3 ms·

I agree we live in a relatively oligarchic society - that is an inescapable outcome for democracies. We would probably disagree as to the causes and alternativ

I agree we live in a relatively oligarchic society - that is an inescapable outcome for democracies. We would probably disagree as to the causes and alternatives to this oligarchic structure, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole at the moment. What I am saying is that when you look at the problems with the medical profession, there is more at play here than the self-interest of billionaires. You talk at high levels about the impact of inequality on overall government policy, but not everything that goes wrong with an industry is a result of government policy, let alone policies favored by the wealthy. Medical research is fraught with issues of reproducibility. Government regulations artificially restrict the supply of healthcare. Technological advancement means that many people can now live sedentary lives, and it's adversely affecting health outcomes.

hayst4ck 4y ago
Snyder would say you are practicing the politics of inevitability: https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-politics-of-inevitability-2022-03-20 https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-politics-of-inevitabilit... What the politics of inevitability does is that it teaches you to narrate in such a way that the facts which seem to trouble the story of progress are disregarded. So in the politics of inevitability, if there is huge wealth inequality as a result of unbridled capitalism, we teach ourselves to say that that’s kind of a necessary cost of this overall progress. We learn this dialectical way of thinking by which what seems to be bad is actually good. And, of course, that applies to foreign affairs as well. When we look at countries that are not making the quote-unquote “transition” to democracy the way we expect, you know, we find excuses. We imagine that the general trend is going to our direction in some deep way. And then we fail to notice, what has been the case for the last 15 years or so, that the world is actually moving in a very pronounced and easily observable way away from democracy. Here is a relatively quick video of him pretty directly critiquing what you just stated: https://bigthink.com/videos/timothy-snyder-political-outrage-why-all-sides-get-it-wrong-about-the-arc-of-history/ https://bigthink.com/videos/timothy-snyder-political-outrage... But the way that things are breaking now in the U.S. is that our politics of inevitability, which we’ve held to in the last 25 years, basically this idea that “since communism ended in 1989 there are no alternatives,” basically this idea that “technology must lead to enlightenment,” this idea that “the market must lead to democracy.” Those ideas have now come back to clobber us. Neither of them ever had any foundation. Both of them are highly persuasive to a lot of people and that’s lead to some consequences, which are very dangerous for the rule of law and indeed for democracy. Believing that, for example, more market means more democracy means that you don’t regulate things that you really need to regulate, like offshore wealth or anonymous transactions or shell companies. And that creates a world, a gray zone of capitalism where, for example, a Donald Trump can begin close relationships with Russian oligarchs. If you believe that technology automatically leads to progress, then you don’t watch very carefully as certain kinds of social platforms lead people into a politics of “us and them” and destroy a sense of common factuality. The story that you’re telling yourself the whole time about how “the market or tech have to lead toward enlightenment and democracy” dulls your mind to what’s actually happening until you reach the point that we’ve reached now. > but not everything that goes wrong with an industry is a result of government policy, It is not positive government policy that is the problem but government failure to act because the government operates on behalf of money (oligarchy), not on behalf of us (democracy). If not the government, where do you think a solution comes from?
- lliamander 4y ago
  > Here is a relatively quick video of him pretty directly critiquing what you just stated... None of that big wall of text seems to directly address anything I actually said. > It is not positive government policy that is the problem but government failure to act because the government operates on behalf of money (oligarchy), not on behalf of us (democracy). The only thing worse than pedantry is wrong pedantry. Your attempt at correcting me here is wrong because The absence of the kinds of policies you would like to see is still policy. In other words, not everything that goes wrong with an industry is the result of the government not doing what you wish it would do. And to be more specific, even those things that go wrong because of government policy are not necessarily caused by oligarchic influence.

hayst4ck 4y ago

Snyder would say you are practicing the politics of inevitability: https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-politics-of-inevitability-2022-03-20 https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-politics-of-inevitabilit... What the politics of inevitability does is that it teaches you to narrate in such a way that the facts which seem to trouble the story of progress are disregarded. So in the politics of inevitability, if there is huge wealth inequality as a result of unbridled capitalism, we teach ourselves to say that that’s kind of a necessary cost of this overall progress. We learn this dialectical way of thinking by which what seems to be bad is actually good. And, of course, that applies to foreign affairs as well. When we look at countries that are not making the quote-unquote “transition” to democracy the way we expect, you know, we find excuses. We imagine that the general trend is going to our direction in some deep way. And then we fail to notice, what has been the case for the last 15 years or so, that the world is actually moving in a very pronounced and easily observable way away from democracy. Here is a relatively quick video of him pretty directly critiquing what you just stated: https://bigthink.com/videos/timothy-snyder-political-outrage-why-all-sides-get-it-wrong-about-the-arc-of-history/ https://bigthink.com/videos/timothy-snyder-political-outrage... But the way that things are breaking now in the U.S. is that our politics of inevitability, which we’ve held to in the last 25 years, basically this idea that “since communism ended in 1989 there are no alternatives,” basically this idea that “technology must lead to enlightenment,” this idea that “the market must lead to democracy.” Those ideas have now come back to clobber us. Neither of them ever had any foundation. Both of them are highly persuasive to a lot of people and that’s lead to some consequences, which are very dangerous for the rule of law and indeed for democracy. Believing that, for example, more market means more democracy means that you don’t regulate things that you really need to regulate, like offshore wealth or anonymous transactions or shell companies. And that creates a world, a gray zone of capitalism where, for example, a Donald Trump can begin close relationships with Russian oligarchs. If you believe that technology automatically leads to progress, then you don’t watch very carefully as certain kinds of social platforms lead people into a politics of “us and them” and destroy a sense of common factuality. The story that you’re telling yourself the whole time about how “the market or tech have to lead toward enlightenment and democracy” dulls your mind to what’s actually happening until you reach the point that we’ve reached now. > but not everything that goes wrong with an industry is a result of government policy, It is not positive government policy that is the problem but government failure to act because the government operates on behalf of money (oligarchy), not on behalf of us (democracy). If not the government, where do you think a solution comes from?

lliamander 4y ago
> Here is a relatively quick video of him pretty directly critiquing what you just stated... None of that big wall of text seems to directly address anything I actually said. > It is not positive government policy that is the problem but government failure to act because the government operates on behalf of money (oligarchy), not on behalf of us (democracy). The only thing worse than pedantry is wrong pedantry. Your attempt at correcting me here is wrong because The absence of the kinds of policies you would like to see is still policy. In other words, not everything that goes wrong with an industry is the result of the government not doing what you wish it would do. And to be more specific, even those things that go wrong because of government policy are not necessarily caused by oligarchic influence.