Why the fash worldwide?

[rotting bones]

There is something I could call the paradox of socialism. Redistribution helps the economy. You get more jobs and a healthier economy with socialist measures in place than without, even with capitalist structures otherwise in place.
The problem is redistribution falling entirely out of fashion for two decades. I think Musk is more the culmination of the process than its origin.

The society you describe appears to run smoothly from the perspective of employees in middle class jobs. However, those who run corporate businesses are under constant pressure to raise profits until their corporation enters the oligopoly. Even then, they are under pressure to innovate for even better things.

First, I'm not surprised what I describe has problems; I don't aim for utopia here. It's at best a good first step, and in fact not even a first step, just a return to common sense. We could hopefully be able to move on to better things from there.

But also, endless profit and oligopolies are ultimately political decisions. Curbing these would not be that difficult.

1. Jobs are created when corporate overlords make profit. Under capitalism, endless jobs implies endless profit.

2. Since corporate overlords have endless profit (or the politician who tried to curb it is out on his ass), they punch above their weight. All successful, high level politicians in representative democracies curry their favor.

3. The "can be solved" perspective flattens individual incentives into a common project that humanity disagrees with. For example, a corporate overlord is unlikely to take your sanguine view on what the problem is and how to solve it. His primary concern is not about the lives of his middle class employees. He is terrified of being replaced by the board for the way he runs the business.

[Ares Land]

1. Jobs are created when corporate overlords make profit. Under capitalism, endless jobs implies endless profit.

Correction; jobs are created when corporations make profit. Again, you don't need a corporate overlord. The profit margin doesn't have to all go to shareholders either.
In fact the corporate overlords making profit eventually runs into a point when it doesn't create jobs, quite the contrary.

Having companies follow the Friedman doctrine as their prime directive is also a political choice.

Also, I don't have to remind you of all people that jobs can also be created by a non-profit public sector. Is that socialism? Even the US has government jobs.

2. Since corporate overlords have endless profit (or the politician who tried to curb it is out on his ass), they punch above their weight. All successful, high level politicians in representative democracies curry their favor.

3. The "can be solved" perspective flattens individual incentives into a common project that humanity disagrees with. For example, a corporate overlord is unlikely to take your sanguine view on what the problem is and how to solve it. His primary concern is not about the lives of his middle class employees. He is terrified of being replaced by the board for the way he runs the business.

I agree with you, that's correct.
Fortunately, we don't have, in fact, to listen to corporate overlords. It is possible to ignore them to some extent. There is still an effect we call the money wall in French. A left-wing government will never get as far as it or its voters hope, because it eventually runs up against corporate and financial interests.
It's not hopeless, though -- there's a lot that can be done.

The first course of action would be measures aimed at stopping oligarchy over the long term. A wealth tax would be great, the idea being to effect, again, what Keynes called the euthanasia of the rentier.
Another point would be media independence; and one thing I'd suggest for the US is an upper cap on campaign spending -- not to pick on Americans, but the US is an outlier in allowing trillions of dollars to be spent on electoral campaigns.

[Raphael]

1. Jobs are created when corporate overlords make profit.

That's what the corporate overlords say. I have my doubts that it's true.

[malloc]

Recently malloc asked a pretty good question: "The fact that this keeps happening all across the world cries out for some systemic explanation but I struggle to imagine what."

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I am glad that my question has inspired some interesting discussion.

If you've read my posts here, you'd know that I am firmly against attacking people for being born into the wrong groups, e.g. as men. Denouncing bigotry wherever it lies does not mean attacking people for accidents of their birth (as unfortunately too many leftists do do), and claiming that it by itself does is highly disingenuous.

Indeed. I feel like many people on both sides of the political spectrum confuse the sociological concept of privilege with moral judgements about individuals. Having privilege does not imply deliberate malice toward people without privilege or poor character more generally. Conversely the experience of oppression does not necessarily improve moral character or guarantee political enlightenment.

[zompist]

1. Jobs are created when corporate overlords make profit. Under capitalism, endless jobs implies endless profit.

Correction; jobs are created when corporations make profit. Again, you don't need a corporate overlord. The profit margin doesn't have to all go to shareholders either.
In fact the corporate overlords making profit eventually runs into a point when it doesn't create jobs, quite the contrary.

As a correction to both of you , "corporations" are only part of the economy. In the US, companies with under 250 employees account for 95 million jobs, which is 58% of the labor force. Companies with under 100 employees account for 74 million jobs, or 45% of all jobs.

Legally many small employees are corporations, but it's a bit silly to think of their owners as "corporate overlords". 73% of businesses are sole proprietorships (i.e. not corporations).

Having companies follow the Friedman doctrine as their prime directive is also a political choice.

Absolutely. The US and UK changed from liberalism to plutocracy in the 1980s, and I understand that when people grow up under plutocracy they think that that is the only possible system. But it's not, and understanding what we used to have is essential for the political imagination.

Is it even possible to have free universal health care, free college education, 5 weeks vacation a year, a 35-hour work week, and retirement at 63; plus a Gini coefficient of 32? Yes, of course it is, that's France today.

When I was growing up, the tycoon class had largely disappeared: corporations were run by managers, the salary range was 50x rather than 500x the lowest-paid employee, and Friedman was not Pope. Every class was increasing in income; 69% of productivity gains went to the bottom 90% (rather than 4%); marginal tax rates were 70% (higher than France). Corporate profits were around 6%, about half what they are today.

Also, I don't have to remind you of all people that jobs can also be created by a non-profit public sector. Is that socialism? Even the US has government jobs.

Everyone has a mixed society these days, from the US to China to Sweden.

The first course of action would be measures aimed at stopping oligarchy over the long term. A wealth tax would be great, the idea being to effect, again, what Keynes called the euthanasia of the rentier.
Another point would be media independence; and one thing I'd suggest for the US is an upper cap on campaign spending -- not to pick on Americans, but the US is an outlier in allowing trillions of dollars to be spent on electoral campaigns.

All good points. The changes that enabled plutocracy were mostly small-seeming things, and can be undone.

Of course, the danger for Teh Revolución is that if you improve things enough, people no longer want a revolution. But this is like saying that the problem of curing cancer is that you don't get to have an operation. Revolutions have a very poor record, by their own standards.

I'd also note that if you want worker-run workplaces, you can have them now— there's no law against them, and they can grow to Mondragon size (70,000 workers). Laws could facilitate this, of course, but laws will catch up if worker-run workplaces become common and work out their kinks. For that matter, rb's votes-for-government-jobs idea could be implemented by a state or city. (Mamdani's grocery stores could even be an example.)

[Travis B.]

If you've read my posts here, you'd know that I am firmly against attacking people for being born into the wrong groups, e.g. as men. Denouncing bigotry wherever it lies does not mean attacking people for accidents of their birth (as unfortunately too many leftists do do), and claiming that it by itself does is highly disingenuous.

Indeed. I feel like many people on both sides of the political spectrum confuse the sociological concept of privilege with moral judgements about individuals. Having privilege does not imply deliberate malice toward people without privilege or poor character more generally. Conversely the experience of oppression does not necessarily improve moral character or guarantee political enlightenment.

A lot of the time the idea of 'privilege' is used to effectively say "you suck because you're a man" or "you suck because you're White" or "you suck because you are a cisgendered heterosexual", and when the people who do so are called on it, they retreat to "but but but you were raised by society as a man (or White person, or cisgendered heterosexual)" as if that weren't effectively the same thing.

[rotting bones]

1. Jobs are created when corporate overlords make profit.

That's what the corporate overlords say. I have my doubts that it's true.

A company that doesn't make profit will go out of business.

[rotting bones]

Marxism does preclude theories that are incompatible with materialist systems analysis. For example, there was a popular theory during the COVID crisis that the chemical formula of a substance involved with the vaccine is numerologically aligned with evil or something. I have heard very smart people fall for this theory. Marxists call this idealism. There's a whole host of such non-Marxist theories: the DNA looks like two entwined snakes, etc.

BTW, I would include all theology-based political arguments under this rubric. However, sometimes hate groups are exactly like this. No analogy necessary:

Across South Asia, Muslims represent the phrase "In the Name of God, the Compassionate and Merciful" with the number 786, and businesses display the number to indicate that they are Muslim-owned. 969 proponents see this as a Muslim plot to conquer Burma in the 21st century, based on the premise that 7 plus 8 plus 6 is equal to 21. The number 969 is intended to be 786's cosmological opposite.[3]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement (the citation is paywalled)

Evidence that religious government doesn't work and that religion is mainly used to discourage action for social justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5N6afbPLsc Of course, the idealist response can always be that it would work if it's the RIGHT religion.

[Raphael]

1. Jobs are created when corporate overlords make profit.

That's what the corporate overlords say. I have my doubts that it's true.

A company that doesn't make profit will go out of business.

That part is true. The part where, if a company makes a profit, it creates jobs, is more questionable.

[Raphael]

Understanding the word "idealism" to mean a belief in numerology is a very different understanding of that word than the way most people would understand that word.

[rotting bones]

That's what the corporate overlords say. I have my doubts that it's true.

A company that doesn't make profit will go out of business.

That part is true. The part where, if a company makes a profit, it creates jobs, is more questionable.

I shortened the sentence to make the causal network clearer. Like I said in my first post in this thread, a job is created when the owner thinks he will make more money by creating it than the salary he spends on the employee. This "make more money" phenomenon is called profit.

[Raphael]

Of course, the idealist response can always be that it would work if it's the RIGHT religion.

How's that different from Marxists responding to people pointing out the crimes and atrocities and spectacular failures of powerful Marxists by saying that the right kind of Marxism will work?

[Raphael]

I shortened the sentence to make the causal network clearer. Like I said in my first post in this thread, a job is created when the owner thinks he will make more money by creating it than the salary he spends on the employee. This "make more money" phenomenon is called profit.

Understood. Your initial statement had made me think of corporate leaders saying "As soon as our corporations are profitable, we will create jobs! Promise!" and then, well.

[rotting bones]

Understanding the word "idealism" to mean a belief in numerology is a very different understanding of that word than the way most people would understand that word.

Numerology was a part of traditional belief systems. Idealism means analyzing ideas instead of material structures. This is very pertinent to Marxism because the main criticism Marx had for Hegel is that Hegelian dialectics is idealistic. Hegel is very close to the 21st century ideology in relevant ways. He thought that as ideas progress, so does society. Marx wanted to say material factors are the main drivers of social progress. He extended the criticism of idealism to people who said that if you install the right set of values on a society, it will progress. The promotion of values is traditionally based on an analysis of ideas rather than material factors.

[rotting bones]

Of course, the idealist response can always be that it would work if it's the RIGHT religion.

How's that different from Marxists responding to people pointing out the crimes and atrocities and spectacular failures of powerful Marxists by saying that the right kind of Marxism will work?

Because Marxism is opposition to entrenched power based on the analysis of material factors. If you believe that material factors are more causally effective than ideas, it logically follows that "Marxism" in this sense must be the only thing that could work if anything does. If nothing works, the only course of action that remains open is to lie down and wait for the sweet release of death.

[Raphael]

Idealism means analyzing ideas instead of material structures.

That's one possible meaning of the word. Probably not the most common one. Someone who believes in Marxist positions because they think people following Marxism will lead to a better life for people is an idealist by my standards: A follower of Marxist ideals.

Besides, an analysis of ideas and their impact on people's actions, and therefore on the world, doesn't require one to believe in all or even any of the ideas one analyzes.

This is very pertinent to Marxism because the main criticism Marx had for Hegel is that Hegelian dialectics is idealistic. Hegel is very close to the 21st century ideology in relevant ways. He thought that as ideas progress, so does society. Marx wanted to say material factors are the main drivers of social progress. He extended the criticism of idealism to people who said that if you install the right set of values on a society, it will progress. The promotion of values is traditionally based on an analysis of ideas rather than material factors.

IMO "installing the right set of values" in a society won't, in itself, make it progress, but it can be an important part of the process, and installing the wrong set of values in a society can very much cause a lot of damage.

As for Hegel and Marx's take on him, Marx might have made more sense if he had thrown out Hegel's ideas about dialectics, too.

Because Marxism is opposition to entrenched power based on the analysis of material factors. If you believe that material factors are more causally effective than ideas, it logically follows that "Marxism" in this sense must be the only thing that could work if anything does.

Sounds to me like your argument is based on dramatically increasing the meanings of the terms "idealism" and "Marxism" far beyond what most people would understand either of these terms to mean.

I hereby define "Raphaelism" as "having opinions that make sense and are factually correct". It follows that everyone in all of human history who ever had an opinion that made sense and was factually correct is now, retroactively, a Raphaelist. Aren't the great achievements of all the Raphaelists in history impressive?

[rotting bones]

That's one possible meaning of the word. Probably not the most common one. Someone who believes in Marxist positions because they think people following Marxism will lead to a better life for people is an idealist by my standards: A follower of Marxist ideals.

Look, "idealism" has a specific meaning in philosophy. It was originally used to refer to an aspect of Plato's philosophy. Plato argued that lower things originate from higher things, and the higher things are ideas. We have drunk the waters of Lethe, the river of forgetting, which is why we have forgotten the higher ideas. Through a process of anamnesis "remembering again", we can regain our connection with the ideas and return to the higher world:

Hear, splendid goddesses, of bounteous mind,
To whom the helm of wisdom is assigned,
And who the soul with all-attractive flame
Lead to the blest immortals whence she came, 30
From night profound enabling her to rise,
Forsake dull earth, and gain her native skies,
And with unclouded splendour fill the mind,
By rites ineffable of hymns refin'd.

Source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/proc ... 1_text.htm

Plato believed the ideas are like the perfect concepts of mathematics. The concepts of mathematics are reached by analyzing ideas. In fact, Plato believed that mathematical ideas arrived at by looking at worldly phenomena are tainted by matter. The highest ideas are arrived at through pure reason.

The Neoplatonists believed that the highest idea is the One, which is analogous to the point in geometry. According to the most popular Neoplatonist Plotinus, the One (Hen) emanates the Intellect (Nous), which emanates the Soul (Psyche). The less popular Neoplatonist Proclus believed the One emanates the Henads, the Olympians. Below the Henads are Being. Being is structured as a tripartite dialectic: Being (On), Life (Zoe) and Intellect (Nous).

These tripartite dialectical structures proposed by the Neoplatonic philosophers was analyzed as the Law of Emanation: Permanence (Mone), Procession (Prohodos) and Return (Epistrophe).

The philosophical currents lending legitimacy to various Western religions argued that the Soul is in a fallen state, being separated from the world of ideas. Following their various ideals or moral frameworks, will return (er... epistrepsomen?) us to God, who is identified as the One in Platonic philosophy, the highest idea.

(Interestingly, Islam is basically Plotinus combined with unscientific legends and an iron age morality (which is still nicer than what either Plato or Aristotle wanted): The One is Allah, the Intellect is 'Aql, the fallen Soul is Nafs and the returned Soul is Ruh.)

I think you should at least study the basics of philosophy before arguing about what philosophical terms mean. I learned from A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell: https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/ ... osophy.pdf I've read this at least 3 times. There are "better" books out there now, but Russell is a Nobel Prize winner in literature. I also happen to like his outspoken anti-religious views for which he is censured by the academy.

Surveys like this only give summaries of each philosopher. If you want to understand Neoplatonism, read Proclus directly: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Six_ ... y_of_Plato Medieval academic ways of thinking and speaking will suddenly make more sense.

Besides, an analysis of ideas and their impact on people's actions, and therefore on the world, doesn't require one to believe in all or even any of the ideas one analyzes.

The question is not whether ideas are real. The question is whether, in the causal network, you can improve a society by installing an inherently good set of values. History seems to indicate this is not so, as I noted in one of my essays: https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... ra-buddha/

Buddhism’s concept of skillful means (upaya-kausalya) is the closest the tradition comes to strategic thinking. But its scope is limited to the subjective transformation of individuals. A dialectical-materialist “skillful means” would ask: what are the material conditions that produce mass suffering, and what social forces are capable of transforming them?

Buddhism’s own history illustrates the point. Within Mahayana, the rangtong (self-empty) position, championed by Tsongkhapa and the Gelug school, holds that everything, including ultimate reality, is empty of inherent existence. The shentong (other-empty) position, systematized by Dolpopa and the Jonang school, holds that ultimate reality truly exists and is empty only of defilements. Each side accuses the other of a basic Buddhist error: rangtong critics call shentong eternalism; shentong critics call rangtong nihilism. Karl Brunnhölzl has suggested the two positions describe the same reality from different angles, one analytical and one experiential. But the dispute did not remain philosophical. In 1642, the Gelug school, allied with the Mongol warlord Güshri Khan, invaded central Tibet and established the Fifth Dalai Lama as political and spiritual ruler. The Jonang, who had allied with the rival Tsangpa dynasty, were suppressed: their monasteries were forcibly converted to Gelug institutions, and the writings of Dolpopa and other shentong proponents were sealed and banned. The tradition survived only in remote Amdo. The 14th Dalai Lama has acknowledged that the suppression was primarily political rather than doctrinal. The Jonang remain without parliamentary representation in the Tibetan exile government to this day, despite decades of petitions and the Dalai Lama’s own endorsement of their claim.

This history argues against the claim that subjective cultivation is more peaceful than revolution. Here was a tradition devoted to compassion, non-attachment, and the dissolution of the ego, and when material and political interests were at stake, it deployed Mongol cavalry. The philosophical disagreement between rangtong and shentong became the intellectual veneer for what was fundamentally a contest over territory, patronage, and political control. No amount of meditation on emptiness prevented the Gelug establishment from behaving exactly as any other political faction would. The dialectical materialist would say: of course it didn’t. Contradictions rooted in material conditions are not resolved by changes in consciousness. They are resolved by changes in the conditions themselves.

The irony is that Buddhism’s philosophical apparatus is sophisticated enough to identify the interdependence that Marxism also identifies, but its practical orientation neutralizes the revolutionary implications of its own insights. It is, in Marxist terms, a philosophy that grasps the contradiction and then flinches from the conclusion.

(Buddhism because Buddhism was really taking off in the early 21st century. Back then, I studied it for decades in my spare time. I understand it in much more detail than Neoplatonic philosophy.)

IMO "installing the right set of values" in a society won't, in itself, make it progress, but it can be an important part of the process, and installing the wrong set of values in a society can very much cause a lot of damage.

For the reason I argue above, Marx looks at the material factors that led to the installation of a given set of values in the first place. What are the conditions of a society such that people thought installing say, feudalism, would be a good idea? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HZRG0H ... sp=sharing

As for Hegel and Marx's take on him, Marx might have made more sense if he had thrown out Hegel's ideas about dialectics, too.

I mean, tripartite dialectics has been the tradition in Western philosophy since ancient times. It was very popular when Marx was writing. Don't you use forms of writing that are popular today?

If you read Marx's theoretical works, he didn't use dialectics the way later Marxists (and even Anarchists like Bookchin) wanted to: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w_cgRW ... sp=sharing

Plus, I think 21st century "common sense" is actually closer to Hegel than it is to Marx, all the historical evidence notwithstanding.

Sounds to me like your argument is based on dramatically increasing the meanings of the terms "idealism" and "Marxism" far beyond what most people would understand either of these terms to mean.

I hereby define "Raphaelism" as "having opinions that make sense and are factually correct". It follows that everyone in all of human history who ever had an opinion that made sense and was factually correct is now, retroactively, a Raphaelist. Aren't the great achievements of all the Raphaelists in history impressive?

It's how the term "Marxism" is used. Back when I was a liberal, Sal accused me of being a Marxist because I was analyzing material conditions to argue for social progress instead of arguing which values would be good in themselves from pure reason. Sal was basically a liberal centrist, though he was increasingly leaning conservative as time went on. I'm just using words as they are used by Marxists and non-Marxists alike.

[Raphael]

Despite our disagreements, I appreciate that you've taken the time to look up and write all that.

I'd maintain that the statement "Ideas, as in, opinions, thoughts, views, etc., have a large impact on people's actions, and therefore on the world, sometimes in ways that can't be explained by purely material factors" and the statement "Everything that happens is determined by ideas as understood by Plato and his successors" are two different statements. The second statement strikes me as complete nonsense, but the first statement makes a lot of sense to me. Are you arguing that, since the second statement is nonsense, the first statement has to be nonsense, too?

[rotting bones]

Despite our disagreements, I appreciate that you've taken the time to look up and write all that.

I'd maintain that the statement "Ideas, as in, opinions, thoughts, views, etc., have a large impact on people's actions, and therefore on the world, sometimes in ways that can't be explained by purely material factors" and the statement "Everything that happens is determined by ideas as understood by Plato and his successors" are two different statements. The second statement strikes me as complete nonsense, but the first statement makes a lot of sense to me. Are you arguing that, since the second statement is nonsense, the first statement has to be nonsense, too?

There are several layers to the answer:

1. First, notice that which laws are installed is determined by which faction has the power to enforce them.
2. This means that, at the very least, you have to examine material factors to see which values are "right" instead of using reason alone.
3. But if your reason is tainted by matter, by whose standards is a given set of values "right"? Every faction will argue for values which benefit them.
4. In the end, the laws are drawn towards the benefit of whatever faction wields real power in society.
5. Today, all laws are inexorably attracted towards what benefits corporations.
6. Marx argued that this is inhuman and unstable. Most people should oppose this rule of money (capitalism) because it goes against their class interests.
7. Marx argued that a stable society is a community (hence Communism) where men are free to pursue their passion for work that gives life meaning.

This answer avoids framing values as "right" or "wrong". Through an analysis of material conditions, it asks: Do the conditions of society benefit most people? Is the resulting society stable?

[Raphael]

Note to zompist: I apologize for rb and me taking this thread in a different direction than what you might have wanted. I can stop if you want.

There are several layers to the answer:

1. First, notice that which laws are installed is determined by which faction has the power to enforce them.

Here, as in the other parts of your post, you make no distinction between the "installed" laws of a society, and other possible laws or values. But anyone who seriously observes the world can see that societies often contain a number of individual people whose personal values are different from the official laws of the society. Societies might also contain entire groups that have different sets of values, or internal norms, from each other, or from the established powers. There are sometimes even fissures within the established powers themselves.

2. This means that, at the very least, you have to examine material factors to see which values are "right" instead of using reason alone.

I am not arguing, and have never argued, in favor of "using reason alone". Of course you have to study history, and present life, to properly analyze laws and values.

3. But if your reason is tainted by matter, by whose standards is a given set of values "right"?

Oh, when in doubt, by mine.

Every faction will argue for values which benefit them.

Some truth in that, but I see no reason to assume that it's completely true. And, the whole question of what does or doesn't "benefit" a faction is a lot less clear-cut than either the Marxists or their opponents in the right-wing parts of the field of economics make it out to be.

4. In the end, the laws are drawn towards the benefit of whatever faction wields real power in society.
5. Today, all laws are inexorably attracted towards what benefits corporations.

True, but entirely based on the restricted focus on established law of society as a whole that I've already rejected above.

6. Marx argued that this is inhuman

To call something inhuman is a value judgment. A kind of value judgment that I myself often approve of, but still, a value judgment.

and unstable. Most people should oppose this rule of money (capitalism) because it goes against their class interests.
7. Marx argued that a stable society is a community (hence Communism) where men are free to pursue their passion for work that gives life meaning.

Partly true, but one person's work that gives life meaning might still have impacts that another person sees as very harmful, leading to potential conflicts and therefore instability.

This answer avoids framing values as "right" or "wrong". Through an analysis of material conditions, it asks: Do the conditions of society benefit most people?

Direct contradiction. The question at the end is based on the implicit assumption that something is right when it benefits most people and wrong when it doesn't.

Is the resulting society stable?

I see no reason to believe that a completely stable society is either possible or desirable.