Herr Mike said:
Nullifidian said:
Thank you for finally admitting defeat.
As if. You surely won't concede that wealth disparity doesn't matter in and of itself, and I surely won't concede that it does. We could trade history lessons and interpretations thereof ad nauseum, but what's the point? It is, in the end, arguing on the internet.
Besides, you've tainted the well by equating power with wealth. The villainous "top 1%" of today that we love to hate doesn't have the power to clap one in irons. The "top 1%" of Imperial France or Soviet Russia could do whatever they wanted.
The problem with many of these dates over the internet is ontological and style. The style issue is really silly- people vest their egos into these debates and they become a war. The goal of a reasonable discussion evaporates and its really just posturing and a desire to grab some social support. For what purposes? God knows. Its really just vanity.
The other reason- ontological- is more important. There we disagree on basic ideas of what is existence. We the world differently. But that's also why we should discuss these types of things in a rational manner.
For instance, I generally think you're right that the top 1% doesn't have the power to directly clamp people down in chains- at least for the most part. A lot of that depends on where you live, of course. Police power is usually enforced locally, and I think, depending on the nature of power in society, in some communities the wealthiest members can pressure the police to do its bidding. In some cases, the police may see themselves as really agents for the wealthy. Is this true across the US- no. Does it happen? Yes.
As Montgomery Burns famously said, "what good is power if you can't terrorize people with it?"
So what really matters is the relationship of power and how that power is applied. To say that wealth doesn't equal power is naive. But there are other forms of power- military/coercive, ideological, political. Furthermore, in some situations one normally doesn't need to apply coercive force to achieve one's ends. In many cases, power need not be applied at all, the mere potential of power being applied might be enough to convince a weaker individual to do one's bidding.
Terror- for instance- is less about the violence perpetuated against victims but in the fear of violence it creates in the audience. It is the potential of violence that terrorizes, not its applications.
Let's consider power relations a bit more. Imperial France and Soviet Russia- both of them fundamentally authoritarian states, both possessing infrastructure that is obligated to serve a very powerful and oppressive ruling class. This ruling class- Tsars, Monarchs, or Communist Party elite- utilize the instruments of the state to enrich themselves and keep themselves in power. Their state is a creation of their desires.
Yet in both these cases we see a problem. The desire of the ruling class to stay in power and enrich themselves comes, in the end, at the sacrifice of the state itself. As a class, they can't help being predatory. Oddly enough, we see the same behavior in animals. Predators that act without real constraint, will kill and consume everything, leading to their inevitable destruction. We see the same kinds of human behavior in a variety of strategic games- the prisoner's dilemma, the tragedy of the commons.
While selfishness might be good for the individual and often good for society, if left unchecked or unconstrained, it creates a shift of power within a narrowing class of privileged to the costs of unprivileged. We see that in Imperial France and Soviet Russia. You can see variations of this form throughout the third world today. The struggle for these countries is to distinguish economic growth and economic development. Growth is merely the fact that the economy grows- GDP increases. Development has more to do with the enrichment of society- and we can measure it better with GDP per capita (but even that is a weak measure).
The question is why we get development in some places and tyranny in others.
Part of that has to do with what constrains the ruling class and how they use the state to that purpose. The governments of Korea and Japan, for instance, were very successful but essentially 1 party states or dictatorships. But they were also very constrained. Leaders of both countries knew that they had to improve their economy or they could be crushed- both depended on US protection against local threats.
Ok but what about the US?
You mention the top 1%. I would argue that the top 1% in America is perhaps less important than the 10% of that 1%. These were the principle parties that funded George Bush's 04 campaign- what he called "his base." And as for locking you in chains- you'd be surprised at how much power the police have to hold you for 48 hours if they want to- our constitutional freedoms have been eroded significantly over the last 35 years.
But let's go back to the US and explore why its different than Imperial France and the Soviet Union. In both those countries you had an entrenched ruling class that could be removed only through political change within the class or by violence. Similarly, we see coup d'etat as a principle means of regime change in much of the world today and dictators either willing to manipulate elections or refuse to honor election results.
Without means of peaceful transfer and where the state is the sole instrument of accumulating wealth, than those who rule will hang on to the state for dear life (indeed, in many cases, losing the state means death). Given that, the relationship between those who rule and those who don't is zero-sum with control of the state being the central instrument for both wealth and power. A very dangerous situation.
But in the US we have a administrative state with a remarkably large infrastructure. We can include both the administrations of the 50 states and the federal government which overlap. We have a constitutional system based on divided government, and a political system that is highly institutionalized and normalized in our society. A military coup in the US is quite unlikely. Civil war or revolution is also unlikely - I can't recall a significant possibility of that even during the Great Depression.
We have a state that is fundamentally integral to the interests of society. It provides unemployment checks, creates jobs, oversees the economy, intervenes when the economy is in crisis, etc. We, as members of society, see our well-being as being taken cared of by the state which, in exchange for this, charges as a fee in taxes. The state generally helps us accumulate wealth even as it also distributes wealth. Well, that's not completely true. Even in the US we have marginalized pockets that are generally under served and generally forgotten. But overall, most Americans are pretty happy with their government.
But why don't the ruling class use coercion- the simple reason is that generally they don't have to. The stability of the state means the market works and that, when they are in trouble, they might even be willing to turn to the state to help them accumulate wealth. Boeing, a major manufacturer, is also a big defense contractor. Automobile companies also make tanks. Both companies get bailouts from time to time. So the top .1% can happily step away from the actually being a ruling class (the political elite) and spend their limited time accumulating wealth.
Why not intervene? Well they don't have to- the state looks after them.
Why doesn't the political class seize/nationalize their wealth? Because it would lead to economic disaster.
How?
Those we know as Kings started as little more than roving bandits. This bandits eventually settled down in a fixed area (easier to defend) and preyed on the locals because they had the power to do so. But over time, they began to realize that if they left enough surplus wealth among the rabble, the rabble would reinvest the wealth and make more wealth. Over time these kings would regularly cut back on taxes and allow the rabble to make more money. Only problem- the kings were crap financial managers and liked to go to war- this is why Imperial France, Imperial Spain and the Soviets go bankrupt and the Medicis do ok (because they can exploit the kings who like to go tow war). Finally the rabble get sick of the kings going to war and demand constraint- and thus you have the beginnings (but not quite the creation) of democracy.
As Charles Tilly says, States made war and war made states. But war also destroyed states. Those states that survived learned to get better at being administrators and regulators of the economy- or they died.
For the wealthy, an added beauty of the state is that the state overcomes the collective action problem of markets. It regulates, cares for them, lets them get wealthy. Absent the state.... then some other power will fill the vacuum. The notion of "God save the King!" wasn't because the King was popular, but because the rabble and the lords knew that if the King died and there was no succession- we had civil war and economic decline.
Democracy- by creating a stable political order based on regular turn around of political leaders- means no succession crisis. If its a wealthy democracy and the rabble are satisfied- it means no revolution. Furthermore, added bonus- because democracy requires regular elections the ruling class (your political leadership) can't get too crazy with taxes or debt because economic downturn means that those political leaders don't get elected again.
And so we see- economic crisis and the Republicans are popped out of office, much like Poppa Bush got bounced in '92, or Carter in '80, etc.
Popular democracy means that political leaders are constrained in their capacity to be predators. They can't be wolves turned loose on the sheep. Rather, they are wolves who depend on the sheep to live.
Sounds simple... except it gets worse.
Being self-interested rational actors (or selfish sons-of-bitches), we tend to want both riches and power- Riches to be happy, power to keep it and get more. Those struggles continue into society and the political realm becomes the battlefield. Democracy may be stable and organized and even polite, but its still a battle field among social actors that struggle over wealth and power. Who rules, those that control the political house, get to determine the policies- who does the government favor in the accumulation or distribution of wealth.
Sometimes the ruling class loves the wealth (and we have a Republican administration) and sometimes they love the poor (and we see Democrats). And often it has to do with the success of the economy and the ability of the state to see that the distribution of wealth and opportunities to accumulate are equitably distributed. Or the politicians get bounced out office.
So- ruling classes are generally developmentally orientated- thus we don't have to worry about the coercion we see in Imperial France or Soviet Russia.
(That is, unless the police are called in to break up a strike, or the cops decide to sick the dogs and spray the hoses on a group of black protestors asking for civil rights. Or if you're a gay person in some states who thinks he should have the right to live with who they want to. )
The problem for Libertarians is that they begin with an ontological assumption that the state is evil. Its not- but it does need to be fed, but hey, nothing is free. The problem with Marxists is that they see only social classes, the problem with rabid capitalists is they believe in the dogma of free market capitalism and ignore the many abuses of firms that exploited opportunities for weath and the suffering they caused. The problem with statists is that they don't recognized that while the state can enhance the productive capacity of society, in the end, its society that develops.
Which returns us to ontology- how do you see the nature of the world. Or perhaps we should think about it as your underlying assumptions of how the universe works.
The more you stick dogmatically to one, the more your argument is based on faith rather than reason. The greater one tries to simply the world into a simple paradigm, the easier it is to lose the connections. Theories don't explain the world. Rather, they are used by individuals to help understand the world in a more simple way. Too much faith in any one dogma or set of assumptions means that it dims your capacity for rational thought.
(Me- I look for conflict within society and between state and society. But my wife complains that I always look for conflict and abuse of institutional power- so I have to watch my bias. We often see that which we look for regardless of whether its there).
Rationality- begins with our ability to question those underlying assumptions. To put those assumptions to a rigorous test. It means you have to question and challenge yourself and others.
Which is, ideally, what a forum like this is supposed to be. The problem- is not that we argue, but rather- that we come to it with our own underlying assumptions of the nature of the universe and a style that looks at argument as a war of egos and not the opportunity to discuss the nature of our world in a reasonable manner.
. buuuuut there were a few people who wound up dieing in jail because they couldnt pay those taxes.... lol.