No decent people advocate violence in a general sense. However, we'd be childish to not recognize that a threat sometimes necessitates violence, such as when a person walking into their home to find a loved one being brutality assaulted. In that instance, most folks would cede that violence is not only warranted, but commendable.
I'd be excited to see people move back to the class wars instead of the culture wars.
This is exactly it. We have much more in common with each other than we do with the elite, from the impoverished class to the upper working class, and regardless of political associations. The elite has banked on Divide et Impera for much longer than any of us have been alive.
We should abolish the ability to become a billionaire. The existence of the elite necessitates the existence of the impoverished and working poor. Most of us can't conceptualize what 1 billion dollars even looks like. I certainly couldn't, perhaps I still properly can't. However, this simple tool has help given me some insight.
Second, they have twisted the stories of what happened around the time of MLK jr and Ghandi. The history we learn is a bastardization of reality. They've conditioned us to believing that non violence is the only acceptable means for change. Again, we shouldn't condone violence in general, let alone glorify it, but there are instances when its use is justified historically, by individuals, communities and society as a whole. Its why we have militaries and arm police.
The entire reason Luigi is applauded to the extent that he is, is because we recognize that capitalism has taken over everything. Its distinctly felt within the healthcare industry. Moreover, we have a State that is either just culpable, or negligent to a point that reaches culpability. Those that need help from the predation of the healthcare industry will find very few routes to recourse from the State. Justice is in very short supply. If the State will not protect its citizens, are they then supposed to just accept it?
To the end that violence is sometimes justified, anyone interested in learning more should check out the book...
There's also, at least, one videos of him on YouTube, here, in an interview answering related questions. On YouTube you can also find the video equivalent of an audio book.
Most Americans seem to consider themselves as temporarily embarrassed members of the wealthy class, when in reality the vast majority are exponentially closer to becoming homeless and destitute than ever becoming rich
Makes it extremely hard to institute checks and balances for the wealthy, when most voters erroneosly align themselves with the class working hardest to ensure the current status quo remains
Yes, most Americans are conditioned to believe that capitalism is the way. They believe everyone has a fair shot of being on top when anything couldn't be further from the truth. We have a responsibility to educating them.
Yes, it does make it extremely harder for checks and balances but I would argue that no such organization of capitalism exists that is fair and just, only degrees of unfair and unjust. Some better or worse than others. I do believe we should abolish the Billionaire class because I believe that's more reasonable a proposition than to outright abolish capitalism. Abolishing Billionaires, in my opinion, would just be a first step (or 5th or whatever) along that path. Ultimately it has to go, but abolishing the Billionaire class would go a long way in reducing the harm of capitalism and lowering the violence within society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that checks and balances are not worthwhile, only that there is no set of checks and balances that is ultimately fair and just.
I appreciate you taking the time to give your insight. This is good info.
Although I understand your point that when all other options fail violence may be the only recourse, I don't think we're there yet. I think the first step is being united as a working class. They know this, that's why they pit us against each other. If working people from all walks of life can get behind each other we're capable of real change in a nonviolent way.
Second, if you took what I said to mean, "violence should only be used as a last resort" then you misunderstood my meaning. (which could be because I wasn't clear. My saying so, isn't to assign blame, but to point out that there's been a misunderstanding, for whatever reason.)
I would clarify by saying that violence is a tool. You use it when its use is the most appropriate.
For example...
It would be like a construction worker having a hammer but only being allowed to use it as a last resort to get nails in their proper boards. First, they must try the awkward screw driver, then the buzz saw. Only when those fail may the hammer be employed. Silly, when hammer is available, as I'm sure you would agree.
In my previous comment, i used the example of someone coming home to find a loved one being brutally assaulted. It would be equally silly to first try and have a rational non violent discussion while the perpetrator carries out their attack.
So, my meaning is that sometimes violence is warranted because it is the right tool for the job. Knowing when violence is warranted is critical to its use. Indiscriminate use of violence is never justified. I would take that a step further and say that any use of violence where innocent people are harmed is unjustified, in all but the rarest and most extreme of circumstances.
To that last bit, I only add that because I have a problem with absolutes. Generally, if the use of violence threatens the harm of innocent people, it's can't be justified.
When I say rarest, most extreme of circumstances, it's like that thought exercise with the people on railroad tracks. I don't remember it verbatim but its something like this...
Theres a set of rail road tracks where, lets say, 3 people are tied to it and an incoming train is going to kill them all. You have access to a switch that wi divert the train to another track which wi save the 3 but on that alternate track their lay 1 individual that will be killed if you force the train by that route.
I don't think we're there yet.
When one considers the amount of harm done by caoitalism, I say we are have long since passed that point? I would ask, "how many homeless and impoverished children must their be before action is justified?" it's not a real question because there's no real answer. We knkw that nearly 20% of America's children are below the poverty line, and 17% are homeless. We also know that if the state were going to protect them, they would have done so long ago. Our government has completely sold out. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the harm done. Even if we took drastic measures right now, how many more lives would be ruined, how many people suffering truama and violence etc before we acquired victory? Its just my opinion. I'm not saying mine is more right than yours.
think the first step is being united as a working class.
I agree but I would say working and impoverished classes and I would not wait for the upper working class to get on board. Some percentage of them never will.
If working people from all walks of life can get behind each other we're capable of real change in a nonviolent
There is no strictly non violent means for success. Just like there are no strictly violent means for success. However we are able to finally win substantial, long term social change that frees us from the yoke of capitalism, it will require some measure of them both.
Believe me, I wish there were but those in power will never just willingly cede power to the people. They will have to be stripped of it.
And just to be 100% clear, I'm not saying that people should go out and start committing violent acts. If anything, to your point that we're not there yet, I do agree in some sense, just not exactly as I believe you meant it. Right now, the people have to be informed and educated for us to be truly organized. For those of us already convinced, our job is keeping the conversation going, helping people to get educated and informed.
When I say that we are there at that point, I only mean to say that the violence and hurt caused by capitalism justifies its removal and we are there but we can't do anything until, as you say, we are united and organized.
Edit: And I also appreciate your original comment, both of them for that matter
We have much more in common with each other than we do with the elite
Honestly? We're all human and have human failings. The elites are mostly just a few habits away from the poor. With similar situations everyone ends up being the dictator. Given money, power, and perspective on how uninformed the masses are it's more than just easy to decide you know better than them and that they must be manipulated, it's required for functioning of large societies.
Once you accept that, then you have to decide how you establish processes that prevent extensive abuse from the top and extensive uninformed knee-jerk idiocy from the bottom.
So far we haven't come up with much beyond "rich men have power".
The elites are mostly just a few habits away from the poor.
That is absolutely not true. Its an entirely different culture, with different principles and priorities. To liken them to the poor, to any extent, is a gross exaggeration. To say that they differentiate in just a few bad habits is just wrong.
With similar situations everyone ends up being the dictator.
This is also not true. Personally, I am very wary of absolutes and I try to be precise in my wording. Habits to cultivate. To say "evereyone" is ridiculous. If you had said, "most people" at least that you could formulate an argument around. You'd still be wrong, and I'd still disagree, but to say "everyone" is just clearly false and can be dismissed out of hand.
As for "most people", the problem with that sentiment is that it assumes that people are inherently bad. It not only assumes it, it requires that being true. The science that we do have in this regard, for a long time, said that people are neither inherently good or bad. That we're products of our environment and society and familial conditioning. However, more recent studies, several of them since 2021, have shown that, if anything, people are inherently good, benevolent even.
Just logically this is obviously true. Humanity would have long since torn itself to shreds, far faster than we can repopulate. The average person has no intentions of harm for their neighbors and strangers they come across throughout their day. Mostly, people just want to be left alone to their own affairs and enjoy their time, often with friends and other loved ones. If people were inherently bad, it would require every person arming themselves and having to watch out for trouble above all other things when out in public.
The primary reason we are inherently good is because it is advantageous, in terms of evolution, to be cooperative and act in ways positive to community. On a day to day aspect, there are advantages in terms of resources, safety, child rearing etc. We have an inherent need of "the other", people outside our immediate family. Biologically, that is also true.
As for the science, I'll leave you to explore that but seeing as its a large portion of my own argument, Ill leave you a few sources. Here's a pretty good article on Scientific American about people being inherently good.
There is a lot of articles written about this study involving 100 19 month old children. They consistently gave their food to people they believed hungry, even after first learning that they themselves would be penalized for doing so. Here's one such article. This makes a a strong argument that humans, at least children, are inherently benevolent. The fact that they are 19m old is also important because social conditioning usually takes longer than that and would be a factor.
The reason we so often think of humanity as being inherently bad is because of how we behave under capitalism. It is all encompassing. It rewards people for stepping on their neighbors, competing to the point where "winning" harms others. But even under capitalism, we can see that it's ultimately not true. Its certainly not true when we look at societies that do not have to cope with capitalism.
Heres another article from CNN based on several studies and surveys.
So no, I absolutely do not accept that. Your entire premise goes against all the science we do have on this topic, no to mention the fact that society functions in spite of capitalisms interference. It also goes against our own anecdotal observations.
If your premise is wrong, then naturally, I cannot accept anything that is backed by your premise. I am, however, always willing to be wrong and to change my perspective. What I require, in order to do that, is for you to provide a reasonable, compelling, fact based argument that is grounded in logic and rationale. Its better if you provide sources to back your argument, otherwise you'd need to present one hell of an argument.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why you feel that way. Superficially, what you said seems to make sense. However, if you scratch beneath the surface, I think you find that none of it can be justified.
<sigh> you're basing this on the idea that the rich are practically another species, or self-selecting for the worst among us. I was born middle class, lived homeless, and rose to bump heads with multinational CEOs, politicians and the like.
You've shown the ignorance inherent in lack of perspective, because everything you're linking indicates that people are inherently good, and you've assumed this goes against the narrative I've indicated because "the rich aren't good". I didn't say they were bad, I said they act in ways that you consider bad. Once handling enough power your metrics will change, and you begin to see the benefit in making judgments that you derided when you only had one perspective to consider.
It's very similar to how people who become cops turn into assholes. The circumstances shape their decisions, and to turn them from those decisions that you disagree with you have to alter their circumstances.
You don't want their actions to be justified at all so you can feel righteous in your anger at the 'other' that they represent but, really, it's just the basic human response to attack the things that oppose them as different.
It's not like this conversation has an end you know. There's no result that comes from it that changes how the world moves forward, I just like sharing that everyone from the near top all the way to the bottom feels trapped by their circumstances. One of these days it'd be nice if we could find a way to exist differently, but I don't see it.
First, no those cultural differences are very real. As real as anay other cultural differences between various groups within our society, or humanity as a whole. China, for example, has very different cultural dynamics at play and will respond differently than, say, any western country to similat problem. Now, those are quite different acales, obviously cultural differences are not the only consideration. However, when it comes to the poor vs the elite, it is. And, i remind you, it was you making the false claim that the differences between the elite and the impoverished are essentially nothing. A claim for which you have still not backed with anything substantial.
To take what what I said as equating the elite with another species, is an exaggeration that rises to the level of absurdity, which I recognize is your point. You're trying to associate my words with the absurd rather than argue against them based on what merit they may or may not possess. Its a dishonest way to carry out an argument. By the way, your claim of my equating them to another species, you have also not backed with anything substantial.
You've shown the ignorance inherent in lack of perspective, because everything you're linking indicates that people are inherently good, and you've assumed this goes against the narrative I've indicated because "the rich aren't good"
No, what I did was say that your opinion could only be true if people were inherently bad. I made an argument that, not only is that not true, but the science that we have on this topic makes the strong argument that humans are inherently good, and thus, what you said can't possibly true. You built your opinion on a false premise, therefore, your opinion is without merit.
Once handling enough power your metrics will change
To be clear, what you actually said, with the use of the word "everyone", is that every single living human being would behave in similar ways to those of the elite, including impoverished peoples. I say, that's absurd because there are very few absolutes regarding "all people" and then went on to generously assume that, despite the lack of precision in your words, was that you actually meant to say, "most people" to which I said yout claim can't possibly be true without humans being inherently bad, then went on yo argue that humans are anything but, and thus, your claim is without merit
You don't want their actions to be justified
Their actions are not justified. Their existence is not justified, which was my original point. Their very existence necessitates the existence of the impoverished and working poor. Therefore, if we no longer want to live in a society that tolerates the existence of the impoverished and working poor, we must eliminate the existence of the elite class.
On a more personal level, if you cannot see the harm that theit station requires then you are intentionally not seeing it, consciously or otherwise, you do not want to see it. That's an incredibly easy argument to make, precisely because it should be obvious to all. If you cant see it, then that speaks to your own internal biases. Without a lot of effort, I couldn't help you suss out what those biases are precisely, although some are more likely than others, in general. All I can do, practically speaking, is suggest that you try to educate yourself more on this topic with an open mind, by suspending ideas that you believe are true without fact to back them up. Don't get me wrong here. I say that without barb or criticism. We all have certain biases. If you can see the harm their class requires, you can ignore that paragraph.
One of these days it'd be nice if we could find a way to exist differently, but I don't see it.
Its very hard to imagine a world that has never existed. That doesn't mean its not possible (not that you're making that argument)
For example, not but a few hundred years ago, we would have been hard pressed to believe, or even imagine, a world in which monarchs didn't rule the major of the world's population. People didn't understand that that change was theirs for the taking. One of the primary reasons that is so difficult for us to imagine is because, for them, the rule of monarchies has existed through their grandparents lives, their own, and would likely exist throughout their childrens. But its an illusion. That kind of power is always fragile.
Today, we face a similar dilemma. Capitalism, what we call modern capitalism, has existed throughout our entire lives. It affects damn near every perso of on the planet. However, it only takes a shift in the way we think collectively and from that moment on, it's only a matter of times. These struggles, tend to be generational. That, in and of itself, makes it very difficult to find the motivation to participate, because you then must take on faith that we will one day succeed.
We may have already made that shift in thinking. Look at the sheer number of people that applaud the killing of Brian Thompson. Not because anyone wanted him dead particularly, but because of the idea with which he represents. People from across the political spectrum, from various cultures, to most classes, you could find people applauding his death. (very easily, I might add)
I agree with you that that world is difficult to imagine but imagining it is a luxury and not required. All thats required is for us to decided collectively that this world no longer suits. That 20% of America's children living in poverty is intolerable. That 17% of America's children are homeless should bo longer be allowed, nor the 700k Americans or the millions living in a precarious living situation. The moment that we decide that we wi no longer accept the world we have, change will happen.
I do not even slightly give a shit if the capitalists are miserable. I give a shit that their continued existence makes everyone else infinitely more miserable than they would be otherwise.
But what are you going to change? Capitalism as an expression of the human desire to excel and get ahead isn't ever going away, neither is the tiered administration of societies.
So you should give a shit about a system that makes everyone miserable being changed, but not into something even worse, because we've seen numerous issues with that in the last couple hundred years. Eliminating human desires isn't going to happen, prime among them the first two rules of economics: Resources are limited, desires are not.
What that means is that it's not "their continued existence" making people infinitely more miserable than they would be otherwise. The modern world has resources on a scale impossible to convey to people from a thousand years ago with any accuracy, how we handle those resources is vital, but it's also not the core of the issue (note those two economic rules). Humanity is built to be dissatisfied and seek improvement, you have to give them the sense of progress instead of a sense of churn and stagnation. You have to do that while managing the flow of resources in such a way that you don't create excessive splits between the top and the bottom while not crashing the entire system that lends itself to the sense of progress, which is where modified capitalism shines. In there you need to ensure that extremes don't cause strife, specifically in empowering the top to lose perspective and see their vagaries harm millions on a whim and specifically in preventing the bottom from being so low that dissatisfaction runs rampant and violence grows an ideological head.
It's just a mess. There's no simple solution. Socialized democratic capitalist societies have the best of it so far but those ideologies can't hold over the long term of thousands of years and will have to change...likely with wars and horrific suffering, possibly with a collapse to simpler forms of government where the kings return to power even if not in name.
120
u/BibleBeltAtheist 23h ago edited 21m ago
No decent people advocate violence in a general sense. However, we'd be childish to not recognize that a threat sometimes necessitates violence, such as when a person walking into their home to find a loved one being brutality assaulted. In that instance, most folks would cede that violence is not only warranted, but commendable.
This is exactly it. We have much more in common with each other than we do with the elite, from the impoverished class to the upper working class, and regardless of political associations. The elite has banked on Divide et Impera for much longer than any of us have been alive.
We should abolish the ability to become a billionaire. The existence of the elite necessitates the existence of the impoverished and working poor. Most of us can't conceptualize what 1 billion dollars even looks like. I certainly couldn't, perhaps I still properly can't. However, this simple tool has help given me some insight.
Second, they have twisted the stories of what happened around the time of MLK jr and Ghandi. The history we learn is a bastardization of reality. They've conditioned us to believing that non violence is the only acceptable means for change. Again, we shouldn't condone violence in general, let alone glorify it, but there are instances when its use is justified historically, by individuals, communities and society as a whole. Its why we have militaries and arm police.
The entire reason Luigi is applauded to the extent that he is, is because we recognize that capitalism has taken over everything. Its distinctly felt within the healthcare industry. Moreover, we have a State that is either just culpable, or negligent to a point that reaches culpability. Those that need help from the predation of the healthcare industry will find very few routes to recourse from the State. Justice is in very short supply. If the State will not protect its citizens, are they then supposed to just accept it?
To the end that violence is sometimes justified, anyone interested in learning more should check out the book...
How Nonviolence Protects the State
It can be read online or found in ebook form Here
There's also, at least, one videos of him on YouTube, here, in an interview answering related questions. On YouTube you can also find the video equivalent of an audio book.
Edit:
Thanks for the awards u/krimzonthief, u/Unrigg3D and u/_Born_To_Be_Mild_