> There's nothing polarizing or extreme about noticing oligarchy.

See, you and snarf21 keep assuming that we live in an oligarchy (perhaps snarf21 more strongly than you). You keep assuming that everyone can see that. Not only can't I see it, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And I suspect that, if you polled HN, you'd find that about 80% of people believe that we do not actually live in an oligarchy (all numbers made up on the spot with zero statistical evidence). I refuse to allow you to just assume oligarchy as "everyone knows, everyone can see". You don't get to assume it; you have to prove it.

The reason I said snarf21's remark was polarizing is because, in terms of conventional left-right divisions, the claim that we live in an oligarchy is almost exclusively a claim of the far left.

(Disclaimer: When I claim that we do not, in fact, live in an oligarchy, I am not claiming that the rich don't have too much influence - just that they don't have enough power to qualify as an actual oligarchy.)

Which is it? Do the bastards "have too much influence" or don't they? Not all elections are decided by massive campaign contributions from the wealthy, but lots of them are. We haven't bombed or sanctioned every nation populated by brown people, but we've bombed or sanctioned lots of them. Real wages haven't been stagnant forever, but they have been stagnant since 1973.

If you want to draw a line just this side of "oligarchy" and say we aren't there yet, you can, but you've got to admit that trends are pointing in that direction...

Let's ignore all that. ISTM you've made a basic logical error. The topic ITT is "polarization", which is considered a bad thing. GP suggested a way to reduce polarization, by realizing our true interests. How could it be polarizing to suggest a way to reduce polarization?

The definition of oligarchy (I looked it up) is "rule by the few". Not "the rich", but "the few". So: Are we ruled by the few? Not "do they have outsized influence", but "are we ruled" by the few?

I would say no.

If you think we are, then do you think that Warren's tax on the rich is just a smokescreen that those in control are putting forth to hide that they are in control? Or do you think that Warren will not be allowed to win? Or do you think that, if she wins, she will never actually do what she says she's going to do? Or do you think that the tax on the rich is really what the few want to do? (At that point, your hypothesis is unfalsifiable, because anything that happens is what the few wanted to happen.)

Any analysis that relies on Warren will be "unfalsifiable". We don't have to watch the news much to realize that they're not afraid of Warren. Is that because they think she's fibbing about how she's going to crack down on the 1%? Maybe that's part of it, but the bigger factor is that they know Trump won't lose to "Pocahontas". The coverage she gets is very different than what e.g. Sanders or Gabbard get, because they're real in a way that neither Trump nor any opponent he has faced has been.

(Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.)

> (Your back-and-forth about "few" vs "some" vs "1%" or whatever just proves the point about oligarchy.)

I don't think that it proves any such thing, except apparently in your mind. Nor do I think that I was going "back and forth" between "the few" and "some". The 1%, perhaps, if you accept Warren's plan as targeting them.

By the way, this oligarchy that you think rule - are they more or fewer than the 1%?

I think that your point about Sanders is rather a large concession on your part. You seem to be saying that "the oligarchy" are concerned that Sanders might win, and therefore are orchestrating press coverage against him. But if they are concerned that he might win, then they clearly don't rule. Otherwise, they would have no such concern.

Well, they haven't assassinated him yet... you seem sort of eager to shit on my hope. The last three presidents ran for office promising no more stupid foreign wars. Are you trying to force me to admit that democracy in USA is a sham?

[EDIT:] Sorry, it's clear to me now that this is what you intended with your whole "how few is few?" routine. Clearly you don't consider it "oligarchy" when 51% of votes are used as toilet paper.

I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. Please stop misrepresenting my position and my words, trying to make it sound like they support your ideas. They don't.