I think this thread became current because of Banno in another thread saying:

The tragedy of the commons is a capitalist myth.
— Banno

I asked him why it's so. I might have not noticed his answer... — ssu

He said that to me in 'Who owns the land?' Here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/538599

He offered no supporting argument, and then mocked my real world example of life under communism where everyone steals what no-one owns; undermining production, and thereby creating the motive to steal what no-one owns.

Communism doesn't work, and my reason for arguing this point so strongly is that, in order to secure a sustainable future we have make capitalism sustainable. That's why we need limitless clean energy from magma - so that we can internalise the externalities of capitalism without internalising them to the domestic economy. It's the difference between stop flying to save the world - and invent a hydrogen powered jet engine, and fly as much as you like!

When Hilary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump, she did bemoan that she had done so because of a "basket of deplorables", thereby creating a slur for the white working poor. The Democratic Party, because of that they tend to apathetic voters or, for whatever reason, enticed by the Populist rhetoric of the Right, does kind have a problem harboring classist attitudes towards so-called "white trash". Finding the film, Gummo, to be fairly relatable, myself, I have found for such attitudes to make a working relationship with them to be fairly untenable.

Being said Populist rhetoric is Populist rhetoric and the American Right also treats the working class in a fairly condescending manner. It is definitely preferable to me to listen to the patronizing emotional appeals on MSNBC than it is to be made subject to a pathology of fear via the feigned moral outrage of Fox News. Because both parties express a certain degree of implicit disdain towards people like me, I don't even watch the news at all.

Rather than gripe about the popularity of NASCAR, if the Democratic Party really wants to reach out to the working class, then they have to offer them meaningful participation within the democratic process and a set of political initiatives that don't merely appear to be to our benefit.

We are not disenfranchised because of that we are somehow "anti-social". We just simply aren't offered a place in politics where we are treated with respect and can put forth the kind of policies and programs that would actually improve our quality of life.

I edited out that crack about five year plans, because I'm not talking about Russia in particular, but about communism in general. It's a kind and generous notion, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's sad that communism doesn't work, but 100 years of experiments have proven it doesn't. Everywhere its been tried - poverty, misery, and dictatorship.

When Hilary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump, she did bemoan that she had done so because of a "basket of deplorables", thereby creating a slur for the white working poor. — thewonder

I recently read a book entitled 'Despised - why the modern left loathes the working class' by Paul Embery. He wants the left to get back to representing the interests of working class people - rather than telling the working class what they ought to value. I think he's right.

I'm like you - politically homeless. I'm not naturally right wing at all, but I'd vote for the right a thousand times before I'd vote for these condescending left wing idealists, who have never done a days work in their lives. And that's before I factor in the left's communist proscription for sustainability.

Example, I was listening to the radio today, and James O'Brien was on, (lefty idealist tosspot) and he said that 'every right minded and decent person was against Donald Trump' - which is to say, he thinks the majority of Americans in 2016, were immoral and/or insane. It's typical of the left. If you're not with us, there's something wrong with you.

Never seen Gummo - read the wiki. Very weird.

I might have not noticed his answer... — ssu

You're standing in it. See this thread.

I don't quite have the qualms with "idealism" that you do, despite that it can occasionally be invoked in a fairly patronizing manner.

Gummo is paradoxically one of the better media representations of people form similar living situations to me. It's actually kind of an exploitation film, but it's rather funny and, I think, ultimately oddly humanizing. It's definitely a landmark work of experimental independent cinema, and, so, will only be appreciated by some by that account.

As much as I do feel so inclined to put better up with the Democratic Party, I will say that what is occasionally levelled against them as per their tacit disdain for the working poor is just simply to the point. From activist campaigns to dancehalls, upper-middle class left-wing Liberals do tend to treat the poor as if they were somehow beneath them.

You're standing in it. See this thread. — Banno

Lol. Of course. Got it.

I don't quite have the qualms with "idealism" that you do — thewonder

The UK Labour Party are far more influenced by communism than the Dems. We didn't have a 'reds under the bed' McCarthyite purge against communism in the 1950's; though I suspect Keir Starmer would purge the far left of the Labour Party now if he could.

Instead, he was forced to leap to his knees for BLM, and endorse gender self identification to secure the far left vote ahead of his election as party leader, and that kind of politically correct nonsense goes down like a lead balloon in the Labour heartlands in the north. It's too broad a church for Labour to get elected, so ordinary working people are left unrepresented.

To my mind, the whole capitalist/communist dichotomy is over. Communism has failed, and we need a new democratic opposition. The new political spectrum I envisaged would range from ideological traditionalists, to scientific rationalists; and allow people to express a conscientious position with regard to protection of national interests, in relation to the global challenge of sustainability. Of course, bringing this about is another matter entirely. It took Labour 100 years to get into power, and we - the scientific rationalists, don't have 100 years to waste.

There is an 'on-topic' point to all this; that goes back to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, because arguably, magma energy is a freely available resource, the right are obligated to exploit to exhaustion, like they would the common grazing land. And if they do so, the climate and ecological crisis can be solved without undermining capitalism.

I am in favor of the singular they, even to the point of saying that its being taken up so as to garnish votes was built that way by design. We wanted for the social liberal establishment to use our cause so as to put it to its full effect.

There is a kind of poverty to such praxis, though, in that the form of solidarity established with the miners during the strikes in the 1980s seems to have been much more effective. It's very easy for any politician to now pass for progressive by merely invoking any socially liberal policy whatsoever.

I couldn't say either way of your projected political camps as I am relatively unsure as to what they are.

What I mean about the American Right is that it just offends me more. The Dems just want to milk the waterworks whereas the Right wants for me to get pissed. I already can't stand being an Anarchist because I am pissed. I have no faith nor trust whatsoever in any person who wants to exploit the very rage that their general conduct has instilled within me. People think that there's some sort of revelry in revolution when there's just anger. It's just kind of a suicidal impulse. I'm just an angry young man with an impatient life. The Left, and, here, referring to the far-Left, just kind of exploits that too, though.

For me, I'd like to see a coalition of a set of parties to have fallen out of revolution in the libertarian Left and Anarchist movement, the peace movement, the left-wing Liberals who are with it enough to get what qualms we have with the Democratic Party, whatever Libertarians are up to the cause, and who among the so-called "radical Center" is willing to co-operate so that we can meaningfully substantiate human rights come together as a kind of anti-authoritarian coalition. Saying it and doing it are two different things, though. I kind of doubt that I could get any political movement off of the ground.

What I mean about the American Right is that I already dislike the Left, the Anarchist movement, left-Wing Liberals, and the Democratic Party to the point of abject indifference. I am glad not to be capable of fathoming what kind of scum most of those people are.

Being said, the Right in the U.K. is probably not quite like the Right here. Personally, in so far I'm not about to Ghandi the Central Intelligence Agency, a role that I would happily take, but am willing to admit that I am neither fit for nor will fall into place, I'd just as soon be done with politics altogether.

I'm an angry old man, and I know you won't take my advice - anymore than I would at your age. Your post is peppered with lefty keywords, so I guess we are on two very different pages. It's as it should be; the wheel is reinvented in every generation. But you at least know it needs to be circular, right?

He offered no supporting argument, — counterpunch

You haven't read this thread, have you.

Fine.

He offered no supporting argument,
— counterpunch

You haven't read this thread, have you. — Banno

I didn't write that. You've misattributed the quote.

It might help if you'd read the thread! lol

You're weird.

I am the sandwich the picnic is short of!

Eh, you don't see what I mean, I think, though, perhaps, I am too concerned with remaining where I can drop out.

Personally, I have kind of social problem that has been created out of some of the habits of certain people's lifestyles. There are all kinds of other critiques to make against the Left, but, in this regard, what I know of this is that it is the Right who is behind that they exist in the first place. I've been to enough bars to be fairly keen on these things.

When my problem is with a certain degree of what you might call "chauvinism", it seems doubtful to me that anything will be better at its source.

This sort of thing only sort of seems to be quite so much of the case in the U.K., and, so, I'm not quite sure that you would understand.

Being said, there's no reason for me to posture when I have become a-political, and, so, I apologize for some of my previous statement.

I really just kind of want to be let to live my life outside of politics. If you read some of my other posts, you'll figure out why this is an entirely sensible thing for me to do.

Consider the hypothetical situation to where a certain massively multiplayer role-playing game has both become a cult phenomenon and resulted in any number of social plights. When the creators of such a game have done so in such a manner that does seem as if it would result in such plights, why should I expect for them to be preferable company to its users?

If you apply this hypothetical as a metaphor for certain sets of society, I think that you can figure out what I am attempting to explain.

Though I, personally, am liberal-minded and of an optimistic interpretation of egalitarianism, it is not exclusively out of partisanship that I have an aversion to the American Right. They're just simply more dangerous to me. I would like to stay out of danger and of politics in general. That is all that I wanted to clarify.

I'd take whatever I have to say however, but none of it to too much of heart. My life situation merely demands that I be let to drop out, which I do plan on doing, hopefully the sooner of sometime tomorrow rather than the later of sometime later.

Anyways, carry on or whatever. I wasn't levelling a dig at you or anything. I'll talk to you or anyone else whenever, I guess.

I've read some of it, but I write using the simplest words possible. There's no value for me in obscurantist jargon, but the left can't get enough of it. The love a bit of jargon, the left. I think they think that, being obscure - you have to invest time and mental energy to decode it, and by then they've got you.

Consider the hypothetical situation to where a certain massively multiplayer role-playing game has both become a cult phenomenon and resulted in any number of social plights. — thewonder

That's so weird. I just now learned that Kentaro Miura died. (Beserk/Final Fantasy/Dark Souls.) Great artist. He was only 54. That sad news aside, the problem is this:

When the creators of such a game have done so in such a manner that does seem as if it would result in such plights, why should I expect for them to be preferable company to its users? — thewonder

There are no creators. The game is inherent to the human condition. The users are the creators, and you'll only do yourself in trying to unmake the game. You'd be better off trying to make it work, than trying to tear it all down, as if to clear space for your utopian idealism. Of course, you won't listen - and that's not a criticism. It's just part of the game.

Well think about it. Every time Labour/Dems lose an election, it's the fault of the electorate. They're stupid, racist or greedy, and that's why the left didn't win. It's not that the left failed to represent the interests of voters. It's the voters who are at fault, every time. — counterpunch

Well, both sides have their scapegoats. Inherently there's nothing more substantial to blaming "liberal elites" or "indoctrinated students" either.

You have a point though, when you say this:

I recently read a book entitled 'Despised - why the modern left loathes the working class' by Paul Embery. He wants the left to get back to representing the interests of working class people - rather than telling the working class what they ought to value. I think he's right. — counterpunch

There is no longer a unified left in the western democracies, but there is a subset which has become increasingly divorced from the traditional left electorate. In terms of the voting structure, we see the same pattern in every western European country as well as the US: The left wing electorate is increasingly well educated and has higher incomes, while an increasing amount of low status voters abstains completely or switches over to social nativist movements (UKIP, FN, Trump).

There is, however, still a sizeable "workers left", it just hasn't fully crystallized into new parties (or retaken control of the old ones).

Then how do you prevent the individual adding cows to the common grazing land until it's a desert? — counterpunch

I'm not an anarchist, really, so I'm not sure myself. That said, there is some sociological evidence that humans are perfectly capable of making proper use of communal resources without oversight. Band or tribal societies have very limited central authority, yet they seem to get by with limited resources. Traditions and rituals develop around the communal resources that dampen any short-sighted temptation. In general, humans have limited foresight, but it's not that limited.

Private companies developed vaccines to combat the pandemic. The government merely created the market by pre-purchasing supplies. — counterpunch

And supplying massive amounts of cash in advance, basically eliminating any entrepreneurial risk. But of course the private companies had the actual equipment and know-how.

That aside, all economies are mixed to a greater or lesser extent. I'm not a free market fundamentalist - but capitalist economy is necessary to personal and political freedom. — counterpunch

Capitalism is a problematic term, since people tend to define it according to their preferred economic policy. I'll say that I think private property and a market economy are necessary components for a just and free economic system. What we should do, rather than look at labels, is to decide what our goals are in a specific area. Healthcare and education, for example, are in my opinion fields that should have equality of outcome. So competition is less useful here.

To my mind, the whole capitalist/communist dichotomy is over. Communism has failed, and we need a new democratic opposition. — counterpunch

The lesson I take from the failure of communism, above all else, is that centralising too much power in few hands is dangerous, and doing so without accountability is disastrous.

My problem with a pro capitalist approach is that capitalism can run into the same problem when it turns into neo-feudalism, a process arguably already underway.

So I think the focus should be on the democracy part. Democracy creates accountability. Make sure power (and this includes wealth) does not concentrate too much. Make sure those with a stake in the outcome have a say. Not necessarily an equal say - if you build a company from the ground up, it's reasonable that your view should be very important. But if you eventually end up with thousands of workers, it's probably not reasonable to claim that these thousands do not get at least an equal voice.

Build on what works, discard that what didn't. No need to reinvent the wheel, really. There are good ideas out there already, and some that have been tried successfully. Unfortunately politics has a very short memory, and we tend to forget that the debates did not start yesterday.

Well, both sides have their scapegoats. Inherently there's nothing more substantial to blaming "liberal elites" or "indoctrinated students" either. — Echarmion

I see young people being set up to be enslaved by communism; via political correctness and environmentalism. The "woke" are sleepwalking into a trap, and I'm pointing out that trap. This isn't about partisan politics for me. This is about a sustainable future, that I assure you, cannot be achieved by undermining capitalism. Capitalism can be made sustainable by harnessing magma energy, by drilling close to magma chambers, beneath volcanoes - and converting heat energy to electrical power, hydrogen fuel, desalinating water to irrigate land, recycling, fish farming etc, there can be a prosperous sustainable future - and freedom. I don't care whether its a red future or a blue future, but I do care there's a future - and that cant be achieved by the have less and pay more, tax this, stop that, wind and solar, low energy, neo communist approach of the left.

. I don't care whether its a red future or a blue future, but I do care there's a future — counterpunch

:lol:

I don't know if there's a red future or a blue future, but I do know there's a future.

I see young people being set up to be enslaved by communism; via political correctness and environmentalism. The "woke" are sleepwalking into a trap, and I'm pointing out that trap. This isn't about partisan politics for me. This is about a sustainable future, that I assure you, cannot be achieved by undermining capitalism. Capitalism can be made sustainable by harnessing magma energy, by drilling close to magma chambers, beneath volcanoes - and converting heat energy to electrical power, hydrogen fuel, desalinating water to irrigate land, recycling, fish farming etc, there can be a prosperous sustainable future - and freedom — counterpunch

Sigh, and and back to the evangelism. I think it has been pointed out numerous times to you that, if your plan can really work within capitalism, all you need to do is start a business.

I don't care whether its a red future or a blue future, but I do care there's a future - and that cant be achieved by the have less and pay more, tax this, stop that, wind and solar, low energy, neo communist approach of the left. — counterpunch

You do realise that, since the 1980s, we've been in a period of deregulation and tax cuts in the west, right?

:Knob:

Sigh, and and back to the evangelism. I think it has been pointed out numerous times to you that, if your plan can really work within capitalism, all you need to do is start a business. — Echarmion

I need around £10bn start up capital.

You do realise that, since the 1980s, we've been in a period of deregulation and tax cuts in the west, right? — Echarmion

And where are the left? Occupied with deconstructing whiteness, maleness and straightness!

I need around £10bn start up capital. — counterpunch

It's unfortunate, then, that there isn't a system that would spread wealth to everyone so you could collect this sum from people, rather than having to appeal to either states or the largest corporations and banks.

And where are the left? Occupied with deconstructing whiteness, maleness and straightness! — counterpunch

But you just criticized the left for wanting to tax and regulate. So are you in favor of higher taxes and regulation or not?

A quick drive-by of the Wikipedia entry on The Tragedy Of The Commons confirmed my initial suspicions, its about social dynamics - how individuals must balance self-interest against group well-being. The two seem to be pitted against each other in an almost irreconciliable way which makes me wonder how humans ever got together as small tribes as they must have in our obscure prehistory.

I consider the tragedy of the commons as a quintessential feature of human social organization - we couldn't have developed society, big and small, in a regulatory vacuum. What I mean is social existence necessarily involves a system of rules that members of a group/tribe/society must, in a sense, promise to adhere to if they value living together as an extended family which society is.

The pinnacle of society is to be found in insects like bees and ants and every single entomologist studying them has written volumes upon volumes on how strict/iron-clad their social structures are - there are rules and no ant or bee is ever found to break them. The point to note is the existence of rules and to some extent how they're adhered to 100%. There is no ant or bee version of the tragedy of the commons and that should be a big hint as to how we can tackle the problem. I suppose politics enters the scene at this point.

It's unfortunate, then, that there isn't a system that would spread wealth to everyone so you could collect this sum from people, rather than having to appeal to either states or the largest corporations and banks. — Echarmion

There is. It's called capitalism. And I suppose I could do a kick starter campaign. If I can get 65p from everyone in the world, that's £10bn - and in return I'd give them limitless clean energy, desalination and irrigation, hydrogen fuel, carbon capture and sequestration. Bargain, right?

But you just criticized the left for wanting to tax and regulate. — Echarmion

No, I didn't. You criticised de-regulation and tax cuts, and I said - "And where were the left? Pre-occupied with political correctness!" I'm saying, if you oppose de-regulation and tax cuts, the left are not there for you. What I was talking about is green taxes - as an approach to sustainability. These are taxes levied on consumers - to reduce demand, and it's the wrong approach.

I didn't know that about Kentaro Miura. That's so sad.

I'm not sure that you see what I mean by the metaphor. I would like to be an artist, poet, and philosopher. I already don't where to go from the Anarchist movement because of that left-wing Liberals are in too close of proximity to a certain set of parties that I would just as soon avoid. There have been kind of a lot of problems created in my life because of the way that people are about their political position or their drug habits. Why should I expect for a set of parties, particularly in the arts, in both closer proximity to the arts and the drug trade to treat me any better?

I'd just be jumping out of the flash pan and into the fryer.

There's also that I originally came to be on the periphery of society because of sets of attitudes towards class, and not just class in terms of monetary wealth, but all kinds of different forms of classes. It seems like I'll have an easier go with things with a set of peripheral idealists that kind of more or less anyone else.

I will also say that, though occasionally inclined to use jargon, I do try to be fairly clear.

It's all whatever, though. I'm sure that you came to your conclusions through some experience of your own as well.

I'm not sure that you see what I mean by the metaphor. — thewonder

I do understand, I think - you're talking about politics from the POV of an anarchist, and saying that they caused all these problems; why on earth should I vote for any of them?

Consider the hypothetical situation to where a certain massively multiplayer role-playing game has both become a cult phenomenon and resulted in any number of social plights. — thewonder

It's very difficult for me to address that directly, because I'm not American. We get a lot of US television over here, but still - not being immersed in a culture, it's very difficult to understand the nuances that impinge upon the situation of an individual - whom, I've also only spoken to briefly.

Sure thing, I guess.