Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

apple_achia t1_jd12w45 wrote

Not saying this would happen but I find most of your arguments to be either wildly ahistorical or childish. First of all, the social murder of the poor is not an all or nothing game. And it does not require the most cartoonishly evil murder weapon possible to be done. We’ve seen it happen multiple times in history without Boston dynamics dogs strapped with guns executing order 66 for your Reddit epic awards.

>rich people do not see themselves as a collective in group

(Citation needed)- hundreds of years of history in everything from self consciously bourgeois revolutions to collective action within political parties to squash “populism,” even into personal lives in where the extremely wealthy are educated (in a place like England for example, they’re all largely together in a group of schools from the time they can read, and continue onto one of a handful of elite universities), even just to the modern intermingling of celebrity, business, and political culture all coalesce to tell me you already have no idea what you’re talking about.

The rich do in fact have a sense of class solidarity, that’s why in almost every western country, income is the most accurate predictor of voting outcome. Not race, gender, or social sensibility. Of course there’s infighting within the upper classes, that’s why you have (in America) democratic billionaires who recommend austerity and deregulation, and republican billionaires who recommend the same. The base of the parties are different, but as you climb the ladder of wealth it becomes increasingly easy to hop back and forth with cultural affect as it suits you. This is why someone like Elon could be a darling of the Democratic Party one year, because they’re more likely to pass policy benefiting an electric car baron, and republican the next, for some nice tax cuts, and an “Antiwoke” affect amongst other things.

Of course there are internal lines within an income bracket, a shopkeeper and a lawyer or doctor will have different interests, and these interests have interesting consequences within politics… but we won’t get into that, the fact is you start off your argument by saying “class politics don’t exist”

Laughable. Truly laughable. I don’t even feel the need to continue. But I will. Just a little while.

Any moral argument can be dismissed because of historical precedent. The Eugenicist political movement did not start (entirely) as a fight for racial purity but as class war coming from the upper class of England. See, Malthus popularized the idea that overpopulation was a serious problem and subsequently academics argued that things like poverty and criminality were familial, heritable traits. I can link some papers if you’d like, or some modern academics writing about it, or even a fun podcast about it.

The rich sought to, and enacted in government and private industry, policies to purposefully and systematically kill the poor through what would come to be called “social murder.” It’s from the social movement that brought us the workhouse that we still get a lot of our talking points about overpopulation today, even if “heritability” has at least partially been stripped out, but that’s neither here nor there.

Only later, did this expand from familial and class based thinking into racialized thinking, specifically when these ideologies were exported to the United States (especially the south, although a majority of states would enact at least a handful of directly eugenics-based laws), and then from there back to Europe again.

If you don’t think such a thing is at least possible to rise again as a method of class war under say, unprecedented and worsening climate crisis leading to lower crop yields and heightening social tensions, i really don’t know what to tell you.

As for the idea that the rich are slow to build up mass killing machines powered by robots, what do you call the massive expansion of drone warfare? They may not be autonomous, but since the great War liberal internationalists have written about and theorized a “humane War” to be fought without soldiers, or waged on enemy combatants without putting a soldier in harms way. That’s not to say that all the poor and wretched of the world will be killed in one fell swoop or anything like that, just to point out that between surveillance capitalism and automation within the military (and eventually the police), we could be headed for a more brutal world for the underclasses.

The idea that the rich would have any trouble investing in violence rather than practical solutions that could be cheaper is laughable if you take even one look at even local politics, and how much money can be demonstrably saved by housing the homeless for free. Costs on policing, costs on hospitals, costs on social services, all around, could be saved several times over, and it’s been done before. But where does money in the largest cities tend to go instead? Directly into police budgets.

Now as to any action like this requiring a United front, I think this misunderstands collective action as well. We’d much more likely see the return of poor houses accompanied by lower wages and harsher policing as a means to accomplish the social murder of the poor than some single mass culling of the poor like you’d see in a science fiction movie. This seems to be where most of your problem comes from. You’ve already picked the method, and decided that intent is necessary. But the Victorian bourgeois didn’t need everyone to be on board. Only the ones with political power. Hell, most of them didn’t need to be conscious of what was happening on the ground for the impoverished. Their own world was segregated enough that they could dismiss it as inevitable or unfortunate.

So what do I think is likely to happen as a worst case scenario if not exactly the “mass culling” you imagine?

A slow, grinding reduction of quality of life amongst the middle and lower classes, a collapse of the middle class altogether back into the working class they arose from, a steep increase in deaths by preventable causes, continued and steepening asset price inflation preventing the lower classes from building wealth, consolidation amongst corporations and property owners, increased wealth inequality, the return of the company town, increased police militarization, the criminalization of parts of life previously untouched by a police presence, increased surveillance, harsher penalties for deviance or delinquency, and violent crackdowns on social unrest, the return of great power conflict and proxy wars. Anything sound familiar with processes already historically under way?

Much more akin to the conversion of parts of the world into an open air prison than the machine war from terminator.

21

Eleganos OP t1_jd14wk9 wrote

Firstly, I made this post to deliver a rebuttal SPECIFICALLY to the people who keep on INSISTING that the scenario I addressed with my post will happen to a T.

I did not make this post as a general address of ALL rich people doomsday scenarios.

The whole purpose of this was to point out how ludicrous the idea is. And I did it because people keep bringing it up and it kept driving me crazy every time that I was reminded that people actually, genuinely believe it will happen 100% guaranteed.

I'm talking full "they WILL make a robot army and they WILL gun down every last man woman and child in the streets".

You make fair points, and I'm not going to argue about me needing citations for my statement on rich people not being a collective in-group. Though I would maintain that they aren't to the point of being up for collectively deciding to kill everyone who isn't above some arbitrary standard of wealth (and also enough not to turn on each other to 'win more' once any rich folk culling scenario was concluded).

The fact I felt I needed to make this post to correct people with this bad take makes me want to drink.

6

apple_achia t1_jd18x8g wrote

Fair enough. It’s amazing how something at least a little founded in reality like “the upper classes don’t have our best interests at heart” or “in an emergency, the rich don’t tend to protect the poor first” comes to just cartoonish positions like “the rich will gun everyone who doesn’t own enough property down in a giant reverse-Passover type of situation”

3

GPTN-2045 t1_jd2iofg wrote

This is not true at all in America. Income has no predictive value on voting, many billionaires vote left and right, many impoverished people vote left and right.

The stratification is based on educational level, which is why you see highly educated middle class people being extremely left and high school graduate business owners going extremely right

0

Rofel_Wodring t1_jd2nstq wrote

>This is not true at all in America. Income has no predictive value on voting,

Also not true. What you are seeing is the post-Reagan Democratic Party making a play for the upper-middle class/petit bourgeoisie at the cost of antagonizing their working class voting base.

But if you drill down into the details, income correlates strongly with voting preference, especially if it's tied to some other factor. Income and gender by themselves don't explain much, but income plus gender says a LOT.

Ultimately, the liberals and the fascists report to the same shared paymasters.

2

j_dog99 t1_jd2krti wrote

I like it, a hot take but I like it

1

GPTN-2045 t1_jd2nbbl wrote

It's not really a hot take it's just empirically true. You can look up Thomas Piketty Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right.

0

j_dog99 t1_jd31h5q wrote

I believe it, myself as an example - was fairly conservative, even though grew up poor. Then went thru university later in life, ended up more liberal - if only after suffering the midwestern conservative deadbeat spawn classmates/roommates of college life

1