Oxfam recently published that 62 people own as much as half the populationof the entire world. The entire pitch of the Clinton campaign is that this is absolutely fine, provided half of them are black and the appropriate proportions from ethnic minorities.
Identity politics have become well and truly established as the antidote to demands for social progress and for an end to the massive growth in wealth inequality. This is essentially an American development, although the idea that the purpose of feminism is for Emma Watson to get $12 million a film has caught on with at least some British people, and is the whole basis of the political stance of the modern all-American Guardian.
Hillary summed up the psychological trick of the faux egalitarianism in a simple sentence:
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow … will that end racism? Will that end sexism? Will that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”. It is brilliant rhetoric, a masterpiece of sophistry. Of course breaking up the banks will not directly end these other evils. But neither would ending those things end the appalling level of wealth inequality. It comes directly back to my opening question of whether multi-billionaires are OK as long as they are appropriately representative of black, female and LGBT.
The truth of the matter is that almost everybody who campaigns against wealth inequality is also strongly against racial, gender, religious and sexual inequality. But many of those who focus on identity politics not only have no concern for general equality, but are primarily concerned with the ability of themselves and those like them to propel themselves into the ranks of the elite.
Craig, you are totally right about this. So many times I hear some idiot air-head Guardian-reading metropolitan woman reporter, interviewing American women and expressing herself absolutely incredulous that any woman could not want the next president to be female, as if nothing else mattered.
Back when I was studying ancient history, there was particular emphasis laid in the field on the relatively newly developed historical method of prosopography, a study of the lives of individuals, concentrating particularly on their family connections. It is — or at least was then — regarded as an entirely valid and useful historical method.
I doubt if attempting to do the dirty on someone by referring to that someone’s daughter or son-in-law is really a valid and useful historical method.
If one wants to be honest one should judge people by what they have done or not done and not on the basis of elements like who did that person’s daughter marry.
But our Transatlantic Friend know that – just as we know that he doesn’t find it easy to admit he’s in the wrong….
Speaking of my studies, I just heard someone on RT television criticize British politicians for being students of PPE programs, accusing those programs of being indoctrination programs in free-market neoliberal ideology. Since that is a fair characterization of most academic economics programs here in the U.S. (see the criticisms of them by people like Thomas Piketty and Michael Hudson), I can well believe him.
I suppose a lot of the reason classical studies, with a concentration on ancient history, used to be the program that people who wanted to become statesmen studied in Britain was that it was thought to be a good way to learn to administer an empire like the Roman one. But, as I know from my own experience, it was also a good way to learn to think independently, at least if that was what one wanted to learn. PPE is a very poor substitute.
I merely stated facts. I leave it to others to conclude what they want from those facts.
“I merely stated facts. I leave it to others to conclude what they want from those facts.”
_______________________
I shall take both of those assertions with a large spoonful of salt.
Smashing capitalism WOULD help end racism, LGBT oppression, etc. as capitalism requires an exploited underclass. Human ego would again rise to demand some are more worthy than others, but that must be addressed as it occurs.
Clinton is clearly an enemy of the people.
Fair enough if you want to support her because you think corporate liberal-conservatism and neocon foreign policy are the way forward, but the people who claim she is more progressive than Bernie Sanders are vermin.
“In between motives supplied by way of critics for rejecting the intervention are:1. Complete pacifism (the seek the services of of tension is often improper)2. Complete anti-imperialism (all interventions within just world-wide affairs through outsiders are erroneous).3. Anti-armed service pragmatism: a believe in that no social challenges can at any time usefully be made a decision as a result of seek the services of of armed service pressure.”Forgotten one particular:4. Skepticism around violence and presumption that functions of violence, especially assaults via effective nations around the world upon a lot less effective types, are illegitimate right up until outlined in a different way, and currently being unpersuaded that arguments favoring the present-day assault are sufficient in the direction of overcome the presumption.