[TomMckenny]

>Yeah, it's almost as if human beings care about concrete, meaningful changes that affect their lives and not some all-encompassing, abstract class struggle.

The plantation owner worries only about the bottom line and the suburbanite is upset that the homeless are visible not that they exist. When these positions become virtues and problems are dismissed as abstractions, the society dies.

[leftyted]

Suffering isn't an abstraction.

The notion that suffering is caused by the subjugation of one class at the hands of another is an abstraction. That doesn't mean it's wrong -- it is almost certainly right with respect to a given time and place -- but to pursue that abstraction as if it has absolute validity (as if it is all-encompassing) is what I'm criticizing.

[TomMckenny]

It is indeed as physics is an abstraction of reality. And both are conspicuously accurate far more often than not.

"An adjustment to suffering that requires powerful people to loose some power" means exactly the same thing as "an adjustment to suffering that requires a powerful class to loose some power."

Often attempted adjustments are categorized as blind ideology and, by implication, chaos. For the erudite it's called "abstract ideology", for the less so it's simply labeled "communism". The effect is the same: portray reform as destruction and create comfort for the beneficiaries of society in the status quo.

Conversely, both laissez faire-ism and Ayn Rand's thesis are both very much ideologies but they are not called that by those who approve of them. I know of no possible definition of "ideology" that does not also apply to the both the American and French revolution as well as the motivation of every soldier in every army and indeed to the ethics driving every action that is not self absorbed.

Blindly following some policy like "burn all X" or "policy Y always results in maximum wealth" is disastrous. But I'd say that that differs significantly from an ideology like "all human beings are entitled to X".

[leftyted]

I don't agree that everything is abstraction. You can't argue with starvation.

The comparison of class struggle to physics is astonishing. Physicists predicted the existence of black holes and then found them later in nature. Meanwhile, Marx thought the revolution was going to happen in his lifetime.

> Any attempted adjustment is always categorized as blind ideology and, by implication, chaos. For the erudite it's called "abstract ideology", for the less so it's simply labeled "communism". The effect is the same: portray reform as destruction and create comfort for the beneficiaries of society in the status quo.

Who said anything about "any attempted adjustment"? There are infinite ways you can "make adjustments" to attempt to make people's lives better in a given situation. We do it the time.

> Conversly, both laissez faire-ism and Ayn Rand's thesis are both very much ideologies but they are not called that by those who approve of them. I know of no possible definition of "ideology" that does not also apply to the both the American and French revolution as well as the motivation of every soldier in every army and indeed to the ethics driving every action that is not self absorbed.

My opinion is that, in a given situation, Ayn Rand may be right. In another situation, Marx may be right. What I don't understand is the claim that either of them is always right.

If I had to choose a policy "to reduce suffering," I'd go with Henry George today but I'll probably change my mind later. Mainly I'm just glad it's not up to me because I'm probably wrong. I'm a bit horrified by people who are sure they're right about "how to end suffering" or "how to rationally order society".