My Chinese friend posted a ratio without a citation a while back and without any historical context but I find it interesting just for thought-experiment reasons. In the old days it took 20 farmers to feed one person who didn’t work, so 20:1. The problem of exploitation–I tend to think of it as a so-called problem in many moods–the problem of exploitation is bound up with a twin concept of leisure and refinement, this latter always symptomatically missing from almost all discourse regarding exploitation. Today we have the evil 1%, so we could also think of it as a 100:1 ratio if we want to go with popular imagination. What seems to be missing with them is that their twin concept is of exploitation and leisure without the refinement. It isn’t so easy to demonize exploitation, thus to even think of it using the pejorative idea of “exploitation” when you add refinement into the equation. Many of the exploited ones won’t understand, in part because they lack the leisure to have the refinement to understand, but it seems clear to me at least that if 20 farmers was what it took back in the day to yield a “crop” of one real human being, then their labor was worth it. Would you prefer 21 1/8th human beings instead? Many laborers would say yes, whatever gets me a half hour less work a day. I’d argue that they’re simply confused, and I sense that this is how the Habsburgs used to think as well. Remember that saying of Adorno that worker-consciousness continues even into the weekend. That means that when they do get leisure they dedicate it to refinement suited to the domain of their specific caste. Which raises the question of how “refined” that refinement actually is. Looking at our democrats of today, I can tell you how refined that refinement is, and in fact I have, much to their disdain. Not to say that true disdain or true contempt are moods that they’d even understand, the feral beasts that they are. Notice how you won’t really find people who talk like me among the upper-class? Even though you may suspect that that’s what they’re thinking? I have a hunch that that is an evolutionary adaptation of theirs, to be silent about the distance between castes because that only incites revenge. I’m sure among their personal families they laugh about some of the things I do. Once again, I’m just a worker like many of you, I just happen to have some peculiarly candid book-friends who have managed to persuade me about various things over time. I only wish I was “larping”- if anything I larp as a peasant so people hate me less. So, this 20:1 ratio. The left can be seen as the desire to eliminate all of those 1s regardless of whether they’ve exploited for reasons of leisure+hedonism or leisure+refinement, the fact that they exploit is their problem- and from a certain perspective (I know many will never understand) it isn’t accurate to think of it as “exploitation”. Does it make sense to say that you exploit your shoes by wearing them? Regarding my previous post about “Middle Class Morality”: I believe this has also leeched into our upper-class of the present. Many of them are where they are because they appealed to the middle and lower peoples. So basically a majority of them are proles or bourgeoisie with lots of money, and lack the kind of consciousness that I’ve been talking about, so it’s misguided to even think of them as the upper-class. Middling individuals in places they have no right to. And there is a feedback-loop between them and the proles&bourgeoisie through which they sustain this lowbrow culture of ours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: