To your first point about materialism as a core principle, I think the preponderance of self-care rituals and memes is proof that people are struggling to remain embodied in, well, their bodies. When you start to believe that language is reality, that the Internet represents life, is there any wonder so many people are so deeply unhappy?
Also, genuine question: if the nation state was eliminated, how would that not yield the tyranny of structurelessness? I’m not sure I agree that nation-statehood itself is a product of capitalism and imperialism exclusively; seems like it’s an inevitable apex level of organization.
I want a *Left wing* political movement that is ignorant of material conditions (and justifies the status quo), that serves to create social status for precarious elites, that panders to my hysteria and narcissism, that validates grudges that developmentally I should have gotten beyond by this point of my life, and that focuses attention on my social class and its strange, esoteric enthusiasms.
> My ideal movement would recognize that science exists within human power relations, and that scientific arguments are often used to marginalize other points of view, but it would also recognize that science is key to human flourishing and would engender respect for science even as it permitted skepticism towards the claims of particular scientists.
Lately I honestly almost wish we would stop using the word "science." It gets applied to such a wide variety of practices that its primary use today is for a bait-and-switch. Bait with Newton's second law, and once you have a patina of rigorous knowledge production, swap in an underpowered survey that tells us we should all be assuming the power pose.
> The new world we want to build would take advantage of the incredible productive capacity that capitalism has unleashed on the world and use it to spread material goods through a system of collective ownership.
You write this a lot, but I've never seen you respond to the pretty obvious Lucas Critique that follows. When we take pie capitalism baked and parcel it out, are we not cutting off the branch we are sitting on? Where will next year's productivity come from?
The reality of human nature is that people will not work for the collective good. They just won't. People work hard when it is in their own interest. Ask ANY child who has done well on a test or made money at a lemonade stand they built and operated on their own if they then will give away their reward to people who did nothing so they're even. Universally, they will say no. Socialism/communism never works because it totally disregards human nature for an ideal where we're all suddenly selfless, egoless, and aimless. Scandinavian "democratic socialist" countries aren't truly socialist - they do embrace capitalism - and only work to the extent they have because they have a very homogenous culture.
Can I have a more specific reference to where in Napoleon's letters I should look to learn about his understanding of the development of the nation-state?
How is power distributed among various institutions in this vision? Are there still a broad number of institutions to balance each other, or has power been centralized to the government?
Excuse me but shouldn't the institutions, the universities, the NGOs, the corporations, the non-profits, the corporate media, the CIA, and other interested parties have a say in this?
Certainly they produce Knowledge and Science and Justice and Health? How can you have a progressive movement without Knowledge and Science and Justice and Health?
“ The new world we want to build would take advantage of the incredible productive capacity that capitalism has unleashed on the world and use it to spread material goods through a system of collective ownership.”
Via index funds? A command economy of government owned businesses hasn’t traditionally worked very well. But Singapore style collective ownership of independent businesses seems to work fine - an example being Singapore Airlines.
Could you explain what you mean by "universal joint ownership and control of the productive apparatus of society"? Is this similar to the Soviet system where private enterprise is mostly disallowed, all businesses are state enterprises and the economy is coordinated via planning? Or is private enterprise allowed and if so, where do we draw the line between what is "jointly owned" and what can be privately owned? Happy to read an article or book that you feel explains your preferred economic system in detail if you can point me to one. Thanks.
"We would operate under the assumption that removing human beings from the immediate need to work to live would not result in mass apathy and listlessness, but rather unleash a massive flourishing of creativity, productivity, and inspiration." But I struggle to think of a single sentient species on this earth, including humans, for which the "need to work to live" is not an essential quality and shaper of a fruitful existence...
Any successful progressive political movement going forward will have to take into account that for many political issues there is no Left or Right but only one pole which is the Center and that the conflict is between the Center and the Periphery.
The Center creates policy, sanctifies official knowledge, produces and distributes culture, houses disproportionate numbers of technocrats and professionals of every field, and spins out *Left wing* astroturfed nonsense that is apparently indistinguishable from the real thing.
What is the meaning and purpose of a *Left wing* that is a house pet subsidiary of the Center?
To your first point about materialism as a core principle, I think the preponderance of self-care rituals and memes is proof that people are struggling to remain embodied in, well, their bodies. When you start to believe that language is reality, that the Internet represents life, is there any wonder so many people are so deeply unhappy?
Also, genuine question: if the nation state was eliminated, how would that not yield the tyranny of structurelessness? I’m not sure I agree that nation-statehood itself is a product of capitalism and imperialism exclusively; seems like it’s an inevitable apex level of organization.
This is beautiful.
I want a *Left wing* political movement that is ignorant of material conditions (and justifies the status quo), that serves to create social status for precarious elites, that panders to my hysteria and narcissism, that validates grudges that developmentally I should have gotten beyond by this point of my life, and that focuses attention on my social class and its strange, esoteric enthusiasms.
Is that too much too ask?
Beautiful, and absolutely not too much to ask. Working on it :) More soon!
> My ideal movement would recognize that science exists within human power relations, and that scientific arguments are often used to marginalize other points of view, but it would also recognize that science is key to human flourishing and would engender respect for science even as it permitted skepticism towards the claims of particular scientists.
Lately I honestly almost wish we would stop using the word "science." It gets applied to such a wide variety of practices that its primary use today is for a bait-and-switch. Bait with Newton's second law, and once you have a patina of rigorous knowledge production, swap in an underpowered survey that tells us we should all be assuming the power pose.
> The new world we want to build would take advantage of the incredible productive capacity that capitalism has unleashed on the world and use it to spread material goods through a system of collective ownership.
You write this a lot, but I've never seen you respond to the pretty obvious Lucas Critique that follows. When we take pie capitalism baked and parcel it out, are we not cutting off the branch we are sitting on? Where will next year's productivity come from?
The reality of human nature is that people will not work for the collective good. They just won't. People work hard when it is in their own interest. Ask ANY child who has done well on a test or made money at a lemonade stand they built and operated on their own if they then will give away their reward to people who did nothing so they're even. Universally, they will say no. Socialism/communism never works because it totally disregards human nature for an ideal where we're all suddenly selfless, egoless, and aimless. Scandinavian "democratic socialist" countries aren't truly socialist - they do embrace capitalism - and only work to the extent they have because they have a very homogenous culture.
Can I have a more specific reference to where in Napoleon's letters I should look to learn about his understanding of the development of the nation-state?
How is power distributed among various institutions in this vision? Are there still a broad number of institutions to balance each other, or has power been centralized to the government?
I am about as far from Marxism as it is possible to be, and yet I find I could happily support most of your goals.
Excuse me but shouldn't the institutions, the universities, the NGOs, the corporations, the non-profits, the corporate media, the CIA, and other interested parties have a say in this?
Certainly they produce Knowledge and Science and Justice and Health? How can you have a progressive movement without Knowledge and Science and Justice and Health?
“ The new world we want to build would take advantage of the incredible productive capacity that capitalism has unleashed on the world and use it to spread material goods through a system of collective ownership.”
Via index funds? A command economy of government owned businesses hasn’t traditionally worked very well. But Singapore style collective ownership of independent businesses seems to work fine - an example being Singapore Airlines.
Could you explain what you mean by "universal joint ownership and control of the productive apparatus of society"? Is this similar to the Soviet system where private enterprise is mostly disallowed, all businesses are state enterprises and the economy is coordinated via planning? Or is private enterprise allowed and if so, where do we draw the line between what is "jointly owned" and what can be privately owned? Happy to read an article or book that you feel explains your preferred economic system in detail if you can point me to one. Thanks.
"We would operate under the assumption that removing human beings from the immediate need to work to live would not result in mass apathy and listlessness, but rather unleash a massive flourishing of creativity, productivity, and inspiration." But I struggle to think of a single sentient species on this earth, including humans, for which the "need to work to live" is not an essential quality and shaper of a fruitful existence...
Any successful progressive political movement going forward will have to take into account that for many political issues there is no Left or Right but only one pole which is the Center and that the conflict is between the Center and the Periphery.
The Center creates policy, sanctifies official knowledge, produces and distributes culture, houses disproportionate numbers of technocrats and professionals of every field, and spins out *Left wing* astroturfed nonsense that is apparently indistinguishable from the real thing.
What is the meaning and purpose of a *Left wing* that is a house pet subsidiary of the Center?