Oppression

[August1991]

It seems to me that the North American Left defines itself by "oppression". The definition of a progressive, North American Leftist is someone who defends the "oppressed".

(In France and the UK, many Leftists are syndicalistes, travailleurs or trade unionists and they simply want a bigger piece of the pie. They don't care about oppression. So I'll ignore this form of Leftism.)

So, what is oppression? Who is oppressed?

Discussions of oppression invariably involve terms like "power politics" and "exploitation". The oppressed lack a "voice". They are "ignored". "Corporate suits" decide and the oppressed have no influence. Materially, the oppressed are usually poor, but not always. [This view of oppression has a Christian tinge - likely Lutheran Protestant or Irish or French-Canadian Catholic.]

Objectively, it seems to me that someone who is oppressed lacks choice. If a person can choose, and knows about the choices, then the person cannot be "oppressed". [Choice, and knowing there's a choice, is the definition of freedom, ISTM.]

IMV, oppression must involve a cartel of oppressors capable of enforcing the oppression, and power politics and lack of choice on the oppressed.

When Leftists speak about "oppression", do they mean there is a cartel? Is there a secret society of rich, white corporate-suited European and American males who meet and secretly handshake to decide the agenda?

Cartel? There's no cheater among the bunch? (In my experience, the only institution capable of creating a cartel and enforcing it for any length of time is either a strong family matriarch or patriarch, or the government.)

So, what is oppression?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

When Leftists speak about "oppression", do they mean there is a cartel? Is there a secret society of rich, white corporate-suited European and American males who meet and secretly handshake to decide the agenda?

No, not the handshake bit, but you are close.

Objectively, it seems to me that someone who is oppressed lacks choice. If a person can choose, and knows about the choices, then the person cannot be "oppressed". [Choice, and knowing there's a choice, is the definition of freedom, ISTM.]

Sometimes the 'choice' is fighting and losing (dying), simply to gain access to a choice you and I take for granted.

With dominance comes oppression, lest your dominance be challenged.

[Leafless]

theloniusfleabag

You wrote- " Sometimes the 'choice' is fighting and losing (dying), simply to gain a choice you and I take for granted. with dominance comes oppression, lest your dominance be challanged."

In North America we all are oppressed to a certain degree.

What group could you possibly talking about that 'dying' is a better alternative than to be dominated to the degree that would cause this conditon???

[Drea]

In North America we all are oppressed to a certain degree.

In what way do you feel we are oppressed?

Who are our oppressors?

Women in some African countries are oppressed -- she has parts of her vulva cut off to deprive her of sexual pleasure.

Women in Iran are oppressed -- she is not allowed to ride a bicycle or drive a car.

I don't feel oppressed in any way. I am free to express myself in most any way I see fit. I suppose I can't run through the streets naked, so perhaps I am oppressed to a certain extent! LOL

[August1991]

In what way do you feel we are oppressed?

Who are our oppressors?

Those are good questions. How do Leftists define who is oppressed?

It seems to me that there is a complex definition scheme to identify oppressed groups. It is not merely an economic question but involves social factors too. The scheme is not entirely arbitrary. White males who wear suits are definitely not oppressed.

Palestinians are usually defined as oppressed and Israelis as the oppressors. This seems to mean that Muslims are oppressed but Jews are not. People of colour are usually described as oppressed world-wide, as often are women.

It would help matters if a Leftist could clarify this issue for me.

----

When Leftists speak about "oppression", do they mean there is a cartel? Is there a secret society of rich, white corporate-suited European and American males who meet and secretly handshake to decide the agenda?

No, not the handshake bit, but you are close.

The problem with all cartels is that members are prone to cheat, since it is always better to be outside a cartel than to be inside one. And anyway, ignoring theory and just looking at the evidence, from Enron to Bill Clinton, white males in suits have a tendency to cheat.

So, the cartel theory of oppression seems weak to me. There would have to be a strong enforcement mechanism. Religion, for example.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

It would help matters if a Leftist could clarify this issue for me.

Here goes. Generally, those that seek to attain more than they have, oppress. Especially with power, but money works too. There is a scale, as with most things, that indicates severity. One could be an ordinary supermarket clerk or a corporate/conglomerate head. Both participate in some oppression, to varying degrees. The clerk, as a consumer, is an enabler, the market for oppression, while the conglomerate head directs it through production and marketing.

Social factors are indeed big, and one can see how 'greedy conglomerates' generally outsource their efforts to where social oppression is the to the level where profits can, as safely as reasonably possible, be maximized.

It used to be, until very recently, presence of the the armies of various countries that secured trade routes and trade goods. Now, in the last 50-60 years, in many places, the local gov't is paid to use their own army to keep those same trade routes and resource ownership in the hands of the same people who took it by force.

Palestinians are usually defined as oppressed and Israelis as the oppressors. This seems to mean that Muslims are oppressed but Jews are not.

There is no question in my mind that the Jews have been 'oppressed' (ie:treated unfairly) throughout history. This does not mean that they cannot also oppress.

As to the Palestinians, one could ask, "What would have happened to Palestine if the British chose to make Israel somewhere else?"

[Drea]

In what way do you feel we are oppressed?

Who are our oppressors?

Those are good questions. How do Leftists define who is oppressed?

How do those on the right define who is oppressed?

As a centrist, I personally don't feel we're oppressed in this country.

The far left will cry out "natives are oppressed" or "this group is oppressed" but it's not true. If yah get off yer butt and take responsibility for yerself, magic things (like jobs) happen!

The far right will call out "my traditional marriage is oppressed" or "I'm being oppressed because my neighbour's daughter had an abortion". If yah realize that people are diverse in opinion and belief you will realize that a gay couple getting married, or a woman having an abortion have absolutely no effect on you personally whatsoever.

[August1991]

Generally, those that seek to attain more than they have, oppress. Especially with power, but money works too. There is a scale, as with most things, that indicates severity.

Let me take that answer alone.

Do you mean, Thelonious, that an ambitious person (who seeks to have more) oppresses the unambitious?

To pick extremes, we have all met in our lives people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Do you mean that such people "oppress"? We also know people meek by nature who resign at the first sign of confrontation. Do you mean that such people are "oppressed"?

Social factors are indeed big, and one can see how 'greedy conglomerates' generally outsource their efforts to where social oppression is the to the level where profits can, as safely as reasonably possible, be maximized.

Do you mean that "maximized profits" are an example of "oppression"?

There is no question in my mind that the Jews have been 'oppressed' (ie:treated unfairly) throughout history. This does not mean that they cannot also oppress.

Can all relations be characterized as "oppressed" or "oppressor" (and the same person being both, depending on the relationship)?

What is a relationship without "oppression"?

----

If yah realize that people are diverse in opinion and belief you will realize that a gay couple getting married, or a woman having an abortion have absolutely no effect on you personally whatsoever.

That's not the issue here, Drea. But I'll answer nonetheless, using a Leftist-style argument. We all share this society and we must all be concerned for our fellows. If a couple "marries", then that affects the word "marriage" for us all. If a woman has an abortion, that affects each of us too.

It seems to me that there is a difference between "having an effect" and "oppressing".

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

To pick extremes, we have all met in our lives people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Do you mean that such people "oppress"?

Yes, I would say so. It would be in their repertoire, and, wherever possible, the main ploy, as it is the cheapest. Then comes subterfuge (or 'propaganda') and then negotiation.

We also know people meek by nature who resign at the first sign of confrontation. Do you mean that such people are "oppressed"?

Not as a matter of course, but they would be the most likely to succumb to such by the actions of others.

Do you mean that "maximized profits" are an example of "oppression"?

No. However, there is no scale that excludes it, or indicates when it occurs. That is, there is no 'moral redline' on the 'profit tachometer' to show when it crosses the line.

Can all relations be characterized as "oppressed" or "oppressor" (and the same person being both, depending on the relationship)?

No, not all. Some can be considered 'mutually beneficial trade', some can be considered cooperation. Some can be considered 'fetters of love', and some can be considered enslavement.

To 'pick extremes', what is the maximization of 'more'?

[August1991]

Dear Tholonious,

1. True, there are people who negotiate a good deal. IMV, no deal is bad. The purpose of Life is all about making deals. (Think: DNA is all about replication.)

2. Meek. My fear here is that a meek person walks away from a good deal.

3. Maximized profits and oppression..

... there is no scale that excludes it, or indicates when it occurs. That is, there is no 'moral redline' on the 'profit tachometer' to show when it crosses the line.

To me, 'profit' is just a measure of 'good deal for you, good deal for me'. To co-operate, we must help each other. The word 'profit' is just a way to state that measurably, our co-operation is good for both of us.

----

If there are Leftists around, what is meant by "class"? To me, it must mean a cartel that raises prices and benefits by "monopoly" status.

For example, white European men create a cartel and call it "government and laws". These white European men further show, though advertising, that they are stronger than others. They frighten honest people. Deals don't occur.

Is that oppression?

[speaker]

To me class is defined by someone with the attitude of Joni Mitchell who I think tried to look at both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it's lifes illusions I recall. One of our most popular illusions seems to be that we are, and our economy is separate from the rest of reality. For example the profit made in a deal between industrial or retail giants and Vietnam isn't just a good deal it's also a brand of slavery and oppression like cotton growing in the southern states up to a short time a go.

Another example is our governments giving tax breaks and lowered environmental standards to oil and gas exploration and exploitation companies. This isn't just a great deal for the companies and the governments, and incidentally a heck of a lot of us, it is also theft from generations to come and oppression on people who haven't got any say in the deal at all.

Fourty years from now there may be deals cut between courts and lawyers in which only the top decision makers in each case are found guilty of crimes against humanity or crimes against the environment.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

True, there are people who negotiate a good deal. IMV, no deal is bad. The purpose of Life is all about making deals.

I guess you have never heard the words "Stand and Deliver!" (Incidentally, Adam Ant has a great song about this, and a neat video made on the 80's)

To me, 'profit' is just a measure of 'good deal for you, good deal for me'. To co-operate, we must help each other. The word 'profit' is just a way to state that measurably, our co-operation is good for both of us.

What a strange world you must live in. In reality, business negotiations mostly mean trying to leave your opponent face down in the dirt, and sobbing, while trying to pull back up their tattered underwear. If you are on the losing end, the trick is to pull the 'help, I'm being raped' act while the numbers are still good for you. Inflating your numbers first goes a long way, especially with certain 'ethnicities' that love driving 'hard bargains'.

If there are Leftists around, what is meant by "class"?

Generally it is your economic clout. The 'working class', for example, where "Petey Punchclock" goes to work doing manual labour, for example, and lives cheque to cheque. (There are 'classes' lower than this, but we'll start here). Then there is the 'class' that employs or has power over those in the lower class(es). Generally, there are few things that lend themselves to obvious demarcations, but also, generally, those of different 'classes' rarely mingle.

Believe it or not, the different 'classes' look at the same things differently. Mostly because they see them from a different perspective, and, people being what they are, generally seek to mingle with 'higher classes', not lower ones.

[JerrySeinfeld]

To me class is defined by someone with the attitude of Joni Mitchell who I think tried to look at both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it's lifes illusions I recall. One of our most popular illusions seems to be that we are, and our economy is separate from the rest of reality. For example the profit made in a deal between industrial or retail giants and Vietnam isn't just a good deal it's also a brand of slavery and oppression like cotton growing in the southern states up to a short time a go.

Another example is our governments giving tax breaks and lowered environmental standards to oil and gas exploration and exploitation companies. This isn't just a great deal for the companies and the governments, and incidentally a heck of a lot of us, it is also theft from generations to come and oppression on people who haven't got any say in the deal at all.

Fourty years from now there may be deals cut between courts and lawyers in which only the top decision makers in each case are found guilty of crimes against humanity or crimes against the environment.

Tax breaks for investment and international trade are GOOD. What does your statement have to do with OPPRESSION.

[geoffrey]

I'm economically oppressed by a needlessly large tax burden. My success in life aren't based on merit, but instead on how much I can salvage from all the welfarists that want a share.

[speaker]

JerrySeinfeld, You're a natural kid, with that look of good natured naivity and lines like those you'll go far, you'll go far.

geoffrey, I think you're right, you know, as far as you've stated. Welfarists have been getting way too much out of our pockets for so long they believe they have a right and to top it off have convinced a goodly percentage of us that they are right. The multinational forestry companies, energy developers, fisheries conglomerates, etc. have been giving us the shaft with their tax-breaks, undervalued energy, and development grants for years, The question is, how do we stop this particular rape, as Thelonius fleabag so artfully described situations like this, before our means of redress are all gone.

[August1991]

To me class is defined by someone with the attitude of Joni Mitchell who I think tried to look at both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it's lifes illusions I recall.

Indeed. A Fort MacLeod native so I understand.

One of our most popular illusions seems to be that we are, and our economy is separate from the rest of reality. For example the profit made in a deal between industrial or retail giants and Vietnam isn't just a good deal it's also a brand of slavery and oppression like cotton growing in the southern states up to a short time a go.

I would agree that slavery is oppression, in the sense that it is theft. A slave had no choices, and lacked even the choice of saying no.

This past January, I was in South Carolina for the first time in my life and I had the chance to see a plantation, including the huts of slaves. (You can see them here.) Walking around the plantation, I was struck by the sense of servitude. Men were separated from women, and children from their parents. They were treated as farm animals. I'll note too that slavery was enforced by the State.

There is a huge difference between slavery and export-zone factories operating in Vietnam. Critically, workers volunteer to work in these factories, and the factories increase the choices of these workers.

Poverty is the lack of choices, and oppression must be forbidding a choice, otherwise available.

Slaves could have been free, but they weren't. If you have some way to improve the choices of workers in Vietnam, please let the world know. You will become wealthy in the process.

As to "profit", it is just a way to know whether co-operation is truly beneficial to both sides. You make a "profit" when you buy coffee because you pay less than what you would be prepared to pay. If both sides profit, there cannot be oppression.

Fourty years from now there may be deals cut between courts and lawyers in which only the top decision makers in each case are found guilty of crimes against humanity or crimes against the environment.

That's a good way of looking at environmental protection. By our activities now, we may be limiting the choices of future generations. We are exploiting them.

This is relevant because most of us have children, and grandchildren, and devote alot of effort to ensure their well-being. Does it make sense for us to oppress them by destroying their environment?

In reality, business negotiations mostly mean trying to leave your opponent face down in the dirt, and sobbing, while tying to pull back up their tattered underwear. If you are on the losing end, the trick is to pull the 'help, I'm being raped' act while the numbers are still good for you. Inflating your numbers first goes a long way, especially with certain 'ethnicities' that love driving 'hard bargains'.

That may be true if you only conduct one transaction with a person - and even then. If you know that you will have repeated dealings, then your viewpoint is wrong. In fact, I would argue that countries are rich and poor on that point alone.

Generally it is your economic clout. The 'working class', for example, where "Petey Punchclock" goes to work doing manual labour, for example, and lives cheque to cheque. (There are 'classes' lower than this, but we'll start here). Then there is the 'class' that employs or has power over those in the lower class(es). Generally, there are few things that lend themselves to obvious demarcations, but also, generally, those of different 'classes' rarely mingle.

What a strange world you inhabit, Thelonious. The price mechanism is anonymous and it admirably turns competition into co-operation. In case you haven't noticed, the law of the market replaced the law of the jungle a long time ago.

Tax breaks for investment and international trade are GOOD.

Whatever.

[geoffrey]

JerrySeinfeld, You're a natural kid, with that look of good natured naivity and lines like those you'll go far, you'll go far.

geoffrey, I think you're right, you know, as far as you've stated. Welfarists have been getting way too much out of our pockets for so long they believe they have a right and to top it off have convinced a goodly percentage of us that they are right. The multinational forestry companies, energy developers, fisheries conglomerates, etc. have been giving us the shaft with their tax-breaks, undervalued energy, and development grants for years, The question is, how do we stop this particular rape, as Thelonius fleabag so artfully described situations like this, before our means of redress are all gone.

When I say welfarists, I extend it beyond just social assistance.

I'm also talking about corporate welfare. As with all cases of welfare, it is a undignifying step towards a life long commitment to sub-par economic performance and poor social commitment. For example, the North American auto industry. For a several decades now, we have been subsidizing this industry beyond belief, in order to preserve jobs and the position of nationally produced automobiles. But now we are at the point where we have nothing left to give, and the companies have relied on government bailouts so long that they have failed to adapt in modern markets to stay competitive. Not to mention is it an extremly inefficent system, and one of the biggest polluters in Canada.

Our auto industry's days are numbered because of this. The Asian tigers, forced to be competitive by the market, now have a superior product, produced in more efficent manner, at a lower price. It's the beauty of the market over the long-term. But we condemned our domestic industry to failure with the first subsidy.

Personally, I think all corporate income taxes should be considerably lowered and all forms of tax and grant subsidy ended. It's best for us and our jobs in the long run. Corporate welfare is as bad as social welfare in my opinion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

QUOTE(speaker @ Mar 18 2006, 09:50 PM)

To me class is defined by someone with the attitude of Joni Mitchell who I think tried to look at both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it's lifes illusions I recall.

Indeed. A Fort MacLeod native so I understand

Leonard Nimoy does a great rendition of this song also.

That may be true if you only conduct one transaction with a person - and even then. If you know that you will have repeated dealings, then your viewpoint is wrong.

No, August, now it is you who are being naive. This happens every day, on pretty much every deal. I will give you a couple of personal examples when I get back from work.

[geoffrey]

Leonard Nimoy does a great rendition of this song also.

He sings?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

He sings?

Indeed he does...or did. He and William Shatner had an album out called 'Spaced Out', filled with some hilarious cover songs. I have recordings of Nimoy singing "I walk The Line", "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love To Town", "Proud Mary", "If I Had A Hammer", "Both Sides Now", and others. Some original ones he recorded include "The Ballad Of Bilbo Baggins" (a truly unique recording), and "Highly Illogical". Shatner is no less bizarre, you should hear his cover of "RocketMan" from the 1978 Science Fiction Film Awards.

I also have a book of poetry penned by Leonard Nimoy, called "You and I" from Avon Books (1973).

I collect the eclectic.

[geoffrey]

That's awesome TLFB, I have heard the Shatner "Rocket-man", its quite amusing.

Got to love the Star Trek days...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

No, August, now it is you who are being naive. This happens every day, on pretty much every deal. I will give you a couple of personal examples when I get back from work

My wife and I purchased a business from the former owner a couple of years ago. Without going into great detail, she made us a great offer, somewhat based on a friendship we all had, somewhat on circumstance. She paid over $100,000 when she bought it...she offered it to us for 80,000, with the deal that we paid half up front, and she would carry the other half personally, interest free! What a sweet (and more than fair) deal, we thought.

It seemed that none of the 'professional advice' we got, from anyone, on both sides, thought that this was a good way to do business. Taking each other 'at our word' was unheard of, and everyone was floored that there was no offer/counteroffer process. Our accountant kept on saying, make another offer for less, the later in the day, the lower the price...it is 'the law of the prostitutes'. Gouge her. Women don't like confrontation, 'lowball her' even more...

Her laywer thought she was crazy, everybody on both sides but us, the ones involved, thought 'business isn't done this way'...as it turns out, everyone came out very happy, and this was 2 1/2 years ago.

In this way, August, I believe in the way you believe 'trade' can be done. But try it for real and all the 'professionals' think you're nuts.

[geoffrey]

If you bought a business with her hold the balance of payment without paperwork, she was definitely exposed to a ton of risk, as were you.

It's an awful way to do business.

I'll say you got lucky. Those accountants and lawyers were telling you the right thing. It would have been ok for you to have bought it at asking price, thats your choice, but 'taking each other at our word' is scary.

You'd be suprised how fast the best of friends turn on each other in business or in tough circumstances. A few years is a long time for things to go sour.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

If you bought a business with her hold the balance of payment without paperwork, she was definitely exposed to a ton of risk, as were you.

No, there is some paperwork. Enough to minimize risk on both sides.

You'd be suprised how fast the best of friends turn on each other in business

My point to August. 'Friends are friends, but business is business', I heard a lot of that one. Actually, my point was that we were fully encouraged to 'gouge and screw each other' as much as possible before signing on the dotted line. Because that is the way it is done.

[speaker]

To me class is defined by someone with the attitude of Joni Mitchell who I think tried to look at both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it's lifes illusions I recall.

Indeed. A Fort MacLeod native so I understand.

One of our most popular illusions seems to be that we are, and our economy is separate from the rest of reality. For example the profit made in a deal between industrial or retail giants and Vietnam isn't just a good deal it's also a brand of slavery and oppression like cotton growing in the southern states up to a short time a go.

I would agree that slavery is oppression, in the sense that it is theft. A slave had no choices, and lacked even the choice of saying no.

This past January, I was in South Carolina for the first time in my life and I had the chance to see a plantation, including the huts of slaves. (You can see them here.) Walking around the plantation, I was struck by the sense of servitude. Men were separated from women, and children from their parents. They were treated as farm animals. I'll note too that slavery was enforced by the State.

There is a huge difference between slavery and export-zone factories operating in Vietnam. Critically, workers volunteer to work in these factories, and the factories increase the choices of these workers.

Poverty is the lack of choices, and oppression must be forbidding a choice, otherwise available.

Slaves could have been free, but they weren't. If you have some way to improve the choices of workers in Vietnam, please let the world know. You will become wealthy in the process.

As to "profit", it is just a way to know whether co-operation is truly beneficial to both sides. You make a "profit" when you buy coffee because you pay less than what you would be prepared to pay. If both sides profit, there cannot be oppression.

Fourty years from now there may be deals cut between courts and lawyers in which only the top decision makers in each case are found guilty of crimes against humanity or crimes against the environment.

That's a good way of looking at environmental protection. By our activities now, we may be limiting the choices of future generations. We are exploiting them.

This is relevant because most of us have children, and grandchildren, and devote alot of effort to ensure their well-being. Does it make sense for us to oppress them by destroying their environment?

In reality, business negotiations mostly mean trying to leave your opponent face down in the dirt, and sobbing, while tying to pull back up their tattered underwear. If you are on the losing end, the trick is to pull the 'help, I'm being raped' act while the numbers are still good for you. Inflating your numbers first goes a long way, especially with certain 'ethnicities' that love driving 'hard bargains'.

That may be true if you only conduct one transaction with a person - and even then. If you know that you will have repeated dealings, then your viewpoint is wrong. In fact, I would argue that countries are rich and poor on that point alone.

Generally it is your economic clout. The 'working class', for example, where "Petey Punchclock" goes to work doing manual labour, for example, and lives cheque to cheque. (There are 'classes' lower than this, but we'll start here). Then there is the 'class' that employs or has power over those in the lower class(es). Generally, there are few things that lend themselves to obvious demarcations, but also, generally, those of different 'classes' rarely mingle.

What a strange world you inhabit, Thelonious. The price mechanism is anonymous and it admirably turns competition into co-operation. In case you haven't noticed, the law of the market replaced the law of the jungle a long time ago.

Tax breaks for investment and international trade are GOOD.

Whatever.

August 1991, you are right. I was reacting with a small level of hyperbole. But I didn't go quite so far as to say that the sweat shops in Viet Nam and numerous other countries around the world are slavery. But I think that they are close enough that choice is a minor irritant for people in that situation. In this situation just because the theft and therefore oppression, is not 100% does not make it not theft. I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that Nikes workers in Viet Nam at the time were getting approximately 17 cents for each pair of shoes produced. At the time I think the average Nikes were selling for around $80.

More than this though, and that's bad enough, Nike et al are also oppressing the people of Viet Nam in general. As soon as it was realized that it could be business as usual despite having lost the war for the control of the actual physical property, the west lent money to Viet Nam to put big tracts of Agricultural land into Rubber. Coincidentally causing a surplus of rubber driving prices down. That hasn't been a bad thing for the west because now in an effort to repay those loans farm workers are in the same boat as the factory workers, and the land is being bled like a rubber tree.