Tuesday, March 27, 2007


In the last serveral years I've heard phrases like this from middle to upper class people, "You can't have prejudice against someone for being rich, that is like racism." or, "You can't be angry at rich people, it isn't their fault."

Now in Treatise I say that we cannot blame a rich person for wanting more, for outsourcing, or starting a war to get oil on the fact that we ALL want more. That inside the human mind is nothingness, and because it is nothingness, we are always lacking, therefore always desiring more. Sartre explained it like that, and Nietzsche explained it as The-Will-to-Power.

For example, I as a dishwasher would like for one of the cooks to leave or get fired so i could take his job and get a pay raise.

An owner of a huge factory sees a chance to move his factory from Ohio to Mexico where he can pay his workers less.

I, Noah Cicero, who is exhibited the exact same behaviors as the rich factory owner share the same instincts, a will-to-power.

But a problem occurs.

It is an oversimplification of the idea of prejudice.

It is an attempt to translate the prejudice against races into prejudice against classes.

There is a difference though.

If you are born with a certain physical characteristics we know scientifically and from personal experience that that person will adopt the behaviors of their environment.

That their race does not matter.

It depends on what their enviroment was and contingent experiences and the choices they make.

The concept that being angry at a class and racism does not work, because race is physical characteristics and class is environment.

If one’s environmental behaviors conflict with another’s environmental behaviors that means that other person’s behaviors are in the way or negating the chances of the other person’s behaviors, which makes anger. Anger is not so much a chosen state of mind, as an imposed state of being.

A person can choose how they show anger, but not that they are angry.

Anger is more of an instinct, anger is what happens when one’s Will-to-Power or Self-Preservation has been thwarted.

Skinner used the example of the pop machine so I will too.

You put money into a pop machine and nothing comes out.

A surge of anger floods into you.

You are angry because the pop did not come out.

The pop machine negated your choice.

Using Sartre terms, "You try to negate the negation" by tipping the pop machine trying to get the pop to come out.

It doesn't come out.

So you have a choice now.

Anger has consumed you.

This is where choice comes in.

A person can kick the pop machine, stomp their foot, start to cry, flick the machine off, or just look sad and walk away.

Anger comes from having your choices negated, your will-to-power stifled.

Anger is like when you get cut and a surge of pain shoots into your brain and you acknowledge that you are cut and need to stop the bleed, it helps keep you alive.

Anger is like music or physical pain, it cannot be described, it is the catagory of, "What we we cannot speak, we must be silent."

There are behaviors that signify anger like punching, kicking, screaming, talking shit, etc.

But we can only talk about anger directly in metaphors, like, "I feel like breaking shit," or, "I feel like a rabid dog." Random shit like that.

It is natural that blue collar or poor people be angry at rich people because of low-wages, not giving full benifits, making them work long hours, outsourcing their jobs, etc.

The rich are negating their wants and needs, their will-to-power.

Therefore anger surges up in their being.

Now this is even more complex than that.

Now what the sentence implies, "You can't be prejudice or mad at rich people, that is like racism, we can't help it," is that person is trying to escape responsibility.

They are saying, "Don't blame me."

And that is all, "Don't blame me."

Now that sentence as I have shown coming out of a rich person's mouth, and I have never in my life ever heard a blue collar or poor person say that sentence in my life expresses nothing, it is nonsense.

That sentence, "You can't be prejudice against rich people or mad at rich people that is like racism, we can't help it," resembles sentences Christians say when asked to prove the existence of God, and they reply, "He left his book the bible, it is the word of God, what else do you need."

It is a nonsensical defence against responsiblity and courage.

But it gets even more complex.

What would be a good answer coming from the rich person, when a blue collar person screams, "I hate you rich man!"

But it must be explained that inside of class environments there are different environments.

Looking at history the rich several times have divided themselves.

During the French Revolution the bourgeoisie devided themselves from the aristocratic landowners.

The bourgeoisie who were merchants and were a new emerging class considered themselves different from the aristocracy.

And there was a difference, the bourgeoisie were educated and read philosophy. and the aristocracy had been rich for generations and had so little to do for hundreds of years that they didn't even bother to learn to read anymore.

Another example would be the American Civil War, when the nothern Bourgeoisie were angry at the southern aristocracy.

Note this: This is rich people being angry at rich people for negating their will-to-power.

In both cases the emerging bourgeoisie wanted their nations to be wage-labor nations, not slavery or peasant/fuedal based nations. It was in the interest of the bourgeoisie to make the entire nation based on wage-labor and because the aristocracies refused or negated their wants, that angered them and they showed this anger through revolution and civil war.

To get more complex:

The rich person who says this might be saying because they aren't actually getting their money from a huge corporation but from something like one of their parents invented something that helps cure cancer, or their parents own a factory and their parents do pay their workers well and allow an union, etc.

Now the person instead of trying to get the audience to think that judging or being angry at anyone is completely absurd and some form of racism. They should be stating that they are not one of those rich people, and this is why.

This is what the bourgeoisie did in the French Revolution and during the Civil War, they stated that they did not agree their policy of behavior either.

Bill Gates does this when speaking out against Bush.

Which I also want to add. The new .Com millionaires constitute a new class, that could eventually lead and maybe are to a battle between old money Bush types. But we wil have to see.

Now I want to talk about the apex of hate against the rich: The French Revolution.

During the French Revolution the peasants had no food to eat. So they attacked the aristocracy, killed thousands and cut their heads off and put them on pikes.

Now, some would say this is immoral to kill like that. The purges that came after were immoral or useless. The word is "useless", more than moral.

The peasants had a right to kill them because they did not care if they were starving.

If someone does not care if you die or not, and they have the power to help it. You have the right to kill them.

Because when the aristocracy would not feed them, that signified in a way that they wanted them dead.

And if you get the chance you are going to kill the people that want you dead.

It is like when I say to people who say Republicans aren't that bad, "Republicans want to close down strip joints, the main source of income in my household is stripper money. That implies to me they don't care that I starve to death."

A man somewhere, i can't remember where, but somebody mentioned it in the waffle house: a man got laid off and went in and killed the owner of the business. Everyone in the waffle house thought it was awesome. No one, not a single person of the five people there considered it in anyway morally wrong.


The sentences I have specified do make sense because racism and hate of rich people are two different types of hate. Racism concerns physical features and hate of rich concerns the negation of wants and needs.

It remains a generalized prejudice in America because the person speaking does not specify that there are diffences between certain rich people. And if they do not specify then to the blue collar or poor person there is no difference than a person who pays their workers well and a person that outsources to india. So the generalization can take place, because you have allowed yourself to be generalized by not speaking out.

The anger is not derived from the phrase "rich-people" but from the negation of wants and needs, from their will-to-power, from chances, etc.


adam said...

I think the problem or part of it, then, is that I've learned how to negate negation constructively in significant events, and after my initial anger at having something I wanted thwarted I've found alternative ways to get it. However, I was lucky enough to not only choose to do this, but also to have the problem-solving skills, plus the luck, to figure out how.

But I also see poor or lower middle class white people and poor or lower middle class non-white people on a regular basis, and on a practical level it seems to me that prejudice against people, when one actually deals with them, isn't (unless one is a philosopher or revolutionary) a question of complicated doctrinal issues or history or laws. Whatever the causes are, to the people feeling it, it's smell, and skin color, and one person not liking the other's hair, sex, clothes, breath, or something else about them. In a perverse way, to most people who hate, it's more justifiable to hate someone for something they can't change (thus ensuring the hate's permanence) than for something they can (bringing reason-- contingencies by which the hate can end-- into an emotional process acts like a buzzkill).

I'm not saying hatred of abusive rich people is wrong. Justice would be done if my betrayed friend could find a way to render her ex-housemates homeless. I just have little faith in the usefulness of it in most cases. I think even in the event of revolution, it changes the people who are rich and abusive, but it doesn't stop it.

MadisonGlass said...

Wait. So are we deciding that rich people are necessarily abusive? Or, wait, that people in waffle houses have no chance to succeed? Or no, that wanting success and money is bad? I'm at work, so. My mind is sort of muddled.

A blue collar person screams, "I hate you rich man!"
Richman: "Me too."


adam said...

I don't think anyone was deciding rich people were by default abusive. Noah was saying that there's a difference between rich people who use their money to help other people and those who use their money to screw people over, and those who screw people over have the right to be hated and screwed over themselves. I was saying that that contingency-- rich people getting screwed over-- by itself isn't necessarily constructive, because the original reason for the hatred fueling it gets lost in the actual experience of hatred, and the results are therefore only good if that antipathy is luckily being directed to the right ends.

MadisonGlass said...

Concision. Thanks. That makes sense. Alright.

I'm sorry, but all this abstraction everywhere is killing me. I want plans not ponderings. You're all so much brighter than I, my god; think of something!

Start with the global enslavement of children. That's been weighing rather heavily on my mind.

somebody said...