Ian Welsh – The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

In the first article in this series we discussed freedom under capitalism. The conclusion was simple: capitalist freedom for the vast majority of the population means the right to choose your master, your job, if you can find one. Once you have a master, you do what they say for most of the day, for most of your life. If you can’t find a master, you’re free to be homeless, hungry and eventually (few people survive being homeless more than about five years), and soon enough you’re free to die.

Yay Capitalism.

Note that this is structural: yes some people will become capitalists or otherwise escape the master trap, but the vast majority won’t and can’t. Someone is going to lose the dire game of musical chairs (jobs.)

Now let’s look at representative democracy.

In a democracy you’re free to choose your legislators or executives. You can’t vote for just anyone, though, only approved candidates. In most systems if someone runs without belonging to a party, they won’t win, and parties usually control you can become a candidate.

As a group the people who are elected will decide pretty much everything about how your society runs. Sometimes they seem to care about the citizens (FDR say) and sometimes they don’t. (Every American government since Nixon.) I can’t remember the last time food stamps were increased, rather than cut.

The number of elected people with real power is small compared to the population, and as an ordinary person your vote is generally meaningless. It’s never YOU who makes the difference. Big donors and other people who can organize groups of votes do, but that’s a vanishingly small number of people. So elected officials, especially at the national and State level pander to people with money or votes (pastors, for example. Used to pander to unions, not so much any more.)

Your choice of ruler is better than a hereditary aristocracy. Yes. But your actual power is insignificant. And Democracies have all the normal powers of government: they can draft you and send you off to die. They can send you to prison. They can take property to you. They can coerce you to work. Ideally they make it so people who lose the musical boss game are taken care of anyway, but often they don’t. Certainly they can do good and sometimes do.

But any freedom you have in a society is contingent on the government. Not drafting you. Making it so you don’t have to have a master. Making it so you can get health care, or not. Your freedom is contingent on what elected officials want: officials who structurally have every reason to pander to those with money or power: and that’s before we even get to the issue of bribery, whether while in office or after: Bill Clinton became very rich after leaving office. He was bribed post-facto and everyone knows that was the case. The last President who didn’t get taken care of this way was Carter.

Trump, of course, is just blatantly accepting bribes while in office, which has the dubious virtue of complete honesty.

A system where the people who decide what freedoms you have are structurally more likely to favor a small minority with wealth and power, and where if they are corrupt, you can’t bribe them, isn’t likely to maintain your freedom very well if important people think they’d benefit from you losing your freedom, is it?

Certainly people with money and power don’t really want you to not need a job and a master, because the people who have influence over them want cheap workers who will do anything they’re told to do.

Churchill quipped that Democracy was the worst system except for all the other ones we’ve tried.

Perhaps so, though the CPC and most Chinese disagree.

But even if true, representative democracy, at least in a system with significant wealth and power differentials, is a shit system where you have freedom only if elites feel it benefits them that you be free.

Perhaps in an egalitarian system it would work better, but under capitalism, which by its nature requires concentration of power, it does not

We’ll discuss other forms of organization as this series continues. For now, just note that representative democracy, by its very design, will tend to be more responsive to people who don’t want ordinary people to have freedom than to those who do want ordinary people to be free.

Everyone reads these articles for free, but the site and Ian take money to run. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Are We Free Under Capitalism? (Freedom Series #1)

By Ian Welsh

On May 19, 2026

26 Comments

The Goddess Libertas

Are you free if you need a job? For most people lack of a job means homelessness (indeed many homeless have jobs, that’s how far things have sunk) and you’ll go hungry, and almost certainly wind up dead sooner than otherwise.

This was well understood by the people who created capitalism. The central requirement of capitalism was enclosure (getting rid of common land which people could use for crops and animals.)

The fact is that peasants worked a lot less than workers. They had more holidays. They had to do some work for their lord, to be sure, but that was far less than the 12 hour days typical of industrialization, or even the eight hour days we now work. And, mostly, they controlled their own time.

The condition of having a job is that you do what your told. It was called wage slavery by Americans being forced off farms by low profits (because of railroad monopolies) for a reason: they had controlled their own time before. To be sure they had to work, even work hard, but they weren’t taking orders from a boss.

The fact that one can, sometimes, choose one’s master (for that’s what a boss is) doesn’t change the fact that they’re a master. In good capitalist times, in my experience before 90 or so, the worst boss behaviour was mitigated by plentiful jobs and easy choice: but today people put out hundreds of applications to get a job. Once you’ve got one, you can’t risk it by telling your master to bugger off if they order you to do things you find distasteful.

Bottom line, modern life is do what you’re told in school for twelve to twenty years, then spend your adult life doing what your told by bosses, then when you’re too old to work maybe you’ll be allowed a few years of declining health without a master. Quite likely you won’t even get that.

This is the modern form of slavery, where we pretend that most people have a choice. Oh a few escape, I have (at the price of poverty), and some others do, but the structure of the economy is that most people, the vast majority, must spend most of their life as wage slaves, doing what their masters tell them to. There is no way around this, it’s what giving control of the means of production (what you need to feed yourself, have shelter and goods) in the hands of a tiny minority of people.

It’s been a while since I discussed fundamental of how societies operate and what to change to make them better. We’re going to come back to freedom, a lot, as part of a series. We’ll also do a series on the fundamentals of societies: what is used to make them stick together, what determines how we run them, and how those are used against us or could be used by us to make a better world for 99% of humanity.

For now it is important simply to understand the chains that bind us, and not to fall for the lie that we are free or that our current civilization is the best that is possible.

Everyone reads these articles for free, but the site and Ian take money to run. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – May 17, 2026

By Tony Wikrent

On May 17, 2026

12 Comments

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – May 17, 2026

by Tony Wikrent

War

Iran war has cost American consumers over $37 billion in extra fuel costs, Brown University tracker shows

[Drop Site Daily: May 12, 2026]

American consumers have paid more than $37 billion in additional gasoline and diesel costs since the war with Iran began on February 28, according to a real-time tracker developed by Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs.

Trump not violating any law

‘He who saves his Country does not violate any Law’

Trump Stuns By Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ When Asked Directly NBC’s Kristen Welker ‘Don’t You Need to Uphold the Constitution?’

Joe DePaolo, May 4th, 2025

Trump Isn’t Mentally Ill; He’s Evil

Thomas Meisenhelder, May 14, 2026 [Common Dreams]

…Nor are the mentally ill immoral. It is somewhat commonplace to find public figures, journalists, and other “experts” express that a person who commits a horribly immoral act must be mentally ill. This is a faulty presumption. Mental illness does not necessarily affect moral reasoning or understanding….

Donald Trump is not crazy, he is evil. The America Heritage Dictionary definition of evil has three components. The first one is that evil means morally bad or wrong. The list of the immoral acts of our president is too long to be included listed completely here, but consider just a sampling: participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuses, illegally detaining and deporting veterans, children, and others; using charitable donations for personal desires; separating innocent children from their families; fomenting racism and racial hatred; ridiculing the disabled; daily misogyny; supporting white supremacy; inciting violence; lying for personal gain; harming the lives of LGBTQ+ people; taking food and medical care from children and their families; and the list goes on and on.

The dictionary also defines evil as harmful or causing injury and pain. Rather than repeating the cruel and hateful list above, please consider this sampling of the harmful consequences of decisions of President Trump: ordering the murder of hundreds of people who have been in boats attacked because they were supposedly carrying illegal drugs; murdering nearly a hundred people in Venezuela when the country was attacked and he ordered its president arrested; causing death and injury to tens of thousands of Iranians during his war against the government of that country; partnering with Israel’s raining of death and destruction on the people of Lebanon, Gaza, and Palestine; expanding the embargo against Cuba causing pain, injury, and death to ordinary Cubans; and his administration’s defunding of the medical aid and food assistance provided to less developed nations by the US Agency for International Development, which has damaged the lives of millions of people around the world….

INSIDER Exposes Trump’s SECRET EMERGENCY Midterm Plan!! (YouTube video)

[Legal AF, YouTube, May 15, 2025]

Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz interview Jonathan Winer, former State Department official, on the secret Presidential Emergency Action Documents, Trump’s intention to manipulate the midterm elections, his devilish designs, and how to foil them….

Read More

Open Thread

By Ian Welsh

On May 16, 2026

22 Comments

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

The Haters Guide To Post-Modernism

By Sean Paul Kelley

On May 15, 2026

25 Comments

To be read while listening to the Beastie Boys, Sabotage, at full tilt. Speakers, not earbuds you nit-wit.

In the beginning, circa 1989-93ish, post-modernism was out of step with mainstream academia. Derrida was a curiosity. Baudrillard was simply too dense to understand. (Confession: Baudrillard’s book, “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place,” is actually damned profound and prescient once you get past the kind of syntax that would make Yoda blush.) And Foucault, poor Michel (already dead by the time I attended university) was still dismissed as a fad—although of all the post-moderns Foucault’s work has aged the best and is worthy of respect. His discourses on the body, knowledge and the aggrandizement of power over all three by public institutions presaged neoliberalism. Credit where credit is due.

Sed tamen aberro . . .

Regardless, to the overworked and underpaid graduate students the post-moderns had the frisson of transgression. And nothing attracts the mediocre like a charlatan wrapped in the mantle of authenticity.

Eventually, those grad students became instructors, adjuncts and associate professors all over the country. Chipping away at the old ways by introducing Lyotard’s “incredulity towards meta-narratives” and Roland Barthes declaration that “the author was dead” both invalidating authorial intent and empowering the reader’s (usually baseless) interpretation, Derrida’s rejection of common sense and objective interpretations (known as ‘Deconstruction’) was the perfect mortar for the worst possible innovation.

It was probably Foucault, as his education included a substantial grounding in the history of science, who connected the dots leading from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, aka the observer effect, and grafted the concept onto his own thinking on the fluid and relative nature between institutions and power.

Then, in 1975 he took LSD. The experience changed everything according to Foucault. He completely revamped his work on human sexuality and its was here that sex took on the aspect of a social construct, to be negotiated. Sex was no longer an issue of pleasure, but of truth. (And thus our sexual identity politics were born.) Foucault’s popular discourse took on a life of its own, especially after his premature death in 1984.

The post-moderns soon expropriated wholesale the ‘observer effect.’ Unfortunately they abandoned rigorous analysis at the same time and like the good mediocre minds they were, adopted a pose I call, “la pose de Sarte.”*

With a highly dubious interpretation of science in one hand and quasi-erotic mojo in another students flocked to their lectures in droves. The ladies showed up for you. The men showed up for the ladies. And everyone ate up the half-baked but dangerously sexy contrarian theories on race, gender, and the negotiation of sexual identity.

Sometime between 2002 and 2014 when I returned to academia the entire coterie of post-moderns had infected all the humanities. And the observer effect acted like leprosy rotting the academy from every which way at once.

But the classes were full. Administrators took note. Professors got grants.

“Whoa, this grift is working?” They thought.

“Nicely done, Waldo.”

Now they’re wearing Zegna shoes and hand-woven black woolen Irish turtlenecks. Undergrad coeds hop in and out of their beds like Mae West on meth.

Soon they get published in peer reviewed journals by overworked and underpaid peers who just don’t give two fucks because university administrators have proliferated while tenured jobs have declined in nominal and real terms.

Big time college sports gobble up what is left of the academic budget, so universities start hiring half-assed adjunct professors and pay them slave wages.

And still, the post-moderns strike le pose, claiming their bullshit truth is equally as true as 2+2=4, when in actuality said theory is the the square root of wildebeest horns multiplied by baboon asses, divided by the Pyramid of Giza plus the Sphinx.

Making any sense yet?

It should not. It should boggle the mind, as not one iota of the post-moderns nonsense theorizing is scientifically provable or falsifiable. It’s bunkum. A weak attempt to prove there is no such thing as objective reality to anyone but the observer.

While working on my second masters I signed up for a seminar on the history of human sexuality. This was 2015 and we deconstructed the biological focus of traditional theories of sexuality. Now there was a masterclass of freeway rubbernecking idiocy. After that nonesense, we discussed Foucault, Jameson and finally Deluze, who more than any other post-modern flagrantly conflated science and mathematics to justify nothingness and subjectivity’s role on the observer’s effect, especially on sexual identity.

Give you one guess what conclusion we arrived at: sex is a social construct.

To be fair, gender is a social construct. The Thai’s have three genders, masculine, feminine and khathoey, or ‘Lady Boy.’ Kathoey are fully integrated and accepted into mainstream Thai, Cambodian and Laotian society. But sex, sex is not a construct.

I can prove the objective reality of sex’s falsifiability as a social construct.

Question: can you have an orgasm? Answer: yes. Then you are male or female.

Answer: no. Well, I respect your commitment, snip-snip, but you are neither male nor female.

Why would the professor care about any of this? He has tenure and his agenda. Besides, he’s getting laid more than Hank Moody in Californication.

Meanwhile the students grow stupider yet simultaneously more arrogant as they adopt le pose.

A vicious cycles ensues and we now find ourselves in the present moment, slaves to time’s relentless arrow.

But as the close neared its end it was time to put up or shut up. Yes, I know how to be a good suck up of a student and get high marks!

So, I wrote my research paper on the Alexandrian Greek poet Constantine Cavafy and his catamite. I got an ‘A’ but the course, well, to be generous, it was a shit show of moral degeneracy and complete intellectual absurdity.

I’d have been better off in Amsterdam’s Red Light District. At least I’d have had more fun.

————————

*Sarte: French existentialist philosopher of high regard and mortal enemy of Foucault.

It Doesn’t Matter What Europe’s GDP Is

By Ian Welsh

On May 14, 2026

22 Comments

Well, mostly.

Krugman shared this chart, as part of an argument that it’s ridiculous for Europe to be scared of Russia:

GDP indicates the value of the parts of the economy which are subject to money. (If you do something but don’t use money, it doesn’t get measured.) As such it theoretically measures how much you can mobilize using money. Back when most people lived off commons, before that was enclosed, and didn’t need to do much paid labor, you couldn’t mobilize much.

But that’s theoretical ability. It’s important, but what matters is what you do with it.

And the thing is that Russia does with it is build drones, advanced missiles, advanced jets and other weapon systems. And they build them in large amounts. Europe’s production of weapons is much smaller, and they’re less advanced than the Russian weapons. Russia also produces lots of oil and natural gas and has a huge refinery sector. They have a lot of rare minerals and resources in general. And they do still have both heavy and light industrial sectors.

Meanwhile Europe is hemorrhaging industrial jobs and its industrial energy costs are much higher than Russia’s.

So Europe may have more theoretical economic capacity, but it can’t translate that capacity into state capability where it matters. Russia is stronger than Europe.

It’s not that it necessarily has to be this way, but for Europe to match Russia it has to maintain and expand its industry, find cheap energy, and source natural resources that are scarce in Europe. It also needs a lower cost structure than it has in general terms.

These are not trivial problems. Europe is pushing on renewables, to be sure, but has some way to go and effectively has to buy those from China. It needs to get resources like oil and minerals from other countries and the closest and cheapest source of hydrocarbons, which it needs during the transition, is far more expensive than it otherwise would be. American oil and natural gas is FAR more expensive.

The other traditional source of resources was Africa: mostly ex-French colonial possessions. France never forgave their debts, had military bases all over and often forced them to sell resources at very low prices. But now that Africa doesn’t need European goods, they’re kicked the French out and raising prices and moving to do primary processing domestically.

So sources of cheap minerals are drying up.

All of this could be worked around, if Europe was a technological leader, but…

Now legacy industry matters. Machine tools. Steel. Chemicals. Stuff that Germany is good at. (Automobiles are dying, because yes, the future is EVs.) But Germany and Europe are losing those industries. And they aren’t producing the industries of the future. Everything they have is basically legacy industry, developed in the late 19th and 20th centuries. They aren’t creating, mostly, the industries of the 21st century.

GDP only matters if you can use the resources it suggests you have to produce what you need. When it comes to competing with Russia, Europe’s ability to do so is limited. Not non-existent, Germany has significantly increased artillery shell production, for instance, but not what it needs to be.

Without a colonial empire and without resource rich nations willing to trade Europe the resources it needs at reasonable prices, and without a tech lead, What does Europe have?

Very little.

And this is why Europe’s in for a long fall. There’s no easy route out and no one is even talking about doing what’s right. The center still thinks that the problem is that workers have pension and time off, the rising right are complete idiots who think the US is a good model and the left is not, in most cases, in contention. Germany’s AfD will not make Germany better off, it will continue destroying Germany. The same is true of UK’s Reform part and France’s right wing.

GDP is a stupid stat. It conceals more than it reveals. It doesn’t tell you much about the structure of a country. India, which in GDP terms is a great power just lost a minor war to Pakistan. High GDP can actually be bad, since it includes waste, billionaire income that does nothing for the country, and all the money earned in harmful industries like finance and private equity.

Europe’s high GDP isn’t meaningless, precisely, but it isn’t what matters. If it was, Ukraine would have won the war already and the EU wouldn’t constantly be on its knees groveling to America.

What matters is what an economy CAN do. And Europe’s economy can’t create what Europe needs.

Everyone reads these articles for free, but the site and Ian take money to run. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

The Oreshnik

By Sean Paul Kelley

On May 13, 2026

14 Comments

~by Sean Paul Kelley

I’ve spoken to a handful of nuclear weapons and arms control analysts/experts and all pretty much agree that the Oreshnik, while a terrifying weapon, is actually a very positive development in regards to making nuclear weapons obsolete. Here’s why: prior to the successful deployment of the Oreshnik, there were only two weapon systems capable of bunker busting crucial enemy C³ nodes: thermobaric weapons, like the US MOAB fuel-air explosive bombs and the Russian Tosochka-2 and Tos-3 Drakon missiles. These weapons are useful for eliminating hardened C³ bunkers/nodes just behind the front lines but aren’t capable of striking hardened intermediate range targets. The only weapon capable of eliminating hardened C³ bunkers deep behind the lines are intermediate range city-busting nukes. Think a nuke that can take out Cheyenne Mt. or its Russian equivalent, or perhaps the NATO C³ bunker in Brussels.

Enter the Oreshnik.

The Oreshnik rarely carries an explosive load. It derives its destructive power from kinetics; physics; sir Isaac Newton’s laws at work. The Oreshnik moves so fast when it releases its MIRVed warheads that it is enveloped in plasma from friction with the air molecules.

Its warheads separate and move at such a stupendous speed that when they fall out of the sky it resembles a lighting strike. When they strike their target the speed and force is so immense they penetrate up to 150 meters. They leave no impact crater, but the reactive metal they are made of—a Russian state secret to be sure—for all intents and purposes becomes lava, shattering the bedrock, steel, liquifying concrete and discharges a shockwave that eviscerates everything within 300 meters or more.

After this cataclysmic ruination a molten material bubbles up through the point of entry, like a volcano bleeding liquids that were once solid. Such a scene was attested by onlookers in the Ukraine after a 2025 Oreshnik strike on a covert-NATO-Ukraine C³ bunker near Lviv.

It is the Oreshnik’s ability to accurately strike an intermediate range target—~~accurate to within 5 meters, +/- a small margin of error~~ Mea culpa. The missile is accurate to within 100 meters. I regret the error.—that obviates the needs for city-busting nukes.

Why destroy an entire city to wreck a single C³ bunker when you can preserve the lives and assets of an entire city whilst destroying the C³ bunker with ease?

That’s not to say the Oreshnik is ushering in some new golden age of nuclear arms reduction.

That’s absurd.

But, it does eliminate a great deal of past risk.

And that’s not a bad thing, if you ask me.

Is It Better To Be Raped Or Be A Rapist?

By Ian Welsh

On May 12, 2026

19 Comments

There are a lot of people who believe that in this world you either fuck other people, or get fucked. The world is full of predators, and if you aren’t victimizing someone, you’ll get victimized.

After all, if you hurt someone, that means you’re stronger than them, and mean, and others will be scared of you.

Pretty much how the US, indeed all Empires, operate.

Kill or be killed, this isn’t. If someone attacks you, or someone else, and you kill someone in self defense, well, that’s not the same thing.

Rape’s a good case, because there’s never justification for rape. It’s taking pleasure from someone else’s degradation, and it makes you, well, evil.

I’d argue the same is true of torture. (No, torture doesn’t work for extracting information.)

And then there’s murder. Not self defense, but say joining a military and going and killing a bunch of innocent people. Or, on your own behalf or the behalf of some church or belief or company, killing people. The purest example is certain types of draft: “you kill for us or we kill you.” Perhaps its less than that “kill for us or we throw you in prison” or “kill for us or we impoverish you.”

There are less pure versions. You work for a company which pollutes or poisons or makes products designed for murder. You know (or should know) that people will die because of the pollution. Working for cigarette companies, perhaps. Manufacturers who leach cancerous poisons into the air, water and land. Defense contractors for aggressive countries.

Or perhaps you’re just an abuser. A prison guard, say, in a nation where abuse and what amounts to torture of prisoners is routine.

A propagandist, who provides justification for war and war crimes.

We all make compromises, I think. We all do things to survive we’d rather not do.

But where’s the line?

What is there that you won’t do?

Is it murder? Is it mass murder for your nation? (Don’t pretend that America has had a war of self-defense in generations.) Is it producing harmful products because you need a job? Is it lying about evil to justify it? Is it looking the other way?

I think we all need to decide. Personally if a gun was on me and they said “you rape that person, or you get raped” I hope I’d choose to be raped. I’d rather be a victim than victimizer, at least when it comes to such an abominable act.

Would I join a draft to go kill Iranians and help kill Palestinians? No.

I admire Israelis who go to prison rather than join the IDF.

Muhammad Ali, refusing the draft for Vietnam:

My conscious won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what? They never called me nigger, they never lynched me, they didn’t put no dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father… Shoot them for what? …How can I shoot them, the little poor black people, poor little babies and children and women … Just take me to jail.

What’s your line? What would you refuse to do even if it meant you’d become a victim?

Everyone reads these articles for free, but the site and Ian take money to run. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.