Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#71

Post by nightwing »

luckylion wrote: post #49
nightwing wrote: post #28

Rich vs poor is even less meaningful divide than right vs left. For instance i am not rich but my goals are much better aligned with goals of rich people like Elon Musk and Aubrey de Grey, than with any of poor people. The solution is not to take money from the rich, but to make the government more transparent and more inclusive. Now we only can vote for unknown bundles of policies in the form of people, and rich peo…

> For instance i am not rich but my goals are much better aligned with goals of rich people like Elon Musk and Aubrey de Grey, than with any of poor people. I wonder what those goals are, or whether you just have a morphed idea of what goals poor people have.

My main goal is to increase the number of people in the world, and to increase the opportunities they have. Because that also increases my opportunities too: living longer, having better computers, learning new physics, etc. will be possible only if other people work on this problems.

I did not mean that non-rich do not share this goal, (in fact most people contribute to this merely by their existence willingly or not). What i wanted to say is that being rich or poor is not a good criterion for division.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#73

Post by luckylion »

majewsky wrote: post #64
gwm83 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone, or in meaningful numbers? I'm not sure you can specify both. I "earn" around $400k USD per year and give away nearly all of it other than my housing and food.

That's not really pertinent to GP's question because giving away that money does not really "undermine [your] position in society". In fact, it could elevate your status because you can boast about all your philanthropy, just like Bill Gates' public image has improved since he stepped down as Microsoft CEO. Let's assume (without loss of generality) that your $400k income is from a salaried job at some company. Suppos…

> Suppose that there is an NGO fighting to abolish said company on moral grounds. Would you be willing to donate your money to that organization?

Which, even if that NGO succeeded, wouldn't undermine the position in society. If Facebook were dismantled, the employees just switch to Google, Amazon & Co.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#74

Post by nightwing »

mclightning wrote: post #38
nightwing wrote: post #28

Rich vs poor is even less meaningful divide than right vs left. For instance i am not rich but my goals are much better aligned with goals of rich people like Elon Musk and Aubrey de Grey, than with any of poor people. The solution is not to take money from the rich, but to make the government more transparent and more inclusive. Now we only can vote for unknown bundles of policies in the form of people, and rich peo…

Hmm I wouldnt consider Aubrey de Grey, rich in same basket as Elon Musk. I wish he was though.

Yes, sadly he only had 10s of millions instead of billions, and i agree it would be amazing if he had billion.

But in the context of articles proposal of "coalition of working-class, poor and middle-class" even millionaires end up outside of "good forces".

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#75

Post by davesmith1983 »

PaulAJ wrote: post #56
davesmith1983 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This Chomsky quote comes to mind “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. The sad part is that a lot of people seem to be addicted to the right vs left thinking. What this is more broadly is the Overton Window. There is "acceptable" topics that can be broached. As for Right versus Left, well th…

I just tried that 8 Values thing. Interesting, but it depended too much on existing buzzwords and quotes, and contained a number of false dichotomies. E.g. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". If you didn't know the quote then it might sound like a good description of a modern welfare state, so only people with strongly libertarian views would reject it. However most people who reco…

There are supposed to be statements on there that are like false dichotomies etc. That means you will have to choose the least bad option.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#76

Post by PaulAJ »

gwm83 wrote: post #54
PaulAJ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chomsky quote is something you hear from the Left from time to time: a political theory which implies some kind of deliberate coordination between capitalists as a class. Is there a Protocols of the Elders of Capitalism which includes this as a principle, or some Omniscient Council of Capitalist Vagueness who are defining the spectrum of currently acceptable opinion? (Not that the Left has a monopoly on conspirac…

Deliberate implies documented in your comment. Of course it's implicit in this scenario. I suppose not much of the conversation in 100k/plate dinner fundraisers is about the weather.

I think this goes beyond a few random conversations. Chomsky's comment implies a command structure.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#77

Post by finnthehuman »

raarts wrote: post #39

The central question of this article: > So why do we continue to hear and use the same old “right” and “left” labels? > I suspect it’s because the emerging oligarchy feels safer if Americans are split along the old political battle lines. That way, Americans won’t notice they’re being shafted. Wouldn't this imply the oligarchs control the media? Or at least the public discourse? But that's not the impression I get fr…

>CNN, MSNBC, and other networks make it perfectly clear they are anti-Trump, in fact most of the media seems to be in agreement with that.

By focusing on how much they hate Trump, what are they not focusing on? What have they all decided has been solved off-screen that you shouldn't worry your head about?

>I mean almost everybody seems to agree that Trump is bad. YouTube and Fox seem to be the exception.

Why are those the positions? And if judging the president was about good governance, how did this split happen across brand lines? And you're saying this as a point _against_ the idea of oligarchs controlling the public discourse?

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#78

Post by ddingus »

The lexicon is one dimensional, but the reality is multidimensional.

On social issues, there is a fairly clear right vs left.

On economic issues, it really is oligarchy vs ordinary people.

On war, foreign policy, the MIC is linked up with big money, and ordinary people vary, but anti war talk is often marginalized.

Go down the list, and it should become fairly clear big money does have conflict of interest issues, and politics reflects that reality.

Right now, economics is a high priority. Flat out, too many Americans (and this is true in other places too) are not getting what they need, and some modest wants fulfilled from their labor.

That is forcing a class discussion as a priority over the usual politics.

Examples:

Even the bigots need Medicare for All (or sane health care policy generally) Speaks to common class issues. Populism.

Given a choice between tolerating trans people, gays marrying, and say, feeding kids in a reasonable home and the promise of gainful employment, which has priority? Your socioeconomic status impacts this greatly. Speaks right to divide on left, as well as common class issues.

The current shift toward class issues puts social progress at risk as new and powerful wedges form at the boundaries of all this stuff.

Lefties struggle with a non trivial divide, and it is drawn right along big money lines. And the anti big money people have that as a priority. Many will not be swayed by threats or risks related to social regression.

I invite someone more aligned with the right to offer their take on all this. Would be high value.

If you ask me, all these observations, and that is all they are, add up to a basic shift in the body politic. And it has happened.

No undo. It will all just have to play out, until we reach a new more consistent state.

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#79

Post by Ididntdothis »

PaulAJ wrote: post #47
Ididntdothis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This Chomsky quote comes to mind “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. The sad part is that a lot of people seem to be addicted to the right vs left thinking. A while ago I listened to a radio interview with an author whose thesis was that modern philanthropists allow change only in a way that…

The Chomsky quote is something you hear from the Left from time to time: a political theory which implies some kind of deliberate coordination between capitalists as a class. Is there a Protocols of the Elders of Capitalism which includes this as a principle, or some Omniscient Council of Capitalist Vagueness who are defining the spectrum of currently acceptable opinion? (Not that the Left has a monopoly on conspirac…

I don’t think it works that way. Trends often develop without central control. Looking at another trend, do you think there is a cabal of elite social justice warriors that control that movement or a secret book that sets the rules?

Re: There is no 'right' vs. 'left': it is the oligarchs against the rest

#80

Post by Ididntdothis »

PaulAJ wrote: post #76
gwm83 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deliberate implies documented in your comment. Of course it's implicit in this scenario. I suppose not much of the conversation in 100k/plate dinner fundraisers is about the weather.

I think this goes beyond a few random conversations. Chomsky's comment implies a command structure.

That’s your interpretation. That’s not how I read it.
Post reply on HN