Populism is the result of global economic failure
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
People who are deeply invested in this ghastly status-quo quake at the prospect of the proles finally demanding a less insane mode of economy, hence all the blithering about populism.
By and large people (demographically) who voted for the democrats won't be much affected by the GOP gov, but the people who voted for the GOP will be badly affected.
If a mod comes here, I vote for closing this post, I feel it is very very prone to political flame wars.
It only fosters irrational hate and causes unnecessary violence.
It's not like those immigrants are occupying good paying low skill jobs that could otherwise be done by Americans. They do fruit picking in California for below minimum wage.
Immigration is used as a scapegoat.
Look at Germany. They have the same policies. They have immigration. They have open borders and they have free trade policies and they fully embrace globalism.
Yet Germany retained its high paying relatively low skill jobs and the US didn't. The reason is simply that the various CEOs in the respective countries decided on different business strategies. In the US it seems they decided to go with low cost manufacturing in China/Mexico.
Finally, people are naturally tribalistic - you can blame evolution for that one. Until we fix that, immigration will increase ethnic tensions, which serve as a distraction for corporations to use while they rob you.
But I guess I'm just being irrational..
Also, saying that people are naturally tribalistic, because of evolution, fails to take into account that we're not slaves to our impulses, and that evolution blatantly favours cooperation over competition.
It makes it no less easy to abuse however, e.g. "Look at those no-good black welfare queens with their 12 kids paid for by good honest white people! Cut social spending!"
And then, for about 16 years, since the crisis of 2000 ... it didn't get better for everyone. Real income has been dropping since the 1980s, but it was almost steady until 1999. And then healthcare, fuel/energy and education really exploded. Of course this is the result of the crisis in 2008, which was of course not caused in 2008, but before then.
Obama got elected on the same platform as Trump, really. He was going to change things. Hope and change. The famous blue and red posters, his own characteristic style, all very memorable and well executed. An abundance of hope, but I must say the change was found somewhat lacking. Despite a nobel peace prize, Guantanamo was not closed, and there was a massive 2008 crisis, rather than a recovery (yes Obama promised an economic recovery from the situation BEFORE the 2008 crisis, remember ? The Bush tax cuts were the big bogeyman at the time).
Then the experience of the crisis came. Even if you weren't one of the people who kept the debt but lost their home, very few people did well during the crisis. Then there was the initial pullback, but aside from the 1% with lots of stocks nobody was really made whole.
Then the FED "fixed" this. They came up with what's commonly known as the "PCE deflator" because of oil. You see, because of the huge fuel/energy price rise people were using much less energy, and as a result it shouldn't be counted in inflation (or else inflation would have been close to 10%). Likewise, people use less housing, same reasoning.
That's great, but ... people still had less fuel/energy as a result, the banks just refused to count that as inflation. There's a famous Y Combinator article titled "There's a remarkable correlation between the quality of life and energy use". Likewise people have enjoyed less housing, all of which is not counted ...
Despite this massive adjustment to favor economic indicators under Obama, his policies have not improved the situation of the average American. All together I would say that, on a large average, and without counting inflation, Americans have gotten back about half of what they lost in the 2008 crisis. Counting CPI inflation sadly I'd say it's more like 20%.
And now they elect the other party.
The response "They must be evil racists !" (because let's be honest, "tribalism" is no more than a euphemism) seems like it might be missing the point a bit, aside from being entirely unhelpful.
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/10/why-bernie-sanders...
That was written last February back when people actually thought it insane that Hillary Clinton could lose to Donald Trump -- doesn't sound so crazy now though.
Is this similar to how democracy is the worst system of governance except for all the others? What's terrible about neoliberalism that a more populist route will fix without being worse in other ways?
e.g. I'm rather happy with our socialist NHS in the UK - I don't want socialism in many other areas but for health it seems to have made sense. I don't want an ideologue coming along and trying to dismantle it just because they disagree with the founding concepts rather than how it actually works.
Should we blindly follow people who are rich enough to command others? Now that we have the internet/technology why can't we have where we vote on issues, or pick ANYBODY we admire and trust to vote for us? -- I don't want to vote on all tech stuff so I might delegate my vote to Bill Gates on issues tagged 'tech', environmental stuff I'd delegate to Bill Nye, etc..
They could vote or re-delegate their collective votes to someone else like Bernie Sanders, or John Mccain.
It's not a new argument. And it nicely avoids left wing thought ever having to take responsibility for its own electoral failures.
And those were the ones who got the "best" socialism
"Class consciousness" is divide and conquer crap
I feel as though I've gone into this a thousand times. If I had a penny for every time someone said this, I'd invest in stocks and shares and become a capitalist.
The act of refusing to back up or defend all or any implementations or interpretations of an idea, especially given pre-existing economic conditions and various external factors is by no means making a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Even if I were to accept your premise that Socialism actually existed in GDR, it wouldn't rule out anarcho-Communism, anarchism, communalism, gradualist Communism, non-Leninist Marxism and a whole host of other leftist ideologies.
Class consciousness refers to the proletariat recognising their interests as a class; it is only divide and conquer in the sense that recognising the division of society (albeit a little more fuzzy nowadays) between the bourgeoisie and proletariat is a startig point to conquer capitalism.
And repeating it doesn't make it true, though repeating a lie makes some people start believing it
> it wouldn't rule out ... and a whole host of other leftist ideologies.
Agreed on that
> Class consciousness refers to the proletariat recognising
Splitting the population into proletariat and 'big bad businessman' excludes all those that work for themselves, excludes the non-factory workers (hence it is a division made to divide and conquer). Not to mention the fallacy of the surplus value, because apparently to Marxists having a factory costs nothing and somehow businessman would hire people if that cost them more than they're getting out of it.
Your proletariat will be increasingly replaced by robots, and as much as I'm in favour of giving everybody living conditions all socialism has given is poor conditions to everybody except if you were one of the higher ups.
No it doesn't. Those who work for themselves are peit-bourgeois, who own the MoP but do not exploit labour; their trade is of commodity for commodity (e.g money for a painting) rather than of labour-time for wage. As I said, the division is rough, though for most people it exists very clearly. Those who are petit-bourgeoise can be considered for the most part proletarians as they are not exploiting labour; many transition to a state in which they employ wage labour and at that point they immediately become in possession of private property and bourgeois.
As Marx put it,
>The self-employed labourer, for example, is his own wage labourer, and his own means of production confront him in his own mind as capital. As his own capitalist, he employs himself as a wage labourer.
>excludes the non-factory workers
No. Engineers, project managers, accountants etc. who are employed for wage labour are workers, because they add value to the product and they sell their labour-time on the market to sustain themselves. They are in every respect proletarians.
>because apparently to Marxists having a factory costs nothing
No. The costs of maintaining the factory are taken out of the revenue; the profit which is left over at the end (i.e the amount extra which the capitalist has in his bank account after the production process is complete) is a result of surplus value, and is either used for the capitalist's personal wealth, for shareholders, or re-investment into future actions of the business. Maintenance of the machinery, rent etc. is all taket out of the revenue and it is not profit.
Labour from machinery (i.e dead labour) is merely transferred to products, it is not augmented or created a new. This is done in proportion to the wear and tear of the machine.
>somehow businessman would hire people if that cost them more than they're getting out of it.
Precisely. This is the whole point. Capitalism would not exist if the capitalist could not profit; i.e if the workers would not give their value, the capitalist would have no reason to employ them. The reason why businessmen currently employ people is beacuse these workers are paid for their labour-time but in the course of this inevitably provide surplus labour.
Even in a system of equal exchanges, this still happens. It is clear that workers apply some amount of value that the capitalist can sell despite paying for the labour-time he purchased because when strikes happen, the capitalist makes less money (tending to no money in the long term).
>Your proletariat will be increasingly replaced by robots
Again, you are right on the money. But not everyone can be replaced by robots, beacuse people need to buy back products with their wages. So capitalism must keep people employed, so when one job is taken by a robot, it is very advantageous for the capitalist to find another job for the displaced worker. This happens with sponsorship of the state, such as with job seeker's programmes.
I suggest that robotics be used to help workers rather than be used against them. The fact that a worker doesn't need to work as much should be an advantage, but instead the capitalist makes the worker produce more. It has been estimated that people would only have to work between 7 and 8 hours a week if automation were used to make life easier for the workers rather than short-term profit for the capitalist.
I advocate for direct democratic control of the means of production by distributed voluntarily organised of self-interested workers; the workers receive the product of their labour and any surplus product is subject to a collective democratic decision as to how it will be distribtuted, probably to those who cannot work (e.g elderly, infirm and children) or those who do not need to work because production is so efficient.
Large-scale automation is used against the workers in capitalism. In Socialism, it can be used for the workers to improve living conditions, as the falling rate of profit would be of no concern at all in a society where products are made for use rather than exchange.
Also, wage slaves do exist. America is full of them, and it's very much deliberate and intentional. I knew an extremely kind and bubbly lady with the incredible skill of recognizing every one she's ever met, no matter how long ago. She could remember their name, and the names of their whole family. She worked two crap paying full-time jobs to support her small family, and did not have any options, because of America's totally fucked welfare system. That's a wage slave. With respect, if you think wage slavery isn't a thing in America you're in a very strange bubble.
You don't explain why you believe this. Please go ahead and explain why you believe that economists are anti intellectuals and please explain what their horrible record is.
> She worked two crap paying full-time jobs to support her small family, and did not have any options, because of America's totally fucked welfare system. That's a wage slave.
No you don't understand. I know that a term called 'wage slave' exists and that people have given it definition that is completely unrelated to what actual slavery is. I think it is insulting to the actual slavery that still exists on this planet.
Suffering because of your stupid life decisions is not slavery.
Most mainstream economists (with a few 'sort of' exceptions like Hayek and Krugman) think of their field as a science, when it's really not. They speak as if they had authority and empirical evidence, when they really don't.
They allow economic warfare against Africa, South America, poor Americans, Greece, Italy, Ireland, etc. to go unchecked. They issue recommendations that consistently favour the wealthiest, the central banks, the status quo. Those who differ, such as Varoufakis, are ridiculed and chuckled at, while ignoring their arguments.
They lack any introspection or ability to examine their mistakes. Few, very few, mainstream economists chose to make their voices heard about the economic crash of '08. Contrary to the myth they spread that it was "unforeseeable", many people knew that house prices were getting way out of control. I knew, my friends knew, but somehow economists didn't know... Goldman and others deliberately sold shitty bundles, and mainstream economists let them off the hook completely, even when the facts came to light. Now it's happening again, and they're still silent.
They quote Adam Smith to support their arguments, though he would have hated the system we have now. Alternative views to the dogma of mainstream 'economic theory' are mocked, rather than engaged with.
In the history of economic brutality - colonialism, apartheid, the financing of wars - there are very precious few economists willing to speak up about the effects on the least well off. They get denounced as naive, and have trouble finding jobs.
Where are the mainstream economists talking about the future of our species, the ones with some fucking vision, some foresight, some creativity, some unique thought, some compassion? Unem-fucking-ployed, that's where.
Almost by definition, mainstream economists refuse to challenge the status quo. And the status quo is fucked for the vast majority of human beings. We are nowhere near our potential, and mainstream economists spend their time debating miniscule changes in tax policy.
Despite the economic impact and effects of unchecked global surveillance, they say nothing.
Despite the economic impact of continuous increases in military spending, they say nothing.
They'd lose their cushy job, and deep down they fucking know it.
And after all that, they only speak up whenever someone comes along who wants to help people and bring them together. They're trotted out on Fox News and CNN to denounce Bernie Sanders' economic policies, despite the fact that those policies are practically substandard in Europe. What did they say about Trump? In comparison, nothing.
And yes, "actual slavery" exists. But in what economic course in the world do students grapple with those issues? Where are the leading lights, the clear voices in economics telling us what we can do about it?
Feel free to tell me how wacky, unrealistic and naive I'm being. Projection is a funny 'ol thing. But here's your major clue that they're full of shit, and anti-intellectual - in the history of mainstream economists, time and time again they've been proven utterly wrong about major things. "Trickle-down", "austerity", "cutting taxes on the rich drives growth", Brexit, Trump, '08. But there's never any reflection, never any expansion into inter-disciplinary approaches.
Economics, as taught today, tries to make people simple, cogs in a vast machine that only economists can understand. And even though they've been wrong more often than nutrionists, and more catastrophically, the text-books stay the same. Inequality grows, and we're told it's a good thing. Too many times economists have told us it's raining while we're being pissed on.
The real, respected, popular intellectuals - Feynman, Sagan, Einstein, Chomsky tell us that mainstream economists are full of shit, and they've saif it far more eloquently than I could. But economists sniff, and scoff, and laugh at how ignorant they are, before calling poor people stupid and endorsing the latest scam on the people of Earth.
I haven't had breakfast yet, so I hope this doesn't come across too harsh. I'm sure I made some mistakes, and I know I swore a lot. Rather than nit-pick, please engage with the major points.
Care to provide any useful insight? Just... something?
Because the way we're going, there's going to be another world war long before people willingly succumb to a global state...
No need to be binary about the potential political changes. I only say that nation-states are bad, I din't say that states per se are bad.
Also, the next world war won't be before anything but the end of all of us. I didn't ever say anything about a global state, but what I think indeed is that, analogous to programming, state should be contained in the smallest possible context, that is, I think that smaller, more focused states with more direct democracy and with more (respective to today's nation-states) people that indeed share common values, would be more stable and peaceful. I know that such an idea will get many objections (even I do have my objections), but I believe such a political situation would be better for everyone.
Unless by "education" you mean brainwashing, which is something totalitarian states excel at (horseshoe theory and all)
But there will always be racists who will dislike people for any petty reason
Perhaps 20th century western nation-states won't get totally abolished soon, but they'll see a lot more competition from virtual states in the near future!