And ways to harness the desire for social change to more productive ends.
This essay was written in part as a response to a Quillette article entitled ‘How Liberal Elites Use Race to Keep Workers Divided—And Justify Class-Based Inequities’
A good essay and one which correctly identifies class, rather than race, as the pre-eminent concern of our Western societies. It also shows how wokeism has become performative at a corporate level- surely a cynical form of gestural politics aimed at distracting from the more ruthless aspects of corporate governance in terms of worker relations. Even the defence industry has gotten into the act, with Raytheon recently named "Best Place to Work" by a nonprofit Human Rights advocacy group for LGBT. The CIA, however, has to take the prize for the most cynical manipulation of the new paradigm shift, with its recent depiction of a proud Latino cisgender woman, as is amply demonstrated by this article from the Hill's *Rising* team:
On a more serious note, it is entirely predictable the Woke branding would be co-opted by corporate and institutional power. Although there can be little doubt that most of the followers of Woke have noble intentions, and truly believe Woke can build empathy and bring about positive social change, one has to retain a strong degree of scepticism as to whether the negatives outweigh the good. It is also impossible to ignore the very real disincentives to leaving the movement- with many no doubt worried about the likely social censure they will face if they abandon any aspect of the ideologies intellectual presuppositions, its articles of faith.
But at a foundational level, it's pathologically dangerous to base a social movement on arbitrary distinctions of race, gender and sexuality, needlessly dividing us into oppressors and the oppressed, for the simple reason that no one is immune to ideological attack along multiple fronts for perceived transgressions. Kevin Hart, noted and highly successful comedian found this out to his cost, when he happened to make an unfortunate joke about not wanting to have a gay son.
The fact that he was making the joke with the full intention of making his own ironic ignorance the butt of the joke, seemed lost by his detractors at the time. It's nice when some overly privileged white young gay man can take to YouTube to denigrate a hardworking Black man. JK Rowling faced similar vitriol and social censure, when she happened to take to Twitter, always a bad mistake, to defend a woman who was fired for questioning the orthodoxies over Trans- as though merely suggesting that trans inclusion in protected female spaces might be open to abuse by bad actors posing as trans, in order to gain access to women and girls where they are at their most vulnerable is somehow a fireable offence.
Two things become clear with these two cases. First, that subtlety and nuance are lost when it comes to those who have an ideological axe to grind. As the late filmmaker and Beatles chronicler Albert Maysles noted 'Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance'. Second, whilst the Woke movement may claim to desire to punch up, rather than down- to challenge Power, rather than defend it- the internal dynamics are all wrong, if 'punching up' is the desired aim.
Within Cancel Culture, power is always gifted to the most vindictive ideological enforcers. The key constituent to going viral seems to be the most scathing critiques, or the best video evidence of malfeasance, real or imagined. Over time, this will lead to the most nasty and vitriolic becoming social media influencers, and the champions of Cancel mobs. Cancellation also tends to work best against the least powerful, the little guys, for the simple reason that those with greater cultural relevance, and presence in the public imagination, seem better able to weather the storm, whilst for the anonymous, the least powerful, social ostracism and cancellation are almost a foregone conclusion. Louis C.K. is back to making comedy- surefire evidence that Cancel Culture actually reinforces power for the powerful, while making the least powerful vulnerable.
It is far better to base social progress movements on our Common Humanity, rather than dividing us up into arbitrary groups and asking the perceived dispossessed to unite against a Common Enemy. With the common humanity approach we get the successes of MLK and the Civil Rights movement. With the common enemy approach we get the Chinese Struggle Session, the Soviet denunciations that led to the Gulags.
This might point to the real problem with Socialism, and the reason why it has failed, often catastrophically, each of the 42 times it was fully implemented, rather than causing the inevitable economic stagnation which becomes apparent when it gains limited power through democratic institutions. Conventional thinking on the failures of Socialism blames a lack of incentives within collectivism for its failures, but the incentives argument doesn't hold water- for the simple reason that status can be a far stronger motivation than money. There is a term from Austrian economics which amply explains the fact that a Swedish doctor will undertake seven or more years of education, racking up debt from her living expenses, only to finally earn roughly double the money of a forklift driver, after taxes and transfers. The term is Psychic Profit and it describes perfectly the reasons why we as humans are not simply motivated by money, once our basic needs are met.
Instead, we need to question the fundamental human dynamics which Socialism sets in motion. It recruits actively from the Intelligentsia and students as a future managerial or apparatchik class. Although Capitalism can make no claim to a Meritocracy of Moral Intent, often rewarding the most amoral and ruthless, it does at least provide the benefit of ensuring that those who reach the apex level of our hierarchies are able and effective, provided the system is not entirely corrupt. By contrast, it would seem that social movements which rely upon galvanising the masses against a common enemy, regardless of whether the common enemy is a wealthy and privileged elite, or a white male oppressor class, are predestined to promote the worst kind of leaders, drawn from the ranks of the least able, in terms of practical experience.
Even if such movements do sometimes create charismatic and benign leaders concerned over the plight of those less fortunate than them, often their tenure is shortlived as the more ruthless displace them, and if they do manage to hold onto power long enough to effect some positive, their successes will be hampered by the byproduct of their movement- the creation of bureaucratic apparatchik with far less noble intentions. And of course, such movements are also hampered by what Adam Smith would call the 'Man of Systems' approach, a tendency towards interventions by the State which was only slightly less harmful and disruptive to the economy under *Keynesian economics*, as it is under Socialism.
So where should budding Leftists intent upon bringing about positive social change focus their efforts? Where should they look for examples of ideas that work in practice? The Scandinavian countries are the prime example- because they are most definitely not Democratic Socialist in political orientation. Instead they seem to have managed to successfully fuse a form of turbocharged, low regulation free market economics with much larger social safety nets. But take my word for it- here is a video of the former Danish Prime Minister speaking at Harvard about the Nordic Model:
Most of the Nordic Model countries have abandoned the traditional diatribe against the rich and Capital in order to build their utopian societies. Corporation taxes are low, and inheritance taxes are low to non-existent. They largely ignore wealth inequality, whilst focusing instead upon income inequality and the Gini coefficient- the distance in income gaps between the worst off and those who earn most through income. Their tax is system is designed to transfer income from anyone earning 50% to 60% more than the average income downwards to the working poor.
Their unions aid in the endeavour. Often engineers who might otherwise earn $120,000 through the market will find their salaries reduced as part of a negotiation which raises wages for those further down the economic spectrum. But the real magic happens by government limiting itself to one very specific form of regulation- stronger worker protections. Of the top ten countries on the Index of Economic Freedom, only Singapore has a higher rating for 'Labour Freedom' (a rather disingenuous way of stating a lack of statutory rights for workers) than the US. The US ranks at number 20:
There are also any number of ways which incremental and fine-tuned ways to jury rig towards more fairness, which taken together could be greater than the sum of their parts. A Tobin-style tax on financial transactions which largely only effects large volume of trade brokerage firms is a good way of raising revenue provided it is used to alleviate taxes on the poor and middle classes. A very modest wealth tax, set between 0.1% and 0.3% would be much more likely to succeed and avoid the negative repercussions of capital flight, for the simple reason that those who sought to avoid it would face pillory and a likely drop off in revenue and profits from their businesses.
At the same time, welfare could be reformed by turned it into a negative income tax scheme- providing exactly the same level of benefits, whilst getting rid of bureaucratic bloat and removing the disincentive to work from welfare, as recipients might only see their welfare reduced by between 25 and 33% for every dollar they earn. Statutory redundancy pay for longer serving employees would provide a strong disincentive to employers to throw fiftysomething workers on the scrapheap before their time, as age begins to slow them, which would not only cut the taxpayer burden of funding disability, but also allow workers to reap the benefits of claiming social security later.
The article is right that class is a far better means of evaluating society and social progress than race, even though race might possess more emotive power which can be harnessed for building social movements- the cynical might think this is entirely the point. But the activists should heed the lessons from history and perform a postmortem on why Marxism so often fails in practice. It precisely because of the need to pick a common enemy or scapegoat in order to galvanise such movements which inevitably dooms them to failure. Stronger worker protections are but one way in which a common humanity approach can work, where the Manichean mindset fails.
In the final analysis, for economic justice to prevail, stop focusing on the protagonists in the story, or trying to overturn the only economic system which has ever really worked, and instead remember the ways in which previous labour and government movements have introduced reforms that worked. Labour and Capital are mutually dependent- it’s an ecosystem which history has proven is prone to catastrophe if either Labour or Capital gains the upper hand- with the Gilded Age and its desperate poverty at one end of the spectrum, and the implicit holocausts of Communist regimes at the other.
If we want to avoid another Gilded Age we at least need to acknowledge the dangers and look to the types of solutions which worked in the past. It’s also worth noting that the solutions which worked in the past may no longer be relevant today, so it behoves us to look around the world to those countries which have best managed to mitigate worst aspects of the current economic system. For the Scandinavians this seems to mean addressing income inequality while leaving wealth alone. It might well be a necessary compromise to avoid the very real dynamics of resentment which common enemy movements capitalise upon, in their headlong journey towards disaster.
Good stuff again Geary. As a progressive, you've definitely helped me understand the "Nordic Model" - I admit I had thought these countries were more 'socialist' than they are. I am curious - where did you get the number 42 from? I'm not doubting you, I've just never encountered a definitive number before.
This should be engraved at the entryway of every place where governments discuss and decide policy:
"It is far better to base social progress movements on our Common Humanity, rather than dividing us up into arbitrary groups and asking the perceived dispossessed to unite against a Common Enemy. With the common humanity approach we get the successes of MLK and the Civil Rights movement. With the common enemy approach we get the Chinese Struggle Session, the Soviet denunciations that led to the Gulags."
42 failed experiments of rebuilding a society based on an extreme collectivist policy. It simply reinforces "someone" has skin in the game of seeing assets divested from "people", uploaded to government and downloaded to government cronies when the collectivist state fails as it must. An asset concentration strategy - as can see by the A) Chinese billionaires, their kids in Canada "Daddy bought a corporation for me to run, and I love spending the little time I spend in the office bossing people around like a tyrant and the rest trying to circumvent regulations and tax policy!" (if I sound bitter, its because I've lived it) and B)Russian oligarchs. None of these give a f about the actual people. The culture wars are a divide & conquer process if you ask me, the predecessor to consolidation of assets to the government.
Is class warfare really better? "Class" is its own odd term, as it's been used to keep people in their place, in their station of life, high class vs. low class, just as miserably as any other form of grouping lots of people by some feature, in this case wealth.
There are lots of reasons for someone to have lots of money, and others to have very little, and their circumstances aren't all the same, nor are all people in that condition of a group identity. A safety net for temporary setbacks during hard times can easily be handled by negative income tax. A safety net for the disabled, sick, elderly or otherwise incapable can too, though many incapable people would need more expensive and personalized attention. A safety net for drug addicts, lazy people and those playing the system would cause many taxpayers to eventually reject based on the "welfare queen" stereotype.
Good stuff again Geary. As a progressive, you've definitely helped me understand the "Nordic Model" - I admit I had thought these countries were more 'socialist' than they are. I am curious - where did you get the number 42 from? I'm not doubting you, I've just never encountered a definitive number before.
This should be engraved at the entryway of every place where governments discuss and decide policy:
"It is far better to base social progress movements on our Common Humanity, rather than dividing us up into arbitrary groups and asking the perceived dispossessed to unite against a Common Enemy. With the common humanity approach we get the successes of MLK and the Civil Rights movement. With the common enemy approach we get the Chinese Struggle Session, the Soviet denunciations that led to the Gulags."
42 failed experiments of rebuilding a society based on an extreme collectivist policy. It simply reinforces "someone" has skin in the game of seeing assets divested from "people", uploaded to government and downloaded to government cronies when the collectivist state fails as it must. An asset concentration strategy - as can see by the A) Chinese billionaires, their kids in Canada "Daddy bought a corporation for me to run, and I love spending the little time I spend in the office bossing people around like a tyrant and the rest trying to circumvent regulations and tax policy!" (if I sound bitter, its because I've lived it) and B)Russian oligarchs. None of these give a f about the actual people. The culture wars are a divide & conquer process if you ask me, the predecessor to consolidation of assets to the government.
Is class warfare really better? "Class" is its own odd term, as it's been used to keep people in their place, in their station of life, high class vs. low class, just as miserably as any other form of grouping lots of people by some feature, in this case wealth.
There are lots of reasons for someone to have lots of money, and others to have very little, and their circumstances aren't all the same, nor are all people in that condition of a group identity. A safety net for temporary setbacks during hard times can easily be handled by negative income tax. A safety net for the disabled, sick, elderly or otherwise incapable can too, though many incapable people would need more expensive and personalized attention. A safety net for drug addicts, lazy people and those playing the system would cause many taxpayers to eventually reject based on the "welfare queen" stereotype.
Very interesting! Thanks a lot!