Is this where the West is heading? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15191107
boomerintown wrote:


2. Get rid of what we can call the transferiat. People whos main income comes from ideology production as means for transfering money from the productive economy to themselves.




Economists call that rent seeking, and the result is income inequality.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_3?crid=342BKNQU853ZA&dchild=1&keywords=stiglitz+price+of+inequality&qid=1632064014&sprefix=stiglitz%2Caps%2C196&sr=8-3
#15191112
late wrote:Economists call that rent seeking, and the result is income inequality.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_3?crid=342BKNQU853ZA&dchild=1&keywords=stiglitz+price+of+inequality&qid=1632064014&sprefix=stiglitz%2Caps%2C196&sr=8-3


I might missunderstand you, but this doesnt seem to be what I meant. With the transferiat I am talking about a certain part of the middle class (not neccessarily especially rich) who works with things that doesnt really contributes to the productive economy. An example of this is people who are payed to develop value ground documents for businesses, public offices and so on.
#15191114
boomerintown wrote:I might missunderstand you, but this doesnt seem to be what I meant. With the transferiat I am talking about a certain part of the middle class (not neccessarily especially rich) who works with things that doesnt really contributes to the productive economy. An example of this is people who are payed to develop value ground documents for businesses, public offices and so on.

If they are being paid to do it, then clearly their work has value to somebody.

And lots of people transfer value from the productive economy into their own pockets. Marx called them "coupon clippers"; they do nothing all day, yet never seem to lack for a secure income. The "transferiat" are merely a tiny part of that parasitic class of people.
#15191118
boomerintown wrote:
I dont believe in historical determinition, but I am a marxist in the sense that I see class interests as crucial in politics.

In my view, the strongest votingbase a political party could hope for is that of an alliance between "normal people in the productive economy". This would include workers from the warehouse up to AI-engineers in Amazon, doctors, teachers, police, nurses and several other groups.

Id say there are two big class conflicts they should take on:

1. To target big capital owners (of Blackrock, Facebook, Amazon, Wall-mart and so on) and use them as instruments for their own interests (as opposed to trying to destroy them).

2. Get rid of what we can call the transferiat. People whos main income comes from ideology production as means for transfering money from the productive economy to themselves.

The best and most obvious case of this is the woke movement, if you disect the class interests behind it. If you have spent years in unversity reading for instance post-colonial studies you need ideology that justifies hiring you. An even more extreme case of this is the idea to replace police with social workers.

It is important to understand the desperate situation of this class, which will lead to more and more extreme expressions. Something we have seen with BLM-demonstrations and in cancel culture.



Unfortunately you're lumping-together corporate elitist interests, with *left wing* reformist political efforts. I happen to *support* anti-colonial independence struggles (Myanmar), and the replacement of police with social workers, for more-appropriate social / governmental responses to individual and social situations.

Left-wing political reformism isn't a 'class' interest all of its own, as you're purporting. It's *anti-oppression* in its struggle, which may or may not also be *class conscious*.
#15191119
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah.

*Usually* it's &%$#@ medievalism.



Potemkin wrote:
Eurocentrism, much? Lol.



Well, no, it *isn't*, and I certainly didn't *mean* it that way, either -- medievalism / feudalism is *not* strictly a Western thing, as it took place in *China*, too, for example.
#15191124
boomerintown wrote:
I might missunderstand you, but this doesnt seem to be what I meant. With the transferiat I am talking about a certain part of the middle class (not neccessarily especially rich) who works with things that doesnt really contributes to the productive economy. An example of this is people who are payed to develop value ground documents for businesses, public offices and so on.



Perhaps not, but rent seeking is a much bigger problem.
#15191129
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, no, it *isn't*, and I certainly didn't *mean* it that way, either -- medievalism / feudalism is *not* strictly a Western thing, as it took place in *China*, too, for example.

'Medievalism' literally refers to the "Middle Ages", which is an exclusively European concept, referring to the period between the collapse of the western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and the early modern era beginning in about 1500 AD. It has no meaning in the rest of the world. China in the 3rd century BC, when The Book of Zhuangzi was written, was not in any sort of "medieval" period. In fact, China has never had what we would call a "medieval" period. The imperial system, with various ups and downs, survived until the early 20th century. It's as though the western Roman Empire had never fallen. To accuse the Primitivist author of (parts of) The Book of Zhuangzi of "rural medievalism" is therefore Eurocentric. Embarrassingly so, in fact. :)
#15191132
Potemkin wrote:If they are being paid to do it, then clearly their work has value to somebody.

And lots of people transfer value from the productive economy into their own pockets. Marx called them "coupon clippers"; they do nothing all day, yet never seem to lack for a secure income. The "transferiat" are merely a tiny part of that parasitic class of people.


Agreed, they probably have value for somebody. But my point is that for the larger economic production, relevant for the working class, nurses, teachers and so on their jobs are not adding anything. I also agree, they consists of a very small portion of the overall economy, but I think they are significant in setting the political agenda.

Therefore, if you want an agenda for the ordinary people I think it is important to signal that this is not a movement for the woke, urban, middle class with these kinds of jobs. This is a movement that wants nothing to do with identity politics.

ckaihatsu wrote:Unfortunately you're lumping-together corporate elitist interests, with *left wing* reformist political efforts. I happen to *support* anti-colonial independence struggles (Myanmar), and the replacement of police with social workers, for more-appropriate social / governmental responses to individual and social situations.

Left-wing political reformism isn't a 'class' interest all of its own, as you're purporting. It's *anti-oppression* in its struggle, which may or may not also be *class conscious*.


I agree that a movement isnt a class. I am talking about certain roles in the production, that sets the political agenda through an ideology that benefits their class interests.
#15191142
Potemkin wrote:
'Medievalism' literally refers to the "Middle Ages", which is an exclusively European concept, referring to the period between the collapse of the western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and the early modern era beginning in about 1500 AD. It has no meaning in the rest of the world.



Incorrect -- you seem to think that feudalism / medievalism is *not* a general historical phenomenon, when in fact it *wasn't limited* to only Europe:



Under the Chou Dynasty, from the 11th century BC, kings delegated much of their power to 100 or so local rulers in a system often described as ‘feudalism’ (making parallels with Medieval Europe),13 although some historians claim what existed was a version of Marx’s ‘Asiatic society’, not feudalism, since texts relate that the organisation of agriculture was not based on individual peasant plots. Rather, administrative direction regulated ‘common peasants in their daily life’—not just their work, but also their ‘marriages, festivals and assemblies’.14 The peasant was told each year what crop to plant, when to sow and when to harvest. He could be ordered to leave his winter home for the fields, or to leave the fields and shut himself up in his home.15 In any case, the history of the Chou Dynasty was one of almost incessant warfare between the rival lords.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 54-55



---


Potemkin wrote:
China in the 3rd century BC, when The Book of Zhuangzi was written, was not in any sort of "medieval" period.



Right -- we covered this already:


Potemkin wrote:
No, it's Primitivism. One of the (multiple) authors of the Book of Zhuangzi is called "the Primitivist", and he was, as the name suggests, the ancient Chinese version of @QatzelOk. Lol.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah.



---


Potemkin wrote:
In fact, China has never had what we would call a "medieval" period. The imperial system, with various ups and downs, survived until the early 20th century. It's as though the western Roman Empire had never fallen. To accuse the Primitivist author of (parts of) The Book of Zhuangzi of "rural medievalism" is therefore Eurocentric. Embarrassingly so, in fact. :)



Again, we covered this already -- you're flogging a dead horse.
#15191144
boomerintown wrote:
Agreed, they probably have value for somebody. But my point is that for the larger economic production, relevant for the working class, nurses, teachers and so on their jobs are not adding anything.



This isn't empirically correct.

The government (and the private sector) provide *many* services like nursing, teaching, etc., which have *production costs*, namely *wage labor*, and so are therefore economic *commodities*, just like any *transportation*, utilities, etc.


boomerintown wrote:
I also agree, they consists of a very small portion of the overall economy, but I think they are significant in setting the political agenda.



I don't think that professional nurses and teachers are really *setting the political tone* for the government from their professional positions -- really it's the *other way around*, since their positions are *funded* by government expenditures.


boomerintown wrote:
Therefore, if you want an agenda for the ordinary people I think it is important to signal that this is not a movement for the woke, urban, middle class with these kinds of jobs. This is a movement that wants nothing to do with identity politics.



'Identity politics' isn't automatically a *bad word*, though there's plenty to criticize about it. Identity politics, like *any* politics, is actually *relative* depending on the context, so that it's *historically progressive* compared to strict *nationalism*, due to its politics of cultural *diversity*, though it's historically *regressive* compared to explicitly expressed *working class* interests for better wages and benefits.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


boomerintown wrote:
I agree that a movement isnt a class. I am talking about certain roles in the production, that sets the political agenda through an ideology that benefits their class interests.



Again I think you're overstating the influence of *trade union* politics -- trade unions have their own *separatist* material interests in their 'middleman' role of mediating between the working class interests of *workers*, and the ruling-class interests of *corporate management*.
#15191146
Under the Chou Dynasty, from the 11th century BC, kings delegated much of their power to 100 or so local rulers in a system often described as ‘feudalism’ (making parallels with Medieval Europe),13 although some historians claim what existed was a version of Marx’s ‘Asiatic society’, not feudalism, since texts relate that the organisation of agriculture was not based on individual peasant plots. Rather, administrative direction regulated ‘common peasants in their daily life’—not just their work, but also their ‘marriages, festivals and assemblies’.14 The peasant was told each year what crop to plant, when to sow and when to harvest. He could be ordered to leave his winter home for the fields, or to leave the fields and shut himself up in his home.15 In any case, the history of the Chou Dynasty was one of almost incessant warfare between the rival lords.

So not "medievalism" then. Lol.
#15191151
Potemkin wrote:
So not "medievalism" then. Lol.



Why so *argumentative*, Potemkin -- ?

You're *splitting hairs* here, really, in your attempts to distinguish 'medievalism' from 'feudalism'.

As Harman notes, the Chou Dynasty was *feudalism*, which paralleled medieval / feudal Europe.
#15191159
ckaihatsu wrote:Here's a diagram, if it helps at all -- *idealism*, philosophically, is thinking that *ideas* shape history, while actual real-world material dynamics don't. Those who think in terms of *idealism* are far more likely to overlook *material developments* because they're stuck trying to balance-out 'competing ideas' in a *void*.

Imagine a type of human life that involves looking at ideas on a screen all day, while the *real world* is hidden behind the curtains of your work-at-home workspace.

Imagine a childhood spent mainly interacting with fictional characters on a screen.

This is how far *language* has gone in replacing actual human thoughts and feelings. We even throw away our own bodies and health to interact with simulacra all day. This is a sickness, and untreated mass sickness is likely to end badly.

All our elites can offer us is distraction and scapegoats, which are just more *language* and more fakeness.
#15191162
QatzelOk wrote:
Imagine a type of human life that involves looking at ideas on a screen all day, while the *real world* is hidden behind the curtains of your work-at-home workspace.

Imagine a childhood spent mainly interacting with fictional characters on a screen.

This is how far *language* has gone in replacing actual human thoughts and feelings. We even throw away our own bodies and health to interact with simulacra all day. This is a sickness, and untreated mass sickness is likely to end badly.



No, sorry, but all of this is just too *granular* -- you remind me of Deepak Chopra's approach to *science*, which is to only look at quantum physics to the exclusion of all else.

Likewise you're critiquing *the means* (digital technologies) without addressing the overarching 'superstructural' ruling-class-hegemonic *culture* at all.

Where do you think the 'ideas on a screen' *come from*, exactly -- ? Yes, the *real world*, by merely *extending* class relations into networked media.


QatzelOk wrote:
All our elites can offer us is distraction and scapegoats, which are just more *language* and more fakeness.



Okay, this is more-to-the-point.
#15191166
ckaihatsu wrote:Why so *argumentative*, Potemkin -- ?

You're *splitting hairs* here, really, in your attempts to distinguish 'medievalism' from 'feudalism'.

As Harman notes, the Chou Dynasty was *feudalism*, which paralleled medieval / feudal Europe.

That's not what that text you regurgitated actually said, @ckaihatsu. You used a poor choice of words, that's all. Easily done, we've all been there, &c &c. Let's just move on. Lol.
#15191174
Potemkin wrote:
That's not what that text you regurgitated actually said, @ckaihatsu. You used a poor choice of words, that's all. Easily done, we've all been there, &c &c. Let's just move on. Lol.



If you want to 'move on', try not-leaving anything around that one might take-issue with. All you have left now is *insults*, is that it -- ?
#15191176
ckaihatsu wrote:If you want to 'move on', try not-leaving anything around that one might take-issue with. All you have left now is *insults*, is that it -- ?

Hey, I'm a smartarse. You know I always have to have the last word. :)
#15191178
Potemkin wrote:
Hey, I'm a smartarse. You know I always have to have the last word. :)



You and everyone else in politics. (grin)

'Hey, all *I* know is that I just wandered in here from Sociology. What're you all doing?' (me) (grin)
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 18
Peking at bubbles

The thing @ingliz is missing is that in the wes[…]

Oriental Madness: MOSCOW WANTS BALTIC STATES TO CO[…]

The video does not address Greta Thunberg pionts[…]

Can't you move your RV around, using a towbar? […]