This assumes that people want or should want to cooperate, that their basic belief is something like "We should all be willing to cooperate with everyone else." — baker

I wouldn't use "cooperate," but be willing to learn and understand -- yes, that's assumed; indeed, it has to be. If that's not the case, what point is there in talking? Perhaps in front of an audience, to demonstrate how irrational the other person is, or something like that -- which is fine. But I don't have much interest in it -- although I admittedly fall into that trap too often without knowing it.

And for some people, sometimes, political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other" is precisely what they are in for in discussion, even if ostensibly, they're seeking to discuss advanced mathematics or climate change or whatever. — baker

Sure -- that's all over the place and, I argue, is almost always a complete waste of time which gets us exactly nowhere. Might as well just scream at each other or, better yet, fight to the death with fists, swords or guns, as they would do in times past when there was no other way to settle a dispute. I'm not opposed to that either -- but I'm excluding that from my axioms, since it falls outside the realm of discourse.

These are good, solid ideas, Xtrix. But, like all rules for conversation, I think they will increase time and energy rather than reduce them. — NOS4A2

I'm only not in favor of wasting time and energy.

Yours and my own views are quite different and I fear pulling them apart would only lead to frustration. — NOS4A2

I guess you're a good example, yeah. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect your views on both the world in general and human nature are radically different, and so there's no sense in seriously "debating" any political or economic or scientific or philosophical issue.

despite Friedman’s successes with the abolition of the draft and maybe floating exchange rates, he has had little influence worth noting, and the crimes of “neoliberalism” are too often overstated. — NOS4A2

Little influence worth noting?

Again, this is just factually wrong, and demonstrably so -- like most things you think and claim -- but since I know the reason why you often make these false claims, as I would about the claims of a flat-earther or creationist, showing it as such is a good example of a waste of time. You're not capable of seeing it, so it wouldn't be for that reason, and doing so for anyone reading this exchange (in the off chance anyone *is* reading it) is generally futile or exhibitionist as well.

But when there is such consensus, what will people talk about? — baker

All kinds of things. How best to solve problems, personal and otherwise, comes to mind. Remember that I'm talking about answers to very basic questions, and more as a reminder of common beliefs and goals. Starting there and building on it is important, because then you better flush out the differences in solution or approach.

I've used mathematics as an example, and poker. But perhaps health is a better analogy. Any discussion about a proper diet rests upon the background assumption that there is such a thing as "healthy," that it's a goal, and that it is generally achievable.

Or perhaps what route to take. No point in discussing that if neither party agrees on the destination. And so on.

Seems very obvious, and indeed it is. It's nearly a truism. But especially in areas of politics and economics, it's worth having and worth reminding each other of. In an age where many assume the other person "hates America and wants it to fail," it should occasionally be done. Better to take the person at their word and go from there -- because if their actions, solutions, strategies are counter to their professed goals, this can then be shown with evidence. Yes, this is an idealization, but when possible should be applied. I disregard anything else -- because at that point, conversation is totally useless anyway, so all rules go out the window and you might as well be talking to a gazelle.

And naturally we take things personally. Someone telling us we are incorrect feels to many like an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. We are social beings and in real physical meeting with people there is a multitude of factors on how we approach the other. In the internet there is just a name without anything else. Hence we can be incredibly different in the social media (or here, where we are anonymous) than when actually meet people or have to work with them. — ssu

Very true. I have struggled with this since the days of AOL message boards. I have seen it everywhere. In real life I’ve run into problems too, but much less — either because I’m forced to communicate better and hold my temper, because of nonverbal cues, because others are less aggressive, or a combination. But it’s always been there online, and has only gotten worse.

I think the rules I mentioned apply in both cases, but should be even more explicitly applied to the online world, where anonymity pulls one into acting poorly and generally wasting time by shouting into an ether.

But what's the difference between moderation and censorship? — ssu

A very fine line. When one agrees to rules of the game, however, it’s a different story. I think the Forum does a good job with moderation generally.

You think that's a minority group? — Isaac

When it comes to climate change, vaccines, COVID, etc — yes. But overall, the general feeling is that government is bought by special interests.

Your axioms of discourse appear typicaly liberal to my eye. It seems I presumed too much. We might leave it there. — Banno

They may very well be. I was being genuine when I asked you to clarify it for me, because the connection may well be an interesting one -- just one I'm currently ignorant of. But I'm happy to leave it there too.

If consensus is agreeable to you, fine. — Neri

Yes, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists -- like the overwhelming consensus of any scientific field -- should immediately tell a layperson something about the world.

For example, that perhaps their few hours of research and citation of two relatively obscure articles may not undermine the entire field, that the field has probably considered many of these "discoveries," and that maybe -- just maybe -- they don't really have a clue about climatology, but have approached the field in an attempt to undermine it for emotional reasons -- reasons usually tied to religious or political belief.

These ideas should at least cross one's mind.

Or go on believing that you've cracked the code. Whatever floats your boat. In which case you'll have a seat with the flat earthers, creationists, holocaust deniers, and 9/11 truthers.

Why disavow liberalism? Is there a considered reason? — Banno

When did I disavow liberalism? I'm just not immediately seeing the connection. If you want to clarify both what you mean by "liberalism" and how you think the parts of what I said relate to it, I'm all ears.

I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal."
— Xtrix

Really? You set out some of the basic tenets of liberalism. Was that not your intent? — Banno

Well the word "liberalism" is pretty vague these days, but I was assuming you meant it in its modern context. If you're referring to classical liberalism or the enlightenment, etc., then I'm sure there's something to that. But that wasn't my conscious intent, no.

A large minority of this country are so distrustful of everything except their favored media, that they're willing to fight on the side of Covid, climate change, and insurrection. All in the name of "freedom," of course.

It's a large death cult which will probably bring everyone down with it.

In a perfect world every discussion would end with a Rogerian agreement. — Shawn

I don't believe that.

If I recollect correct, in logical argument, both parties run backwards together as far as necessary to find a premise upon which they agree. Then and only then do they go forward with disagreement. Otherwise, they're just two ships passing in the night, or risk being so. I think the same analysis would apply to the definition of terms. — James Riley

I think so too.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted?
— Xtrix
Perhaps one simple (if not already mentioned) issue is what is the agenda, the motivation of someone to engage in a discourse. This can vary a lot. — ssu

Sure, and I didn't make clear in the OP, but I'm assuming good faith. If there are ulterior motives, then that's a different story -- but since that's sometimes hard to tell, for the time being I suspend that judgment and assume the other person really believes what they say they do.

Philosophical debates can lapse into a competition about who knows best. Some think it's a contest of who is the most intelligent. Not that we can learn something from each other and different viewpoints and arguments are beneficial. — ssu

Yes, which is unfortunately what "debate" has often turned into: scoring points. As if it's a boxing match. That can be entertaining, but I for one am often left disappointed by interchanges like that.

That all sounds very liberal and pleasant, but what process goes into "establishing agreement not only about basic definitions... but also about basic beliefs"? — Banno

I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal."

I mentioned the process that goes into establishing agreement. It takes a willingness of both people to accurately understand the other person's point of view. I think it's essential to go to more basic questions beforehand -- for example, questions about human nature before diving into a "debate" about economics. We may find the other person's point of view is so different that any discussion will be irrelevant, or else we find that we're in agreement -- in which case, the conversation goes on.

And what if such agreement cannot be found? — Banno

Then it's often not worth having a discussion, in my view. If the other person doesn't even agree that 2 + 2 = 4, what's the sense of discussing the quadratic formula?

What if the other person's position remains obscure? — Banno

This is part of the process -- making that explicit. If they can't agree on basic terms, beliefs about the world, or goals, then it's usually a waste of time to discuss much of anything.

What if the difference of commonality is exactly what is significant? — Banno

Sometimes it is, and one can still go on talking. Other times it's not worth continuing (and in my view, that's most of the time). But it's best to know the differences beforehand, either way.

I'd rather know, before discussing geology or evolution, whether you're a Biblical literalist, and believe that God created the universe in 6 days, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. Likewise, if you believe humans are essentially selfish, greedy creatures and the highest purpose of life is the maximizing and accumulation of gold and slaves, I'd at least like to know that before discussing macroeconomic policies. Would save me a good deal of time.

Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong. — Banno

Of course. I don't argue differently.

An unwelcome truth is that the folk who are wrong can equally be ourselves. — Cuthbert

And often is.

Other people will presume that we are crazy, evil, brainwashed, hypocritical or dim — Cuthbert

Probably, yes. That shouldn't stop us.

We can argue that both the loggers and the conservationists want the same thing for their children. A viable future. But at this point it can go south very quickly. — Tom Storm

I think the the tools you describe are useful and can work if people come together in good faith. — Tom Storm

Things can go south very quickly, yes. That's a possibility.

But if they truly do want a better world for their kids, there is a right answer about the decisions they're making to cut down trees -- an answer that can only be given when that goal is established. This then requires evidence, reasoning, etc., to show. But unless we establish (or assume) that they really do share this goal (of a better life for their kids), there's no point in engaging. At that point you reach the level of dealing with a rabid bear.

But it's extremely difficult to begin a conversation without these buzzwords coming up very quickly. — Manuel

Right, which is why I think they should be avoided or at least clarified. Otherwise it's a complete waste of time.

Why? — Ennui Elucidator

Why what?

Can you provide a few examples of conversations that would have been improved by this process? Additionally, please provide some indication of how improvement is being assessed - from who’s perspective, by what criteria, etc. — Ennui Elucidator

I think this forum provides plenty of examples, but there are many from my own experience and mistakes. I often misunderstand and misrepresent the other person, and in the end, only after a long argument, come to see that I was mistaken and had misattributed beliefs, values, attitudes, or characteristics to them without knowing it. Had I not assumed the other was an idiot, or deluded, or childish, or otherwise simply reacted, and first made an attempt to understand, it would have saved me time -- I would have either confirmed I was correct or else realized I wasn't and went on to more constructive discourse.

I think progress is when two people are collaborating on solving a problem and learning rather than wallowing in misunderstandings before anything happens.

It is not the same when it comes to political and economic structure. These cannot be analogized, not by any sensible stretch of the imagination. Again, power and positionality. Who is speaking? To what end? — StreetlightX

Exactly right. I'm failing to see the disagreement, beyond my use of analogy (which is admittedly limited).

Had Friedman's ideas not provided the ideological cover for what would have, in all probability, be done with or without them, they would have used another set of ideas. The idealist approach to understanding neoliberalism is totally misguided. — StreetlightX

Every destructive action taken the last 40 years, in what amounts to nothing more than a capitalist-class power grab, has its intellectual justification -- and that's true across the board historically. It was true with National Socialism. Whether those in power truly believe these justifications or not isn't my point -- my point is the effect it has on the public.

Since they can't express what amounts to a belief in the divine right of kings, they need cover. I argue that this cover matters in the same way that propaganda, through education and media, matter. That's not the same as ignoring actions. Besides, is there any doubt that certain actions can't be taken without first fooling the public into permitting them?

Just look at real examples -- like the slogans that get repeated about small government and the welfare queens here in the US. Very effective propaganda. If ideas like these take hold, as they did, then it opens the space for the concrete actions of cutting taxes and eliminating social programs, which is what was desired all along by the wealthy and powerful.

You're quite right that if it weren't Milton Friedman it would have been someone else -- but I bring him up only because that's what in fact won out. So there's no doubt that the neoliberal program is a set of actions like deregulation, destroying unions, cutting taxes, and so on -- but do you think any of these actions could have occurred in the Keynesian era?

And just to be clear, I'm all for bad faith arguments, tactically employed. I want to win in reality, not 'be the most rational'. The enemy ought to be exasperated. — StreetlightX

Sure, but I don't think this is how the Chicago boys won the universities and most of the public. I think they truly believed this bullshit, and so were in essence acting on true convictions and in good faith. Much more persuasive.

I could be wrong about that -- in which case, fine: bad faith it is. I'm all for effective propaganda. It's true the left sucks at this.

I don't agree. I think the values of most Americans are pretty mainstream. Discord has been intentionally engineered to keep people with common needs and goals separated. — T Clark

Sure, which is why I said "almost." Some can be reached. But it's been engineered all too well, to the point of a cult. I do pity those people, but I'm not totally convinced that they can be persuaded that they're mistaken. (Because they don't want to be.)

The division and discord we see here, with the Trump presidency the most recent example, has been building for decades. It was engineered implemented by the Republican Party to advance their particular agenda. — T Clark

When it comes to the population interested in politics, I do believe it's almost entirely hopeless. There's no longer anything rational about it, and no one is acting on good faith. There's no consistency, no principles -- it's pure tribalism. In that case, it's best not to waste our time with argumentation, and my "axioms" go right out the window. We simply must overpower them -- through force, though voting, through organizing, through greater outreach, etc.

But to the leaders in government and business who still have some semblance of reason left, I think there's still a chance -- and the only way to win is to play the game better. If the Chicago School could transform the intellectual landscape by infiltrating Harvard and Yale, corporate boardrooms and Capitol Hill, in just a decade or so, through nothing but articles, interviews, lectures, television appearances, books, etc., then there's no reason to believe the pendulum can't swing the other way.

The only question is whether it's too late. That may very well be the case -- and indeed I fear it is.

But still we should try in the meantime -- while also organizing as quickly as we can.

#1 is sisyphean. Just look at philosophy for heavens sake, we can't even agree on what consciousness or matter are, simpler notions than politics by far. — Manuel

I don't think that's true. There seems to me as much consensus about things in politics as there is about anything -- it's just deliberately been targeted for confusion and propaganda. But when the buzz words are removed -- "socialism," "communism," "capitalism," "free markets," "liberal," etc. -- it's a much different picture.

A major caveat: this isn't always true. Some people are simply too far gone to even bother with.

Yours an invitation to civil discourse, but hypocrisy is not interested, and these days doesn't even bother to disguise itself. The question becomes, when will they be subject to real punishment and under what circumstances. Because imo, many have long since earned it. . — tim wood

I agree, of course. I'm interested only in civil discourse if I believe the other side is acting on good faith, which is why I brought up Friedman, and I restrict this mostly to the domain of the intelligentsia.

You may never have to deal with Euclid's axioms, but economics and politics will deal with you whether you like it or not. — StreetlightX

We live with technology, and its basis in science and mathematics -- and don't have to understand it. Likewise we live with the decisions of those in power, both in government and in business; the basis for those decisions come from political and economic paradigms -- whether we understand them or not. The idea of the efficiency of free markets is as much taken for granted as Euclid's postulates in many minds.

When some corporation is poisoning your water supply for profit, the idea that one must hold equal in discourse what is unequal in reality is to side with said poisoners. — StreetlightX

Yes of course. But I'm not a pacifist. I fully acknowledge that rationality and civil discourse necessarily break down, righty, in many situations. Sometimes we simply have to punch back -- no more words.

What I think you're objecting to is two assumptions which I may not have made clear. One is that the other person is rational, and the second is that this person is acting on good faith -- however wrong or deluded they may be. This is why I say it's simply a waste of time to argue with anyone before at least securing this.

I like the example of games. If you and I are playing poker, and we establish we both want the same outcome (to win money), then we can discuss the best strategies. I may hold a very losing strategy and not know it, and if I'm rational I should be more than happy to be corrected. If I'm a drunken imbecile, and don't give a damn about winning money, then there's no point discussing strategy (or anything else).

What I'm trying to ultimately attack is the false dogma that the ruling class have used to maintain their power.

"The capitalist class was in a great deal of difficulty. They decided to push back real hard in the 70s. But like any ruling class, they needed ruling ideas. So the ruling ideas were that freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty, and all the rest of it, should be the ruling ideas of a new social order. It was this order that got implemented in the 1980s and 1990s. In the course of that, certain adjustments occurred; for instance, a much stronger emphasis upon financialization and financial power -- because finance is one way in which an individual can accumulate a vast amount of wealth." -- David Harvey [Emphasis mine]

This fight may not be won with words or by changing minds -- I'm doubtful about that myself. But as long as we're here discussing things, I think my rules of thumb are generally helpful to keep in mind. Otherwise what's the point? The only alternative is physical force, and if that's the case, so be it.

You are a closed-minded fool who believes that anyone who disagrees with you deserves to be dead. — Neri

That's not what I said.

I will not wish the same for you, even though you do not agree with the freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment--the most basic of all human rights. — Neri

Again -- completely wrong. I believe in your right to talk harmful nonsense and promote climate denial and ignorance of science.

It’s a ridiculous system. There’s also the prospect that this loses the senate, because if Feinstein dies it’s the Republican Governor that will appoint the next one.

Warmed-over denialist garbage cribbed from notorious purveyors of science disinformation. Nothing to see here. — SophistiCat

:up:

I got about 4 sentences in. Denialists are still hanging on, the overwhelming evidence be damned. Since nothing else will change their minds, I guess we just have to hope that they die off quickly before bringing the human species down with them.

People who don't believe in God or any higher power like to say that the Big Bang was the start of the universe — HardWorker

People who BELIEVE in God (whatever that means) say the same thing, whether they call it a big bang or not, and the same problems arise.

What created god? He's uncreated? Infinite? Unknowable? So maybe the universe is uncreated, infinite, unknowable. As Carl Sagan would say, "Why not save a step?"

Let's not pretend there's any principles involved on which most people base their judgments. The people screaming about authoritarianism because of the "big government" shutting things down or requiring masks are the same ones who will defend the government when it's the party they prefer.

The people screaming about corporations restricting their "freedoms" concerning vaccines and free speech are the same ones who have been telling us for years that private enterprise should be free to conduct their private businesses how they see fit -- including discriminating against minorities.

We just had four years under a man who wanted to undermine a free election and incited an insurrection when he lost, but now we're asking about authoritarianism? The timing the question itself seems politically motivated. Seems to me we just barely escaped a descent into authoritarianism.

Got to narrow the question a little: are the people who have power (i.e., who make the major decisions and control the political and economic institutions) becoming more authoritarian?

No more than they've always been.

West Virginia creates jobs farming lavender at former coal mines

No reason this can't happen elsewhere.

Without 100% electricity sourced from wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro, electric vehicles is business as usual. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but that doesn't happen overnight. I think it's good to transition to that, get the infrastructure up, and then work on sourcing electricity only from renewables. If we don't start getting that going, nothing will happen.

I'd rather there be a push for public transportation, but if that "can't" happen for political reasons, this is the only way I can see of transitioning.

We are failing at limiting global warming, which isn't just an inconvenience, it will eventually be an existential threat. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Too big of an idiot, I see. That’s fine. Save your simplistic comments for elsewhere.

I don't think switching to electric autos (140 million of them in the us alone) is a good idea, — Bitter Crank

Why?

You know it's interesting how people only seem to get upset when you accuse them of something they are guilty of.... — Cheshire

You quoted me out of context. Please don't quote me again.

Certainly the capitalist driven industrial revolution bears the major responsibility for global warming. No doubt, the coal barons, oil barons, lumber barons, steel barons, railroad barons, auto barons, air travel barons, plastic junk barons, etc. barons of Europe, North America, and now Asia didn't intend to cause global warming. But had they known of global warming in 1800 it is doubtful they would have behaved any differently. If it is man's nature to use resources, capitalists are manic blind resource exhausters, who never have a reason to moderate until something is gone, and not even then. — Bitter Crank

We could blame capitalism. I'm happy to do that, but there is another cause: Humans are just not very good at wide-ranging, long-term consequence-calculating. — Bitter Crank

:clap:

Who is to blame? We know already what. Is it even useful to ask if there is a blame? I mean, is climate change that bad? — Prishon

Yes, it is that bad and yes, there is something to blame: the fossil fuel industry and, more generally, short-term concern for profits encouraged by capitalism.

How about don't quote me. — Cheshire

Don't want to be quoted, don't post.

Good point.

ignoring the sentence directly following this one spoke to your entire complaint above. — Cheshire

It didn't, and you were not quoted out of context. Nor am I accusing you of taking this position. On the contrary, I think it's accurate. Those who tacitly hold this view of human beings are simply missing the bigger picture.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/climate/tennessee-flood-damage-impact.html

Another example both of how capitalism encourages short-term thinking and lethal stupidity when it comes to climate change.

I remember when my friend had visited the US just when Obama was first elected, there was a lot of hopeful thinking. Yet unfortunately, this isn't something that just a President can change. — ssu

I keep coming back again and again to a simple goal: organization. Getting involved, on the local level, with anyone willing to listen and join in, or joining in with something already happening -- and there are some things happening here and there. But not particularly well, and not particularly prevalent or effective. Still, it's worth trying.

I liken it to all to someone complaining about how boring everyone around them is, how uninteresting their lives and conversations, etc., and yet never offering anything themselves, never speaking out, never leading discussions, etc. It's similar to "political hobbyism."

I think the emphasis on individualism needs to go out and being pro-social needs to come into vogue. There's no other way. If we continue pinning our hopes to the Obamas or Bidens or even Bernies, we're toast. That's limiting yourself to a vote, like restricting yourself to asking for a raise or quitting. When you think these are the only options, then you're both disarming yourself and limiting your circle of influence to your living room. That guarantees nothing changes.

To hell with these political leaders and these corporations.

t is a system of exchange that relies on humans to be selfish when they want something. — Cheshire

But this is a very narrow view of human beings. All you have to do is look around, and you see cooperation, solidarity, empathy, concern for strangers, etc. I agree with Nietzsche about overvaluing "pity" and compassion, and even Ayn Rand in terms of Christian-like altruism, but that's certainly not the problem these days. If anything, we could use a higher dose of that. We've gone way too far the other direction. The fundamental principle being followed the last 40 years has essentially been "greed is good," similar to Adam Smith's "vile maxim." We see how that's turned out.

We could just as easily say "part of human nature is love and concern for others" -- and that'd be true as well. Just look at families and friends. The picture upon which modern ideas of the "free market" rests is the assumption that human beings are sociopaths, and that the greatest goal in life is the accumulation of wealth. It's anti-social. Look closely at the assumptions, and you'll eventually arrive at this idea. Like I said, it's very narrow -- and fairly sick. A symptom of decadence.

A more pro-social, healthier view of human beings should be assumed before we decide how to organize a society, its government and its economy. Perhaps going back and reading Plato, Aristotle, and even Adam Smith is a good idea.

And I think this is happening here too now ...when people speak publicly, on the record. Have them speak privately and you can see they usually are totally aware of the problems and call them by their actual name. — ssu

Yes, which is interesting. Unlike others on the forum and in media generally, who are reasonably skeptical about the level of public understanding, I think that the large majority of Americans fundamentally agree with each other that something is wrong. That's in spite of the propaganda that says everything is great -- like that the economy is great because the stock indexes have hit records.

The anger is not articulated well, but it's right under the surface because they live it every day. They sense something is wrong with this world and would like to see it changed. It's not envy, it's not entitlement. It's a sense of fairness in a world where the rules aren't at all fair. But who or what is to blame?

Unfortunately, when it comes to that question, many take out their unhappiness on immigrants, or "welfare queens," or the "inner cities," or China, or the liberal elite, or "big government," or whatever else you can imagine. That's where the propaganda you mentioned is very effective and comes in very handy for those with power, because the anger then gets diverted to everything but the source, or else distracted by superficialities of life, like fashionable consumption or pop culture.

A Bernie Sanders style social democracy would solve a lot of this and is way better than the neoliberal bullshit we’re dealing with now, but is it sustainable? F*ck no if you ask me (and I’m sure you probably know why) — Albero

I’m interested in hearing some more pragmatic solutions and your thoughts on this. You might disagree and I hate to say it, but I think voting in FDR style democrats is merely a compromise the capitalist class is more than hap[py] to welcome for a few decades before chipping away it again — Albero

I'm not sure what you mean by "sustainable." Fiscally sustainable, or in general?

If the latter, I agree -- a return to the New Deal era, which is all that Bernie is advocating really (although he's portrayed as the left of the left; in reality, on the world stage he's a moderate), is just setting us up for another swing to the right in 20 or 30 years.

But that's if we as people don't push any farther. I think if we ever have anything like the New Deal again, and so return to something like the 50s and 60s, where there was less wealth inequality, the American public has to be much more organized and push much harder. But for what? That's part of your question.

Pragmatic solutions should be thought of as short-term and long-term. I think it's important to have a long-term vision, as it informs the short-term decisions. But we don't want to be overly rigid, because we have no clue as to what the future brings.

In the short term, short of a revolution we're not getting rid of state-capitalism or private ownership, so Bernie's proposals are very good ones. I think strengthening unions is important, higher taxes, more regulations, and new legislation are important -- especially concerning things like stock buybacks, campaign contributions, etc. All that will be difficult enough. But then there are other solutions: encouraging worker co-ops is a huge move that could be made. Short of strong unions and worker co-ops is another option: worker representation on the boards of directors and in higher management.

In the long term, I think Parecon is a good model. There are historical examples of other modes of organization as well. The push should ultimately be a more anarchist society, where people control their lives, in politics but more importantly (and often simply overlooked as impossible) in the workplace as well. Not necessarily majoritarian democracy, a classless society, total equality, or anything like that, but simply more participation and equity.

My other thread about the co-op model gets into examples of this in terms of the workplace.

I focus more on economic matters because I think that's where most of the power comes from, whether we like it or not. I wish it were the government, because that's slightly easier to change. In business, there's not even the profession of democracy or fairness -- if it's private, they can do what they want.

Even people of the right are complaining about this regarding mask and vaccine mandates, and what they view as censorship on Twitter and Facebook. I think their rationale is absurd, but the general sentiment is correct: the private sector, major corporations, have too much power. (These are the same people totally fine with Trump authoritarianism and private businesses being allowed to discriminate against gays, but I digress.)

Markets have been the real world since the end of the Bronze Age. — frank

I have not once argued that markets are not part of the real world.

"Free markets," like those that "self-regulate," are fantasies. There is no invisible hand.

When anything becomes to be worshipped, just ignore the worship and the worshippers. — ssu

I'd love to, if not for the fact that they run the world -- and that's not an exaggeration. This dogma (really more akin to a religion) is espoused by corporate and political leaders to this day. The dogma says that markets know best, that they should not be interfered with by the pesky state, that anything negative in history can be reduced to state interference, and so on. It's all very self-serving, especially when a "market" has been very good to you.

Of course this is never admitted. Instead we're given lectures about how "government is the problem." The government is somewhat democratic. So where does the solution come from?Business. Naturally we're supposed to hear "mom and pop stores" and "the middle class" when this is stated, but it's not that -- it's big business, and that means (in today's world) multinational corporations.

Hardly worth listening, because these people aren't open to discussion or any new ideas. — ssu

What other options do we have? Revolution? I'm all for that. But since it's not happening, we're left only with rational discourse -- and that's probably for the best anyway, given the imbalance of military power.

Have you actually noticed that the most vociferous defense of the free market is given as a response to defend basically either a monopoly or a tight oligopoly situation? — ssu

Yes.

Comes to mind what an economic historian who had written the history of British Petroleum (BP) remarked: when BP is doing good and the UK government thinks about taking more profits or doing something other with the company, the company reminds of it being an independent corporation. When BP is in a tight spot, let's say a possible take over bid is looming, the company reminds the government who how strategically important it is to the UK and it's government. — ssu

An important point, yes. Reminds me of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc. But also Exxon, Chevron, etc. All want a strong welfare state -- for their interests.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-florida-condo-collapse-rampant-corner-cutting-11629816205?mod=mhp

Cutting corners to save money and thus increase profits. Another great example of unregulated capitalism.

And “free to choose.”

So that entirely refutes the argument? — frank

Yes. They’re not lauded for their self regulation, as was your claim. When an industry is deregulated, you see what happens over and over again. The financial sector is an obvious example, but there are plenty of others.

But I’m talking about the real world, not about a hypothetical village somewhere. So there’s that defect, I suppose.

I think theyre lauded for their self regulation. — frank

2008, for example. Self regulation did wonders there.

Btw, can you describe your last experience in or with a free market - or any such experience? — tim wood

There are no free markets in the modern world. So don't hold your breath.

Then perhaps it's better to make a more specific questions. — ssu

Markets are another word for transactions between people. There's nothing wrong with trade. My problem is with free market fantasies, and the very idea that markets are something to be worshipped. They should be one small part of a society, and nothing more.

Markets are elevated to the point of holiness by a merchant mentality, where everything is about transactions, monetary value, and profits. I think we can aspire to more than that.

I never said that. — NOS4A2

Said what?

There is a quote feature.