Proof that plutocrats are unfit to rule

[cyu]

(...and more likely to engage in @$$hole behavior like genocide ;)

http://differentialclub.wdfiles.com/local--files/ses-and-ethics/Kraus_Pif_2012.pdf

high school educated participants proved to be better able to accurately identify the emotions in facial expressions relative to college educated participants.

individuals manipulated to feel they were of lower social class performed better in the Task which requires that participants identify emotions

lower-income individuals were more likely to help a distressed partner by taking on a larger proportion of the workload

lowerclass participants showed higher trait levels of attention to others’ needs relative to their upper-class counterparts.

people in positions of power respond with less compassion

[cyu]

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain

Obhi and his fellow researchers took participants and randomly put them in the mindset of feeling either powerful or powerless. The powerless group was asked to write about a time they depended on others for help. The powerful group wrote about times they were calling the shots, and they knew it. (There was a control group who wrote about something else entirely.)

Then everybody watched a simple video. In it, an anonymous hand squeezes a rubber ball

while the video ran, Obhi's team tracked the participants' brains, looking at a region called the mirror system. The mirror system contains neurons that become active both when you squeeze a rubber ball and when you watch a stranger squeeze a rubber ball. the mirror system places you inside a stranger's head. you can also begin to understand the motivations another person has. Understanding what another person wants and doesn't want is a key component of developing empathy.

The researchers found that the mirror system was tuned down by power. What we're finding is power diminishes all varieties of empathy.

[cyu]

Maybe one reason money fails to buy happiness is that you end up surrounding yourself with increasing numbers of assholes.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/08/the-age-of-entitlement-how-wealth-breeds-narcissism

the richest 1% of Australians now own the same wealth as the bottom 60%. as people grow wealthier, they are more likely to feel entitled, to become meaner and be more likely to exploit others, even to cheat.

drivers of expensive, high-status vehicles were four times more likely to cut off drivers with lower status vehicles. Drivers of high-status vehicles were three times as likely to fail to yield at pedestrian crossings. all the drivers of the least expensive type of car gave way to pedestrians.

even thoughts of being wealthy can create a feeling of increased entitlement — you start to feel superior to everyone else and thus more deserving: something at the centre of narcissism. Wealthier people were more likely to agree with statements like "I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than other people".

when told that they would have their photograph taken, well-off people were more likely to rush to the mirror to check themselves out and adjust their appearance. Asked to draw symbols, like circles, to represent how they saw themselves and others, more affluent people drew much larger circles for themselves and smaller ones for the rest of humankind.

lower-income people and those who identified themselves as being on a relatively low social rung were consistently more generous with limited goods than upper-class participants were.

The trend to meanness was worst in plush suburbs where everyone had a high income, and never laid eyes on a poor person.

Poorer people were also more likely to give to those charities servicing the genuinely needy. The rich gave to high-status institutions such as already well-endowed art galleries, museums and universities.

the rich are way more likely to prioritise their own self-interests above the interests of other people. They are more likely to exhibit characteristics we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.

[Sea]

More likely to exploit others? I understand that you're think this from the Guardian, but isn't exploiting others kind of a requirement of admission to the rich club?

[Five Year Plan]

Is 'plutocrat' a new synonym for 'capitalist'?

[cyu]

Is 'plutocrat' a new synonym for 'capitalist'?

Depending on how technical you want to get, plutocrats often become plutocrats either because they are capitalists themselves, or because another capitalist (ie. their parents) enabled their rule. Not all capitalists are rich enough to be plutocrats though - and my guess is that the poorer they are, the less they think the poor deserve to die more than them.

[Five Year Plan]

Depending on how technical you want to get, plutocrats often become plutocrats either because they are capitalists themselves, or because another capitalist (ie. their parents) enabled their rule. Not all capitalists are rich enough to be plutocrats though - and my guess is that the poorer they are, the less they think the poor deserve to die more than them.

I am confused then. Please clarify: what is the distinction between overthrowing plutocrats and overthrowing capitalism? Is there any analytical payoff to employing the term "plutocrats" in addition to "capitalists"? And if so, what is it?

And for that matter, what exactly is a plutocrat?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

All plutocrats are capitalists but not all capitalists are plutocrats.

[consuming negativity]

(...and more likely to engage in @$$hole behavior like genocide ;)

http://differentialclub.wdfiles.com/local--files/ses-and-ethics/Kraus_Pif_2012.pdf

high school educated participants proved to be better able to accurately identify the emotions in facial expressions relative to college educated participants.

individuals manipulated to feel they were of lower social class performed better in the Task which requires that participants identify emotions

lower-income individuals were more likely to help a distressed partner by taking on a larger proportion of the workload

lowerclass participants showed higher trait levels of attention to others’ needs relative to their upper-class counterparts.

people in positions of power respond with less compassion

This paper is really bad. I get that it's easy to jump on the bandwagon when research comes out, but in actuality this paper wasn't even written by the people doing the research. They merely cited other articles to create a set of hypotheses that aren't actually tested in the article. Moreover, many of their hypotheses can be dispelled quite easily. For example, their first hypothesis is that the lower class individuals are more likely to be "vigilant" to threat than upper class individuals, but we already know that hypervigilance is a mental symptom of anxiety disorders and PTSD which are much more likely to go untreated in a lower class population without access to adequate mental health facilities. Could this not more than explain the hypothesis just as well as their ideas?

Or take the second hypothesis, that lower class individuals feel a reduced sense of control. This is, for one, contextualizing the question as though it is the lower classes who have been "afflicted" in some way in comparison to the upper classes who are "normal". Not only does that show the own researchers' bias, but it may or may not even be true as it is merely a hypothesis which remains untested. Additionally, their evidence seems to neglect the fact that people with more money generally do have a greater amount of control over their lives. This has nothing to do with class perception but rather an accurate perception of reality... which was not at all operationalized or contextualized in any meaningful way. This paper strikes me like the kind of thing someone writes up because it can be done decently well in a few weeks, will grab headlines in liberal news sources, and so can easily be published and make money.

[cyu]

There are a lot of capitalists in any society, but few of them reach the status of true plutocrats - from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/president/note.html

"It is conventional political wisdom that you can't make a serious run for the Presidency unless you know the names of at least twenty wealthy people who can raise big money for your campaign. Political pros say this is a very elite group -- numbering no more than a few hundred around the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States shows the US had about 269,394,000 people in 1996. If plutocracy is rule by the 1%, then that's 2 million people. If plutocracy is rule by the 1% of the 1%, then that's 20 thousand people. If plutocracy is rule by the 1% of the 1% of the 1%, then that's 200 people.

But to me the fight to end plutocracy and capitalism are basically the same thing. Sure some people may say there's a difference - though I often use the terms interchangeably despite believing they are in fact different, wasting time arguing over semantics is to me just that - a waste of time.

[Five Year Plan]

You might have missed this last question in my previous post, but what, exactly, is a plutocrat?

[cyu]

If plutocracy is rule by the rich, then a plutocrat is someone who is ruler for no better reason than because he is wealthy. In other words, he bought his way into power, whether it's through media ownership, private army, or bribery. Not sure why you're asking though - can't you just look it up online?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If plutocracy is rule by the rich, then a plutocrat is someone who is ruler for no better reason than because he is wealthy. In other words, he bought his way into power, whether it's through media ownership, private army, or bribery. Not sure why you're asking though - can't you just look it up online?

So how would you "overthrow the plutocracy"? By imposing limits on campaign contributions? Overturning Citizens United? By focusing on an alleged stratum of ultra-rich "plutocrats", you're opening the way for class collaboration with all sorts of elements.

[cyu]

2 key things to control: (1) weapons (2) the mass media. See http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2767874&postcount=194

[Five Year Plan]

If plutocracy is rule by the rich, then a plutocrat is someone who is ruler for no better reason than because he is wealthy. In other words, he bought his way into power, whether it's through media ownership, private army, or bribery. Not sure why you're asking though - can't you just look it up online?

Can you name a class society that hasn't been a plutocracy?

[cyu]

Nope, they're pretty much all plutocracies to some degree. Does it matter?

[Five Year Plan]

Nope, they're pretty much all plutocracies to some degree. Does it matter?

Well, there's the earlier question I had: why say "plutocracy" instead of "capitalism"? What does it add? It takes away the powerful class analysis that tends to accompany the invocation of capitalism as a mode of production, and substitutes it with a term that is trans-historical and obscures the specificity of the hows and whys of overthrowing economic exploitation. So it seems to have drawbacks without benefits. It just seems to be a cynical adaptation to middle-class populism.

[cyu]

If you want to use the word "capitalism" that's fine by me. Would you shoot someone if they use the word "plutocracy"?

[Five Year Plan]

If you want to use the word "capitalism" that's fine by me. Would you shoot someone if they use the word "plutocracy"?

Of course not, but I wouldn't proactively adopt the term. And if somebody used it, I would tell them that what they are opposing right now is specifically capitalism, along with all that entails.

[cyu]

Not completely on topic, but speaking of plutocracy, looks like Rupert Murdoch knows what he's doing:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-16/time-warner-spikes-20-after-rejecting-rupert-murdochs-80-billion-takover-offer

...either that or he's just foolishly making the target painted on his back even bigger.

[Luís Henrique]

Is 'plutocrat' a new synonym for 'capitalist'?

Apparently it is a new term for "college educated people":


high school educated participants proved to be better able to accurately identify the emotions in facial expressions relative to college educated participants.

I don't think this is in any way accurate. You put some people in positions that require solidarity, and other people in positions that require no solidarity. Surprise, surprise, the people in the first group display more solidarity than people in the second group.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

If you want to use the word "capitalism" that's fine by me. Would you shoot someone if they use the word "plutocracy"?

No... but such use of words reminds me of Mussolini.

Luís Henrique

[ckaihatsu]

Apparently it is a new term for "college educated people":


Yielding the slogan 'Plutocrats of the world, get advanced degrees!'

(crickets)





high school educated participants proved to be better able to accurately identify the emotions in facial expressions relative to college educated participants.





I don't think this is in any way accurate. You put some people in positions that require solidarity, and other people in positions that require no solidarity. Surprise, surprise, the people in the first group display more solidarity than people in the second group.


I'm gonna run with this one, and also note that you're saying contradictory things. (You started by dismissing it, but then affirmed it by giving a materialist explanation for varying amounts of political empowerment -- class -- resulting in empirically varying degrees of expressed solidarity.)

So greater uses of empathy on a daily basis correlates with a lower socio-economic status, because of greater requirements for workplace worker solidarity, through social interactions.

[The Red Star Rising]

Come on, we don't need any silly bio-truths to find the weaknesses of the cream of the capitalist crop's ideologies.

[cyu]

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/17/does-power-lead-to-corruption-research-testosterone

we gave power to a random group of participants.

leaders either had one follower (low-power leaders), or three (high-power leaders). Low-power leaders had few choices with respect to abusing their power and high-power leaders were given more options.

high-power leaders took antisocial decisions at a significantly higher rate than low-power leaders.

Prior to becoming leaders or followers, we asked participants to vote on what a responsible leader should do. Most endorsed the pro-social option; just 3.33% said that leaders should take antisocial decisions.

when they became leaders, participants succumbed to the corruptive effects of power. honest individuals were initially shielded from taking antisocial decisions – but, with time, even they slid down the slippery, corrupting slope of power. Even more interesting was our observation that those who had high levels of testosterone were most corrupt when they had high power.

[cyu]

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-results-people-cooperative-unequal-societies.html

players that had more money than others, and knew it, tended to be less cooperative. when players had more virtual money than others, but did not know it, they tended to be just as generous as those that had less money.

[Guardia Rossa]

And? People who think don't think are very rich are more cooperative, having money in a bank account doesn't automatically changes you into a angry psychotic gremlin.

Not surprising.

[cyu]

I guess the theory is this: People who have more than others, whether it's power, money, or whatever, need a justification for why they have more than others. If they didn't have that justification, then they would have already given away the power, money, or whatever. Because they didn't give it away, they must have come up with some justification for having more. I would assume that self-justification is an instance of self-delusion - and the more often they are forced to tell themselves these self-delusions, the more of a sociopath they become.

[Sasha]

If you want to use the word "capitalism" that's fine by me. Would you shoot someone if they use the word "plutocracy"?


plutocracy was for a while the buzzword among conspiracy nutters (and fash) to point to capitalists they dont like and leave capitalists they do like out of frame, its as meaningless as ZOG. what a suprise cyu is a fan of the term.

[cyu]

How would you run a website if administrators didn't have more power over everyone else? How would an actual anarchist run a website if administrators didn't have the power to ban people?