User loginLive Discussions
Google searchMost popular threads
Weekly Archives
Blog linksAfrican American Political Pundit |
Tip jarThe Public LibraryReality checksNews sourcesLink CollectionsDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Who's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 2 users and 11 guests online.
Online users
...Syndicate |
Black Intrapolitics: Today's study materialSubmitted by Prometheus 6 on October 12, 2005 - 10:07am.
on Culture wars | Open thread | Race and Identity [LATER: I don't know if this thread will be useful. so read the linked stuff, absorb it for later discussions.] This section covers the whole range of theoretical and methodological issues having to do with power, and provides background for reading the more historically specific discussions of power in the United States at the national and local levels. Here, you can read about:
Nevermind that you are nowhere near where I'm heading with this. I'm willing to bet from your screed you didn't follow a single link. LATER: Maybe a single link. But you're still way far from the point of the material at the site as well as my intent. The indented, itialicized quote I commented on was from Domhoff's page. Anyone who analyzes power but misses the fact that we're far better off than we were in the past has a serious gap in the analysis. Anyone who concludes that the power of money creates class domination is mistaken in a major way. Nevermind that you are nowhere near where I'm heading with this I'm pleased to understand you're heading somewhere other than suggesting this guy has done some convincing analysis.
Nonsense. Power analysis is about current relative positions. That we're "better off" is about technology, not fair distribution of resources.
Class is defined by who has the money in the USofA. Hence the statement that it leads to a class-domination theory "when applied to the United States."
You have shown yourself unwilling to be convinced by anything in this arena. I'm not surprised you continue in the same way.
I'll acknowledge to P6 that this is entirely off-topic and then dive head first down your rabbit hole. Do I read this right? The prevelance of live-in servants in India is (or was) caused by corrupt bureaucrats? Not by poverty? Not by population? Not by culture? Not by concentration of ownership? Please do explain. Please do explain. In the absence of governmental forces which prevent it, capitalism will eliminate poverty. It will also eliminate most live in servants, because they have better opportunities. In the case of India, and to bit of a lessser extent the case of Mexico, corrupt bureaucrats have been able to snuff successful small businesses either by demanding too much of a take, or by confiscation/destruction of the golden geese. Combine that with a strong element of protectionism which makes some kinds of use of the available workforce illegal. The alternative is easy to see too. Hong Kong. For all of our gripes, including mine, the USA. Anyone who thinks that the USA has "class domination" really, seriously, does not understand India. Or China. Or Europe before the 20th century. What we have is a solution, not a problem. We may well be able to improve, but we need to understand where we are.
Class is defined by who has the money in the USofA. Hence the statement that it leads to a class-domination theory "when applied to the United States." The vast majority, I mean > 90%, of current American millionaires inherited next to nothing. So we might come to a need to define "class". In the absence of any opportunity, we have a rigid class system which can be labled an "aristocricy". In the presence of unlimited class mobility, and mostly unfettered capitalism, we will find a long graph of wealth; some people are indeed massively more wealthy than others. However, we will find that the overall wealth is high and the level of resources provided to the cooperative poor is substantial, and that most of the poor eventually move up. Real poverty is limited to the young, the infirm, and the uncooperative. Do they then represent a class? Depends on your use of the word.
Thanks for the study materials, P6. Domhoff is a pleasure to read.
...if there were such a thing.
So if we examine the USofA from this perspective, what trend would we expect to find? In the late 19th Century, we had less concentration of business ownership, less government interference in the unrestrained practice of capitalism, and--in the estimation of free market fundamentalists--more freedom. Since that time, we've added more government intervention in the market, experienced more domination of commerce by large corporations at the expense of small business, and--again by the claims of free market absolutists--an erosion of freedom. So wouldn't we expect to have more live-in servants in the US today than at the opening of the 20th Century?
Total, unadulterated codswallop. Cite a source if you can. In the late 19th Century, we had less concentration of business ownership, less government interference in the unrestrained practice of capitalism, and--in the estimation of free market fundamentalists--more freedom. We indeed had more freedom but we didn't have much commerce. Over half of Americans lived on subsistance farms. Since that time, we've added more government intervention in the market, experienced more domination of commerce by large corporations at the expense of small business, and--again by the claims of free market absolutists--an erosion of freedom. We have and we've fallen short of our potential. However, when compared to the rest of the world, we have done exceptionally well. I'll repeat: the American experience represents a success story rather than a problem. The success was copied by Japan, then Taiwan and S. Korea, all of whom now enjoy, society wide, a standard of living (and a lack of live-in servants) which was inconceivable from 100 years ago. It's now, slowly, being copied by India, and the India which stagnated during the Pacific rim boom years between 1960 and 1990 is now coming out with an exploding middle class. That's been enabled by the government getting out of the way of business, both in local and international matters. That's the context. We can go from there to make things better in the USA, but we need to understand what has worked vs what hasn't worked so that we don't break things.
[LATER: I don't know if this thread will be useful. so read the linked stuff, absorb it for later discussions.] Sorry P6. If you have suggestions as to how this could be done better, I'll go along.
So... No answer on why we have fewer, not more live-in servants in the U.S. No cite for your ridiculous claim about Indian "corruption" Remind me why anyone should ask you a serious question. No answer on why we have fewer, not more live-in servants in the U.S. More commerce, fewer subsistence farms. No cite for your ridiculous claim about Indian "corruption" Ask any Indian.
I have some issues with the linked article, though for vastly different reasons than a certain commenter in this thread. I find the authors treatment of Marxism to be fundamentally unfair (and I say this as someone who isn't a Marxist). To pretend as if Marxist-Leninism can stand in for Marxism is to simply complete Lenin's hatchet job on Marx's work. I don't think I'll even get into the distortion of historical materialism that his criticism implies. Unfortunately for Marx, the hatchet job worked. Just like a hacker is now what we used to call a cracker, in the minds of the many, Marxism is now what we'd more properly call Marxist Leninism. That said, I didn't really get into the description of Marxism. I was more interested in the Four Networks theory because it was new to me. |
|
This site best viewed with a jaundiced eye
|
||
Someone should ask Professor Domhoff to explain why regular people are so much better off now than they were 500 years ago. Whatever we have today which can be described as "class domination" is trivial compared to feudal civilization.
Or maybe the good professor is imagining those societies which had no class domination. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles are far more egalitarian. Is that his fond vision of history which was disrupted by capitalism?
If you want to measure "class domination", one good way is to measure the percentage of the population which can find no better life than that of a live in servant. We indeed find major differences between countries and particularly between historic situations. India is the biggest example today. Until recently a huge amount of people were in this category. Most households had at least one live-in servant, and many of them had several. Because of unfettered capitalism? Not. Because of unfettered, corrupt bureacracy. India is changing, and for the better. Live-in servants are moving up to day labor or drop in services. That might not seem like much improvement to you or I, but to those involved it is improvement indeed.
What's bringing those good changes?
Capitalism. The flow of money. The force of money. It cracks through class barriers. As India joins the world economy, the money has begun to flow.
The Professor has some explaining to do if he thinks that economic power is at odds with the interests of poor people. Money seeks poor people like water seeks the ocean.