United States Politics Thread 47

[Travis B.]

All of these people can be fired or laid off any day by the capitalists they sell their labor to at a whim, and really do not have fundamental control over their work lives. Socialism would give them security -- e.g. being let go may require, say, a supermajority vote at their work site specifically to make it hard to let people go on a whim -- and a greater say* in their everyday lives -- in that it would make the enterprises at which they work directly democratic.

* You could argue that Bob already has a say in his everday work life, but the matter is that he is still beholden to the will of the executives above him.

True enough, but thing is, what I wrote is true, too. For the people in question, socialism might have upsides, but it would clearly have downsides, too.

The larger problem is that you seem to assume as a matter of course that everyone should, ideally, be for establishing their own freedom as seen by you. But people might have different ideas of freedom than you.

A follower of the one or other kind of Asian mysticism might tell me that I could only be "truly" free if I followed their preferred form of meditative practice. I would probably start out by politely ignoring someone like that, and eventually tell them to get lost if they should become too annoying.

I do recognize that some people may weigh the material benefits of their individual position within the capitalist system over their having a real say in their work lives, security from being let go arbitrarily, and greater solidarity with their fellow workers. However, at the same time, I see such as short-sighted, as those material benefits can evaporate any time the capitalists above them decide that said people are no longer needed.

[Raphael]

I do recognize that some people may weigh the material benefits of their individual position within the capitalist system over their having a real say in their work lives, security from being let go arbitrarily, and greater solidarity with their fellow workers. However, at the same time, I see such as short-sighted, as those material benefits can evaporate any time the capitalists above them decide that said people are no longer needed.

Oh, I agree with you (mostly), but, well, if everyone would agree with you, we'd probably have a socialist Utopia by now.

One point where I disagree with you is that I think it isn't even necessarily mainly about "the material benefits of their individual position within the capitalist system". As far as I can tell, for many people, their main motivations are things like pride, self-esteem, or being respected by the people around them. Even if they want to get a lot of money, often, the reason why they want to get a lot of money in the first place is that they think that this would be good for their pride, their self-esteem, and the respect they get from others. As a result it's usually very difficult to bribe people out of their pride or their self-esteem.

[Travis B.]

I do recognize that some people may weigh the material benefits of their individual position within the capitalist system over their having a real say in their work lives, security from being let go arbitrarily, and greater solidarity with their fellow workers. However, at the same time, I see such as short-sighted, as those material benefits can evaporate any time the capitalists above them decide that said people are no longer needed.

Oh, I agree with you (mostly), but, well, if everyone would agree with you, we'd probably have a socialist Utopia by now.

One point where I disagree with you is that I think it isn't even necessarily mainly about "the material benefits of their individual position within the capitalist system". As far as I can tell, for many people, their main motivations are things like pride, self-esteem, or being respected by the people around them. Even if they want to get a lot of money, often, the reason why they want to get a lot of money in the first place is that they think that this would be good for their pride, their self-esteem, and the respect they get from others. As a result it's usually very difficult to bribe people out of their pride or their self-esteem.

Pride, self-esteem, and being respected by the people around oneself wouldn't evaporate at all because of socialism. Rather, they would be prime reasons why people would work even if working was no longer required to simply survive.

Being a doctor or a professor or an engineer or like would still hold prestige with it in and of itself, for instance. And socialism would not eliminate doctors or professors or engineers or so on at all.

In my own case, I have pride in my own work outside of my day job (e.g. zeptoforth), and within a certain circle I have accrued a certain level of prestige for my work on zeptoforth, and zeptoforth exists outside the capitalist system, being a FLOSS project I work on in my spare time without pay which I give to the world.

[Raphael]

Pride, self-esteem, and being respected by the people around oneself wouldn't evaporate at all because of socialism. Rather, they would be prime reasons why people would work even if working was no longer required to simply survive.

Being a doctor or a professor or an engineer or like would still hold prestige with it in and of itself, for instance. And socialism would not eliminate doctors or professors or engineers or so on at all.

In my own case, I have pride in my own work outside of my day job (e.g. zeptoforth), and within a certain circle I have accrued a certain level of prestige for my work on zeptoforth, and zeptoforth exists outside the capitalist system, being a FLOSS project I work on in my spare time without pay which I give to the world.

A lot of people are neither doctors nor professors nor engineers. A lot of people used to take pride in blue collar work, and have now been moved to service sector jobs in which very few people take pride.

Then there's the hateful and bigoted forms of pride, like taking pride in being white or male. Right-wingers can offer people with the right demographic traits those forms of pride without hesitation, while socialists can't do that, or at least not without selling their souls.

Aside from that, a lot of people take pride in the (IMO pretty ridiculous) illusion that they never need anybody's help, and they see most or all forms of left-wing politics as being about helping people.

[Travis B.]

A lot of people are neither doctors nor professors nor engineers. A lot of people used to take pride in blue collar work, and have now been moved to service sector jobs in which very few people take pride.

Socialism would not make pride in blue-collar work go away either, and if anything would help end the replacement of blue-collar work with service jobs.

Then there's the hateful and bigoted forms of pride, like taking pride in being white or male. Right-wingers can offer people with the right demographic traits those forms of pride without hesitation, while socialists can't do that, or at least not without selling their souls.

What socialism can offer, though, is solidarity.

Aside from that, a lot of people take pride in the (IMO pretty ridiculous) illusion that they never need anybody's help, and they see most or all forms of left-wing politics as being about helping people.

This is partly because they have bought into the capitalist lie that socialism is all about giving people things for free, rather than people achieving freedom for themselves and their fellow workers. The fact that socialism is commonly confused with social democracy (i.e. 'kinder', 'gentler' capitalism) hasn't helped.

[Nortaneous]

All of these people can be fired or laid off any day by the capitalists they sell their labor to at a whim, and really do not have fundamental control over their work lives. Socialism would give them security -- e.g. being let go may require, say, a supermajority vote at their work site specifically to make it hard to let people go on a whim -- and a greater say* in their everyday lives -- in that it would make the enterprises at which they work directly democratic.

* You could argue that Bob already has a say in his everday work life, but the matter is that he is still beholden to the will of the executives above him.

Alice, Bob, and Charlie are workers and shareholders. What employment law would be in their class interest? They could prioritize legal restrictions on layoffs in order to gain security through socialism, but they could just as well, depending on their current income, expected future income, net worth, investment portfolio, philosophical preference, etc., oppose it out of concern that it would make companies more risk-averse in hiring and thus affect the growth of their portfolio. Why wouldn't Bob observe the stagnation of the economies of the European social democracies and decide he'd really rather America do the opposite of that? He still might, but it's unclear what his class interest is.

[zompist]

if you make 30 minimum wages but own nothing or just a house you are indeed working class

That's apparently the socialist rather than sociological definition. You can define words any way you want, but this one is uncommon and is going to lead to poor analysis and predictions.

Minimum wage works out to about $15,080 per year, which means 30 times that is $450,000. That puts you well into the top 5% of incomes. You could write a book about how a man with that income is actually suffering and doesnt feel rich— Tom Wolfe wrote one— but his problems, attitudes, interests, and politics are far different from a Taco Bell cook.

And realistically, someone earning half a million a year in this country is not going to be living on pure income. You buy stocks at that level, and/or goods that are also investment vehicles.

[zompist]

Alice, Bob, and Charlie are workers and shareholders. What employment law would be in their class interest? They could prioritize legal restrictions on layoffs in order to gain security through socialism, but they could just as well, depending on their current income, expected future income, net worth, investment portfolio, philosophical preference, etc., oppose it out of concern that it would make companies more risk-averse in hiring and thus affect the growth of their portfolio. Why wouldn't Bob observe the stagnation of the economies of the European social democracies and decide he'd really rather America do the opposite of that? He still might, but it's unclear what his class interest is.

You have a point, that stock ownership can provide some level of alignment between middle and upper class interests. Though I'd point out that maximizing stock price is not a universal of capitalism; it's more a consequence of the Reagan revolution, and hasn't benefited middle-income workers with very small stock holdings.

As for stagnation...

Gosh, those diabolical Germans have stagnated so much that they're precisely on par with the US.

(Charts like these also understate the value of lifestyle preferences. Per capita GDP is smaller in France, but you also get 30 vacation days a year, universal healthcare, free undergraduate education, and a 35 hour work week. I forget which one Bob is, but Bob is well advised to look at the perks as well as the salary.)

[rotting bones]

Now, even the 10% isn't enough to run the country-- you need half the voters. And this is where I'm afraid Marx fails us. People don't vote for what would be best for them... a fact that's been evident since the 1800s. Not even union voters, 41% of whom supported Trump in 2024. Nor is this a new thing: 54% of union voters supported Nixon in 1972.

Marx focused a lot on who does or doesn't work because the rich get power from the work done by workers. The revolt of workers in particular has a physical significance on the ability of the rich to make money.

Marxism extends this kind of reasoning to others parts of the economy. For example, Marxists talk about the petit bourgeoisie instead of your "10%" because their being small proprietors explains why fascism looks like a nonsensical mishmash of left-wing and right-wing politics. Namely, small proprietors are predictably desperate because their position is unstable under a capitalist economic structure.

[rotting bones]

Workers whose ability to retire depends on policymakers continuing to prioritize the health of the market - which, to the bourgeoisie, is a desirable mindset to inculcate in a democracy, hence policy support for the existence of a broad middle class.

Something like this was the case even in Marx's time. Namely, workers would have to be fired through no one's fault if capitalists didn't turn a profit by exploiting the workers. It is in everyone's short term interest to keep the bad system going. That's why it persists.

Also, if your retirement is predicated on infinite growth, maybe you ought to question what experts told you about what you can expect from your retirement plan.

[rotting bones]

One point where I disagree with you is that I think it isn't even necessarily mainly about "the material benefits of their individual position within the capitalist system". As far as I can tell, for many people, their main motivations are things like pride, self-esteem, or being respected by the people around them. Even if they want to get a lot of money, often, the reason why they want to get a lot of money in the first place is that they think that this would be good for their pride, their self-esteem, and the respect they get from others. As a result it's usually very difficult to bribe people out of their pride or their self-esteem.

People can do what they like, but if they choose unadaptive ways of being, there will be fewer of them in the future. As Yudkowsky pointed out, a self-sacrificing Gandhi is not reproductively fit. After a lot of people throw themselves off a cliff like lemmings, the qualities people find respectable in others will no longer be the same. This is the context in which Marx discusses the ability of the working class to reproduce itself under a given economic system.

[Travis B.]

All of these people can be fired or laid off any day by the capitalists they sell their labor to at a whim, and really do not have fundamental control over their work lives. Socialism would give them security -- e.g. being let go may require, say, a supermajority vote at their work site specifically to make it hard to let people go on a whim -- and a greater say* in their everyday lives -- in that it would make the enterprises at which they work directly democratic.

* You could argue that Bob already has a say in his everday work life, but the matter is that he is still beholden to the will of the executives above him.

Alice, Bob, and Charlie are workers and shareholders. What employment law would be in their class interest? They could prioritize legal restrictions on layoffs in order to gain security through socialism, but they could just as well, depending on their current income, expected future income, net worth, investment portfolio, philosophical preference, etc., oppose it out of concern that it would make companies more risk-averse in hiring and thus affect the growth of their portfolio. Why wouldn't Bob observe the stagnation of the economies of the European social democracies and decide he'd really rather America do the opposite of that? He still might, but it's unclear what his class interest is.

They may be shareholders, but they cannot live off of simply owning capital, hence they are still workers and not bourgeoisie.

[Travis B.]

Now, even the 10% isn't enough to run the country-- you need half the voters. And this is where I'm afraid Marx fails us. People don't vote for what would be best for them... a fact that's been evident since the 1800s. Not even union voters, 41% of whom supported Trump in 2024. Nor is this a new thing: 54% of union voters supported Nixon in 1972.

Marx focused a lot on who does or doesn't work because the rich get power from the work done by workers. The revolt of workers in particular has a physical significance on the ability of the rich to make money.

Marxism extends this kind of reasoning to others parts of the economy. For example, Marxists talk about the petit bourgeoisie instead of your "10%" because their being small proprietors explains why fascism looks like a nonsensical mishmash of left-wing and right-wing politics. Namely, small proprietors are predictably desperate because their position is unstable under a capitalist economic structure.

Exactly.

[Travis B.]

if you make 30 minimum wages but own nothing or just a house you are indeed working class

That's apparently the socialist rather than sociological definition. You can define words any way you want, but this one is uncommon and is going to lead to poor analysis and predictions.

Minimum wage works out to about $15,080 per year, which means 30 times that is $450,000. That puts you well into the top 5% of incomes. You could write a book about how a man with that income is actually suffering and doesnt feel rich— Tom Wolfe wrote one— but his problems, attitudes, interests, and politics are far different from a Taco Bell cook.

And realistically, someone earning half a million a year in this country is not going to be living on pure income. You buy stocks at that level, and/or goods that are also investment vehicles.

The key thing is whether one can live off of what one own's simply by virtue of owning it. If one can make a profit solely by extracting the products of others' labor by virtue of one's title over capital, one is a member of the bourgeoisie. If one profits by extracting the products of others' labor by virtue of one's title over capital but one has to also actually do work alongside those people in order to survive, one is a member of the petit bourgeoisie. If one must sell one's labor in order to survive and does not own capital with which one can extract profit from anyone else, one is working class. And if one does not need to sell one's labor in order to survive and one owns one's own capital which one makes direct use of in order to survive without extracting profit from anyone else, one is an artisan.

These things determine one's interests more than simply a numerical figure of how much income or wealth one has. It also explains things why a member of the petit bourgeoisie is more threatened by socialism than myself even if I make more money than them, while at the same time explaining things like why such a member of the petit bourgeoisie is simultaneously threatened by the bourgeoisie (e.g. they are likely to owe considerable sums of money to banks and may struggle to stay afloat when faced with competition from the capitalists).

[zompist]

If one must sell one's labor in order to survive and does not own capital with which one can extract profit from anyone else, one is working class.

Namely, small proprietors are predictably desperate because their position is unstable under a capitalist economic structure.

These are deeply weird statements about people making $450,000 a year. No, they're not small proprietors, or desperate, or in a position where they must do wage labor or die. When you are in the top 5%, you are one of the rulers of the country, and your interests are mostly against those of the actual working class.

Now, it's true that if that person quit their job they might not be able to keep their vacation home and grueling world tourism schedule and private schools for all the kids, but that isn't a matter of survival, or even what we call "First World problems", it's maintaining an upper-class lifestyle.

Torco's point about the medium-income wealthy is also relevant, not because wealth and income are independent, but because high income allows you to accumulate wealth. Mostly likely these people could quit their jobs and become rentiers. But they don't have to bother. They are not oppressed workers and as I said, even the plutocrats are not stupid enough to stomp on the 10% as they stomp on everyone else.

[keenir]

People can do what they like, but if they choose unadaptive ways of being, there will be fewer of them in the future. As Yudkowsky pointed out, a self-sacrificing Gandhi is not reproductively fit.

So long as the behavior continues, it doesn't matter if its inborn or learned -- thats an advantage we backboned animals have over ants and bees.

And if the Gandhi achieves any of their goals, then their fitness has been demonstrated.

[rotting bones]

So long as the behavior continues, it doesn't matter if its inborn or learned -- thats an advantage we backboned animals have over ants and bees.

Inborn behavior takes much longer to change.

And if the Gandhi achieves any of their goals, then their fitness has been demonstrated.

Fitness refers to reproduction only, not success in general.

[rotting bones]

These are deeply weird statements about people making $450,000 a year. No, they're not small proprietors, or desperate, or in a position where they must do wage labor or die. When you are in the top 5%, you are one of the rulers of the country, and your interests are mostly against those of the actual working class.

I think you are insisting on a different definition of small proprietorship from the way it's used in Marxist theory. Marxists are referring to the kind of people the Jan 6 rioters represented. I don't understand the point of rejecting definitions.

They are desperate because most small business are constantly going bankrupt. The owners blame both big capitalists and lazy workers. That's a recipe for fascism.

[keenir]

So long as the behavior continues, it doesn't matter if its inborn or learned -- thats an advantage we backboned animals have over ants and bees.

Inborn behavior takes much longer to change.

quite true, normally.

I don't understand the point of rejecting definitions.

and yet you say this:

And if the Gandhi achieves any of their goals, then their fitness has been demonstrated.

Fitness refers to reproduction only, not success in general.

then by that logic, you can't apply it to classes of people like workers.

[zompist]

These are deeply weird statements about people making $450,000 a year. No, they're not small proprietors, or desperate, or in a position where they must do wage labor or die. When you are in the top 5%, you are one of the rulers of the country, and your interests are mostly against those of the actual working class.

I think you are insisting on a different definition of small proprietorship from the way it's used in Marxist theory. Marxists are referring to the kind of people the Jan 6 rioters represented. I don't understand the point of rejecting definitions.

I don't understand the point of analyzing the world with 177-year-old political doctrines, especially if you use them to conclude that rich people are poor. Marx was right about a lot of things, but he could not see that far in the future (and I doubt he claimed to).

They are desperate because most small business are constantly going bankrupt. The owners blame both big capitalists and lazy workers. That's a recipe for fascism.

I don't think you know what "small business" means? You don't make $450,000 profit a year from a small business. (My parents ran one at one point. The profit was about two orders of magnitude less than that.)

I don't know what all the Jan. 6 rioters did for a living-- if you have a source that they were all millionaires, show it. I just looked up one of the leaders, who was a disbarred lawyer. And even if he wasn't disbarred, the median lawyer doesn't even make enough to be in the top 10%.