[1] They're only victims if they go too far, trigger civil unrest, and wind up on the losing side of the guillotine.
"I must Create a System, or be enslav'd by another Man's" -William Blake
We haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies, so we're stuck with the least worst system, but I would note that globalisation has actually raised living standards in many countries from India to China, in spite of, or perhaps because of its deleterious effects. People always want to hoard wealth (almost everyone does this, even those at the bottom), and it's hard to change that. It remains to be seen whether we can effectively temper human desires and spread that wealth and not end up in dystopia, but please don't try to blame things on a secret elite directing a carefully created system - it's a mirage and is not helpful. There are many contending forces vying for prominence in our societies, and in many ways corporations are more powerful than people or politicians (NB a corporation is not a CEO, it is a composite body).
The guillotine you mention was actually far worse for the ordinary people of France than for the aristocracy (many of whom simply fled) - terror and denunciation was used as a weapon on moderate politicians and everyday citizens, and even eventually the chief proponent of its use.
Aside: I wonder what effect increased lifespans will have on hoarding. We know the old horde, will they horde even more?
There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. To some extent this was easier historically, partly because there were fewer laws, but even now, with the legacy of hundreds of years of social and political reform, and a lot of it intended to liberate common people, there are still large distortions in our political systems that significantly mis-allocate power to the already powerful.
I would also take some umbrage with your statement that we "haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies" and your defence of the "least worst system" meme. Whilst there are aspects of the Western socio-political setup that are designed around the (reasonably) fair distribution of wealth, there remains constant pressure against legislation designed to develop the rights of common people in society. Indeed, those interested in reducing those rights are often able to gain popular support for their cause by positioning themselves as defenders of the wealth and power of those people whose wealth has recently increased - i.e. the middle classes, which now form a very significant political power base.
We do know of ways of more fairly distributing the rewards of labour (cooperatives come to mind, as a single example), but they are unpopular in a lot of the West, and if you look back to history you will see that that mentality was actively created to counter threats to vested interests. Ironically the system of laissez-faire capitalism that was adopted to counter these more de-centralised power structures ended up diluting the power base of the "old money" (and was eventually massively scaled back), though it persisted the fundamental inequality in wealth distribution.
I would, however, fully agree with your assertion that these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group. I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word.
N.B. This is obviously a pretty broad sweep based on my interpretation of history - if anyone has any corrections or comments I'd appreciate hearing them.
Sure. But that does not conflict with "emergent structure": There's no need for a cabal at the top consciously arranging the structure of society. Just a bunch of people who are often trying to manipulate things in specific directions, and where a lot of them will have overlapping motivations. From the outside, that can look very much the same.
A lot of the time people are not necessarily even trying to steer things a certain way, but merely looking after their own interests.
E.g. a central idea in marxism is that the capitalist is not really at fault: He's "caught up" in the system just as much as the worker. He is exploiting people working for him, but he does not necessarily intentionally want to oppress. He is merely playing his role, protecting what he sees as his own interests, just like the workers.
And so you get "nice" capitalists, who try to do better, but they can still largely only act within the confines of their role: The only way the capitalist can top oppressing, is by ceasing to be a capitalist. But that is not in his interest, and it is unreasonable to expect the capitalist to willingly do so - he will find every excuse for not giving up his privilege (and many might be good; e.g. it is perfectly possible an individual capitalist might be doing more net good with his profit than it would have if he shared everything equally with his workers). Ultimately, marxism is cynical about human nature: We are all looking out for our own interests; to the extent we do not, it is because we lack awareness of our real interests or position.
Further: "I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word."
I will also reiterate that just because there isn't a genuine conspiracy does not mean, as some (not you, here) conclude, that "the system" is as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved.
I'm not enough of a scholar of Marxism to disagree with your reading of it, but for my own part I would say that people are (obviously in my view) capable of acting in more than their own self interest, unless one insists on almost ridiculous contortions of their motives. This capability for action in the wider good can and should be harnessed by society, and my preference would be for this to take place in step with a broader decentralisation of power (and wealth).
Finally, I think a tiresome strand to this debate (not brought by you) is the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism. I know this view is a little passé, but I really see this as part of a set of propaganda disseminated by the powerful intended to counter challenges to their power. This certainly has historical precedent, and it is pretty clear that similar things happen today, often through support to favourable political parties, which comes with an influence over those parties' message. Of course, lots of other people buy into the propaganda, because it also serves their own (much smaller) interests.
I didn't claim our current system is perfect or uncorrupted (the phrase least worst system clearly points out that our current systems are flawed). I don't think social improvement (however you define that) inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism, but I do think people claiming to have all the answers to creating a fairer society have turned out to be tyrannical more often than not (e.g. Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc), and I prefer the gradual, consensual move to socialism we have in Western Europe (a form of capitalism tempered by social justice and redistribution, far more equitable than in Marx's time for example). Blaming, dehumanising and scapegoating minority groups (the 1%, bankers, etc) to expiate our sins does nothing to help our society become more fair, quite the reverse.
The last century under moderated capitalism has seen much progress in conditions of work in the western world, and even recently in the developing world, and this in spite of the selfishness inherent in capitalism which you would think would tend to ever-increasing centralisation of power and wealth if left unchecked - I find that an interesting contradiction.
If people want to debate redistribution, what fair means, how to moderate capitalism or replace it and how to make our societies more fair that's (in my view) a useful debate, but diatribes about a shadowy conspiracy of a 1% elite spanning centuries are not productive, because they're not going to make people face with sober senses their real conditions of life, and their relations with others in society.
I wasn't referring to you when I indicated that some conclude that the system is "as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved", nor was I suggesting that you subscribe to "the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of totalitarianism". In both cases I was speaking about the opinions I encounter in this debate more generally.
As to the point you make in your second paragraph; it strikes me that the improvement in living standards is more to do with improvements in technology and political freedom than it is to do with the way our economy is organised. The idea that we owe these improvements to the economic structure is, however, prevalent; sometimes the idea is modified to say that the technological advancement we have enjoyed would have been impossible without the economic system we have.
Both forms of this idea fail to recognise that there have been numerous burst of technological and social advancement that haven't relied upon capitalism (e.g. the Romans, but also basically every civilisation in history), unless of course you broaden the definition of capitalism so much to include almost any commercial system, and both fail to offer evidence that capitalism was causal of, rather than merely temporally correlated with, the improvements in living standards. The negative evidence available, about systems which have historically been anti-correlated with progress (like the ones you mentioned), only covers a narrow range of possibilities, and are difficult to generalise from.
I should note that I'm strongly inclined to believe that there was a causal link between capitalism and the success of the industrial revolution and the things that followed (i.e. it was sufficient), but I am far less convinced that the form of capitalism used, which strongly concentrated power, was necessary, and I think that it is deleterious to broader society.
I, like you, "prefer the gradual, consensual move to socialism we have in Western Europe". This is a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly, and I find these ideas of conspiracy very boring, but I'm still wary of the notion that we should pretend that no one has an interest in concentrating power and wealth, and maintain the status quo. My reading of history, and the present, is that people do have such interests, and that they use both their power and their wealth to secure their positions. I fail to see why this is particularly controversial, except that it suggests moral culpability for actions that have, for a long time, been lauded.
I can see that you are not arguing to maintain the status quo, but I hope you recognise that the greater social justice in modern capitalism, which is constantly under attack from the right, was fought for over long periods. The rights we enjoy today were not given to us by the benevolence of our leaders.
Sorry for the long post! ;-)
That referred to the post which started this thread.
In both cases I was speaking about the opinions I encounter in this debate more generally.
Ok, I'm not sure there's much point in debating general opinion; it makes it very confusing if you attempt to debate interlocutors of your own invention.
I'm still wary of the notion that we should pretend that no one has an interest in concentrating power and wealth, and maintain the status quo. My reading of history, and the present, is that people do have such interests
Everyone has this interest, whether they have power and wealth presently or not, and whether they admit it or not, and I don't see it as culpable, merely something to be managed. It can even be healthy in small doses, in encouraging competition rather than resignation. I'm not sure many would claim that all progress comes via capitalism, but recent globalisation has resulted in a shift in wealth to countries which are developing due to trade, and I do find the question of how much regulated capitalism has contributed to global levelling an interesting one.
Anyway, it seems to me that we largely agree on the appropriate means to desirable ends - nothing too dramatic.
Thanks for the discussion!
I do love me some Marx on a Friday afternoon!
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
If you think about wealth in this abstracted sense, a notch away from money, then you can see how basic trading dynamics might apply.
Yakovenko modelled the trading dynamics in a perfect game of chance (coin flips determine winners and losers). Something interesting emerged.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/7/075032
What it shows is that if everyone starts with the same amount of money, after a bit of random trading, their wealth is normally distributed (this is obvious if you are familiar with the binomial distribution). A few people are doing well, a few are doing badly, and most people are around where they started. As the trading continues though, it turns into a power curve where most people are doing badly and a few are taking everything. Its the same thing that happens when a rich man sits down at a poor man's poker table. He can keep putting him all in on every good hand and he only needs to be right maybe 1 in ten times and he wins everything. There's a runaeay effect after you hit a certain point.
Of course, things are a lot messier at this higher level interpretation of wealth since its harder to attach numbers to wealth in the form of political power, good health, and other factors which have a compounding effect (good health and political power help you make more money, but they cost money, so there's a feedback loop, but you xan equate them for simplicity). This is why people complain about a shrinking middle class.
The good news is that human life is messy we often allow our relationships to balance things out. The bad news is that we have gotten better and better at sterilizing our social and physical environments so the past might not predict what's coming next.