8 ms·

I agree generally with the diagnosis here. Although I disagree with the notion that a more equitable society is a silver bullet for reducing human misery. Firs

I agree generally with the diagnosis here. Although I disagree with the notion that a more equitable society is a silver bullet for reducing human misery. Firstly, in terms of social media I doubt that misery would ever stop commanding people's attention. I've heard that in psychology studies people tend to latch more readily onto negative ideas than positive ones in a group setting. For what it's worth, my anecdotal experiences have cohered with this too. Secondly, I think the politics of pushing equity over mere equality of opportunity is more complicated than proponents would suggest. Humans have an instinctive normative sense of fairness that would need to be subsumed somehow by a more intellectual altruism. I doubt it would be an easy sell to suggest sharing the fruits of everyone's labour regardless of the amount of work each person has put into producing those fruits.

diputsmonro 5y ago
> I disagree with the notion that a more equitable society is a silver bullet for reducing human misery. Surely it would not solve every source of human misery, but I don't see how it wouldn't be a substantial improvement. > I doubt it would be an easy sell to suggest sharing the fruits of everyone's labour regardless of the amount of work each person has put into producing those fruits. There is a whole branch of political philosophy dedicated to exactly that, which capitalists around the world (valuing utmost the ability to accrue and hoarde capital) have spent over a century turning into a dirty word. Nowadays in the US, even the suggestion of public healthcare is an untouchable evil, because helping your fellow man is seen as being taken advantage of, and the idea that someone might get something for free is abhorrent. This, despite that fact that public healthcare is normal, successful, and more efficient in almost all other western democracies (because the cost of services isn't padded by executive bonuses and investor returns) Besides, if you have insurance, you already believe in that general concept. It is a pooling of resources with the knowledge that some may give and take in unequal measures, but that on average less people will need to take than will give, and that you have a safety net in the case of an extreme unlucky event. Same idea, just applied on a societal scale.
- dash2 5y ago
  I think socialism did rather more than capitalists to turn socialism into a dirty word.
  - sprafa 5y ago
    Depends on your definition. Capitalists have successfully ejected murderous regimes from their timeline, by saying that capitalism isn’t really real unless it’s got a free democracy associated with it. Thus imperial Japan, Belgium’s atrocious behaviour in the Congo, the behaviour of the British Empire is completely left out of “capitalist history”. If you did the same trick for socialism you could just count Denmark, Sweden and other successful mixed-but-really-socialist democracies and you could say that socialist guided economies are actually fantastic. Ie if I define socialism as only real socialism when there is a free market democracy but large well funded social programs that keep the society from excessive inequality, I suddenly have the recipe for some of the happiest countries on earth. And some people, you know reasonable people who actually understand Marx’s critique of capitalism - not as a recipe but as a pretty accurate descriptor of the end result of the natural forces of capitalism - they might say that Denmark style socialism is actually what they would like. But of course Denmark = Soviet Union in some peoples mind so that’s impossible. Let’s forget of course that past Stalin’s death, the USSR’s criminal activity was relatively limited. They didn’t invade a country until Afghanistan and that was still without imperialist purpose - they just believed Afghanistan to be in their sphere of influence. In comparison with American military, the Soviet military essentially was used to put down revolts in part so the world the USSR believed has been left to their influence after Yalta. When Portugal was turning red in 1974, the Soviets refused to have anything to do with it. Vis à vis the crimes of the Soviet Union or Red China past their murderous genocidal creators - Mao and Stalin - were relatively limited. In the same vein you could argue that the US was also founded on genocide, just of Native Americans.
    - dash2 5y ago
      I’m happy to accept that European-style social democracy is not genocidal!
    - 5y ago
mnsc 5y ago
>Humans have an instinctive normative sense of fairness We have and that's why I never have grasped the fairness of "equal opportunity" while at the same time being allowed to inherit your parent's success (or failures). :thinking face:
- janto 5y ago
  The alternative is to intervene and prevent you from gifting your success to those you love and your future generations. One (of the many) problems with that approach is that it takes away a meaningful incentive for an individual to sacrifice their time and energy. Without that there is only your own individual life to enjoy.
  - Shish2k 5y ago
    > Without that there is only your own individual life to enjoy As well as “work for my children” and “work for myself”, there is a secret third option: “work for the good of my community / society / humanity as a whole”
    - janto 5y ago
      That falls either under "those I love" or "as determined by the State".
    - dageshi 5y ago
      Doesn't that only really work if you like the current society and it's direction? If you don't, why would you support it with effort you don't need to expend?
    - maccolgan 5y ago
      Which you can also today in the current year, maybe both
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    This isn't an either/or situation. There are many alternatives, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.
jungturk 5y ago
> I doubt it would be an easy sell to suggest sharing the fruits of everyone's labour regardless of the amount of work each person has put into producing those fruits. I agree, but I expect that's due to scarcity (which forces zero-sum thinking) and we're eventually going to get to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a "post-scarcity economy" where the automation generates enough for everyone. I think the author's broader point is well-taken, though: The way we operate as a society today may be generating a bunch of pollution (environmental, psychological, existential, etc...) and we may realize we're going to have to do something to reform that when the negative consequences emerge. The example in the article is poignant, but part of a broad class.

diputsmonro 5y ago

> I disagree with the notion that a more equitable society is a silver bullet for reducing human misery. Surely it would not solve every source of human misery, but I don't see how it wouldn't be a substantial improvement. > I doubt it would be an easy sell to suggest sharing the fruits of everyone's labour regardless of the amount of work each person has put into producing those fruits. There is a whole branch of political philosophy dedicated to exactly that, which capitalists around the world (valuing utmost the ability to accrue and hoarde capital) have spent over a century turning into a dirty word. Nowadays in the US, even the suggestion of public healthcare is an untouchable evil, because helping your fellow man is seen as being taken advantage of, and the idea that someone might get something for free is abhorrent. This, despite that fact that public healthcare is normal, successful, and more efficient in almost all other western democracies (because the cost of services isn't padded by executive bonuses and investor returns) Besides, if you have insurance, you already believe in that general concept. It is a pooling of resources with the knowledge that some may give and take in unequal measures, but that on average less people will need to take than will give, and that you have a safety net in the case of an extreme unlucky event. Same idea, just applied on a societal scale.

dash2 5y ago
I think socialism did rather more than capitalists to turn socialism into a dirty word.
- sprafa 5y ago
  Depends on your definition. Capitalists have successfully ejected murderous regimes from their timeline, by saying that capitalism isn’t really real unless it’s got a free democracy associated with it. Thus imperial Japan, Belgium’s atrocious behaviour in the Congo, the behaviour of the British Empire is completely left out of “capitalist history”. If you did the same trick for socialism you could just count Denmark, Sweden and other successful mixed-but-really-socialist democracies and you could say that socialist guided economies are actually fantastic. Ie if I define socialism as only real socialism when there is a free market democracy but large well funded social programs that keep the society from excessive inequality, I suddenly have the recipe for some of the happiest countries on earth. And some people, you know reasonable people who actually understand Marx’s critique of capitalism - not as a recipe but as a pretty accurate descriptor of the end result of the natural forces of capitalism - they might say that Denmark style socialism is actually what they would like. But of course Denmark = Soviet Union in some peoples mind so that’s impossible. Let’s forget of course that past Stalin’s death, the USSR’s criminal activity was relatively limited. They didn’t invade a country until Afghanistan and that was still without imperialist purpose - they just believed Afghanistan to be in their sphere of influence. In comparison with American military, the Soviet military essentially was used to put down revolts in part so the world the USSR believed has been left to their influence after Yalta. When Portugal was turning red in 1974, the Soviets refused to have anything to do with it. Vis à vis the crimes of the Soviet Union or Red China past their murderous genocidal creators - Mao and Stalin - were relatively limited. In the same vein you could argue that the US was also founded on genocide, just of Native Americans.
  - dash2 5y ago
    I’m happy to accept that European-style social democracy is not genocidal!
  - 5y ago

mnsc 5y ago

>Humans have an instinctive normative sense of fairness We have and that's why I never have grasped the fairness of "equal opportunity" while at the same time being allowed to inherit your parent's success (or failures). :thinking face:

janto 5y ago
The alternative is to intervene and prevent you from gifting your success to those you love and your future generations. One (of the many) problems with that approach is that it takes away a meaningful incentive for an individual to sacrifice their time and energy. Without that there is only your own individual life to enjoy.
- Shish2k 5y ago
  > Without that there is only your own individual life to enjoy As well as “work for my children” and “work for myself”, there is a secret third option: “work for the good of my community / society / humanity as a whole”
  - janto 5y ago
    That falls either under "those I love" or "as determined by the State".
  - dageshi 5y ago
    Doesn't that only really work if you like the current society and it's direction? If you don't, why would you support it with effort you don't need to expend?
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Which you can also today in the current year, maybe both
- mandmandam 5y ago
  This isn't an either/or situation. There are many alternatives, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.

jungturk 5y ago

> I doubt it would be an easy sell to suggest sharing the fruits of everyone's labour regardless of the amount of work each person has put into producing those fruits. I agree, but I expect that's due to scarcity (which forces zero-sum thinking) and we're eventually going to get to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a "post-scarcity economy" where the automation generates enough for everyone. I think the author's broader point is well-taken, though: The way we operate as a society today may be generating a bunch of pollution (environmental, psychological, existential, etc...) and we may realize we're going to have to do something to reform that when the negative consequences emerge. The example in the article is poignant, but part of a broad class.