[Ididntdothis]

This Chomsky quote comes to mind “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. The sad part is that a lot of people seem to be addicted to the right vs left thinking.

A while ago I listened to a radio interview with an author whose thesis was that modern philanthropists allow change only in a way that doesn’t threaten their own wealth and power. This definitely rings true.

[arkades]

Why limit the comment to modern philanthropy? I doubt anyone, in meaningful numbers, has ever sought to undermine their own position in society. That would include anyone nominally seeking to “change things for the better.”

[gwm83]

Anyone, or in meaningful numbers? I'm not sure you can specify both. I "earn" around $400k USD per year and give away nearly all of it other than my housing and food.

[majewsky]

That's not really pertinent to GP's question because giving away that money does not really "undermine [your] position in society". In fact, it could elevate your status because you can boast about all your philanthropy, just like Bill Gates' public image has improved since he stepped down as Microsoft CEO.

Let's assume (without loss of generality) that your $400k income is from a salaried job at some company. Suppose that there is an NGO fighting to abolish said company on moral grounds. Would you be willing to donate your money to that organization?

[luckylion]

> Suppose that there is an NGO fighting to abolish said company on moral grounds. Would you be willing to donate your money to that organization?

Which, even if that NGO succeeded, wouldn't undermine the position in society. If Facebook were dismantled, the employees just switch to Google, Amazon & Co.

[davesmith1983]

> This Chomsky quote comes to mind “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”. The sad part is that a lot of people seem to be addicted to the right vs left thinking.

What this is more broadly is the Overton Window. There is "acceptable" topics that can be broached.

As for Right versus Left, well that is 1 dimension politically. There is for example authoritarian / libertarian scale. So many political tests have the "Quad" or "Compass". Most people normally score around the middle.

However there are 4 dimensional tests such as this.

https://8values.github.io/

I have no idea how accurate these are, or whether they are biased. But there is certainly much more than left vs right.

> A while ago I listened to a radio interview with an author whose thesis was that modern philanthropists allow change only in a way that doesn’t threaten their own wealth and power. This definitely rings true.

Well what you are talking about is the idea of hyper-normalisation. The idea is that you finance both sides e.g. pro fascist, anti-fascist etc. This creates a state of confusion where people don't really know what is going on and become apathetic to it.

Adam Curtis made a documentary about it, however here is a snippet from it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=wcy8uLjRHPM

[PaulAJ]

I just tried that 8 Values thing. Interesting, but it depended too much on existing buzzwords and quotes, and contained a number of false dichotomies. E.g.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". If you didn't know the quote then it might sound like a good description of a modern welfare state, so only people with strongly libertarian views would reject it. However most people who recognise it as a quote from Marx will reject it because they are not Marxists.

"It is more important to have a balanced budget than to look after everyone" (quote from memory). False dichotomy: if a country fails to have a balanced budget over the long term then it won't be able to look after anyone.

[majewsky]

I noticed the same about false dichotomies, particularly on the question of open borders.

> We should open our borders to immigration.

This would be a definite "No" to me, but I still answered with "Weakly agree", because otherwise it puts me in the strong-borders faction, which I definitely don't belong into. I don't want open borders right now, but I want the world to evolve into a state where we can have open borders 50 years from now.

(If you consider that outlook crazy, remember that it took Europe 50 years to get from WW2 to open borders under the Schengen treaty.)

[_dps]

It's important to note that the Schengen agreement was only about travel, and not what what is commonly assumed these days regarding border debates: the ability to come, settle, work, and take part in the social safety net.

Switzerland for example was a Schengen signatory. Switzerland has never allowed open immigration, work permits, or welfare benefits for people entering under Schengen terms.

So while I think you give a good example of what can happen in 50 years, I think it's very important to draw a distinction between Schengen-like agreements and what people commonly understand from the closed/open border debate.

[davesmith1983]

There are supposed to be statements on there that are like false dichotomies etc. That means you will have to choose the least bad option.

[tenaciousant666]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[vixen99]

'to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion' which is certainly now a widespread phenomenon cheered on by a seeming majority. In the UK these days, having the 'wrong opinions' albeit politely expressed can now land you with a criminal conviction or at the least, apprehension in the cells.

[nafey]

Was the interviewee Anand Giridharadas? I have been finding his takes particularly enlightening.

[thundergolfer]

I think that Chomsky quote is decades old.

[ianai]

That definitely sounds like Anand.

[rv-de]

Most development aid is also philanthropy of that kind. Supporting countries in ways that keeps them from getting up and standing on their own legs, distorting the economy in the disfavor of local merchants and industries.

[PaulAJ]

The Chomsky quote is something you hear from the Left from time to time: a political theory which implies some kind of deliberate coordination between capitalists as a class. Is there a Protocols of the Elders of Capitalism which includes this as a principle, or some Omniscient Council of Capitalist Vagueness who are defining the spectrum of currently acceptable opinion?

(Not that the Left has a monopoly on conspiracy theories of course, but it should be called out whenever it appears).

[Ididntdothis]

I don’t think it works that way. Trends often develop without central control. Looking at another trend, do you think there is a cabal of elite social justice warriors that control that movement or a secret book that sets the rules?

[gwm83]

Deliberate implies documented in your comment. Of course it's implicit in this scenario. I suppose not much of the conversation in 100k/plate dinner fundraisers is about the weather.

[PaulAJ]

I think this goes beyond a few random conversations. Chomsky's comment implies a command structure.

[Ididntdothis]

That’s your interpretation. That’s not how I read it.

[ianai]

At first read of the title, I thought this was about “there’s no right or left” meaning you could substitute Republican for right and Democrat for left. Ultimately, the authors talking about tangentially and in line with your quote and OP:

“The only way to overcome the oligarchy and Trump’s divide-and-conquer strategy is for the rest of us to join together and win America back.

That means creating a multi-racial, multi-ethnic coalition of working-class, poor and middle-class Americans who will fight for democracy and oppose oligarchy.

White, black and Latino; union and non-union; evangelical and secular; immigrant and native-born – all focused on ending big money in politics, stopping corporate welfare and crony capitalism, busting up monopolies and stopping voter suppression.”

Edit-the point is to see beyond that possible connection and to what really needs to happen: the voters demanding and reinforcing their political powers. Practically, I think this asks people to not become jaded, “tune out”, and accept what’s going on as too big and beyond your influence.

Engage-read the news, do all the research you can muster on what politicians are doing, and come up with your own opinion. Then do your civic duties to reinforce your opinions.