Why the fash worldwide?

[rotting bones]

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.

Installed laws are the laws that are enforced. Large societies always have enclaves inside them. In that case, see which laws are enforced in the enclave.

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.

Pure reason makes more sense than you might think. Paying attention to the material world risks your conclusion being tainted by factionalism. At any rate, mainstream liberalism is represented in academic philosophy by a dude called John Rawls. John Rawls does try to deduce liberalism from pure reason. It just so happens that the factions with the most clout don't agree with his reasoning.

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.

That's not an issue. I'm only taking issue with things like Citizens United, which says corporate donations are free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC Such things are rampant throughout society.

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

It's not an objective value judgment. The value judgment only has value to humans.

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.

Marx was a journalist who was infuriated at having to report news where victory after victory went to corporations. He was primarily concerned with the contradictions of capitalism. He didn't deny that other contradictions exist.

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.

The argument is directed at most people. If I'm telling cats that streets should have more tuna lying around, I shouldn't have to argue that this is the objectively right thing to happen.

For Marx, the majority was the international working class, which is mostly concentrated in third world countries now, but exists in the first world as well.

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

Communism wasn't supposed to be perfectly stable at all. Presumably, everyone would be freely working on their passions. Marx said the creative potential of humanity will be unleashed as opposed to spiraling into inhuman monstrosity like under capitalism.

[rotting bones]

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.

Well yes, the profit the overlord makes goes to the corporation. What difference does it make to the argument where the profit goes?

Is it normal to speak of the overlord making a profit? An individual is not a business.

In fact the corporate overlords making profit eventually runs into a point when it doesn't create jobs, quite the contrary.

See my clarification:

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.

Just shoveling money into corporations certainly doesn't create jobs.

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

Who is the subject that makes this choice? What should voters do if they disagree with this choice, despite all the money their representatives can get by making it?

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.

Existing government jobs: 1. Are small in number. 2. Don't make the goods people demand under ordinary circumstances. 3. Are hard enough to get into that they don't form a safety net.

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.

Who is the "we" that doesn't have to listen? Voters have to vote strategically to prevent doomsday. Politicians have to be on the take to have a shot at the national stage.

Inspiring people make liberal and left-wing arguments all the time. We have filled thousands of volumes. Then the politicians simply ignore all the work. They just don't care. See the posts where I argue that enforcing values is of limited utility. This one onwards: viewtopic.php?p=113944#p113944

I agree that left-wing governments can win elections. But what little they accomplish only remains until the demons inevitably claw their way back to power. All representative democracies keep switching between the left and the right. Other than the fact that one side is ruled by demons, this is the way things should be. Representatives who are in power for too long can't help becoming corrupt.

[Ares Land]

I think the first question would be: what do you suggest we do?

You seem skeptical of doing things done through representative democracy; I don't agree with that but then I do see your point. So what do you suggest instead?

Well yes, the profit the overlord makes goes to the corporation. What difference does it make to the argument where the profit goes?

Is it normal to speak of the overlord making a profit? An individual is not a business.

There are several ways the profits can go; they can be distributed to shareholders or reinvested or even be redistributed to the workers.
Where they go is a political choice. Tax rates can make sure distributing profits to shareholder stops making sense at some point. Redistribution to the workers can be legally mandated -- it's in fact a legal obligation in France.

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

Who is the subject that makes this choice? What should voters do if they disagree with this choice, despite all the money their representatives can get by making it?

Ultimately, their representatives make that choice. They don't have to choose plutocracy: there are plenty of times and places when they've chosen otherwise.

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.

Existing government jobs: 1. Are small in number. 2. Don't make the goods people demand under ordinary circumstances. 3. Are hard enough to get into that they form a safety net.

At the moment yes. Again, this is not universally true. Roosevelt used to create government jobs. We got a lot more public hospitals here in France, and back in the day, in most European countries the train lines were government-run

Inspiring people make liberal and left-wing arguments all the time. We have filled thousands of volumes. Then the politicians simply ignore all the work. They just don't care.(...)
I agree that left-wing governments can win elections. But what little they accomplish only remains until the demons inevitably claw their way back to power. All representative democracies keep switching between the left and the right. Other than the fact that one side is ruled by demons, this is the way things should be. Representatives who are in power for too long can't help becoming corrupt.

Left-wing and liberal governments can also accomplish a lot and in fact, they have done so in the past. As evidence, consider the New Deal. Or Western European politics during the last half of the twentieth century.

Representative democracy is frankly useless at this point in time. It doesn't mean that it's universally useless. It has actually accomplished things before, and will certainly do so again.

I'll add that these days it looks like it's mostly national-level representative democracy that looks useless. Far-right sympathies are unevenly distributed, so on the local level in some places it'll look terrible (Saxony-Anhalt), in others it looks better, or at least interesting (New York, Berlin).

[rotting bones]

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).

Small businesses are always going bankrupt.

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.

Economies become more equal after certain types of shocks such as wars. The trajectory is not encouraging. Is there a sign that things will change for the better? It looks like it will take decades to reach the awful "normal" we came from.

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

There aren't enough government jobs to form a safety net.

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

The choice is an outcome of systemic forces. Everyone has been complaining loudly about all this since I was born, to no effect. Policies are rolling inexorably in the direction everything is complaining about.

In what way do politicians "represent" us? If they are lucky, prominent complainers find themselves defunded and on the receiving end of culture war talking points. The unlucky ones find their bodily integrity violated.

Without structural analysis, I'd probably be saying: Politicians are too happy. Sad people care more. What we need is a great en-saddening.

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).

Doesn't solve the profit problem.

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.

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.)

They are not going to do it. If I ask for it, they are going to say Muslims are destroying Hindu society and start a pogrom.

[rotting bones]

I think the first question would be: what do you suggest we do?

You seem skeptical of doing things done through representative democracy; I don't agree with that but then I do see your point. So what do you suggest instead?

There needs to be constitutional change implementing direct democracy.

There are several ways the profits can go; they can be distributed to shareholders or reinvested or even be redistributed to the workers.

Distribution is a different step of the process. "Workers made a profit" makes no sense to me. What makes a profit is the business. When you redistribute the profit, it's "funds" or something.

Where they go is a political choice. Tax rates can make sure distributing profits to shareholder stops making sense at some point. Redistribution to the workers can be legally mandated -- it's in fact a legal obligation in France.

At the moment yes. Again, this is not universally true. Roosevelt used to create government jobs. We got a lot more public hospitals here in France, and back in the day, in most European countries the train lines were government-run

France is on the verge of a far-right takeover.

Ultimately, their representatives make that choice. They don't have to choose plutocracy: there are plenty of times and places when they've chosen otherwise.

Left-wing and liberal governments can also accomplish a lot and in fact, they have done so in the past. As evidence, consider the New Deal. Or Western European politics during the last half of the twentieth century.

They were afraid of the Soviet Union, the global market was growing, etc.

Representative democracy is frankly useless at this point in time. It doesn't mean that it's universally useless. It has actually accomplished things before, and will certainly do so again.

I'll add that these days it looks like it's mostly national-level representative democracy that looks useless. Far-right sympathies are unevenly distributed, so on the local level in some places it'll look terrible (Saxony-Anhalt), in others it looks better, or at least interesting (New York, Berlin).

I had to move to a fascist city in a fascist state in a fascist country. Mayors don't have that much power anyway.

[Ares Land]

There needs to be constitutional change implementing direct democracy.

Sure, I'm in favor. I'd like to see the details, but I'm in favor. I wonder how you'd proceed about that constitutional change, given what seems skepticism about any kind of democratic change. Constitutional change is actually harder to implement than socialist measures.

There are several ways the profits can go; they can be distributed to shareholders or reinvested or even be redistributed to the workers.

Distribution is a different step of the process. "Workers made a profit" makes no sense to me. What makes a profit is the business. When you redistribute the profit, it's "funds" or something.

We can debate the terminology, but how does that affect my point?

Where they go is a political choice. Tax rates can make sure distributing profits to shareholder stops making sense at some point. Redistribution to the workers can be legally mandated -- it's in fact a legal obligation in France.

At the moment yes. Again, this is not universally true. Roosevelt used to create government jobs. We got a lot more public hospitals here in France, and back in the day, in most European countries the train lines were government-run

France is on the verge of a far-right takeover.

Indeed it is. So are many countries right now, that's the point of the thread. I'd point out we had public hospitals since after WWII, redistribution since I think 1968 -- we had these for decades.
If you imply that it's not enough to counter the far right, I'm really not surprised. As I said several times, socialism does many important things, but the one thing it will not do is get us rid of the far right.

They were afraid of the Soviet Union, the global market was growing, etc.

The economy was growing, I think, as a result of redistribution. It turns out the economy does a lot better when workers and consumers (ultimately, the same people) have something to look forward to.
Anyway, we won't be getting anything like post-WWII growth now for various reasons. OK - how was the growth helping? how can we replicate that or do without?

It certainly was convenient that people were afraid of communism. That makes things harder, certainly, but should we just give up and despair?

I have trouble figuring out what your point is. It looks like you don't believe in socialist measures through representative democracy are possible. What you call for, however, as I gather is a radical end to capitalism and constitutional change.
I mean, OK, why not, but are you aware that those changes are a lot harder to implement?

Suppose, I don't know, the US gets a DSA president or Germany gets a chancellor from Die Linke. How would either be able to abolish capitalim overnight, or switch to direct democray if -- if I read you correctly -- they wouldn't be able (or even willing) to change a tax rate?

The other option would be violent revolution, I guess. Is there any example of history of a revolution that turned out right?
I could also point out that now is about the worst timing for a revolution: there are a lot of far-right people as there, and they have all the guns.

[zompist]

If you imply that it's not enough to counter the far right, I'm really not surprised. As I said several times, socialism does many important things, but the one thing it will not do is get us rid of the far right.

Systems are usually designed to solve the last generation's problems. The post-WWII governments were quite good at addressing the flaws of the pre-WWII years. They learned how to manage depressions, how to separate out investment banks, how to create a social safety net, how to distribute productivity gains to the masses, how to get rid of a colonial empire. Mostly this was done using methods that were politically impossible in 1931.

But they couldn't predict the future. The advanced economies didn't deal well with the oil shock, with a new movement toward plutocracy, and with the move to offshore manufacturing jobs. Reaganism started with a tax revolt and public fatigue with unions; the conservative movement didn't lose its mind until 1995 or so, and didn't go full fascist till Trump II.

This isn't to say that there were no warning signs, but I don't think there were a lot of things those in power in 1975 could have done, with the mental tools available in 1975. We're still developing new mental tools today.

The economy was growing, I think, as a result of redistribution. It turns out the economy does a lot better when workers and consumers (ultimately, the same people) have something to look forward to.
Anyway, we won't be getting anything like post-WWII growth now for various reasons. OK - how was the growth helping? how can we replicate that or do without?

It certainly was convenient that people were afraid of communism. That makes things harder, certainly,

Does it? Things look dire today, but things looked dire in 1985, and they looked dire in 1939, and they looked dire in 1848. Which was direst?

As one 19th century observer said, a Mr. Marx, "All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. [Hegel] forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." In 1939 it looked to many people like totalitarian systems like fascism and communism were unstoppable. especially if someone like Neville Chamberlain was in charge. Not many would predict that fascism would collapse in six years. Yet fascism then was built on far solider foundations than today. Trump is good at destroying things; it's hard to picture him building even a ten-year reich.

(And even fewer would predict at that time that Britain would give up India in just 8 years.)

The other option would be violent revolution, I guess. Is there any example of history of a revolution that turned out right?

I can't resist a historical question like that. Everyone's first thought is the Russian Revolution, which only a few tankies think turned out great. It's not hard to think of other revolutions that produced war and dictatorship and didn't come close to people's ideals, if they had any.

On the other hand, here are a few revolutions I think ended up improving things at least a bit: the Glorious Revolution; the US; Haiti; France; the Latin American revolutions against Spain and Portugal; the Irish revolt; the Meiji Restoration; the revolutions that ended Austria-Hungary; the Portuguese revolution of 1974; the Chinese Communist revolution; the final revolution against Assad in Syria.

A lot of these require emphasizing "a bit". There was that whole Napoleon thing, for instance. The CCP had a very low bar: doing better than the incompetent Nationalists; if Mao had died in 1957 the revolution would look way better. Haiti was handicapped by absurd levels of reparations. Etc.

(Of course I agree with your point that revolutions are overblown and don't usually accomplish their goals. A lot of people unwisely romanticize them, going back to the said Mr. Marx.)

[alice]

(Of course I agree with your point that revolutions are overblown and don't usually accomplish their goals. A lot of people unwisely romanticize them, going back to the said Mr. Marx.)

To quote John Lennon: "Tell me of one successful revolution", by which I presume he meant made things more than just "a bit" better.