big_dave wrote:

houseboat wrote:Fuck you Theodor Adorno!

Easy on Theo, pal.

But he is so hard on me.

I'm just fucking around. Adorno's really interesting. But I don't know enough about the precedents to really understand Negative Dialectics. Mass Culture, though, and Notes on Literature are constantly illuminating.

Rick Reuben wrote:

simmo wrote:I just don't buy in to Hegel's philosophy in any way - he was, in my opinion, a very poor philosopher.

He sucked. I don't care about his unreadable philosophy at all. I'm interested in dialectics and how they relate to power and control.

Fair enough.

OK, one last time Rick.

In order to be able to say whether there are "elites" I need to understand what is meant by an "elite". I asked that question once before and was told that I was being willfully naive. I wasn't. I just wanted to be clear about the terminology being used in the discussion before contributing to it. I was taught that this is how one engages in clear, logical, meaningful discussion; you may call this brainwashing, or pedantry, I don't know. I just call it analytical rigour.

But anyway.

Let's say that I do know what you mean by an elite now (although I didn't at the time of asking), as I think I've got a pretty clear idea of what you're going on about. You mean something along the lines of an informal or formal organisation of people who conspire to and succeed in controlling government and the economy. They enjoy certain privileges, namely being above or beyond the law, due to the fact that they're calling the shots within the legal and governmental systems. Furthermore, the elite as you characterise them is motivated above all by greed and the accumulation of wealth, and has little (or less regard) for nationhood, other than the ways in which it can serve to keep them in power and keep them rich. Is that a fair outline of your idea of elites?

Do I believe such an elite exists? No.

I do believe that there are criminally rich people out there, who use their wealth and power to abuse the system. I think these people are vile, and would love to see them pay the price for what they do.

I do believe that all governments are corrupted by money to a greater or lesser extent, and that measures need to be taken to fight against this corruption.

I do believe that banks and large businesses wield disproportionate power in the western world, and that this too should be curbed.

I do believe that the government exercises a certain amount of control on the information we receive, and that this is wrong.

I do believe that the general distribution of wealth is absolutely morally wrong, and that this issue urgently needs to be addressed.

The schism between my way of seeing the world and yours happens at the point where you believe the world's rich and powerful to be all conspiring together in order to achieve a common end. I would say that this picture is over-simplified and ignores the many subtleties of government, business, and individual behaviour. It's just not generally true. I don't doubt that secret collusion does happen between governments and businesses and banks on occasion, and I find this angering. But I simply don't think it is systematic, organised and well-defined. I've studied the evidence as best I can, and my conclusion is different to yours. Maybe my idea of evidence is different to yours, but I don't buy it. It just doesn't seem feasible.

Also, you are a libertarian. I think libertarianism is a terrible system of political thought. I believe the way to combat the world's ills is through progressive, socialist-orientated government. That stricter checks and balances, fairer taxation, more rigorous and open monitoring of the economy and affairs of business, more support for small and ethical enterprise, and greater freedom of information will work towards achieving this. You may say that this is fake liberal pussy bullshit, but I would beg to differ. I would advocate plans that could only fairly be described as radical, in the context of the current political environment: the cancellation of world debt; severe caps on possible private earnings and corporate earnings; perhaps even the forced redistribution of wealth. This is radical stuff.

Also, I believe that money is not the only issue in the world, and not worth sacrificing everything for. I don't believe in the libertarian wet dream because I see how important workers' rights, civil rights, free education, free health care, extensive human rights, etc. are to the well-being of the world. And to ensure that these rights and systems are maintained and supported requires big government. Should that government be under more scrutiny than current governments like the UK's or the USA's are at the moment? Definitely.

Plus you don't even seem concerned about the ecology. This is crazy. The evidence that the world is going to shit and we're all going to be fucked is a lot more abundant and a lot more rigorous than the evidence that a global elite controls all political affairs.

We agree on quite a few things, Rick, and we're both angry at the world for many reasons. But we have different approaches and a different idea as to what the solution might be. I disagree with certain key aspects of your political philosophy. I know you disagree with mine. I don't see why that should upset you so much, when we're both keen for the world to be a fairer place. From your point of view, surely people like me are enough your allies to make them serviceable to your cause?

I think the class of "elites" does exist, although I would quibble with the notion that they necessarily conspire with one another or are necessarily driven by a pure profit motive.

Wealthy movers and shakers do make huge decisions for entire economies and nations. Just look at the Bush and Clinton dynasties, or at Greenspan's decisions. Or at Enron.

They don't have to conspire with one another in order to maintain the exploitation scheme, because that system is already set in stone. For instance, big media corporations don't have to conspire to erect de facto trusts which exclude smaller companies. That's just a natural consequence of the way they have to do business. They're mere cogs in the machine, just like most decision makers in this economy. I think it's obfuscatory to focus on individual people when the truth is that they have no free will and have to adhere to the rules of the game.

And that's what's so distressing about this society we've created for ourselves. A CEO cannot choose to act in favor of the public and against his shareholders. If he does, he'll be out of a job. A George W. Bush cannot act against the neo-cons' obsession with tax cutting. If he does, he'll be out of a job. A corporate newspaper cannot deal honestly with the global warming issue. If it does, it will lose its advertisers.

We do indeed have an upper crust filled with shills who toe the line for big bucks. But I don't see the point in focusing on any latent malice or inhuman greed on their part. It's just irrelevant to what should be taking place: a broader critique of the structrual underpinnings that determine their behavior.

Look, I'm not trying to exonerate these people from guilt. God knows that the shady housing lenders deserve the utmost blame.

All I'm saying is that it's unproductive and reactionary to just point fingers all of the time. That's fine to do, but the reasons why the behavior is occurring in the first place are what we need to focus on changing.

It's like if you lived in a bad part of your city and saw minority-on-minority crime all of the time. Your first instinct might be to label an entire race or class as violent and anti-social. But this is a superficial view of the situation. You wouldn't be looking at the poverty and inhumane conditions which cause the criminal behavior in the first place. It's not downplaying human free will. It's just focusing on the aspects of the scenario that we *can* change. It's not reactionary. It's progressive.

You can't change peoples' natures. You can, however, change the conditions under which their natures can operate.

Rick Reuben wrote:You are pathetic. You're embarassing yourself. What in the fuck is wrong with you? The standard dictionary defintion of 'elite' is this:

elite or e·lites
1.
a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status:

And you reject the definition to invent your own?? So you can then apply your erroneous definition in an effort to disprove the existence of elites??? You are a joke.

The way a term is used in a conversation doesn't correlate so simplistically and directly to its dictionary definition. If I am engaged in a conversation about "identity" with a philosopher, with a psychologist, and with some emo kid on myspace, we're likely to be talking about three very different things. There's a logical link between them, and they do all make reference to the dictionary definition of the word. But are they the same thing? No.

So you are now telling me that when you talk about elites, you are simply talking about a group or class of persons who enjoy superior intellectual, social or economic status? Wow! what a fucking fascinating idea. Of course elites thus defined exist. For example, you, as you have reminded many people, are the most intelligent person on this board. Rick, you are, by your own definition, a member of the elite. You have superior intellectual knowledge to most people, therefore you are part of an elite. Doesn't that mean you want to abolish yourself?

No, because, like the slimy little shyster you know you are, you're not simply talking about elites as defined by the dictionary. Or at least, if you are then your claims are made even more incoherent. If we're following to the letter the brief and simplified definition as given by the dictionary, I am part of the social elite because I am not in prison. You are a member of an economic elite because you are not destitute. Nerbly is a member of the intellectual elite because he reads Shakespeare. Funnily enough, the dictionary definition of elite isn't very nuanced. It needs a bit more explaining before it starts to make sense, before you can start to refute the examples I've just given. So your definition of "elite" isn't the dictionary one, is it? It's a more complicated one, that incorporates political ideas, reflects critical modes of thought, etc. Doesn't it?

Doesn't it?

Well, Doesn't it?

I'm not playing games with words, Rick. I just noticed a long time ago that the simple, dictionary definition of "elite" doesn't mean a great deal when discussing politics. Oops, I tried to understand the nuances of things.

You are a phony, a diletant and an intellectual fraud.

Rick Reuben wrote:

simmo wrote:The way a term is used in a conversation doesn't correlate so simplistically and directly to its dictionary definition.

Fuck off, shitbrain. You know very well that elite=richest and most powerful. Scared little prick.

No, fuck you shitbrain.

So elite=richest and most powerful.

If the elite simply means the richest and most powerful, how are we going to get rid of it? And why would we want to?

I mean, we could make sure everyone has the same wealth and power... You're a Marxist now?

Or maybe some people should have more wealth and power? i.e. the ones that work hard in the case of the former, and the ones with the brains in the case of the latter?

Incoherent, pathetic nonsense. So the elite are the rich and powerful. Your point is?

Rick Reuben wrote:

simmo wrote: You are a member of an economic elite because you are not destitute.

Retard. So 98% of the population belongs to the elite?? Did a piano with an anvil on top fall on your head a long time ago?

No, you are a retard.

Where does the dictionary definition mention that an elite need necessarily be a minority?

It doesn't.

Wrong again, Rick.

I suggest you start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Or perhaps here:

http://www.franklin.com/estore/dictionary/KID-1240/

simmo wrote:Where does the dictionary definition mention that an elite need necessarily be a minority?

How could an elite be anything but a minority? On the same token, how can power be shared by all, yet still be considered power?

Skronk wrote:

simmo wrote:Where does the dictionary definition mention that an elite need necessarily be a minority?

How could an elite be anything but a minority? On the same token, how can power be shared by all, yet still be considered power?

The word "elite" isn't comparitive, at all. Which is why the last page is so funny.

If every car manufacturer in the world went bankrupt and only Jaguar remained, Jaguar would still be a manufacturer of elite vehicles. Similiarly, if only Ford remained, it would not make Fiesta Sports any more 'elite'.

This is worse than the "luxury" argument where Bob tried to make the case that the comparisions he personally draws are built into the language that we all use only we are too stupid to see this.