Some more thoughts on the Left, the Right, the Center, and myself

[Ares Land]

As for the specific collections of theory that are common on the Left, it's probably a good idea to throw most of them out and replace them with something new. Let me talk about them one by one.

I believe I recognize all of your examples. They seem more typical of a subset of the radical left. Not that I'm defending American liberalism as the one true way: there's a lot of space between radical leftism and centrism, most of it sadly abandoned these days.

It's not that radical leftism has nothing interesting to offer either! It does seem quite taken up with intellectual purity and obscure turf wars though.

I suspect a common thread in your examples is that they all sound radical but do not actually translate in policies and actual change. Theory is fine in politics, but there is a point where it must be applied.

Part of the problem is that the right has been winning on all fronts for ten or twelve years or so; and to make things worse, it's a worldwide fad for the worst kind of reactionary politics.
That sort of victory makes the opposition feel divided and irrelevant. This of course encourages idle abstract speculation and turf wars, because right now there's not much space for people on the left to act.

I think this is partly illusory; the right won't keep winning forever. The picture may look very different in five years or so.

[Raphael]

rotting bones: Thank you for your post. As you might imagine, I disagree with a lot of it, but I don't want to write too many really long posts with lots of quotes here, so I've decided against responding in detail.

As for the specific collections of theory that are common on the Left, it's probably a good idea to throw most of them out and replace them with something new. Let me talk about them one by one.

I believe I recognize all of your examples. They seem more typical of a subset of the radical left. Not that I'm defending American liberalism as the one true way: there's a lot of space between radical leftism and centrism, most of it sadly abandoned these days.

Thing is, I don't always mind radical left-wing policies. I mean, I'm in favor of abolishing most forms of private ownership of economically significant things (what Marxists would call "the means of production"). And while we're on the way there, I'd strongly support, as a first step, a hard upper cap on personal wealth, let's say somewhere between €15 million and €50 million. I just don't think that, if a set of policies has traditionally been supported by people who follow a particular theory, this automatically means that you must accept the theory in order to support the policy.

[rotting bones]

rotting bones: Thank you for your post. As you might imagine, I disagree with a lot of it, but I don't want to write too many really long posts with lots of quotes here, so I've decided against responding in detail.

I would appreciate it if you point out places where I was egregiously wrong. Speaking of which, I have to respond to this one:

Well, do you use it in the sense of, "the people who own the world", or do you use it in the sense of, "everyone whose habits, manners, hobbies, and dialect are more stereotypically middle class than working class"? Or do you use a meaning somewhere in between those two?

Marx depicts the bourgeoisie as joyless scrooges, very different from the contemporary slang use of the term, meaning covered in bling. He says their self-restraint to earn profits is a scourge on the human race. According to Marxism, the point of a proletarian revolution is to "abolish" (aufheben) the proletariat as a class. This is explicitly a part of Marxist theory, couched in Hegelian terminology. In this sense, the proletariat is the universal class fighting for everyone's benefit. So anyone can join the proletarian revolution.

Theoretically, this is the difference between Marxism and identity politics. In practice, the Hegelian term "abolish" is ambiguous. It could mean either bringing everybody down to working class conditions or abolishing those conditions. In Das Kapital, Marx's complaints about work are: It's repetitive, the products get taken away from the worker, the workers can't afford the products they make, there is no rest, no education, the workers are treated like machines, etc. If all of these complaints are addressed, I'm not sure the resulting society will look traditionally "working class". There is nothing in Marx to oppose this outcome. His writings are not culturally conservative at all, unlike America's "working class" cosplay fascists.

[rotting bones]

They seem more typical of a subset of the radical left. Not that I'm defending American liberalism as the one true way

In America, the radicals WERE the liberals. Americans who called themselves "leftist" and not liberal were reacting against the liberals for whatever reason.

[Raphael]

The writings of Marx are not particularly deterministic about much of anything. It's all fairly open-ended and tentative. So much so that it's hard for new readers to follow.

Isn't the "dialectical" part of dialectical materialism inherently deterministic? Not to mention the fact that the Marxist Theory of History contains two stages that were still in the future when it was worked out?

That said, I think the Marxist division of history is much more useful than many others that are in circulation, like ancient, medieval and modern.

IMO the "ancient, medieval and modern" model allows for a lot of variation within each category, and doesn't insist that there has to be a medieval stage between the ancient and modern stages. Marxist historians, on the other hand, seem to insist that European horse warrior rule and Chinese scholar-official rule were the same because they both counted as "Feudalism".

Why, then, describe yourself as a Marxist? Because almost no one who doesn't describe themselves as Marxist understands what it means to take a materially reductive view of history and politics.

That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. If more people would think it's possible to take a materially reductive view of history and politics without being self-described Marxists, there might be more people who'd do that. Besides, I'm not really in favour of a completely materially reductive view of history and politics, because I think that psychological and cultural factors matter.

When Marx was writing, "upper class" meant land-owning nobility. "Middle class" meant factory owner. "Lower class" meant workers and peasants.

I question the validity of an attempt at social science that doesn't seem to account for the existence of people like myself and many of the people I know.

Convincing some workers that they are "middle class" by manipulating imperialist reserve currencies might have been the biggest coup for capitalism in the last hundred years.

True enough, but some Marxists seem to have helped the process along by insisting that only industrial blue-collar workers count as workers.

As for you and I, I think Marx would have called us lumpenproletariat, beggars and criminals.

Problem is, I've always had the impression that beggars and criminals are usually very street-smart, and I'm the opposite of street-smart.

One contradiction specific to 21st century Marxism that wasn't there from the start, but that should be pretty glaring today, is this: According to Marxist theory, everything in human life is determined by material conditions. Even things like philosophical systems are entirely the result of the material conditions under which the people who found or follow them live. But 21st century Marxists still insist that people of their time should follow a philosophy that was worked out by people who lived under very different material conditions in the 19th century.

Marxists constantly talk about how their own theories are the outcome of material developments. See either Defending Materialism or Negative Dialectics.

Doesn't resolve the fundamental contradiction between seeing all philosophies as the result of material conditions and following a philosophy worked out by people who lived under very different material conditions than you do.

Without definitions, you will end up with a poorly defined economic theory. This seems like the wrong way to approach any science. I'm not sure I want to live in a country redesigned by economists who don't agree on what their terms mean.

Interesting - that's the first time I see an actual good argument in favor of definitions. So far, I've generally accepted zompist's "Never Define" approach:

https://www.zompist.com/rants05.html#6

Any comments on that, zompist?

They had just lived through Hitler!

If some bad guy spreads really a lot of misery, I don't think an assertion that people should be miserable helps things.

They had been taught in German schools that German culture is the epitome of civilization. They were trying to figure out how the epitome of civilization could have led to Hitler.

A simple look at the history of a lot of civilizations, or, if you prefer, "civilizations" throughout history should have been enough to explain that.

More broadly, just as revolutionaries are supposed to fight in the streets and factories, some intellectuals thought it would make sense to continue the same fight in the cultural realm. They thought that unequal power dynamics have distorted the meanings of everyday language. For example, when people think of burgers, the first thing in their mind is giving money to FakeChicken Corp.

At a conservative estimate, I'd say at least 80% of the history and fiction that's promoted today is pro-capitalist in content or framing.

The Frankfurt School seems to have started out from the idea that all kinds of things had to be bad because they were uncultivated, unsophisticated, or insufficiently boring to be of value, and then worked out explanations for why those things were capitalist and therefore bad.

Consider that people vote for Trump because they have seen him playing a savvy businessman on TV.

That's a very good point.

Some of these intellectuals thought they could restore the values of material signs through cultural critique. They called this the fight against "ideology". This usage of the term "ideology" is very Marxist. Nowadays, people call Marxism an "ideology". Marxists disagree with this usage. They insist that Marxism is a movement for scientific socialism. Many did take this way too far, e.g. insisting you have to reframe every transition in physics in terms of punctuated equilibria or whatever. I think the description of Marxism as an "ideology" started as ironic banter that became accepted as common usage.

I think it doesn't make sense to describe a system of political thought as anything else than an ideology. If Marxism is trying to be a science, it is, at most, a pseudoscience.

Then there's postmodernism. Oh dear. When it comes to questions of fundamental underlying values or basic priorities, or, for that matter, to questions of taste, you can, of course, argue all day long without ever coming to a conclusion. But on the vast majority of issues where the Left and the Right disagree about matters of fact, the Left is simply right and the Right is simply wrong. Simple as that.

1. They are humanities majors complaining about the STEM takeover!

That explains them, but doesn't justify them.

Many of the postmodernists weren't particularly leftist. Their whole thought is based on chugging alcohol and complaining about the impossibility of meaningful resistance.

Now you've made them look worse than I've made them look.

Postcolonial Theory seems to be mainly the idea that every atrocity or act of mass murder should be supported, defended, justified, and never in any way criticized or punished, as long as the people who commit it claim to be serving the cause of fighting colonialism. As such, it is simply one out of many intellectual justifications for atrocities and mass murder that people have come up with throughout history, and not deserving of any more respect or consideration than all the other intellectual justifications for atrocities and mass murder.

Every interest will amplify the voices that vindicate it.

True. If a voice vindicates things I find indefensible, I'm not that much interested in what that voice has to say. (Except perhaps out of psychological curiosity.)

There is no "leftist theory", only every possible combination of particles interacting in space. Since there are more wrong ideas than right ones, most theories will be wrong a priori.

True, but IMO not really all that relevant. Most of the time, people, including you, have no problem with talking about all kinds of things and concepts other than particles interacting in space.

Obsessive readers enjoy writing styles that use big words.

I think I'm a quite obsessive reader, and I don't.

[zompist]

Without definitions, you will end up with a poorly defined economic theory. This seems like the wrong way to approach any science. I'm not sure I want to live in a country redesigned by economists who don't agree on what their terms mean.

Interesting - that's the first time I see an actual good argument in favor of definitions. So far, I've generally accepted zompist's "Never Define" approach:

https://www.zompist.com/rants05.html#6

Any comments on that, zompist?

Definitions have their uses, mostly in the hard sciences, or craft work. Physicists need to agree on what "mass" is, and sailors have precise terms for all the ropes on a sailing ship. No problems there.

It's simple observation that people defining terms in politics and much of humanities, are fooling themselves. As just one example, Britain's Supreme Court just assayed a "legal" definition of men and women, as an attempt to immiserate trans people. That's a nice example of pseudo-scientific "definitions" actually being used to harm people.

Accounting is a craft, so I'd expect accounting terms to be well defined-- again, no problem. Economics is notoriously divorced from reality, filled with toy models and assumptions that no one bothers to test. Sometimes economists pretend that they're doing physics, and it's embarrassing and probably bad for the rest of us. Economics at best is politics.

I'd simplify rb's statement: " I'm not sure I want to live in a country redesigned by economists."

What rb and I might agree on is that Marx is very useful in getting us to recognize power relationships. You can stay out of a lot of political snares by asking of any movement, policy, or proposal, "Who precisely benefits? Who gets more power and who gets less?"

[Ares Land]

Thing is, I don't always mind radical left-wing policies. I mean, I'm in favor of abolishing most forms of private ownership of economically significant things (what Marxists would call "the means of production"). And while we're on the way there, I'd strongly support, as a first step, a hard upper cap on personal wealth, let's say somewhere between €15 million and €50 million. I just don't think that, if a set of policies has traditionally been supported by people who follow a particular theory, this automatically means that you must accept the theory in order to support the policy.

I think it's more of a strong tendancy; I think a love of unscrutable theory correlates with the radical left; but you can definitely find exceptions.
Also, sometimes (often) the disagreements between the radical left and the not-so-radical left come down to methods, rather than idea. As in, do we have to deal with that bourgeois stuff like laws or elections, or do we wait for the revolution? The disagreement is not that clear cut these days, but there's something of that old divide left. Which does influence the theorizing: if you're planning on winning elections, you want clear language -- if you're waiting for the Revolution, theorizing is a way to pass the time

They seem more typical of a subset of the radical left. Not that I'm defending American liberalism as the one true way

In America, the radicals WERE the liberals. Americans who called themselves "leftist" and not liberal were reacting against the liberals for whatever reason.

I see American liberals as kind of centrist -- surely there are people to the left of that, even in the US!

[Raphael]

Which does influence the theorizing: if you're planning on winning elections, you want clear language -- if you're waiting for the Revolution, theorizing is a way to pass the time

Not the most exciting way to pass the time, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJeTnLKLEI

[rotting bones]

if you're waiting for the Revolution, theorizing is a way to pass the time

If protesters don't know what they are protesting, no one will take them seriously.

I see American liberals as kind of centrist -- surely there are people to the left of that, even in the US!

In America, the biggest radical group that wants to revolutionize society are the white nationalists. The largest Communist party is the CPUSA, and they are vanishingly tiny. They support the Democrats, and the Democrats do their best to make sure they are not seen to be associated with them.

I once tried to visit the headquarters of the CPUSA. It's an unmarked apartment above an art supply shop in New York. It's not open to the public.

As for the liberals, Rawls might be unscientific, but his theory of treating everyone with Fairness is quite strong. It says you have to treat the weakest sections of society with equal dignity and take care of their basic needs.

The problem with moral prescriptions like this is that it doesn't say how you can make people follow them. People will just answer "nah" and that will be the end of the matter.

[rotting bones]

Thanks.

Isn't the "dialectical" part of dialectical materialism inherently deterministic? Not to mention the fact that the Marxist Theory of History contains two stages that were still in the future when it was worked out?

Yes, but you are basing all this on the polemics of the Communist Manifesto. None of Marx's (massive) theoretical works sound like this. Das Kapital sounds more like this: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2 ... as-kapital

IMO the "ancient, medieval and modern" model allows for a lot of variation within each category, and doesn't insist that there has to be a medieval stage between the ancient and modern stages. Marxist historians, on the other hand, seem to insist that European horse warrior rule and Chinese scholar-official rule were the same because they both counted as "Feudalism".

The Marxist division is based on modes of production, so it says things about how workers live in each period. The threefold division might just be nostalgia for Roman imperialism casting a long shadow.

That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. If more people would think it's possible to take a materially reductive view of history and politics without being self-described Marxists, there might be more people who'd do that.

The approach does originate from Marx. Defending Materialism has a detailed history.

Besides, I'm not really in favour of a completely materially reductive view of history and politics, because I think that psychological and cultural factors matter.

Marx does think psychology matters. He thinks workers are trapped in a "false consciousness" about their position because of material factors beyond their control. The purpose of a philosophy that attempts to change the world is to awaken them to "class consciousness".

However, he thinks cultural forms are an outgrowth of material factors. They exist to keep workers trapped in false consciousness.

I question the validity of an attempt at social science that doesn't seem to account for the existence of people like myself and many of the people I know.

I'm not sure it matters. Economically, first world programmers occupy the same position as the "overseers" in Marx, privileged workers. Wards of states and families are in the same position as household retainers.

True enough, but some Marxists seem to have helped the process along by insisting that only industrial blue-collar workers count as workers.

There are also Marxists who say only Third World workers are really workers under capitalism. People can quibble over boundaries, where there are really only attractors. But see what Engels had to say about the family. The origins of Marxism had nothing to do with cultural stasis.

Liberals have done bad things too. The original liberals regarded abolitionists as fanatics getting in the way of sensible moderation. See Liberalism: A Counter History. Of course, old liberals are quite different from new liberals, but theories like that of Rawls are part of the same tradition.

Problem is, I've always had the impression that beggars and criminals are usually very street-smart, and I'm the opposite of street-smart.

Only the most successful ones.

Doesn't resolve the fundamental contradiction between seeing all philosophies as the result of material conditions and following a philosophy worked out by people who lived under very different material conditions than you do.

The people who follow dialectics will answer that this is precisely why Marx avoided coming up with utopian schemes in advance of the circumstances.

A simple look at the history of a lot of civilizations, or, if you prefer, "civilizations" throughout history should have been enough to explain that.

Not if you believe in Progress. That's why they argued against Progress.

The Frankfurt School seems to have started out from the idea that all kinds of things had to be bad because they were uncultivated, unsophisticated, or insufficiently boring to be of value, and then worked out explanations for why those things were capitalist and therefore bad.

I agree that Critical Theorists, unlike Marx and Engels, were idealists with culturally conservative tendencies. But I think you are confusing other people's judgements about them with what they thought they were doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

I think it doesn't make sense to describe a system of political thought as anything else than an ideology. If Marxism is trying to be a science, it is, at most, a pseudoscience.

Words don't mean things. People do.

Now you've made them look worse than I've made them look.

Baudrillard literally thinks the best form of resistance is graffiti. Since no real change is possible, disfigure society a little bit while they aren't looking.

True, but IMO not really all that relevant. Most of the time, people, including you, have no problem with talking about all kinds of things and concepts other than particles interacting in space.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying humans will voice every combination of ideas compatible with internal psychology and external circumstances, and then interests amplify the voices that vindicate them. Under these conditions, I'm not sure what it means to lump supporters of fascism in with leftists as part of a coherent movement. Doesn't it make more sense to explain each thinker in terms of psychology and circumstances instead? Join the reductionists.

It's a shame that leftists are building coalitions with Third World fascists to raise their numbers.

I think I'm a quite obsessive reader, and I don't.

You are right. But if someone is a humanities graduate student, they are often attracted to a certain florid aesthetic.

[Travis B.]

I question the validity of an attempt at social science that doesn't seem to account for the existence of people like myself and many of the people I know.

I'm not sure it matters. Economically, first world programmers occupy the same position as the "overseers" in Marx, privileged workers. Wards of states and families are in the same position as household retainers.

The big thing to me is that such Marxian analyses of people like first world programmers typically place them on the side of the capitalists, when they could be on the side of the proletariat -- sure, they may be typically paid better than the average proletarian in our current capitalist society, but they still would have a place in a hypothetical post-revolutionary society. After all, the free software and open hardware movements are essentially helping create the new society in the shell of the old.

True enough, but some Marxists seem to have helped the process along by insisting that only industrial blue-collar workers count as workers.

There are also Marxists who say only Third World workers are really workers under capitalism. People can quibble over boundaries, where there are really only attractors. But see what Engels had to say about the family. The origins of Marxism had nothing to do with cultural stasis.

If we are to have a socialist revolution, we need as many people on the side of socialism as possible. Anyone who insists that people who could sympathize with socialism are not proletarian enough to contribute to bringing about the new society is themselves not helping matters.

[rotting bones]

I question the validity of an attempt at social science that doesn't seem to account for the existence of people like myself and many of the people I know.

I'm not sure it matters. Economically, first world programmers occupy the same position as the "overseers" in Marx, privileged workers. Wards of states and families are in the same position as household retainers.

The big thing to me is that such Marxian analyses of people like first world programmers typically place them on the side of the capitalists, when they could be on the side of the proletariat -- sure, they may be typically paid better than the average proletarian in our current capitalist society, but they still would have a place in a hypothetical post-revolutionary society. After all, the free software and open hardware movements are essentially helping create the new society in the shell of the old.

True enough, but some Marxists seem to have helped the process along by insisting that only industrial blue-collar workers count as workers.

There are also Marxists who say only Third World workers are really workers under capitalism. People can quibble over boundaries, where there are really only attractors. But see what Engels had to say about the family. The origins of Marxism had nothing to do with cultural stasis.

If we are to have a socialist revolution, we need as many people on the side of socialism as possible. Anyone who insists that people who could sympathize with socialism are not proletarian enough to contribute to bringing about the new society is themselves not helping matters.

Engels was literally a capitalist. Marx didn't have a problem with that. Anyone can join the proletarian revolution. Unlike in identity politics, the Marxist proletariat is not an enclosed society that is trying to preserve itself. It's a stain on the face of the earth that is trying to do what, to cultural idealists, can only look like committing suicide.

Having said that, you have to admit that an awful lot of programmers do side with capitalist exploitation because they are relatively well paid.

[Travis B.]

I'm not sure it matters. Economically, first world programmers occupy the same position as the "overseers" in Marx, privileged workers. Wards of states and families are in the same position as household retainers.

The big thing to me is that such Marxian analyses of people like first world programmers typically place them on the side of the capitalists, when they could be on the side of the proletariat -- sure, they may be typically paid better than the average proletarian in our current capitalist society, but they still would have a place in a hypothetical post-revolutionary society. After all, the free software and open hardware movements are essentially helping create the new society in the shell of the old.

There are also Marxists who say only Third World workers are really workers under capitalism. People can quibble over boundaries, where there are really only attractors. But see what Engels had to say about the family. The origins of Marxism had nothing to do with cultural stasis.

If we are to have a socialist revolution, we need as many people on the side of socialism as possible. Anyone who insists that people who could sympathize with socialism are not proletarian enough to contribute to bringing about the new society is themselves not helping matters.

Engels was literally a capitalist. Marx didn't have a problem with that. Anyone can join the proletarian revolution. Unlike in identity politics, the Marxist proletariat is not an enclosed society that is trying to preserve itself. It's a stain on the face of the earth that is trying to do what, to cultural idealists, can only look like committing suicide.

The problem is the leftists who have forgotten that the revolution, that freedom and equality are for all people, and rather have come to fetishize the stereotypical working class as they see them.

Having said that, you have to admit that an awful lot of programmers do side with capitalist exploitation because they are relatively well paid.

Programmers are not a homogeneous group -- yes, they do include plenty of rabidly pro-capitalist big-L 'Libertarian' types and techbro-lovers, but at the same time they include quite a few people who are essentially fellow travelers of socialism and they even include people who are effectively anarcho-communists even if they don't use the term to refer to themselves.

[Ares Land]

I'm not sure it matters. Economically, first world programmers occupy the same position as the "overseers" in Marx, privileged workers. Wards of states and families are in the same position as household retainers.

Das Kapital is about 150 years old. The general analysis of the capital-labour analysis probably still works, and possibly more so than we usually expect; I don't think the details do.
We can try fitting people into categories such 'overseers' or 'proletariat' or 'lumpenproletariat', but I doubt it'll lead us very far.

I should probably try and figure out this 'technofeudalism' things. The summaries didn't convince me much, maybe the books will.

Having said that, you have to admit that an awful lot of programmers do side with capitalist exploitation because they are relatively well paid.

Programmers are not a homogeneous group -- yes, they do include plenty of rabidly pro-capitalist big-L 'Libertarian' types and techbro-lovers, but at the same time they include quite a few people who are essentially fellow travelers of socialism and they even include people who are effectively anarcho-communists even if they don't use the term to refer to themselves.

I've tried to find some data, but it's harder than it sounds. Opinion polls don't go into that level of detail.
Here in France workers and employees are a lot more likely to vote for the far-right.
Programmers and IT folks in generals end up in the 'cadres' category (which covers middle to senior management, roughly), who are somewhat more likely to vote left.

In France the biggest predictor is education; programmers will have an engineering or STEM degree, and are more likely to vote left -- though not nearly as much as people with social science degrees!
After that it's income and net worth. Sadly polls focus on income and not so much on capital.

I'd define a programmer's income as comfortable; well paid, but not insanely so. More importantly, they won't have much capital.
I'd love to know if that applies to US programmers, what with Silicon Valley salaries, stock options and the like. I except that when it comes down to it, it's not fundamentally different, the cost of living being what it is.


I should add that most people, in all professions, are on the side of capitalist oppression these days. Being left-wing is a minority view in many countries; outright anti-capitalists are a tiny minority.
Most everyone, worldwide, is a conservative these days.

[rotting bones]

I'd be interested to know what people think of Defending Materialism.

The general analysis of the capital-labour analysis probably still works, and possibly more so than we usually expect; I don't think the details do.

What's valuable in it is the materialist systems analysis approach. I would recommend Marx to the kind of people who wound read the Principia Mathematica. I have read both Newton's and Russell's. Marx and Engels were also less culturally conservative than Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.

We can try fitting people into categories such 'overseers' or 'proletariat' or 'lumpenproletariat', but I doubt it'll lead us very far.

I meant the roles are close enough for it to lead to the same economic outcomes. The sweat shops have just moved to the Third World. And anyone who is struggling to buy groceries should be considered part of the proletariat no matter which country they're in, and America has large populations of such people.

Come to think of it, programming is the overseeing of computational resources. These days, the algorithm often directly organizes work.

Here in France workers and employees are a lot more likely to vote for the far-right.
Programmers and IT folks in generals end up in the 'cadres' category (which covers middle to senior management, roughly), who are somewhat more likely to vote left.

Mainstream, non-radical liberalism is okay with capitalist exploitation. I've even heard liberals say they support exploiting the Congo for cheap minerals because it supports their middle class lifestyle. I wouldn't say all promoters of a working class lifestyle is necessarily insane. There is something to be said for telling the relatively well off not to get used to lifestyles that can only be maintained through oppression. Not that I expect the majority to listen. I don't even blame them.

In France the biggest predictor is education; programmers will have an engineering or STEM degree, and are more likely to vote left -- though not nearly as much as people with social science degrees!

In America, the poor voted for the Democrats in every election except this one.

The brainwashing must be even more severe in France. Either that, or they are stuck in a local maximum: If I make sacrifices when it sounds like the others will betray me, I will be selected against.

I'd love to know if that applies to US programmers, what with Silicon Valley salaries, stock options and the like. I except that when it comes down to it, it's not fundamentally different, the cost of living being what it is.

Silicon Valley has fascist programmer cults. But overall, Marx is a precursor of game theory, where systems of incentives have priority over individual intentions. What programmers or overseers think is less important than what they are incentivized to do to adapt to their niche in the capitalist social order.

I should add that most people, in all professions, are on the side of capitalist oppression these days. Being left-wing is a minority view in many countries; outright anti-capitalists are a tiny minority.
Most everyone, worldwide, is a conservative these days.

This is an exaggeration, but there's a grain of truth to this. It's what you get from constantly parroting anticommunist propaganda. But I think the exaggeration comes from systems trying to push us into local maxima. If everyone were really culturally conservative, there wouldn't be a liberal backlash against idpol. I think it's more like the recent reframing of leftist politics in terms of personal morality has incentivized everyone to become people pleasers. Individual intentions are not that important, only the incentive machine.

I identify as a failed beggar. The message of calling for the dispossessed to unite hasn't lost any resonance for me. We have to find a way to make people realize the things that bring them joy have been weaponized to ruin their lives. Whether this movement succeeds or fails, I don't see a different way to be that I can respect. If the hillbillies are deluded, does JD Vance have the right idea?

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself. Unfortunately, I'm out of time.

[rotting bones]

I'd define a programmer's income as comfortable; well paid, but not insanely so. More importantly, they won't have much capital.

In my experience, Americans are crazy. They seem to think the world's problems will be solved if everyone starts a small business. If you point out that it's mathematically impossible for everyone to be earning a profit in a closed or semi-closed monetary system regardless of the quality of service they offer, their eyes glaze over. A few minutes later they resume the conversation about starting small businesses as if nothing happened.

[zompist]

If you point out that it's mathematically impossible for everyone to be earning a profit in a closed or semi-closed monetary system regardless of the quality of service they offer

How do you figure? The earth is not a closed system; it gets massive energy inputs from the sun.

(Not interested in the political claim, just trying to understand what you're talking about.)

[bradrn]

If you point out that it's mathematically impossible for everyone to be earning a profit in a closed or semi-closed monetary system regardless of the quality of service they offer

How do you figure? The earth is not a closed system; it gets massive energy inputs from the sun.

(Not interested in the political claim, just trying to understand what you're talking about.)

I think he means that, if the amount of money is fixed (‘a closed monetary system’), some people gaining money means that other people lose money. Of course, this ignores the fact that the amount of money is not fixed.

[rotting bones]

I have discussed this in a lot of detail in the past. I'm not sure I remember all the details, but here goes:

The closed monetary system is the libertarian fantasy. The semi-closed monetary system is the current financial system, where the government prints money to bail out private banks. These private banks then use their money as leverage to give loans to sections of the economy that they think will be profitable in the future. Note that these loans are intended to be paid back somehow, even though the printed money mostly goes out to institutions giving loans, which are hoping to recoup the loaned cash. None of which makes any sense if you look at the system as a whole. Unless money radically changes in value, which will send the economy into a spiral. Literally psychotic.

[bradrn]

I have discussed this in a lot of detail in the past. I'm not sure I remember all the details, but here goes:

The closed monetary system is the libertarian fantasy. The semi-closed monetary system is the current financial system, where the government prints money to bail out private banks. These private banks then use their money as leverage to give loans to sections of the economy that they think will be profitable in the future. Note that these loans are intended to be paid back somehow, even though the printed money mostly goes out to institutions giving loans, which are hoping to recoup the loaned cash. None of which makes any sense if you look at the system as a whole. Unless money radically changes in value, which will send the economy into a spiral. Literally psychotic.

I’m no economist, but I’m pretty sure that money supply is controlled as much by commercial banks as by the central bank. Most money is not in the form of physical cash created by the government.