‘The casual anti-Catholic bigotry one occasionally finds in Quillette is, I suppose, more an artifact of the liberal individualism that distinguishes most of its writers than a firm ideological stance.’ comment by RabbiMike.
That’s an interesting point which dovetails nicely into mine. New ideologies are like viruses which are harmful from inception- it is only through time that selection removes the more destructive ones and adapts the ones which are left to become mostly net neutral in the extent to which they are harmful to the host.
It is interesting that the ‘render unto Caesar’ line was so misunderstood yet so pivotal, it was one two factors which created the conditions for the Enlightenment- the first being the weakening of the ‘Divine Right’ of Kings through the necessities of English Common Law, the second the loss of the ability of the priestly class to rule on matters of objective truth. The misunderstanding, by the way, was the trick contained in the declaration- God has dominion over everything, including Caesar’s realm, even if he chooses not to exercise said dominion, because of free will.
Catholicism has become in many ways proof that an ideological meme can actually become beneficial over time- by voluntary relinquishing temporal power in the minds of its followers and allowing for the values of value pluralism and viewpoint diversity. In general, it is a force for good in the world adding to social cohesion and community health, with Northern Ireland proving through its economic and educational results that the healthy parental communities Catholicism encourages can take the poor and help them exceed their once wealthier contemporaries. It only has one remaining negative hurdle to overcome- declaring birth control a remittable sin, perhaps by utilising 1 Corinthians 13.
The irony of Socialism is that in order for it to become more benign it has to reread Marx in the context of understanding that the basic prophecies of Socialism didn’t come true. Marx was right about the end results of competition but he ignored the far stronger pull of powerful vain men to want to see themselves as a force for good in the world. This vanity was the thing which destroyed the British Empire without a shot being fired- Gandhi simply understood his opponent, the British, all too well.
But Marx does have a couple of things to teach us, after all. The first is that the urges of Socialism can be harnessed for the good- Sweden has perhaps understood this best- by abandoning their resentment towards Capital, and removing the urge to punish or erode it through inheritance tax (which obtains a maximum of 0.6% of all government revenue in examples like Belgium), Sweden actually increased the amount of tax it can extract voluntarily from capital. A while back, Sweden obtained 2.75% of its revenue from corporation tax, with the UK managing 1.8% and the US an anaemic 1.13%- and this is before one considers the far greater income derived from CGT in tax systems which don’t seek to erode capital. It turns out resentment and anti-capitalism is terminally bad for the revenue.
The second lesson of Marx is that an alignment between Big Government and Big Business is to be feared more than anything else. It is the thing most likely to make the prophecies of Marx most likely to come true. It is not by accident that finance happens to be the most powerful lobby, by far, in Washington or that finance is where we have seen the greatest amount of game-rigging through exploits (most importantly through an understanding of short and long-term debt cycles). This is not to say that finance is inherently bad, but it needs to be exposed to natural risks and weaned off the perverse incentives the ‘too big to fail’ mentality causes.
Government needs to get back to the core business of insuring fair rules to the game, without the perennial preference shown to large players and big donors. Unfortunately most State Interventionalism can fall prey to the tilt towards totalitarianism to which Socialism surrenders, and which Orwell suspected but wasn’t more thoroughly proved until later. Most governments need to grapple with the reality that government can’t really exceed 50% of the total wealth a society produces, with the optimal figure closer to 40%- if the faster relative decline of Europe’s share of global wealth produced is anything to go by- in the same period that America’s share shrunk from 39% to 33%, Europe’s shrunk from 33% to 17% or 18%.
Instead, government needs to learn to cannibalise waste in order to meet the non-market needs of the 21st century. Few who loathe the billionaire class actually realise that even if one confiscated all billionaire wealth in America it would only run American government for roughly six months. Where the Right goes wrong is in imagining that all government is bad- the National Weather Service can only work through international the co-operation which exists outside of competition and it does a fairly good job at helping citizens protect their private property rights through advance warning of pending disasters.
Historically, there are plenty of business partnerships which were comprised of liberals dreaming big and hard-working conservatives keeping them on task, instead of exploring new and exciting ideas- it was a partnership which paid off time and again in the world of business. I think this is because liberals are great at generating new ideas and terrible at vetting them, whereas natural conservative scepticism is great for filtering the great ideas from the terrible.
This is where Left-leaning liberals completely misunderstand the figure of Newt Gingrich. It wasn’t that he held any particular animus towards liberals, or wanted Republicans to start thinking of Democrats as the enemy- although there was a veneer of this at the surface level, because he didn’t like their ideas. No, it was simply that he understood that Washington dinner parties gave liberals the chance to polish their better ideas and discard the worse ones. He understood that conservatives had a better grasp of ordinary peoples hopes, beliefs and daily lives- because cosmopolitan liberalism is predicated on self-perceived higher social status, especially through education, and leads to an inherently minority worldview- and he didn’t want to give Democrats the chance to refine ideas which would have a broader appeal and help them win power.
I think the socialist urge- when construed as the urge to help- rather than mired in resentment towards capital, could be harnessed as a force for good, but it has a lot of growing up to do. First it needs to understand that the desire to help can become a tyranny of altruism when its use becomes debilitating, rather like a mother smothering a child with overprotectiveness. These harmful effects are worst when we examine the formation of intergenerational welfare dependence, or the way indiscriminate high density public housing became an amplifier for social ills.
What Maslow got wrong was in failing to realise that labour is a basic need even more important than food, water, warmth, rest, safety and security, especially for men. It’s absence is why we are seeing the rise of Deaths of Despair in America, just as much as it is the causative root of the fact that 50% of all violent crime in America occurs in 2% of districts, all of which have endemically low rates of employment. For many, drug dealing or shooting up into oblivion are preferable alternatives to sitting on a sofa with nothing to do.
The answer might be the type of Liberal Paternalism proposed by Richard Thaler, with gentle incentives thrown in to encourage good choices. In Sweden, the government refunds 30% of debt interest through tax refunds- it works just as well for mitigating student loans as it does in encouraging home ownership, reducing the burden to the taxpayer inherent to the rental sector and public housing. Of course, they should also probably move to a Graduate Contribution scheme for living expenditure debt, with actuarials establishing the thresholds for where repayment starts, depending upon the future prospects of the subject chosen- but I will leave that for another time.
“ The second lesson of Marx is that an alignment between Big Government and Big Business is to be feared more than anything else. ”
Yes. Monopolies come from regulatory capture, not from laissez faire capitalism. Most of the problems in the American economy come from cronyism and regulatory capture where a corporation and the regulators tasked with oversight of that industry get in bed together. This is why businesses like Facebook actually ask for more regulations in their industry. Better yet, they’ll help write those regulations.
“ Few who loathe the billionaire class actually realise that even if one confiscated all billionaire wealth in America it would only run American government for roughly six months. ”
Exactly.
“ Where the Right goes wrong is in imagining that all government is bad- the National Weather Service can only work through international the co-operation which exists outside of competition and it does a fairly good job at helping citizens protect their private property rights through advance warning of pending disasters.”
The few things government should do (and I think it should be very few as someone who voted Libertarian in the last election), it should do very well. Small government shouldn’t be ineffective. We should actually want a highly effective government that can accomplish a specific set of functions. I just believe that set should also be limited.
“ Historically, there are plenty of business partnerships which were comprised of liberals dreaming big and hard-working conservatives keeping them on task, instead of exploring new and exciting ideas- it was a partnership which paid off time and again in the world of business. I think this is because liberals are great at generating new ideas and terrible at vetting them, whereas natural conservative scepticism is great for filtering the great ideas from the terrible.”
This is actually a good idea for government agencies. It’s not original to me, but it would be great if in every executive agency meeting there was a libertarian/Ron-Swanson-figure to ask, “what if we did nothing?” Or “why should we do anything at all?” Not because the answer is always, “yes let’s do nothing,” but because it will force hard conversations about priorities and result in better solutions in the end. People make better decisions when forced to actually reason out why they are taking their actions.
I haven’t read Marx, except for the maybe parts of the Communist Manifesto. But I don’t exactly buy the idea that we’re in late-stage capitalism. If so, what will replace it? What comes next? As far as I can tell, late-stage capitalism is not that different from middle-stage capitalism. In fact, we might just call it capitalism. No qualifier.
The present always feels late until it becomes the past because we think we’re living in the future and we can’t imagine that the future could go on in much the same way that the past did. 2021 feels like a big number. But so did 1948. So did 1991. And so will 2053.
> the basic prophecies of Socialism didn’t come true.
Yet. I'm not a commie but from what I know of Marxist theory we are in exactly the late-stage capitalism that he predicted would precede the final collapse. 08' was a foretaste.
> and the US an anaemic 1.13%- ... It turns out resentment and anti-capitalism is terminally bad for the revenue.
They say that up until about the 80's in Canada corporations paid about half of all taxes and it was the time of greatest equality and greatest hope for the future. It is not resentment that causes me to say that 1.13% is very much too low, it is the fact that it is very much too low.
> even if one confiscated all billionaire wealth in America it would only run American government for roughly six mo
nths.
One hears memes like that. OTOH one also hears that the top 1% own more than the bottom 90% I can't help but be tempted by the thought that if we liquidated the top 1%, Lenin-wise, the wealth of the bottom 90% would double. Jeff is no doubt having fun with his rockets but the socialist in me wonders how many affordable dwellings might be built with the money.
"Marx was right about the end results of competition"
What was Marx's right take on competition? Is the notion that socialist nations won't themselves end up competing for natural resources and international trade? Sure, they get monopoly power within a nation (as if that were a good idea), but not across them. And good socialism would certainly have to be open to the idea of competition or it would stagnate rapidly, and if selected it home-grown products/services over better ones from other nations, it will fall behind.
"Government needs to get back to the core business of insuring fair rules to the game, without the perennial preference shown to large players and big donors. "
No government will do this. Politicians only exist to buy more voters, keep citizens comfortable enough to avoid revolutions, and repay donors. In socialism, this just occurs through state enterprises; in fascism, but making enterprises do the bidding of the state.
Even the US Constitution which tried to make this limited federal power clear couldn't hold off more than 100 years before politicians and courts realized they could just redefine (newspeak) the meaning and grasp all the power they can. I pay twice as much to the federal government as to my state/county/city, yet that's entirely the opposite of the clear intent of that Constitution. Turns out the law is whatever power says it is, just like it had been throughout history.
"Few who loathe the billionaire class actually realise that even if one confiscated all billionaire wealth in America it would only run American government for roughly six months."
And that wouldn't even make a dent in the debt, plus it would kill those businesses and cause massive job losses and block all future innovation and investment.
"the National Weather Service can only work through international the co-operation which exists outside of competition and it does a fairly good job at helping citizens protect their private property rights through advance warning of pending disasters."
Always funny how the smallest and least interesting government programs are the examples of what works in government. It's like when people point to water, sewage, roads, libraries and parks, things that don't really benefit from competition or would be hard to manage in practice. And yet many libraries are closing, roads/bridges are crumbling and we even had the Flint water crisis, California's water mismanagement giving big discounts on water to poorly managed agriculture, etc. And it's not even clear that competing weather forecasters wouldn't do a better job, like how we suffer the normal delays and high expenses for FDA/CDC drug testing/approvals/certifications.
"I think the socialist urge- when construed as the urge to help"
This used to be call charity when people voluntarily help groups that themselves have actual compassion and even competition on how best to help; and the rich have created great institutions using their wealth. Government does charity rather poorly, too, as demonstrated by public housing, rent control, inner city/rural public schools, medicaid, food stamps, affirmative action, etc.
But then my libertarian faith hasn't gotten me more than anger, dread and laughter at the government they force on us. People grumble about systemic racism, never-ending wars, mass incarceration, poor immigration/border security, failing schools, government housing, crazy tax laws, too big to fail, massive and absolutely normal deficits, questionable elections, failure to tax negative externalities, silly drug laws, etc.... and then say what government should do instead.
Interesting. Having a job/income should be moved down the maslow pyramid to physiological? I can see how job & purpose are related, and purpose might be categorized as self actualization.
Musings on Marx, Catholicism, Socialism and... Newt Gingrich.
“ The second lesson of Marx is that an alignment between Big Government and Big Business is to be feared more than anything else. ”
Yes. Monopolies come from regulatory capture, not from laissez faire capitalism. Most of the problems in the American economy come from cronyism and regulatory capture where a corporation and the regulators tasked with oversight of that industry get in bed together. This is why businesses like Facebook actually ask for more regulations in their industry. Better yet, they’ll help write those regulations.
“ Few who loathe the billionaire class actually realise that even if one confiscated all billionaire wealth in America it would only run American government for roughly six months. ”
Exactly.
“ Where the Right goes wrong is in imagining that all government is bad- the National Weather Service can only work through international the co-operation which exists outside of competition and it does a fairly good job at helping citizens protect their private property rights through advance warning of pending disasters.”
The few things government should do (and I think it should be very few as someone who voted Libertarian in the last election), it should do very well. Small government shouldn’t be ineffective. We should actually want a highly effective government that can accomplish a specific set of functions. I just believe that set should also be limited.
“ Historically, there are plenty of business partnerships which were comprised of liberals dreaming big and hard-working conservatives keeping them on task, instead of exploring new and exciting ideas- it was a partnership which paid off time and again in the world of business. I think this is because liberals are great at generating new ideas and terrible at vetting them, whereas natural conservative scepticism is great for filtering the great ideas from the terrible.”
This is actually a good idea for government agencies. It’s not original to me, but it would be great if in every executive agency meeting there was a libertarian/Ron-Swanson-figure to ask, “what if we did nothing?” Or “why should we do anything at all?” Not because the answer is always, “yes let’s do nothing,” but because it will force hard conversations about priorities and result in better solutions in the end. People make better decisions when forced to actually reason out why they are taking their actions.
I haven’t read Marx, except for the maybe parts of the Communist Manifesto. But I don’t exactly buy the idea that we’re in late-stage capitalism. If so, what will replace it? What comes next? As far as I can tell, late-stage capitalism is not that different from middle-stage capitalism. In fact, we might just call it capitalism. No qualifier.
The present always feels late until it becomes the past because we think we’re living in the future and we can’t imagine that the future could go on in much the same way that the past did. 2021 feels like a big number. But so did 1948. So did 1991. And so will 2053.
> the basic prophecies of Socialism didn’t come true.
Yet. I'm not a commie but from what I know of Marxist theory we are in exactly the late-stage capitalism that he predicted would precede the final collapse. 08' was a foretaste.
> and the US an anaemic 1.13%- ... It turns out resentment and anti-capitalism is terminally bad for the revenue.
They say that up until about the 80's in Canada corporations paid about half of all taxes and it was the time of greatest equality and greatest hope for the future. It is not resentment that causes me to say that 1.13% is very much too low, it is the fact that it is very much too low.
> even if one confiscated all billionaire wealth in America it would only run American government for roughly six mo
nths.
One hears memes like that. OTOH one also hears that the top 1% own more than the bottom 90% I can't help but be tempted by the thought that if we liquidated the top 1%, Lenin-wise, the wealth of the bottom 90% would double. Jeff is no doubt having fun with his rockets but the socialist in me wonders how many affordable dwellings might be built with the money.
"Marx was right about the end results of competition"
What was Marx's right take on competition? Is the notion that socialist nations won't themselves end up competing for natural resources and international trade? Sure, they get monopoly power within a nation (as if that were a good idea), but not across them. And good socialism would certainly have to be open to the idea of competition or it would stagnate rapidly, and if selected it home-grown products/services over better ones from other nations, it will fall behind.
"Government needs to get back to the core business of insuring fair rules to the game, without the perennial preference shown to large players and big donors. "
No government will do this. Politicians only exist to buy more voters, keep citizens comfortable enough to avoid revolutions, and repay donors. In socialism, this just occurs through state enterprises; in fascism, but making enterprises do the bidding of the state.
Even the US Constitution which tried to make this limited federal power clear couldn't hold off more than 100 years before politicians and courts realized they could just redefine (newspeak) the meaning and grasp all the power they can. I pay twice as much to the federal government as to my state/county/city, yet that's entirely the opposite of the clear intent of that Constitution. Turns out the law is whatever power says it is, just like it had been throughout history.
"Few who loathe the billionaire class actually realise that even if one confiscated all billionaire wealth in America it would only run American government for roughly six months."
And that wouldn't even make a dent in the debt, plus it would kill those businesses and cause massive job losses and block all future innovation and investment.
"the National Weather Service can only work through international the co-operation which exists outside of competition and it does a fairly good job at helping citizens protect their private property rights through advance warning of pending disasters."
Always funny how the smallest and least interesting government programs are the examples of what works in government. It's like when people point to water, sewage, roads, libraries and parks, things that don't really benefit from competition or would be hard to manage in practice. And yet many libraries are closing, roads/bridges are crumbling and we even had the Flint water crisis, California's water mismanagement giving big discounts on water to poorly managed agriculture, etc. And it's not even clear that competing weather forecasters wouldn't do a better job, like how we suffer the normal delays and high expenses for FDA/CDC drug testing/approvals/certifications.
"I think the socialist urge- when construed as the urge to help"
This used to be call charity when people voluntarily help groups that themselves have actual compassion and even competition on how best to help; and the rich have created great institutions using their wealth. Government does charity rather poorly, too, as demonstrated by public housing, rent control, inner city/rural public schools, medicaid, food stamps, affirmative action, etc.
But then my libertarian faith hasn't gotten me more than anger, dread and laughter at the government they force on us. People grumble about systemic racism, never-ending wars, mass incarceration, poor immigration/border security, failing schools, government housing, crazy tax laws, too big to fail, massive and absolutely normal deficits, questionable elections, failure to tax negative externalities, silly drug laws, etc.... and then say what government should do instead.
Interesting. Having a job/income should be moved down the maslow pyramid to physiological? I can see how job & purpose are related, and purpose might be categorized as self actualization.