I hope this guy is going to articulate things that freeze my brain when I try to dissect them. I’ve therefore subscribed.
There’s a genuine talent in the current faux left (labelled ‘progressive’ where you are) for thought-ending slogans. Sex work is work, for example. Trans rights are human rights. Black lives matter. All elegantly constructed to be self-evident and thereby create space to slip in whatever they want to really say, while leaving opponents to their underlying arguments quite befuddled. It’s the most powerful rhetorical tool.
On the subject, is there a compelling difference between class analysis and simply "follow the money", or "who benefits?" I have often thought that the focus on class was a mistake in many cases, treating class as an ingroup that people won't betray when it often isn't the case at all. (A bit like race is treated today, come to think of it.) I don't quite see how socioeconomic class adds much to the normal cupidity of humans.
But maybe I am missing something? Marxist rhetoric is so powerful in a way that doesn't make sense to me that I am pretty certain I must be missing something.
Interesting. I would look at it from the perspective of what I think of as the big human motivations:
1: Money/stuff
2: Power
3: Status
4: Sex
5: Family (admittedly as an extension of the self through time, so a little redundant)
6: Ideology, maybe (I am not sure how much this is its own thing)
I wouldn't look at social class so much as at the individual involved. So the Kennedy might really like money if he is particular hard up for cash (having pissed most of it against a wall as it were) but probably is focused on power and status and sex more particularly, given the Kennedy proclivities towards getting into government. Arguably saying "Well, the Kennedy's tend to do X" is pretty close to saying "Those in the 'aristocratic' social class tend to do X".
It does suggest that the car dealerships guys might have different motivations too, as he didn't start with cash presumably, nor ready access to power and status presumably. I would assume that if he wanted power in particular he might not have gone into car dealerships. But then again, he probably has lots of employees he can boss around, and that is definitely a sort of power some people like (and abuse). Likewise, owning a lot of dealerships does confer a certain amount of status and power in local politics. Considering where he started that's a pretty good end point.
So wait... where did we end up? Well, everyone does value that same sorts of things, but at different rates because of their current levels of them. In other words, it depends on their individual desires and their perception of the trade offs between each. Marginal diminishing returns and all that.
And of course, are all the Kennedy's functionally the same? Are all the Bush's functionally the same as all the Kennedy's? Are there not car dealership owners with odd motivations? Does the social class tell us something for certain, or is it just a personality trait among others?
I tend to favor that last one, that it is a trait, not terribly critical.
BUT! While it doesn't help with understanding motivations, I think it works in the other direction, making arguments to persuade people. As a way to group people together and make sweeping statements about what "others" are doing to a particular group it seems to be a really powerful meme.
It occurs to me this would be a good topic for a long form essay on your blog. I have never read a particularly good exposition of the matter, and you definitely are good at that.
That would be helpful to me I think! At least from my experience, pretty much everyone espousing the virtues of Marxist thought (outside of a tool of rhetoric) has been muddled when they actually get talking, and/or really don't understand economics particular but other basic human behavior. I think a good analysis of why it works, both as an explanation of why Marxism is perennially popular, and as an example of how it helps fill the lacuna in most people's thought. Kind of a "here's how it helps you get people to do what you want, and here is how it helps you understand the world better" written by someone who isn't a twit.
Every time I read Marx or his derivative "followers" I feel like I am... well reading a body of work that has so much wrong with it, yet is adored by so many, and I don't understand why. I can't even come up with a metaphor that is better than Marx as the Platonic Type of that sort of work :D I definitely get the sense, however, that the Marxists are much worse than Marx himself... the secondary lit makes you want to murder words. But then, I feel like that reading Rousseau as well.
Anyway, I am going to stop bitching about French and German philosophers, or I might never get to sleep :D
I hope this guy is going to articulate things that freeze my brain when I try to dissect them. I’ve therefore subscribed.
There’s a genuine talent in the current faux left (labelled ‘progressive’ where you are) for thought-ending slogans. Sex work is work, for example. Trans rights are human rights. Black lives matter. All elegantly constructed to be self-evident and thereby create space to slip in whatever they want to really say, while leaving opponents to their underlying arguments quite befuddled. It’s the most powerful rhetorical tool.
On the subject, is there a compelling difference between class analysis and simply "follow the money", or "who benefits?" I have often thought that the focus on class was a mistake in many cases, treating class as an ingroup that people won't betray when it often isn't the case at all. (A bit like race is treated today, come to think of it.) I don't quite see how socioeconomic class adds much to the normal cupidity of humans.
But maybe I am missing something? Marxist rhetoric is so powerful in a way that doesn't make sense to me that I am pretty certain I must be missing something.
Interesting. I would look at it from the perspective of what I think of as the big human motivations:
1: Money/stuff
2: Power
3: Status
4: Sex
5: Family (admittedly as an extension of the self through time, so a little redundant)
6: Ideology, maybe (I am not sure how much this is its own thing)
I wouldn't look at social class so much as at the individual involved. So the Kennedy might really like money if he is particular hard up for cash (having pissed most of it against a wall as it were) but probably is focused on power and status and sex more particularly, given the Kennedy proclivities towards getting into government. Arguably saying "Well, the Kennedy's tend to do X" is pretty close to saying "Those in the 'aristocratic' social class tend to do X".
It does suggest that the car dealerships guys might have different motivations too, as he didn't start with cash presumably, nor ready access to power and status presumably. I would assume that if he wanted power in particular he might not have gone into car dealerships. But then again, he probably has lots of employees he can boss around, and that is definitely a sort of power some people like (and abuse). Likewise, owning a lot of dealerships does confer a certain amount of status and power in local politics. Considering where he started that's a pretty good end point.
So wait... where did we end up? Well, everyone does value that same sorts of things, but at different rates because of their current levels of them. In other words, it depends on their individual desires and their perception of the trade offs between each. Marginal diminishing returns and all that.
And of course, are all the Kennedy's functionally the same? Are all the Bush's functionally the same as all the Kennedy's? Are there not car dealership owners with odd motivations? Does the social class tell us something for certain, or is it just a personality trait among others?
I tend to favor that last one, that it is a trait, not terribly critical.
BUT! While it doesn't help with understanding motivations, I think it works in the other direction, making arguments to persuade people. As a way to group people together and make sweeping statements about what "others" are doing to a particular group it seems to be a really powerful meme.
It occurs to me this would be a good topic for a long form essay on your blog. I have never read a particularly good exposition of the matter, and you definitely are good at that.
That would be helpful to me I think! At least from my experience, pretty much everyone espousing the virtues of Marxist thought (outside of a tool of rhetoric) has been muddled when they actually get talking, and/or really don't understand economics particular but other basic human behavior. I think a good analysis of why it works, both as an explanation of why Marxism is perennially popular, and as an example of how it helps fill the lacuna in most people's thought. Kind of a "here's how it helps you get people to do what you want, and here is how it helps you understand the world better" written by someone who isn't a twit.
Every time I read Marx or his derivative "followers" I feel like I am... well reading a body of work that has so much wrong with it, yet is adored by so many, and I don't understand why. I can't even come up with a metaphor that is better than Marx as the Platonic Type of that sort of work :D I definitely get the sense, however, that the Marxists are much worse than Marx himself... the secondary lit makes you want to murder words. But then, I feel like that reading Rousseau as well.
Anyway, I am going to stop bitching about French and German philosophers, or I might never get to sleep :D