Great article, much appreciated . . . but I am not sure you are really up-to-date on what life is like in the USA, what with perceptions of "draconian laws and policing, much like the United States." Much of the nation (the deep blue part anyhow) is decriminalizing and de-policing as fast as they can go . . . with often deleterious results.
Your comment, "Of course, that’s not true for everyone. The “deplorable” class that Clinton and the Democrats hated so much and who returned that hate with a vote for Trump still hold onto that earlier dream, and they rage at how impossible it’s become. They’re likewise hated by the online set with their ‘OK boomer’ retorts and their baseless certainty such people are all fascists" is spot on!
Small c conservatives in the US are pretty consistently labeled as fascists and racists even when all they really want is to be left alone to own a home and have a family and maintain a tradition apart from attacks and infringements by a political party. Unfortunately according to the media and most of the vocal Left, to be a small c conservative in the US is to want a return to Jim Crow, to oppress women, and to hate anyone who doesn't conform to the patriarchy.
Another layer that you need to understand, especially since luxemberg is major banking is that it doesn’t “move” money as it creates it, as do all banks - this is the best explanation so far that I have seen on this concept and I think will help you develop thinking around this really important issue. (It’s short)
The issue of the role of capital and its historical and contemporary interaction with human nature is a topic of crucial importance when attempting to articulate an alternative small-c framework.
For example, theorists such as Branko Milanovic of"Capitalism Alone," fame has argued that if we as humans had a limited appetite for all things we could imagine a more stationary society. But he believes that our needs are not physiological but socially determined (more growth creates new needs, that require more growth to satisfy them with no end in sight). He also believes that the ultimate success of capitalism is to have transformed human nature such that everyone has become an excellent calculator of gain and loss and pain and pleasure. And he goes on to say that today we are all willingly participating in commodification because through long socialization in capitalism people have become excellent capitalist calculating machines, assigning implicit prices to our time, emotions and our family relations.
In all honesty, how deeply has such a capitalist spirit penetrated into our individual lives and how exactly could this process be reversed or can it?--and if not what does that mean?
your thoughts on Catholicism and the left struck a chord, it's almost impossible to imagine someone like Dorothy Day existing now, and it might simply be because both sides, left and church, have internalised so much capitalist logic that they don't really know what they stand for any more.
'...this kind of left believes the societal disruption caused by capitalism is a force for good'
I do struggle to understand how this is the 'left', or how anything called the 'left' these days deserves the name. The same could be said the the right, of course.
"Not family, not home, not stable and reliable work and intact communities, but rather atomized individuals with virtual time-shares of digital goods and memberships in ever-shifting identity categories."
Great article, but I notice your reference to Singapore here, and I’d like to dispute at least part of the characterisation.
I’d argue that despite a high level of wealth inequality, and also a dependency on migrant labour, the majority of middle-income earners in the country (and poor citizens) enjoy a high quality of life. Education, healthcare, and public housing are highly subsidised, and 90% of Singaporeans live in public council estates. There are, of course, a high number of extremely wealthy individuals due to the country’s low tax rate, many living in Singapore from elsewhere in the region.
Likewise, Singapore has an enormous dependency on migrant labour, primarily in construction (but crucially not manufacturing, shipping, aeronautics, or the petrochemical industry, which employ the majority of the country’s blue collar workforce). Conditions, while poor, are also not analogous to the effective slavery of most migrant labour in the Gulf.
I’d argue that the technocratic approach pursued by Singaporean policy makers is one worthy of study and emulation in the West, even if other elements of Singaporean law and civil society would likely not be culturally transferable. The choice between Luxembourg and Singapore would be clear for the average Westerner, I think, but it’s certainly not a society that deprives the majority of its citizenry of dignity.
Great article, much appreciated . . . but I am not sure you are really up-to-date on what life is like in the USA, what with perceptions of "draconian laws and policing, much like the United States." Much of the nation (the deep blue part anyhow) is decriminalizing and de-policing as fast as they can go . . . with often deleterious results.
Your comment, "Of course, that’s not true for everyone. The “deplorable” class that Clinton and the Democrats hated so much and who returned that hate with a vote for Trump still hold onto that earlier dream, and they rage at how impossible it’s become. They’re likewise hated by the online set with their ‘OK boomer’ retorts and their baseless certainty such people are all fascists" is spot on!
Small c conservatives in the US are pretty consistently labeled as fascists and racists even when all they really want is to be left alone to own a home and have a family and maintain a tradition apart from attacks and infringements by a political party. Unfortunately according to the media and most of the vocal Left, to be a small c conservative in the US is to want a return to Jim Crow, to oppress women, and to hate anyone who doesn't conform to the patriarchy.
Another layer that you need to understand, especially since luxemberg is major banking is that it doesn’t “move” money as it creates it, as do all banks - this is the best explanation so far that I have seen on this concept and I think will help you develop thinking around this really important issue. (It’s short)
https://youtu.be/EnC1UlnFLyI
I got the link for Mathew Crawford newsletter talking about the “The Cantillon Effect is Currency Slavery” he has a pretty interesting substack
The issue of the role of capital and its historical and contemporary interaction with human nature is a topic of crucial importance when attempting to articulate an alternative small-c framework.
For example, theorists such as Branko Milanovic of"Capitalism Alone," fame has argued that if we as humans had a limited appetite for all things we could imagine a more stationary society. But he believes that our needs are not physiological but socially determined (more growth creates new needs, that require more growth to satisfy them with no end in sight). He also believes that the ultimate success of capitalism is to have transformed human nature such that everyone has become an excellent calculator of gain and loss and pain and pleasure. And he goes on to say that today we are all willingly participating in commodification because through long socialization in capitalism people have become excellent capitalist calculating machines, assigning implicit prices to our time, emotions and our family relations.
In all honesty, how deeply has such a capitalist spirit penetrated into our individual lives and how exactly could this process be reversed or can it?--and if not what does that mean?
your thoughts on Catholicism and the left struck a chord, it's almost impossible to imagine someone like Dorothy Day existing now, and it might simply be because both sides, left and church, have internalised so much capitalist logic that they don't really know what they stand for any more.
'...this kind of left believes the societal disruption caused by capitalism is a force for good'
I do struggle to understand how this is the 'left', or how anything called the 'left' these days deserves the name. The same could be said the the right, of course.
Great piece! Learned a lot. Thank you!
"Not family, not home, not stable and reliable work and intact communities, but rather atomized individuals with virtual time-shares of digital goods and memberships in ever-shifting identity categories."
This really struck a chord, thank you.
I'm so glad you are exploring these ideas.
Great article, but I notice your reference to Singapore here, and I’d like to dispute at least part of the characterisation.
I’d argue that despite a high level of wealth inequality, and also a dependency on migrant labour, the majority of middle-income earners in the country (and poor citizens) enjoy a high quality of life. Education, healthcare, and public housing are highly subsidised, and 90% of Singaporeans live in public council estates. There are, of course, a high number of extremely wealthy individuals due to the country’s low tax rate, many living in Singapore from elsewhere in the region.
Likewise, Singapore has an enormous dependency on migrant labour, primarily in construction (but crucially not manufacturing, shipping, aeronautics, or the petrochemical industry, which employ the majority of the country’s blue collar workforce). Conditions, while poor, are also not analogous to the effective slavery of most migrant labour in the Gulf.
I’d argue that the technocratic approach pursued by Singaporean policy makers is one worthy of study and emulation in the West, even if other elements of Singaporean law and civil society would likely not be culturally transferable. The choice between Luxembourg and Singapore would be clear for the average Westerner, I think, but it’s certainly not a society that deprives the majority of its citizenry of dignity.