“Entitled” has gotta be one of the most abused words in the western English-speaking lexicon, up there with “free” and “freedom.” Every time someone calls another person entitled simply because they request something to be different from how it is, or because they try to negotiate a better deal out of something, or like I don’t know, don’t want to live an awful life, it is truly angering. I despise the people who think that way and they are hypocrites on top of it. When something is an issue for them, then they suddenly think there’s nothing wrong with wanting different, or even being intense about it, as it pertains to what they personally want. These sort of people are more annoying than sociopaths in a way because at least with a sociopath, you know they’re going to be an anti-social asshole. With these people, they’re aghast at any accusation of improper behavior and will gaslight the world into thinking they’re a victim before they ever admit to the demeaning character of their own words for once in their bitter, jaded life.
Okay, I am being unfair, some of them will learn some of the time. But there is something about the commonality of it and the conviction behind it that makes it harder for me to be optimistic for western “society.”
The world owes all of us a lot and we owe it a lot too, but like many things, it’s not a universal principle of owing anyone and everyone or being owed by anyone and everyone. It’s another relative thing. We owe a great debt to the toilers of the world, meaning the working class but also those who have built society even when they don’t technically count as someone who does wage labor for a living (example: stay at home moms who are financially supported by a husband, or people who can’t find work yet nevertheless add to families and friendships and community, and many other varying situations of contribution to human society and life). We don’t owe shit to the exploitative classes, the forces of colonization and imperialism, and so on. And society as an institution owes us all humane treatment and a fair, humane share in resources. Without that, it’s not much of a society.
Capitalism would like people to believe there’s a generation of entitled people out there who want too much. Capitalism is the institutional version of the person described above, but without the possibility of learning because its interests are in contradiction with improving; aghast at any accusation of improper behavior and will gaslight the world into thinking they’re a victim before they ever admit to the demeaning character of their own words (and actions).
Capitalism has taught people to be really persistent at putting down others for advocating for their needs and desires. Remember that it does that because it wants to exploit and it’s easier to exploit when people are silent in their pain. So tell people, yeah, I’m actually owed a lot. I owe a lot too. How else do you think society is supposed to function?
I know plenty about the horrors being inflicted on the Palestinian people and the horrors of colonialism and imperialism more generally. I don’t pretend to be an expert on it who can cite the contrast between that and the empire in precise detail, but I know enough to have a sense of how barbaric it is.
We may be talking past each other on that point because calling it “bad analysis” seems like it’s missing the point. I am acknowledging that from the standpoint of relativity, it can be called privilege, but that from the standpoint of fighting for a better world, I am more or less saying that it mainly feeds the capitalism narrative to focus on calling things privileged that aren’t supposed to be considered a privilege in the context of a humane society, but are supposed to be a right if we are being humane and wanting communism.
I’m pretty sure that at this point in China’s history, many there could as easily be called privileged by the definition you use. But they are not doing it through exploitation of other countries and are instead using some of what they have to help uplift and liberate via mutually beneficial relationships, so there is no motive from our perspective to be moralizing them as privileged people. That doesn’t make some of them any less “privileged” by the definition you are using.
So what is actually the point of sticking to that framing in particular? It seems to me that the important point here as it pertains to empire and benefits of exploitation is something along the lines of, “It’s not a legitimate expression of a human right if accomplishing it requires depriving the human rights of others.” (Not unlike the spirit of, “No one is free until we are all free.”) In implementation, it’s often not this simple for liberation efforts in the transition away from oppression and ideals are not going to be gotten near through wishful thinking. But what I’m trying to get at is, the problem of imperial core people wanting a better life for themselves but not anti-imperialism isn’t that they want a better life on top of it already being better on average conditions than many peoples in the world; it’s that they aren’t taking into account how that can be accomplished in a globally humane way because they aren’t taking into account the way their current society depends on global exploitation. The problem (for the most part) isn’t what they want. It’s how that is acquired in the current system.
The bad analysis part is to ignore the fact that one can “starve in a room of gold”. Dialectical materialism teaches you that this is possible and not worth criticizing the person in the room of gold.
It is however hypocritical to be the person in the golden room proclaiming how bad they have it in view of the person being much worse off than themselves or even towards them.
The fundamentals are: due to us living in the imperial core/vassal states, others must die. The most ethical thing would therefore be not to live at all, which is self defeating.
Therefore, one in the core can not proclaim oppression while others are even worse oppressed to make their lives ever so slightly better. It is always hypocrotical to do that.
Being a marxist in the empire sucks because one needs to be incredibly humble or risk being called out. I for example grew up poor and actually went homeless and starving for a time. Yet i would not dare to moan about my poor feelings towards my comrades in the global south, living through my tortures before breakfast every day.
That is - again - where dialectical materialism comes in. I can go to my landlord and ask for lower rent because i need to survive but i dont get to feel smug about it towards my comrades.
Again, please engage in praxis instead of decrying the cruel world around you. We dont need that here. Call it revolutionary optimism. Our struggles are a joke compared to our comrades in palestine, venezuela, dpr, etc.
And to know “plenty” about palestine yet not being able to analyze the differences rings incredibly shallow. The people there are being starved to death, get murdered in the most barbaric ways imaginable. How this relates to the empire? American marines have set themselves on fire in front of the embassy because of it.
You really need to get a grip mate. This individualist thing doesnt work here.
This is not a dialectical analysis, sorry. It has some characteristics of one, but does not really get there.
What it largely reads like is 1) A thinly veiled personal attack based on a bad faith read of what I said and 2) Christian culture hair-shirt self-obsession about image. The exploited peoples of the world don’t care how humble those in the imperial core act, they care about their lives being improved and about them being liberated from oppression.
Humility for those of us in the imperial core is relevant insofar as we need to shake off western chauvinist socializing (like the whole “I know better because I am western” thing that many in the imperial core slip into in one way or another). That’s the part that matters relating to humility, not obsessing over who has it worse and worrying that we might complain about something that is an issue to us, but sounds trivial relative to someone else’s worse conditions. That kind of obsessing is damaging to solidarity and is in fact more in line with individualism, to see it as something we each go through on our own and must properly speak about when we come into contact with others, lest they view us as a “bad or insensitive individual.” Rather than seeing it as a shared struggle and shared responsibility to overcome, and being able to actively talk about it, and act on it, in a way that materially takes into account the international struggle of it. Which is part of the point I’ve been trying to get at it in the first place. That these people who are calling others entitled are not only members of the most elite class looking down. Some of them are people who would benefit from solidarity, but do not recognize the shared struggle, do not see it as a shared responsibility, and do not see how things are linked together. They are affected by their material conditions, but they are also affected by their beliefs. This seems to come up not infrequently here for some reason and I don’t know why, but both are factors, not only one or the other.
I feel I should address the following point directly too because it’s rather intense in its implications:
This is not sound reasoning at all. The ethical thing is to fight against the imperial apparatus and to dismantle it. If those who are most aware and most positioned to fight disappear, what that leaves behind is an empire with less opposition to it. Which is not ethical. You seem to be confusing biblical-style martyrdom with practical resistance as a part of liberation efforts. Resistance has risk of loss (in the US for example, such as in the case of John Brown or George Jackson), but it is an act of active opposition, not an act of passive shutting down. Resistance contains within it a goal to go on surviving and continue the fight, but it also contains a risk of loss. Communist revolutions are not won when power changes hands, but go on throughout the process of building a socialist state project and working through transition. Ethics are linked to strategy here. In order to succeed at the ethical goal, long-term strategy matters. What you are talking about sounds more like the thought process of adventurism.
I’m not taking insults from someone who is unable to take criticism and then lashes out at someone engaging in good faith to correct them.
I dont think this is the right place for you as you’re clearly not interested in learning and unable or unwilling to debate in good faith.
Good bye.
This is like textbook psychological projection. Apply basically all of what you said to yourself and it’s a decent description of what occurred.
Here’s a bit of review: You told me I needed to “get a grip” when I disagreed with your analysis. A disagreement where I said, “We may be talking past each other on that point because calling it “bad analysis” seems like it’s missing the point.” You had already called what I said bad analysis, which isn’t necessarily an attack. It’s a rude way to criticize, but I looked past that and tried to be diplomatic, allowing for the fact that maybe we are talking past each other.
Even after all of this, the worst thing I can find that I said to you was that your analysis was not dialectic and that it sounded like Christian culture hair-shirt self-obsession about image. If that is your idea of lashing out and being unable to take criticism, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I’m not your punching bag, nor your robot to program and control. If you want engage on these things, engage like an adult and expect that there’s going to be pushback sometimes. If you throw a punch, expect people might punch back sometimes. I wouldn’t even call what I did a punch though. It was mild criticism. I’m not here to fluff you up and say you made a great point because you proclaimed that your own words are dialectic.
And yet… my original reply to you began with, “I will say the same that I partly agree. :P I think that’s a good analysis overall.” Apparently this was not enough to soothe your fragile ego. I guess next time I should lead with, “That’s all wrong” to see at the offset if you’re able to handle disagreement. Save myself the trouble and energy of dealing with this dysregulating behavior.