In my last essay, I argued that the progress of capitalist development from industrial to postindustrial has worked to marginalize the socioeconomic position of ordinary people. Steadily declining dependence on their contributions in the most progressive sectors of the economy means that what they have to offer is less important than in the past; the result has been a drop in status and a loss of collective social power. This development, I believe, is the fundamental driver of our new class divide.
Yes, we can see how many of these points play out in what used the be the workers party: now the party of latinx (where no working class person would use the term) and "defund the police" and the cities that are heavily controlled by the Democratic party are the worse off for the working poor (worse zoning laws, higher gas and sales taxes, horrible crime and homelessness etc). Politics is all inter-elite signaling now.
For millions of ordinary Americans (up to two-thirds of all Americans, according to one Gallup poll), happiness would be an abundance of well-paying part-time employment opportunities in rural areas where land is cheap. To that end I have rather amateurishly self-published a short book exploring the idea of factories in the countryside run on part-time jobs: the new lifestyle such factories would make possible, how they could be made to run faster and more efficiently than conventional factories, and the new kinds of families, neighborhoods, and small country towns that might develop around them. Here is a link: shorturl.at/pALM5
Or alternatively email me and I will send a free copy: luke.lea@gmail.com
Very insightful, mostly, tho blatantly & tellingly false on authoritarian populism. "[T]he triumph over scarcity shifted the primary focus of liberal egalitarianism from lack of material resources to lack of cultural acceptance." This echoes Keynes from 1930 about The Permanent Problem. Economics does not have to be zero-sum over the mid and long term. Status always is.
These ideas should be tied into the problem of overproduction of elite wannabes - too many who want to be elite managers but NOT risk-taking entrepreneurs; not risking their own careers by founding any company.
"The process of cephalization necessarily spilled over into government: as the economy grew more complex, the task of governance became more complex as well." << if the task of governance is a fair process, this doesn't have to be true. If the democracy elects politicians who want specific results, which democratic votes now imply, than getting those results has become more complex. Often unachievable based on the "vetocracy" against significant changes.
[More Estonian style e-gov't might help with a lot of this]
I like "cephalization" as a word, but it's too complex/ difficult to become popular. Using the complex word "entrepreneur" has been and continues to be a huge negative for popular acceptance.
The college educated elite have internalized the secret, possibly illegal discrimination against Republicans, Christians, pro-life folk as practiced by all "top" colleges in their exclusion of Republicans when hiring. Professors or administrators or normal workers.
The reality of the discrimination is the lack of Republican, pro-life, & Christian professors in college. Ordinary folk judge more based on results than on words.
Tellingly False:
"This is the vacuum that authoritarian populism has rushed to fill. Donald Trump was the first U.S. presidential candidate to claim these voters as his own. Of course he offered them poisonous demagoguery, not actual concern for their outlook and interests,"
"Authoritarian" is an insulting word that only the elite would use against their political rivals who disagree with them. Neither "Authoritarian Left", nor "Authoritarian Democrats" is used, even tho the actions of Dems in power have been and are, objectively more authoritarian.
It would be good to list "authoritarian actions" and compare the support of such actions by the Dems and Reps - noting that banning gay grooming books from kid's libraries is considered quite different than "banning books" in general.
Insulting Trump, without evidence, is usual by Democrats and Never-Trump folk who can't seem to separate their distaste for his non-elite demeanor with the results of his policies: higher median income being MUCH better for ordinary people than Obama, Bush, Clinton or even Bush 41. And far far better than senile Biden.
But it's also true that many Big Gov't pro-life folk haven't had much of political representation other than Trump - your failure to explicitly discuss the divisive abortion issue is common among elites who don't think it's worth mentioning. "Big gov't pro-life" would be a better label for such folk, which is a lot of the upper left quadrant.
"Democracy" is all about "populism" - those against populism are, explicitly or implicitly, against democracy. As so many elites actually are.
This is a great piece Mr. Lindsay. A couple of angles that i might add is James Burnham's work of the rising professional managerial class and how older "business operations" has given way to "asset management" which has marginalized people who used to be essentially for a firm but whose jobs can be outsourced. Also there is a distinctive feminine character to the new PMC, such that women can navigate it on balance much better than men can. As such non PMC men have been the most negatively affected by changes in economy.
Yes, we can see how many of these points play out in what used the be the workers party: now the party of latinx (where no working class person would use the term) and "defund the police" and the cities that are heavily controlled by the Democratic party are the worse off for the working poor (worse zoning laws, higher gas and sales taxes, horrible crime and homelessness etc). Politics is all inter-elite signaling now.
For millions of ordinary Americans (up to two-thirds of all Americans, according to one Gallup poll), happiness would be an abundance of well-paying part-time employment opportunities in rural areas where land is cheap. To that end I have rather amateurishly self-published a short book exploring the idea of factories in the countryside run on part-time jobs: the new lifestyle such factories would make possible, how they could be made to run faster and more efficiently than conventional factories, and the new kinds of families, neighborhoods, and small country towns that might develop around them. Here is a link: shorturl.at/pALM5
Or alternatively email me and I will send a free copy: luke.lea@gmail.com
Very insightful, mostly, tho blatantly & tellingly false on authoritarian populism. "[T]he triumph over scarcity shifted the primary focus of liberal egalitarianism from lack of material resources to lack of cultural acceptance." This echoes Keynes from 1930 about The Permanent Problem. Economics does not have to be zero-sum over the mid and long term. Status always is.
These ideas should be tied into the problem of overproduction of elite wannabes - too many who want to be elite managers but NOT risk-taking entrepreneurs; not risking their own careers by founding any company.
"The process of cephalization necessarily spilled over into government: as the economy grew more complex, the task of governance became more complex as well." << if the task of governance is a fair process, this doesn't have to be true. If the democracy elects politicians who want specific results, which democratic votes now imply, than getting those results has become more complex. Often unachievable based on the "vetocracy" against significant changes.
[More Estonian style e-gov't might help with a lot of this]
I like "cephalization" as a word, but it's too complex/ difficult to become popular. Using the complex word "entrepreneur" has been and continues to be a huge negative for popular acceptance.
The college educated elite have internalized the secret, possibly illegal discrimination against Republicans, Christians, pro-life folk as practiced by all "top" colleges in their exclusion of Republicans when hiring. Professors or administrators or normal workers.
The reality of the discrimination is the lack of Republican, pro-life, & Christian professors in college. Ordinary folk judge more based on results than on words.
Tellingly False:
"This is the vacuum that authoritarian populism has rushed to fill. Donald Trump was the first U.S. presidential candidate to claim these voters as his own. Of course he offered them poisonous demagoguery, not actual concern for their outlook and interests,"
"Authoritarian" is an insulting word that only the elite would use against their political rivals who disagree with them. Neither "Authoritarian Left", nor "Authoritarian Democrats" is used, even tho the actions of Dems in power have been and are, objectively more authoritarian.
It would be good to list "authoritarian actions" and compare the support of such actions by the Dems and Reps - noting that banning gay grooming books from kid's libraries is considered quite different than "banning books" in general.
Insulting Trump, without evidence, is usual by Democrats and Never-Trump folk who can't seem to separate their distaste for his non-elite demeanor with the results of his policies: higher median income being MUCH better for ordinary people than Obama, Bush, Clinton or even Bush 41. And far far better than senile Biden.
But it's also true that many Big Gov't pro-life folk haven't had much of political representation other than Trump - your failure to explicitly discuss the divisive abortion issue is common among elites who don't think it's worth mentioning. "Big gov't pro-life" would be a better label for such folk, which is a lot of the upper left quadrant.
"Democracy" is all about "populism" - those against populism are, explicitly or implicitly, against democracy. As so many elites actually are.
(Coming from Arnold Kling https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/links-to-consider-1020 )
This is a great piece Mr. Lindsay. A couple of angles that i might add is James Burnham's work of the rising professional managerial class and how older "business operations" has given way to "asset management" which has marginalized people who used to be essentially for a firm but whose jobs can be outsourced. Also there is a distinctive feminine character to the new PMC, such that women can navigate it on balance much better than men can. As such non PMC men have been the most negatively affected by changes in economy.