Relationship of Marxism to Progressive Policies and the Virtues or Risks Thereof

[Emily's Cat]

Let's of things on Emily's list are oppression: black people in sports are the direct result of efforts to keep them out of white and blue collar professions and positions of leadership.

Do you genuinely think that black males are intentionally being prevented from professional jobs in 2025, and sports is the only thing available to them?

 

[acbytesla]

I haven't suggested that no oppression exists. But arguments from oppression get far overused, often in situations where there is no actual oppression in place.
Low incomes, poor education, poor housing, and lack of opportunities aren't oppressionThey suck, and they are sometimes a result of poorly implemented or poorly thought out policies, definitely. And sometimes they have been oppression - but not always, and mostly not today in current US society.

Yes they are,

Lack of education for black people was definitely oppression in the first half of the 20th century in the US. In the second half of the 20th century (and in many areas continuing today), it's not oppression but it is poorly thought out policy. In a lot of places, public schools are funded based on property taxes... which means that in areas with low property value, there's very little for education. In some areas low property value overlaps a concentration of black people - but there are many areas of the US that have low property value and poor education as a result, but which are predominantly white.

Lack of education for some in society while others receive quality education absolutely is oppression. It may not be deliberate. But it is. It is a life sentence for poverty.

Are you of the opinion that disparate outcomes imply oppression?

When it is obscene, yes.

I have significant philosophical objections to stock markets. But I still don't see that as being oppression.

How about we start with basics - what do you use as a working definition of oppression?

Fair enough. Oppression is poverty in a wealthy country. It is homelessness for some and ten homes for another. . A lack of adequate housing, health-care and education and megayachts for others. It is the absence of basic transportation for many and private jets for others.
It is subsistence wages for some vs income for your children's children's children's children's children.

Seriously, how much is enough? Elon Musk has received a half a trillion dollars of compensation and now is asking his board for a trillion more.

 

[acbytesla]

Do you genuinely think that black males are intentionally being prevented from professional jobs in 2025, and sports is the only thing available to them?

I do. I worked for the last 30 years in data communications and computer hardware. About the only black faces I saw at Comdex and Interop were the guys setting up the booths, working security or in food concessions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fair enough. Oppression is poverty in a wealthy country. It is homelessness for some and ten homes for another. . A lack of adequate housing, health-care and education and megayachts for others. It is the absence of basic transportation for many and private jets for others.
It is subsistence wages for some vs income for your children's children's children's children's children.

Your usage of oppression doesn't bear much resemblance to common usage. Oppression implies intentionally unjust or cruel application of power in order to deprive people of property or liberty. Disparity and different outcomes by themselves aren't oppression, even when they're extreme.

Do you think that the person with a private jet has purchased that jet by actively depriving someone else of a car? Do you think they've only got that jet because there's a codified system in place that takes away from other people in order to give them that plane?

Dude, seriously. Females in Afghanistan are oppressed. You using that word to lament that some people are poor while others have plenty is egregious hyperbole.

Seriously, how much is enough? Elon Musk has received a half a trillion dollars of compensation and now is asking his board for a trillion more.

Unless that board is deciding between giving Musk a trillion dollars and giving a trillion dollars to someone else, it's irrelevant. You're acting like other people have some legitimate claim on those funds. Are you expecting the board to liquefy stock in Tesla and start handing out cash to random poor people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I do. I worked for the last 30 years in data communications and computer hardware. About the only black faces I saw at Comdex and Interop were the guys setting up the booths, working security or in food concessions.

And from that you have concluded that there's a systematic plan in place to actively prevent them from working in that field?

I'm an actuary, and have been in this field for 25 years. There are vanishingly few black people in this field. But there's no discrimination - there's not even a means for discrimination to occur. Exams are blinded when graded - only numbers are used. Many of the exams are computer administered now, and those computers aren't screening for race. For the written exams, the graders have no way at all of knowing what color or sex a test taker is - they're given no information at all about the tester, only a number. There's no mechanism for discrimination to occur... but for some completely baffling reason black people don't seem interested in my field. Which is a shame, it's a great field.

This circles back to the start of this. You observe that the outcomes aren't representative of the population, and you assume that oppression must be the cause. You fall into the oppressor/oppressed narrative almost by default. Why? I would speculate that it's because somewhere along the way you've been taught that the cause of disparity must be oppression. For Marx, that disparity was class, and they viewed it as an oppressor social class who could only be in constant antagonism with the class of people that they were actively and intentionally oppressing. The solution, for Marx, was to destroy those classes by force and to coerce social equality on everyone. Let's just ignore that the real world doesn't work that way, that was still the underlying approach.

In modern parlance, class gets replaced by some other characteristic. Thus it's race or sexual orientation or whatever else is the current hot topic where some aspect of disparity in outcomes has been observed. At the end of the day, this creates the illusion of antagonism and strife that doesn't actually exist. White people aren't out there trying to keep black people down - and hanging on to that narrative does nothing at all to alleviate any disparities that do exist. All it does is encourage conflict and anger.

 

[acbytesla]

Your usage of oppression doesn't bear much resemblance to common usage. Oppression implies intentionally unjust or cruel application of power in order to deprive people of property or liberty. Disparity and different outcomes by themselves aren't oppression, even when they're extreme.

Yes, they do. Just not yours. When companies pay subsistence wages, their intent is not to oppress their workers. Still, they are whether that is their intention or not.

Do you think that the person with a private jet has purchased that jet by actively depriving someone else of a car?

Yes.

In fact its one of the basic principles of economics. Economics is the study of choices and how resources are allocated to fullfill those choices. When industries are created to fulfill the choice of manufacturing private jets for a few, they are not manufacturing automobiles for the masses. Industries follow the money. And if that money is concentrated, it propagates industries for that concentration. If on the other hand that money is distributed, industries are built for the masses.

Do you think they've only got that jet because there's a codified system in place that takes away from other people in order to give them that plane?

Absolutely. Laws are written specifically to benefit corporations, not consumers or employees. I'll give you an example I read today. LG, a large conglomerate that manufactures among other things, refrigerators that are defective. According to them and the law, you can't sue them. But must submit to private arbitration. Their private arbiter. A public corporation can file for bankruptcy, but private citizens are significantly limited in their ability to file bankruptcy. I could provide probably thousands of examples of how the wealthy are protected by laws written by politicians that receive everything from campaign contributions to paid vacations and gifts.

Dude, seriously. Females in Afghanistan are oppressed. You using that word to lament that some people are poor while others have plenty is egregious hyperbole.

No, I'm not. Yes females in Afghanistan are definitely oppressed. But if you think oppression is limited to Afghanistan, you need to wake up. Oh, that's woke in your terminology.

Unless that board is deciding between giving Musk a trillion dollars and giving a trillion dollars to someone else, it's irrelevant. You're acting like other people have some legitimate claim on those funds. Are you expecting the board to liquefy stock in Tesla and start handing out cash to random poor people?

Yes, other people do. Employees, consumers, etc. I'm saying the economic system is out of whack. That ANYONE can be compensated to that amount is absurd. And oh, by the way, Tesla's entire profits since it's incorporation, is a fraction of a trillion dollars.

 

[acbytesla]

And from that you have concluded that there's a systematic plan in place to actively prevent them from working in that field?

I'm an actuary, and have been in this field for 25 years. There are vanishingly few black people in this field. But there's no discrimination - there's not even a means for discrimination to occur. Exams are blinded when graded - only numbers are used. Many of the exams are computer administered now, and those computers aren't screening for race. For the written exams, the graders have no way at all of knowing what color or sex a test taker is - they're given no information at all about the tester, only a number. There's no mechanism for discrimination to occur... but for some completely baffling reason black people don't seem interested in my field. Which is a shame, it's a great field.

This circles back to the start of this. You observe that the outcomes aren't representative of the population, and you assume that oppression must be the cause. You fall into the oppressor/oppressed narrative almost by default. Why? I would speculate that it's because somewhere along the way you've been taught that the cause of disparity must be oppression. For Marx, that disparity was class, and they viewed it as an oppressor social class who could only be in constant antagonism with the class of people that they were actively and intentionally oppressing. The solution, for Marx, was to destroy those classes by force and to coerce social equality on everyone. Let's just ignore that the real world doesn't work that way, that was still the underlying approach.

In modern parlance, class gets replaced by some other characteristic. Thus it's race or sexual orientation or whatever else is the current hot topic where some aspect of disparity in outcomes has been observed. At the end of the day, this creates the illusion of antagonism and strife that doesn't actually exist. White people aren't out there trying to keep black people down - and hanging on to that narrative does nothing at all to alleviate any disparities that do exist. All it does is encourage conflict and anger.

Nonsense, I never took a test to do what I did. I worked selling IT equipment and software. I'm the one who would call on IT managers and corporate executives. You don't need to be a college graduate to do what I did. Although I do have a degree in International Relations and a minor in economics.

Now, of course there wasn't a sign that said African Americans need not apply. The systemic issues that has prevented African Americans from jobs such as mine wasn't overt discrimination. No, it has been poor schools and a legacy of minuscule opportunities for centuries.

 

[angrysoba]

Marx didn't, but it's also irrelevant.

It stems directly from the premise of oppressor/oppressed dynamics, and from the underlying assumption that privilege is unearned and therefore unjust.

This again seems to be something of a useless formulation.
Surely you would agree that the Taliban oppress women, right? If so, does this make you a Marxist?
Surely we can agree that absolute monarchs passing on their throne to their offspring involves unearned privilege? Does this make you a progressive?

Just pointing out the superficial similarities in terminology doesn't mean that one thing directly follows another.

 

[Trausti]

Now, of course there wasn't a sign that said African Americans need not apply. The systemic issues that has prevented African Americans from jobs such as mine wasn't overt discrimination. No, it has been poor schools and a legacy of minuscule opportunities for centuries.

Ah, the miasma theory of racism.

 

[acbytesla]

Ah, the miasma theory of racism.

As opposed to the theory that racism and the 300 year legacy of racism ended with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

---

---

Do you genuinely think that black males are intentionally being prevented from professional jobs in 2025, and sports is the only thing available to them?

It's more a Class thing at this point: education is so expensive that not even what is left of the Middle Class can afford to give two or more children a professional education with prospects for leadership positions.
And, of course, incarceration rates prove that black males are intentionally kept out of the job market.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You're just

I agree to all of this.

But oppression takes many forms. Like substandard incomes, poor or lack of education, poor housing, not to mention an absence of opportunities. A system of compensation that provides Elon Musk a half billion dollars, rewards stockholders far more than it does workers.

That system is called capitalism, and it doesn't just benefit people like Elon Musk.

Anybody can be a capitalist. Most aren't simply because they don't try. They spend all the money they earn and then some. They spend it on stuff that's not an asset, like a car, a family, drugs (cigarettes, alcohol, coffee) or a social life. Then when an opportunity comes up to multiply their investment by 34,000%, they don't have anything to invest. Or they spend it on the lottery instead.

You know that many of Tesla's workers are also stockholders, right? Then again, maybe Musk will screw it up and Tesla goes bankrupt. Then he gets nothing and neither do the other stockholders. The workers will get their final paychecks though.

Actually Musk gets nothing even if Telsa does OK. He only gets compensation for exceptional performance. Many are saying it won't happen, and they may be right. I bet you don't think this is unfair though.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Bollocks.
Not all Shareholders are equal - in fact, most don't matter at all except as pay pigs.
It was always silly to compare someone with a 401K to a hedge fund manager, but we have moved so far past that.

Unless you're income derives to a very significant degree from investments and not work, you are not a Capitalist.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Anyone can be a capitalist! Anyone! All it takes is a modest emerald mine or a small loan of a few million dollars from your dad to get your foot in the door. Did those poors even think of that?!

 

[acbytesla]

That system is called capitalism, and it doesn't just benefit people like Elon Musk.

Anybody can be a capitalist. Most aren't simply because they don't try. They spend all the money they earn and then some. They spend it on stuff that's not an asset, like a car, a family, drugs (cigarettes, alcohol, coffee) or a social life. Then when an opportunity comes up to multiply their investment by 34,000%, they don't have anything to invest. Or they spend it on the lottery instead.

You know that many of Tesla's workers are also stockholders, right? Then again, maybe Musk will screw it up and Tesla goes bankrupt. Then he gets nothing and neither do the other stockholders. The workers will get their final paychecks though.

Actually Musk gets nothing even if Telsa does OK. He only gets compensation for exceptional performance. Many are saying it won't happen, and they may be right. I bet you don't think this is unfair though.

Musk's compensation is grotesque. It's designed and voted on by his cronies. A system of washing each others backs. It flat out is not justified by profits.

 

[Darat]

Anyone can be a capitalist! Anyone! All it takes is a modest emerald mine or a small loan of a few million dollars from your dad to get your foot in the door. Did those poors even think of that?!

In the UK the single best predictor of a person’s lifetime wealth is the wealth of their parents. It is amazing the biological process that has ensured that most of us are born into the right and just wealth bracket.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, they do. Just not yours. When companies pay subsistence wages, their intent is not to oppress their workers. Still, they are whether that is their intention or not.

Yes.

In fact its one of the basic principles of economics. Economics is the study of choices and how resources are allocated to fullfill those choices. When industries are created to fulfill the choice of manufacturing private jets for a few, they are not manufacturing automobiles for the masses. Industries follow the money. And if that money is concentrated, it propagates industries for that concentration. If on the other hand that money is distributed, industries are built for the masses.

Pretty sure this is entirely wrong. You're treating this like it's a zero-sum situation. As if the manufacture of a plan prevents someone else from manufacturing a car - and that's obviously and observably not the case. There's no lack of cars out there. Alex having a plane doesn't in any way at all prevent Sam from getting a car.

Absolutely. Laws are written specifically to benefit corporations, not consumers or employees. I'll give you an example I read today. LG, a large conglomerate that manufactures among other things, refrigerators that are defective. According to them and the law, you can't sue them. But must submit to private arbitration. Their private arbiter. A public corporation can file for bankruptcy, but private citizens are significantly limited in their ability to file bankruptcy. I could provide probably thousands of examples of how the wealthy are protected by laws written by politicians that receive everything from campaign contributions to paid vacations and gifts.

There are plenty of rules and regulations that I think provide too much protection to corporations... but that's completely irrelevant here. The fact that corporations can have limited liability and embed arbitration requirements into their sales contracts doesn't support your assertion. Nobody is having a car taken away from them so that someone else can get a plane.

No, I'm not. Yes females in Afghanistan are definitely oppressed. But if you think oppression is limited to Afghanistan, you need to wake up. Oh, that's woke in your terminology.

Yes, other people do. Employees, consumers, etc. I'm saying the economic system is out of whack. That ANYONE can be compensated to that amount is absurd. And oh, by the way, Tesla's entire profits since it's incorporation, is a fraction of a trillion dollars.

Profits aren't Value. Tesla's value is significantly higher than its profits. You're conflating income and net worth.

FWIW, I also think it's absurd that anyone should be paid a salary that high... but I don't think it should be illegal. Additionally, you really should try to make the distinction between salary and compensation - they're not the same thing. And when someone's compensation is heavily based in stock, there's a significant risk involved. What's worth a lot today could be worth nothing tomorrow. It's not actual money, you know that right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nonsense, I never took a test to do what I did.

I didn't say you did? I used my field as an example, so I have no idea what you're calling nonsense.

I worked selling IT equipment and software. I'm the one who would call on IT managers and corporate executives. You don't need to be a college graduate to do what I did. Although I do have a degree in International Relations and a minor in economics.

Now, of course there wasn't a sign that said African Americans need not apply. The systemic issues that has prevented African Americans from jobs such as mine wasn't overt discrimination. No, it has been poor schools and a legacy of minuscule opportunities for centuries.

Things that happened centuries ago, but which aren't happening now, mean that people are oppressed? Does that actually make sense to you?

You're assuming oppression and discrimination because you observe that your field doesn't have the proportion of black people in it that the population as a whole does. You're assuming that a difference in outcome must be caused by a difference in opportunity - and that's a false assumption. It's certainly possible that your particular employer is actively racist and discriminatory... but that's far from the only possibility.

How many black people apply for positions in your field, do you know? How many have expressed interest, or studied related topics in school? How many live in the immediate vicinity or would feasibly commute to your location? Are there other industries or employers in your area with comparable wages that have an overrepresentation of black people? Is there a difference in educational performance on the basis of melanin content in your area that would lead to a difference in wage levels?

Have you actually considered the factors that go into the outcomes, or have you just assumed it must be racism?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This again seems to be something of a useless formulation.
Surely you would agree that the Taliban oppress women, right? If so, does this make you a Marxist?
Surely we can agree that absolute monarchs passing on their throne to their offspring involves unearned privilege? Does this make you a progressive?

You're making false analogies here.

Yes, the taliban oppresses females. Not all oppression stems from marxism, nor have I suggested such. What I've put forth is that political and social positions that *assume* that oppression is the *cause* of different outcomes, and do so by implicitly relying on an oppressor versus oppressed categorization of society stem from marxism.

Arguably, monarchy by right of birth represents unearned privilege. Not all privileges are earned, nor have I suggested such. What I've put forth is that worldviews that *assume* that all privileges are unearned are a common theme among progressives.

Just pointing out the superficial similarities in terminology doesn't mean that one thing directly follows another.

Then perhaps you should stop doing so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As opposed to the theory that racism and the 300 year legacy of racism ended with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

As opposed to the theory that racism can never ever be overcome until all white people accept blame for the original sin of what some of their ancestors might have done?

It's been 60 years. That's roughly two generations that have grown up after CRA passed. Of course it didn't magically transform everything overnight, and of course there can still be racism. But the idea that it's widespread and prevalent in every aspect of US life is a myth.

It's as absurd as someone saying that the entire world is irreparably full of sexist monsters and the patriarchy is a monolithic evil. Yes, there is still some sexism, and yes there are still many areas of life in the US where sexism plays a role. But to pretend like nothing at all has changed since the 50s is absurd. The same is true for race - it's not perfect, there are certainly still issues. But it's not nearly as bad as many people pretend it is.