The MYTHOLOGY of wealth || The Rich :: The new royalty. (Interesting Read)

[kai_zen]

May just be a peice of democratic rubbish to some of you, but I found it very thought provoking.
It takes a direct shot @ conservative/minimalist govt, and economics in general.

Worth the read, if you ask me.

Many citizens of western industrial democracies like to believe that they have transcended their “superstitious” pre-scientific past. In fact, a central tenet of our industrial culture is faith in its “rationalism”. Much of the political debate centers around “rational” social and economic policy. In fact, progressives frequently fail to take into account “cultural” forces that frequently work against rational policies. Progressives regularly bemoan the “ignorance” that cheap-labor conservatives are so good at exploiting to prevent seemingly obvious improvements in society.

In fact, the cheap-labor conservatives have counter-attacked with their own “rational” theory to justify their hierarchical world-view. Some call it “Social Darwinism”, though more politically savvy cheap-labor conservatives avoid that term. The purpose of this “rational theory” is to establish that the existing social order is the “natural order”. Elites enjoy wealth, privilege and status because of their inherent superiority. The place where this natural hierarchy is established, is that mythical place known as the “market”.

Justifications for elites and social hierarchy goes all the way back to the pharaohs. For 6000 years, society has organized itself into social classes. The people who do the work are always in the lower classes. The harder and nastier the work, the lower down in the social order you sink. The people who don’t do this work must justify their position. They do it by establishing their “worthiness”, and a variety of cultural devices have been concocted over the millennia to accomplish this. The pharaohs, you may recall, weren’t people at all. They were gods. Roman emperors likewise had themselves deified, and before that Roman Senators justified their position as “patricians”. Basically, “my great great granddaddy was a big shot, therefore I should be too.”

The middle ages gave us the notion of the “great chain of being”. Outside the earthly realm – in the realm of myth , that is – there is Jesus and the “heavenly host”. Just below the angels and saints is the king, followed by his entourage of muscle men otherwise known as the “nobility”. Since kings were chosen “by the grace of God”, they didn’t answer to ordinary mortals. At least they didn’t before Runnymeade, when the English nobility straightened out King John about where his power really came from.

This is the historical background for those famous words of Thomas Jefferson. “Governments are instituted among men, and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”. Everyone has heard those words. School children recite them. Few people appreciate that those words repudiated 6000 years of “mumbo jumbo” to justify the existence of social classes and fixed elites. Elites don’t get their power from the gods, or from Jesus or from any other mythological source. Elites get their power from the people they rule. Power flows from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Old habits die hard. In fact, we still have a “leisure class”. As capitalism has grown so has the wealth and privilege of our leisure class. The old mythologies – gods, the “great chain of being” etc. – are no longer available to justify the existence and perpetuation of our leisure class, something our elites are definitely interested in perpetuating. What was needed was a new “rational” worldview that justified the existence of privileged elites.

That rationalization came in the form of a brand new science known as economics, which included a brand new mythology.

**read on**

[johnny861]

I don't see classes as a bad thing... We need organization to advance in every aspect of human endeavors...


It's only human nature to be ambitious, greedy, lustful, to need attention... everybody has their own individual wants and desires, each human dream or idea is not a collective interest... Without an organizational structure, there is only chaos...


From all these various individual traits, develops an organizational behavior, be it a tribal leader, witch doctor, the leader of the wolfpack, even teams have a team facilitator...

These crude organizational structures evolve into a more defined class structure... emporers, plebians, slaves, etc...


It's only natural to blame woes on a class, or rather, groups of people indifferent to one's own kind, be it economic, racial, nationalistic, etc.

This revolves around other sets of human traits...


In our evolving character, we've used organizational behavior to overcome our animal pasts. Compare us to other animals for example. Male dogs rub their genitals on females to show their dominance in the relationship. Many of our current nations define such unwanted acts as rape.

Male dominance has been used in court to describe rape cases.

What seperates us from other species? Posable Thumbs? or law? who has defined morality? 10,000 years of developing class structures have defined all this.


We blame are faults on our leaders and our governments and on elitists and what not, but in all reality, We have already seen the enemy and they are us.

[kai_zen]

I don't see classes as a "bad" thing either. Or a "good" thing. It's just what is, currently.

There are practices and ways of being that hold back our efficiency, individually and collectively, specifically the exploitation of the lower classes world-wide, for the sole intent of making and hoarding more money/power by the upper classes.


We could benefit from looking at the extent of our own personal responsibilities in our upsets, and things we'd have work differently in our lives... instead of idly pointing fingers at things we have little power over. I agree... that's the def

though... I seriously doubt that you advocate the way of being that these elite classes are. It's not so much about blame, as education. The accountability/responsibility has to land somewhere, yes?



I was most interested in the idea that economics is merely the new paradigm for social class, whereas it used to be defined by divinity or some supernatural force.

Not that any of it means anything...


I respect your point though... of course we'll always have our own personal issues to wrestle with. If not, I'm sure we can stir up some drama to occupy our bored selves in a jiffy.

We create hinderance & suffering for ourselves in blaming our problems on circumstances, yes, but on the other side of the coin, we also can get jammed up in using --I don't want to place blame-- as an excuse for or ignorance/neglect of what's happening in our world.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by kai_zen

I don't see classes as a "bad" thing either. Or a "good" thing. It's just what is, currently.

There are practices and ways of being that hold back our efficiency, individually and collectively, specifically the exploitation of the lower classes world-wide, for the sole intent of making and hoarding more money/power by the upper classes.


I agree with you to a point. My opinion is that it isn't anything to be looked upon as necessarily good or bad, but rather a process of nature. To group ourselves and to organize ourselves. We are only one species on this planet, among many that follow similar processes. We can compare and contrast ourselves with many species and find pattern behavior similar to our own, be it the ants exploiting the drones to gather food, to it's upper class whose purpose is to care for the queen. I might be bold in suggesting that we may more in common with such organizational behaviors than we wish to believe. Most species of ant's without their ruling class, become chaotic and die off. However, we are scientient enough to encourage different behaviors, perhaps those of the Carpenter ants, where there isn't necessarily a queen per colony, albeit they do exhibit behaviors very similiar to colonial expansionists.

I'm sure every behavioral pattern in nature has its flaw or two.


We could benefit from looking at the extent of our own personal responsibilities in our upsets, and things we'd have work differently in our lives... instead of idly pointing fingers at things we have little power over. I agree... that's the def

though... I seriously doubt that you advocate the way of being that these elite classes are. It's not so much about blame, as education. The accountability/responsibility has to land somewhere, yes?



As I don't agree with some of the behaviors of the upper classes, I can't say the blame should land soley on them. I think we are all to blame in one degree or another. Take a rags-to-riches story. Somebody lives in a low class area, but due to their own ability, circumstance or just good fortune, they come into a wealthy stature. They now have the ability to afford the home in the nice area, the nice cars, their kids can now go to decent private schools or public schools in nicer districts.

This is human nature, to better ourselves, but we are typically travelling a one lane road of thought, not seeing a freeway of other possibilities to better ourselves.

What about their community they left behind. And again, most do throw some change at the community, make an occaisional appearance, a lot of times with the media, but they have left, abandoned the lower class they came from.

And so the cycle continues, one "bubble" floating up towards the top of the class system at a time, instead of all those "bubbles" collectively gathering together, bettering the local communities that raised them and ciculating that newly reformed religion of economic gain into their local community.

This is only a single viewpoint, which does not take into the account of the elite class and their responsibilities as well, who also do nothing more than throw some occaisional change back down the ladder of society.


The point I'm making is that we can bicker about the ruling class and argue back and forth about things we have no control over, as you have also brought to attention, but we as individuals and local communities need to act at home, to bring about change and betterment for our lives.




I was most interested in the idea that economics is merely the new paradigm for social class, whereas it used to be defined by divinity or some supernatural force.

Not that any of it means anything...


I agree, they are only institutions devised by man. Perhaps we are seeing a new age, a transformation from the institution of religion, to that of global economies. Maybe we are being spirited away into another dark age. What is important is that we learn within ourselves and our communities, how to invoke change. Historically, bringing down the elite, has always ended up replacing one regime with another, this is obviously not a very practical approach.




I respect your point though... of course we'll always have our own personal issues to wrestle with. If not, I'm sure we can stir up some drama to occupy our bored selves in a jiffy.

We create hinderance & suffering for ourselves in blaming our problems on circumstances, yes, but on the other side of the coin, we also can get jammed up in using --I don't want to place blame-- as an excuse for or ignorance/neglect of what's happening in our world.


Thank you for a good conversation, it was very enlightening.

[kai_zen]

As I don't agree with some of the behaviors of the upper classes, I can't say the blame should land soley on them. I think we are all to blame in one degree or another. Take a rags-to-riches story. Somebody lives in a low class area, but due to their own ability, circumstance or just good fortune, they come into a wealthy stature. They now have the ability to afford the home in the nice area, the nice cars, their kids can now go to decent private schools or public schools in nicer districts.

I don't think blame should be flying either. I don't think I said it should. Or even the article did. But it's a valid point. Blame (especially idle blame) can really clog up the possibility pipes.

About the rags to riches deal... imho (and I think we are on the same page) :: We could be placing blame on one individual or one corporation, one government, all people, all governments... maybe even God, the weather, the moon... whatever. It's all outside, unmalleable circumstance. The power to make a difference with anything is not out there.
You only find it with yourself.

This is human nature, to better ourselves, but we are typically travelling a one lane road of thought, not seeing a freeway of other possibilities to better ourselves.

that's the def.

I'm an advocate of all this you're speaking to, (i.e. not blaming curcumstances, taking personal initiative, ontology, social evolution, etc). I know all this stuff... even if I ignore/orget it sometimes. (Don't we all).





The article had me consider the state of things in a different perspective... One I hadn't before.

I suppose that's the only reason I wanted to share it.


But yeah, y/w. Good convo. I'm glad to see some like-mindedness. I haven't had much of that on here before.

[hepkatmama]

wealth & poverty are as undeniable as your bankstatement

the government is voted in by the people

the elected government is swayed by lobbyists

who are paid by the wealthy

the policy changes made by elected government is effected by the bankstatements of the wealthy



now i'm not blaming anybody for anything, just laying it out for u.

i think the problems between class relations has to do with condescending attitudes (i'm better than u cause i'm rich and privledged, i'm better than u cause i'm poor & dedicated)

there is no denying that socialism will never be fair when the current setup is so biased. its all based on supply & demand

if they supply the $$, they make the demands.