6 ms·

> Unfortunately one person suppressing their unethical behavior is inconsequential. If an opportunity exists, eventually someone will use it. This isn't solely

> Unfortunately one person suppressing their unethical behavior is inconsequential. If an opportunity exists, eventually someone will use it. This isn't solely a feature of capitalism. Any system is going to devolve into the strong eating the weak unless the strong identify with and have solidarity with the weak. I have recently become much more willing to listen to ethno-nationalists of all ethnoses based on this realization: stripped of any imperialistic impulse it may be the best way to generate cross class identity in a given political unit. I tend to think size/scale matters as well, perhaps more so, so that the strong are forced into closer quarters with the weak and so that social interactions are iterated, leading to a better stable state.

Robotbeat 9y ago
Don't listen to the ethno-nationalists. There are other ways of building consensus than based on something as slippery as ethnicity. Nationalism per se may not be a bad thing (stripped of imperialism, as you say), but tying it to ethnicity IS bad. Tying it to culture is better, as it is something that can be taught and acquired and shared (even better is building a metaculture of sharing and appreciating other cultures in a positive-sum, which is, I think, one of the core positive attributes of the American Experiment). Don't let the ethno-nationalists (racists) own nationalism/patriotism/etc. (Indeed, the ironically-pan-nationalist ethno-nationalism of today is largely foreign to America and is opposed to the consensus of American nationalism developed during and after WW2 and on into the civil rights era... Of course this is a thing that hasn't been entirely resolved.)
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  I don't believe there is strong evidence that a metaculture (really, multiculturalism) will survive and not devolve into squabbling ethnoses, particularly on the scale of the north american continent. It seems like smaller, more homogonous political units is the best way to avoid conflict, and I don't see why that has to be malicious. My main problem with most of the ethno-nationalists that I read is that they are really racialists or pan-europeanists, which strikes me as almost (almost) as useless for generating inter-class solidarity as appealing to universal humanism.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Nothing is certain to work on its own. So we have to work at it to make it function. I don't think we should let the pendulum swing too far and say "squabbling ethnoses are the inevitable end-point." That is not certain, either. People actually had to work at (spend lots of time and money) making our recent national unity start to turn into squabbling ethnoses. I fail to see why I should make their job easier by granting the inevitability of that outcome.
  - geofft 9y ago
    > I don't believe there is strong evidence that a metaculture (really, multiculturalism) will survive and not devolve into squabbling ethnoses, particularly on the scale of the north american continent. Doesn't the empirical reality of large cosmopolitan cities provide evidence that multiculturalism will work just fine? New York City, for instance, has 8.5 million people of every race, color, creed, citizenship, language, etc. crammed pretty tightly together. That's more than the population of about 3/4 of US states. It has cultural enclaves - there are places in the city where you'll look and feel out of place if you're not, say, an Orthodox Jew, or black, or of Chinese ancestry, or whatever. (Being none of these, I've been to these places and consciously felt, well, not that I wasn't welcome to visit, but that it was someone else's home and not mine.) But it doesn't have squabbling. There's definitely been ethnic violence in the city's history, but the city generally lives together and works together just fine; it's not more violent or more dangerous than you'd expect any city of its size to be. And places which have had violence (e.g., Crown Heights after the 1991 riot) have worked pretty successfully to find ways of living together that involve neither one cultural group leaving and ceding the area to another, nor any cultural group losing its particular identity.
    - quantumofmalice 9y ago
      I expect there to continue to be multi-ethnic cities and neighborhoods within cities, which is a fairly common occurrence throughout history, particular in capital cities of empires, which is what I would describe New York as. There is no doubt that some people (particularly smart people) highly value the diversity and cosmopolitanism that cities of this form provide. On the other hand, people who value high social trust and stronger social identity would probably prefer to living in more homogenous (and less urban) environments. It seems to me like the american continent, anyway, is large enough to give everyone what they would like, without either interfering with one another politically.
geofft 9y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but the empirical history of America (at least) brings up two problems. The first is that the definition of race/ethnicity tends to shift based on what's politically expedient for the powerful: consider whether Irish people, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, and Jews count as "white" at various points across American history. Race just isn't a solid enough concept to be a reliable way to ensure a share of power for anyone who doesn't already have a unrelated strong grasp of power. The second is that in practice this just causes the weak to identify with and have solidarity with the strong, which isn't the direction you want. There's a lot history of public policy in America that's been targeted at getting lower-class "white" people (for whatever the current definition of "white" is) to believe that their self-interest is more aligned with the success of the white race than with the success of the lower class regardless of race. You can see this clearly in the history of things like Bacon's Rebellion, and the establishment of slavery in the US as a racial-superiority thing as a way to avoid a combined revolt by white indentured servants and black slaves against the upper class. But I think you can see the same thing happening in the present day.
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  As I said in a sibling comment, I view race as too broad a concept to usefully generate social identity, and the fluidity of the concept makes it slippery to deal with. Your second point is a good one, I will think more about it. That said, it seems to me that in the long run relatively homogenous populations (really, many smaller politically independent homogeneous populations, as well as politically independent hetrogeneous populations for the smarter folks) is the best way to maximize social identity and minimize conflict. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully respond to my comment. It is difficult to say what I think may be the truth (with, I hope, no maliciousness) in todays environment, so thank you.

Robotbeat 9y ago

Don't listen to the ethno-nationalists. There are other ways of building consensus than based on something as slippery as ethnicity. Nationalism per se may not be a bad thing (stripped of imperialism, as you say), but tying it to ethnicity IS bad. Tying it to culture is better, as it is something that can be taught and acquired and shared (even better is building a metaculture of sharing and appreciating other cultures in a positive-sum, which is, I think, one of the core positive attributes of the American Experiment). Don't let the ethno-nationalists (racists) own nationalism/patriotism/etc. (Indeed, the ironically-pan-nationalist ethno-nationalism of today is largely foreign to America and is opposed to the consensus of American nationalism developed during and after WW2 and on into the civil rights era... Of course this is a thing that hasn't been entirely resolved.)

quantumofmalice 9y ago
I don't believe there is strong evidence that a metaculture (really, multiculturalism) will survive and not devolve into squabbling ethnoses, particularly on the scale of the north american continent. It seems like smaller, more homogonous political units is the best way to avoid conflict, and I don't see why that has to be malicious. My main problem with most of the ethno-nationalists that I read is that they are really racialists or pan-europeanists, which strikes me as almost (almost) as useless for generating inter-class solidarity as appealing to universal humanism.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Nothing is certain to work on its own. So we have to work at it to make it function. I don't think we should let the pendulum swing too far and say "squabbling ethnoses are the inevitable end-point." That is not certain, either. People actually had to work at (spend lots of time and money) making our recent national unity start to turn into squabbling ethnoses. I fail to see why I should make their job easier by granting the inevitability of that outcome.
- geofft 9y ago
  > I don't believe there is strong evidence that a metaculture (really, multiculturalism) will survive and not devolve into squabbling ethnoses, particularly on the scale of the north american continent. Doesn't the empirical reality of large cosmopolitan cities provide evidence that multiculturalism will work just fine? New York City, for instance, has 8.5 million people of every race, color, creed, citizenship, language, etc. crammed pretty tightly together. That's more than the population of about 3/4 of US states. It has cultural enclaves - there are places in the city where you'll look and feel out of place if you're not, say, an Orthodox Jew, or black, or of Chinese ancestry, or whatever. (Being none of these, I've been to these places and consciously felt, well, not that I wasn't welcome to visit, but that it was someone else's home and not mine.) But it doesn't have squabbling. There's definitely been ethnic violence in the city's history, but the city generally lives together and works together just fine; it's not more violent or more dangerous than you'd expect any city of its size to be. And places which have had violence (e.g., Crown Heights after the 1991 riot) have worked pretty successfully to find ways of living together that involve neither one cultural group leaving and ceding the area to another, nor any cultural group losing its particular identity.
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    I expect there to continue to be multi-ethnic cities and neighborhoods within cities, which is a fairly common occurrence throughout history, particular in capital cities of empires, which is what I would describe New York as. There is no doubt that some people (particularly smart people) highly value the diversity and cosmopolitanism that cities of this form provide. On the other hand, people who value high social trust and stronger social identity would probably prefer to living in more homogenous (and less urban) environments. It seems to me like the american continent, anyway, is large enough to give everyone what they would like, without either interfering with one another politically.

geofft 9y ago

I understand where you're coming from, but the empirical history of America (at least) brings up two problems. The first is that the definition of race/ethnicity tends to shift based on what's politically expedient for the powerful: consider whether Irish people, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, and Jews count as "white" at various points across American history. Race just isn't a solid enough concept to be a reliable way to ensure a share of power for anyone who doesn't already have a unrelated strong grasp of power. The second is that in practice this just causes the weak to identify with and have solidarity with the strong, which isn't the direction you want. There's a lot history of public policy in America that's been targeted at getting lower-class "white" people (for whatever the current definition of "white" is) to believe that their self-interest is more aligned with the success of the white race than with the success of the lower class regardless of race. You can see this clearly in the history of things like Bacon's Rebellion, and the establishment of slavery in the US as a racial-superiority thing as a way to avoid a combined revolt by white indentured servants and black slaves against the upper class. But I think you can see the same thing happening in the present day.

quantumofmalice 9y ago
As I said in a sibling comment, I view race as too broad a concept to usefully generate social identity, and the fluidity of the concept makes it slippery to deal with. Your second point is a good one, I will think more about it. That said, it seems to me that in the long run relatively homogenous populations (really, many smaller politically independent homogeneous populations, as well as politically independent hetrogeneous populations for the smarter folks) is the best way to maximize social identity and minimize conflict. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully respond to my comment. It is difficult to say what I think may be the truth (with, I hope, no maliciousness) in todays environment, so thank you.