Hacker News Reader

Comment by eli_gottlieb | Hacker News Reader

I'm always a little skeptical of arguments made in the American Interest, since they bill themselves as a magazine devoted to the idea of the nation-state. Whatever I read as the reasoning, I know their bottom-line commitment was pre-written. If there was a powerful but positive movement against the nation-state (say... some form of Bookchinist libertarian municipalism), would the American Interest admit its virtues? Well no, and so it makes sense that a search for "Rojava" turns up nothing, despite it being an extent, present-day experiment in politics without the state.

Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely, and initially to uplift the proletariat, the working class.

View on HN

> they bill themselves as a magazine devoted to the idea of the nation-state

And, moreover, one particular nation-state. But still, the scholarship you find in American Interest tends to be high quality. I can respect a sincere concern with quality argumentation, even if the reasoning is motivated and even if I don't entirely sympathize with that motivation.

> Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely

The second sentence is entirely accurate. However, the article doesn't claim that communists (or capitalists) of the 20th century were trying to nurture "the middle class". Rather, the article (carefully) claims:

"virtually all states—whether capitalist or communist, industrialized or developmental, great power or post-colonial—aimed to legitimate themselves by serving the interests of middle classes whose size they sought to expand... Both capitalist and communist accumulation strategies were based on the nurturing of industrial laborers".

I think the article's characterization is fair, in-so-far as you can say anything at all about such a broad group of political projects as "all capitalists and also all communists"! WRT your first sentence specifically, the communist project did aim to "nurture" industrial laborers; the purported means was abolishing class, of course, but all the same.

I know nothing of the American Interest in particular. But there is nothing wrong with particular publications having particular philosphical starting points. First, an author's analysis is usually more incisive if she has a clear personal thesis. Secondly, the reader is better prepared if she knows the biases of the writer.

We can't expect to read articles as if they are the neutral truth (which doesn't exist anyway). That's why we need a free press expressing a diverse bunch of ideas.

Oh absolutely! I guess I'm just saying that I take articles about The Nation-State in the American Interest with about as much salt as I take articles about Socialism in Jacobin. I know, going in, what point of view the magazine pushes, and the interesting part is whether I had really understood that point of view in the first place.

Well, look at it in the sense of offering an incomplete set of truths. It sounds like we have a rather similar political outlook, but I read a lot of statist and right-wing opinion because you often learn more from your antagonists than your allies.

A weak point in left thought to my mind is its widespread spontanaeism - the notion that once people just see how well other approaches work they'll naturally adopt them. While true to some extent I think it also rests on a sort of utilitarian rationalism and skates over the problem of incumbent actors operating in bad faith. So people either tend to avoid that question altogether (utopianism) or posit extreme solutions that take no account of tactical/strategic factors (ultras). If you delve into the work of statists like Bill Lind, in contrast, you don't have to look too far before coming on discussions of the practicalities of repression and how to implement it while maintaining strategic superiority.

The AI analysis is OK from that perspective - kinda like classical mechanics does a decent job of predicting local astronomical phenomena despite its explanatory limitations.

Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely, and initially to uplift the proletariat, the working class.

Well, you could say lift them up into what? The middle class is in the middle between (stereotype warning) powerful idle elites and downtrodden industrial wage slaves/serfs. The Communist Manifesto sketches the idea of the future society out quite loosely, but it boils down to 'hey, we could actually provide a middle class lifestyle for everyone by rethinking property relations' - Marx talks about everyone putting in some work but also having meaningful amounts of leisure time . Presumably the heroes of a future communist society would be those who maximized consumer rather than producer surplus after externalities had been accounted for.

The goal wasn't to drag everyone down to the lowest pits of the working class, but to afford everyone the freedom from day-to-day economic insecurity and the dignity middle class people have historically enjoyed, without allowing new elites to coalesce. Think of post Kruschev Soviet media where there's a sort of technological and economic self-confidence on display.

Red Plenty by Francis Spufford is an extremely interesting — and entertaining — book that paints a broad picture of that short moment in Soviet history where the horrors of revolution, Stalin and war were behind the nation and they tried to seriously embark on the project of providing “better than American” middle class living to everyone.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/

When you try to abolish class, you're really trying to make everyone middle class. No one wants to make everyone working class, and upper class can only exist if there's at least one lower class to subjugate.

The upper class wants the fruits of being wealthy, they're generally not in it for the "subjugation" aspect. With sufficient automation and efficiency/recycling, everyone could be what we call "upper class".

That is, by definition, impossible:

"""the social group that has the highest status in society, especially the aristocracy. "it is important that the children of the upper class attend the ‘right’ school" """

I could have the same goods as you, but we'll find a way of distinguishing ourselves based on accent, assuredly. Speaking as a Brit.

This is under the fallacious basis that one only becomes wealthy by appeasing the wealthy... by getting into their social group. Which is hardly how modern economies work (although politicians has made great strides in shifting economies back towards that under the guise of a well-intentioned 'helping hand').

If anything we should be striving to limit the power of artisotricacy type groups (whether in dynastical political families, special interest group form, oligopolistic industry cartels with political pull, etc, etc).

No it's not. It's on the basis that wealth has little to do with social class, especially if you make everyone equally wealthy. People will find new ways to distinguish between one another. It's intrinsic to humanity.

> People will find new ways to distinguish between one another.

I don't see anything especially wrong with that as long as said distinction isn't built on some kind of vertical hierarchy which involves downwards oppression/discrimination.

People can be vastly different yet still consider each other as equals. The only reason we think of this as a contraction is that for the longest time humans have solely organized themselves in vertical hierarchies where the "top" is supposed "the best" going down to the "bottom" with the supposed "worst".

That's why so many people are conditioned to always strife for the top, for them it's the goal of the game, but a games goal can be changed, just like its rules.

Sure, people will always try to make a social hierarchy, even when there's no difference in material wealth. Trying to feel better than others and climbing the social ladder is not "subjugation of the lower classes", though.

That's fine, though. Subcultures can invent their own hierarchies and enjoy feeling superior to one another without harming each other.

Maybe you look down on me because I don't even have a HAM radio license, maybe somebody else considers himself superior because he knows a lot about wines, maybe other person thinks she's cooler because she knows everything about 80s punk bands...

See Dr Seuss and Sneetches - he's spot on.

Fair enough, I should have specified that I was thinking of the American upper class, which I think is typically based primarily on wealth, rather than a parallel social hierarchy.

This is what we'd like to imagine the upper class thinking, but meeting them can be disillusioning.

regardless of intent, the upper classes have material conditions that condition their behavior. Regardless of how they come off upon meeting, they still would rather have subjugation and hold their position than work to create an egalitarian society.

Looking at your username, did you make an account on HN just to discuss class issues? If so, why?

I live for the discourse

Generally it's suggested to keep a consistent identity on HN as it suggests more reasonable discourse when people understand their actions follow them. Discourse is fun, rational discourse with consistency is what makes this site amazing.

Speak for yourself! I'm in the wealth game so I can get other people to do things for me. Machines performing the labour isn't authentic, doesn't have the same meaning.

Haha my apologies. Good luck with your quest for domination.

You need to expand your social circle :P Obviously, a generalisation about an entire class is one generalisation on top of another, but i've had discussions with people who have explicitly told me they don't really care how good/bad things are, as long as they are better than others.

Ditto with skills, tests. Don't care, just as long as i'm above others.

A lot of people don't REALLY want to abolish slavery or heirachies. What really want is to ensure they're considered the masters.

> but i've had discussions with people who have explicitly told me they don't really care how good/bad things are, as long as they are better than others.

No question that mentality exists, I'll argue that it's a very small minority of eg millionaires in any society that hold such a view.

There are around 11 to 13 million (not including primary residence) millionaires in the US; or around 4.5% to 5% of the adult population. The typical millionaire in the US is worth about $3 to $4 million. While it's a very large group of people spread across the country, they do have a few things in common.

The majority acquired that status from working extremely hard for a very long time, usually either operating and or selling relatively small businesses with no more than between a few dozen up to a hundred employees, or slogging away for decades piling up invested wealth slowly over their lifetime.

The millionaire class in the US is numerically overwhelmingly dominated by those types of outcomes and has been since the industrial revolution.

Extreme wealth on the other hand obviously is concentrated in a few thousand persons with unusual outlier situations, usually around very large business concerns. My suspicion is that group is dramatically more likely to have a master of the universe mentality.

Most millionaires acquired it, largely, via inheritance, not hard work.

That's true for most European countries, but not America.

Not challenging, just asking, do you have sources to back up your claim?

Social mobility is far lower in the US than in European countries.

I grew up in an area where there were many millionaires. You would have been hard pressed to distinguish most of them from any blue collar worker they employed. They were all hard workers themselves, they generally drove vehicles no different to pretty much everyone else, they lived in houses much as most others in the area.

I went to school with their children and their wealth was not shown in any obvious way. We were all equal.

To maintain their wealth required long hours, hard work and generally being fair to everyone around them. Within the same area, we had people who didn't have the same level of wealth but considered themselves superior because they were lawyers, or bank managers or other professionals. These carried an air of distinction and superiority and many considered the "millionaires" as plebs.

One cannot generalise about any group based on some specific characteristic like money. Each of them is an individual and though some can and do take up airs, others do not. I have a son to whom I have lent money so that he can get ahead and he has always shown himself responsible, including paying me back. The way he is going, he will be a millionaire long before I am. I have another son to whom I will not lend any money to, as he has shown that he cannot handle the responsibility. They were both brought up the same way, only one took up the challenge to be financially proficient.

Different people will act and react in different ways and you cannot paint any group of people with the same brush.

Seems like a false dichotomy. For instance, Bill Gates' family was very well-off, but they never gave him a million bucks as an inheritance. What they did give him was private schooling, business connections, and computer time that allowed him to build a business and win a monopoly when everyone else was worried about getting a job.

> No question that mentality exists, I'll argue that it's a very small minority of eg millionaires in any society that hold such a view.

I'd say it's the majority of millionaires that I've met (all successful small business owners).

They all worked very hard for their wealth and built it over a lifetime, as you said, but every single one of them relished screwing over others and being better than others. They worked like they did for their egos, and not much else. And all of them are virulently committed to making sure they stay on top, even if the top is sinking.

This seems to be a confluence of social class and economic class. Those who are concerned about economic class don't care about the subjugation part. Social class, particularly of the hereditary kind, may be concerned with it.

I know there are plenty of people who want to feel like the masters of the universe. But the bulk of the upper class in the US (the economic class) is composed of professionals like doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, engineers, etc. If you take a broad sampling of those people, most of them are in it more for the nice houses, cars, vacations, interesting work, social esteem, and freedom.

Unfortunately humans tend to measure their wealth relative to others ("keeping up with the Joneses"), so making everyone equally wealthy probable doesn't improve average or maximum happiness in the population.

In developed countries even the poorest are infinitely better off than the upper class in medieval times, safe for the aspect that they're not richer than their peers. That seems to be a very important factor for happiness.

If you only have one class, there's no point in talking about classes.

Middle class without working class? Doesn't that sound silly? In communism/real socialism everyone is supposed to live by their own labor and means of production may not be owned by individuals. Middle class, including minor entrepreneurs(like cafe owners), merchants(shop owners), craftsmen(shoemakers), little farmers are the first victims.

looking for laudatory articles about rojava in a magazine called 'the american interest' is a bizarre proposition to begin with

But it's the correct commitment. Mexico is a Mafia State. A country that has a government that is deeply intertwined with organized crime: the government IS essentially the drug cartels. You can criticize the United States, but you'll have a tough time convincing any rational person that obtaining autonomous control over a region in the US (via Bookchinist route or not) is somehow equivalent to what's going on in a Mafia State with regions obtaining autonomy to escape it.

As people understand it today, the middle class is the working class. The middle class, circa 1900 was not.

> Also, claiming that communists tried to nurture a middle class is just plain wrong. Communists were, at least according to Communists, trying to abolish class entirely, and initially to uplift the proletariat, the working class.

Precisely. And the Communists did one thing grossly wrong - they substituted the Capitalist class with the Communist "Elite". It was from an older owner to a newer owner. The people saw little difference in who they were required to work for.

A new Communist thought is that of worker collectives. The idea is that they are better than unions, with the capitalist class continually picking and clawing at any reforms. With a worker cooperative, the owners and managers are the very workers which eliminates that avenue of strife. And it is one step closer to the proletariat owning the means to production.

The problem there of course is you end up with a defacto ruling class made up of the most motivated workers, which will often end up being just as undemocratic with fewer means of non-political (in the office politics sense) intervention. You run the risk of everyone having to become a middle manager. Not to say it wouldn't be a better system, but we fallible humans are far from being ready for the enlightened fully automated communism some predict.

True, but we're already seeing the ugly side of the capitalist choice already - machines making decisions that we proles can't argue with. Look at Google, Amazon, Microsoft. If their automated systems say X, it doesn't matter if X is true, neutral or false. X is a fact and that's that.

Oh and if you quit using their services and then try to later, they will collect. But yeah, this is the "bad" side of capitalism - you not only will be automated out of a job, but will have decisions automated. And seriously - of course they will be decided against your favor. The capitalists didn't get in their place by loosing money.

And yet, I get downmodded for talking communism. It's about time someone talks of different economic theory. We've gone down long enough of "trickle down", and it doesn't work - or it works beyond the elite's dreams.

> True, but we're already seeing the ugly side of the capitalist choice already - machines making decisions that we proles can't argue with. Look at Google, Amazon, Microsoft. If their automated systems say X, it doesn't matter if X is true, neutral or false. X is a fact and that's that.

You don't have to argue with them - you can always take your money elsewhere. Big corporations are already AIs (although slow and made of people) that are optimized for one thing - their customers.

Sounds very like - ‘All power to the soviets’ - part of the Russian communist program (until the Kronstadt rebellion).

The unfortunate problem with most systems yet devised is that they fail to account for humans actively subverting them and coopting them.

> It was from an older owner to a newer owner.

Many people have a fundamental liking to be in positions of power. What system are you proposing?

> With a worker cooperative, the owners and managers are the very workers which eliminates that avenue of strife.

I'm sure you've been to Linux/OSS meetup. Linus rules with an iron hand, as does Guido for Python. Why does that eliminate strife? IRL, forking is not relatively painless.

I would say their wording is pretty sympathetic here, when the context we're talking about is new militias operating checkpoints in Mexico.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com