Whiny Rich People

[Bonam]

Money is a far better currency for the exchange of power than any other alternative I can think of. Anyone can earn money, and thus their little bit of power to affect and hopefully improve at least their own lives. I'd much rather have that opportunity than have power be based on reputation, or on a popularity contest. Then you just get the best liars, the best actors, the most ruthless masters of intimidation, in positions of power.

All you need to earn money and have enough power to make a decent life for yourself is a modest spark of intelligence and just a bit of motivation. It is the fairest system yet invented.

[Shwa]

I abhor the facts which you freely concede are the facts.

Indeed I do and no one can blame another for pointing them out or having something to say about them. But the point is that we are living within this system. Our views are framed by it, nurtured by its signs and our perception of the 'facts' are entirely based upon our membership in this system. I too see that there are cadres that control the various institutions, but they appear to be in constant competition with one another to achieve similar goals based on similar interests - such as the concept of a military-industrial complex. I don't think there is any specific coherency to action outside of this loose competitive network. So I think it is more apt that we say there is "a" military-industrial complex as opposed to "the" military-industrial complex.

Hell, if it weren't for Big Business and the serious foreign investment interests, our newspapers would not be publically inflaming opinion against Hugo Chavez

I have to add that if it weren't for Big Business and serious foreign invensment interests there wouldn't be a Hugo Cavez; there would be no need for him. He is defined by that which he opposes. He has already, more or less, admitted that. So whether he likes it or not, he is a child of Big Business and serious foreign investment.

it's that they are doctrinal forms of media that very naturally align themselves with Western interests of Power and Wealth.

I don't think there is anything 'natural' about it unless by 'natural' you mean economic coercion by governments. We can point this out, as Chomsky is fond of doing, but so what? It has always been that way - with few exceptions - in the Western Civilization we know and enjoy. Now I am not talking about every last detail, because I don't think every last detail is all that important to remain in the front of people's minds. However, I think some detail is required for the Western definition of 'Power and Wealth.' For instance, is that the same 'Power and Wealth' that is being pursued by Asian and South Asian countries in the world economy? It sure looks the same.

It is difficult. But it would appear people generally have a sense of it. When the Left rails agaisnt George Bush, they have merely oversimplified a systemic problem. But they know it's there. When working-class conservatives think that "the liberal elite" is the cause of their economic woes, they are on to somehting, but have been misdirected by elites generally, not just liberals.

I agree and disagree. Sure people have a 'sense' of something, but can they trust this sense to any degree that will move them to action towards what appears to them to be a radical departure from what they have been taught since birth? If Western Civilization does something well, it marginalizes what appears to be radicalism. Off to the periphery with you!

Edward T Hall described an interesting scenario in his 'Beyond Culture' regarding a native village - I think it was in Brazil or some other South American location. The village had gotten to the point where the social structures over-reached their maximm efficiency with regard to the number of persons in the village. This caused conflicts, some open fighting; it caused rifts in families, in clans; there was rampant gossip, slander and positioning. In the end one group left the village to go form their own village. As they had done since time immemorial.

So yeah, we have our Adbusters, our intellects, our underground organizations, our indie or alt rock bands; we have our banners and slogans, our causes and certainly we own a fair share of the hyperbole. We have our internets and social networks, our newspapers and pamphlets. But in the end, it is just another village. Just like the courier de bois, like the Puritans, etc. We have been doing this since time immemorial.

None of these things were handed down to us from powerful people and institutions; they were taken from power by the people. Largely in a matter of decades.

I have to be careful when looking at history like this because, yes, there were a series of oppositions that took place, but I find the 'matter of decades' to be somewhat simplistic and unrealistic. And in the end, was this social 'progress' anything more the modification of the social structures of a culture to accomodate the wishes of its adherents? We have to remember that many of those elites, those 'powerful people,' were also ethical beings who arguably had as much influence on the outcome as any protester in the street. I don't think it would do any justice to deny the positive influence of those 'powerful people' to illustrate how social change happens.

What I am getting at is not an opposition to where you are coming from, because I think that - power, wealth, poverty, weak, man, woman, whatever - it is just one side of the same thing. That is why I mentioned the word 'moiety' in a previous post. This allows us a different way of framing the picture that may reveal some other reasons, other than our own, that underlie what we perceive in the world.

[bloodyminded]

Indeed I do and no one can blame another for pointing them out or having something to say about them. But the point is that we are living within this system. Our views are framed by it, nurtured by its signs and our perception of the 'facts' are entirely based upon our membership in this system.

Sure. But the "system" is not a simple, vertical one of corporate capitalism, in which all our views and sensibilities are entirely defined by unequal power-structures. Culture is complex.

I have to add that if it weren't for Big Business and serious foreign invensment interests there wouldn't be a Hugo Cavez; there would be no need for him. He is defined by that which he opposes. He has already, more or less, admitted that. So whether he likes it or not, he is a child of Big Business and serious foreign investment.

A truism, but not important to anything I've said. The justice system is the child of crime in the same equation.

I don't think there is anything 'natural' about it unless by 'natural' you mean economic coercion by governments. We can point this out, as Chomsky is fond of doing, but so what? It has always been that way - with few exceptions - in the Western Civilization we know and enjoy.

But there are always changes occurring, in good or bad directions (depending on what one considers good or bad).

I agree and disagree. Sure people have a 'sense' of something, but can they trust this sense to any degree that will move them to action towards what appears to them to be a radical departure from what they have been taught since birth?

Sure. The notion that a woman is equal to a man was quite radical indeed.

If Western Civilization does something well, it marginalizes what appears to be radicalism. Off to the periphery with you!

This appears to be the case. But the (apparent) radicalism can and sometimes does have real effects over time.

So yeah, we have our Adbusters, our intellects, our underground organizations, our indie or alt rock bands; we have our banners and slogans, our causes and certainly we own a fair share of the hyperbole. We have our internets and social networks, our newspapers and pamphlets. But in the end, it is just another village. Just like the courier de bois, like the Puritans, etc. We have been doing this since time immemorial.

Sure...and again, I fail to see this as any sort of refutation to what I've said. It would if I thought those who shared my perspective were revolutionary giants of magnificent insight, forging something sparkling and new...then I think you might be fascinatingly taking the micky out, so to speak. Rather, I think the so-called radicalism which I espouse has as its genesis a pretty old set of moral girders that are fairly basic. I'm not averse to the idea that at bottom I am espousing a "conservative" worldview...which shows the elasticity of such common terms.

In other words, I'm not sure we disagree in any substantive way here.

I have to be careful when looking at history like this because, yes, there were a series of oppositions that took place, but I find the 'matter of decades' to be somewhat simplistic and unrealistic.

Fair enough. With women's rights, we can go back to Wollestonecraft...and since she didn't live in a vacuum, there are no doubt earlier precedents that influenced her. But women's rights as we understand them, as visible and incontestably there, are largely the product of less than a century; so "decades", while a simplification, is not a promiscuous one.

And in the end, was this social 'progress' anything more the modification of the social structures of a culture to accomodate the wishes of its adherents?

??? No. Why would it be; and why should it be? Is there a tenor to this question, or a coded insinuation, that I'm not understanding?

We have to remember that many of those elites, those 'powerful people,' were also ethical beings who arguably had as much influence on the outcome as any protester in the street. I don't think it would do any justice to deny the positive influence of those 'powerful people' to illustrate how social change happens.

Right, and I could have been more cautious with the either/or in this case. However, i was only trying to dilute the "Great Man" theory of history...which is, if anything, MORE oversimplistic and unrealistic than that which I've posited.

[Shwa]

No. Why would it be; and why should it be? Is there a tenor to this question, or a coded insinuation, that I'm not understanding?

How many times in society has cultural change been affected by radical views? It seems to me that by the time those views are acted upon, they have been modified, disseminated and digested by the population at large and have become mainstream. You say yourself, culture is complex. It is indeed. As long as feminism as been around in Western Culture (and Wollestonecraft had her influences as well) how often do you h ear feminist history or feminist anthropology cited in mainstream media? Almost never. You've come a long way baby, but you have a long way to go yet. And why is this?

Rather, I think the so-called radicalism which I espouse has as its genesis a pretty old set of moral girders that are fairly basic. I'm not averse to the idea that at bottom I am espousing a "conservative" worldview...which shows the elasticity of such common terms.

Are those moral girders really all that old? If they are, how widespread can they be if you have to espouse a radical view to communicate them? The problem being is that if the issues cannot be communicated in such a way that the mainstream can access the ideas, they will remain radical and affect little change.

[bloodyminded]

How many times in society has cultural change been affected by radical views? It seems to me that by the time those views are acted upon, they have been modified, disseminated and digested by the population at large and have become mainstream. You say yourself, culture is complex. It is indeed. As long as feminism as been around in Western Culture (and Wollestonecraft had her influences as well) how often do you h ear feminist history or feminist anthropology cited in mainstream media? Almost never. You've come a long way baby, but you have a long way to go yet. And why is this?

It's an interesting question; yet very few of us will assert that a womam is the intellectual and moral inferior to a man...something that was stated openly and often during a more contentious period of the women's movement: the early 1970's, when I was a child. Not so long ago. Now, most of us agree with Wollstonecraft's general thesis. That she is never cited in the mainstream doesn't change the fact. That feminist theory is never cited in the media doesn't mean feminism has had no appreciable effect. On the contrary, the change in status and perception of women is a monumental social occurance with few, if any, serious contenders. The differences are manifest, incontestable.

Are those moral girders really all that old?

Are they old and widespread? You mean like the notion that every human being has an inherent worth, regardless of his or her prestige or economic circumstances? That's not old; it's ancient. That power abuses non-power, and that this is unjust? That's not even arguable, much less argued. (A specific case will be denied, but never, ever the general truism itself.) That lack of compassion bespeaks not only of a paucity of imagination, but is actively dangerous to humanity? That's part and parcel of all moral philosophies, and in fact is built into the great religions.

If they are, how widespread can they be if you have to espouse a radical view to communicate them? The problem being is that if the issues cannot be communicated in such a way that the mainstream can access the ideas, they will remain radical and affect little change.

Three words: same-sex marriage.

Edited February 22, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

That feminist theory is never cited in the media doesn't mean feminism has had no appreciable effect.

Oh I wouldn't disagree with this, but it's effects are based on modifications of it's original proposals. No one stood up in a house of government and said we shall accept it on the face of it. There was a fairly lengthy period of debate, revision, etc., before major legislative efforts were enacted. And, even though there are incontestable differences, that legislation is still on the books.

yet very few of us will assert that a womam is the intellectual and moral inferior to a man

I dunno. There still seems to be sects or groups in our part of the world that holds these old views. There is still the machismo movement in many areas of Western culture; there are recent immigrants from cultures that bring those old views with them. Heck, even the federal government has GDS organizations that are still trying to sort things out. Plus, while some (male or female) might not publicly state their assertion about the status of women, this doesn't mean they don't act on in in subtle and influencial ways.

You mean like the notion that every human being has an inherent worth, regardless of his or her prestige or economic circumstances? That's not old; it's ancient.

Slavery is ancient too. So is the notion of 'the conquered' and that the victors write history. Of course we can agree about the value of every human being, but let's be fair here: the US Constitution starts with "We the People..." and they spent the next 150 years figuring that part out. We stil have people who firmly believe that everyone is equal, but some or more equal than others.

Which brings me back to the point of, if not money then what?

It is a complex question that unfortunately requires a simple answer that is capable of being understood in a general way. I don't think I have heard the simple answer. I have heard very complex answers for sure, but nothing approaching an idea such as same-sex marriage.

[bloodyminded]

Oh I wouldn't disagree with this, but it's effects are based on modifications of it's original proposals. No one stood up in a house of government and said we shall accept it on the face of it. There was a fairly lengthy period of debate, revision, etc., before major legislative efforts were enacted. And, even though there are incontestable differences, that legislation is still on the books.

I dunno. There still seems to be sects or groups in our part of the world that holds these old views. There is still the machismo movement in many areas of Western culture; there are recent immigrants from cultures that bring those old views with them. Heck, even the federal government has GDS organizations that are still trying to sort things out. Plus, while some (male or female) might not publicly state their assertion about the status of women, this doesn't mean they don't act on in in subtle and influencial ways.

Slavery is ancient too. So is the notion of 'the conquered' and that the victors write history. Of course we can agree about the value of every human being, but let's be fair here: the US Constitution starts with "We the People..." and they spent the next 150 years figuring that part out. We stil have people who firmly believe that everyone is equal, but some or more equal than others.

Which brings me back to the point of, if not money then what?

It is a complex question that unfortunately requires a simple answer that is capable of being understood in a general way. I don't think I have heard the simple answer. I have heard very complex answers for sure, but nothing approaching an idea such as same-sex marriage.

I agree with everything you say here, but I'm not sure exactly how it's a refutation of what I've asserted. Sure, any one-time "radical" ideal that becomes mainstream and more or less accepted happens through modificaitons of original proposals. But this is true of any change, bad or good, leftist or reactionary or relatively neutral. There's no sense in "making the perfect the enemy of the good," as the saying goes.

You're of course correct about the status of women, too. I think it's obvious that a lot of people don't, in their hearts, agree that women are truly the moral and intellectual equals of men. Even many self-styled progressives no doubt harbour secret doubts, and misogyny. But my point is that the effects of this social movement are more than evident; they are incontestable.

I'm afraid I don't quite get your last point about same-sex marriage. The fact is that (according to polls--imperfect, but arguably the only opinion-information so far available on the subject) that approximately 70% of Canadians now support same sex marriage.

I would posit that this is a sea-change from the response such a question would have recieved 20 years ago--which is extremely fast in matters of social change. Further, one would be hard-pressed to find more than a couple of apparently contentious social issues in which opinion numbers are so heavily-skewed in one direction. (If we look at, say, abortion, capital punishment, Canada's military role in Afghanistan, the welfare state, etc.).

Even matters that have been on the books for a long time are not universally-accepted; very little IS ever universally-accepted.

So I think ss marriage is, along with the women's movement, a pretty obvious case of once-radical politics making it to the mainstream in a fairly quick manner. Diluted, you say...maybe so. But like I said, that's the way for most changes, good, bad, or neutral.

[Shwa]

There is no refutation intended since we are talking about the same thing. However I see a problem that needs to be solved and that - even if we don't solve it - the discussion is still worthy.

The problem I see is that when the question is first raised there is a process that could - and usually does in the larger moral questions - span generations before the effects become historically significant. Feminism is a great case in point about this. What was the time span between woman getting the vote in the US & the passing of the Equal Rights Amendment? It is surprising. Another good example, based on a complex question with a simple answer was the US anti-slavery movement and the means to an end.

I don't think we can minimize the sheer importance of all of the discrete steps taken in the previous generations, steps which are usually only discerned through careful study, as with the case of feminism and anti-slavery. Sure our generation got to see the effects of the feminist movement through acts of legislative change, but we cannot mistake the effects for the whole process.

With the problem at hand, let's take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a case in point:

Article 5.

•No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

How well are we doing so far on the fairly simple question and answer of torture?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Feminism is a great case in point about this. What was the time span between woman getting the vote in the US & the passing of the Equal Rights Amendment? It is surprising.....

Sure is...because the Equal Rights Amendment has never been "passed" (ratified) by the United States.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm afraid I don't quite get your last point about same-sex marriage. The fact is that (according to polls--imperfect, but arguably the only opinion-information so far available on the subject) that approximately 70% of Canadians now support same sex marriage.

This latest poll from the US seems germane to the discussion. I was pleasantly surprised to read that things may be changing there too:

National Post Article

The poll found that 57% of U.S. voters believe that gays should serve openly, an idea opposed by 36%.

Americans also believe by a 66 to 31% margin that it is discriminatory to prevent openly gay men and women to serve.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=2547240#ixzz0gMt8tx5M

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

[bloodyminded]

There is no refutation intended since we are talking about the same thing. However I see a problem that needs to be solved and that - even if we don't solve it - the discussion is still worthy.

The problem I see is that when the question is first raised there is a process that could - and usually does in the larger moral questions - span generations before the effects become historically significant. Feminism is a great case in point about this. What was the time span between woman getting the vote in the US & the passing of the Equal Rights Amendment? It is surprising. Another good example, based on a complex question with a simple answer was the US anti-slavery movement and the means to an end.

I don't think we can minimize the sheer importance of all of the discrete steps taken in the previous generations, steps which are usually only discerned through careful study, as with the case of feminism and anti-slavery. Sure our generation got to see the effects of the feminist movement through acts of legislative change, but we cannot mistake the effects for the whole process.

I don't mean to minimize the discrete historical steps towards change. But I think your points (which are really good ones) don't alter my basic premise: apparently "radical" politics can and sometimes do become a mainstream part of society.

With the problem at hand, let's take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a case in point:

How well are we doing so far on the fairly simple question and answer of torture?

This is also a good point. I wish it weren't.

Edited February 23, 2010 by bloodyminded