That's an answer to why we are required, not why we should be. — Pfhorrest

I don't think you should in a moral sense... but there likely will be consequences, so that does seem like an answer to the question of compulsory participation, i.e. because they can make you do it.

The whole question is why they should be able to make us do it. And, since they only are able to do it because we allow and enable them to, why do we collectively do that?

E.g. if you could take whatever rich or powerful person and magically erase all memories and records of them, but leave them unchanged, they would suddenly be powerless, with no way of proving that they are owed the obedience they usually get. That shows how their power is entirely a function of people agreeing that they should have power. So we can always ask, why agree to that? Why do they deserve the influence we let them have?

I was just trying to answer your post and it had me think of the last speech of Nicolae Ceausescu where people finally started booing him, eventhough he had lost majority support by a lot probably years before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWIbCtz_Xwk

So yes why do we let them? Public opinion is a funny thing, it can already be enough that people merely think other people believe in the powers that be, eventhough nobody really does.

So to answer your question, you're an anarchist and don't believe in legitimacy right? Well I don't think they ever really deserve it either... they stay in power because of fear mostly and secondly because of some people having vested interests in the powerstructure .

Well are you a woman or disabled? — BitconnectCarlos

Others have had liberation movements as well. Gay liberation was a high water mark for me, but it would be absurd to claim it as the driving force behind history. I'm not sure that class struggle is the driving force behind history either.

The idea that there is a "driving force" behind history leads to teleological delusions -- like those embedded in the cliché that so-and-so or such-and-such "changed the course of history". The invention of dynamite changed the course of history. John F. Kennedy's assassination (or 9/11) changed the course of history. Facebook changed the course of history. As if anyone knew where history intending to go before dynamite, JFK, 9/11, or Facebook came along, from outside of history, to redirect the course of time.

History wasn't headed anywhere, so it couldn't change it's direction. Per the Cheshire Cat to Alice, "if you don't know where you are going, it doesn't matter how you get there."

History is what happened, and we don't know what it is until after it happens. Then something else happens. And so on. One damned thing after another.

Still, there are trends. The atmosphere and the oceans are warming up. The population of the globe continues to grow. Every day Amazon sells more stuff. But a trend as seen in the rear view mirror then predicted down the road isn't the same as history going some place.

I believe Marxism does have teleological underpinnings, taking after Hegel who is definitely teleological. Marx basically flipped Hegelism on its head: He replaced the focus on the immaterial and the idealism of Hegel with the materialism of the economic system, but the teleological implications remain, i.e. the idea that history is inevitably trending somewhere.

I think its a very difficult question to ask "What's the driving force behind history? Is it Economics? Sexuality? Gender relations? Etc." So I asked Xtrix how economics is the driving force, and he responded that it was just an "essential" force and not the driving one. I think a lot of people view economics as an essential force, but couldn't we just as easily portray sexuality or gender relations or even the ways in which difference is treated (e.g. disability) an essential force as well? We're all free to choose the lenses through which we view the world.

When does history begin? With the Big Bang? Life arising on earth? the appearance of Homo sapiens? Settled life 12,000 years ago? The rise of the city state? The invention of writing? Or 2000, as some history teachers say their students think?

As for the driving force behind history--maybe a better question would be "What is the driving force behind human affairs?" DNA? Sex? Security (food, clothing, shelter...)? Ego? Economics? Religion? Politics? We became a species and were successful hunter-gatherers for maybe 200 or 300,000 years, during which "economics" was absent. Do those hundreds of thousands of years not count in our reckoning?

I wasn't there so I don't know--and I don't think anybody else does either--why we stopped being successful hunter-gatherers and started becoming successful farmers and villagers. James Scott, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States thinks that agriculture was more like a conspiracy than an opportunity. It was a way of settling people down and then using them for plutocratic purposes. Whether Scott is right or not, don't know. His is at least an interesting proposal to think about.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Well, maybe not. We have had hierarchies of prowess, holiness, wealth, strength, and so forth, Classes, if you will, a long time. But to collapse 12,000 years of settled life and then say that what was going on in the wake of the industrial revolution in the 19th century characterizes all of history could be, perhaps, possibly, BOGUS. A mistake. Error. Over-generalization.

(Ok, off to the firing squad with you, Crank -- this is totally heretical and anti-revolutionary thought.)

There are all kinds of specific reasons for specific structures -- again, in the real world. It's up to us to ask if we accept them or not.
— Xtrix

My point is you or I do not know what the real reasons are. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, we do know what the reasons are. If you're looking for 100% certainty in life, you won't walk out the door, because you don't know for certain if the ground won't cave in. Likewise with real people, in the real world, we know very well what the "real reasons" are behind actions. To take a non-trivial example, the invasion of Iraq -- the reasons were the exploitation of the country's oil fields.

True, you can always counter with "well we don't know with 100% certainty" -- but that's only employed when it's something we don't want to face. We never use it in any other aspect of our lives. It would be absurd. "Well I'm not sure I want to drive to work today, because I don't know for certain if a meteor will hit me."

Trump uses this all the time as well. It's just childish sophistry. I think we should grow out of that.

Doesn't it seems strange to you to judge something you only have partial knowledge about at best? — ChatteringMonkey

When something is supported by overwhelming evidence, no I don't think it's strange. But take this "partial knowledge" attitude about the Holocaust or climate change or the sphericity of earth. All partial knowledge, really. Do we know with 100% certainty that any of this is "real"? Technically (in academic, abstract discussions), no. But who cares? Come back down from space, and those questions disappear.

We know that the wealthiest people get most of the legislation they want. We know rich people get lesser sentences than poor people. We know major shareholders are the ones appointing the boards of directors in corporations. There are all kinds of things in the world that we know. You can see it just by looking -- but there are also systematic studies that confirm the obvious.

The only one talking about a "zero-option" is you.
— Xtrix

No you did, in asking for a justification for something to exist. — ChatteringMonkey

I said nothing about "zero-option" -- you did. Your words.

That was my point, that you seemed to advocate some kind of flat a-historical evaluation via the principles set out in the OP. If that's not what you are advocating, than my point is moot and I apologize for the trouble. — ChatteringMonkey

Apology accepted, then. I never once said ANYTHING about an "a-historical" evaluation. There are many, many factors that come into play, and I'm interested in applying the basic principles I mentioned to our current world:

Applying these abstract premises to the real world -- particularly our current secular, technological situation -- we see them manifest in new ways. Taken out of order, our current "masters of mankind" (#2) are, indisputably, the wealthy. — Xtrix

When does history begin? — Bitter Crank

Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. Sure these communities may not have had economies in the sense that we have, but they still needed to ask themselves questions concerning resource distribution and storing resources vs. consuming them immediately. I think humans have always had to make economic choices.

His is at least an interesting proposal to think about. — Bitter Crank

Certainly. It was always my understanding that agriculture allowed for the ancient city-state to flourish. It also tied people to the land. I've never heard that it was a conspiracy but it's an interesting idea.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Well, maybe not. We have had hierarchies of prowess, holiness, wealth, strength, and so forth, Classes, if you will, a long time. But to collapse 12,000 years of settled life and then say that what was going on in the wake of the industrial revolution in the 19th century characterizes all of history could be, perhaps, possibly, BOGUS. A mistake. Error. Over-generalization.

(Ok, off to the firing squad with you, Crank -- this is totally heretical and anti-revolutionary thought.) — Bitter Crank

It's been a while since I've read Marx but I think he does dig into history to try to push for his thesis, like for instance he talks about feudalism at some length. I certainly think one could account for human history in economic terms, as Marx does, but it would seem incomplete.

But yeah, you may not be a rank-and-file Marxist. Off to the firing squad.

The idea that there is a "driving force" behind history leads to teleological delusions -- like those embedded in the cliché that so-and-so or such-and-such "changed the course of history". The invention of dynamite changed the course of history. John F. Kennedy's assassination (or 9/11) changed the course of history. Facebook changed the course of history. As if anyone knew where history intending to go before dynamite, JFK, 9/11, or Facebook came along, from outside of history, to redirect the course of time. — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed.

So I asked Xtrix how economics is the driving force, and he responded that it was just an "essential" force and not the driving one. I think a lot of people view economics as an essential force, but couldn't we just as easily portray sexuality or gender relations or even the ways in which difference is treated (e.g. disability) an essential force as well? We're all free to choose the lenses through which we view the world. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not that any of those things aren't important, it's a matter of generality. I think economic factors has a wider explanatory breadth. It's like asking about incarceration rates based on race. Well yes, that's true and an important factor. Until you look at class -- which is even more predictive and explains a wider data set.

I think class struggles is one of those factors that is particularly important in studying human history, for these reasons. It accounts for more phenomena. Not everything, of course, but more than the making of shoes -- even though an argument could be made that the history of human beings has been a struggle to make shoes. The reason why this is absurd should be obvious.

When does history begin?
— Bitter Crank

Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. — BitconnectCarlos

The invention of writing, according to the Communist Manifesto. That's what was meant. (Footnote by Engels on page 1.)

The invention of writing, according to the Communist Manifesto. That's what was meant. (Footnote by Engels on page 1.) — Xtrix

Oh thanks I didn't know that.

I think class struggles is one of those factors that is particularly important in studying human history, for these reasons. — Xtrix

It's interesting to me that you say "class struggles" here as opposed to just "class background" or something like that. Do you see Western society as first and foremost characterized by class struggle? It's one thing to recognize class differences and differences in outlook that emerge from that, it's another to describe the class system as a "struggle." Maybe you're seeing something that I am not. I understand that everyone would like more money and we may feel envious, but why consider someone rich an enemy?

It's interesting to me that you say "class struggles" here as opposed to just "class background" or something like that. — BitconnectCarlos

Good point -- perhaps "class background" is a better way to say it.

It's one thing to recognize class differences and differences in outlook that emerge from that, it's another to describe the class system as a "struggle." — BitconnectCarlos

True...but a pretty compelling historical argument (in my view) can be made that it has indeed been a series of struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. But since there are long periods of stability within any system -- whether with slavery, feudalism, capitalism, etc. -- it's probably not as accurate as saying "class" in general.

True...but a pretty compelling historical argument (in my view) can be made that it has indeed been a series of struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. — Xtrix

You're absolutely welcome to adopt that worldview and plenty of people have. The oppressor/oppressed worldview is, in fact, a compelling narrative because countless people have been drawn into it. Plenty of intelligent posters here use it. I've personally entertained the idea. I ultimately rejected the narrative for a few reasons. I think it's both wrong and toxic, but nonetheless influential.

One of the main points we get from reading Nietzsche is that we come to sever the connection between "weak" and "good." We very often associate these things in our minds, but if I remember correctly Nietzsche associates this connection with living within a Judeo-Christian culture which naturally associates the two. I think severing the association between "weak" and "good" is actually a very profound point that is often overlooked today.

Secondly, if you look to the individual you'll see the individual is really a multitude of identities: We are "oppressors" in some ways and "oppressed" in others. Everybody is like this, unless I suppose you can find yourself a black transgender parapalegic who is also poor, ugly, and fat with a speech disability... you get my point here. If you really want to be serious about pushing for the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview here you gotta take into account everything: class, looks, gender, disability, sexuality, height, family history, etc. After that's done you gotta weight their respective importances: How oppressed is someone who is poor but genetically gifted? How about rich but ugly and short? Who does the weighing is a big sticking point here.

The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed in one way another. Nobody is just a member of a given social class or just a person with a disability or just a good-looking person who therefore has everything in life easy for them. All of this should lead us to considering others on the level of the individual which will always blur this black-and-white notion of oppressed/oppressor The individual contains multitudes and trying to reduce those multitudes so everyone can fit neatly into one of two categories is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

One of the main points we get from reading Nietzsche is that we come to sever the connection between "weak" and "good." We very often associate these things in our minds, but if I remember correctly Nietzsche associates this connection with living within a Judeo-Christian culture which naturally associates the two. I think severing the association between "weak" and "good" is actually a very profound point that is often overlooked today. — BitconnectCarlos

A very important point.

I'm a bit of an odd duck, so the onus is on me to explain myself clearer. Normally what I say doesn't get challenged to this level, so it never matters, but ultimately I agree with Nietzsche as well. I'm not married to the idea that all of history is determined by class or class struggle, although I adopt it as an axiom when analyzing the industrial age (to the present). There is no question in my mind that the true power in the world today lies in the hands of a small group of plutocrats. Thus, I often say I'm an "anarchist pro tem." I think we do need to overthrown the capitalist system and move towards a more collectivist society, as an counterweight to the last 300 years.

The reason this is temporary, however, is that ultimately I believe class, rank, and hierarchy are incredibly important and useful and can be turned into something quite beautiful and remarkable. A look at the Roman era is proof enough that a highly hierarchical society can achieve great things. But this will entail we discard old values and create new ones. But that's another story, when even the overthrowing of capitalism itself is only a pipe dream.

The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed in one way another. Nobody is just a member of a given social class or just a person with a disability or just a good-looking person who therefore has everything in life easy for them. All of this should lead us to considering others on the level of the individual which will always blur this black-and-white notion of oppressed/oppressor The individual contains multitudes and trying to reduce those multitudes so everyone can fit neatly into one of two categories is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. — BitconnectCarlos

This point is less compelling to me. It's essentially a truism. Yes, of course things don't fall into neat categories. On the other hand, I don't see how anyone can deny where real political power lies -- where the orders are coming from, where the decisions get made, etc. Look no further than the business world today and, within this world, the corporation. Is there any question who is giving the orders and who's following them within a corporation? Sure there's various gradations of rank, but it's still a top-down structure. The majority have no say in the important decisions (what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, what to do with the profits, etc), which lay in the hands of the owners -- the major shareholders (who appoint he board of directions).

That's about as neat and clear a difference as you're going to get, I think. It doesn't always have to be "oppression," either. It's simply one person (or a few) that gives the orders, and one (or many) who follows the orders. One commands, one obeys. That's power dynamics, and that's what is being analyzed. In fact it ultimately overlaps a bit with Nietzsche (and others -- Foucault, etc), who as you know took power as a central theme in his analyzes.

It doesn't always have to be "oppression," either. It's simply one person (or a few) that gives the orders, and one (or many) who follows the orders. One commands, one obeys. That's power dynamics, and that's what is being analyzed. — Xtrix

Gotcha - so I think the reason my point here isn't too compelling to you is because you're more talking about the power/powerless distinction rather than oppressor/oppressed. These two are different. The target for the oppressor/oppressed group is often the white, straight, cis male while for the power/powerless group it might be shadowy bankers or whoever holds power. If we're going to talk power we should ditch our discussion of oppressed/oppressor because we're on different territory.

I think power is an interesting topic. I think there's a discussion to be had about power in virtually every society. I understand that corporations are hierarchical, but as a capitalist one of the things I really like about capitalism is the ability of one to find means of income outside of that structure. Nothing in capitalism dictates that you need to work for a corporation, although its certainly a good option for some people because those types of jobs tend to be a little more stable and offer decent benefits.

The existence of strong power imbalances is always worrisome, at least in my opinion. I spent some time in the military, for instance, and when a superior officer gave you an order you had to do it assuming the order wasn't illegal. In the workplace, it's a bit different because you could always quit or try to find another job. There certainly are power imbalances in the workplace, but it's possible that the power imbalance can actually be skewed in favor of the worker, as is the case with unions or if one worker is particularly skilled at something or if there are few workers and many firms looking to hire. Not to mention there's also a certain freedom at only being bound to your contract and not having to stay overtime to attend board meetings or make production decisions... plenty of people just don't care.

I think the divide of power between wealthy and poor, at least in the West, is largely overstated. Wealth alone cannot force a poor man to do anything, and vice versa. In fact, the rich and poor often engage with each other in consensual, common enterprise, whether through employment or other contracts.

No amount of wealth can enslave you or I because the wealthy do not possess a monopoly on violence. The wealthy are subject to the same laws, and, at least where the law is faithfully executed, the same punishments. So I cannot see how the wealthy are the “masters of mankind” when they are unable to force mankind to do anything.

Rather, we must look to which class has expropriated the means of political organization and domination, and have convinced us of its legitimacy. These people can force us to give it our earnings, can imprison us if we disobey, and kill us should it choose to do so.

This master is the state.

“The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad.”

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/oppenheimer-the-state

No amount of wealth can enslave you or I because the wealthy do not possess a monopoly on violence. The wealthy are subject to the same laws, and, at least where the law is faithfully executed, the same punishments. So I cannot see how the wealthy are the “masters of mankind” when they are unable to force mankind to do anything. — NOS4A2

The amount of evidence one has to overlook to really believe something so naive is staggering.

Rather, we must look to which class has expropriated the means of political organization and domination, and have convinced us of its legitimacy. These people can force us to give it our earnings, can imprison us if we disobey, and kill us should it choose to do so.

This master is the state. — NOS4A2

Yes, the same state that is owned by the wealthy. The same state that gives tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, etc., to the corporate sector and the wealthiest Americans. The nanny state for the rich -- which to the rich (and the gullible who go along with their logic against their own interests) should be the only property of the state -- is certainly a major instrument in maintaining private power. "Capitalism" wouldn't survive three seconds without it, and they know it.

Little neoliberals like you have all bought into the propaganda of the last 40 years that says that "government is the problem," which is what you're repeating here. That just shows how Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other peddlers of free-market fantasies -- together with intense media indoctrination -- have influenced the world. That's about all that's interesting, and takes about 30 seconds to figure out.

Run along and vote for Trump again.

Yes, even you could own your own business, your own corporation, and provide meaningful employment to thousands. You could pay livable wages to the poor. You could provide housing, food and other necessities.

But you won’t. Why is that?

It’s because your fake concern for the poor is really self-interest. Little socialists such as yourself want the government to take wealth from others and give to whatever class you like, all so you don’t have to.

enjoying your meltdown?

It’s because your fake concern for the poor is really self-interest. Little socialists such as yourself want the government to take wealth from others and give to whatever class you like, all so you don’t have to. — NOS4A2

More tired neoliberal cliches.

Enjoy four years of Biden.

You lament the wealthy out of one side of the mouth then cheer as you elect the wall-street and corporate candidate.

Enjoy four years of Biden.

Yes, keep being an apologist for corporate ideology and Donald Trump. You forfeited any credibility long ago.