Do you have any faith in democracy? For my reckoning, it's the great equaliser. Rich people can lobby all they like, but if the people are starving, they vote for change.
Still, I think they learned their lesson and they'll have a primary next time. People will get to vote on a candidate they like. We should also remember that the Presidency is just one arm of government. Elections are also happening for the House, Senate, and local government of all shapes and sizes.
In the past few terms we have very bitterly learned that the President just does whatever he wants, the House doesn't do anything, and Senate is mostly interested in getting bribed.
The republican party treated him like a joke candidate and the media did too. Similar thing with the tea baggers, a contingent of outsider congressmen elected on the back of Obama being a communist or something.
The left hasn't really had this moment because the left is closer to a catty book club than an army regiment.
A well-funded minority can shape what the majority is angry about.
Historically, if democratic institutions failed, refusing labor to a ruling class has been a first violent step for the laborer class and a preemption against actual physical violence if the ruling class overstepped. However, we are seeing that possibility being taken away step by step. This leaves only physically violent uprising as a means of protesting overstep, and it is not obvious how effective that will be given the massive power imbalance between the labor class and ruling class.
So to put it succinctly, no I don’t have faith that democracies will solve this issue, because democracies only work when there is some semblance of equilibrium.
However, what I was trying to convey is that voting is not inherently something that holds sway over anything. Votes are sort of like the currency of democracy, and like currency they need to be backed by something. U.S dollars are backed by the countries capacity to physically control strategic resources like oil, land, etc. (I.e., the U.S capacity for violently controlling resources), or emit soft-power (swaying other countries to their benefit).
Votes in a similar fashion are also backed by your ability to deny or inflict your personal power on the system you are a a part of. The clearest manifestation of that power being your ability to contribute to the institution as a whole. If we significantly reduced that capacity, or made it unnecessary for the continuation of the current system, then the power of that vote is reduced in-kind.
I would frame "withholding labour as violence" as more as labor flexing its power nonviolently. Violent action is also a way of flexing power, but more extreme.
> I also don't follow the logic that workers must use violence to enact change.
I think they need to use power, which is not necessarily violent.
> Why don't they just vote for change?
At least in the US, democratic institutions are dysfunctional and there are techniques the ruling class can use to neutralize the threat they pose (e.g. propaganda, divide-and-conquer). For instance, I think the combination of "culture war issues," [1] campaign contributions, and well-funded special-interest think tanks means neither US political party will take effective action to answer the threat of AI to the livelihoods of most people. You might see some campaign rhetoric and window-dressing bills, but nothing that will really threaten AI special interests.
[1] I think the practical purpose of "culture war issues" is to fragment the working class by alienating a significant fractions from each other. IMHO, if the Democratic party was serious about representing labor, it would call a truce on them (either significantly compromise or table the issues), but it's not serious, so they continue to divide.
That falls cleanly in the realm of a violent act, unless you disagree with that definition of violence, or my interpretation of the quote. I suppose you could interpret it as only applying to physical violence, but I don’t think anyone would agree that psychological or emotional violence simply don’t exist.
Your interpretation seems like it's overbroad and contradicting typical usage. I don't think "refusing to cooperate" (except in some very narrow circumstances) should ever be considered violence, because that definition is in itself coercive. For instance, if quitting my job will cause my boss's business to fail (causing him "psychological harm... or deprivation", because he won't be able to make payments on his boat anymore), am I committing violence against him? Should I be force to work for him to avoid that "violence"? I don't think so.
My guess is you're interpreting "deprivation" very broadly and literally, when it's probably being used in a narrower technical sense. Either that or the definition you quote is nonsense [1].
[1] Which is entirely possible. Nowadays it seems to be a pretty common manipulative tactic to collapse a spectrum of meaning onto the most extreme term, as if words used to describe something controls what it is.
Being forced to do work is violence yes? Slavery precisely. Why can’t you be forced to work? Because you’re protected against it, only because you have the capacity for violence, or at the very least the benefit of promised violence. Otherwise you could be coerced to do anything as you would have no recourse.
We have laws that protect us from coercion, both physical and otherwise. Those laws only exist because of promises of retaliation if they are not adhered to. So yes, refusing labor is a violent act (or at the very least, violence by proxy).
Perhaps I should say “refusing labor with the expectation of not being assaulted or killed, is a violent act”.
Basically the ruling class's need for labor gave that labor some intrinsic power, but technology like AI will likely remove that need and therefore take the common people's power away.
> This leaves only physically violent uprising as a means of protesting overstep, and it is not obvious how effective that will be given the massive power imbalance between the labor class and ruling class.
Also things like gun control and new technology like cheap anti-personnel attack drones may undermine the effectiveness of violence against the ruling class, leaving regular people oppressed (or neglected) and helpless.
We are so divided and mislead that I feel confident there is a significant sum of non-ruling class individuals who are completely for their own oppression for no reason other than spiting a perceived “other”.
Some other specific examples that don’t all flow together:
Globalism promised efficiency and a way to materially improve conditions for people as consumers and producers. However it has been used as a cudgel to threaten workers that would ask for more and keep down workers who have no other option. Also pitting working class people against each other for the benefit of a few.
Social media, it promised untold communication between people who would never have been able to communicate before, and it would allow them to spread ideas. Instead it is used as a dumping ground of nonsense information, drowning out any semblance of coherent thought.
I suppose the future you envision is that the government is a) very powerful, b) capable of physically suppressing the majority of 350M people, c) willing to do it, and d) somehow captured by an elite class. It's not impossible, but a lot of things have to go wrong to get there.
> government should be small enough that it fears the people
How would that work when the government controls the military? Would that mean that a country's military has to remain small?
> How would that work when the government controls the military? Would that mean that a country's military has to remain small?
I think what you need is a serious citizen militia that controls its own equipment. IIRC, that's what allowed the American Revolution to work.
If you only have a military of professional soldiers answering to the government, the government will have much less fear of its people.
But I think focusing on government power is far too narrow, because it might so weak the elites (like the wealthy) won't the government either. The government should be small enough that it fears the people, and the wealthy should be poor enough that they fear the people, too.