I think if the widespread approval of the killer across the political spectrum were indicative of some "cross factional disregard for the rule of law" you'd see that manifest in other, fairly obvious ways. Instead, as always, people seem quite fixated on the rule of law and elites' routine violations of it, on both the left and the right. Conservative outrage at Hunter Biden's pardon or the left pointing to the legal details of yet another reputable legacy institution (this time, Amnesty International) charging Israel with genocide are just recent examples.
It's true, of course, that Democrats and Republicans have been eroding the public's trust in the rule of law at an accelerated, hyper-mediatized clip. But this trend is recognizable in America as far back as the 1970s. Americans' approval of vigilante justice, be it real or fictionalized, stretches back even further. The "karma's a bitch" sentiment I see and hear being expressed re: UnitedHealthcare's CEO - not just on the internet but in public - is, I think, better understood as the latest installment of this admiration than some affirmative gesture towards a new political strategy, tactic, belief, or trend in thinking. No serious person thinks this guy getting clipped will change anything. It's just that, in an era where everyone is increasingly aware that nothing is going to get better, they're feeling pretty pleased that the right people's lives have gotten worse for a moment. This is about a libidinal desire for catharsis absent political change, not a change in itself.
That libidinal desire can be harnessed, brother. That’s the point. Unexpected events (black swan events and happy accidents alike) have triggered paradigm shifts all throughout human history. It’s early yet. This just happened.
How would you describe the inherent contradictions of liberalism? Is the contradiction between enlightenment values & base human tendencies (towards tribalism, religiosity, whatever) or something else?
I think that it is better, for accurate discussion of history and politics (avoiding anachronisms etc.), to think of liberalism as an historically particular cultural expression of a mode of production rather than as a Platonic Form. You can avoid having to understand "liberalisms" contradictions in terms of other "pure, timeless ideals" like tribalism or religiousity since, these supposedly timeless ideals are in fact themselves products of all preceding modes of production and particular expressions of the historical process. We can think of liberalism as the ideology of an ascendent bourgeois political order emerging in the wake of and concurrent with European Colonisation, Industrialisation and the novel division of labour thay we have had for the past 200 years or so. It can sometimes be hard to say "when" liberalism began some argue that it began with "humanism" of the Renaissance others with the Protestant Reformation and others with the French and American Revolutions but certainly since those Revolutions it has been the ruling political order of the international colonial network. Its contradictions lie in its historical development; from yoir perspective of "humanitarian rights" we see that liberalism preaches at any given time democracy for all (and it whispers that it only exists for some), it speaks of a fraternity (but is not clear who belongs to it), it declares FREEDOM (but it utilises force and tyranny in the workplace) et cetera
The thing I always think about is if we were all truly "rational actors", then stuff like advertising or gambling wouldn't exist, because there's no rationale to be swayed to drink sugary carbonated shit by seeing it on a tv screen, or throw your money away in search of jackpot you know does not exist, but alas, primate brains, etc.
I guess you can get all semantic about what rationality specifically is or whatever but regardless, what I think Josh is pointing towards is that all of our current institutions operate structurally downstream from these enlightenment values, in assumption that these values (ie voting works because people will always vote in their best interests, etc etc etc) make the system durable and perpetual.
Of course, as we continue to see, if erosion of this hegemonic power is possible, then the contradictions of liberalism suddenly implicate massive socioeconomic and cultural precarity everywhere, inherently contradicting the "rational" nature of these institutions to begin with. So like yes enlightment values vs ingrained human traits
Colonialism constantly injects undemocratic ideas within the bubble of liberal democracy. Further, the economy seems to be eating its own foundations in pursuit of abstract financial profit, or to defend an increasingly small bubble of hyper wealth.
The frontiers all seem to be exhausted and settled and spoken for, from the land itself, to our ability to pollute, down to every last second of our attention, this is all done in the name of private interests - but we find ourself socially crumbling. The last major frontier was the internet, but again, this gold rush also seems to be over. See how streaming has fallen apart from its golden age. Maybe this will change, but it seems like no new frontiers will ever arise which can breath life into the thing, aside from (1) uncracked countries which liberalism can demolish and subject to the dollar, and (2) increasingly brutal exploitation against our own people (3) if there is a great war or financial disaster, maybe things will burn down like clearing old growth in forest, and open places to be harvested all over again - but, given the current state of things, the anger and division, such an implosion is just as likely to put all of our leaders' heads on sticks.
The popular ideas of freedom and equality in people's heads are increasingly pushed away from what we get through our institutions. The state and business leaders are increasingly our enemy, and not a means to secure our own interests. But, as the Bidens of the world would see it, this is humanity's utopia, the pinnacle of science and reason itself. It needs educated people, but has no interest in what we say. Liberalism needs to constantly deploy new technologies to continue upending production and generating new frontiers for profit, but these technologies have unleashed entirely new forms of social consciousness.
Colonialism makes people racist and this outward racism makes people turn against internal democracy. Also, the economy is unlikely to find new life to breathe, as the means of raw expansion which have historically characterized capitalism are near or beyond their limits. An economic catastrophe could re-open the board, like how WW2 brought us out of the Great Depression - but this does not appear politically survivable for our leaders.
Pinching the problem from both ends, continuing the course is not sustainable either, particularly because new technologies have allowed people to think and act in new ways. The established order of things comes into conflict with these new developments, causing widespread political unrest.
Boop
New stuff below
I left out that certain new innovations could, in theory, create a new gold rush by refining production processes. Even if expansion is over, you can become more efficient instead. The Kuznetz curve indicates that this is already in motion. We can also see it because of the popular idea that we are living through a new industrial revolution, focused on information technology. However, the overall spoils and prosperity this brings about have been outpaced by pure finanical predation, financial shell games - inflation, higher corporate pay, breaking up unions, so on - things that just result in higher levels of exploitation, the new gains are mostly being funneled to the top. This is another reason for the current political heat, as seen in the CEO shooting and the popular response. Further, neither of these tendencies reduce emissions or pollution, and our planet cannot sustain our current way of life.
Efficiency may also have a limit - for example, an ideal thermodynamic engine has a mechanical limit on how efficiently it can convert energy into usable work. However, this is a loose connection and human society is qualitatively different than an engine, so this example of the engine may indicate something but it does not prove anything.
My comment was meant to be taken literally, not an attack. Sorry lol.
. “Also, the economy is unlikely to find new life to breathe, as the means of raw expansion which have historically characterized capitalism are near or beyond their limits.”
I’ve thought this myself many times, but I’m not an economist and don’t have serious evidence.
Oh oops lol . I have been trying to consciously riff of marx, like his very famous quote about relations of production buckling under the pressure of the forces of production, stirring social revolution. I am not academically studied either, i also have a bad habit of speaking more confidently than i should.
In the book "Three Body Problem," the author points out that revolutions in production are tied to our scientific understanding of matter. For example, we had to learn chemistry before we could perfect many fuel mixtures and explosives and material strengths, and we had to know about atomic structure before we could make computers or split the atom. I think this ties into my idea about expansion versus precision/efficiency - private companies can make use of atomic precision, smaller microchips, smaller phones, faster code, smarter machines - but splitting the atom is nuclear power, which will never be a private enterprise, it's inherently social. The same dynamic will likely continue be true when future generations gain deeper understandings of matter.
The only raw expansion capitalism produces in energy today, is more coal oil gas, which is killing us.
But the issue with precision and efficiency, is that profit requires you to have something which others do not. Precision and efficiency are based in information. Compare to expansion, for example, expanding the use of oil - a single barrel of oil is a real thing and that barrel can only be in one place. i have a barrel and you do not, I sell you a barrel. But the /knowledge/ of how to do something very efficiently, like computer chip lithography, has to be consciously restricted. Precision can involve tangible access - for example, there is a real cost with gaining the ability to measure a nanometer, but these things as information are way more easily replicated and spread ... if the companies that owned these methods wanted to share ... obviously they do not.
Thus, if we really are passing from an era of raw production to an era of information, this may be an argument for why socialism could succeed today, even if it did not succeed in the past. First, raw expansion, to be compatible with our planet, must be nuclear, and nuclear is social. Second, information wants to be free.
I’m afraid that the echo chamber is leading us to believe it’s partisan when in reality (I’m from Ohio) the bipartisan narrative I’m hearing is still “he had two kids”.
It is easy to voice support for the downfall of the current order and the erosion of legal standards; it is a much harder thing to convert your everyday existence into an existence which disregards that order and flaunts the legal system. Most people implicitly reinforce the rule of law and the status quo at multiple points throughout a single day yet very rarely do they do the opposite once in their lives; that is what makes them citizens. If your hyposthesis is correct then it is simply an expression of the total implosion of the social order of the USA, it is the creation of a Disunited Individuals of America.
I think if the widespread approval of the killer across the political spectrum were indicative of some "cross factional disregard for the rule of law" you'd see that manifest in other, fairly obvious ways. Instead, as always, people seem quite fixated on the rule of law and elites' routine violations of it, on both the left and the right. Conservative outrage at Hunter Biden's pardon or the left pointing to the legal details of yet another reputable legacy institution (this time, Amnesty International) charging Israel with genocide are just recent examples.
It's true, of course, that Democrats and Republicans have been eroding the public's trust in the rule of law at an accelerated, hyper-mediatized clip. But this trend is recognizable in America as far back as the 1970s. Americans' approval of vigilante justice, be it real or fictionalized, stretches back even further. The "karma's a bitch" sentiment I see and hear being expressed re: UnitedHealthcare's CEO - not just on the internet but in public - is, I think, better understood as the latest installment of this admiration than some affirmative gesture towards a new political strategy, tactic, belief, or trend in thinking. No serious person thinks this guy getting clipped will change anything. It's just that, in an era where everyone is increasingly aware that nothing is going to get better, they're feeling pretty pleased that the right people's lives have gotten worse for a moment. This is about a libidinal desire for catharsis absent political change, not a change in itself.
That libidinal desire can be harnessed, brother. That’s the point. Unexpected events (black swan events and happy accidents alike) have triggered paradigm shifts all throughout human history. It’s early yet. This just happened.
I don't think that's what Joshua's arguing at all, but sure! I'm skeptical, though.
>> The breakdown of this order is now pushing on the open door of a 21st century politics that is fully based
🙃
ty I was wondering if anyone would catch this lol
https://imgur.com/a/EnYZ9pt
How would you describe the inherent contradictions of liberalism? Is the contradiction between enlightenment values & base human tendencies (towards tribalism, religiosity, whatever) or something else?
I think that it is better, for accurate discussion of history and politics (avoiding anachronisms etc.), to think of liberalism as an historically particular cultural expression of a mode of production rather than as a Platonic Form. You can avoid having to understand "liberalisms" contradictions in terms of other "pure, timeless ideals" like tribalism or religiousity since, these supposedly timeless ideals are in fact themselves products of all preceding modes of production and particular expressions of the historical process. We can think of liberalism as the ideology of an ascendent bourgeois political order emerging in the wake of and concurrent with European Colonisation, Industrialisation and the novel division of labour thay we have had for the past 200 years or so. It can sometimes be hard to say "when" liberalism began some argue that it began with "humanism" of the Renaissance others with the Protestant Reformation and others with the French and American Revolutions but certainly since those Revolutions it has been the ruling political order of the international colonial network. Its contradictions lie in its historical development; from yoir perspective of "humanitarian rights" we see that liberalism preaches at any given time democracy for all (and it whispers that it only exists for some), it speaks of a fraternity (but is not clear who belongs to it), it declares FREEDOM (but it utilises force and tyranny in the workplace) et cetera
The thing I always think about is if we were all truly "rational actors", then stuff like advertising or gambling wouldn't exist, because there's no rationale to be swayed to drink sugary carbonated shit by seeing it on a tv screen, or throw your money away in search of jackpot you know does not exist, but alas, primate brains, etc.
I guess you can get all semantic about what rationality specifically is or whatever but regardless, what I think Josh is pointing towards is that all of our current institutions operate structurally downstream from these enlightenment values, in assumption that these values (ie voting works because people will always vote in their best interests, etc etc etc) make the system durable and perpetual.
Of course, as we continue to see, if erosion of this hegemonic power is possible, then the contradictions of liberalism suddenly implicate massive socioeconomic and cultural precarity everywhere, inherently contradicting the "rational" nature of these institutions to begin with. So like yes enlightment values vs ingrained human traits
Colonialism constantly injects undemocratic ideas within the bubble of liberal democracy. Further, the economy seems to be eating its own foundations in pursuit of abstract financial profit, or to defend an increasingly small bubble of hyper wealth.
The frontiers all seem to be exhausted and settled and spoken for, from the land itself, to our ability to pollute, down to every last second of our attention, this is all done in the name of private interests - but we find ourself socially crumbling. The last major frontier was the internet, but again, this gold rush also seems to be over. See how streaming has fallen apart from its golden age. Maybe this will change, but it seems like no new frontiers will ever arise which can breath life into the thing, aside from (1) uncracked countries which liberalism can demolish and subject to the dollar, and (2) increasingly brutal exploitation against our own people (3) if there is a great war or financial disaster, maybe things will burn down like clearing old growth in forest, and open places to be harvested all over again - but, given the current state of things, the anger and division, such an implosion is just as likely to put all of our leaders' heads on sticks.
The popular ideas of freedom and equality in people's heads are increasingly pushed away from what we get through our institutions. The state and business leaders are increasingly our enemy, and not a means to secure our own interests. But, as the Bidens of the world would see it, this is humanity's utopia, the pinnacle of science and reason itself. It needs educated people, but has no interest in what we say. Liberalism needs to constantly deploy new technologies to continue upending production and generating new frontiers for profit, but these technologies have unleashed entirely new forms of social consciousness.
Is this a quote from Das Kapital or something ?
I can condense.
Colonialism makes people racist and this outward racism makes people turn against internal democracy. Also, the economy is unlikely to find new life to breathe, as the means of raw expansion which have historically characterized capitalism are near or beyond their limits. An economic catastrophe could re-open the board, like how WW2 brought us out of the Great Depression - but this does not appear politically survivable for our leaders.
Pinching the problem from both ends, continuing the course is not sustainable either, particularly because new technologies have allowed people to think and act in new ways. The established order of things comes into conflict with these new developments, causing widespread political unrest.
Boop
New stuff below
I left out that certain new innovations could, in theory, create a new gold rush by refining production processes. Even if expansion is over, you can become more efficient instead. The Kuznetz curve indicates that this is already in motion. We can also see it because of the popular idea that we are living through a new industrial revolution, focused on information technology. However, the overall spoils and prosperity this brings about have been outpaced by pure finanical predation, financial shell games - inflation, higher corporate pay, breaking up unions, so on - things that just result in higher levels of exploitation, the new gains are mostly being funneled to the top. This is another reason for the current political heat, as seen in the CEO shooting and the popular response. Further, neither of these tendencies reduce emissions or pollution, and our planet cannot sustain our current way of life.
Efficiency may also have a limit - for example, an ideal thermodynamic engine has a mechanical limit on how efficiently it can convert energy into usable work. However, this is a loose connection and human society is qualitatively different than an engine, so this example of the engine may indicate something but it does not prove anything.
My comment was meant to be taken literally, not an attack. Sorry lol.
. “Also, the economy is unlikely to find new life to breathe, as the means of raw expansion which have historically characterized capitalism are near or beyond their limits.”
I’ve thought this myself many times, but I’m not an economist and don’t have serious evidence.
Oh oops lol . I have been trying to consciously riff of marx, like his very famous quote about relations of production buckling under the pressure of the forces of production, stirring social revolution. I am not academically studied either, i also have a bad habit of speaking more confidently than i should.
In the book "Three Body Problem," the author points out that revolutions in production are tied to our scientific understanding of matter. For example, we had to learn chemistry before we could perfect many fuel mixtures and explosives and material strengths, and we had to know about atomic structure before we could make computers or split the atom. I think this ties into my idea about expansion versus precision/efficiency - private companies can make use of atomic precision, smaller microchips, smaller phones, faster code, smarter machines - but splitting the atom is nuclear power, which will never be a private enterprise, it's inherently social. The same dynamic will likely continue be true when future generations gain deeper understandings of matter.
The only raw expansion capitalism produces in energy today, is more coal oil gas, which is killing us.
But the issue with precision and efficiency, is that profit requires you to have something which others do not. Precision and efficiency are based in information. Compare to expansion, for example, expanding the use of oil - a single barrel of oil is a real thing and that barrel can only be in one place. i have a barrel and you do not, I sell you a barrel. But the /knowledge/ of how to do something very efficiently, like computer chip lithography, has to be consciously restricted. Precision can involve tangible access - for example, there is a real cost with gaining the ability to measure a nanometer, but these things as information are way more easily replicated and spread ... if the companies that owned these methods wanted to share ... obviously they do not.
Thus, if we really are passing from an era of raw production to an era of information, this may be an argument for why socialism could succeed today, even if it did not succeed in the past. First, raw expansion, to be compatible with our planet, must be nuclear, and nuclear is social. Second, information wants to be free.
Not sure what I look forward to more, a doomscroll episode or a newsletter/substack. Great work either way 🫡
Murder is bad
😂
Liberalism was always incompatible with capitalism even as it creates capitalism.
Saint Luigi Did Nothing Wrong. The only people complaining about him or the CEO shooting are Establishment Simps and Jews.
More Dead Corporats. Peter Theil should be next.
Keep it up!
I’m afraid that the echo chamber is leading us to believe it’s partisan when in reality (I’m from Ohio) the bipartisan narrative I’m hearing is still “he had two kids”.
It is easy to voice support for the downfall of the current order and the erosion of legal standards; it is a much harder thing to convert your everyday existence into an existence which disregards that order and flaunts the legal system. Most people implicitly reinforce the rule of law and the status quo at multiple points throughout a single day yet very rarely do they do the opposite once in their lives; that is what makes them citizens. If your hyposthesis is correct then it is simply an expression of the total implosion of the social order of the USA, it is the creation of a Disunited Individuals of America.
You're secretely controlling Jreg with nanobots; you can't fool me
Please keep the casual Sunday newsletter coming 👍🏼