Capital in the Twenty-First Century

[Admiral Yi]

How was Marxism an ideology of the majority?

"Workers" being greater in number than "owners of capital."

[Oexmelin]

Ah, ok.

But this is not what Sheilbh is saying, though. It's "majority ideology" vs "minority ideology" - it doesn't really relate to how many people it concerns itself with. In other words, the ideology of those who have power is peddled as a hegemonic "common sense", and opposing ideologies are therefore put in a defensive position of needing to be continuously be asserted, and justified against what is so evidently "natural". Jameson (a Marxist) put it best when he wrote that it was actually easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

And he's right that this is more or less Gramsci's point that Piketty is weirdly casting in opposition to Marx. 

[Admiral Yi]

Gotta run for karaoke night.  I'll try to gnaw on that when I come back.

[crazy canuck]

How was Marxism an ideology of the majority?

"Workers" being greater in number than "owners of capital."

Where you go wrong is attempting to understand dialectical materialism in liberal democratic terms of popular support.

[Oexmelin]

A suggestion for your karaoke night:

L'État comprime et la Loi triche,
L'impôt saigne le malheureux ;
Nul devoir ne s'impose au riche ;
Le droit du pauvre est un mot creux
C'est assez languir en tutelle,
L'Égalité veut d'autres lois ;
"Pas de droits sans devoirs, dit-elle
Égaux pas de devoirs sans droits."

C'est la lutte finale ;
Groupons nous et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain.

[Admiral Yi]

Give me a link to a melody.

Every year before I head to Montreal I say I'm going to get Ca Plane Pour Moi down and fucking blow their binds and I never do.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah, ok.

But this is not what Sheilbh is saying, though. It's "majority ideology" vs "minority ideology" - it doesn't really relate to how many people it concerns itself with. In other words, the ideology of those who have power is peddled as a hegemonic "common sense", and opposing ideologies are therefore put in a defensive position of needing to be continuously be asserted, and justified against what is so evidently "natural". Jameson (a Marxist) put it best when he wrote that it was actually easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

And he's right that this is more or less Gramsci's point that Piketty is weirdly casting in opposition to Marx.

OK.  Here's what I see.  It's just a rephrasing of the premise: that people "in power" have a need to legitimize themselves, but those out do not.

So I rephrase the question I asked Shelf: how does this premise obtain?

[Malthus]

According to the article, Piketty proposes two things.

1. That the notion of meritocracy has become fragile, because it has been captured by the rich.

2. That the very notion of meritocracy as a justification for wealth inequality is merely an ideological choice, and that other ideological choices are preferable.

The problem is that these two proposals pull in opposite directions. The first (which I believe has considerable merit) suggests that what is necessary is to re-enforce meritocracy by doing things to avoid the effects of the wealthy capturing it, such as universal equal education (proposed in the article). The second suggests we abandon meritocracy in favour of some new ideology.

Thing is, not all ideologies are equally workable. Here the article is dismissive of objections such as 'communism doesn't work'. Problem is, it is completely unclear whether abandoning meritocracy can create a society that actually functions or will simply lead to other sorts of self-interested "capture of the system" by others - as in, "all of us are equal, but I, who administer the system, am more equal than others". 

[The Brain]

How do you compare different ideological choices against each other and determine which is preferable?

[grumbler]

How do you compare different ideological choices against each other and determine which is preferable?

Do a save before the choice and then reload and try another choice.  Use the best save outcome as the basis for further play.

[The Brain]

How do you compare different ideological choices against each other and determine which is preferable?

Do a save before the choice and then reload and try another choice.  Use the best save outcome as the basis for further play.

How do you determine which outcome is best?

[crazy canuck]

According to the article, Piketty proposes two things.

1. That the notion of meritocracy has become fragile, because it has been captured by the rich.

2. That the very notion of meritocracy as a justification for wealth inequality is merely an ideological choice, and that other ideological choices are preferable.

The problem is that these two proposals pull in opposite directions. The first (which I believe has considerable merit) suggests that what is necessary is to re-enforce meritocracy by doing things to avoid the effects of the wealthy capturing it, such as universal equal education (proposed in the article). The second suggests we abandon meritocracy in favour of some new ideology.

Thing is, not all ideologies are equally workable. Here the article is dismissive of objections such as 'communism doesn't work'. Problem is, it is completely unclear whether abandoning meritocracy can create a society that actually functions or will simply lead to other sorts of self-interested "capture of the system" by others - as in, "all of us are equal, but I, who administer the system, am more equal than others". 

I think that is a misreading.  The proposal is not to replace meritocracy but to make a system that is based on merit.  If everyone has access to education and capital cannot be transferred between generations then the people who succeed are more likely to be the most meritorious.

[The Brain]

A society that won't let you provide for your children sounds horrible.

[crazy canuck]

How do you compare different ideological choices against each other and determine which is preferable?

Do a save before the choice and then reload and try another choice.  Use the best save outcome as the basis for further play.

How do you determine which outcome is best?

Rawls had one answer to that question

Dworkin another

I am sure there are others too

[Eddie Teach]

How do you compare different ideological choices against each other and determine which is preferable?

Do a save before the choice and then reload and try another choice.  Use the best save outcome as the basis for further play.

How do you determine which outcome is best?

Probably the one that results in the highest score.