What do you think about class, class differences, the effect of class on politics and the place of class in political rhetoric? Is it something that people should focus on, and if so, how much? Should political leaders account for class when building organisations? Should class impact strategy?

submitted by NeoRail from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

However, I also believe that means the 1% have a moral responsibility to not screw over the 99%.

We want that to be a valid perspective because we're in the 99%, but how would it look from the 1% perspective?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Japan seems to be a good example of it done right (no pun intended).

The Japanese 1% are nationalistic, and aren't afraid of putting their own country first instead of foreigners. They also donate a lot of money towards natural disasters that hit their island.

There's also this story that made me cry when I first read it. Nintendo's former CEO would rather slash his own salary than fire any of his employees.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/arts/nintendo-ceo-take-50-percent-675228/

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That would be the result of Japanese 1% being ethnically Japanese, and therefore having a direct genetic connection with the Japanese people.

In many of our western countries, the 1% are not necessarily part of 'us'.

[–]NeoRail[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Japan is not all that different from most other liberal economies and societies.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're talking about the other Western liberal economies, the 1% exist to replace their native populations with cheap mixed race workers for an ever growing GDP.

Japan's elite aren't perfect, but at least they're not spending billions of dollars telling the Japanese people how evil their skin color is, or tearing down historic statues and monuments.

[–]NeoRail[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is something that depends entirely on the degree of atomisation in a given society. In a zero-sum, every man for himself type of environment, the logical thing to do for the 1% would be to ruthlessly exploit the 99%. The issue is that it is very difficult to have anything resembling a functional society that way. If the two groups share a sense of social belonging and justice, then long term arrangements can be reached that are much more mutually beneficial and sustainable.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've just come from seeing someone mentioning "the ruling class" on dot win being called a communist...

Anyway, I think there are a number of perspectives the 1% could hold that wouldn't necessitate a zero-sum situation to see the 99% as a resource to be exploited.

Some of those could result from awareness of the 5+ billion excess people on the planet. In which case, a large percentage of the 99% could be seen as the enemies of mankind. Somewhat similar to 118 people in a 27 person life raft.

Another perspective might be that people get what they deserve, as the natural consequence of their choices and behaviors.

If the two groups share a sense of social belonging and justice

I would be fairly shocked if that were the case.

then long term arrangements can be reached that are much more mutually beneficial and sustainable.

We're not in a sustainable situation on this planet, and our species is heading towards bankruptcy. Either our average lifestyles need to drastically lower, or a very large number of people need to gtfo.

People who spend their days laboring to earn money are less likely to spend their time thinking about those kinds of things. But this is just about possible different perspectives, not whether the 1% might be a major cause of our problems.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The 1% has historically been entirely capable of helping the poor and has in many cases in the past. Look at Henry Ford, for example. The problem is greed and the intoxicating nature of birthright power. Except unlike a nobleman or monarch, they have no responsibilities or lifelong duties (or at least, they don't see themslves as having such).