United States Politics Thread 47

[Travis B.]

False consciousness is the difference between one's self-interest and what one has been led to believe is one's self-interest.

A big part of modern capitalist society is workers being deceived by the bourgeoisie and their propagandists as to what their self-interest is. Capitalism needs this in order to survive, as without it there would probably be a revolution tomorrow.

You're assuming that people mainly care about their self-interest. How do you get that idea? Repeating myself, for many people, their main motivations are things like pride, self-esteem, or being respected by the people around them.

I fully recognize that self-interest is not people's sole motivator by any means, I should note.

The idea that one's pride, self-esteem, and being respected by people around oneself is incompatible with socialism (and to make it clear, socialism is worker ownership and self-management of capital here) is itself a form of false consciousness.

Indeed, in a socialist society key motivators for people to work and contribute to society would specifically be one's pride, self-esteem, and seeking respect from one's peers.

As I mentioned, personally these things are key reasons why I myself develop software and give it to the world without material compensation, and I do not imagine that as FLOSS developers go I am by any means unique in this regard.

[Travis B.]

My views are perhaps not orthodox left-wing, but civilization depends on people looking beyond their self-interest.

You cannot look out for other people until you look out for yourself.

Or else, well, why shouldn't they go for fascism after all?

I would second what Raphael said here.

[Raphael]

You seem to be moving goalposts a bit. First you say that "False consciousness is the difference between one's self-interest and what one has been led to believe is one's self-interest", then you say that perceptions of "pride, self-esteem, and being respected by people around oneself" can be subject to false consciousness, too.

[Travis B.]

You seem to be moving goalposts a bit. First you say that "False consciousness is the difference between one's self-interest and what one has been led to believe is one's self-interest", then you say that perceptions of "pride, self-esteem, and being respected by people around oneself" can be subject to false consciousness, too.

I should note that in this case one's perception of one's pride, self-esteem, and being respected by people around oneself as being incompatible with socialism is an example of false consciousness, as one is being led to oppose one's actual self-interest by misperceptions of what one's self-interest is.

[Ares Land]

My views are perhaps not orthodox left-wing, but civilization depends on people looking beyond their self-interest. Or else, well, why shouldn't they go for fascism after all?

I'd say except for parts of the upper crust, support for fascism is more a matter of pride and the desire for a high social status, and maybe meaning, than a matter of self-interest.

Certainly, though what is seeking for a high social status if not a matter of self-interest? A higher status also means money and jobs.
Fascists certainly promise money too.

[Raphael]

Certainly, though what is seeking for a high social status if not a matter of self-interest? A higher status also means money and jobs.
Fascists certainly promise money too.

Perhaps sometimes, but not always. Take run-of-the-mill racism, for instance. It often doesn't promise money or jobs, just the comforting feeling that even with little money and a shitty or no job, you still have a higher social status than "those people". Or anti-intellectualism: it appeals to resentment that academics supposedly think they're better than you, and promises to give you a higher social status than them.

[Torco]

[i'm getting a few database errors error pages, just by the by]

are we sure there's such a strong link between self-interest and political positioning? for example, is it true that it is in one's rational self interest to be a fascist such that only by not caring exclusively about one's self interest can one not be a fascist? fascism isn't that great a system to live under. I feel as if i have moral sentiments, but if i didn't I think i'd still be not-a-fascist (indeed, i think fascists have strong moral sentiments, just bad ones)

besides, i think people's ideologies and beliefs are rather more influenced by culture and circumstance and biography than by some abstract idea of rational self interest. and what does that even mean in the first place? like, was it in or against the ancient egyptians' self interest to be atonist monotheists or traditional polytheists during the reign of akhenaton?

[keenir]

keenir, I don't think rotting bones is proposing that we should all vote on what everyone has to eat.

at times, i thought Rotting Bones was saying we need to should vote on what grocery stores will stock on their shelves (by use of Patreon, if i recall)

I would like to support many more creators than I do, but I don't because I can't afford it. We would have more to spend if rich assholes didn't keep stowing it all away.

I'm pretty sure the US Mint doesn't factor in "hm, how much American Money did these millionaires put in state/national/foreign banks?" when they go to print more money...I don't know if India's Mint does, I grant you that.

I don't think you're getting rotting bones's point. It's not about the amount of money in the world (which is created by central banks, not mints, by the way),

my bad; i thought that was still a mint's job.

but about how much money each part of the population has.

okay, I was thrown off track by the comment about the rich people squirreling their money away.

[zompist]

are we sure there's such a strong link between self-interest and political positioning? for example, is it true that it is in one's rational self interest to be a fascist such that only by not caring exclusively about one's self interest can one not be a fascist? fascism isn't that great a system to live under. I feel as if i have moral sentiments, but if i didn't I think i'd still be not-a-fascist (indeed, i think fascists have strong moral sentiments, just bad ones)

besides, i think people's ideologies and beliefs are rather more influenced by culture and circumstance and biography than by some abstract idea of rational self interest. and what does that even mean in the first place?

A lot of the paradoxes disappear if we recognize that people are guided by perceived self-interest. So they make political or economic decisions based on lies or simply lack of knowledge.

Plus, contra Plato, people don't agree on The Good. E.g. authoritarians highly value a hierarchical and repressed society; non-authoritarians hate that.

Plus plus, it takes some sophistication to be a Rawlsian. It's in our rational self-interest to have systems that benefit and protect all humans. But it's also pretty natural for people to want systems that do so only for people like them, and the size of that circle was even smaller in premodern times.

[jcb]

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.

As a corollary, maybe Democrats shouldn't abandon rural America, a place that has disproportionate power in America's political system.
- https://jacobin.com/2025/06/democrats-r ... ions-trump

Everybody's got a theory on why-- as jcb noted, Orwell was writing about the problem 90 years ago. Again, I don't think it's hard to understand: when people get better off, they are also more invested in the status quo, far less interested in radical change, and apprehensive about people lower on the socioeconomic scale.

Relevant: https://youtu.be/Z8R4XeNcHu8?si=QshLqp0RARFwtSBq&t=833

[Raphael]

A lot of the paradoxes disappear if we recognize that people are guided by perceived self-interest. So they make political or economic decisions based on lies or simply lack of knowledge.

For instance, the Netherlands and Florida are two of the places most seriously threatened by climate change, and in the politics of both places, climate change deniers are very prominent.

[zompist]

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.

As a corollary, maybe Democrats shouldn't abandon rural America, a place that has disproportionate power in America's political system.
- https://jacobin.com/2025/06/democrats-r ... ions-trump

I agree. The article suggests that there was a change in 2016-- well, that was a mistake. You have to compete everywhere, and there should be a huge opportunity since Republican policies are terrible for their own voters.

[Torco]

A lot of the paradoxes disappear if we recognize that people are guided by perceived self-interest. So they make political or economic decisions based on lies or simply lack of knowledge.

Plus, contra Plato, people don't agree on The Good. E.g. authoritarians highly value a hierarchical and repressed society; non-authoritarians hate that.

Plus plus, it takes some sophistication to be a Rawlsian. It's in our rational self-interest to have systems that benefit and protect all humans. But it's also pretty natural for people to want systems that do so only for people like them, and the size of that circle was even smaller in premodern times.

even moreso: on some combination of their view of what is in their self-interest and their view on what is in the general interest, or what their view is that the general interest is, and in the interest of their group, and other groups they care about, and in the perceived interest of the groups they perceive themselves as somehow having to care about, plus on their views of who belongs to that group and what their view is of what is... that gets complicated fast, so eventually better to say maybe it's not self-interest after all, but just ideology, or beliefs.

[MacAnDàil]

As a talking point, "infinite growth" falls entirely flat - when growth ends or substantially slows, which has been predicted as many times as the end of the world and is about as inevitable, there will be no routes for the ambitious, for those who want to better their lot in life, that aren't zero-sum. Degrowth is a flawed idea not only because growth is a necessary input to the military power to resist foreign conquest but also because, if everyone agreed to do it, the only way to get ahead in life (which people who grew up with reliably potable tap water and three fresh meals a day take as reflecting poor character, because they are fools) would be through violence.

By growth you refer to economic growth, right? Why would that be necessary to resist foreign conquest and technological, diplomatic or strategic improvement? Why would resisting foreign conquest be a major priority in deciding whether to have growth or degrowth and not the survival of humanity or the rest of life on Earth? Why would the only way to get ahead in life would be through violence and not through displaying virtue or showing educational or physical or artistic prowess? The meaning of the bracketed part appears unclear.

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

They reasonably expect to live off of simply owning capital in the future, i.e. retiring - or at least being able to take a part-time job, etc.

(As a person who lives and makes life decisions in a country, I definitely have some objections to the strength of the incentive gradient that the US's wide range of incomes represents; as a person who lives in an economy that produces goods and services, I not infrequently encounter the downsides of concentrating the talented and conscientious in a handful of fields mostly engaged in the supply of professional services to businesses

What downsides do you notice?

The poor work and don't own; the rich own and don't work; the middle class do both.

Alice is a technical writer ($85k/yr, 40 hrs/wk) with an asset portfolio including part-ownership of McDonald's and Nike. What class is Alice?
Bob is an Amazon warehouse manager ($80k/yr, 40+ hrs/wk) who lives frugally in order to maximize the amount of money he puts in the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. What class is Bob?
Charlie is an experienced welder ($36.00/hr) who does the same thing as Bob. What class is Charlie?
Dan is an experienced welder ($37.50/hr) who's not so good with financial instruments and doesn't really know what stock markets are. Most of his net worth is in his house. What class is Dan?

What about Ewan who has one fo those jobs but neither house nor stock?

Depends on local cost of living but likely poor financial planning. $36/hr full-time is $72k/yr. Median personal income for full-time employed US workers is about $62k/yr.
[/quote]So because the person would earn greater than the median wage but not a house (I just saw that 65% of Americans own houses), they probably mismanaged their resources? Or perhaps did not intend to get that because that was not important to them? What about somebody earning less?
What about those neither earning nor owning?

[Torco]

By growth you refer to economic growth, right? Why would that be necessary to resist foreign conquest and technological, diplomatic or strategic improvement? Why would resisting foreign conquest be a major priority in deciding whether to have growth or degrowth and not the survival of humanity or the rest of life on Earth? Why would the only way to get ahead in life would be through violence and not through displaying virtue or showing educational or physical or artistic prowess? The meaning of the bracketed part appears unclear.

not life, geopolitics: they're different things. if you don't grow, those that grow get to buy a bunch of weapons, invade you, and make you grow. this is possibly the biggest reason against degrowth. as long as capitalism is the world system, this obtains.

I just saw that 65% of Americans own houses

not so minor correction: 65% of households inhabit a house "the household" [someone in it] own[s]. that's very far from 65% of americans owning houses. in a population where a bunch 4-people families where the 65% obtains, assuming all houses are co-owned by mom and dad, that's 32% of the people in that block owning at least 1 house.

[MacAnDàil]

By growth you refer to economic growth, right? Why would that be necessary to resist foreign conquest and technological, diplomatic or strategic improvement? Why would resisting foreign conquest be a major priority in deciding whether to have growth or degrowth and not the survival of humanity or the rest of life on Earth? Why would the only way to get ahead in life would be through violence and not through displaying virtue or showing educational or physical or artistic prowess? The meaning of the bracketed part appears unclear.

not life, geopolitics: they're different things. if you don't grow, those that grow get to buy a bunch of weapons, invade you, and make you grow. this is possibly the biggest reason against degrowth. as long as capitalism is the world system, this obtains.

Sure, and life is a prerequisite for everything in life and therefore is a prerequisite for geopolitics.

I just saw that 65% of Americans own houses

not so minor correction: 65% of households inhabit a house "the household" [someone in it] own[s]. that's very far from 65% of americans owning houses. in a population where a bunch 4-people families where the 65% obtains, assuming all houses are co-owned by mom and dad, that's 32% of the people in that block owning at least 1 house.
[/quote]I stand corrected. That is indeed an important distinction.

[Raphael]

By growth you refer to economic growth, right? Why would that be necessary to resist foreign conquest and technological, diplomatic or strategic improvement? Why would resisting foreign conquest be a major priority in deciding whether to have growth or degrowth and not the survival of humanity or the rest of life on Earth? Why would the only way to get ahead in life would be through violence and not through displaying virtue or showing educational or physical or artistic prowess? The meaning of the bracketed part appears unclear.

not life, geopolitics: they're different things. if you don't grow, those that grow get to buy a bunch of weapons, invade you, and make you grow. this is possibly the biggest reason against degrowth. as long as capitalism is the world system, this obtains.

Sure, and life is a prerequisite for everything in life and therefore is a prerequisite for geopolitics.

Well, that's the problem with paradoxes: there's sometimes simply no good option. Degrowth, and you get beaten by those who grow, and they end up running things, and your great noble degrowth moves didn't even save the world, because, again, the conquerors who didn't degrowth ended up running things.

[zompist]

I just saw that 65% of Americans own houses

not so minor correction: 65% of households inhabit a house "the household" [someone in it] own[s]. that's very far from 65% of americans owning houses. in a population where a bunch 4-people families where the 65% obtains, assuming all houses are co-owned by mom and dad, that's 32% of the people in that block owning at least 1 house.

I think complaining that a 4-year-old doesn't own their house is a bit misleading. However, it's hard to get better data.

I found a Reddit thread that cites John Voorhees as saying that the US home ownership rate is 53% if you look only at adults and count only the owners and their spouses. So there are a lot of adult children living with parents, but homeowners are still the majority.

[jcb]

And the 10% is threatened by socialism-- is a specialist doctor still going to make $400K a year? will we need quite that many lawyers? do they still get legacy slots at Harvard? Even when dictatorships fall, there's an appreciable fraction of society which misses them, because they were the ones who benefitted from the system.

Hey Travis, are you listening? This is why I don't trust highly educated/credentialled professionals to have the same interests and goals as me: because they don't.

My own experience with academics has also taught me that they are highly reluctant to fight back, partly because they are afraid, of course, but also because they honestly don't think that they need to. They think that their own brilliance will win out, regardless of the economic laws of the system! They truly believe that the system serves them, even if they remain a lowly-paid lecturer for years/decades.

[Travis B.]

And the 10% is threatened by socialism-- is a specialist doctor still going to make $400K a year? will we need quite that many lawyers? do they still get legacy slots at Harvard? Even when dictatorships fall, there's an appreciable fraction of society which misses them, because they were the ones who benefitted from the system.

Hey Travis, are you listening? This is why I don't trust highly educated/credentialled professionals to have the same interests and goals as me: because they don't.

My own experience with academics has also taught me that they are highly reluctant to fight back, partly because they are afraid, of course, but also because they honestly don't think that they need to. They think that their own brilliance will win out, regardless of the economic laws of the system! They truly believe that the system serves them, even if they remain a lowly-paid lecturer for years/decades.

You're almost telling people like myself that we should side with the system. What I am saying is that the system is on our side is an illusion, and that our real interests lie with the other workers, and what people like you should be telling other people like myself is that our interests are really the same as yours, which is the opposite of what you're saying.