

The rich can stop worrying about a middle-class revolution - taivare
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-the-rich-are--mistakenly--worried-about-the-middle-class-151842954.html

======
brotchie
So this is a response to Nick Hanauer's post in Politico
([http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-
pitchfork...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-
are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U64my3WSygj)) which is an awesome
read.

This Yahoo finance article completely misses the point that Nick makes about
people rising up with pitchforks: it will happen suddenly. Historical
precedent suggests that some unexpected sequence of events may culminate in
massive cultural upheaval.

Nick explains it better than I ever could:

> Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.” We think we’re
> immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring—or the French and
> Russian revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to
> dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m
> completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced
> that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is
> a fiction.

> Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone
> wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being
> merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that
> we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of
> history knows that’s not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies,
> come gradually, and then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire,
> then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the
> country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport
> and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand. That’s the way it
> always happens. If inequality keeps rising as it has been, eventually it
> will happen. We will not be able to predict when, and it will be
> terrible—for everybody. But especially for us.

------
rdtsc
> but they are also docile in the face of decline and confused about possible
> solutions. Hanauer fears mobs heading for the castles of Greenwich and Palo
> Alto, but America’s disaffected these days are more likely to vent their
> rage behind closed doors as they shake their fists at Fox News or MSNBC and
> leave cranky

They are docile, that is true. Slavoj Zizek, which is a madman, pop-
psychologist, and I often don't agree with, did say something I agree with in
one of this talks and that is the tyranny of democracy. Basically the idea
that people are managed, treated and groomed ideologically to vote against
their own interests. At the end of the day the system on paper is democratic
and people believe they are free and have all the possible choices available
to them, people can vote, can impeach, recall senators etc etc. Yet so many
end up voting against their own interests. In a certain way he makes the case
that countries with officially un-free speech and human right have healthier
people (psychologically speaking) because everyone knows that they are not
free and often they internalize and understand what they are giving up in
exchange for security, bread and shelter.

I think it is very instructive to watch or talk to people who watch Fox News
or any conservative show, or perhaps just as likely an another ideological
show (leftist or liberal too) and observe how propaganda works. Once you start
seeing through it it becomes comical and amusing. But one man's comedy and
theater is another man's reality.

Another anecdote came from Chomsky, I think, and it was about how those in
power (and this doesn't have to be just money it could be power to regulate or
control or police etc) are devout closeted Marxists. Well how so, a lot of
them a on the complete opposite spectrum usually? Well the twist is instead of
identifying with the working class they just identify with the ruling class
and act accordingly -- protect their interests, they understand what owning
the means of production is, understand how the labor market works and exploit
it, they lobby for legislation in their favor, privatize sectors of what used
to be owned and managed by the government -- prisons, etc etc. All of that has
to be done concurrently with maintaining ideological control over people.

~~~
foolrush
Egads. Slavoj Žižek is not a madman nor even remotely summons your derogatory
term “pop”.

He is one of the most topical and compelling minds in the Continental
Philosophy stream.

As any good Continental Philosopher, he highlights the seeming invisible
connections between the hegemony of an ideological system and the unfortunate
byproducts.

You likely don't agree with him because he is precisely a counterpoint to the
Rationalist Noam Chomskys out there.

Note, Rationalist is not an accolade here, but rather a reference to one of
the other strains of philosophy.

~~~
rdtsc
I have to say, I do like to listen to him but I treat it more as
entertainment. Granted I also haven't read many of his serious books. I like
he uses examples and jokes, it make for a very interesting listening
experience. But a lot links and conclusions seem rather strenuous. Like you
know looking at how toilets are designed and infer political bias from it, or
you know Sound Of Music is Nazi Propaganda is disguise.

------
hawkice
Might be a subtext here. Consider that there are people (in the general
thought-o-sphere, not in the article or on HN) saying that 'poor people are
just too lazy to be rich'. Re-read the article.

Some things will stick out, I believe. Particularly: the author says that most
people feel the rich should be taxed more but cannot find institutional
recourse for their frustrations due to distrust of the government. Most people
would conclude that they'd do something else -- the author of the article
concludes they'll do nothing.

I'm not claiming to see into the author's mind, but placing ideas in different
contexts can help illuminate our own thoughts and have more considered
reactions.

