A call for radical reactionaries

[IUCrazy2]

The danger of big government, whether we call it a liberal democracy or not, isn't controlling people; it’s making life too easy and too comfortable. And for the majority of us who are not white and male, that push toward a life free of bumps is more profound. This robs individuals of something far more important than property or material goods, it takes away purpose and motivation.

I think that is respectfully viewing the world through eyes that are too westernized. Yes, robbing people of purpose and motivation is bad. It is something that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then again, you have regimes like the Khmer Rouge and leaders like Pol Pot who went on a spasm of violence and threw all their people into the purpose of "do what they tell me so I don't end up a skeleton in a rice paddy".

The "elites" and "thought leaders" are pushing to take meat out of diets and switch to bugs. To make society an ownerless and cashless one. To stack housing so that we are all using less space. Lars mentioned less need for people in the future. How is that enforced? Bored poor people have lots of sex and make lots of children. What happens when everyone is bored and poor?....

People will go on. We always have as someone mentioned above. However, the lifestyle that people have lived and the freedoms they have had have very rarely come close to what a good portion of the world enjoys now. I think UBI and AI turn the clock backwards on all of that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And they might affect each other. One way to frame the author's argument, is to remind economists of their favorite sayings: there is no such thing as a free lunch and everything is a tradeoff.

So while the economist might seize on efficiency and production (hey this new tech or economic arrangement is great! look at the time and human effort it saves), the radical reactionary will point out: using that tech has a tradeoff--it might increase economic efficiency, but it has a deleterious effect on our culture.

One possible large scale, current phenomenon: the rise of globalism and the populist response.

I think these are all really interesting ideas to think about. But at the end of the day, I don't see how the reactionary radicals can stop what they see as Progress absent a cataclysmic, near existential event (some science fiction has this as a premise, where in a post-apocalypse, people blame the scientists and kill them all). Also, I can think of an example that tried to advance the interests of locality, sustenance, etc that turned out tragically -Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. I'm sure that's one reason the author promotes this as a local, grass-roots movement as opposed to a centralized one (which again highlights the paradox: the resistance probably must be top down).

The only way AI dominates human beings is when human beings allow it. I don’t think tech can change culture in any material way. Culture changes because human beings handicap themselves in a number of different ways. I’m more concerned about the effects of huge government and mind altering drugs than I am about AI.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The "elites" and "thought leaders" are pushing to take meat out of diets and switch to bugs. To make society an ownerless and cashless one. To stack housing so that we are all using less space. Lars mentioned less need for people in the future. How is that enforced? Bored poor people have lots of sex and make lots of children. What happens when everyone is bored and poor?....

I agree with this point, I think what you describe is the product of taking away purpose and motivation.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There was at least a job you COULD move to. That is the point. Automation isn't evil. Automation that takes away almost every potential job is dangerous though.

There were jobs remaining, just mostly jobs that paid much less. If you are correct in your future, I would argue we have been moving to serf for a long time. Look at wealth inequality between today and 1970. A whole lot of people have headed toward serf. IF you are right, people now see THEIR jobs are the ones at risk. It has always been a case of people not being worried until automation comes for them directly.

Study: Automation drives income inequality

New data suggest most of the growth in income inequality since 1980 comes from automation displacing less-educated workers.

news.mit.edu

I have started at least one thread that truck drivers will be losing their jobs soon. The response back was "uh-uh". Companies are investing a lot of money on driverless trucks, they aren't doing that for fun. And even if they still require an emergency driver just sitting there to react if something goes wrong on city streets, they will pay less and we will still lose port trucking jobs.

We have to prepare for what this new world will look like. I doubt it will be Star Trek (though I wish it were). I also doubt it will be Mad Max. It will be different, not better or worse. The more we prepare for it, the better it will be.

 

[TMFT]

There were jobs remaining, just mostly jobs that paid much less. If you are correct in your future, I would argue we have been moving to serf for a long time. Look at wealth inequality between today and 1970. A whole lot of people have headed toward serf. IF you are right, people now see THEIR jobs are the ones at risk. It has always been a case of people not being worried until automation comes for them directly.

Study: Automation drives income inequality

New data suggest most of the growth in income inequality since 1980 comes from automation displacing less-educated workers.

news.mit.edu

I have started at least one thread that truck drivers will be losing their jobs soon. The response back was "uh-uh". Companies are investing a lot of money on driverless trucks, they aren't doing that for fun. And even if they still require an emergency driver just sitting there to react if something goes wrong on city streets, they will pay less and we will still lose port trucking jobs.

We have to prepare for what this new world will look like. I doubt it will be Star Trek (though I wish it were). I also doubt it will be Mad Max. It will be different, not better or worse. The more we prepare for it, the better it will be.

I'm stunned that Bezos hasn't started building out the infrastructure for driverless trucks to be able to convoy non-stop driving up to and including cross country routes, only stopping at hubs outside major cities for last mile shipping.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

It is going back to the serf days but at least back in those days there was at least menial labor to keep people busy. You won't need that anymore either as the Roomba mops and cleans, a John Deere robot does agriculture, etc. So what you end up with is a whole bunch of idle humans with nothing to do. That invariably will mean people acting out. You will have to have an authoritarian and repressive regime to keep people in line.

Not sure about this. Think Brave New World. You can give people 100" HD 10k TVs (or better yet, VR headsets), unlimited on-demand porn, sports, and TV/movies, along with cheap, tasty food and pills that will make you feel relaxed, or high, or whatever you want. Might not need a repressive regime to keep people from acting out--might need a regime that inspires people to actually get up and do something real.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Not sure about this. Think Brave New World. You can give people 100" HD 10k TVs (or better yet, VR headsets), unlimited on-demand porn, sports, and TV/movies, along with cheap, tasty food and pills that will make you feel relaxed, or high, or whatever you want. Might not need a repressive regime to keep people from acting out--might need a regime that inspires people to actually get up and do something real.

I think you have identified the middle ground between the version Goat presented and the one I did. I still think that you would have to control those people. Drunk and high people hedonistically chasing their vice of the moment are problematic.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I don’t think tech can change culture in any material way.

I don't understand this thinking at all. Writing didn't change culture? The Iphone and the internet and social media didn't change culture? The car didn't change culture?

Technology radically changes culture, maybe more than anything else.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Not sure about this. Think Brave New World. You can give people 100" HD 10k TVs (or better yet, VR headsets), unlimited on-demand porn, sports, and TV/movies, along with cheap, tasty food and pills that will make you feel relaxed, or high, or whatever you want. Might not need a repressive regime to keep people from acting out--might need a regime that inspires people to actually get up and do something real.

There is a theory about why we haven't encountered other civilizations. Long before anyone develops great space flight they develop great VR. At that moment they lose interest in all else.

If you want to take that a step further, some physicists think the universe is a 3D hologram overlayed on a 2D surface. That's why our physics is so messy. If that's true, we might just be people in another world's escape through VR.

I have serious questions to whoever is playing my character...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There were jobs remaining, just mostly jobs that paid much less. If you are correct in your future, I would argue we have been moving to serf for a long time. Look at wealth inequality between today and 1970. A whole lot of people have headed toward serf. IF you are right, people now see THEIR jobs are the ones at risk. It has always been a case of people not being worried until automation comes for them directly.

Study: Automation drives income inequality

New data suggest most of the growth in income inequality since 1980 comes from automation displacing less-educated workers.

news.mit.edu

I have started at least one thread that truck drivers will be losing their jobs soon. The response back was "uh-uh". Companies are investing a lot of money on driverless trucks, they aren't doing that for fun. And even if they still require an emergency driver just sitting there to react if something goes wrong on city streets, they will pay less and we will still lose port trucking jobs.

We have to prepare for what this new world will look like. I doubt it will be Star Trek (though I wish it were). I also doubt it will be Mad Max. It will be different, not better or worse. The more we prepare for it, the better it will be.

Do you agree with that link?

Our local grocery store has 11 self service checkouts and usually or one or two staffed ones. The store has been open for about 7 years and has never been fully staffed. So nobody is losing a job because of automation.

Statistics show us there are 11 million unfilled good-paying blue collar skilled jobs vacant and , I think, 7 million working-age males not working. Many businesses tell me they have trouble filling job vacancies. I simply don’t believe automation is killing low end jobs when there are so many job vacancies.

My son works blue collar in what some might call a dirty job industry. Part of his duties is to check to make sure the automated equipment works. The need for a human eyes and mind I don’t think will ever go away.

Part of the reason for income inequality is our disgraceful public education system. The smart motivated students will be fine. The students who suffer are the ones without good family. support and who lack motivation. We see increasing numbers of high school kids who can’t do basic math or read. They have no hope for good jobs. That isn’t because of automation.

Drugs are another huge issue. We as a society are way to lenient with that because of our live and let live mentality. That hurts all of us. Too many good jobs are not available to drug users. Another reason for income inequality.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Part of the reason for income inequality is our disgraceful public education system. The smart motivated students will be fine. The students who suffer are the ones without good family. support and who lack motivation. We see increasing numbers of high school kids who can’t do basic math or read. They have no hope for good jobs. That isn’t because of automation.

Chicken/Egg. A lot of people have given up on the American dream. Which came first, them finding it difficult to get ahead or them quitting. I suspect some of both. I know I have heard from many elders in my neighborhood when I was young variations of "the man will keep us down, no use in even trying". My guess that thinking still exists and is why as kids they don't do well and as adults they get addicted.

If kids aren't motivated, they won't do well in school. I don't care if you are teaching them, if they are led to believe by people in their lives you don't help them and what you are offering is a waste, how do you get through? I suspect that's why athletics is such a calling card, people from really poor backgrounds know that is an escape, they see it all the time.

Our local grocery store has 11 self service checkouts and usually or one or two staffed ones. The store has been open for about 7 years and has never been fully staffed. So nobody is losing a job because of automation.

How many workers did grocery stores have 20 years ago? Across society, there has been a net loss. We have Kroger here with 3 people running checkout where there used to be 10 on a busy day. Of course some of that is made up for with Clicklist people. But you are fooling yourself if you think one or two workers at a major supermarket checkout was traditional before automation.

But it is factory work. You said you did summer factory work back in your youth, IIRC. I bet it paid far better than any sort of factory work today. Some factories around here are paying $15hour or so. I just looked, Cook Inc's line jobs start at $16. How much did your average steelworker or UAW worker make in the 1960s? I looked, and in 1963 the UAW was averaging $3.10 per hour. Punched that into a website that converts to today and it comes out as $29.78. that's roughly $60,000/year in today's money. That is a solid middle-class wage, by itself, it is pretty much the average household income today. But from just one worker.

Drugs are another huge issue. We as a society are way to lenient with that because of our live and let live mentality. That hurts all of us. Too many good jobs are not available to drug users. Another reason for income inequality.

Obviously, we need to reduce drug use, and secondly, maybe not all jobs need to be completely drug-free. there are a couple types of drug use beginnings. One are people who get hooked on opioids because of the way their body responds to the drug. The other are people who are seeking escapism and either think they can handle it or don't care if they can. There are two different solutions. My guess is that latter group consists of a lot of people who fit into my first answer, people who seek escape from a life they no longer believe in. Of course, there are others, the stock brokers who come to believe they are superman and can't get addicted is another group.

I don't think it is much to do with us being a live-and-let-live society. Quite a few of the people in rural America being caught up are as "up tight White guy" as you and me. I don't think most people believe they will get addicted, that isn't the goal/plan/desire.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't understand this thinking at all. Writing didn't change culture? The Iphone and the internet and social media didn't change culture? The car didn't change culture?

Technology radically changes culture, maybe more than anything else.

Disagree. I see culture as a blending of social structure, common community standards of civility, tolerance, traditions, and the like. This manifests itself in art, food, music, and even our government. We have seen big cultural changes in my lifetime including such changes in views of nuclear families, marriage, tolerance, and mutual civility. I don’t attribute any of these changes to technology.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We have seen big cultural changes in my lifetime including such changes in views of nuclear families, marriage, tolerance mutual civility. I don’t attribute any of these changes to technology.

I think some of what you are seeing are the impacts of interstate highways, planes, and other travel technology. When one was raised in Mayberry and would die in Mayberry, roots ran deep. Our neighborhood has been a revolving door. We've lived there 30 years, Most of the homes around us have seen 3-7 sets of families move in. Roots aren't there. Mobility has made moving often a reality. Shallower roots have impacted the family.

The internet has assuredly impacted civility.

 

[larsIU]

I once was out with my buddy who wanted to go to his house for a quick rip. He did it without any water in the bong, unknowingly. Even more impressive, it was a four footer.

I thought I saw a dead body that day.

3-4 foot glass bongs and boats have a lot in common.

--Love it when you get it
--No place to store it
--Always in the way
--So happy when you can finally give it away

 

[larsIU]

Not sure about this. Think Brave New World. You can give people 100" HD 10k TVs (or better yet, VR headsets), unlimited on-demand porn, sports, and TV/movies, along with cheap, tasty food and pills that will make you feel relaxed, or high, or whatever you want. Might not need a repressive regime to keep people from acting out--might need a regime that inspires people to actually get up and do something real.

I'd like to imagine what we could do with all that TIME and ENERGY.

Then I remember what we do with our time and energy now (outside work). And then I vomit.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Chicken/Egg. A lot of people have given up on the American dream. Which came first, them finding it difficult to get ahead or them quitting. I suspect some of both. I know I have heard from many elders in my neighborhood when I was young variations of "the man will keep us down, no use in even trying". My guess that thinking still exists and is why as kids they don't do well and as adults they get addicted.

If kids aren't motivated, they won't do well in school. I don't care if you are teaching them, if they are led to believe by people in their lives you don't help them and what you are offering is a waste, how do you get through? I suspect that's why athletics is such a calling card, people from really poor backgrounds know that is an escape, they see it all the time.



How many workers did grocery stores have 20 years ago? Across society, there has been a net loss. We have Kroger here with 3 people running checkout where there used to be 10 on a busy day. Of course some of that is made up for with Clicklist people. But you are fooling yourself if you think one or two workers at a major supermarket checkout was traditional before automation.

But it is factory work. You said you did summer factory work back in your youth, IIRC. I bet it paid far better than any sort of factory work today. Some factories around here are paying $15hour or so. I just looked, Cook Inc's line jobs start at $16. How much did your average steelworker or UAW worker make in the 1960s? I looked, and in 1963 the UAW was averaging $3.10 per hour. Punched that into a website that converts to today and it comes out as $29.78. that's roughly $60,000/year in today's money. That is a solid middle-class wage, by itself, it is pretty much the average household income today. But from just one worker.


Obviously, we need to reduce drug use, and secondly, maybe not all jobs need to be completely drug-free. there are a couple types of drug use beginnings. One are people who get hooked on opioids because of the way their body responds to the drug. The other are people who are seeking escapism and either think they can handle it or don't care if they can. There are two different solutions. My guess is that latter group consists of a lot of people who fit into my first answer, people who seek escape from a life they no longer believe in. Of course, there are others, the stock brokers who come to believe they are superman and can't get addicted is another group.

I don't think it is much to do with us being a live-and-let-live society. Quite a few of the people in rural America being caught up are as "up tight White guy" as you and me. I don't think most people believe they will get addicted, that isn't the goal/plan/desire.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I think the decrease in factory employment is a fair point. Some factories have left because of lack of skilled labor. That gets back to our pathetic education system.

Your point about sports is a good one. Could that be because all the equity nonsense is kicked to the curb and the only thing that matters is hard work, motivation, and of course talent?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I think the decrease in factory employment is a fair point. Some factories have left because of lack of skilled labor. That gets back to our pathetic education system.

Your point about sports is a good one. Could that be because all the equity nonsense is kicked to the curb and the only thing that matters is hard work, motivation, and of course talent?

Equity may be a problem, may not. I don't know. I don't doubt some places are taking it too far. On the other hand, I don't doubt there are schools/businesses/churches/etc where people of some races/religions/gender/etc do not feel welcome. Maybe DEI isn't a bad idea there?

 

[DANC]

The danger of big government, whether we call it a liberal democracy or not, isn't controlling people; it’s making life too easy and too comfortable. And for the majority of us who are not white and male, that push toward a life free of bumps is more profound. This robs individuals of something far more important than property or material goods, it takes away purpose and motivation.

Exactly why we have more suicides, mental health issues, and drug deaths among younger people today.

 

[DANC]

I think that is respectfully viewing the world through eyes that are too westernized. Yes, robbing people of purpose and motivation is bad. It is something that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then again, you have regimes like the Khmer Rouge and leaders like Pol Pot who went on a spasm of violence and threw all their people into the purpose of "do what they tell me so I don't end up a skeleton in a rice paddy".

The "elites" and "thought leaders" are pushing to take meat out of diets and switch to bugs. To make society an ownerless and cashless one. To stack housing so that we are all using less space. Lars mentioned less need for people in the future. How is that enforced? Bored poor people have lots of sex and make lots of children. What happens when everyone is bored and poor?....

People will go on. We always have as someone mentioned above. However, the lifestyle that people have lived and the freedoms they have had have very rarely come close to what a good portion of the world enjoys now. I think UBI and AI turn the clock backwards on all of that.

60 Minutes had a segment on AI. The industry would have you believe it's a mature technology, but in this segment, 60 Minutes easily found that AI often gives out false information. It may be good for writing an essay on some subject, but it's not as advertised.

Lesley Stahl has worked for CBS for decades. This AI application said she worked for NBC - the AI 'expert' said it didn't recognize the difference in media between CBS and NBC. WTF?

In the end, it's no better than its programmers, just like all software. It doesn't appear to be able to 'learn', which is what we're told.

 

[larsIU]

the AI 'expert' said it didn't recognize the difference in media between CBS and NBC. WTF?

Well............

A lot of folks here don't see the difference either.

 

[Crayfish57]

60 Minutes had a segment on AI. The industry would have you believe it's a mature technology, but in this segment, 60 Minutes easily found that AI often gives out false information. It may be good for writing an essay on some subject, but it's not as advertised.

Lesley Stahl has worked for CBS for decades. This AI application said she worked for NBC - the AI 'expert' said it didn't recognize the difference in media between CBS and NBC. WTF?

In the end, it's no better than it's programmers, just like all software. It doesn't appear to be able to 'learn', which is what we're told.

The scariest part to me is the notion of self driving cars and trucks . There is just no way..................2023 and we are having problems with trains that run on tracks and we think random roaming vehicles on tires that can go anywhere are going to be self driving on our roads? We cant even fix the potholes GPS will get you lost and that is with a person driving that can at least adjust.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Disagree. I see culture as a blending of social structure, common community standards of civility, tolerance, traditions, and the like. This manifests itself in art, food, music, and even our government. We have seen big cultural changes in my lifetime including such changes in views of nuclear families, marriage, tolerance, and mutual civility. I don’t attribute any of these changes to technology.

Over the last 100 years,, you don't see how art, food, music, and even our government have been changed by technology? Absolutely every thing you have ever eaten in your life has been changed by changes in technology over the last 100-150 years. Nearly every piece of music you have ever heard has been changed. Nearly every piece of art--music, tv, movies-- couldn't have existed 120 years ago.

As for the basic societal institutions, marriage and its place in our culture has been radically altered by pornography and its ease of access, birth control, and abortion, social media hooks ups to name just a few things.

Going back further and more obviously, the printing press radically altered European culture and helped usher in the Reformation--not sure you can have a bigger change in culture.

Regarding government, check out Shield of Achilles, for the argument that military technological advancements causally affect constitutional changes in government as state's figure out how to protect themselves:

The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Over the last 100 years,, you don't see how art, food, music, and even our government have been changed by technology? Absolutely every thing you have ever eaten in your life has been changed by changes in technology over the last 100-150 years. Nearly every piece of music you have ever heard has been changed. Nearly every piece of art--music, tv, movies-- couldn't have existed 120 years ago.

As for the basic societal institutions, marriage and its place in our culture has been radically altered by pornography and its ease of access, birth control, and abortion, social media hooks ups to name just a few things.

Going back further and more obviously, the printing press radically altered European culture and helped usher in the Reformation--not sure you can have a bigger change in culture.

Regarding government, check out Shield of Achilles, for the argument that military technological advancements causally affect constitutional changes in government as state's figure out how to protect themselves:

The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree tech has changed the way we live in many ways. I think we are really discussing what is culture.

One area where you have an interesting point is online acquisition of goods and services. Tech has had a huge impact on that and that impact seen in many aspects of culture.

 

[TommyCracker]

60 Minutes had a segment on AI. The industry would have you believe it's a mature technology, but in this

segment, 60 Minutes easily found that AI often gives out false information. It may be good for writing an essay on some subject, but it's not as advertised.

Lesley Stahl has worked for CBS for decades. This AI application said she worked for NBC - the AI 'expert' said it didn't recognize the difference in media between CBS and NBC. WTF?

In the end, it's no better than its programmers, just like all software. It doesn't appear to be able to 'learn', which is what we're told.

I agree.

At the end of the day AI is just a supercomputer that can make calculations at a level that no human can touch.

However, AI is only as good as it's program, even when it can learn and adjust calculations as it goes, it can only learn within the variables that are given. For example, there are actual stories of self driving cars not stopping for black pedestrians because their program only recognized white pedestrians since the team that wrote the original program only used white people to build the program.

https://interestingengineering.com/...-recognise-pedestrians-with-darker-skin-tones

AI is incredible at running a linear kind of program. It really, really struggles with non-linear calculations.

My understanding is we've yet to come close to a super calculator that can take a completely unknown variable and react to it, like a pedestrian could be multiple skin colors.

Until that breakthrough happens, AI will be amazing at eliminating tasks IMO.

Which is the purpose of technology, it makes us faster and more efficient. That leads to increased scale or increased responsibilities.....very rarely has tech saved real time. Again the time saved just means you have time to do something else because you are now producing at a higher level due to automating.

We've proved over and over....there will always be problems that need solutions.

As always, those that can best deliver solutions to the future problems that come up will get filthy rich. I also have no worry that there won't be a problem of mass scale that humans will need to be used to solve or do.

Because in my experience automation mainly increases scalability.

 

[UncleMark]

One area where you have an interesting point is online acquisition of goods and services. Tech has had a huge impact on that and that impact seen in many aspects of culture.

In many respects, online commerce is just a more efficient form of the Sears & Roebuck mail order catalog.

 

[DANC]

In many respects, online commerce is just a more efficient form of the Sears & Roebuck mail order catalog.

My grandparents bought a house - what it took to build one - through Sears and had it shipped to Canada where they lived.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In many respects, online commerce is just a more efficient form of the Sears & Roebuck mail order catalog.

Back in the late 70‘s Sears catalog shopping was a huge deal.,Sears was perfectly positioned to become what Amazon is today. One of the great corporate blunders of all time.

 

[larsIU]

Back in the late 70‘s Sears catalog shopping was a huge deal.,Sears was perfectly positioned to become what Amazon is today. One of the great corporate blunders of all time.

Right next to Blockbuster ignoring streaming services to their eventual demise.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Right next to Blockbuster ignoring streaming services to their eventual demise.

Do I remember correctly that blockbuster could have purchased Netflix?

 

[UncleMark]

Back in the late 70‘s Sears catalog shopping was a huge deal.,Sears was perfectly positioned to become what Amazon is today. One of the great corporate blunders of all time.

The Sears Christmas catalog was a wonder book for a kid in the 60s.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Do I remember correctly that blockbuster could have purchased Netflix?

Yes

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The Sears Christmas catalog was a wonder book for a kid in the 60s.

JCPenney had a better toy section in the 70s. I'm trying to remember which one had the better bra models . . .

 

[hoot1]

First of all, want to thank Brad Stevens for posting this interesting Paul Kingsworth essay. Kingsworth says he doesn't like labels such as left or right, but in my opinion he cleverly stacks the deck against my liberal views.

For example he spends considerable time on the age old conflict between capitalism and socialism/communism. Please don't put me on the side of socialism/communism being a good example of Progress. I firmly believe in our capitalism which I define as the private ownership of property. I see Karl Marx's communism as something which runs contrary to the traditional values of what have made our economic system successful for the great majority of Americans.

Kingsworth then describes our traditional values as follows and refers to it as "conservatism" as per the following,

Perhaps conservatism, then, could fit the bill? In theory, at least, it is the tradition which comes closest to offering a politics rooted in human reality. It promotes the value of traditio, centres home and family, values religious faith and refuses both the centralised state and abstract ideals of utopian justice. It embraces a society based on a notion of virtue, which itself is drawn from the cosmic realm.

IMO the above are traditional values which both American conservatives and most American liberals consider basic values. Kingsworth maybe using the term conservatism as meaning values worth conserving, but somehow I think he is using the term to support his coining the phrase "radical reactionaries".

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

First of all, want to thank Brad Stevens for posting this interesting Paul Kingsworth essay. Kingsworth says he doesn't like labels such as left or right, but in my opinion he cleverly stacks the deck against my liberal views.

For example he spends considerable time on the age old conflict between capitalism and socialism/communism. Please don't put me on the side of socialism/communism being a good example of Progress. I firmly believe in our capitalism which I define as the private ownership of property. I see Karl Marx's communism as something which runs contrary to the traditional values of what have made our economic system successful for the great majority of Americans.

Kingsworth then describes our traditional values as follows and refers to it as "conservatism" as per the following,

Perhaps conservatism, then, could fit the bill? In theory, at least, it is the tradition which comes closest to offering a politics rooted in human reality. It promotes the value of traditio, centres home and family, values religious faith and refuses both the centralised state and abstract ideals of utopian justice. It embraces a society based on a notion of virtue, which itself is drawn from the cosmic realm.

IMO the above are traditional values which both American conservatives and most American liberals consider basic values. Kingsworth maybe using the term conservatism as meaning values worth conserving, but somehow I think he is using the term to support his coining the phrase "radical reactionaries".

I think he was setting up liberals who support capitalism as the people he was fighting against (they like Progress) and was looking for alternatives. Conservatives in the old-school tradition, could be counted on to question certain market outcomes if they negatively affected traditional values. Liberals, typically, care less about those traditional values.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

First of all, want to thank Brad Stevens for posting this interesting Paul Kingsworth essay. Kingsworth says he doesn't like labels such as left or right, but in my opinion he cleverly stacks the deck against my liberal views.

For example he spends considerable time on the age old conflict between capitalism and socialism/communism. Please don't put me on the side of socialism/communism being a good example of Progress. I firmly believe in our capitalism which I define as the private ownership of property. I see Karl Marx's communism as something which runs contrary to the traditional values of what have made our economic system successful for the great majority of Americans.

Kingsworth then describes our traditional values as follows and refers to it as "conservatism" as per the following,

Perhaps conservatism, then, could fit the bill? In theory, at least, it is the tradition which comes closest to offering a politics rooted in human reality. It promotes the value of traditio, centres home and family, values religious faith and refuses both the centralised state and abstract ideals of utopian justice. It embraces a society based on a notion of virtue, which itself is drawn from the cosmic realm.

IMO the above are traditional values which both American conservatives and most American liberals consider basic values. Kingsworth maybe using the term conservatism as meaning values worth conserving, but somehow I think he is using the term to support his coining the phrase "radical reactionaries".

I think he was setting up liberals who support capitalism as the people he was fighting against (they like Progress) and was looking for alternatives. Conservatives in the old-school tradition, could be counted on to question certain market outcomes if they negatively affected traditional values. Liberals, typically, care less about those traditional values.

Hoot, thanks for going back to the Kingsworth essay. I have a few observations about that.

At its core, I don’t think capitalism is a a philosophy, or an Ideology, or an economic system. It’s simply basic human nature, which is each of us own who we are. By that I mean we own the fruits of our labor and talent. Contrast that with a communist/socialist/collective, or master/slave system where the fruits of your labor is owned by the government or others and you are provided for based on your needs. From this ownership principle comes the more popularized view if capitalism where each of us owns the fruits of our property (capital) and are allowed to profit from that. Of course capitalism to be workable needs a system of limits and guardrails to prevent economic oppression. I think we do a pretty good job at that, and we are constantly tinkering with it.

Capitalusm is inextricably intertwined with progress. The sel-interests embedded in capitalism is what drives progress,— new and better goods and services. This kind of progress is difficult but not impossible in a collective system.

Of course there are a gazillion nuances and subtexts to the above, but I think the basic starting point that we each own the fruits of our labor is a constant and is the only sustainable model.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think he was setting up liberals who support capitalism as the people he was fighting against (they like Progress) and was looking for alternatives. Conservatives in the old-school tradition, could be counted on to question certain market outcomes if they negatively affected traditional values. Liberals, typically, care less about those traditional values.

That is a good point, studies I have seen on both "traditions" and "traditional values" show conservatives place a higher value on them.

I think what we see right now is sort of a normal pulsing of society. The early 1900s was a progressive era, then the civil rights/Vietnam era circa 1962-77. Both were times when traditions and traditional values were questioned more. I think we are in that up cycle right now. No one need worry, the woke kids of today will be yelling at clouds in 40 years much as the free-love Boomers are now.

 

[UncleMark]

Of course capitalism to be workable needs a system of limits and guardrails to prevent economic oppression. I think we do a pretty good job at that, and we are constantly tinkering with it.

If people are honest, they would agree that our politics is all about the limits and guardrails and tinkering you describe so well above, all within the scope of a capitalistic framework. Unfortunately, too often the disagreements we might have over the best approachs to take are mis-characterized as a threat to capitalism and our way of life.

 

[larsIU]

If people are honest, they would agree that our politics is all about the limits and guardrails and tinkering you describe so well above, all within the scope of a capitalistic framework. Unfortunately, too often the disagreements we might have over the best approachs to take are mis-characterized as a threat to capitalism and our way of life.

Well like a lot of businesses our government kinda sucks at long term capital investment and that’s primarily because of our completely fractured politics.

 

[UncleMark]

Well like a lot of businesses our government kinda sucks at long term capital investment and that’s primarily because of our completely fractured politics.

It's because of the damn socialists stealing all the job creators' money.

Thanks to all you youngsters still working, BTW. That fat SS raise I got a couple moths ago has been sweet.

 

[DANC]

It's because of the damn socialists stealing all the job creators' money.

Thanks to all you youngsters still working, BTW. That fat SS raise I got a couple moths ago has been sweet.

Yeah, I can finally get that Corvette with my raise!