Neoliberalism's Dark Path to Fascism

[poster]

Over the past few years, I've done quite a bit of reading on what Neoliberalism is and its consequences. This piece, in which Chris Hedges and David Harvey explore Neoliberalism, is among the better examinations I've come across. It ended up being a nice piece to sit and sip my coffee to in the quiet of my sitting room.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/neoliberalisms-dark-path-to-fascism/


Some snippets:

Neoliberalism as economic theory was always an absurdity. It had as much validity as past ruling ideologies such as the divine right of kings and fascism’s belief in the Übermensch. None of its vaunted promises were even remotely possible. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a global oligarchic elite—eight families now hold as much wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population—while demolishing government controls and regulations always creates massive income inequality and monopoly power, fuels political extremism and destroys democracy. You do not need to slog through the 577 pages of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” to figure this out. But economic rationality was never the point. The point was the restoration of class power.

[...]

“As a political project, it was very savvy,” he said. “It got a great deal of popular consent because it was talking about individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice. When they talked about freedom, it was freedom of the market. The neoliberal project said to the ’68 generation, ‘OK, you want liberty and freedom? That’s what the student movement was about. We’re going to give it to you, but it’s going to be freedom of the market. The other thing you’re after is social justice—forget it. So, we’ll give you individual liberty, but you forget the social justice. Don’t organize.’ The attempt was to dismantle those institutions, which were those collective institutions of the working class, particularly the unions and bit by bit those political parties that stood for some sort of concern for the well-being of the masses.”

“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals,” Harvey went on. “It promises equality of treatment, but if you’re extremely rich, it means you can get richer. If you’re very poor, you’re more likely to get poorer. What Marx showed brilliantly in volume one of ‘Capital’ is that freedom of the market produces greater and greater levels of social inequality.”

[...[

Neoliberalism transforms freedom for the many into freedom for the few. Its logical result is neofascism. Neofascism abolishes civil liberties in the name of national security and brands whole groups as traitors and enemies of the people. It is the militarized instrument used by the ruling elites to maintain control, divide and tear apart the society and further accelerate pillage and social inequality. The ruling ideology, no longer credible, is replaced with the jackboot.

As a bit of an aside; I've noticed since the midterm elections that in some corporate media articles I've read, that many of the Democrats who are in fact neoliberals are being referred to as "progressives". It's an interesting sleight of hand. Case in point is this piece from Policico where the caption below the top photo of Rep Adam Smith (D-Wash) reads "Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) who is set to become the first progressive in decades to run the House Armed Services Committee." When Smith is not, in the slightest, a progressive in the traditional sense of the word.

 

[untermensche]

This is from 1997.

Chomsky begins about 4 minutes in.

 

[PyramidHead]

Over the past few years, I've done quite a bit of reading on what Neoliberalism is and its consequences. This piece, in which Chris Hedges and David Harvey explore Neoliberalism, is among the better examinations I've come across. It ended up being a nice piece to sit and sip my coffee to in the quiet of my sitting room.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/neoliberalisms-dark-path-to-fascism/


Some snippets:

Neoliberalism as economic theory was always an absurdity. It had as much validity as past ruling ideologies such as the divine right of kings and fascism’s belief in the Übermensch. None of its vaunted promises were even remotely possible. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a global oligarchic elite—eight families now hold as much wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population—while demolishing government controls and regulations always creates massive income inequality and monopoly power, fuels political extremism and destroys democracy. You do not need to slog through the 577 pages of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” to figure this out. But economic rationality was never the point. The point was the restoration of class power.

[...]

“As a political project, it was very savvy,” he said. “It got a great deal of popular consent because it was talking about individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice. When they talked about freedom, it was freedom of the market. The neoliberal project said to the ’68 generation, ‘OK, you want liberty and freedom? That’s what the student movement was about. We’re going to give it to you, but it’s going to be freedom of the market. The other thing you’re after is social justice—forget it. So, we’ll give you individual liberty, but you forget the social justice. Don’t organize.’ The attempt was to dismantle those institutions, which were those collective institutions of the working class, particularly the unions and bit by bit those political parties that stood for some sort of concern for the well-being of the masses.”

“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals,” Harvey went on. “It promises equality of treatment, but if you’re extremely rich, it means you can get richer. If you’re very poor, you’re more likely to get poorer. What Marx showed brilliantly in volume one of ‘Capital’ is that freedom of the market produces greater and greater levels of social inequality.”

[...[

Neoliberalism transforms freedom for the many into freedom for the few. Its logical result is neofascism. Neofascism abolishes civil liberties in the name of national security and brands whole groups as traitors and enemies of the people. It is the militarized instrument used by the ruling elites to maintain control, divide and tear apart the society and further accelerate pillage and social inequality. The ruling ideology, no longer credible, is replaced with the jackboot.

As a bit of an aside; I've noticed since the midterm elections that in some corporate media articale I've read, that many of the Democrats who are in fact neoliberals are being referred to as "progressives". It's an interesting sleight of hand. Case in point is this piece from Policico where the caption below the top photo of Rep Adam Smith (D-Wash) reads "Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) who is set to become the first progressive in decades to run the House Armed Services Committee." When Smith is not, in the slightest, a progressive in the traditional sense of the word.

Great thread and article. Your point about labels and the political spectrum needs to be repeated more often. The right and the left are not just relative terms, there is an actual left that is usually not part of the conversation at all because of how far right we have moved, especially in the United States but also globally.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Over the past few years, I've done quite a bit of reading on what Neoliberalism is and its consequences. This piece, in which Chris Hedges and David Harvey explore Neoliberalism, is among the better examinations I've come across. It ended up being a nice piece to sit and sip my coffee to in the quiet of my sitting room.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/neoliberalisms-dark-path-to-fascism/


Some snippets:

Neoliberalism as economic theory was always an absurdity. It had as much validity as past ruling ideologies such as the divine right of kings and fascism’s belief in the Übermensch. None of its vaunted promises were even remotely possible. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a global oligarchic elite—eight families now hold as much wealth as 50 percent of the world’s population—while demolishing government controls and regulations always creates massive income inequality and monopoly power, fuels political extremism and destroys democracy. You do not need to slog through the 577 pages of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” to figure this out. But economic rationality was never the point. The point was the restoration of class power.

[...]

“As a political project, it was very savvy,” he said. “It got a great deal of popular consent because it was talking about individual liberty and freedom, freedom of choice. When they talked about freedom, it was freedom of the market. The neoliberal project said to the ’68 generation, ‘OK, you want liberty and freedom? That’s what the student movement was about. We’re going to give it to you, but it’s going to be freedom of the market. The other thing you’re after is social justice—forget it. So, we’ll give you individual liberty, but you forget the social justice. Don’t organize.’ The attempt was to dismantle those institutions, which were those collective institutions of the working class, particularly the unions and bit by bit those political parties that stood for some sort of concern for the well-being of the masses.”

“The great thing about freedom of the market is it appears to be egalitarian, but there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals,” Harvey went on. “It promises equality of treatment, but if you’re extremely rich, it means you can get richer. If you’re very poor, you’re more likely to get poorer. What Marx showed brilliantly in volume one of ‘Capital’ is that freedom of the market produces greater and greater levels of social inequality.”

[...[

Neoliberalism transforms freedom for the many into freedom for the few. Its logical result is neofascism. Neofascism abolishes civil liberties in the name of national security and brands whole groups as traitors and enemies of the people. It is the militarized instrument used by the ruling elites to maintain control, divide and tear apart the society and further accelerate pillage and social inequality. The ruling ideology, no longer credible, is replaced with the jackboot.

As a bit of an aside; I've noticed since the midterm elections that in some corporate media articale I've read, that many of the Democrats who are in fact neoliberals are being referred to as "progressives". It's an interesting sleight of hand. Case in point is this piece from Policico where the caption below the top photo of Rep Adam Smith (D-Wash) reads "Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) who is set to become the first progressive in decades to run the House Armed Services Committee." When Smith is not, in the slightest, a progressive in the traditional sense of the word.

Great thread and article. Your point about labels and the political spectrum needs to be repeated more often. The right and the left are not just relative terms, there is an actual left that is usually not part of the conversation at all because of how far right we have moved, especially in the United States but also globally.

Fair point. But would you not agree that people who hold your beliefs are a pretty small segment of the population? IMO, nothing wrong with that. I like having differing opinions. But there is also a very large segment of voters like me who are pro business, pro jobs, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, pro environment, pro science, and who want a larger safety net. We need a place also... And it damn sure isn't on the right.

 

[poster]

Trying to remain on topic.

Do you disagree with what the article asserts, that the neoliberal policies since the '70s have brought us to the dire state of financial despair we find ourselves in today and that as a consequence those policies are leading to fascism?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trying to remain on topic.

Do you disagree with what the article asserts, that the neoliberal policies since the '70s have brought us to the dire state of financial despair we find ourselves in today and that as a consequence those policies are leading to fascism?

No I don't. I don't see evidence of the following: "... neofascism abolishes civil liberties in the name of national security and brands whole groups as traitors and enemies of the people. It is the militarized instrument used by the ruling elites to maintain control, divide and tear apart the society and further accelerate pillage and social inequality. The ruling ideology, no longer credible, is replaced with the jackboot." There is no jackboot. In fact, people today in the western democracies are the freest of any people in history. If someone creates a product that is incredible demand that everyone wants (Amazon, Microsoft) and the value of their companies sky rockets - great for them. Great for us.

However, clearly there are many who are falling behind. The way to help those falling behind isn't to attack those on the top. What we should be doing is empowering those falling behind. Bring them up. Here are some solutions proposed by the "neo-liberals" that you don't like: increase min wage, decrease barriers to education and training, encourage entreprenurship, lower barriers, retraining, economic development, better health care, better safety net, ending monopolies, and etc.

BTW: sorry for derail, but to me the biggest issue today is the environment.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Trying to remain on topic.

Do you disagree with what the article asserts, that the neoliberal policies since the '70s have brought us to the dire state of financial despair we find ourselves in today and that as a consequence those policies are leading to fascism?

I do not disagree at all.

I remember back when neoliberalism seemed stable --pre 2007/8-- some people saying the logical end was fascism (anyone remember Red Dave?). I thought that was over the top but it's looking more like they were right every day.

 

[ruby sparks]

.....We need a place also. And it damn sure isn't on the right.

Well, if you go far enough to the right (ok, I actually mean east, but if you look at a conventional map it's to the right) you would reach Western Europe.

 

[PyramidHead]

Great thread and article. Your point about labels and the political spectrum needs to be repeated more often. The right and the left are not just relative terms, there is an actual left that is usually not part of the conversation at all because of how far right we have moved, especially in the United States but also globally.

Fair point. But would you not agree that people who hold your beliefs are a pretty small segment of the population? IMO, nothing wrong with that. I like having differing opinions. But there is also a very large segment of voters like me who are pro business, pro jobs, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, pro environment, pro science, and who want a larger safety net. We need a place also... And it damn sure isn't on the right.

That's the Democratic party platform in the United States. You don't get to lament lack of representation when you've literally just described the policies of one of the only two viable political parties.

In fact, people today in the western democracies are the freest of any people in history.

You've fallen for the very trap highlighted in the article: the conflation of "freedom to buy and sell commodities in a market" for the kind of freedom that people actually value, to experience life without constant insecurity and financial uncertainty, to discover, pursue and nurture their creative abilities, to see what the world has to offer. Neoliberal ideology has the dangerous effect of making us satisfied with a stunted and constantly exhausted type of freedom. Always, always question anybody who tells you that you are free enough, or that you have it better than people in the past so you should be satisfied with that much.

If someone creates a product that is incredible demand that everyone wants (Amazon, Microsoft) and the value of their companies sky rockets - great for them. Great for us.

That analysis is badly distorted. The products created by Amazon and Microsoft are not traceable to "someone"--that's another neoliberal lie that is told to justify the vast income inequality that it creates. Amazon is the outcome of work done by workers under backbreaking conditions at all hours of every day, who only see a small fraction of the value they add to social life and have zero say in how that value is appropriated and distributed. Those choices are made by the few or left to the market, and as long as we accept that arrangement as something that can only be mitigated by external policies, we will continue to have the extremes of poverty and affluence that neoliberal economics inevitably produces.

Here are some solutions proposed by the "neo-liberals" that you don't like: increase min wage, decrease barriers to education and training, encourage entreprenurship, lower barriers, retraining, economic development, better health care, better safety net, ending monopolies, and etc.

I would not be opposed to any of those policies in comparison to their absence. But what you're talking about does not make sense divorced from class considerations. Neoliberalism is a system of antagonism between workers and capital, and most of the suggestions you put forth here would improve the conditions of the former while propping up the overall structure that enables the antagonism itself to persist. The history of economic struggle is one of capital imposing work and workers subverting it. We want to work less than they want us to work, plain and simple, and neoliberalism is their way of making us work more. Viewed in this way, policies of the type you offer are easily (and inevitably) turned against us by capital to give us less free time, less energy, less enthusiasm to organize, less mobility. A minimum wage is better than none, but the idea of a wage itself is what needs to be examined, as a mechanism keeping workers busy and capital in control. Education and training are transparently used by capital to generate a workforce, the goal of which is to reproduce itself and continually create the conditions for the imposition of more work. Again, it's not that these are harmful compared to their absence, assuming a neoliberal organization of production and distribution, but in practice they prolong the source of the problem and make people complacent about it.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't have time to post at length in this interesting thread just at the moment, so I will just throw in one or two thoughts.

Despite the growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, we could arguably say that almost everyone in the 'west' is better off, in most of the important ways, than even a king or queen was in the past. It's largely relative. Is there a case for whining less and counting one's 'blessings' more?

I know the gap is greater where most forum members here live and there is less of a safety net.

Also, are people compelled to be ardent consumers? Is it not possible to be largely acapitalistic even in a capaitalist society? To have (and be allowed) an 'alternative lifestyle'?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't have time to post at length in this interesting thread just at the moment, so I will just throw in one thought.

Despite the growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, we could arguably say that almost everyone in the 'west' is better off than even a king or queen was in the past. Is there a case for not whining less and counting one's 'blessings' more?

No, that's the exact opposite of the case. If the argument is that because we are doing X, Y and Z, almost everyone is better off than the best were in the past, that's more incentive to continue doing X, Y ans Z to an even greater degree because they have been proven to be successful, so it would be inane to stop halfway along the path.

Stopping whining and counting our blessings would be like saying "Hey, this new method of cancer treatment cured 5% more people last year and 7% more people this year. Good job, everybody. Let's defund the research and go home". The correct response would instead be "Hey, let's pour even more money into this research and work harder". Similarly, when you can see what makes things better and society isn't moving quickly enough down those paths as it could be, complaining about that and demanding more action is the correct course, regardless of how things compare to historical situations.

 

[untermensche]

I don't have time to post at length in this interesting thread just at the moment, so I will just throw in one or two thoughts.

Despite the growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, we could arguably say that almost everyone in the 'west' is better off, in most of the important ways, than even a king or queen was in the past. It's largely relative. Is there a case for whining less and counting one's 'blessings' more? ...

Imagine what a world we would live in if there were a fair and rational distribution of the wealth created by having a society?

Right now our purpose for having a society is so a very few can accumulate more than they could possibly use and so many can go hungry and homeless.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't have time to post at length in this interesting thread just at the moment, so I will just throw in one thought.

Despite the growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, we could arguably say that almost everyone in the 'west' is better off than even a king or queen was in the past. Is there a case for not whining less and counting one's 'blessings' more?

No, that's the exact opposite of the case. If the argument is that because we are doing X, Y and Z, almost everyone is better off than the best were in the past, that's more incentive to continue doing X, Y ans Z to an even greater degree because they have been proven to be successful, so it would be inane to stop halfway along the path.

Stopping whining and counting our blessings would be like saying "Hey, this new method of cancer treatment cured 5% more people last year and 7% more people this year. Good job, everybody. Let's defund the research and go home". The correct response would instead be "Hey, let's pour even more money into this research and work harder". Similarly, when you can see what makes things better and society isn't moving quickly enough down those paths as it could be, complaining about that and demanding more action is the correct course, regardless of how things compare to historical situations.

That works for the cancer analogy. But does it work for 'things which are good for us' generally? Food for example. We can all agree that there is a point at which 'having more' can be counter-productive (see: the majority of Americans are obese). Or take 'being nice to disadvantaged minorities' (see: the thread on the threats to society posed by the Regressive Left).

But seriously, my point was that 'how well off' we feel we are is largely relative, and often based on comparing ourselves to our nearest neighbours in time and space. Assuming that most here live either in the USA or some other 1st world country, there is a case for realising that actually, most are pretty well off in most of the important ways (dare I say it, possibly due to capitalism to at least some extent).

 

[ruby sparks]

Always, always question anybody who tells you that you are free enough, or that you have it better than people in the past so you should be satisfied with that much.

Not just people in the past. People in most of the world today too.

Ok so that point only goes so far. I accept that. It is a (quite good I think) case for complaining less and being satisfied more. On the other hand, it says nothing about potentials for reducing relative inequalities, which I agree are growing inside individual countries.

I'm not against capitalism. I'm for a blend of capitalism and socialism. I'm against what I might call the 'toxic capitalism' which blights many countries, not least the USA which might well be and have been the epicentre and main exporter of it. As such, I actually agree with many of the points made in the OP article about neoliberalism, even if I also feel that it's a slightly distorted polemic, in that it verges on not recognising the benefits of capitalism at all. Some ancient greeks, and several 'eastern' philosophers, had a maxim, ‘observe due measure; moderation is best in all things’ or a version of that. It is also said to be part of the Swedish national psyche.

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

In other words, capitalism, like almost anything else (including its counterpart, socialism) can go too far. It's excess we should arguably be decrying.

 

[ruby sparks]

Also, on a minor note, 'fascism' can be difficult to define. As such, I am not sure if the article makes a strong enough case that neoliberalism leads to facism, even if it does lead to undesirable things.

As to what 'neoliberalism' is, this seems to be quite a good description, at least as commonly understood (and practiced in the USA):



That was taken from an article linked to by the OP article:

https://corpwatch.org/article/what-neoliberalism

On which note I see that Trump is threatening to cut subsidies for General Motors. Large private businesses get propped up by significant state subsidies and other similar interventions in neoliberal, unregulated free market capitalism? Who knew? Someone's been telling porky pies.

 

[PyramidHead]

Always, always question anybody who tells you that you are free enough, or that you have it better than people in the past so you should be satisfied with that much.

Not just people in the past. People in most of the world today too.

Ok so that point only goes so far. I accept that. It is a (quite good I think) case for complaining less and being satisfied more. On the other hand, it says nothing about potentials for reducing relative inequalities, which I agree are growing inside individual countries.

I'm not against capitalism. I'm for a blend of capitalism and socialism. I'm against what I might call the 'toxic capitalism' which blights many countries, not least the USA which might well be and have been the epicentre and main exporter of it. As such, I actually agree with many of the points made in the OP article about neoliberalism, even if I also feel that it's a slightly distorted polemic, in that it verges on not recognising the benefits of capitalism at all. Some ancient greeks, and several 'eastern' philosophers, had a maxim, ‘observe due measure; moderation is best in all things’ or a version of that. It is also said to be part of the Swedish national psyche.

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

In other words, capitalism, like almost anything else (including its counterpart, socialism) can go too far. It's excess we should arguably be decrying.

That kind of thinking used to appeal to me, but now it honestly makes me gag. Why should the current climate dictate what the extremes are, and therefore what the 'moderate' position should be? Those are all relative terms. The excess of one time and place is the status quo of another. 'Decry excess' is thus a vacuous and lazy approach. It simplifies complex relationships and systemic problems to examples of sprinkling too much of one or another type of seasoning on your meal.

So, what is considered 'toxic' should not be determined simply by reference to what is commonplace or accepted. I'll give you an example from the very topic we're discussing. A few months ago, before I started devouring Marxist literature like it was steak, I was more or less on the same page as you about the Swedish system and similar 'social democratic' governments. Obviously they are better than the United States at taking care of everybody, by many metrics. Now, while I still acknowledge the policies they have as successful outcomes of struggle against capital, I see that there is still a much longer way to go. Whereas before, I thought that the United States was kind of like the slave-owning south and the western European democracies represented an egalitarian Star Trek society, now I see both as plantations, where the masters of the European ones are more benevolent than the American ones.

Once you get the idea behind Marx's labor theory of value, even if you dispute the specific calculations or favor one latter-day refinement over another, you can't look at any economy where workers are paid wages by capitalists outside of that context anymore. Then you start noticing the ebb and flow of the two classes, tugging away at society for either more freedom or more control, and problems that used to require specialized ways of thinking turn out to just be manifestations of this same phenomenon. The things that are usually taken for granted as inevitable aspects of existence in the developed world start to look like the arbitrary contrivances that they are.

At this point in my thinking life, the way I'm approaching politics is not through the lens of excess versus moderation in the usual spectrum of ideas, but autonomy versus everything else. The actual autonomy that we as humans should have, due to the complete lack of any justification for one person or group claiming more value than another, is only excessive if you fail to notice the thinness of the membranes that separate the socially acceptable zones of autonomy from the forbidden ones. Just looking at that layout, and trying to imagine what a powerful group of rich people who want to control the rest of us would try to make us think if they wanted us to lose our nerve, all the usual chestnuts of apologia are predictable. Most people are stupid. We need investors. We need to reward merit otherwise nobody will try to do anything. We can make it work with the right regulations. Democracy only works at certain scales. And of course: gradual change in the direction of moderation is preferable to any sort of immediate shift that could be regarded as excessive. I think we should reject all of these excuses for why nobody has any real autonomy.

 

[masterpeastheater]

Things will run their course. Neoliberalism will continue to morph into fascism because the elite will soon have no other way to get
the general population to go along with the system. Once all wealth is owned by a few, they can no longer sell us creepy speakers
that give us handjobs. They will exhaust all natural resources, too, just as they will exhaust all monetary ones. Bolsonaro's yippee lets
get rid of the rest of the rainforest plan is one of the most clear-cut (hahaha) manifestations of this. There will be no return to sanity,
the elite know that climate change and resource scarcity are coming, and they have made their decision to react the worst way possible
just to stick it to us and stockpile their gated mansions all the more fully. Their is no way back for liberal democracy, The US has fallen, good
luck getting the dems in the house or even a dem senate and president after 2020 to, you know, do anything, they too are sold out to the emerging
fascist corporate forces that run the show. Eventually Europe will go, too, and there is no way back.

 

[ruby sparks]

Always, always question anybody who tells you that you are free enough, or that you have it better than people in the past so you should be satisfied with that much.

Not just people in the past. People in most of the world today too.

Ok so that point only goes so far. I accept that. It is a (quite good I think) case for complaining less and being satisfied more. On the other hand, it says nothing about potentials for reducing relative inequalities, which I agree are growing inside individual countries.

I'm not against capitalism. I'm for a blend of capitalism and socialism. I'm against what I might call the 'toxic capitalism' which blights many countries, not least the USA which might well be and have been the epicentre and main exporter of it. As such, I actually agree with many of the points made in the OP article about neoliberalism, even if I also feel that it's a slightly distorted polemic, in that it verges on not recognising the benefits of capitalism at all. Some ancient greeks, and several 'eastern' philosophers, had a maxim, ‘observe due measure; moderation is best in all things’ or a version of that. It is also said to be part of the Swedish national psyche.

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

In other words, capitalism, like almost anything else (including its counterpart, socialism) can go too far. It's excess we should arguably be decrying.

That kind of thinking used to appeal to me, but now it honestly makes me gag. Why should the current climate dictate what the extremes are, and therefore what the 'moderate' position should be? Those are all relative terms. The excess of one time and place is the status quo of another. 'Decry excess' is thus a vacuous and lazy approach. It simplifies complex relationships and systemic problems to examples of sprinkling too much of one or another type of seasoning on your meal.

So, what is considered 'toxic' should not be determined simply by reference to what is commonplace or accepted. I'll give you an example from the very topic we're discussing. A few months ago, before I started devouring Marxist literature like it was steak, I was more or less on the same page as you about the Swedish system and similar 'social democratic' governments. Obviously they are better than the United States at taking care of everybody, by many metrics. Now, while I still acknowledge the policies they have as successful outcomes of struggle against capital, I see that there is still a much longer way to go. Whereas before, I thought that the United States was kind of like the slave-owning south and the western European democracies represented an egalitarian Star Trek society, now I see both as plantations, where the masters of the European ones are more benevolent than the American ones.

Once you get the idea behind Marx's labor theory of value, even if you dispute the specific calculations or favor one latter-day refinement over another, you can't look at any economy where workers are paid wages by capitalists outside of that context anymore. Then you start noticing the ebb and flow of the two classes, tugging away at society for either more freedom or more control, and problems that used to require specialized ways of thinking turn out to just be manifestations of this same phenomenon. The things that are usually taken for granted as inevitable aspects of existence in the developed world start to look like the arbitrary contrivances that they are.

At this point in my thinking life, the way I'm approaching politics is not through the lens of excess versus moderation in the usual spectrum of ideas, but autonomy versus everything else. The actual autonomy that we as humans should have, due to the complete lack of any justification for one person or group claiming more value than another, is only excessive if you fail to notice the thinness of the membranes that separate the socially acceptable zones of autonomy from the forbidden ones. Just looking at that layout, and trying to imagine what a powerful group of rich people who want to control the rest of us would try to make us think if they wanted us to lose our nerve, all the usual chestnuts of apologia are predictable. Most people are stupid. We need investors. We need to reward merit otherwise nobody will try to do anything. We can make it work with the right regulations. Democracy only works at certain scales. And of course: gradual change in the direction of moderation is preferable to any sort of immediate shift that could be regarded as excessive. I think we should reject all of these excuses for why nobody has any real autonomy.

I am not familiar enough with Marxism to be able to critique it. I feel sure it has many sensible, pragmatic and useful things going for it, not least (or also) that it is well-meaning in terms of its equity aims and ideals and that it is unfairly cast as the bogeyman in for example the USA (and here too). I really should read up more about it.

But you would have to go a long way to convince me away from a moderate 'western european' middle or something like the Nordic Model. 'Real' autonomy? What's that? Personally, I don't see that 'workers being paid by capitalists' is of itself a bad thing at all. I would argue for a smaller wealth gap, but not no gap at all. Imo, you have to reward entrepreneurial efforts, risk and responsibility-taking and self-betterment, for example. In general, I am in favour of more meritocracy, less profiteering and of surpluses being more equitably shared around society rather than going into the hands of a tiny minority, but I think it is a question of degree.

I would probably enjoy a discussion on Marxism if I had the time for it. If I read more on it, I suspect I might be more swayed in its direction, at least somewhat.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That kind of thinking used to appeal to me, but now it honestly makes me gag. Why should the current climate dictate what the extremes are, and therefore what the 'moderate' position should be? Those are all relative terms. The excess of one time and place is the status quo of another. 'Decry excess' is thus a vacuous and lazy approach. It simplifies complex relationships and systemic problems to examples of sprinkling too much of one or another type of seasoning on your meal.

So, what is considered 'toxic' should not be determined simply by reference to what is commonplace or accepted. I'll give you an example from the very topic we're discussing. A few months ago, before I started devouring Marxist literature like it was steak, I was more or less on the same page as you about the Swedish system and similar 'social democratic' governments. Obviously they are better than the United States at taking care of everybody, by many metrics. Now, while I still acknowledge the policies they have as successful outcomes of struggle against capital, I see that there is still a much longer way to go. Whereas before, I thought that the United States was kind of like the slave-owning south and the western European democracies represented an egalitarian Star Trek society, now I see both as plantations, where the masters of the European ones are more benevolent than the American ones.

Once you get the idea behind Marx's labor theory of value, even if you dispute the specific calculations or favor one latter-day refinement over another, you can't look at any economy where workers are paid wages by capitalists outside of that context anymore. Then you start noticing the ebb and flow of the two classes, tugging away at society for either more freedom or more control, and problems that used to require specialized ways of thinking turn out to just be manifestations of this same phenomenon. The things that are usually taken for granted as inevitable aspects of existence in the developed world start to look like the arbitrary contrivances that they are.

At this point in my thinking life, the way I'm approaching politics is not through the lens of excess versus moderation in the usual spectrum of ideas, but autonomy versus everything else. The actual autonomy that we as humans should have, due to the complete lack of any justification for one person or group claiming more value than another, is only excessive if you fail to notice the thinness of the membranes that separate the socially acceptable zones of autonomy from the forbidden ones. Just looking at that layout, and trying to imagine what a powerful group of rich people who want to control the rest of us would try to make us think if they wanted us to lose our nerve, all the usual chestnuts of apologia are predictable. Most people are stupid. We need investors. We need to reward merit otherwise nobody will try to do anything. We can make it work with the right regulations. Democracy only works at certain scales. And of course: gradual change in the direction of moderation is preferable to any sort of immediate shift that could be regarded as excessive. I think we should reject all of these excuses for why nobody has any real autonomy.

I am not familiar enough with Marxism to be able to critique it. I feel sure it has many sensible, pragmatic and useful things going for it, not least (or also) that it is well-meaning in terms of its equity aims and ideals and that it is unfairly cast as the bogeyman in for example the USA (and here too). I really should read up more about it.

But you would have to go a long way to convince me away from a moderate 'western european' middle or something like the Nordic Model. 'Real' autonomy? What's that? Personally, I don't see that 'workers being paid by capitalists' is of itself a bad thing at all. I would argue for a smaller wealth gap, but not no gap at all. Imo, you have to reward entrepreneurial efforts, risk and responsibility-taking and self-betterment, for example. In general, I am in favour of more meritocracy, less profiteering and of surpluses being more equitably shared around society rather than going into the hands of a tiny minority, but I think it is a question of degree.

I would probably enjoy a discussion on Marxism if I had the time for it. If I read more on it, I suspect I might be more swayed in its direction, at least somewhat.

Marxism is a failed ideology. It never works full time. It doesn't work for a simple reason: humans won't work hard with passion and creativity when there are no rewards for extra effort and risk. And to make most businesses succeed, people have to work hard with passion and creativity with extreme effort and risk. My two partners and I started a new company about six years ago. We had to work incredible hours with no pay and extreme stress. We now have 61 employees and are doing very well. I'm very connected to the community. We pay the best wages and benefits. But the only way we went through all that was to make a lot of money. Period.

BTW: separate story but we initially offered early employees the opportunity to earn shares in lieu of wages. Most employees declined. Most employees want wages. And I don't blame them.

 

[ruby sparks]

Marxism is a failed ideology. It never works full time. It doesn't work for a simple reason: humans won't work hard with passion and creativity when there are no rewards for extra effort and risk. And to make most businesses succeed, people have to work hard with passion and creativity with extreme effort and risk. My two partners and I started a new company about six years ago. We had to work incredible hours with no pay and extreme stress. We now have 61 employees and are doing very well. I'm very connected to the community. We pay the best wages and benefits. But the only way we went through all that was to make a lot of money. Period.

BTW: separate story but we initially offered early employees the opportunity to earn shares in lieu of wages. Most employees declined. Most employees want wages. And I don't blame them.

I think that is quite a good illustration. Two things that appear to go against Marxism are (a) that it has not been demonstrated to work (as far as I know, I stand to be corrected) at least not at the national level and (b) that it lacks incentives and perhaps specifically 'the personal freedom to better one's circumstances'.

Regarding the former, it may just be that we are yet to see it working. Past performance is no indicator of future performance, etc. I hear Bernie Sanders did a good job as socialist mayor of Baltimore.

Regarding the latter, does Marxism rule out incentives? First, of course, there are incentives other than money (the sort that for example lead people to do what they find rewarding or self-actualising even if it doesn't make them rich). Second, under Marxism, would a person not earn more by working more? In other words, if Fred works in a factory of 1000 workers and he busts a gut to double his output, he will gain next to nothing if his contribution is shared out among the other 999. Ditto if he slacks off, his reduced output, if shared, will not affect him hardly at all (this is slightly hypothetical). On the other hand if he is getting a certain (let's say fair) wage related to his output, then he stands to 'personalise' all his gain from his extra work (in wage terms at least). Is Marxism against this? I do not know. I suspect it may not be.

Also, when we use words like Marxism, Socialism and Communism (and indeed Capitalism) I am guessing they do not always either mean the same thing or that there aren't varieties, degrees and versions of each, even if to listen to some (possibly most) debates, you'd be forgiven for wrongly thinking it was more simplistic than that, such is the frequently adversarial nature of political ding-dongs.

On another note, I remember a conversation with my then boss (I work for myself now) in which he opined that a hospital cleaner should earn the same per hour as a doctor at the same hospital. If that is going too far, I could at least see a case for the differential being much smaller than it is.