quality educators (recall Aristotle and Alexander) and generally are in close alliance with other noble ranks, like the clergy and the intelligentsia.

In other words, they know very well the answers to the first question. Since they're also beneficiaries, they find sophistical, complicated ways of answering b) in the affirmative. All the while professing enlightenment or Christian ideals.

These apologetics have always been fairly successful, but it's truly amazing that in today's society you'll find millions of little apologists all around you, even and especially amongst the lowest income levels. This shows just how effective the propaganda has been, almost to 1984 levels.

What goes on in a capitalist economy is exploitation and extraction of surplus value (the difference between the cost of the workers labor and the profit derived from the workers labor), It's not accidental; capitalism, and the legal systems of capitalist countries, is designed to enforce that system. — Bitter Crank

This goes to the heart of it.

So circling back to rephrase my original question: what are the people like who have benefited most from such a system?

- Nowhere close to all entrepreneurs, even those who have those personality traits, go on to become self-made millionaires, and nowhere near all millionaires (never mind the billionaires who are the real topic of the OP) are self-made. Having those personality traits may be a necessary condition of entrepreneurship (at least in our present system), and entrepreneurship may be a necessary condition of being a self-made millionaire (at least in our present system), but being self-made is not a necessary condition of being a millionaire; and even more to the point, having those personality traits is not a sufficient condition for being an entrepreneur, nor is entrepreneurship a sufficient condition for being a self-made (m|b)illionaire. — Pfhorrest

Well done. Logic at it's finest.

It's having that priority already taken care of that allows the ultra-wealthy to prioritize other things instead. — Pfhorrest

A very important point.

So someone is given a pile of cash and then they become more extroverted, and then they become conscientious, and then they become emotionally stable, and then they become more self centred. — Brett

Who are you arguing against? Certainly not I; I said none of those things.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point.
— Xtrix

Can you support that statement with evidence? I mean it’s not a fabrication is it? — Brett

Rather than being sarcastic, you might have simply asked for the scholarship I was referring to in the preceding sentence, which you politely left out:

That's what the scholarship seems to suggest. — Xtrix

Incidentally, I fail to remember you referring to anything of the sort in your initial contribution to this thread. And yes, until you have checked my sources and been convinced by it yourself, you might consider an assertions of mine with the appropriate skepticism.

Whatever personality traits there might be in common between rich people, it’s worth bearing in mind the different potential causal relations there. Does being a certain kind of person make you rich, or does being rich make you a certain kind of person? — Pfhorrest

When discussing concentrations of wealth and power (.001%), there's very probably an interaction. Once you're part of the club, you've had to have internalized certain beliefs and values - mainly about capitalism and politics. That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point.

Chomsky says they aren't organized, but behave as if they are. Human nature on display? — frank

I missed what this is referring to. Who's "they"?

The universe is in a process of self organization, and hence so too are all of its component parts - including humanity. Consciousness is primarily about self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. This construction links the fundamental universal process, with the human consciousness process. It is a viable definition of consciousness, within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe. — Pop

OK...I'm just not sure what "self-organization" means.

As far as consciousness goes -- we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.
— Xtrix

We have to start with consciousness. — Pop

I once thought this way, and of course in some respects (as I mentioned) it HAS to be true -- how can we even talk about whether we're conscious or unconscious without being conscious? Etc. But what I was getting at is whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity, in epistemological or "knowing" relations with the world -- particularly as a subject, with sensations and perceptions (representations) of some "outside" object, which the tradition has thought of us as being (since at least Descartes). I'm not questioning whether those relations exist, just whether they're primary or not. I think there're good (and "common sense") reasons to believe they're not.

But If we start on a false premise - I think therefore I am, then whatever we build on top of this is precarious from the outset. It has created the world we have today. — Pop

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.

I am consciousness, is deeper and more solid. It acknowledges that emotions and feelings underpin our actions, and so provides hope of a better understanding generally, in considering ourselves and others, and the world in general, in my opinion. — Pop

Very true -- but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness? Or, better: what of the actions that we're awake and conscious for (in a way), but which we do without attention -- like driving? I can drive and hardly be conscious of what my foot is doing. Sometimes I arrive at a place while being completely lost in thought.

Martin Heidegger used to talk about turning the doorknob to get into the classroom. What about these kinds of actions? Perhaps starting there will tell us something about what we are, besides what we are conscious of, what we know, and what we think?

For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Does it work for you? — Pop

I follow you up until the last couple words. How about simply an "evolving process"? Which is to say: something which is constantly changing. I'm not sure what the "self organization" part means. But if we're constantly changing, then isn't that saying we're temporal?

So: "I am constant change" or "I am temporal." But then the question is: what is this "I" and, more importantly, what is the "am" (the sum)?

Maybe instead it should be something like: "I am." The "I" implies a split, a separation between one "thing" and "thingness" in general. So yet another way to formulate it would be simply "existence" or "there-ness" or "am-ness." No need for an "I."

As far as consciousness goes -- true, we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.

Why? Because, as you know, we're not conscious of 99.9999999999% of the world, including our own bodies and, in fact, our behavior -- which psychology has shown to largely be habitual and automatic.

So if we are what we do, what we do is mostly habitual, and what is habitual is mostly automatic/unconscious, then we're hardly "thinking things" or "rational animals" or "consciousnesses" at all. Hence the idea that we're "minds" or "selves" or "subjects" is derivative.

These aren't easy questions, but you're right to take up Descartes as a good starting point.

I know that’s only three individuals out of many. But regardless you can’t say my thoughts on hard work are fabricated. — Brett

Yes, I can.

And while I’m at it I notice you don’t call my list of negative traits a fabrication. — Brett

Yes, I do.

That’s my actual statement. First of all experience. You don’t have to believe me, but experience is not fabrication. Nor is reading. That’s why you asked for some reference to reading on the subject. — Brett

Are you really not understanding this, or just arguing in an attempt to save face somehow?

You made a bunch of statements without support, and you know it. Stop wasting my time.

I appreciate it, thank you.

Like the idea that they work hard. Hardly fabricated. — Brett

Yes, that is fabricated if there's no evidence to support it. When it comes to this particular idea, there's indications that the trend is toward inherited wealth. Picketty discusses this at length. So again, why should I believe your generalization over others? Where's the beef?

So you don’t yet know what the answers are, which is why you want research, but you know I’m wrong. How do you explain that? — Brett

I never said anything about knowing you're wrong. But if you're right, you've not demonstrated it with anything other than simple assertions and statements about "reading and thinking." So again, if I said something like "the rich are generally very nice people" -- would that be something informative?

A bit of experience, a bit of reading, a bit of reasoning. If you like you could post which ones you think are wrong or don’t make sense. — Brett

It's not that they don't make sense -- but whether it's accurate or not, who knows? And why should I believe you? I'm looking for research and evidence -- not opinions, however educated and reasonable they may sound.

The argument was that the rich are rich because they inherited money. — Brett

Fine -- but that's not my argument, and not the point of starting this thread.

Then you have to know who they are instead of just determining it from prejudices. — Brett

I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of people, Brett. So clearly I'm not expecting one to go through each individual biography. I'm looking more for general statistical actions. Apparently there is scholarship out there which people (like Bitter Crank) have recommended; that's what I was looking for from people here.

No, it’s a group of people with opinions discussing something. — Brett

Tell me where I’m wrong then. — Brett

You're missing the point. I'm not saying you're wrong. But neither can you tell me *I'm* wrong if I made the claim that "the rich are sociopaths." Without evidence, what's the sense of giving opinions? I didn't ask for opinions, I asked for research.