Documentary: Plutocracy

Plutocracy: government by the wealthy; an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth

Plutocracy is a five part documentary that describes the brutal conflict between American labor and owners. Each part is about 1 hour, 50 minutes to 2 hours long. This is a low-budget production that includes interviews with historians, e.g., Peter Rachleff. The series relies heavily on documented history and paints a dark, gruesome picture of economic struggles in the US that public schools do not teach. The series is online and can be viewed at many sites, e.g., here and on YouTube.

Part 1 of Plutocracy, Divide et Impera (Divide and Rule), focuses on how American people were intentionally divided by rulers and wealthy people on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex and skill level. The point of fomenting division was to keep society distracted and weak in the face of unified wealth which was fighting hard and dirty to keep people misinformed and in poverty.

When West Virginia coal miners in the early 1900s decided to form labor unions, the owners fought back. Extreme working conditions including long hours, high accident rates and severe health hazards led workers to try organize themselves. They fought back by striking and forming labor unions. The coal industry itself fought back by importing replacement workers, and imposing contracts that barred workers from unionizing. In the process of fighting for freedom from the brutal capitalism that wealthy industrialists imposed, thousands of lives were lost, and thousands more were wounded or jailed.

Plutocracy, Part 1 at 59:11

The documentary suggests that when workers united to fight for fair and equal rights, some progress was possible. The documentary argues that the country's Founders saw a potential for these class conflicts. One can argue that attempts to protect individuals, for example in the Bill of Rights, were directed more at protecting the masses from government than they were at protecting them from capitalists and brutal laissez-faire capitalism. It isn't clear that similar brutalization of workers cannot occur under socialism or communism. This just shows one vision of the American experience.

This documentary makes it much easier to understand and accept the argument that in America, power and wealth are synonymous for the most part. The amazing power that industrialists were able to bring to bear in brutalizing and murdering workers speaks for itself. The question this work raises is how accurate and fact-based is it? Heavy reliance on historical records lend credence to the work and its message. Nonetheless, propaganda can take truth, optionally mixed with lies and misleading content, and present it in different lights, good, bad or ambiguous.

How real is this?

My search for a review of the series by a historian turned nothing up, which is concerning. The left wing sources I scanned all cited this work approvingly. The right wing sources I looked at either don't mention it or I missed reference to it. If anyone knows a historian who has reviewed some or all of this documentary, their thoughts about the historical accuracy of this work would be appreciated. My guess is that this is mostly truth with modest propaganda woven into it.

VIOLENT CRIME: THE US AND ABROAD

The US has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world. We have massive organized crime, drug and human trafficking, and ever-looming terrorist threats. We have one of the most organized and efficient police forces on Earth. We also have a never-ending news cycle to remind us of these things. With sensationalism in the news, and stories of shooting sprees on a monthly basis, is violent crime really getting worse in America? Where does our perception that crime is growing meet the actual numbers? How does violent crime in America stack up against the rest of the world?
[Tweet “The US has a very specific brand of violence.”]

Perhaps the most difficult part of comparing violent crime in the US and abroad is determining who we’re comparing with the US. Middle Eastern, Central American, and African metropolises are by and large much more dangerous than US cities, but are they representative of the rest of the world?

Most of Europe is safer than Detroit, but are Detroit and Europe representative?

More than 3 out of 4 Americans feel safe walking around where they live at night. While this is a measurement of perceived crime, and not crime itself, the perception is that the US as a whole is as safe as most modern industrialized nations. This is probably bolstered by the fact that 78.6% of Americans have confidence in local police; a measure only topped by Scandinavian nations and Canada. Plus the fact that a large percentage of violent crime in America is concentrated in relatively small geographic areas, and, as we know, the US is a massive place.
[Tweet “The US as a whole is as safe as most modern industrialized nations.”]

Violent crime has declined sharply in the US since the mid 1990’s. While this is due to a variety of changes in enforcement, rehabilitation of criminals, and overall higher standards of living, a large portion of the similarities between the crime levels of US and western European countries hinges on differences in what crimes are reported. The FBI counts four categories of crime as violent crime: murder and non-negligible manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. While aggravated assault is the only assault category included under violent crime reports in the US, other nations include the much more numerous level 1 assault in violent crime reporting. This makes the US appear relatively less violent from a statistical perspective.

Another difference between the US and other relatively safe developed nations is that the US has a much higher homicide rate than similarly “safe” countries. 14,827 people were murdered in the US last year. This is way down from the 24,526 US murders in 1993, yet still leaves the US at 4.8 murders per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, Japan has .4 murders per 100,000 residents. Germany has .8, Australia 1, France 1.1, and Britain–who has recently garnered media attention for being the most dangerous wealthy European nation– has 1.2.

A LAND OF EXTREMES

The most dangerous US cities rank among the most deadly cities in the world. New Orleans, which topped the list in 2012, saw one homicide for every 2000 residents. To put this number in perspective, the average homicide per 100,000 citizen rate for the US is 4.8. Meaning you’re more than 10 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide in New Orleans than America as a whole.

Bear in mind, however, that the cities with the top 5 homicide rates in the world boast substantially higher rates than any other cities on the list. To put the numbers in context, you’re more than 3 times likelier to be the victim of a homicide in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, than in New Orleans, and more than 30 times more likely when comparing San Pedro Sula to the US as a whole.

Another notable trend is that no European or Asian cities are in the top 50 deadliest cities. This complicates the picture of the US standing toe-to-toe with the industrialized world as a low violent crime nation. At the very least, the deadliest cities in the US have many more homicides than the deadliest cities in Europe and Asia. At most, the US is a in a pandemic of homicides, even while other types of violent crime are stifled.

[Tweet “No European or Asian cities are in the top 50 deadliest cities.”]

TYPES OF VIOLENT CRIME

The US has a very specific brand of violence. Perhaps our criminals are just more motivated than the rest of the world, or perhaps having a firearm for every man, woman or child in America ups the ante in confrontations. Either way, the involvement of guns in violent crime (and the defense against violent crime) is a decidedly American phenomena amongst developed nations.

With gun restrictions making it harder to obtain private weapons in the UK, violent crimes involving guns have greatly decreased. The number of total violent crimes, however, is almost double that of the US. Of those crimes, only 19% even involve a weapon, and only 5% of those involve a firearm. That means that of you’re roughly 1/100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in Britain and Wales in any given year, you have roughly a 1/10,000 chance of being in a violent crime involving a gun.

Alternately, in the US your chances of being involved in a violent crime are less than 1/250. Of those involved with violent crimes, however, you have greater than a 1/10,000 chance of being involved in a violent crime involving a gun. In a country with less than half the violent crime, you have a greater chance of being the victim of a violent crime involving a gun.

Here’s where gun control advocates would say that the proliferation of easily available and private firearms enable gun crimes. This is also where gun rights advocates would point to the much lower violent crime rate in a similarly governed and wealthy nation. In a way, they’re both right. Much as the US is both in line with other developed nations on violent crime, and an outlier–with several cities more dangerous than anywhere in Europe or Asia–violent crime in America is as sprawling as the opportunities to commit crime.

https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/

China's Tyranny

The New York Times received leaked documents showing how Chinese authorities are treating their ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region, including Muslims. On return to their homes during a break from school, minority students found their families and neighbors had disappeared. The NYT writes:

Instead, they would soon be told that their parents were gone, relatives had vanished and neighbors were missing — all of them locked up in an expanding network of detention camps built to hold Muslim ethnic minorities. .... The leadership distributed a classified directive advising local officials to corner returning students as soon as they arrived and keep them quiet. .... “They’re in a training school set up by the government,” the prescribed answer began. If pressed, officials were to tell students that their relatives were not criminals — yet could not leave these “schools.” .... “I’m sure that you will support them, because this is for their own good,” officials were advised to say, “and also for your own good.”

Threats to the returning students included one that if they behaved badly their behavior could affect how long their relatives would be detained.

The papers the NYT received were 403 pages of internal documents. This constitutes one of the most significant leaks in decades of government papers from China’s Communist Party. The documents give a rather clear view of the Xinjiang clampdown. Over the last three years, China's minority oppression effort has up to a million ethnic Uighurs, Kazakhs and other minorities in internment camps and prisons.

In one of the documents, China's president Xi Jinping justifies the oppression by calling it an all-out “struggle against terrorism, infiltration and separatism” using the “organs of dictatorship,” while showing “absolutely no mercy.”

How to Persuade

A lot of people dismiss emotion in debate and by doing so they're throwing away their most effective tool. One of the goals of logic is to persuasion but it is simply not very effective because despite what some people say, humans are not primarily rational actors. We are emotive actors. Logic's real power is in evaluating the coherency of beliefs, not necessarily communicating them.

A lot more often than we'd like, we operate on an emotional conclusion and then attempt to use logic to rationalize it, and we can do this without being aware of it. This makes for an effective tool of manipulation or persuasion. It's an expedient backdoor into the human psyche.

Manipulation and persuasion aren't really that different aside from intent. If your goal is to sway someone, doing so for honest ends is simply persuasion while doing so for dishonest or malicious ends would be manipulation. Either way, you're working with something very powerful.

Playing on this, there are a number of effective tools of persuasion at your disposal:

• Emotional appeals, especially channeling powerful emotions like fear and anger: These cut right to our core, and if you can do that, it makes them want to believe you. At that point the other party will want to rationalize the position for you. Compassion can work too, but it depends on the opponent. Compassion is often more of a secondary tactic.
• Lead them to the idea to make them think it was theirs: This is a very effective way to appeal to someone's ego, and blindside them by incepting an idea. When done correctly you immediately make the other party deeply invested in the idea. At that point, you're done.
• Build a relationship with them first so they're more likely to listen. This can be easy to execute but does take some time to foster and maintain. It's also a secondary measure as you still have to persuade them, but it opens the door potentially to apply logic.
• Appeal to their self interest. This can sometimes work, but it's often difficult to get someone to believe you're appealing to their self interest, so it's a secondary tactic.
• Ask questions until they run out answers. This is effectively the socratic method, and is a slightly more effective way to apply logic in debate because it forces the other party to consider the questions. We're vulnerable to questions as statements tend to make people defensive, while questions tend to make them more introspective. This isn't as effective as an emotional appeal so it's a secondary tactic.

This list is not exhaustive.

Emotions are not meaningless. They have a place in argumentation because we are emotionally driven beings. It's not just about the effectiveness of using emotion in debate but also the ends are important. A significant part of living well is emotional satisfaction. Emotion is important, and it has a place in our discourse.

Chapter Review: Arguments and Logical Fallacies

This is a review of Chapter 10, Arguments and Logical Fallacies, of Steven Novella's 2018 book, The Skeptic’s Guide the the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake. In this chapter, Novella marches through basic logic and the kinds of logical fallacies that people tend to rely to support their beliefs. The flaws are usually asserted unconsciously. The content of this chapter seems timely in view of the completely contradictory facts and arguments the two sides in the impeachment inquiry are hurling at each other. Novella points out that, in situations like this, one or both sides can be mostly wrong, but both cannot be mostly right.

The point of chapter 10 is to try to lay out the skills needed for critical thinking, something that humans are usually not good at unless they try to be good at it. Novella asserts: “Arguing is something that everyone does but few understand. Yet arguing is an essential skill of critical thinking.” Fortunately, the understanding needed is easy to grasp. Unfortunately, it takes time and sustained effort to learn to apply it.

Basic terminology

Logical fallacy: A logical fallacy is reasoning mistake or error that makes an argument invalid. All logical fallacies are non-sequiturs, which are arguments where the conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it. Novella describes it like this: “A logical fallacy is an invalid connection between a premise and a conclusion, where the conclusion does not necessarily flow from the premise(s) but is argued as if it does.” The human mind did not evolve to do precise logic and people make various kinds of mistakes unless they are aware of the errors and consciously try to avoid them. Instead of using formal logic, humans usually rely on informal logic

Argument: An argument is what connects premises (facts) with conclusions (beliefs). Although people see arguments as something to be won and beliefs to be defended, that isn't how Novella sees it. Instead, an argument is an effort to find reasoned truth, not win points. To help people engaged in argument find truth, they would best try to find as much common ground as possible and then carefully proceed to engage with belief differences.

Assertion: An assertion is a stated or argued premise or conclusion without supporting evidence.

Premise: A premise is an asserted fact(s) that an argument is based on. These days, many, arguably most, political disagreements among people are pointless because they do not agree on the facts. There needs to be a logical connection showing the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion. If there are sufficient premises that are true and the logic is valid (and thus the argument is “sound”), then the conclusion must be true. For completeness, a conclusion based on an unsound argument can be true or false, e.g., all spheres are pretty, therefore the sun is a sphere.

Novella makes an important point: “There is no way to objectively resolve to resolve a difference of opinion regarding aesthetics, for example.” Thus to avoid bickering endlessly over inherently unresolvable, people can simply agree that the disagreement is unresolvable as a matter of aesthetics, moral choice and so forth. Inherent irresolvability appears to apply to many (most?) political disagreements where moral judgments are involved, e.g., what constitutes an impeachable act by a sitting president.[1]

Checking premises

The first thing to do when beginning to engage in argument, people would do well to check their premises or facts. Four problems can occur, (1) the asserted facts or premises are simply wrong, (2) the asserted facts or premises are possibly wrong and not verified enough, (3) a premise is hidden, e.g., evolution is false because there are not ‘enough’ transitional fossils, but the definition of transitional is different from the standard science definition, which makes the disagreement unresolvable, and (4) a premise(s) is based on a subjective judgment, e.g., an information source is ‘reliable’ without an independent assessment or a person asserting a premise that ‘feels’ correct.

Logical fallacies

1. Non-sequitur: All logical fallacies are non-sequiturs. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premises. In giving his version of economic conditions in the US a few weeks ago, the president Tweeted: “Nobody has ever heard of numbers like that, so people want to find out: Why was it so corrupt during that election? And I want to find out more than anybody else.”  Here, the non-sequitur was a false connection between the economy in October of 2019 and the 2016 election.

2. Argument from authority: Appeal to authority can be probative, but it needs to be used carefully. Some non-experts in climate science, like me, tend to point to expert consensus about global warming, the human role in it and options to reduce it. Consensus expert opinion does carry some legitimate weight, but sometimes consensus is wrong. Sometimes, the appealed to authority really isn't an expert. Sometimes the appealed to expert is expert on one field but not the one at issue. Both undermines the persuasive power of the appeal.

3. Post hoc fallacy: This is among the most common fallacies. The fallacy goes like this: Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X. This argument is common in defenses of alternative medicines: “I took the pills and then felt better, therefore the pills worked.” The erroneous assumption is that because of their different positions on a timeline, the first event caused the second event.

The president used a post hoc fallacy when he asserted: “Since my election, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, SoftBank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart and many others have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.” Fact checkers found that those business decisions were make before the president was elected and not due to his role as president.

4. Whataboutism (tu quoque): This fallacy argues that since someone or some group did something in the past, doing it now is justified. The president and his supporters sometimes justify actions the president takes as justified because democrats did it. From my point of view, the whataboutism tactic appears to lead to a spiral down in civility and social norms. For example, the president asserted: “I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer’s wishes — when [Hillary Clinton] releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted.”

5. Ad hominem fallacy: This is an argument that attacks the opponent or their motivations instead of their arguments or conclusions. Asserting that an opponent is closed-minded is a common form of this attack. Novella asserts that people accusing their opponent of being closed-minded tend to be “closed to the possibility that they are wrong.” In other words, there are times when a person one is engaged with is in fact closed-minded.

6. Appeal to ignorance (proving a negative, ad ignorantiam): This is a fairly common fallacy based on a belief that something is true because it has not been shown to be false. Proving a negative can be difficult to deal with and thus this fallacy can be difficult to deal with. For example, the president asserted the following to CNN about his election in 2016: “What PROOF do you have Donald Trump did not suffer from millions of FRAUD votes? Journalists? Do your job!” and “Pathetic – you have no sufficient evidence that Donald Trump did not suffer from voter fraud, shame! Bad reporter.”

7. False analogy: A comparison between two things are similar in one way are falsely claimed to be similar in a different way. An example is the president's complaint about how he sees his treatment by democrats: “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching. But we will WIN!” The president is being investigated and criticized, but that is simply not the same as being lynched. The president's claim ignores the difference.

8. Slippery slope: This fallacy assumes that one action or policy will necessarily lead to other, worse outcomes. The mistake here is the belief that one action, e.g., a law that requires universal background checks for gun purchases, will lead inevitably to an extreme ultimate position, e.g., all guns in private hands will be taken away by force.

9. Straw man fallacy: Here, a person uses a weak version or caricature of an opponent's argument and then attacks that. The opponent may not even hold the asserted straw man position. Novella argues that critical thinking demands that the strongest version of an opponent’s argument should be assumed and addressed. Examples include assertions by the president that (1) Democrats “don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth” and (2) Democrats “have become the party of crime. [They] want to open our borders to a flood of deadly drugs and ruthless gangs [and] turn America into a giant sanctuary for criminal aliens and MS-13 thugs.”

The red herring fallacy is similar to the straw man, but it asserts a fact or premise that looks true but is either false or irrelevant. An example is the president’s Tweet two days after Attorney General Sessions recused himself from Justice Department investigations of Russian attacks on the 2016 election: “Terrible. Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.”

10. Tautology (begging the question): This fallacy relies on circular reasoning where the premise assumes the conclusion. Thus the argument is that since A = B, therefore A = B. The two sets of A = B tend to be worded differently, making them sometimes had to spot. One example is the president’s argument that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because he did nothing wrong. Another example is expressed in a legal memo the president relies on in his own defense: “The President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself.” That falsely argues the president cannot obstruct justice because the justice department works for him. Since the President tells the DOJ what to do, the memo argues, and any action he takes is leading justice, not obstructing it.

There are other fallacies, but these account for most of the common ones.

Footnote:

1. Pragmatic rationalism compared to arguments & logical fallacies: For people familiar with the pragmatic rationalism anti-ideology ideology argued here from time to time, its moral basis will probably jump right out as being in full accord with logic and what critical thinking requires. Specifically, the first two moral values are (i) conscious effort to try to see facts with less bias or distortion, and (ii) conscious effort to try to apply less biased conscious reason (arguments) to the facts that people think they see. The broad scope of disagreements that are not logically or objectively resolvable accords with the idea asserted here many times is that the best that people in civil, rational political disagreement can do is try to reach stasis, the point at which each understands why they disagree. Based on disagreements in my experience, about 85% of disagreements arise because of disagreements over facts. 

Disenfranchisement

The gig economy has replaced actual jobs with "gigs" that require no investment in the employee on the part of the employer.

The housing economy has decimated the middle class. This is very good for landlords.

The government and businesses are divesting from the people which leads to disenfranchisement. Disenfranchised people in turn, feel less connected to society. This impacts how we feel toward our neighbors and our community.

Society is growing apart, quite literally. We're just not that into each other. Maybe it starts with those who run things - the people with most of the wealth and power. Maybe they set the tenor, and they set the table. Maybe not. Maybe we do, and they're just following us.

Either way, now what?