Never mind a job with the company, large wads of cash will do nicely. — Bitter Crank

Haha yeah, even better! But seriously though, Benkei's company sounds like it would be a great one to work for on a number of levels: a sense of responsibility to the interests of the larger community, not solely concerned with the bottom line, a collaborative rather than dictatorial approach, etc. Hopefully a harbinger of things to come. Working in a situation like that, with inspiring people and goals, sounds like it would be pretty exciting. I'd gladly take less money to work there over more conventional companies. And this captures what I'm getting at: seeking out work that's rewarding in ways far beyond the immediate financial payoff.

I do need to start researching companies like his in order to lay out a (more) detailed approach to a different way of thinking about work and economics more generally - one that aims to incorporate economic activity within an emerging new context. It would involve shifting the common perception of business activity - its primary aims and methods - to reflect a (possible) new set of social values.

:lol:

Yeah I was thinking something like, "psst, Benkei, hey, uh, I know I just talked a good game about not caring about money and material things and all that, but, uh, can I get a job with your company?"

Yet, when writing our bottom line, my partners and I said, regardless of whether this becomes a financial success what we want to win from it is 1) acknowledgment, 2) attempt to build ourselves and 3) leverage that to have the freedom to choose jobs in the future. We're not in it for the money, we're in it because it's an exciting new idea that nobody else thought of. We're doubly excited because it avoids a huge social cost. Only after those considerations do we entertain ideas of becoming rich (not in the least because there's still a zillion hurdles to cross before a start up is a success). But we think even when we fail, we can still reach our goal number 3). — Benkei

Please keep us posted. Sounds like you guys are way ahead of the curve.

In principle this is very much possible with robotics, provided the resulting benefits from robotic production are shared. As it looks like now, it will be the owners of capital capable of affording to build robots and therefore retain all the profits they generate and the chasm between haves and have-nots will only increase. We have to anticipate on this early and effectively. — Benkei

:up: :100:

Those are obvious problems. I think a form of social conservatism - of the type I've outlined (poorly perhaps) in broad strokes - combined with economic progressivism holds some potential. But then there would have to be an infringement on the economic freedom of some individuals, unless there's some sort of divine intervention precipitating a shift in human beings from where we're at now (joking here).

Yes, people can free themselves of the dominant values and live their lives out on the margin. There are, actually, quite a few people out there. Most of them ended up on the margin because they went broke, not because they embraced radical values. — Bitter Crank

True. And most of us secretly envy the rich even when we bash them. I have many significant flaws, but I honestly have zero desire to be filthy rich. I should make it clear, however, that I'm not advocating poverty. It's something much more modest and reasonable than that.

I envision an age, say, 100 years down the line when: we no longer envy the rich, we value our time more than superfluous things, we think the purpose of education involves more than its potential financial payout; etc. In other words, a shift in our collective way of being. Not poverty - simplicity. Not laziness - energy partly redirected to other (perhaps artistic or maybe community-oriented) endeavors once our basic needs are met.

There has been a "simple living" moving operating under various names and auspices for the last 50 years, at least. It appeals mostly to people who can afford to live simply -- single people or couples without children who have very modest material aspirations. Usually "simple living" people are educated idealists. It also includes people who failed to make much money and needed a respectable cover. — Bitter Crank

Yeah these are the ones who are forced to live simply. I find the free choice to live in such a way to be admirable. Maybe I'm insane but it has a lot of appeal to me. To not have a price? To not act obsequiously towards the wealthy and connected? To look forward to working at something you love until the day you die, even if you make less money doing so? To me, those are indications of a genuine and noble freedom. There's even an aristocratic element to it imo, with the obvious proviso that this only holds true for cases where it's freely chosen rather than imposed through less elevated reasons (lack of work ethic, lack of intelligence, etc.)

And again it doesn't necessarily involve living like a pauper. One has to forego many things, there's no denying that, but what they gain may make it worthwhile.The big thing, I think, is particular to our capitalist/consumerist context: the complete lack of social recognition one receives by living in such a way. So it's a matter of shifting perspectives. Not an easy task, obviously, especially given the various (powerful) forces shaping images of "success" - but these things are historically contingent and I don't see why our understanding of what a successful life entails will not be subject to change at some point in the future.

Anyhow, I think slight changes in values working incrementally over the next 50-100 years could ultimately result in a radical shift. It would be nice to think there'll come a day when people look back and think about how insane their ancestors were: in the way they related to others, to their world, and to themselves. IMO, an ontological shift is what's needed more than a political and/or economic one. They're related, of course, but that's the way I see it.

A slight correction: A very large paradigm shift (like a revolution) will be required before there is any sort of UBI, especially an adequate UBI. The reason a very large paradigm shift will be required first is that too large a share of wealth is tied up by the super-rich. The paradigm shift will be the one that allows transferring a significant portion of their wealth (like most of it) to the rest of the population. (Do not hold your breath waiting for the revolution.) — Bitter Crank

Well, the super-rich may find it in their interest to sacrifice a part of their wealth for the sake of maintaining a certain level of social stability. This would be preferable, I imagine, to keeping it all and running the risk of having it appropriated (expropriated?). Pragmatism.

I see a resurgence in collectivist programs as well. With a practical implementation through the sharing economy. Although quantitative research on size and growth is sparse, it's definitely here to stay and might account for 50% of the economy eventually (its seemingly maximum potential according to PwC).

There's an undercurrent to move to basics, more natural life styles as well. There's a lot of initiatives going on that are voluntary that allow people to meet up with like minded people. — Benkei

Ooh I'll look into these things. I need to keep abreast of what's going on in the world; maybe we're already in the incipient stages of a significant paradigm shift.

Maybe with a combination of increased automation and UBI and other such things a paradigm shift in social values can take place. Just throwing out ideas...

Some people miss the good old days, before mass media really hit its stride, but don't blame the rank and file American. They are not, and never have been, in charge of the economy. The shift to a consumer society of not very learnéd consumers is a creation of the bourgeoisie. Blame them. — Bitter Crank

You always have good practical advice. Are we just screwed? I mean, sure, random individuals can "free" themselves from the dominant social values and live a life of relative simplicity and sanity on the margins of society. But how would you go about starting a grassroots movement encouraging people to not consume? Or, more accurately and realistically, to consume less? Yeah, probably not going to generate a lot of momentum haha...

There's some overlap here, too, I think, as is shown in the New Left of Marcuse et al. I have a lot of interest and admiration for that movement.

If we want to challenge the values of consumerism and commercialism (a challenge I heartily endorse) we have to ask, "Where did these values come from?" They came from the bourgeoisie, that class which is both conservative and revolutionary. Revolutionary, here, in that the bourgeoisie -- the captains of industry, embraced mass media to supplant the former function of mass education. — Bitter Crank

That's true, but there were also "conservatives" who railed against the bourgeoisie from a standpoint that seems a bit different than the one that socialists and communists would eventually take. They loathed the materialism, the mechanization, etc. of the bourgeoisie. There's something undignified about living a life devoted almost exclusively to making money and buying things.

I think one of our key areas of disagreement would be my, I guess you could call it bottom-up approach, which would seek to change opinions rather than laws. I'm skeptical of government dictating things like sexual behavior - I think that's a horrible idea in fact - but I don't think individual freedom necessarily leads to hedonism or precludes a sense of communal responsibility.

So it's an odd and perhaps unrealistic amalgam of libertarian and communitarian values. In my ideal world, mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, I honestly don't care as long as it's a loving and committed relationship) would both work less and spend more time with their children, or doing other things that evince some freedom from strictly economic considerations. A society where values shift so radically that (e.g.) employers would choose to make a bit less for the sake of paying their employees a bit more.

I know it sounds absurd, but so is this world as it is right now damn it - and in many ways mine seems more sane. I'm obviously biased, though.

Why don't you start a thread about this instead of in the Donald Trump thread. I think it's quite apparent social conservatist are a vocal minority. — Benkei

I think this is a good idea. You should start a topic on social conservatism, @Agustino, and we could discuss it from various angles. Our versions (mine and Agustino's) overlap in some places - e.g. need to challenge values of consumerism and commercialism - but also diverge pretty significantly in others.

Was it this guy? His book was somewhat interesting: — Agustino

I don't think so. I've heard of Dugin before - as a Russian Heideggerian - and I'm pretty sure I would have made the connection when I saw the video originally.

Watch the video first please. As I mentioned to Baden, the venue is not intended for a massive audience and is therefore free from the sort of hyperbole you rightly discern in the general media. The guys are clearly hostile to Trump but also extremely fair to both sides at points in the discussion - about as close to nonpartisan analysis as you'll find these days.

Also, I find the analogy between today's America and the America of the 1850's to be worthy of consideration at the very least. I've done a lot of reading on that era recently and it's not something I feel we should dismiss so quickly. Fast forward to the hour mark if you don't have the time or the desire to listen to the whole thing.

Yeah that's definitely true but this is pretty sober analysis for Kristol's fastidious audience of philosophically-informed neocons. I dislike the guy's hawkish positions a great deal but I also think he's really good in this smaller, more intimate venue where he's not bombarding the hoi polloi with noble lies for the sake of political expediency.

If you don't feel like listening to the whole thing - the first hour is largely focused on statistical analysis of the various voting blocs within the US - then skip up to just before the hour mark to get the "big picture" analysis. Definitely non-sensationalized imo.

You've intuited his position perfectly. I agree with your strategy for possible reconciliation, but I doubt enough progressives would be receptive to the form of social conservatism we have in mind, even if it's rounded out with the sort of forward-thinking economic policies they may find amenable. One thing that is certain is that it's going to take an incredible states(wo)man to bridge the current divide and prevent a national catastrophe. Seems extremely unlikely at this point.

Incidentally, I remember seeing a short video a few years ago where a guy (I think he was Russian!) was ridiculed for predicting the future fragmentation of the United States into a few separate countries. That actually seems like a legitimate possibility now if we can't somehow find some common ground between those who seem to hold incompatible worldviews.

Brownstein makes a good point about Trump: He's a "wartime" president but the enemy is "Blue America." I hadn't thought about it like that before but I think he's right.

Highly recommend watching this lengthy conversation between Bill Kristol and Ronald Brownstein. Brownstein predicts civil war in the United States within the next 10-15 years and lays out some compelling reasons (imo) for such a disturbing possibility. I'm inclined to agree with him, unfortunately.

@Benkei@ssu

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, guys. Valuable input on the perception of the US from European perspective(s). Lots to think about...

(Trying to post again - for some reason it didn't show up when originally sent)

I would also add that our concern with the affairs of others around the world is something that's not always been honorable. Do you guys support our readiness to prop up nondemocratic regimes when it serves our (whose?) interests? Launching wars under false pretext in the Middle East and elsewhere? Giving China most favored nation trading status despite blatant human rights violations? How about the near unchallenged support our politicians give Israel against Palestinians? Or how about our politicians wearing American flag pins and appealing to the patriotic sentiments of the masses while gladly outsourcing their jobs for the sake of cheaper labor costs and lower environmental standards?

For those of you implying some deficiency in morals and/or knowledge of those who disagree with your view that the US should take on the role of protector against Russian aggression, do YOU have a problem with your country receiving money and other benefits from such an unjust and immoral country as the United States? Is that really who you want as an ally? Or could you "not care less" how these funds have been acquired and how the US behaves towards other (esp non-European) nations? Seems extremely hypocritical tbh to call out Americans for ignorance or a lack of concern while looking the other way when it benefits you to do so.

Yeah, I'm suspicious of attempts to frame things in moral terms. We need to get our own house in order before we start lecturing others on how to conduct their affairs. And that position does not preclude a genuine concern for others around the globe, but rather demands it. Especially if we'd like to take a leading role in world affairs moving forward. As usual, none of this should be taken as even tacit approval of Trump - he's a symptom of much larger issues that he may be exploiting to his advantage but that he did not create.

I don't think the two things are incompatible; in fact that seems the most reasonable position to take at the moment: Russia may represent a genuine danger for us and our allies and yet we may need to prioritize our very serious domestic issues for the time being, and part of that may involve scaling back the empire.

What I mainly took issue with was the mocking tone ssu took (I generally appreciate his contributions btw) towards those who feel there's been a significant divergence of interests between the political/economic powers within the United States and normal working class people. This is something that's been commented on for a long time now, and it should be pointed out that it's mainly been by those who identify with the Left (Zinn, Chomsky, et al).

Just seemed both condescending and contradictory. On the one hand, we're to dismiss the idea that a group of citizens within the United States - those with wealth and power no less - have conspired to advance their interests at the expense of average citizens through various forms of manipulation. This was associated with crackpot conspiracy theories, e.g. "deep state", military-industrial complex, etc.

On the other hand, there's no similar dismissal of the alleged conspiracy undertaken by Putin and the Russians to advance their interests through any means necessary. In fact, he's accused of pursuing just such an agenda through collaboration with Trump as well as other clandestine measures, like fomenting racial discord within the country, undercutting our relationships with traditional allies, etc.

Anyhow, best to be suspicious of Putin's Russia and the manipulative powers within the United States - whether these be Trump and his lackeys or the previous and largely bipartisan "establishment".

The lack of understanding the motives and the agenda of foreigners can be very detrimental. — ssu

Enlighten us on the motives and agenda of Russia. While you're at it, do the same thing with the ostensibly selfless motives and agenda of the United States. Tell us why our military spending should be so high relative to other nations; why others should welcome our effort to impose our agenda around the world; why we should be encouraged to meddle in the affairs of others while complaining when they do the same to us; etc.

This sort of American exceptionalism - I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) this is the angle you'll take - is pushed by neocons (ooh!) and others in order to justify continued American global dominance. All the while our own country languishes with massive discrepancies in wealth, in access to quality education, in healthcare, in racial and cultural divisiveness, in a pervasive cynicism regarding politics, etc.

Yes that's true. We have family friends who live in your area and they're total snobs. We've visited them a few times and it's definitely a "higher end" sort of suburb relative to where I grew up, which is in the east San Gabriel Valley.

These days I live just 10-15 miles away from my hometown (I'm in the Pasadena area now), and as mentioned it's a much different world in essential ways. Lots of museums, JPL, Cal Tech, non-corporate bars and restaurants, unique architecture, privately owned bookstores, etc. I do prefer it to the cookie-cutter homes and strip malls where I was raised.

And yet I feel like I can relate to working class people who grew up in cities like mine more than I can to the blue bloods I'm around now. Something about those shared life experiences (going to public schools, getting a job at sixteen, working while going to college, etc.) makes me much more comfortable on the whole around working class people - regardless of racial differences - over the affluent and highly-educated white people in these parts.

Yup that's exactly right. I've never quite felt at home where I live now to be perfectly honest, and I think it's largely due to a sense of (lower) class awareness that I never had before moving here.

I do think the place is pretty anomalous - I've heard it has the highest percentage of kids going to private schools over public than any other city in the country - but it's definitely related to those less tangible things like access to elite schooling, to frequent and distant travel, and the like.

There are however certain things about living around old wealth that I find to be far superior to living in the suburbs - most significantly, there's a certain quirkiness among the inhabitants that I find congenial. Not uncommon to have a great conversation with a random stranger about philosophy, or history, or science, etc.

So lots of really artsy, intelligent, and intellectually-informed people in this area who (because they already have it) aren't obsessed with business and making money. Somewhat akin, I imagine, to the old aristocracies. But yeah, I also feel like (and am) "the help."

This sycophantic worship of rich elites by the likes of raza I really don't get even though Zizek (seeing as Street brought him up) reckons it's Calvinism's fault. To a European, it's insane. — Baden

Well I'm just an "average" American who grew up in the belly of the beast (suburban Los Angeles) and it's insane to me too. Doesn't seem like it'll ever change, unfortunately.

This may be getting a bit off topic but one of the strange things I've noticed about the genuinely wealthy - at least since I've been around "old money" over the past 10 years - is their general avoidance of the sort of status symbols so admired by the poor and middle classes within America.

They'll send their kids to $40,000 elementary schools, they'll go on lengthy trips around the world, etc. but they'll also drive average cars, wear average clothes, etc. They're so comfortable with their wealth as it's been passed on through their family for generations, that they lack the insecurity of those who need to show off.

So I have a foot in both "worlds" in the US - the "elites" and the "deplorables" (where I grew up) - and am uniquely situated to recognize the different cultural markers and guiding values defining each group.

:vomit:

Seems an oversimplified scenario.

Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of wealth accumulated by their families. These same people, in my admittedly limited experience, are far more likely to buy up properties and extract rents from working people than open up businesses and create jobs.

On the other hand, lots of poor people I know work their asses off, sometimes with multiple jobs, just to afford basic necessities.

Precisely! Zizek's insight actually pinpoints what I've intuited about Trump (despite being been unable to articulate it) quite well. That is a big part of what makes him effective.

It's like we live in a world largely built upon lies, however small and seemingly insignificant these may be, and he somehow exploits this collective insincerity to his advantage.

He didn't create this situation, though, and in a strange way maybe his presidency represents a sort of "cunning of history" in which something more genuine will arise once he's gone. Probably not.

Strzok's claim that "every American has political beliefs but the vast majority of them are not biased" was pretty ridiculous imo. Bias is an obvious, pervasive aspect of human existence in general, and is particularly pronounced in today's political scene.

I'll have to go back and check though to see if I misunderstood or misinterpreted his words. But he's clearly too experienced and too intelligent to hold such a naive view, and once that's eliminated as an explanation there seems to be only one other possibility: he was being disingenuous.

Doesn't mean there was a grand conspiracy, of course, but it did raise a red flag for me concerning his credibility.

I remember going around in circles with my buddy @Agustino over how he could square his high moral standards with support of someone as immoral as Trump. Pragmatism I suppose. One odd thing about Trump is that he lies about the most ridiculous things while also being honest in other areas that a "normal" politician would definitely lie, e.g. his tacit acknowledgement that using loopholes to avoid paying taxes makes him "smart". Not sure if anyone else could have gotten away with being that candid. Strange dude.

If by "we" he meant the FBI, would he admit it? Yeah probably not. That cynical acknowledgement obviously doesn't mean he is lying about the message being more benign than it appears on the surface, and his explanation sounded plausible enough, but this is the FBI after all and they apparently have a history of politicization and corruption.

And if they are not, what does that mean? — Agustino

Depends on the specific act and what type of impact is has on others. I tend in the direction of preserving individual freedom over the desires of the collective - especially on issues related to sex - even though I think that genuine freedom involves much more than license, and would include the factoring in of the affect of one's actions on the wider community.

Yes, but the community should be able to control its own standards of decency. If liberal Cali's want to have abortion after abortion, that's their problem. But maybe Texans want no abortions in their communities. So that's precisely the problem, that Roe v Wade is controlling how communities are organised. One cannot organise a community where abortions are prohibited. — Agustino

As much as I personally dislike the idea of abortion, I don't think the govt should get involved in this issue, or should legislate morality more generally outside of those issues which clearly impact others in the community in adverse ways.

In my naivety I think people should be led to do what's right and honorable and noble through free choice rather than through government or other forms of external compulsion. And I say that as someone who identifies as a social conservative in many ways.

Best to work at shifting public opinion at the grassroots level.

Another interesting read identifying Trump's rhetoric and policies with pre-Cold War American conservatism.

For example, an alcoholic may resort to Buddhism and the tenet that life is suffering as a palliative for accepting his condition. He suffers because, oh well, suffering is unavoidable. It's the nature of life. There is no urgency to remedy his condition, nor is there anything morally wrong with his actions. — Agustino

You sure this isn't a misrepresentation of Buddhism? Going off memory, as well as an admittedly superficial acquaintance with the "religion", I recall it being distilled down to some fairly simple truths: acknowledge suffering, identify its cause, recognize that it can be minimized, and follow certain practices (Eight Fold Path) as a means of eliminating as much of it as humanly possible. That sounds like the exact opposite of your description.

It's actually Christianity - at least in its Protestant forms - which rejects the individual's power to do anything about his or her situation, with salvation coming strictly through God's grace. This obviously holds true for the salvation of the whole as well: to assume that one could do something to improve the condition of the world without God being the cause would seem to be a case of hubris. Moreover, is there a story within Christianity similar to the Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism, where one refuses to enter the gates of Heaven until ALL beings are "saved"? If so then please point it out.

Furthermore, perhaps the separation between self and others (or the world more generally) is less extreme within Buddhism and other Eastern religions than it is among us, and the Buddhism you're referring to is a hybrid of sorts containing much Western baggage (e.g. Cartesian dualism). If that's the case, and there's not such a strong contrast between self and others (seeing all beings as interconnected), then being concerned with the "self" does not preclude but rather demands concern for others. I honestly don't know.

One thing I do know, however, is that Zen Buddhism at least is emphatically not life-denying. We could argue whether that's "really" Buddhism or a distortion of it, I guess, but I'll probably leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to take it up with you.

You should up your soma dose. — Sapientia

:up: :razz:

I would have assumed that philosophy of law dealt with the different ways of grounding law: divine law, natural law, positive law, etc. That's not the basic subject matter? Well, maybe it's not basic.

I've only read the OP though, and unlike @Ciceronianus the White I know nothing about the topic.

:lol:

No offense intended, guys, but while I do have some addictions TPF is not one of them. And I love the place. I like to think I can come and go as I please. Denial?

Must have been haha.