Oligarchy

[sober_teacher]

if most of the people are in desperate straits and have absolutely nothing to lose like in the french revolution setting that could certainly happen. but is america really populated mostly by poor people? do poor people in america have no access to resources from the state?

is it unreasonable to posit that wealth disparity is a problem only if most people have nothing and there is no economic "floor"?

This is a rational post…most people are not rational.

Not the least of the reasons far left people have aggravated so many is that in their push to make things better, they are unable to acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made, and/or that they aren’t going to get everything they want. On the right side, it’s aggravating to the non right wingers who are likewise angry at changes to their world and / or that there is more than one possible solution to the problems they see.

For all the gripes and complaining we see here, in social media, various echo chambers, etc., the one consistent failure out there is that we aren’t nearly in the dire straits to either extreme that people want to believe.

 

[Aardvark86]

This is a rational post…most people are not rational.

Not the least of the reasons far left people have aggravated so many is that in their push to make things better, they are unable to acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made, and/or that they aren’t going to get everything they want. On the right side, it’s aggravating to the non right wingers who are likewise angry at changes to their world and / or that there is more than one possible solution to the problems they see.

For all the gripes and complaining we see here, in social media, various echo chambers, etc., the one consistent failure out there is that we aren’t nearly in the dire straits to either extreme that people want to believe.

and particularly so relative to rest-of-world

 

[Jerome Silberman]

if most of the people are in desperate straits and have absolutely nothing to lose like in the french revolution setting that could certainly happen. but is america really populated mostly by poor people? do poor people in america have no access to resources from the state?

is it unreasonable to posit that wealth disparity is a problem only if most people have nothing and there is no economic "floor"?

also @Moral i know you are a thoughtful person as well and share @ping72 's viewpoint, so i would appreciate if you weigh in when you can. i am not suggesting things are great as is but revolution to me seems a bit much.

I think it would be mistake to assume that being destitute is the measure of a breaking point for radicals.

In fact, I think the continued attitude of "it's not that bad" which is coming from both political parties risks further inciting the disfranchized.

 

[desihawk]

CEO pay has increased close to 1000% since 1980. Worker pay has increased 10%. So yeah, there's a helluva lot of ripping of the American worker going on. Again, since Reagan and his BS trickle down. They lied and have laughed all the way to the bank.

theoretically it would definitely be nicer if more wealth trickled down...certainly i wouldn't object if i got paid better. but if you have access to food (expensive or not) shelter and entertainment are you really open to taking the risk of upending the system in the name of fairness?

 

[Hans81]

To the posters that ‘laugh’ at the post, what’s so funny? Is it not true what Sanders is saying?

Colonel Sanders doesn’t even know what oligarchy means. 🥴

 

[McLovin32]

Solid thread, would read again

 

[Hans81]

There is a big difference between giving someone a medal and giving someone a cabinet position because of how much money they have or have donated.

Which cabinet position(s) are those?

 

[Aardvark86]

I think it would be mistake to assume that being destitute is the measure of a breaking point for radicals.

In fact, I think the continued attitude of "it's not that bad" which is coming from both political parties risks further inciting the disfranchized.

an interesting take that has me pondering my 19th century russian history. A near century-long history of aristo-intellectual radicals proclaiming the breaking point was imminent...to no avail. Not to get too Marxist about it, but that was because the socioeconomic superstructures were actually pretty stable. It took the greatest conflict in human history (to that point) to upset that particular apple cart.

By contrast (or similarity), in this country, notwithstanding the fabulous wealth of the oligarchs, every ounce of the socioeconomic structure and messaging (including advertising, entertainment, and frankly, the job market, and not to mention our entire cultural history as a country) continues to highlight and support the acknowledgement of a pathway/opportunity to something better. Maybe not Elon Musk better, but better nonetheless. I wouldn't hold my breath for the revolution just yet.

 

[Hans81]

This is one of those don’t hate the player, hate the game situations.

Because of citizens united, money is paramount when it comes to winning elections.

Kind of like NIL $ in college sports…the rich get richer. Most don’t like it, but it’s the system we’re under.

 

[sober_teacher]

Kind of like NIL $ in college sports…the rich get richer. Most don’t like it, but it’s the system we’re under.

In both situations, I’d just like to see a set of rules that everyone would agree to live by.

The amount of money/influence being exerted by the uber-rich on our political system would not seem to me to be sustainable in the long run.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

an interesting take that has me pondering 19th century russian history. A near century-long history of intellectual radicals proclaiming the breaking point was imminent...to no avail. Not to get too Marxist about it, but that was because the socioeconomic superstructures were actually pretty stable. It took the greatest conflict in human history (to that point) to upset that particular apple cart.

By contrast, in this country, notwithstanding the fabulous wealth of the oligarchs, every ounce of the socioeconomic structure and messaging (including advertising, entertainment, and frankly, the job market, and not to mention our entire history as a country) continues to highlight and support the acknowledgement of a pathway/opportunity to something better. Maybe not Elon Musk better, but better nonetheless. I wouldn't hold my breath for the revolution just yet.

Revolution isn't the only outlet for angry citizens that believe they are disenfranchised or that their entire system of government is corrupt/illegitimate and the game board has changed dramatically.

Technology is allowing for the organization of extremist groups while also casting incredible doubt as to what our role in the workforce will be. No amount of telling people to calm down is going to help at this point, especially when it we are being led by a demogouge that has already failed so many times at talking his people off the ledge.

It's not dramitcs to acknowledge the rancor in society or that there have already been a series of low level brush fires in the last decade.

 

[Hans81]

Honest question: Do you like that corps or very wealthy people can buy/have influence in elections?

I don't want corps or wealthy Ds or Rs to be able to have influence. Get $$$ out so it's a more even playing field. This is also the reason only a small group of people can run and win elections. Playing field needs to be leveled out to see change.

What would you propose to “fix” it? I suppose term limits for all politicians would be a start? How about $ limits on how much campaign $ politicians can raise? 🤔 Also, how about reducing gov’t spending, along with rooting out fraud? If only there was a group of independent people running a department of government efficient to check into such. 😳

 

[luvmyhawks]

I'd start with eliminating PACS, Super PACS and Citizens United. Go back to basics on contribution limits to higher office especially congressional and presidential candidates. Then, go back to public funding of these elections so all candidates had the same pool of money and would have to run on a platform vs trying to just outspend/buy elections.

Then, set term limits for congress. Eliminate gerrymandering by having districts set up similar to how Iowa does things to better level the playing field and force representatives to run on a platform vs just using money or party affiliation.

Love it. Get rid of all lobbyists. Every single one. It just shouldn’t be allowed. Make every single law maker have to verify any and all bank accounts, investment accounts, etc, etc.. track any and all investments made. all conflicts of interest should be eliminated. I just cannot understand how this isn’t the case already. It’s mind blowing. Every dime of their wealth should be traced.

I would also love to see R’s and D’s removed from their platforms and names. I know it will never happen, but I just want to hear your platform. I don’t care what your party is.

It’s all wishful thinking and frankly, complete bullshit. It’s why I can’t stand politics anymore.

 

[WSC72]

Ok, bear with me.....


I think I can provide a pretty good example of how "politicians" were able to make money while us peasants were literally blocked, by them, from doing so. Admittedly as part of this I have to admit to kind of being a POS.


If you remember, early in the Russia/Ukraine war the Russian ruble was down to NOTHING, like I made the joke "I'm thinking about just buying a shit ton to let my daughter play with"... so I looked into it... and we were blocked from buying it, we may still be. That made me go down a rabbit hole a little. I get why we were blocked, on paper, my investment would have been funding a Russian war effort ( see pos), but at the exact same time our "tax dollars" or items our tax dollars were spent on, were being shipped somewhere with the expectation that our contractors, whom the politicians have knowledge of, would profit from the rebuild or restock. So even though I could look at it and find a opportunity way above standard ROI, I was blocked out, and they were using "my money" to inevitably put money in their pockets.



That to me, when they took away my ability to invest in a market, was abuse of power or.whatever.

How do they get away with stuff like that?

You answered your own question Whiskey, good post, and great insight actually.

 

[Hans81]

In both situations, I’d just like to see a set of rules that everyone would agree to live by.

The amount of money/influence being exerted by the uber-rich on our political system would not seem to me to be sustainable in the long run.

Agreed

 

[Aardvark86]

Revolution isn't the only outlet for angry citizens that believe they are disenfranchised or that their entire system of government is corrupt/illegitimate and the game board has changed dramatically.

Technology is allowing for the organization of extremist groups while also casting incredible doubt as to what our role in the workforce will be. No amount of telling people to calm down is going to help at this point, especially when it we are being led by a demogouge that has already failed so many times at talking his people off the ledge.

It's not dramitcs to acknowledge the rancor in society or that there have already been a series of low level brush fires in the last decade.

No one is denying the rancor in society (though some deny that it comes from both extremes). To your point (I think), I guess I see three options (which, as I think about it, are actually very ordinary and cyclical in our history and were described by SP Huntington about 40 years ago): (i) complacency/cynicism, i.e., sort of getting on with living your life without regard to what's going on in "the system"; (ii) continuing to participate in the system, i.e., 'the good fight" of participatory politics where you win some, lose some; and (iii) paradigm resets, which take the form of either a revolution or radical reform. The thing is, while most our paradigm resets have tended to go in one "direction" there's nothing to suggest that's either exclusive or should be inevitable.

 

[Ree4]

What would you propose to “fix” it? I suppose term limits for all politicians would be a start? How about $ limits on how much campaign $ politicians can raise? 🤔 Also, how about reducing gov’t spending, along with rooting out fraud? If only there was a group of independent people running a department of government efficient to check into such. 😳

Plenty of countries do publicly funded elections. Each candidate is given a certain amount of air time (if we're talking network TV) to share their platform and policies. The US spent almost $16 billion to blast you with ads last fall, I'd be happy to see that go away.

Congressfolk and senators spend 1/3 of their time just fundraising, I'd rather have them focus on things that matter instead of trying to please their donors.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

No one is denying the rancor in society (though some deny that it comes from both extremes). To your point (I think), I guess I see three options (which, as I think about it, are actually very ordinary and cyclical in our history and were described by SP Huntington about 40 years ago): (i) complacency/cynicism, i.e., sort of getting on with living your life without regard to what's going on in "the system"; (ii) continuing to participate in the system, i.e., 'the good fight" of participatory politics where you win some, lose some; and (iii) paradigm resets, which take the form of either a revolution or radical reform. The thing is, while most our paradigm resets have tended to go in one "direction" there's nothing to suggest that's either exclusive or should be inevitable.

I appreciate the mile-high historical perspective, but I don't think recognizing generations long cycles is going to mitigate the pain here and now. I also acknowledge that a lot of people here and in general are done or almost done with their productive years and have the luxury of a more scientific/observational approach. The rest of us will be left with dealing with the actual events, many of which are already contributing to destabililization, and unnecessary death and destruction.

 

[Tom Paris]

This is a rational post…most people are not rational.

Not the least of the reasons far left people have aggravated so many is that in their push to make things better, they are unable to acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made, and/or that they aren’t going to get everything they want. On the right side, it’s aggravating to the non right wingers who are likewise angry at changes to their world and / or that there is more than one possible solution to the problems they see.

For all the gripes and complaining we see here, in social media, various echo chambers, etc., the one consistent failure out there is that we aren’t nearly in the dire straits to either extreme that people want to believe.

Wait...we are NOT to the radical right in our country? Our government is not about to be controlled by moderates. It's again, carrying a cross, wrapped in a flag Christo-fascism. Almost every single moderate Republican has bent the knee to the leader of the radical right.

 

[Tom Paris]

theoretically it would definitely be nicer if more wealth trickled down...certainly i wouldn't object if i got paid better. but if you have access to food (expensive or not) shelter and entertainment are you really open to taking the risk of upending the system in the name of fairness?

I don't think fairness is the proper term but eventually the peasants will have had enough. I seriously struggle to believe we actually have to have this conversation. In the USA. Things imploded starting in 2016 with the conman. We are repeating history. IN AMERICA. Incredible.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

This is a rational post…most people are not rational.

Not the least of the reasons far left people have aggravated so many is that in their push to make things better, they are unable to acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made, and/or that they aren’t going to get everything they want. On the right side, it’s aggravating to the non right wingers who are likewise angry at changes to their world and / or that there is more than one possible solution to the problems they see.

For all the gripes and complaining we see here, in social media, various echo chambers, etc., the one consistent failure out there is that we aren’t nearly in the dire straits to either extreme that people want to believe.

I don't think there is any rule stating that a nation or government needs to slide to an extreme on a political scale for corruption and violence to cause destabilizing effects.

 

[Huey Grey]

We already voted for a destabilized government. Rs went all in on chaos and they did it during record stock markets, really good job production, and really good growth rates.

 

[sober_teacher]

Wait...we are NOT to the radical right in our country? Our government is not about to be controlled by moderates. It's again, carrying a cross, wrapped in a flag Christo-fascism. Almost every single moderate Republican has bent the knee to the leader of the radical right.

I don't think there is any rule stating that a nation or government needs to slide to an extreme on a political scale for corruption and violence to cause destabilizing effects.

No arguments to that. Trump is the personification of the rights reaction to the perception that radical, socialist, progressive, whatever’s have taken over the country. Much of the political history of this country is a reaction to similar perceptions in the past.

The question now is how far to the right will the pendulum swing, and how far will it swing back? The first term saw a surge by democrats in ‘18 in reaction to Trump, will we see a similar pushback in two years?

 

[Sullivan]

Given that Kamala spent nearly $2 billion on her campaign, and still managed to lose (despite the liberal media), it seems like the current system is ok.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/kamala-harris/candidate?id=N00036915

 

[Tom Paris]

No arguments to that. Trump is the personification of the rights reaction to the perception that radical, socialist, progressive, whatever’s have taken over the country. Much of the political history of this country is a reaction to similar perceptions in the past.

The question now is how far to the right will the pendulum swing, and how far will it swing back? The first term saw a surge by democrats in ‘18 in reaction to Trump, will we see a similar pushback in two years?

That's the argument within the Democratic Party...trying to be moderate just lost them an election. Moderate Democrat isn't going to gain them any Republican voters so should they go all in on Healthcare for all, for example? I have heard Democrats argue both - appease the moderates or say screw it, let's push the agenda we really want since the FAR RIGHT has won the Republican Party. Ultimately, I don't believe it's going to matter, though I am interested to see what happens in the midterms if the Dems can take back the House or Senate. Otherwise 2028 is already decided.

 

[Huey Grey]

That's the argument within the Democratic Party...trying to be moderate just lost them an election. Moderate Democrat isn't going to gain them any Republican voters so should they go all in on Healthcare for all, for example? I have heard Democrats argue both - appease the moderates or say screw it, let's push the agenda we really want since the FAR RIGHT has won the Republican Party. Ultimately, I don't believe it's going to matter, though I am interested to see what happens in the midterms if the Dems can take back the House or Senate. Otherwise 2028 is already decided.

Moderation can't compete with extremism. You can't have someone trying to light your wife on fire and tell them that maybe merely burning her with a cigarette lighter is a better option.

 

[Scruddy]

Kind of ironic seeing Bernie and Biden warning of the oligarchy, considering they both stepped down at the behest of the oligarchists.

100% this

 

[BonzoFury]

Stop with this stupid shit. Musk and Vivek are not unicorns. They exist and have a seat at the table. Soros didn't.

His son made quarterly visits to the White House which are documented in visitor logs. Did he just like the tours?

 

[Huey Grey]

His son made quarterly visits to the White House which are documented in visitor logs. Did he just like the tours?

Did he have his own office? Did he have his own version of DOGE? Did he sit in on phone calls with foreign governments?

 

[BonzoFury]

We don’t know, but he certainly went there for more than tea. Point is the idea that influence by the wealthy is something new is ridiculous. It’s been this way for years under both parties…usually more discreet, but always there.

But as is often the case, it’s only a foul when the other guy does it.

 

[NoleATL]

I didn't laugh at the post. But how is this a new phenomenon? Haven't the wealthiest humans always had incredible political influence?

It seems to me that much more influence has been consolidated into much fewer uber rich ppl. I don't have a disdain for wealthy people but I do think billionaires are becoming a problem. Buying and influencing social media, news media etc...

 

[Moral]

if most of the people are in desperate straits and have absolutely nothing to lose like in the french revolution setting that could certainly happen. but is america really populated mostly by poor people? do poor people in america have no access to resources from the state?

is it unreasonable to posit that wealth disparity is a problem only if most people have nothing and there is no economic "floor"?

also @Moral i know you are a thoughtful person as well and share @ping72 's viewpoint, so i would appreciate if you weigh in when you can. i am not suggesting things are great as is but revolution to me seems a bit much.

For me, there will have to be a few more changes that hit regular people where it hurts. If they do manage to scale back social programs nearly as much as they want to it will become more apparent to the masses. There is a large percentage of Americans that are straddling the line of poverty and destitution. If you look at the reaction to Luigi in the nation then you will see that the animosity is already there. At this point for a great deal of people consider him a folk hero.

I also believe the messaging is right there to call out what is going on here. Nowadays more than just a few fringe posters and myself use the word and oligarch. Talks of income inequality, and wage stagnation will keep sneaking into the mainstream.

On the right a portion of those people took a field trip to DC to hang the VP. Their anger was misplaced, and has the potential to to change directions.

The stage is set, and I don't think it would, if it ever passes, look like a traditional revolution.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

No arguments to that. Trump is the personification of the rights reaction to the perception that radical, socialist, progressive, whatever’s have taken over the country. Much of the political history of this country is a reaction to similar perceptions in the past.

The question now is how far to the right will the pendulum swing, and how far will it swing back? The first term saw a surge by democrats in ‘18 in reaction to Trump, will we see a similar pushback in two years?

I don't think we will. Fear rules the roost in the GOP and if anything, more people have bought into the canard.

The guys supported literally wanted to hang his VP for doing what was right. IMO, it will get way worse before it gets better.

 

[sober_teacher]

That's the argument within the Democratic Party...trying to be moderate just lost them an election. Moderate Democrat isn't going to gain them any Republican voters so should they go all in on Healthcare for all, for example? I have heard Democrats argue both - appease the moderates or say screw it, let's push the agenda we really want since the FAR RIGHT has won the Republican Party. Ultimately, I don't believe it's going to matter, though I am interested to see what happens in the midterms if the Dems can take back the House or Senate. Otherwise 2028 is already decided.

IMO, Dems have been losing on messaging, not policy.

 

[Aardvark86]

I appreciate the mile-high historical perspective, but I don't think recognizing generations long cycles is going to mitigate the pain here and now. I also acknowledge that a lot of people here and in general are done or almost done with their productive years and have the luxury of a more scientific/observational approach. The rest of us will be left with dealing with the actual events, many of which are already contributing to destabililization, and unnecessary death and destruction.

I guess i'm just puzzled at what you're predicting. For my part, I just dont think we're anywhere near destabilization, revolution, death, destruction, or the like, and part of the reason for that is that I am, in fact, a little older, and have seen enough predictions of death, destruction, revolution, destabilization and the like to know that they're almost always rhetoric. At worst, we're in a paradigm shift in terms of how we balance our mix of values, but i'm not sure if it's a shift like the 60s or a shift like the 80s. We've designed and built a really really big ship here that simply doesn't turn on a dime.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Bernie Sanders is one to talk with all his lake houses. This is why people like Luigi exist.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

The people you're asking are ideologically impaired. They have no idea why they are "laughing".

Of course it's not true what Bernie is saying..

 

[Sullivan]

It seems to me that much more influence has been consolidated into much fewer uber rich ppl. I don't have a disdain for wealthy people but I do think billionaires are becoming a problem. Buying and influencing social media, news media etc...

Up until now, the D's didn't have any motivation for buying anymore news media. They have controlled nearly all of them -- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. Over the past 4 years, this same media was in cahoots with the Biden administration. They they couldn't ever ask a question in a Press Conference without it being submitted in advance so that the answers could be written out. Joe would then only ask questions in the order the answers were written, because Joe is a moron.

Suddenly, Elan buys Twitter, and the D's are screaming fire.

 

[ping72]

if most of the people are in desperate straits and have absolutely nothing to lose like in the french revolution setting that could certainly happen. but is america really populated mostly by poor people? do poor people in america have no access to resources from the state?

is it unreasonable to posit that wealth disparity is a problem only if most people have nothing and there is no economic "floor"?

also @Moral i know you are a thoughtful person as well and share @ping72 's viewpoint, so i would appreciate if you weigh in when you can. i am not suggesting things are great as is but revolution to me seems a bit much.

I think a lot of people are greatly out of touch how bad things are for people under the age of about 40.

In the 1960s, a sixty-year-old was only slightly more likely to own a home than a 35-year-old. Now 75% sixty-year-olds own a home and barely 50% of thirty-five-year-olds do and it’s trending down.

Let’s look at a city in a red state, Dallas. Dallas is barely in the top 10 most expensive cities in the US. Still, the 2BR apartment average price is $2135 per month. So after taxes, you need to make about $15.25/hour JUST to pay rent, not including ANY other bills. The average hourly wage in Dallas is just over $26/hour for all ages, it’s surely less for younger people. That leaves barely $1000 per month for every other bill that they have: food, car, gas, etc. My family of four rarely eats out, and we spend probably close to $800 a month on food. A restaurant is $100 for a single meal at a cheaper place.

Also look at birth rates in the US. They are plummeting. Birth rates have always been an indicator of financial security. People are not having kids because they can’t afford them.

Basically anybody who did not already own a house 15 or 20 years ago is very likely to be in a tough spot.

 

[uihawk82]

And you’ve been reduced to a serf …..with a house…….one or more cars……a computer…….a smart phone……a smart TV…… right?

Can you read and understand English!!!!! I said workers were like serfs in the late 1800s until the great depression or at least until they got unionized and there were better work laws put in place. I suppose there were no sweat shops, child labor abuses, company housing and grocery stores in the company towns that just ate up all their wages.

You dont know jack shit about anything.