I would say, “Even if you’re 100% right about me and my motivations, that doesn’t mean that justice doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean real suffering isn’t occurring, and it doesn’t mean the people who are suffering shouldn’t be helped. Sure, oppression might come naturally to humans, but so does diabetes and cancer. We fight diseases and so too we fight oppression. So how about you fuck off?”
I find it bizarre how anyone could arrive at the conclusion this has anything to do with hypocrisy.
No, it isn’t.
If I say something is “human nature”, then I’m not saying “I would do that” if given the opportunity.
Pointing out that human nature exists – as it so obviously does – is way of saying: “There are tendencies that exist in many, if not most, if not all, human minds, and given that people are different, and land on different points of the personality spectrum, then there are at least some people for whom this tendency will be dialed up to 11, and therefore there exist people who would “do that”, if given the opportunity.”
To believe that a claim of human nature indicates personal acceptance of such tendency is just silliness. To see the urge to destruction in human nature is not to claim approval of such an urge.
Not everyone wants to oppress, and not everyone doesn’t. To go back to previous examples, are you saying that Kim Jong Un is worse off, overall, than if he chose not to oppress his people? If you asked him, if he works target be in his current position or just a regular, non dictator, what would he say? If you believe he would say he is worse off, why does he still do it? Look at the slaveowners. Some chose to free their slaves- not many but a few- why didn’t they all? There is human trafficking and modern slavery- why don’t they just STOP? they must realize they’re not getting any benefit from it, and would benefit from just… Stopping. Why don’t they?
Huh?
Can you ask that in different words or something, maybe? ‘If he works target be in his current position’ = autocorrect error or something?
I think we’re having a disconnect, not just you and me but nearly everyone on this thread and me, which kind of indicates I’m the one not communicating.
For Kim Jong Un and every other oppressor to whom the question would be posed, please realize the comparison is not between being an oppressor or choosing from among other obvious options available to them in this already-oppressive world.
Being an oppressor may not be worth much but – like the drunk bum I mentioned earlier, it may be the only available pleasantness. And like bullies who bully – they get a little upkick to their selfworth against the backdrop of not having much and not having lives that offer much else to please. But that’s an unfair comparison, or – if you think otherwise – it is at least not the comparison I was making.
“To benefit” is “to have things better than one would have otherwise”, and I specified “OPPRESSION” not “Kim Jong Il’s personal participation in oppression”. So the comparison is the life that Kim Jong Il could have in an egalitarian world. Kim Jong Il was never offered that. Neither were you. But if we were considering blaming oppressive people for selfishly creating oppression, it makes sense (to me, if not to you) to ask “Well why the fuck would they do that? They’d be better off in the world as it would exist where there wasn’t any oppression!”
Now maybe oppression exists systematically because of a selfish act here and a selfish act there, or maybe it doesn’t. But that, too, is not the same as conniving to impose oppression, on purpose, as a system, upon the world in order to have the life that oppressors live. Which, if it were the case, would indeed make it their fault, their doing. Oppressors oppressing successfully to an oppressive conclusion.
Kim Jong Un pretty obviously doesn’t have life better than he would have it in an egalitarian world. I don’t think he has life better than I do. (Do you think he has life better than you do?) He’s got it a shitload better than the average North Korean or even the average person in his palace staff or the average would-be power broker who has been rendered unable to seize power from the Kim family or any of the other reasonable in-this-world comparisons. I’m not disputing that. But I wasn’t making that comparison.
???
Are you saying, perhaps, “If there were no oppression in this world, even those who now benefit from oppression would actually live better lives than they do now?”
If so…hm… Maybe… But that would be a gigantic contrafactual. Oppression is a major factor in human relations. The world would be better off without it, but would every single individual? I’m not sure.
But…is that what you meant?
You remind me of the people who don’t realize heterosexuals exist.
I don’t know about Kim Jong-un in particular. Different people are different. He might very well be a happier person if dropped into a properly egalitarian world. Totally possible.
But if you honestly don’t realize that there are people who would be absolutely miserable in your egalitarian world; people for whom relative status over others is the most important, even defining feature of their psyche; people who would revel horrifically in delight in the absolute level of sadistic control that Kim has over his country, then you are so completely bloody disconnected from how other human beings can be that you have an essentially equivalent lack of insight into others as the gay southern conservatives who don’t realize straight people exist.
Oppression is incidental. The real goal of everyone is power, all people crave power, that doesn’t mean the power to oppress but that is a great tool to increase or maintain power. Even people that we don’t typically associate with power, desire power to make the world the way they think it ought to be, even if the goal is ending oppression or making the world more fair, you need power to achieve anything.
Auto correct multiple errors, on my phone, sorry.
If you asked him, if he would rather be in his current position or just a regular non dictator citizen of NK, what would he say?
and let’s restrict this to real world options- dictator or not dictator, not a citizen of a completely egalitarian world that does not exist.
ETA- but if you are instead making the comparison that an oppressor would be better off in a world without any oppression, a world that that does not exist- maybe so? But I wouldn’t say that the oppressor currently does not derive any benefit.
Nope, I don’t think so. Are you too falling into the trap of thinking everyone’s the same?
I don’t like feeling/being powerless, but I don’t think I’ve ever had any desire for power over other people.
If all you’re really saying is that everyone wants power as a means to an end—some end—then all you’re really saying is that everyone wants something(s), and they want some means of achieving whatever thing it is they want… I wouldn’t really call that craving power.
Again, Ahunter3 - maybe you’re just too nice a guy - but I think you seriously fail to understand how some people think . Some people are psychopaths,.sociopaths, egolomaniacs, narcissists, etc. For them, merely being equal with others is not enough - they lust for SUPERIORITY. It’s not enough for them to be a big fish- they need to be a big fish surrounded by minnows. the presence of the minnows is what gives them pleasure. An egalitarian world is the worst kind of world for them. They would rather earn $10,000 per year in a poor nation where everyone else around them earns only pennies per hour, than $60,000 a year in a prosperous world where everyone else also makes $60k.
Yeah, I guess I really and truly don’t think anyone who hasn’t been badly injured and warped internally by events has any craving for cruelty or a direct love of the power to coerce. There are plenty of people like that but that’s sick and twisted. And all the people I’ve known who were full of rage and hate and belligerence that appear to be symptomatic of stuff they’ve been through.
Yes, lots of people prefer to dwell in their own sanitized fantasy rather than accepting the world for how it actually is. “Sick and twisted”. Well put, that’s exactly right. Easier to just look away.
Your behavior here is not uncommon.
I would look around at all the white people walking around free and easy in my country,
[quote Firefly]
(https://youtu.be/jUL4eDpht6s?t=70), and then ignore anything further you had to say.
OK, I may have been too forceful - but in anarchism threads, it’s not “a few bad apples” that are referenced, it’s the vast majority of humanity being too selfish or … whatever the argument is.
I don’t agree, by the way. I think calling anything “human nature” is just waving real issues away, and is the kind of essentialism that leads to fundamental errors in society.
People vary a lot more than you think.
People who are not “full of rage and hate and belligerence” may nevertheless be quite happy to benefit from oppression if they think it gets them something else than they want.
Do you ever buy fish? Do you check, every time, to see whether it says “product of Thailand”? Do you check the news repeatedly to see whether/which other countries’ fisheries are reliably reputed to be using slave labor?
And the people directly involved in causing that situation probably aren’t doing it because of rage, hate, and/or belligerence. What they’re full of is a desire for financial profit, combined with indifference to the effect that their financial profit has on anybody else.
Why do we need to believe something that isn’t true?
I can’t think of any realistic system that is a better deal for EVERYONE. More fair, yes. A better deal for the average person, yes. A better deal for the 5th percentile, yes. But not better for literally EVERYONE.
You might be able to convince the average guy with average status and power that he’d be better off in a more egalitarian system. I think the average guy knows the system is tilted against him. All you have to do is watch just a little TV and understand that money = power and that if you ain’t got none of the first, you ain’t got none of the second.
But good luck convincing the top 5% that they would benefit more from egalitarianism than the status quo! A few in that elite group might talk a good game about the importance of reducing income equality and might actually put a lot of their money where their mouth is. But I’ve never heard of a billionaire giving away all their wealth so that they can be “average”. And I don’t blame them. Only a saint would do something like that.
I don’t think the 5% is evil. I don’t believe oppression is perpetrated by a cabal of super powerful cartoonish villains. I simply believe that oppressors are folks who believe inequality is a good thing because they enjoy their position in the hierarchy and don’t want to give it up. You can convince some of these people that moving closer to the “average” will not be the worst thing in the world for their happiness and health. But you will never be able to convince them that they would be better off being “average” than where they are now. And you will only waste time and energy trying to do this.
Hell, I’m nowhere close to being in the top 5%. But if there was a bill in Congress that required all homeowners to relinquish their property to the state so that everyone can have guaranteed housing, I would be vehemently against it. Even if I understood that society would be better off if everyone had guaranteed housing, I still wouldn’t want to sacrifice my house to make that happen. It would be very very difficult to convince me that I, as an individual, would be just as happy living in a Soviet-style cinderblock efficiency apartment as I am in a 2-bedroom detached home with a front porch and a big backyard. You could convince me that there are benefits to living in a society where no one has to worry about being homeless. But you wouldn’t be able to convince me that those benefits outweigh the losses I would incur as an individual.
Fair enough.
My own specific example from the last anarchism thread was a relatively small percentage who can exert out-sized influence with their eagerness and facility for violence. My impression from others in that particular thread is that they were making similar points about a minority of bad people. But maybe I mis-read that for some of them.
I’ve seen these kinds of errors in both directions.
But I think I see your point here.
To try to shift the discussion to what I think the thrust of the OP, I will exerpt the last parapraph:
Convincing hearts and minds that equality for all is beneficial for all is a laudable goal, but its not necessary to overturn oppression. If abolitionists had to wait on the slaveowning establishment to come to reason on their own, black people would still be enslaved. It took brute force to liberate slaves. Revolutions rarely are peaceful affairs, but that doesn’t mean they don’t bring about progress.
Sometimes heart and minds don’t change until after the shackles are removed, so to speak. Gay acceptance is an example. Before gay marriage was legal, there was a lot of resistance to it. Lots of people wanted to deny homosexual couples the legal protections and recognitions afforded straight couples. Once legislation was passed that allowed gays to marry, do we think these people are still frothing at the mouth? Some certainly are, but a decent majority of people are not accepting of it. It isn’t so scary and evil anymore. Homophobia still persists, but in less than 10 years, we’ve had a revolutionary change in our tolerance of it. I doubt we would’ve gotten to this place socially in the absence of laws forcing us to be more equal.
The top 5% are convinced they are where they are because they deserve it, being smarter or better leaders or somehow superior to the others. That goes for those who earned their position, but it also goes for those who were born into it. Especially people like Trump who were born halfway between third base and home.
Many of them don’t object to giving up their stuff out of greediness (or so they say) just that it would be unfair to give inferior people some of the stuff they got from being superior.