The phenomenon of care in its totality is essentially something that cannot be tom asunder; so any attempts to trace it back to special acts or drives like willing and wishing or urge and addiction, or to construct it out of these, will be unsuccessful. " p.193-194 — waarala

Yes— thanks for citing this passage.

Again, I think it’s best not to dwell on care. I see care as a bridge between the analysis of being-in-the-world and temporality. We “care” about the world by default— we can’t help it. Just as we can’t help being (or having) a world. What’s more important is the structure of time that emerges from the analysis. After all, it’s not “Being and Care”, it’s being and time.

As I see it, being is man and time is spiritual love. — Gregory

I read it more as: Man, who understands being, is time.

Care is the pragmatic relational structure of relevance that holds between self and world at all times. — Joshs

This isn’t right. You’d have to cite something to back this up, but the very distinction between “self” and “world” is very much antithetical to Heidegger.

And who has really tried it?

Nobody. — ssu

It’s been “tried” for decades in the sense of being viewed as an objective. But like other political fantasies, it’s been nothing but a cover to do nothing for the majority of the population.

Your not killing "bipartisanship" anymore, your killing parliamentarism. — ssu

The Republicans have already done that.

That other pay homage to you or want to be in good terms with you isn't leadership. — ssu

Nor did I once say that.

But I’ll repeat: he’s as much a leader now as he’s ever been. He’s a figurehead. The leaders are McConnell et al.

So I've been reading this great work as a work of love about love. — Gregory

I think it’s best to start from what we can understand about Heidegger. Just take the title: Being and Time. That gives us a clue.

There’s been a lot of analysis about Sorge, but I think it’s best to place it in the context of his entire thesis. What he’s doing is asking about being. He does so by interrogating an entity: us, dasein. This entity has the basic state of being-in-the-world, which he goes on to discuss at length.

Later, he ties many of these aspects to “care” as their existential meaning. I used to think of it as a kind of willing, but I don’t think that’s quite right. I think it has more to do with Husserl’s intentionality—our directed activity, our concernful engagement with the world.

But it’s not that important in my view. What’s more important is the ontological interpretation of care, which turns out to be temporality. Dasein is care in the sense of embodied time, which is the horizon for interpreting or understanding being (including ourselves) — hence “Being and Time.” He’ll also go through a long history of how we’ve traditionally understood ourselves, time, and being generally, starting with the Greeks. This is the main thrust of his work.

So is care that important? Not really, and it can often be mistaken as being emotional somehow because of the connotations of the word, when it’s more akin with directed activity or more related to awareness/attentional behavior.

1. My post had nothing serious to do with the topic. — god must be atheist

Fair enough.

Yes, to hell with any kind of desire to reach consensus: the Majority rules, so just crush the minority! That will surely work...

...just as it has worked during the last years. — ssu

Yes, to hell with trying to convince those who believe in Q anon, that Trump will be reinstated and won the election, that climate change is a hoax, etc. I'm not interested in "consensus" in that respect -- that's a pure delusion, and the hour is already late. If we keep on sleepwalking we're toast as a species (if you "believe" in science, anyway).

The stakes are too high, which was the point of the OP. This "desire to reach consensus" is a joke. How has that worked the last "years" (40+ years to be precise)? If you think it's turned out well, that's your business.

If the Republicans can do it, the Democrats can too -- and should, especially given that their policies have majority support -- unlike McConnell's. It may even lock out Republican power for years to come. Worth a try.

Or we can push trying to "compromise" with people who want to see the election overturned and nothing done on climate change.

Seems like an easy call to me: let "bipartisanship" die.

Otherwise you have policy lurching drastically every time a different side gets a majority. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it's time to take that risk -- this middle-ground bullshit has gotten us exactly nowhere.

In truth the GOP is leaderless. — ssu

He's still as much a "leader" as he ever was, in that they still pay homage to him. But he's been a figurehead all along. So where's the leadership? In the same place they've always been. It's Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and other establishment neoliberals. They always knew Trump was a buffoon, but they're afraid because he's still popular with his base.

Which part is causing difficulties in understanding? — god must be atheist

I assume bipartizan warfare comprises non-military fighting brigades who fall on the non-binary gender spectrum. — god must be atheist

What does this have to do with anything? What does it even mean? "Bipartisan warfare" is militia who fall on the "non-binary gender spectrum"? What does gender have to to with anything this thread is about? Is that supposed to be a joke? Or are you just a joke?

I'm leaning towards the latter.

On that point, what are they going to do when Trump goes? Matt Gaetz? Ivanka? Who is the heir apparent? LOL! — James Riley

There will be no one like Trump in my view.

Remember that he spent 40+ years cultivating a brand, appearing in TV commercials for Burger King, in movies, on magazines, talk show interviews, on the Apprentice, and so on. He was able to "read the audience," and as essentially an entertainer knew how to pander to what he (rightly) saw was the more enthusiastic wing of the Republican party -- what were initially the Sarah Palin/Tea Party type people, and was able to repeat populist slogans (some borrowed from Bernie Sanders), played social media very well, embarrassed his opponents by disregarding common rules of political conduct, and eventually clawed his way to the nomination. Since he stood for nothing in terms of policies, the establishment was happy with him and fell in line, deathly afraid of his voting block -- and his supporters loved him even more because he was doing what they always dreamed of -- sticking it to the liberals and what's seen as the liberal offshoots: the media, Hollywood, academia, feminism, civil rights, environmentalism, etc. etc.

He had 90+% approval rating with Republicans, and energized a segment of the population like never before with his antics -- despite his administration's policies sticking it to his voters economically. He is still much beloved, and much feared, and will probably run again in '24. How can there be another person like this?

Two things are possible: he fades away, or he remains popular. If he remains popular, that doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into votes for other Republicans. Sure, when he's been on the ballot he's done pretty well, despite losing the popular vote twice. But one way to look at this is to say that this represents their "best shot"...and the fact that it still came up short is telling. Remember: 90+ approval rating. People worshiped this guy like a cult figure. So if they can't win with him ON the ballot, what about him not on the ballot? It'll be interesting to see. I think it's more a matter of whether the Democratic voters remain energized as well. If nothing passes in congress the next two years, they'll have nothing to be energized about (without the motivation to oust Trump), and so it could very well be a disaster.

But the bottom line is: there is no heir to Trump. He's the party now. Whether that's enough to win? Who knows. Like always, it comes down to whether the majority of Americans who are against Republican policies and dislike Trump come out and vote or not.

A ruler gives orders to his subordinates, but upon closer examination you will see that only very rare rulers in history — a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan — were themselves the creators of the ideas they came up with. — Rafaella Leon

Reagan was the creator of his own ideas, eh? Lol....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wfPlgKFh8

And that is itself a fallacy: ad vericundium (?). Populum, sorry. — James Riley

Millions of people voted for Hitler, too. Many I'm sure were good, well-intentioned people. So can we really judge them all poorly for helping along a disaster?

Yes.

Funny, how you pretend to be cynical about politics and politicians, except when it comes to your master and suddenly you become as naive as a newborn lamb. Good luck with getting anyone to take you seriously. — Baden

...Just worth quoting.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

I'm not aware of convincing more Republican citizens that climate change is real is referred to as bipartisanship, — Saphsin

It isn’t, but in the context of my example it lead into a broader discussion of completely different realities, and when one should simply give up and move on.

I don't really think it has anything to do with unity or division, it's a bit of a strange way of talking about what's going on, a kind of red herring. — Saphsin

I don't see the strangeness. Americans are fairly divided (mostly aligned with political affiliation -- no surprise) about climate change. Whatever you want to call it, it's not unity. But that's exactly what's needed -- far more so than when we "came together" briefly after 9/11. This division was manufactured, though. If the Koch brothers (et al.) had an interest in not going to war with Afghanistan after 9/11, they probably could have convinced half the population that it was a Democratic hoax or something.

We're talking past each other despite agreement, I meant nonsense as in bipartisanship. — Saphsin

Ah, I must have misread it. Apologies.

Division, to me, is the sign of a healthy politics. — NOS4A2

Like anything, it depends. I personally don't think it's healthy to have division about climate change -- that's something that should be agreed upon, as it was a few years ago before the Koch network took the Big Tobacco playbook and manufactured controversy.

If they kill it and ram through everything they want they will never lose power. If they don't kill it and get nothing done, they will lose power in the mid-terms and never recover. It's gotten that far. It's now or never. — James Riley

Yes, which is precisely why both parties like the idea of bipartisanship: nothing gets done. It simply hasn't dawned on them that they will lose power by getting next to nothing done, and watering everything down the way Obama did. If they do know that, they simply don't care. Very strange.

Except for the top priorities (i.e., what their corporate constituents want), Republicans and most Democrats prefer to have the congress dysfunctional. That's why McConnell didn't break the filibuster for major non-budgetary legislation -- because his top priority was reshaping the courts and cutting taxes. Since the Republicans have no ideas beyond that, having everything else be completely stalled -- now and in the future -- was the best bet.

If the Democrats are smart, they'd end the filibuster immediately. Pressure Manchin as much as possible -- far more than they're doing now. Otherwise they'll lose in 2022, because nothing would have gotten done. Which is exactly what McConnell wants -- dysfunction, obstruction, and nothing passing that's beneficial to the country.

Again worth repeating:

Biden administration: climate change is a priority. (Proposals are arguable.)
Trump administration: climate change is a Chinese hoax.

But there's "no difference" between the parties. :lol:

So working together is a dogma that needs to die? — DingoJones

:yawn:

Things haven't always been that way. — Mr Bee

True, but for multiple reasons it's where we are today.

The NYT was basically gushing over Biden's first infrastructure bill by bypassing the Republicans, and now Biden is being tempted to go back to that nonsense again. — Saphsin

"Nonsense"? When McConnell is saying he will spend 100% of his energy trying to stop this administration, there's little alternative except to pass bills through reconciliation. Hardly "nonsense."

True -- we can do nothing whatever. That's an option. A death sentence for the species, but an option.

So nice that you picked those two, since they're diametrically opposed and clearly reveal liberal elitist hypocrisy.

Every time you reduce air pollution over a first-word liberal enclave, you condemn another hundred thousand or so third worlders to death. When you make energy more expensive, poor people can't afford it. The very poorest in the world can't get clean water and die of disease. All so wealthy liberals in developed countries can feel good about themselves.

Here's a small example. In Ireland, they're diverting crops to biofuels. Environmentalists like that. Sadly, the policy is starving the poor. — fishfry

If this is all you choose to see, that's your business. But they're not at all "diametrically opposed," unless of course you select for examples that fit that Fox News/Wall Street Journal narrative.

To repeat: one party acknowledges a problem, another says it's a "hoax." You can't see the difference? That's also your business.

If we want to talk seriously about how to transition, that's a conversation worth having. You can't have it with Republicans.

You can Google around for dozens of similar stories. — fishfry

No kidding. And in your Googling, you can find what climatologists are saying. You can read about how the ice caps are melting, how most of the hottest years on record have been in the last decade, how sea levels are rising, how we're close to passing the 1.5 degree mark, and how they're telling us that we need to move very quickly indeed to avoid setting off tipping points and utter catastrophe.

The fact that these are the examples you choose to highlight in your Googling, avoiding the issue altogether, is revealing.

The fact is, green energy policies are a disaster for the poor people in developing countries. — fishfry

Fossil fuels have been a disaster for poor people as well, as I'm sure you know from your Googling. Pollution and rising temperatures disproportionately effect poorer nations and minorities, as is well documented. Polluted water from chemical runoff is also well documented -- almost always in poorer areas.

Then there's the little matter that if we continue burning fossil fuels, we're toast. That effects poor people as well.

So what's your solution? I haven't heard any great suggestions yet. And I won't hold my breath.

"Clean up the environment!" "Raise up the poor!" Never thinking for a moment that these two objectives are in conflict — fishfry

They're not in conflict, except in your mind. The poor are suffering anyway, under the greed and pollution of the fossil fuel industry. They already struggle to pay their energy bills, already die of cancers at a greater rate, etc. Again to say nothing of the global consequences for everyone.

We don't like the Democrats' proposals? Fine. Then let's make them better. What are your Republican friends offering? Have they made it a priority? No. Do they believe it a problem? No. What do they say instead? "Don't worry about it, it's a liberal hoax."

Yeah, no difference to see there.

You exemplify the type. — fishfry

And you exemplify a typical right-wing climate denier. Fairly easy to spot, and very common.

Again, not surprising from the guy who spouts 9/11 conspiracies, backs state-sponsored terrorism and defends the murder of children.

What you exemplify, in fact, is the thesis of the OP: you're worth leaving behind.

Can't compromise with sheer delusion.

By “bipartisan” do you mean working together? — DingoJones

Yes.

(In the US since 1980) "bipartisan" = status quo. — 180 Proof

Indeed. I'd argue even prior to 1980. They come together on the 600 billion dollar gift to defense contractors every year, though -- so there's that.

Yeah but die among whom? The public? Political Pundits? I honestly think at this point that it's just a fetish among the political elites at the point. — Saphsin

Political pundits, yes -- but mostly the public. It's hard to say exactly whether the public even wants "bipartisanship" anymore, but if they do then yes, that idea should die.

But money talks and BS walks. So, those who see the writing on the wall need to risk, need to invest, need to innovate, and lure labor and government subsidy and youth and vigor and courage away from the past and into the future. These are the liberals. — James Riley

In some cases, but in many cases in the last 40 years they've been fairly complicit and have lurched rightward. Only now, with Bernie and AOC and others, have you seen a real push towards trying to raise the standards to those of Mexico, Germany, Australia, etc. I hope they continue to push the Democrats farther.

However, when it comes to climate change it's not even a matter of liberal or conservative -- or shouldn't be. That's in fact been manufactured by the Koch network and other fossil fuel interests. It shouldn't be partisan any more than an asteroid should be. But here we are. So it's less about right/left than about rational and irrational/suicidal. True, those on the right line up more with the latter, but not all of them do -- especially the younger conservatives. They want something done as well.

But because it's been successfully paired with being a "liberal" agenda, a "tree hugging" agenda, the Trump crowd shut their ears. It was only a few years ago Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, etc., were all in favor of climate change mitigation.

The Koch's changed that by associating it with liberals, and since conservatives have had it beaten into their heads for 30 years that liberals are evil, anti-America, and condescending destroyers of "their" culture, climate change became "controversial," part of a left-wing conspiracy. Smart move by the Koch's. The tobacco industry should have done that -- just made it a "liberal" thing to stop smoking. They did to a degree, but the public wasn't quite primed enough yet for it.

That's funny, I thought it's the left that does that. Racists who claim to be anti-racist. Fascists who claim to be anti-fascist. Global elitists who claim to be against wealth inequality. People who live in gated communities with private security forces who want to defund the police so that more poor people can get killed. — fishfry

The old "I'm rubber you're glue" ploy.

there's not a hare's breath (or a hair's breadth, never know which one it is) between the left and the right in the US — fishfry

You're living in 2014 still. That may have been true then (it wasn't, but at least it wasn't completely ridiculous a claim), but it's simply absurd now. There's a very real difference between the left and the right these days. Take the one example I gave: climate change. That alone should tell you a difference.

The reason there's so much enmity between the two sides is that they are fighting on the margins about things that don't matter all that much; while the big things are ignored. That's how the global elite and the military/intelligence/media/industrial complex like it. — fishfry

I wouldn't call climate change or wealth inequality the "margins." One party at least acknowledges both are problems and makes proposals to deal with them -- in renewables, in a wealth tax, in corporate tax hikes, etc. Not close to enough, but something. The other says neither are problems.

If you can't see that difference, you're simply stuck in the past.

It comes through loud and clear in your framing of the situation. And yes, I'm in favor of peace -- which is why I'm in favor of a two-state solution, blocked for decades by Israel and the United States.

I don't see how your linked post has much relevance to what I was discussing. If you want to defend Israel's brutal, decades-long occupation and war crimes, there's a different thread for that.

I was simply trying to realistically analyze the situation. — Apollodorus

Yeah, I just disagree with how accurate that analysis is. But most importantly I sense a kind of passivity in the way you describe it -- as if we're waiting around for the right movement to come along, where in reality there are all kinds of people organizing right now, all around us, and all kinds of movements as well. And not just here but all over the world.

But perhaps I misinterpreted.

So what’s missing other than organization?
— Xtrix

Love. That's all I can think of. — James Riley

Maybe you're right. Another way of saying it perhaps is care -- caring for one another, for people who aren't in our social circle or from our part of the world, and for the environment. But that's all a kind of love. So maybe there's something to these religious figures, like the Dalai Lama, and to the 60s and the Beatles. :grin:

A part of me thinks that's it -- a lack of love.

Another part of me thinks that love, care, and concern for others (and for where one lives -- Earth) are as much a part of human nature as anything else -- as greed, fear, or hatred. Human beings are complex creatures.

It's simply the fact that powerful forces are acting in ways that manipulate and control us -- without our knowing it. We know advertisers and big business do this all the time, and the media. But now we've got social media to contend with as well, and that's even more efficient because it's got mathematics behind it -- A.I., algorithms, etc. This is all being programmed using essentially the same model that the mass media used long before social media came on the scene, and which Herman and Chomsky analyzed in Manufacturing Consent. On top of all this, there are just structural issues in place, embedded in our lives -- like the very fact that nearly all of us are essentially forced to work for wages, to become employees (subordinate to an employer), and to spend most of our lives within the confines of jobs that by their nature have to underpay us. This alone takes time, attention, energy, and life away from things we could be doing -- pursuing our own interests, acting creatively, dedicating our lives to causes of mutual concern, etc.

Bottom line is that love/care needs to be brought to the fore, but is currently suppressed under a system that values personal gain (basically greed) above all else -- i.e., accumulation of wealth, money, profits, etc. That's capitalism. This is especially true in the most savage variant of this type of thinking: the neoliberal era that we've all been living in for 40 years.

How to reawaken those aspects of human nature within such a system?

A tough question, especially with the powers owning and controlling the data and information we all see and hear. Tough to break outside of it and "think for oneself"... but it can be done.

Putting down the newspaper, turning off the TV, and putting your iPhone away for a little while can help, I think. But equally important is getting other people to as well, having conversations with them, and taking action collectively -- that's why we need organization.

You could take communism for your political vision but most people will not go along with that. — Apollodorus

Actually, most people do go along with that — and growing. Calling it “communism” can mean almost anything, but if that’s supposed to mean anti-neoliberalism, then yes, that’s already caught on. On the left and right.

True, we can also convince ourselves that there’s nothing to do and that nothing will happen. But I reject that. That’s defeatism, very passive, and exactly the reason nothing changes to begin with.

Short of that, in the past it took war. Or, at the very least, massive social upheaval. So there is always that. I don't want to see my son have to fight in that. But alas, maybe it's his time and I should take a seat. — James Riley

Education plays a big role, but I think this other aspect does as well. We can educate ourselves and one another, but it takes work, and usually has to be done outside the system. Our public schools have been attacked for decades, of course. Underfund or defund anything we don’t like. Claim there’s a problem that doesn’t exist, defund it, watch it fail, then point to the failure and say “You see!” Then you can privatize it, turning it more into a “business” — so that now you have the student debt problem, with degrees that don’t do much, and kids never really learning anything about the world or about themselves. At least at the majority of schools.

Personal story: I went to a public university, with half the expenses paid in scholarships and half in loans; I was in state for 1 1/2 years, and was an RA my senior year (free room and board), and also worked.

I’m still paying off my loans to this day, while I barely use my B.A.

My story is fairly typical I think. I liked my time in school, as many of us do— I liked my friends and some professors. I often look back nostalgically.

But as I get older things become clearer: the state of the university was bad. It was overpriced and too big. It was a lot of fluff, most of which I didn’t retain or use. Despite some exceptions, most courses weren’t very interesting. Teachers tried their best, and it’s partly my fault for choosing the major and the classes that I did, but you would think somewhere along the way they would teach you about meditation, Karl Marx, or demand a history course be taken. There was too much test taking and focus on GPA, and so little time thinking and discussing. Everyone who did study hard was doing so to get a high paying job. Political organizing was very weak indeed— the mindset was more party-oriented and nihilistic.

It was a big school, and perhaps I just overlooked what was right under my nose all along— who knows? One simply can’t know all the ways in which one misses out by not being in more serious schools.

Anyway— I tell of my experience to demonstrate that I was very much in the meaty part of the educational curve during the neoliberal era. I think my case is representative.

What I’ve learned since has been far more valuable— on my own through books, from friends, from traveling, and even from YouTube (which can be a fantastic resource if you know where to look).

So we can educate ourselves, and we should. I think we’re catching on that education is largely a scam, a factory of testing where you’re award s degree, a ton of debt, and then shoved off into the world to be a good employee. That’s the underlying attitude: be a good capitalist. And don’t rock the boat by questioning certain things.

I think the social upheaval part is more what’s needed now. Nothing seems to change otherwise. But we also see from the Capitol riots that without a set of objectives or beliefs worth fighting for, we’re left standing around scratching our heads. While I like the willingness to act, there are no ideas behind the actions. So education in that respect becomes relevant, otherwise it’s empty machinations.

It’ll come down to enough people organizing. We saw it with Occupy, with Bernie, we saw it with the Womens March, with climate marches and with BLM. Just in the last decade. It’s all around us. We already have the numbers politically— polling and voting statistics show this clearly.

So what’s missing other than organization?

But the company is well known. — ssu

Not sure about that. Even among the forum, it's not as well known as it should be. It should be as known as Amazon and Tesla, in my view.

Stakeholder capitalism sounds too good to be true. — Shawn

And almost certainly is.

I think collective bargaining is a great idea, but so long as capital can run over seas to take advantage of communist (or other non-democratic) labor, then it can't work. The labor supply reduces demand and lowers the value. — James Riley

We can very easily change that as well. It's not like there's nothing we can do. We can prevent tax havens just as well as we can prevent outsourcing. You put restrictions and regulations on what companies can do. This threat of "we'll just take our business elsewhere" is an empty one. These companies would not survive if it weren't for the United States government and general society, and they know it.

True capitalism would be great. It's just that all the self-described capitalists are "Socialism for me, capitalism for you." — James Riley

Eh, I don't even think it would be great -- it'd be a disaster, in fact. At the core of it -- private ownership and profit-making -- are values I don't fully agree with. They've been around a long time, and it's hard to even see alternatives to them, but I think it is as worthy of questioning as systems of slavery, feudalism, and caste.

A system where communities control their lives through collective involvement and engagement, similar to what is done politically in small towns here in New England, seems like a reasonable alternative. The difference is simply including economic affairs, i.e. the workplace.

For some reason, everywhere else we want and expect some say, but inside the buildings of Lowes, Home Depot, Wal Mart, Wendys, McDonalds, Starbucks, Krugers, Dunkin Donuts, and so on -- we resign ourselves to our allotted roles, relegated to whatever tasks we're charged with -- settling for whatever hours, wages and benefits they give deem worthy of giving us. Everything gets decided from a central location someone -- some headquarters, where a handful of people on the board of directors, elected by a handful of major shareholders, and in collaboration with CEOs and other top executives, make all the decisions that hundreds of thousands (or millions) of worker bees have to live with. Why?

Instead, switch from a system of top-down tyrannies to one where things are decided democratically, where representatives (like managers, supervisors, and other leaders) are elected by the workforce, and where the workforce (in conjunction with the community as a whole) decides what goods and services get produced, where and how they get produced, and (perhaps most importantly) what to do with the profits.

Incidentally, this isn't a pipe dream. It has happened in the past and it happens now -- all over the world, including the US. Cooperatives are one example. They provide a basic model for what I'm talking about. A lot of interesting (and somewhat surprising) things to learn from, most of which I've been unaware of for most of my adult life -- and I live fairly close to a major one: Ocean Spray. Never knew that was a co-op!

Unions play a big role in all of this too -- historically, anyway. But they can today as well. I'd like to see more unionization across the board.

Regardless, co-ops and unions are both important. But embedded in both examples is a more local focus and a more social focus. Both involve practical things we can do in our workplaces, provided we do it with other people. As long as we feel there's no alternatives, or aren't aware of any, we remain hopeless. Likewise, whether we see alternatives or not, nothing will happen without other people -- to learn from, to help educate ourselves with, to organize with and to act with.

But I digress. The point is: there are alternatives to capitalism, the "true" version of which not only has never existed, but which isn't even an ideal to work towards.

I could go on, but you get the picture. True capitalism, which they claim they want, would crush them. They are a bunch of government tit-sucking hypocrites and true capitalism would show them for the cowards they are. Show me a true risk-taking, bootstrapper who did everything on his own and I'll kiss Ayn Rand's dead ass. — James Riley

This is fantastic. :lol:

I agree wholeheartedly. Of course Friedman was too clever not to see this — so his line would be something like “no subsidies or bailouts, let the market punish and eliminate the weaker companies” while keeping corporate personhood, etc.

Window-dressing most probably, in that they probably wouldn't do anything that doesn't benefit them in the first place and I'd assume care very little about anything else.... but that doesn't mean that some of the time what benefits them, cannot also benefit the population at large. — ChatteringMonkey

Well in the case of BlackRock it's kind of interesting. The CEO is a lifelong Democrat, and so already buys into this stakeholder theory version of capitalism. But besides that, when it comes to asset managers, where the mentality isn't so short-term, it does well to consider things like climate change -- it's sensible, just as it is with insurance companies. Therefore, shifting investments to ESG funds (which no doubt have their issues) and promoting more transparency and accountability for climate-related strategies seems like a self-interested move. These aren't stupid people.

When it comes to industries most culpable for climate change, like Big Oil and Big Agro, while they are beginning to acknowledge climate change is real and will try to convince everyone that everything they do is "green" are always going to be the ones most resistant to change, as it directly effects their livelihoods. For asset managers, who make their money off of how much they make for their investors (along with fees), there's a different set of priorities. If they see the energy sector as unprofitable in the long term (meaning fossil fuels), it stands to reason they will divest -- if they have any sense at all and, again, this is assuming they're not idiots.

Too little too late, perhaps.

All this hiding behind the skirts of big government is inimical to true capitalism. — James Riley

Well that depends on what "true capitalism" is. Many influential people, like Friedman and Ayn Rand and others, would probably define "true capitalism" as free-market or a laissez-faire capitalism. But never in history has that existed. It's an abstraction, purely theoretical -- namely, a pipe dream. Even if taken as a kind of unachievable "limit" or ideal to move towards, it's still ridiculous. But because it's never been achieved, in the same way as "true socialism" has never been achieved, it always allows proponents to claim we need more actions to get closer to that ideal in order to see the promised results -- more deregulation, privatization, "Big Government" getting out of our lives, etc. Let the market decide and there will be a natural equilibrium achieved, and so forth.

However sincere these people may be, I think after 40 years of this ideology being put into practice (neoliberalism) and the results of it, people are starting to see that perhaps they've been used as a cover for simply giving the capitalist class what they've wanted all along: more power for themselves. They've always hated the New Deal, for example, and had been pushing for its dismantling for years. With Reagan, it was finally achieved in the political realm. Now the foxes were guarding the hen house. Look at John Shad of the SEC and others around this time.

I am skeptical that knowing history or politics is of much use, unless you are in a direct position to influence or make substantive changes. — Tom Storm

Well there's an argument that they're worthwhile in their own right, regardless of use. But I do take more of the position that unless they're applied, it's basically a kind of hobbyism. But I've argued the same thing about philosophy, too.

Politics and history helps one understand the current state of the world, why things are how they are, how they got here, how they function, and so on. That's as worthwhile as studying physics or chemistry, in my view. Perhaps more so.

It's monopolism window-dressed as "socially conscious" economics. Concentration of financial, economic, and political power in the hands of self-interested elites. Power taken out of the hands of people and governments by stealth. — Apollodorus

I tend to agree, as much as I want to believe the opposite. Seemingly nothing will happen with the merchant value system unless people intervene -- and that means governments. Still, it's surprising to see BlackRock and others use their proxy voting to back directors, etc. That's a good thing, regardless of the fact that we need 100X more effort.

I'm over my head on this, but here's my speculation: A system that imposes a fiduciary duty (look that up if you don't know what it really entails) upon anyone, which said duty shoe-horns itself into legality, ethical and moral righteousness and defense, is the concentration of power in the hands of self-interested elites. It is power taken out of the hands of the people and governments openly and brazenly. It is self-interest alone. — James Riley

Yes. In my research, however, fiduciary duty isn't what I thought it was. I thought it was basically the law that CEO's and boards of directors have a legal obligation to make the most money for shareholders. It turns out that isn't quite true. It's more of a dogma that's been held for a long time, and we need to look no further than 50s and 60s corporate behavior to see an alternative. Shareholder theory -- what's basically the "Friedman principle" -- has dominated ever since, but only now beginning to crack.

This is being replaced by "stakeholder theory," pushed by guys like Larry Fink and others. It's really just a softer version of capitalism, in the same way as Keynesian economics was still capitalism. But maybe that's the path that needs to be taken, who knows? I'd prefer to see much quicker reaction and, ultimately, the overthrowing of corporatism (and capitalism) altogether, in favor of real democracy (i.e., extending to the workplace as well) -- but I'm also a pragmatist. If that's a pipe dream, short of a revolution, then I'll take whatever viable path there is. If we have to go push through by manipulating the game these plutocrats are playing, then we should do so and hit them where it hurts. We see glimpses in Engine No. 1's efforts, in court cases, and even in things like the Gamestop short squeeze. I say: good. We should be attacking from all angles, both within the political system and, perhaps more importantly, from within the economic system as well.

My story of the Black Rock desert is no different than your story of the Black Rock movie: irrelevant to the OP. — James Riley

Yes -- irrelevant.

Never heard of it and I don't think this diminishes me. There are lots of things I don't care to know about. — Tom Storm

No one mentioned anything about being diminished. Yet I would argue it's still worth knowing something about, given their power. In the same way as knowing something about Standard Oil in the early 20th century would have been worthwhile.

Very true -- but you'd be surprised by how few know what they are.

The point of my asking this, as I mentioned above, is that they're one of the more important players in the economy. They own significant shares of major corporations, etc.

BlackRock's chairman and CEO is Larry Fink. He's been pushing a "new" ideology called "stakeholder capitalism" -- which means emphasizing the importance of the community, employees, and world in which the business operates, rather than simply increasing shareholder value. That means more investment in ESG funds, using their proxy vote to elect directors on various boards, etc. We saw it this week with their backing of the nominees of Engine no.1 at Exxon. I think that's significant.

What do we make of this? More window-dressing? A much-needed transitional step away from Friedman/neoliberal economics?

A little more than half so far. Better than I expected.

Let me briefly synopsize what apologists for state terrorism have hitherto asserted:


- Israel has a right to defend itself against the people they're oppressing and the land they're occupying.

- Israeli terrorism is more humane.

- The disproportionate death rates is due to Israel being a more powerful military force.

- There is no way to to fight Hamas without killing civilians, because they're intertwined with civilian infrastructure.

- Anyone who cares about Palestinians is virtue-signaling.


Have I missed anything?

So the answer doesn't matter. That's what I think too. — Daemon

The answer not only matters, but you’re living it.

Too stupid to understand it? That’s your business. In that case, throw out medicine too.

There have been many answers. You’re in fact living with a tacit understanding of what a human being is. In the West, since around Aristotle’s time, human beings have been defined as the zoon logon echon. In the medieval period, we were creatures of God. Etc.

“Satisfactory” has nothing to do with it. What’s a “satisfactory” answer to health— to what is healthy? Maybe we should throw out the field of medicine, since that question is “stupid and vague” as well, by your standards— after all, there’s no “satisfactory” answer.