The Inexplicable Success of Capitalist Indoctrination

[Heyo]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth is untouchable?

Well if they wanted to, they could have people like you and me killed.

It doesn't take much to see why they remain completely untouchable hoarding such inconceivable wealth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalist indoctrination is still better than socialist
indoctrination. The former has history as supporting
evidence of superior results, thus making it explicable.
The latter can only say "But this time it'll work!".
This is a symptom of magical thinking, ie, hope that
somehow in some unknown way, it will succeed
despite a lack of evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth is untouchable?

I don't see the connection between capitalism and "inadequate taxation of the rich." As far as I am aware, capitalism has nothing to say about how taxes are levied across income levels.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth is untouchable?

There probably are a number of possible factors.

For one, support of capitalism has been ingrained in Americans as patriotic, since the Cold War created a national identity which is capitalistic and virulently anti-communist. So, there's been an underlying fear of being called a "traitor" for not giving 110% support to capitalism.

Secondly, for most of the generations alive today, the U.S. economy and society has been mostly insulated and enjoyed a relatively high standard of living, which many people have been (mendaciously) persuaded into believing that it was due to capitalism.

Related to the second point, even low wage workers believe they get a better deal under capitalism than under socialism. However, what they don't realize that they only get a better deal under American capitalism - something they wouldn't get if they were living under Guatemalan capitalism or Chadian capitalism. (Though I hear German capitalism isn't too bad, as you get better health benefits and more paid time off than Americans get.)

What's really been missing from the current discussion - at least a difference from what I remember from earlier decades - is a strong public voice of support for organized labor. Labor unions still support a capitalist system, and they use their right of free association and freedom of speech to advocate for better wages and working conditions for their workers. This is why support of capitalism has been rather strong among the union rank-and-file (at least traditionally). Liberal support of a strong and robust labor movement was actually quite helpful to capitalism.

 

[libre]

In brief, the dominant institutions which create and reinforce the dominant ideology has always emerged from the economic system that it reproduces. During the Fuedal era in Europe the main ideological state apparatus was the Church (there is a reason why so many splits and translations of Christian doctrine coincide with the actions of kings,) and this apparatus did not vanish when Feudalism fell. This remnant of Feudalism eventually began to be phased out when the public school came to take it's place.

In the terrain of Marxism the two titans on the subject of Ideology are Gramsci and Althusser, if one is interested in more reading on the subject.
The former could arguably benefit from inflated popularity due to Martyr-cred, the latter has become controversial due to a bit of murder he did in his personal life. Both were world class scholars on the subject, in their respective eras.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

Why do you think you are entitled to it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you think you are entitled to it?

Envy.

 

[Heyo]

Envy.

I'm not envious - they are greedy.

 

[Heyo]

Why do you think you are entitled to it?

I think it is unfair when only a few benefit from a taxation system, while the majority doesn't get anything at all out of a booming economy. But that is not the question of this thread, the question is why you don't think so. I assume you don't belong to the 10%, do you?
I understand why @Revoltingest fears fair taxation. He is a capitalist who makes most of his money from capital gain. He is simply too greedy to agree to fair taxation.
But why do people who'd benefit from it, are against it?

 

[Quintessence]

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

They aren't.

But setting that aside for the moment, a series of philosophy lectures I've been listening to lately made the point that systems of law are written by those with wealth to maintain their wealth. It's pretty much that simple. It's not about convincing anyone, it is about setting up the very structure of society to serve the few rather than the many. A structure that can very easily be torn down and ignored - and such has happened routinely throughout human history.

 

[Estro Felino]

Capitalist indoctrination is still better than socialist
indoctrination. The former has history as supporting
evidence of superior results, thus making it explicable.
The latter can only say "But this time it'll work!".
This is a symptom of magical thinking, ie, hope that
somehow in some unknown way, it will succeed
despite a lack of evidence.

Insightful.
Just one detail: we all will die. Sooner or later. Of old age.
The only difference is that Capitalists will understand during agony that the profit maximization they have been obsessed with their entire existence has been utterly pointless. Not worth it, since they will have to abandon that extra-profit. They can't take it with them in the afterlife.

The Socialists who have fought for workers' rights and fair minimum wage will die peacefully, being aware that that quest has been worth it.

 

[Heyo]

They aren't.

But setting that aside for the moment, a series of philosophy lectures I've been listening to lately made the point that systems of law are written by those with wealth to maintain their wealth. It's pretty much that simple. It's not about convincing anyone, it is about setting up the very structure of society to serve the few rather than the many. A structure that can very easily be torn down and ignored - and such has happened routinely throughout human history.

That's insightful but doesn't answer the question. Why hasn't the structure been torn down already?
In history, every time a social contract got broken, system change was the result. The social contract in capitalism was that everybody benefitted from the system, and the capitalists were allowed to take the lions share. That worked until about the '80s, living standards went up for all classes. But that contract has been broken by the elite.
But still people who have nothing and have no perspective to gain anything defend that the rich take all. There is no logic in that.

 

[Koldo]

Capitalist indoctrination is still better than socialist
indoctrination. The former has history as supporting
evidence of superior results, thus making it explicable.
The latter can only say "But this time it'll work!".
This is a symptom of magical thinking, ie, hope that
somehow in some unknown way, it will succeed
despite a lack of evidence.

How are you measuring success here?

 

[Koldo]

Why do you think you are entitled to it?

He didn't mention anything to do with being entitled.

 

[exchemist]

I don't know how affluent the average RFer is, but I think it's safe to assume that most of us are not in the 1% or even only the 10% wealthiest of our societies. But I have noticed that quite a few defend inadequate taxation of the rich. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome, or of mistreated people who defend their oppressors.
We are tribal in other ways, but in the case of capitalism so many of the have-not betray their tribe and fight for the tribe of the haves.

Why is that? How have the ultrarich managed to convince the majority that they and their wealth are untouchable?

I agree with @Evangelicalhumanist that there is no necessary connection between capitalism and taxation levels.

However in the society we have in the USA and the UK, and to some degree in many other countries, the political Right still promotes the myth of the Laffer Curve. This was a theoretical hypothesis that was never to my knowledge validated by observation. However it was jolly convenient for people who wanted to pay as little tax as they could, and so it became popular in those circles and very influential, first in the era of Thatcher and Reagan and then subsequently. People love a myth that provides self-justification.

Subsequently, the Right has introduced the idea of culture wars into politics, as a way to distract the poor from the realisation that the Laffer Curve doesn't work and wealth is not "trickling down" to all. Get them all fighting over something else, while the billions continue quietly to accrue to the rich.

I think it is a mistake to attribute this to capitalism. It is merely the natural selfishness of some segments of society that have found a way to entrench their position. This is a phenomenon that occurs continually in societies and needs to be weeded out from time to time. This tendency would not go away in a socialist economy or any other sort. It would merely be different groups that would find they were on a roll and would try to keep things arranged in their favour. We have seen this with the church in Medieval times, for instance, and with Party members in the former"Socialist" states in the Warsaw Pact and in modern China.

 

[Altfish]

Capitalist indoctrination is still better than socialist
indoctrination. The former has history as supporting
evidence of superior results, thus making it explicable.
The latter can only say "But this time it'll work!".
This is a symptom of magical thinking, ie, hope that
somehow in some unknown way, it will succeed
despite a lack of evidence.

There is a very fertile middle ground. When you say Socialism, you are basically are saying Communism. But in Europe, it doesn't mean that.
Biden is starting to prove that investment is better than tax cuts; in the UK the Tories have yet to learn that lesson.
Public investment in infrastructure works, it creates jobs and encourages private investors to come in .

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not envious - they are greedy.

Yeah....it's always someone else who sins.
The punitive nature of proposals by those
who demonize the wealthy show anger
& envy.
If I want more money, I'll work to get it, not
demand that the wealthy be allowed less.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't see the connection between capitalism and "inadequate taxation of the rich." As far as I am aware, capitalism has nothing to say about how taxes are levied across income levels.

Capitalists generally tend to support political candidates and platforms which favor lower taxes. Capitalists have had a lot to say about that, including capitalists like Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand why @Revoltingest fears fair taxation.

And I understand your slavering greed,
wanting to gut wealthy people, & drain
them of their filthy lucre.

This is a fun game you started.
But taking a serious approach, tell me
what you know of tax proposals I've
made here on RF. Let's see if you have
any idea of what I advocate.