The mafia
in [Math]
|
Prev: Is there some lower bound on the smallest eigenvalue of a n-by-n matrix?
Next: --- --- --- an equation with several variables
From: Andrew Usher on 16 Feb 2010 21:58 Ste wrote: > > > Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That > > > is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are > > > by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men? > > > > Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they > > perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat > > to form a political revolution. > > But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks > have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no > question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime. First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the apartheid regime', don't you? Anyway, it's a question of numbers there. When blacks outnumber us five-to-one, they can be a threat. When they are outnumbered by that ratio, not really. Even so, they are not a threat to organise in the same way that say, the Bolsheviks were. > As I say, > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary > threat from the poor and dispossessed. But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in the Western world? It's because they've successfully brainwashed almost all of us. What to do about that is an important question. > > The white working class is different; > > they'd never let us get handed power in the same way that blacks and > > woman do - would they? That would threaten their monopoly on control, > > and any attempt to maintain it would indeed lead down the road to > > revolution - just as it did in 1789. > > I think you forget that the working class (which only incidentally > happens to be predominantly white in the UK) was heavily disciplined > during the 80s, with the very strongest working class communities and > workers' organisations smashed. If they were strong enough, it would be impossible to smash them, as they could just go underground. > The difference with women and blacks > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight > against social as well as economic oppression. There is no social oppression against blacks or women! Not anymore; they are advantaged in every possible way. The decisive reason they are not a threat is that they have been bought off as a result. > > > Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war > > > that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline > > > workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain > > > section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition > > > between workers and ensure discipline. > > > > I'm not sure it's so organised as that. > > I think you'd be surprised. As unemployment drops, you'd expect > inflation to rise and productivity to fall, as labour becomes less > disciplined and the relative labour supply becomes more scarce (and > therefore demanding higher wages, etc). And when that happens, > governments with monetarist policies (like the Thatcher government) > react by reigning in government spending, and ratcheting up interest > rates, which puts people back on the dole and wrings out > "inefficiency". If you goal is production, then it's an inefficiency to have people not working when they are capable of working - even if they are less productive than others. Efficiency for business only means profits for them, not the general welfare. Monetarism isn't all bad, as far as it recognises the importance of the money supply - inflating the currency (as Nixon did) is no cure for structural problems. Andrew Usher
From: Urion on 16 Feb 2010 22:16 On Feb 17, 4:58 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in > the Western world? It's because they've successfully brainwashed > almost all of us. What to do about that is an important question. The only reason that revolution hasn't happened by now is that most people do not want a revolution because they know that revolution may only make things worse for them. Also most of the time revolutions are squashed by the powerful minority.
From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 07:57 On 17 Feb, 02:58, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Ste wrote: > > > > Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That > > > > is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are > > > > by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men? > > > > Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they > > > perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat > > > to form a political revolution. > > > But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks > > have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no > > question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime. > > First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the > apartheid regime', don't you? Yes. It's interesting you mention that because I've just had an argument on another group about the meaning of "no question that". And yes, in this case, it means "it is emphatically false that..." > Anyway, it's a question of numbers there. When blacks outnumber us > five-to-one, they can be a threat. When they are outnumbered by that > ratio, not really. Even so, they are not a threat to organise in the > same way that say, the Bolsheviks were. I disagree. If your population consists of 17% blacks, within liberal society you can't successfully resist an internal group of that size that is highly organised with a common aim and little to lose, even less so if the remaining 83% are themselves ideologically fractured. > > As I say, > > the only common thread is that the rich face a constant revolutionary > > threat from the poor and dispossessed. > > But they don't. Why then is there no revolutionary threat right now in > the Western world? Perhaps because the economy has been booming at home, we're becoming increasingly a police state, and we're fighting a number of foreign campaigns? > It's because they've successfully brainwashed > almost all of us. Perhaps. Personally I think it has more to do with material circumstances. > What to do about that is an important question. As Marx said: "the philosophers have interpreted the world; the point however is to change it". > > > The white working class is different; > > > they'd never let us get handed power in the same way that blacks and > > > woman do - would they? That would threaten their monopoly on control, > > > and any attempt to maintain it would indeed lead down the road to > > > revolution - just as it did in 1789. > > > I think you forget that the working class (which only incidentally > > happens to be predominantly white in the UK) was heavily disciplined > > during the 80s, with the very strongest working class communities and > > workers' organisations smashed. > > If they were strong enough, it would be impossible to smash them, as > they could just go underground. Haha. That's quite a funny statement given that I had in mind the miners' strike. The point in the 80s is that the working class were not wholly united whereas the ruling class was, and all the strongholds of unionisation like pit villages and nationalised industries were ultimately smashed. You're right that a united working class is impossible to smash by a fractured ruling class, but that simply wasn't the situation in the 80s.. > > The difference with women and blacks > > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the > > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight > > against social as well as economic oppression. > > There is no social oppression against blacks or women! Not anymore; > they are advantaged in every possible way. I wouldn't go as far as to say that blacks or women are "advantaged" above and beyond white men. Most of the "advantages" are there precisely to offset the systematic disadvantages that continue to exist, and there is no measure by which women or blacks are over- represented in any area of society as a result of intervention. > The decisive reason they > are not a threat is that they have been bought off as a result. That's correct. > > > > Indeed. It was full employment for 30 years after the second world war > > > > that largely contributed to the capitalists' inability to discipline > > > > workers. That's why these days they normally try to keep a certain > > > > section of society unemployed, in order to maintain competition > > > > between workers and ensure discipline. > > > > I'm not sure it's so organised as that. > > > I think you'd be surprised. As unemployment drops, you'd expect > > inflation to rise and productivity to fall, as labour becomes less > > disciplined and the relative labour supply becomes more scarce (and > > therefore demanding higher wages, etc). And when that happens, > > governments with monetarist policies (like the Thatcher government) > > react by reigning in government spending, and ratcheting up interest > > rates, which puts people back on the dole and wrings out > > "inefficiency". > > If you goal is production, then it's an inefficiency to have people > not working when they are capable of working - even if they are less > productive than others. Efficiency for business only means profits for > them, not the general welfare. But the goal of capitalism isn't production, the goal is profit. And the capitalists would say there is no point increasing production if it reduces profits. > Monetarism isn't all bad, as far as it recognises the importance of > the money supply - inflating the currency (as Nixon did) is no cure > for structural problems. Monetarism isn't "bad" in the sense of "a false analysis", but it is bad in the sense that it is presupposes that a free-market capitalist ideology is desirable.
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Feb 2010 09:10 Ste wrote: > On 17 Feb, 02:58, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Ste wrote: >>>>> Isn't the common denominator here not race or gender, but wealth? That >>>>> is, the rich are as threatened by the white working class as they are >>>>> by the blacks, as threatened by women as they are by men? >>>> Not in the same way. They know that blacks or women (since they >>>> perceive themselves as benefiting from their system) are not a threat >>>> to form a political revolution. >>> But that has not been the case in places like South Africa. Blacks >>> have consistently posed a revolutionary threat, and there was no >>> question that blacks benefitted from the apartheid regime. >> First of all, I think you mean 'blacks did NOT benefit from the >> apartheid regime', don't you? > > Yes. It's interesting you mention that because I've just had an > argument on another group about the meaning of "no question that". And > yes, in this case, it means "it is emphatically false that..." > > <snip> and both of you need to learn the definition of "blacks" as it's used in South Africa. /BAH
From: Darwin123 on 17 Feb 2010 13:45
On Feb 16, 9:58 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > The difference with women and blacks > > is that in their present form they are not really a threat to the > > existing economic system, largely because they're having to fight > > against social as well as economic oppression. > You are a National Socialist! I sensed it from the beginning, but wasn't sure. |