Deference Issues!

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

The notion that the Koch brothers are an insidious force of evil in American politics and that, for example, George Soros is not, is largely one born of sitting in a left-wing echo chamber. The Koch brothers usually champion a right-wing, conservative agenda while Warren Buffet and George Soros champion left-winged agendas, so if you're hanging out with leftists or going to leftist websites, then you hear endlessly of the evils of the Koch brothers. On the other hand, I hang out with more conservative people, so I see fist shaking over the evil tyranny of George Soros.

Neither of them, incidentally, are the top individual top political contributors. I found a list here. Charles Koch is #10, Soros is #12.

Moreover, why Charles Koch would be "insidious" while Elon Musk would not be is because one does not agree with Charles Koch. If one agreed with Charles Koch, then he is a selfless champion of good and right, naturally.

I didn't say Charles Koch (who in truth I loath) was insidious. I simply pointed out he had more political influence than either Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Whereas Charles Koch got his fortune by being an heir, Gates and Musk both created their own fortunes, this can be proved and no one denies it. Billionaires who are old money scions tend to have more political influence in our society. I do not say, to use Mailanka's terms, that this is present day Classism. But it wouldn't be hard to see it as residual Classism.

My point is that "Class Bias" was real, and likely is still real, and has continuing effects. Bigotries leave scars behind, and those old wounds still cost people.

But as the Deference, the systems of behaviors that supported the powerful in older societies, continues to fade, the assumptions built on the presence of that Deference become less valid. THS makes a lot of assumptions based on certain areas of society not changing.

Ursula Le Guin once complained that most Sci Fi authors seemed to assume the future would be Victorian in it's class structures and social mores. And she gathered the data to prove the trend. Two things a 2100AD with the technology and general conditions of THS
can't be, A) a rehash of the 1950's as seen in American TV, or B) a Libertarian fantasy of the "Go-Go Eighties." Deference may seem like an odd little issue, but it defines vast amounts of social life because it defines legitimacy.

If the powerful lose legitimacy, they will eventually lose power. Or fight to keep it.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Because money gets you things you want. That's what money is, an abstraction of things people value.

There are cases where this isn't a financial transaction in any shape way or form. An example would be Tony Stark having an relatively easy time seducing an antagonistic journalist as compared to, say, Spidey doing something similar. Even though his (Stark's) reputation seems controversial at best, and it's pretty clear that he won't be inclined to pursue a serious relationship and won't be giving cool gifts or whatever.

Likewise, there are numerous cases where people tend to be more forgiving towards high-class individuals than to mid/low-class ones, whether on a talkshow or in a jury of twelve. It generally takes active effort to demonise a high-status individual, while it usually takes a couple of words to demonise someone who owns little to nothing in the way of personal possessions and living space.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

There are cases where this isn't a financial transaction in any shape way or form. An example would be Tony Stark having an relatively easy time seducing an antagonistic journalist as compared to, say, Spidey doing something similar. Even though his (Stark's) reputation seems controversial at best, and it's pretty clear that he won't be inclined to pursue a serious relationship and won't be giving cool gifts or whatever.

I took that as more being due to Tony's being more charming and socially adept and more handsome than Peter though Peter (who does attract his share of romantic interest) than the idea he has a allot of money. It could be argued that some of that is narrative. Tony's concept in the Billionaire Playboy, Peter is more Heroic Everyman (or even Nerd). Tony's "thing" is that he has an easy time with romance, Peter's isn't. There have been "low class" playboys and Cassanovas and not all wealthy characters have an easy time relationships.

I'm not disagreeing with ther premise that class affect how people react to you in ways beyond direct monetary influence. I just don't think that scene is a particularly telling example of it. Trying to social position or wealth too crudely in a romantic approach can be a mistake, IME, unless your target is primarily interested because of your wealth or the sort to think that way.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

I didn't say Charles Koch (who in truth I loath) was insidious. I simply pointed out he had more political influence than either Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Whereas Charles Koch got his fortune by being an heir, Gates and Musk both created their own fortunes, this can be proved and no one denies it. Billionaires who are old money scions tend to have more political influence in our society.

More influence than what? Are you saying that you think that if Bill Gates and Charles Koch both asked a senator for competing things, the senator would think "Yeah, well, but Charles is an heir while Gates is just.... new money. I'm going with Koch on this!" Do you think the age of the money really matters?

I put forward that it's far more likely that people who are influential (I will accept for the sake of argument that Charles Koch has more influence than Bill Gates or Elon Musk, though I note that this has not been proven!) are so because they have cultivated connections. If Charles Koch is more influential in DC, it is because he makes an effort to make friends with senators, to know when their daughter's birthday is, what matters to them, to go golfing with them, to help funnel resources towards things that matter to them, and then to make sure his own needs are known, while Bill Gates focuses more on tending to his personal empire and his charity projects, and Elon Musk busies himself with innovation and trying to strip-mine the moon while he prepares to fend off the coming robot revolution.

Influence is not based on merit or culture. It is based on power and investment. The reason a senator listens to Mr. Koch and not to you is not because Mr. Koch is somehow made of better stuff than you, or that his ideas are so much better. It's also not because Mr. Koch is "old money." It's because he HAS money and you do not, and because Mr. Koch studiously engages in political activism in a way that you do not. If you were to move to DC and study up on how best to engage with politicians and their lackeys and began to do so, you'd actually see your stock rise and some of your opinion might even filter a little into policy. We even have a word for relatively powerless people who manage to gain influence and power simply through proximity to power, and that is a courtier.

Seriously, look at the rich people who keep popping up in politics. They keep popping up because they keep involving themselves. They're at the heart of THOSE THINGS. Musk and Gates are at the heart of other things. People can't be everywhere at once. They must prioritize, and most tech people seem pretty dismissive of government as a major source of change in the world (for reasons I largely agree with. For example, want to stop climate change? You'll be far better off betting on a technological solution than a governmental one...)

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

More influence than what? Are you saying that you think that if Bill Gates and Charles Koch both asked a senator for competing things, the senator would think "Yeah, well, but Charles is an heir while Gates is just.... new money. I'm going with Koch on this!" Do you think the age of the money really matters?

It ought not to, but it seems that it does. After all, Elizabeth Winsor and the Grandaughter of a powerful mobster both inheireted the family fortune. Elizabeth's ancestors were, on the whole, more brutal. The age of the money seems to count for something still. Deference to old money isn't what it was, but it is still out there.

I put forward that it's far more likely that people who are influential (I will accept for the sake of argument that Charles Koch has more influence than Bill Gates or Elon Musk, though I note that this has not been proven!) are so because they have cultivated connections. If Charles Koch is more influential in DC, it is because he makes an effort to make friends with senators, to know when their daughter's birthday is, what matters to them, to go golfing with them, to help funnel resources towards things that matter to them, and then to make sure his own needs are known, while Bill Gates focuses more on tending to his personal empire and his charity projects, and Elon Musk busies himself with innovation and trying to strip-mine the moon while he prepares to fend off the coming robot revolution.

You just argued for charles Koch having more influence. Further, only nerds and geeks talk about the influence of Gates or Musk. Serious politicos work to gain Charles Koch's friendship, not because he's the biggest donnor, but because he gets his old money pals to donate to his causes. His old money network working to preserve Classism just as his family once worked to preserve racism. Charles Koch's Dad, Fred C. Koch was a proud John Bircher, and it seems that it is possible Charles was a Bircher as well.

Influence is not based on merit or culture. It is based on power and investment. The reason a senator listens to Mr. Koch and not to you is not because Mr. Koch is somehow made of better stuff than you, or that his ideas are so much better. It's also not because Mr. Koch is "old money." It's because he HAS money and you do not, and because Mr. Koch studiously engages in political activism in a way that you do not. If you were to move to DC and study up on how best to engage with politicians and their lackeys and began to do so, you'd actually see your stock rise and some of your opinion might even filter a little into policy. We even have a word for relatively powerless people who manage to gain influence and power simply through proximity to power, and that is a courtier.

In both this paragraph you make a good set of arguements that Culture is basic to influence. I'e. you say that charles Koch seems to know how to persue political influence and get it because of his background and connects. The things he focuses his time on. Where Gates and Musk are busy doing the things that made them either rich, or personally achieve their goals. That is to say the Koch, being old money hires servants (politicians) to do for him, and Gates and Musk prefer to do things for themselves.

Seriously, look at the rich people who keep popping up in politics. They keep popping up because they keep involving themselves. They're at the heart of THOSE THINGS. Musk and Gates are at the heart of other things. People can't be everywhere at once. They must prioritize, and most tech people seem pretty dismissive of government as a major source of change in the world (for reasons I largely agree with. For example, want to stop climate change? You'll be far better off betting on a technological solution than a governmental one...)

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Further, only nerds and geeks talk about the influence of Gates or Musk. Serious politicos work to gain Charles Koch's friendship, not because he's the biggest donnor, but because he gets his old money pals to donate to his causes.

Okay, first of all, technology. The reason policy wonks don't buddy up to Elon Musk or Google execs or Steve Jobs (back in the day) or Bill Gates is... well, for Bill it's that he's largely irrelevant today. But for the rest, tech doesn't get you any pull in D.C. But that doesn't mean it isn't powerful. Google, for example, is hugely powerful. It can shape who can access what and how on the internet. They control where we are going technologically, but that doesn't help your daughter get into Harvard.

Stop for a moment and let's play a quick, formless RPG of "We're politicians!" What do you want? Let's say you have a few objectives. First, you want to get rid of racism, or clean up the environment, or help some African country, because you're a good guy and you've got a cause. Second, you've got to help your family, because you love them. Your son is having troubles in school and your wife is having serious medical problems. Finally, you need to get re-elected (which costs money and demands connections).

A few things. First of all, you belong to a party, and that's not just a designation of what team you're on, it's a political machine that helps you get elected and demands certain loyalties, so they do expect you to vote in line with them. There's a welfare bill coming through, and they expect you to vote for it. Second, you can just cast your vote for other things, but it's just one vote out of 100, so that's hardly changing the world. You can also introduce bills, but they'll just be defeated if nobody else supports them.

But I'll help support your bills. I'll also help vote with you on some of your issues. Of course, I want your help. See, I believe that tech is important. I want more network neutrality and some serious copyright reforms. I'm trying to fight the music and movie industry on what I think is a wrong-headed approach to stuff.

But that's just two votes out of 100. We need loads more if we want to get our agendas moving. Meanwhile, there's a gentleman in a suit with a southern accent who knows doctors that can take care of your wife's problems, and a nice lady with great taste in wine knows a great tutor to help your son. None of this, by the way, has strings attached. They're just nice people, nice new friends to have. Some of them do think like you and do want to work with you, but they also want you to work with them. It's give and take, not in the sense that they want you to vote to squash the right of blacks to vote in return for getting your kid some math lessons, but just in the same sense that you help me with my tech votes and I help you with your foreign aid votes, and in the general sense that we're all starting to work together, like a party, like a coalition, like a team.

And naturally, they know some fundraisers. One of them, by the way, has really deep pockets and he's very interested in African affairs and the state of racism in the country. He's actively looking for a senator that supports the same things he does. The nice lady with the great taste in wine agrees to introduce the two of you. He listens to what you have to say, and pledges a million bucks to your re-election campaign.

None of this is corrupt, right? I'm not saying corruption ever happens (it totally does), but I'm showing how thing work on the ground. Why did you go to that guy? Because he was looking for you. Do you think you'd really care if he was old money or new? You also notice that at no point did you reach out to Google or Elon Musk. In part it's because you're busy, and in part it's because they tend to vote left-winged anyway. Your circles aren't really moving in that direction (mine might, though, and if we stay friends long enough, you might start rubbing elbows with some people of the tech-world).

This is how Charles Koch works. You want to summon up insidious conspiracies. I honestly don't think they're there. Perhaps they are, but they go beyond the scope of this post (if you're really interested in seeing what corruption looks like, though, I have a great article I can send you). Instead, I think Charles Koch is the right-winged equivalent to that billionaire who donated a million bucks to your re-election campaign. He's actively hunting around, moving in those circles, because he wants to advance a particular agenda. If I had done the same thing but you had been someone who wanted to promote work ethic, welfare reform and traditional family values, then Koch may well have been the person who was suddenly funding you, especially if he liked you. It's because he's like minded.

And not because he's "old money."

There was a time when this mattered. The aristocratic needed to define themselves as different and special, because the politicians had gained all the power (by being elected) and the merchant-class had gained all the money (by being productive) and the aristocratic class, who used to be wealthy and powerful, had nothing left. So what made them special? Class. Pure class. They wielded a social power. This is where etiquette started to matter. Knowing which fork to use signaled you were of "true class" and not an upstart lawyer or businessman who wasn't "really" classy. And because of this social power, they wielded what leverage they could, what power they had left, to get what they wanted, and this meant they had impact and they used that impact to emphasize the importance of their particular class.

And thus, they gained deference.

But this wasn't really a thing in the US. Our only real aristocratic class was blasted apart by the civil war and has been perpetually vilified since. A brit might actually care about old money... maybe. 100 years ago it would matter more than it does now. But an American? That someone is old money? That doesn't matter.

This deference your talking about, this idea that people are getting their way because of their status as "old money", I just can't buy it. Now, old holdings do matter. If my family has helped your family for 100 years and we have been building a financial empire that entire time, then my family is a formidable force, much more than some guy on the internet discussing politics on a forum about RPGs, but no more so than any other young businessman who has a huge interest in politics and made piles of cash in the .com boom.

In both this paragraph you make a good set of arguements that Culture is basic to influence. I'e. you say that charles Koch seems to know how to persue political influence and get it because of his background and connects. The things he focuses his time on. Where Gates and Musk are busy doing the things that made them either rich, or personally achieve their goals. That is to say the Koch, being old money hires servants (politicians) to do for him, and Gates and Musk prefer to do things for themselves.

That could be. But my argument is largely that it is not the quality of being old money that helps him get his way, it's having money and connections and leveraging them to get his way that lets him get his way. I would argue that if young money did the same things that Koch did, he would be similarly influential.

That's not to say deference doesn't happen. Celebrities get a lot of deference, despite the fact that they sometimes don't seem to do anything. An actor who has no money and no particular pull can still land shows and can still get the ear of politicians for no particular reason. George Clooney is amazingly adapt at getting in front of the UN, and I don't think it's because of his money. It might be because he has some connections, but I would argue that being a famous actor has a lot to do with it. We defer to celebrities. Contrast this with how Koch is treated. I think you'll see what I Mean when I say it's quite different.

[Astromancer]

Mailanka, the simple issue is that you don't recognise the continueing impact of Class Deference as real at all and you seem to assume that I see Class Deference as an absolute. I don't see Class Deference as absolute. I see it as a subtle continueing presence that still distorts political laguage. I also see conservative and moderate political analysts as being afaird to speak or think about class prejudice and class warfare.

Since the common ground between us is small, and unrecognised as such by you. Lets drop this.

All institutions need legitamacy. I simply see a threat to the legitamacy of a wide set of institutions you reject.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

I might be being unfair to a comtemporary drama about the early 20th century. But many fine works from that period would seem quaint now. Just as many fine movies from earlier decades seem weird and warped because we no longer share many of the social assumptions vital to the film.
.

Leaving Marx brothers movies out of consideration because they were weird and warped when they were being made, if I take a look at say, Gone With The Wind, Citizen Kane, His Girl Friday, or the Thin Man, then they are primarily weird for how they depict the position of women and ethnic minorities. But the people depicted as important and powerful are the exact same people depicted as important and powerful now.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Leaving Marx brothers movies out of consideration because they were weird and warped when they were being made, if I take a look at say, Gone With The Wind, Citizen Kane, His Girl Friday, or the Thin Man, then they are primarily weird for how they depict the position of women and ethnic minorities. But the people depicted as important and powerful are the exact same people depicted as important and powerful now.

There are some differences. Old money has a smaller part of the worldview. Cultural authority and intellectual authority, the main reasons for a strong tradition of american Anti-Intellectualism, are reduced as well.

[Prince Charon]

Thinking about it, we may defer more to wealth in the future, especially on corporate space stations where the rich control the very air we breathe, and own the metal and plastic that holds that air in.

Even on Earth, there's the depressing fact that many people like the Koch brothers are inclined to support laws that defang the various methods the poor have to stop the rich from abusing them, like class-action suits, or unions (though the latter is fortunately hanging on tight, through long experience - even if a lot of unions are depressingly corrupt).