4 ms·

I think the authors argument is fascinating; the idea that Western capitalism is self-defeating precisely because it is so successful in ensuring political and

by bgrn89 3y ago

I think the authors argument is fascinating; the idea that Western capitalism is self-defeating precisely because it is so successful in ensuring political and social stability, thereby stifling the people living under it. However, I wonder if 'Trumpism, Brexit, rising nationalism, etc.' are better explaining within the context of wealth inequality. In other words by capitalism failing to provide benefits to subset of the population while still keeping the status quo.

foobarian 3y ago
I feel that part of the problem is that we kind of ran out of advancements and reached a plateau. It's not capitalism's fault this happened (other than getting us there); but unfortunately it's possible that capitalism with its focus on growth is not compatible with that kind of regime and it will break. Hopefully something else big will come up and unblock more growth for a while (Starship + space colonization?)
mytailorisrich 3y ago
I'd say Brexit and the "rising nationalism" is because the system is creating social instability by negating, even denying the existence of, people's desire to belong to a nation and to preserve their own distinct culture and social norms.
- toyg 3y ago
  "People's desire to belong to a nation" is not a given - nations didn't even exist until roughly 300-400 years ago. People's desire to belong to something is a thing, but the definition of that something is very fluid: your town, your religion, your guild, your football club, your political party, your programming language community... The definition of one's "tribe" changes with the years, even in one's own lifetime. Nation-states came into existence following the increased reach of reliable, everyday movement of people, goods, and ideas. Such limits are now disappearing, and not even slowly. This will continue to generate friction, while people's desire for belonging morphs political structures into something that suits the new conditions. A reality in which the citizens of New York and London share more values than they do with people from the surrounding townships, is already here; one cannot wish it away out of nostalgia, sooner or later reaction gives way to progress.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    It is not nostalgia. In Europe, for instance this is something actively forced on the people. You put it like this is all inevitable and 'progress', which I think is both not true and dangerous by discarding the opinions of those unhappy with it (which leads to things like Brexit, IMHO) This is a choice made on behalf of the people and Brexit, the recent election result in the Netherland, and the political situation in many other countries show that the people don't necessarily agree with it.
    - toyg 3y ago
      > this is something actively forced on the people. Forced by whom? Changes are agreed by people, often very smart people who believe in a future where we won't squabble on silly things because someone drew a line in 1840something as far as they could drag their cannons. In a world where your goods and services are built and sold all over the world at any given time, where everyone talks across continents at every hour of the day, a lot of the old "national" dimensions simply don't matter - or keep us in a state of vassalage towards folks who have already embraced the future. There is always someone resisting change; you can still travel by horse if you really want to, but people will zip by you in trains and cars. Most of the Brexit-supporting public, for example, have already realized that they voted themselves on a buggy whip, and are busy trying to retrofit a steam engine on it.
      - mytailorisrich 3y ago
        You may remember how the Dutch, French, and Irish rejected the EU Constitution just for the EU to repack the same as the Lisbon Treaty and run with it anyway. Immigration is a highly sensitive subject, and both in the UK and the EU governments have decided that 'more' is correct and anyone complaining is wrong and an extremist. So I am not sure that changes are necessarily agreed by the people (not the same as "by people", which is the whole point). > There is always someone resisting change Again, you paint "change" as inevitable when most of what we're seeing is conscious decision by some people, not inevitable change (which is only mostly technology as in your examples).

by bgrn89 3y ago

foobarian 3y ago

I feel that part of the problem is that we kind of ran out of advancements and reached a plateau. It's not capitalism's fault this happened (other than getting us there); but unfortunately it's possible that capitalism with its focus on growth is not compatible with that kind of regime and it will break. Hopefully something else big will come up and unblock more growth for a while (Starship + space colonization?)

mytailorisrich 3y ago

I'd say Brexit and the "rising nationalism" is because the system is creating social instability by negating, even denying the existence of, people's desire to belong to a nation and to preserve their own distinct culture and social norms.

toyg 3y ago
"People's desire to belong to a nation" is not a given - nations didn't even exist until roughly 300-400 years ago. People's desire to belong to something is a thing, but the definition of that something is very fluid: your town, your religion, your guild, your football club, your political party, your programming language community... The definition of one's "tribe" changes with the years, even in one's own lifetime. Nation-states came into existence following the increased reach of reliable, everyday movement of people, goods, and ideas. Such limits are now disappearing, and not even slowly. This will continue to generate friction, while people's desire for belonging morphs political structures into something that suits the new conditions. A reality in which the citizens of New York and London share more values than they do with people from the surrounding townships, is already here; one cannot wish it away out of nostalgia, sooner or later reaction gives way to progress.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  It is not nostalgia. In Europe, for instance this is something actively forced on the people. You put it like this is all inevitable and 'progress', which I think is both not true and dangerous by discarding the opinions of those unhappy with it (which leads to things like Brexit, IMHO) This is a choice made on behalf of the people and Brexit, the recent election result in the Netherland, and the political situation in many other countries show that the people don't necessarily agree with it.
  - toyg 3y ago
    > this is something actively forced on the people. Forced by whom? Changes are agreed by people, often very smart people who believe in a future where we won't squabble on silly things because someone drew a line in 1840something as far as they could drag their cannons. In a world where your goods and services are built and sold all over the world at any given time, where everyone talks across continents at every hour of the day, a lot of the old "national" dimensions simply don't matter - or keep us in a state of vassalage towards folks who have already embraced the future. There is always someone resisting change; you can still travel by horse if you really want to, but people will zip by you in trains and cars. Most of the Brexit-supporting public, for example, have already realized that they voted themselves on a buggy whip, and are busy trying to retrofit a steam engine on it.
    - mytailorisrich 3y ago
      You may remember how the Dutch, French, and Irish rejected the EU Constitution just for the EU to repack the same as the Lisbon Treaty and run with it anyway. Immigration is a highly sensitive subject, and both in the UK and the EU governments have decided that 'more' is correct and anyone complaining is wrong and an extremist. So I am not sure that changes are necessarily agreed by the people (not the same as "by people", which is the whole point). > There is always someone resisting change Again, you paint "change" as inevitable when most of what we're seeing is conscious decision by some people, not inevitable change (which is only mostly technology as in your examples).