First, your OP states “A considerable number of mega-millionaires and billionaires have enriched themselves by taken advantage of many of the same people who worship them.”
You list a few people who did bad things and, in many cases, ended up paying for it one way or another. Where is the worship? Also, got a cite for the percentage of rich that enriched themselves by taking advantage of people? I can provide cites showing that most rich people work hard and earn their money honestly.
Also, since basically everyone on the planet knows that smoking is harmful and has known since about 1966 (in the U.S. at least), I am not sure the blame lies with the companies who make cigarettes. Do you think fast food joints and makers of alcohol are to blame for fat people and drunks*?
You may think 20% is considerable. However the general notion, at least on the SDMB, seems to be all rich people came about their wealth by unseemly methods. All the rich people either inherited it (those lazy Paris Hilton types!) or robbed people blind (All rich people are like Bernie Madoff).
I dispute that which is why I asked the question. I believe, and can give cites backing up my belief, that most rich people get rich honestly.
Slee
*I am a recovering alkie. When I was drinking it was all my own damned fault.
Our current president is the most obvious example. I trust I don’t need to point out all of his admiring fans or the numerous people he has taken advantage of to build up his wealth. My guess is that most of the well known wealthy people that support the Republican Party fit this description (Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, etc.).
I think that’s telling though, how you turn the topic overtly to politics. Trump isn’t an example of people generally ‘worshiping’ the rich, but a special talent of Trump, in recent years*, as a messenger of right wing populism. It is notable that lower income right wing populists don’t hold Trump’s wealth against him, but I don’t think you can make a strong case that it’s an outgrowth of their general love of rich people. A lot of the populist right hates Wall Street as much as SJW’s do. Again you can say Trump is a strange messenger and hoodwinking them (lots of Goldman Sachs in his inner circle etc), but it’s about politics and Trump’s talent for politics, not a general ‘worship’ of rich people.
Adelson is from a humble background, so I don’t know how he fits in except the worldview that rich people ‘must have taken advantage of others’ to get where they are. Again I agree in most of US society that’s not the prevailing idea, though among some it is, but anyway doesn’t equate to ‘worship’ IMO.
The previous generation of the Koch’s founded that company, but as much as the Kochs/Soros are hated by the hardcore on the opposite side for funding their preferred causes, they are each less central figures on their own side, as personalities or leaders. If the fact that libertarian or conservative groups accept Koch money means they ‘worship wealth’ why doesn’t the same apply for Soros? I don’t think it applies in either case, though again sure, rightward leaning people aren’t as likely to see wealth as a negative as leftward leaning people, a basic difference going back a long way.
*he was more of a Democrat years ago and often made left leaning pronouncements to the extent he opined on politics.
Here’s an excerpt from a documentary that touches on this very subject. (I Am 2010) Along with talking about ‘wetiko’ they included Trump specifically as an example of someone worshiped for his wealth. That was 6 years before he entered politics
It also addresses this common and incomplete interpretation of Darwin’s work which is the only part of the story that many people know.
Most wealthy people who made (as opposed to inheriting) their money did so in the business world. Adelson is known for being in the casino business. Obviously, however, he did not personally work the casino floor dealing blackjack or craps and work his way up. He hired people to do those tasks. Of note he is known for feuding with unions in Nevada. The union workers are out their actually earning money through their labor, Adelson is profiting off their labor without actually working. Yes, there are plenty of rich Democratic or liberal leaning businessmen, but they tend to be more philanthropic than Republican leaning ones. As far as George Soros goes, my belief is that the likes of Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett genuinely care more about the well being of humanity as a whole than the the likes of Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers.
All non-aboriginal culture worldwide pretty much at this point.
I grew up in the culture of the USA too, as did most posters here as far as I know.
If you get an academic scholarship then someone else lost out on it. If you win a spelling bee someone else lost. If your team plays their team you root for them to win. This isn’t a controversial or difficult concept. From our earliest indoctrination into society we are taught that life is about competition and winning is good.
That carries forward into the business world and you have the situation the OP is asking about which also is not controversial or hard to understand. Many people do idolize wealth and it is most certainly a product of our culture. You also have people handwaving it with talk about ‘survival of the fittest’ which isn’t nearly the only rule of nature.
It isn’t just confined to Aboriginal peoples either or other ‘Noble Savages’; in my Anglo-Saxon upbringing I was taught the principle of not being a greedy, grasping bastard. Our word for that would be ‘left-wing’ I suppose.
I was too. So like me, you probably don’t fit the description of someone the OP is asking about either. But many do idolize the greedy, grasping bastards who’ve grabbed the most by whatever means and excuse any cost to others as just being an example of survival of the fittest - part of the natural order of things.
The simple answer s that our culture encourages it. That doesn’t mean 100% of the people influenced by our culture are unable to think critically and choose otherwise. If everyone did that we wouldn’t be having the conversation and we would have a different culture. And likewise not 100% of aboriginal indigenous people buy into their culture and yet we can still generalize their beliefs and values as a culture when discussing them.
Again it seems to come back to pure politics. I don’t see a need to debate basic political views. But the OP and the people backing it could more simply re-write the question as ‘I hold a neo-Marxist view that wealth in general comes from exploiting others, though I make exceptions for certain rich liberals to whom I don’t think this applies or who make up for in other ways; there are after all exceptions to every rule and I’m not an unreasonable person… now, why doesn’t everyone else share my worldview?’ That’s a fair question I guess. I sometimes wonder why everyone doesn’t agree with my own wonderful opinions, but somehow it doesn’t seem everyone does. But that’s all the OP and leading question are in my view, a left leaning political view a lot of people don’t share. And it becomes IMHO kind of cartoonish almost when it’s extended to ‘well liberal rich people are good, but conservative rich people are bad’. I know, you may just say ‘well that’s the way it is’. Agree to disagree I think is best in such a case.
But I don’t think a generally neutral to positive view on wealth is necessarily ‘worshiping’ or anywhere near it.
No, it’s not bullshit that particularly American, and to a great extent all modern cultures, encourage competition over cooperation and places those who scrap their way to the top on a pedestal.
I could dig up countless cites to argue that thesis in addition to those I have provided but this is IMHO not GD and you can’t win arguments here by demanding cites while providing none of your own. My opinion is my opinion and that is my cite. You are arguing with nothing but your opinion too, which is a less credible cite than my opinion, in my opinion.
Interesting how this discussion has developed into a political frame. Left v Right.
It never occurred to me that the OP was asking a political question or was taking a political stance. Envy and shallow admiration are human traits which we all experience. Most of us get beyond those thoughts because they have little to do with living an ordinary daily life.
I don’t think the OPs question is political at all. I’ve met miserable wealthy people who resent their equals and want to emulate the enormously wealthy. And I’ve met leftist people who carry a chip on their shoulder against almost everyone who appears to have more money than them.
And in Christianity it’s two of the seven Capital Sins (greed and gluttony), you don’t need to be some flavor of “aboriginal” to consider it a Bad Thing.
I think that the most direct answer to the original question is that it is common to confuse money with success. The average person wants to be successful and appreciates success in others. The problem, of course, is that money does not equal success in all cases. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. We’re not a culture that’s big on subtle shades of grey.
I don’t want to hijack, so I’m going to add the rest in a spoiler. Just to address the “noble savage” comments a tiny bit… There is no question at all - none - that tribes of people in North America went to war with each other prior to the arrival of the Europeans. And, of course, the tribes of people in Africa routinely fought each other, used each other as slaves, and even sold one another to Europeans as slaves. Once again, the complete story is deeply detailed and requires a great deal of time to absorb. The stereotype of the “noble savage” is more true of some tribes and less true of others. Seeing these stereotypes bandied about casually is annoying.
Sure but American culture and most modern cultures in general don’t reinforce or practice that.
How many good Christians, Jews and Muslims are millionaires who own 3 houses and 6 cars while people within blocks of their houses are digging through trash cans for food? They wouldn’t be considered successful in aboriginal culture, just crazy with the greed sickness.
The cultures I’m speaking of, in actual practice over centuries not just philosophy in a book, value cooperation more than competition. Modern culture, as a general principle but with many individual exceptions, considers wealth the primary measure of success.
Well, with finite resources and huge demand efficiency is important. In a multidimensional world solving that problem is hard. One method is competition.
And I don’t think aboriginals of any sort were non competitive.
Most social species have some notion of status or hierarchy.
And as humans I think we still instinctively want to sort people like this, even if there is no overarching “rank” in society. But money is among the things that can take that place.
I like to think of myself as beyond such things, but when in the past I’ve found out that some guy I thought was a douche in school is now very rich, it’s unsettling. Because at some instinctive level I might consider this person to be “better” than me now. And if I ever were to run into them and we were to still dislike each other, I’m sure there would likely be some subtext of “I’m successful, you’re not” underneath.
But that’s all the OP and leading question are in my view, a left leaning political view a lot of people don’t share. And it becomes IMHO kind of cartoonish almost when it’s extended to ‘well liberal rich people are good, but conservative rich people are bad’. I know, you may just say ‘well that’s the way it is’. Agree to disagree I think is best in such a case.