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

Month: November 2021 Page 2 of 4

The Terror Of Electronic Money

Electronic money is inherently authoritarian. (Bitcoin is authoritarian and deflationary, and deflation rewards first movers and the rich far more than normal people.)

A few weeks ago John Michael Greer noted that part of what happened during Covid is that people left the formal economy and joined in the informal one.

The strength of a government can, most simply, be measured by how much it can tax. The early absolutist monarchs spent much of their time figuring out how to tax people, something which was very difficult: they built bureaucracies largely to increase their income, so they could wage war better.

Cash money is always a problem to governments, because people can exchange it without registering the exchange. Granted, governments became very good at tracking money, but there were always ways to avoid the system, especially if you were smart and spent cash carefully. I’ve had multiple friends who worked for some period for cash under the table, especially the in the (old) gig economy and in restaurants.

Electronic money, whether done on a blockchain or not (though blockchains are terrible for privacy), with the removal of cash money, makes it almost impossible to escape the state’s taxation and makes many small exchanges not worth doing, since the fuss and expense of tax accounting is usually an immense pain.

So e-money is something governments really want more of, and it’s something that people who are concerned with real freedom, not theoretical freedom such as “rights” the government may or may not actually bother respecting, should be concerned every time they see a movement to restrict cash and move to e-money. Even partial moves, like India’ getting rid of larger bills, can be devastating, and if the informal economy is large enough, can be disastrous economically even if the government winds up with more taxes. (India’s experiment was bad for the Indian economy, as I expected.)


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)


Bitcoin is not “anonymous money”. Blockchains record every transaction. Cash is anonymous money, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a scam artist.

Computers and the telecom revolution, overall, have been bad for the freedom of most people, in very concrete ways; sometimes minute to minute ways, since they also allow for bosses to automatically monitor what workers are doing. Hell is micro-management, and this is moving out from warehouses, into white collar jobs. No one who isn’t powerful at work will have any real ability to dodge it.

I first noticed this at my last big corporate job, where every “automation” of clerical workers was really about control: every one reduced productivity but made workers jump thru automated hoops and made it easier for management to see exactly what each worker was doing.

None of this should be surprising. Advanced in communication technology always allow more control because they allow more knowledge to be centralized. This was true of writing and it’s true of computers. It used to be that if the boss wasn’t there and couldn’t justify a supervisor to stand over your shoulder, you had a fair bit of freedom to do the job your way, but now an algorithm watches you and managers can see real time dashboards.

My entire experience at work was that “Hell is micromanagement”, one of my best bad jobs was being a bike courier because back in the early 90s they couldn’t track where you were or what you were doing. They told you to pick up and deliver; as long as you did that on time, it was up to you how you did it, and when work was slow, no one was telling you to do make-work.

More and more this is going away; bosses are even putting tracking software on home computers for remote workers, and sometimes insisting on having cameras watching the workers.

Freedom isn’t just about the right to free speech and assembly or a speedy trial (rights we are losing anyway, in many countries) it is about the moment to moment experience of life, and the majority spend half their waking hours working. If work sucks, life sucks. And with e-money, you won’t even be able to opt out of the formal economy.

Welcome to Hell.

Identity: Political Concepts Chapter 4

Previous: Ideology

(Introduction and Table of Contents)

Identity is “when you’re cut, I bleed”, no ideology, religion, union, nation or political party can work without it. It is the glue that makes all politics and power possible.

Without identification, no ideology or legitimacy works. If you are a Christian and someone disrespecting the word of Christ doesn’t bother you, you won’t do anything about it. If you don’t think Jesus showed the way to salvation, you won’t act on his words or try and convert anyone, and if there hadn’t been Christians who did both those things, there would be no Christianity and no one would remember Jesus.

Likewise if it doesn’t make you angry when people cheat in an election, or when people aren’t able to elect politicians, you don’t believe in representative democracy in any way that matters: democracy spread because people believed in it and fought for it and in many cases died for it, just as all the Christian martyrs died.

In modern society we tend to think of identity in ethnic terms or in terms of personal shared characteristics: blacks and Chinese, and African-Americans and gays and trans people and women, white men, and perhaps as nationalism, “I am proud to be American. I always salute the flag and I thank our men and women who serve!”

But people can identify with almost anything including political parties and ideal such as voting, human rights, honor, nobility, and so on. Any ideology which does not have people who deeply care about it, believe in it and identify with it, will go nowhere, and if it once had such people, but the identification is gone, the ideology will die.

Legitimacy, even in the harshest of cases where it’s an autocrat and his band of soldiers ruling everyone else, rests on identity: “I am a servant of the KING,” or “I stand with my band of brothers” or in Feudalism “only the nobility have the right to rule, we are better and superior to peasants and money-grubbing merchants without honor!”

We identify with other people like us, it is true, but that encompasses far more than “we have the same skin color.” We identify with people who like what we like, who do what we do, who believe what we believe and who live like us.

You don’t need all of these things: Christians can identify with other Christians who have different skin color, live thousands of miles away and otherwise have different lives entirely: so long as they are Christian. The same is true of Islam, believers in democracy, or those who are for secularism and against religion.

Ideologies power legitimacy, but without identification with an ideology, there is no power behind an ideology, and thus no power behind legitimacy.

Identification, most simply, is produced by rituals. The classic rituals are the big religious ones, though for many people they have lost their power. A ritual creates an emotion and attaches it to something: most often people, objects or ideas.

The general idea in mass rituals is to have everyone doing and feeling the same thing at the same time, with the same focus. Think of the various forms of Christian ritual, with everyone focusing on the priest, the altar, the words of the Bible, singing together, praying together and so on. The more people move together, or focus on the same objects at the same time as they feel any emotion, the more they identify with the symbols and with other people who perform the same ritual.

A secular ritual is the concert, with people all focusing on the musicians, the music and moving, often dancing, together. Large sporting events, with human waves, and perhaps recitations of the “Oath of Allegiance” or the national anthem, have similar characteristics.

Rituals also include what sociologists call interaction rituals. Simple things: as a student you sit lower than your teacher and don’t speak unless the teacher gives permission. When you meet a friend you hug or shake hands and ask how you are and when you leave, you say goodbye and perhaps wish them well (and often hug again.) In Japan you might bow, with the depth of the bow determined by the relationship If you think these rituals don’t have power and emotions attached it’s simple to check: next time you meet a friend (or family member) you’d hug or shake hands with or bow, don’t. Don’t ask how they are, and when you decide to leave just turn around without a word and say nothing.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)

Or stand up and start talking loudly when the teacher hasn’t given you permission to speak. Or stand too close to someone in an elevator, even. Or walk into the boss’s office and sit on his desk and say “Hey, Bob, how ya doin’.” Be sure to stare down at him. (Well, only do this if you’re OK with losing that job.)

Interaction rituals are usually low emotion, but they happen so often they create stories and relationships and identification: the teacher has the right to control the class, and when someone violates that, others are generally offended, or sometimes amused.

Implicitly or explicitly, all identification comes back to some sort of story, and an emotion attached to it. In the Catholic Mass, the last supper is re-enacted, and the participants because Christ’s disciples, with the priest taking the role of Christ. This ritual, in various forms, was powerful enough to enthrall most of Europe and various other regions of the worlds for almost two millennia.

Great rituals create powerfully charged symbolic objects: a Christian can simply think of the Cross, Jesus or the bible to experience the emotion again, and can perform small rituals alone, such as prayer, or the blessing of meals (which was common when I grew up, but seems to be much less common today.)

While rituals are more powerful when done with other people you can create identification while you are alone, as when reading a book or watching a movie. Great books and movies generate emotions about characters, ideas and symbols. If you don’t believe this, go to a comic convention (or social media) and insult a beloved comic book character. Completely fictional, but people CARE.

Such people have usually read hundreds of comic books or seen many movies and TV shows about the characters. They have strong emotions about those characters; they matter. Much as people who love Jesus have been told many stories about Jesus and had many emotions about Jesus, though religion often ads a belief that when something good happens their god made it happen, and that the god loves and cares for them. Unlike people in the world, a god’s love is often believed to be unconditional, something we otherwise get, perhaps, only from our mothers, and often not even from them.

Religious identification is, thus, identification on steroids, when it works,.

Often identification can be as simple as liking people who are like us: farmers from thousands of miles apart have some identification with each other. Likewise, go overseas where there is almost no one of your nationality, then meet a fellow citizen and you’ll find out how much identity nationality provides when you have an instant bond with someone based only on citizenship.

Just living in the same community, especially a small community, provides a lot of identification, because you know all the same people and places and grew up with very similar interaction rituals.

But a 5 foot tall black female who is a farmer in Nigeria has an identity in common with a 6 foot white male banker who lives in Norway if they’re both Christian or Muslim or Buddhist. A common identity could exist if both believe in human rights, or even if they both love the same author and books, or the same movies.

In essence, all identification makes things sacred: ideas, stories, characters, people (priests, the pope, rock stars, great scientists and novelists). Everything that happens to something sacred to you produces emotions. The pope is just some guy, but to a Catholic what he does is important: as Pope Francis is proving as I write, even Catholics who hate a pope are in a strong sacred relationship with him.

The American Constitution is just a bunch of words, but to many Americans it is sacred and if someone was to burn the original document they’d be offended. Even saying “no, people don’t have a right to happiness and aren’t equal, the Constitution is bullshit” would offend many and might get you punched.

Or burn a flag in many places in America: then run.

No idea has any political power without identification. No social group has any political power if the members do not identify with each other, because if they don’t, they won’t act together. A union dies not when it disbands, but when members break solidarity, which is why companies try and create “two tier” contracts where older employees are treated better than the new ones. A political party that has no partisans is a zombie, just waiting to be replaced.

Identification plus ideology is the creation of the sacred: of actions, ideas and people which must be treated in specific way. It is because of human rights that many are offended when they see someone beaten by police, and because of identification with authority that many others are pleased, “they must have had it coming, they should have obeyed.”

But, bottom line, just remember that identification is “when they are cut, I bleed”. If you don’t have an emotion when an idea, or person, or symbol is treated badly or well, then you aren’t identified with it. Without those emotions to drive action ideas, movements, political parties and ideologies have no ability to change the world, or even keep it as it is. When the objects which create emotions change, or the emotions themselves change, then the ideology has changed.

Identity and ideology are the base of all groups and coalitions; all political actors rely on and are created by story and identification: about how the world should be and create a group which feels the same.

Group action is the basic building block of politics, and it is that to which we will turn next.

Next: Groups and Coalitions

The Ongoing Depression Which Started in 2008

Back in 2009, I said that the bailout and inadequate stimulus would cause a depression which would last for at least a generation. I got a lot of the details wrong (inflation happened only in areas of interest to the rich, for example, till now) but that there would be a depression (ignored, by and large), oh yes.

How Bailing Out The Rich Caused a Depression

The Bailout Caused The Sucky “Recovery”

Bottom line is that in a capitalist system, people who make bad bets are supposed to go bankrupt. Other people get their assets at fire-sale prices, and those people see if they can do better. The entire financial industry, essentially without exception, made bad bets in the 2000s. They lost trillions, and they would ALL have gone bankrupt, even the ones, like Goldman Sachs, on the winning side, because the counter-parties would not have been able to pay. (A non-government bailout winning strategy would have involved huge positions in money and assets that go up in crises.)

When the stock market crashed in 29, the Fed did not bail everyone out. For generations that’s been assumed by many to be a mistake. It wasn’t. Government policy after the crash was a failure, but not keeping companies in business that should have gone bankrupt was the right thing to do, and it set up the recovery and good times you see in the chart above.


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)


We’re in a depression. We’ve been in a depression since 2008. Even “good years” have been shit. No one has re-ignited the economy, and it can’t be done while oligopolies rule the land, and private interests own government. This is the same mistake, by the way, that the Japanese made when their market crashed in the 80s, leading to what was called the “Bright Depression.” (Which is the analogy I used most often back in 2008/9 for what was to come.)

The anti-trust movement is absolutely essential to ending this. It’s not all that’s required: the power of the rich has to be shattered; they have to be forced to take their losses, and the Fed and Treasury (and foreign central banks and governments) have to stop propping them up.

Central banks have printed trillions keeping the rich afloat in the past 13 years. The entire economy, including the Chinese one, are, as my friend Stirling Newberry once noted, like patients on life support: they breathe fine, as long as we keep the power hooked up.

If we had let the rich lose everything, bailing out only those firms endangered thru little fault of their own, and used the opportunity to shatter the great oligopolies, then applied effective government support, we’d be doing far, far better now (notice the recovery from 29 starts in the 30s.)

And, since the smartest policy would have been a huge green buildout (something I was calling for back in the early 2000s) we’d also be in a better place with respect to climate change. Covid would have been handled better as well, since it wouldn’t have made Billionaires 70% richer in a year and a half, thus making it impossible for government to actually handle it properly, again, because government is owned by rich people and Covid is good for rich people.

You can have a good economy, or you can have a lot of billionaires. You can have a good economy, or you can have unregulated oligopolies. You can have a good economy, or you can have a government bought and owned by the rich. You can, as Brandeis pointed out, “have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Nothing in America can be fixed if the rich stay rich and powerful. Nothing in the EU can be fixed if Eurocrats remain completely dedicated to neoliberal ideas. (Britain is done, alas, I can see no path to recovery that doesn’t take at least a couple generations.)

Even countries like China are screwed by this, because the economy is a world economy, run on neoliberal lines. China is dedicated to industrial policy internally, but as part of a neoliberal world economy. They just want to take over value chains, so they can get more of the wealth and income from them.

All of this means that the ruling elite needs to be replaced wholesale, both to live in a good economy, and to mitigate the worst parts of climate change (stopping it is no longer possible under any realistic scenario I can imagine.)

It’s that simple.

Comment Moderation

Is back on for the time being. No ad-homs, no matter how justified you think they are. No sexism/racism, etc… I’m also going to be reluctant to let thru fights over vaccine denial, etc… In general, comments that are off topic or don’t add anything to the conversation will not be approved.

Make your comments on-topic and polite.

While comment moderation will sometimes be quick, there will be long periods without approval depending on my schedule (this Monday, for example, may show a huge gap.)


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)


Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – November 21, 2021

by Tony Wikrent

Conservative / Libertarian Drive to Civil War

Notes on an Authoritarian Conspiracy: Inside the Claremont Institute’s “79 Days to Inauguration”

[The Bulwark, via The Big Picture 11-14-2021]

… report published in mid-October 2020 by the Claremont Institute and Texas Public Policy Foundation’s (TPPF) called “79 Days to Inauguration,” prepared by “Constitutional scholars, along with experts in election law, foreign affairs, law enforcement, and media . . . coordinated by a retired military officer experienced in running hundreds of wargames.”

Among these luminaries were figures such as John Eastman—lawyer for Donald Trump and author of a memo advising Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally block certification of Joe Biden’s win in order to buy time for GOP-controlled state legislatures to send competing slates of electors—and K.T. McFarland, who served as deputy national security advisor under Michael Flynn in the Trump White House.

Other participants include Kevin Roberts, then-executive director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (soon to be head of the Heritage Foundation), Jeff Giesea, “a [Peter] Thiel protégé and secret funder of alt-right causes,” and Charles Haywood, a fringe blogger who anxiously awaits an American “Caesar, authoritarian reconstructor of our institutions.”

….Practically, the report is an instruction manual for how Trump partisans at all levels of government—aided by citizen “posses” of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers—could, quite literally, round up opposition activists, kill their leaders, and install Donald Trump for a second term in office….

are via emailThere’s more irony in how the task force imagines right-wing gangs would operate during such a period: with quiet discipline and in cooperation with law enforcement…. In reading the report, it becomes clear that task force participants see law enforcement as a critical adjunct to the more traditional political actors and that they believe law enforcement could act with greater impunity and force, independent from—and at times in defiance of—elected leaders…. Earlier this year the Claremont Institute created a Sheriffs Fellowship program. Claremont claims that this program will offer “training of unparalleled depth and excellence in American political thought and institutions.” But then, this is the same group that produced a report hoping that “several sheriffs in conservative counties” would give groups like the Proud Boys actual legal authority.

According to ConservativeTransparency.org, the largest funders of the Claremont Institute are the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($300,000 to $400,000 a year for the past several years; the John M. Olin Foundation ($100,000 annually), and The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($100,000 annually). The Sarah Scaife Foundation is part of the late Richard Mellon Scaife network, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon banking family.In a healthy republic, dedicated to promoting the General Welfare, the rich would not be allowed to pass massive wealth from from one generation to another, thus solving the two interrelated problems of wealth inequality, and the worsening sclerosis and maintenance deprivation of the national economy and physical infrastructure. The Wikipedia entry states that in April 2021, Claremont senior fellow Glenn Ellmers wrote an essay in Claremont’s The American Mind,  “ “Conservatism” is no Longer Enough: All hands on deck as we enter the counter-revolutionary moment,” arguing that the United States had been destroyed by internal enemies and that

“Let’s be blunt. The United States has become two nations occupying the same country. When pressed, or in private, many would now agree. Fewer are willing to take the next step and accept that most people living in the United States today—certainly more than half—are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term…. “They do not believe in, live by, or even like the principles, traditions, and ideals that until recently defined America as a nation and as a people. It is not obvious what we should call these citizen-aliens, these non-American Americans; but they are something else.”

 

Menace Enters the Republican Mainstream

[New York Times, via The Big Picture 11-14-2021]

Threats of violence have become commonplace among a significant part of the party, as historians and those who study democracy warn of a dark shift in American politics.

At a conservative rally in western Idaho last month, a young man stepped up to a microphone to ask when he could start killing Democrats.

“When do we get to use the guns?” he said as the audience applauded. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?”

2021 Fundraiser

I’m fundraising for 2021. The more I raise, the more I will write.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

I’m going to keep the goals simple this year.

$5000 – A longer article on the collapse of the USSR, putting everything I’m aware of together. In particular I want to discuss the steps Gorbachev took which seem like either gross stupidity or intentional destruction. The fall of the Soviet Union was studied in great detail by the Chinese Communist Party, and has informed their actions since.

$8,000 – A summary of world system analysis as practiced mainly by Immanuel Wallerstein, with a look at what it means for the future. World system analysis takes capitalism as a world system, and looks at how it has re-ordered the entire relationship of nations, subordinating them to its needs, though about 5 centuries. We can see clearly that most countries today are not sovereign, but subject to the system as a whole, this is true to some extent even of the hegemonic power, the US. Wallerstein thinks this world system is played out, and we’ll look at why. (Wallerstein, like Randall Collins predicted the collapse of the USSR in advance, using his model, when almost all specialists in the USSR did not see it coming.)

$10,000 – A longish look at the theory of revolutions: when they happen and why, drawing on people like Randall Collins and Michael Mann. Most of what they have is based on the experience of Agrarian empires, so I’ll try and extend it a bit to industrial nations, and also look at what it means for a world system to collapse. World systems prior to capitalism didn’t include the entire world (and capitalism didn’t till the mid 19 the century), so we can see what happened, for example, when the Roman Empire collapsed.

$11,500 – An essay on the effect of computer and telecom technology on humanity. Neil Postman, in Technopoly, back in the 1990s predicted it would be bad for most people, and I would argue it has or will be, but we’ll take a look at the ups and down, the affects on economics, geopolitics and daily life. As with writing and printing and firearms, the early results may not be the same as those in the longer term, so we’ll try and figure out some of those.

2021 has been a hard year for many. If you’re worried about food or rent or other necessities, please don’t give. If, on the other hand, you can afford to and value my writing, I’d appreciate it. The year has taken a toll.

Subscriptions will count triple compared to donations.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Open Thread

As most of the recent posts have had restrictive comments policies, feel free to discuss unrelated topics here.

Ideology: Political Concepts Chapter 3

Previous: Ideology

(Introduction and Table of Contents)

At first glance ideology and legitimacy seem identical, because ideology determines legitimacy.

An ideology is a story about how the world is, and how it should be. Most ideologies include:

  • A theory of human nature, which determines how they think people should be treated.

  • A vision of what the good life is.

  • An ideal type of person, who is most virtuous.

  • And, combined, these determine what sort of world an ideology’s believers should try to create.

The best way to explore this is to look at some ideologies, both recent ones (which we have emotions about) and older ones we are somewhat disconnected from.

Economism is a modern ideology. The great early ideologue (story-teller) associated with it is Adam Smith, and his book, “The Wealth of Nations.” Economism posits that people are self interested, indeed selfish, and that the best way to run society is to run with this: people pursuing their own self-interest will create a good society.

Economism also posits that people pursue their own well-being and know what is good for them. Thus if someone buys something, or does something for money, well, that thing must be of benefit. There may be exceptions, and Adam Smith recognized quite a few, but they are exceptions, and Smith’s heirs have often reduced the number of exceptions.

To manage people in Economism you manage incentives: you change tax schemes, you reward people with money who do what you want, and you take money away from people who don’t do what you want. Since people buy what is good for them, if someone makes a lot of money selling things, well, they must be increasing human well-being and they therefore not only deserve to keep the money they have gained, but they should have that money because with that money they can do even more, and thus increase human well being even more.

Thus Economism tends to lead to money pooling at the top, with people who have produced products that other people buy. Sometimes these products aren’t really products (in finance), sometimes they are (iPods, cars, Smart Phones, computers, washing machines, etc…) Sometimes they are good for people (penicillin), and sometimes they are bad for people (cigarettes, most social media) but Economism is very bad at recognizing that anyone who has money may not have increased welfare (which it doesn’t really believe in, instead using utility); that some products are actually harmful even if people like them, or that just because someone created a great product or series of products, doesn’t mean they will do more good with their money.

From a “stay in power” point of view, what is important about any ideology is that it empowers those who follow its precepts, and dis-empowers those who don’t do what it requires. I trust it’s obvious how Economism (capitalism) does that: money is power and people who don’t value money don’t tend to get a lot of money, and thus power.

Economism is at the core of capitalism. Without it we wouldn’t be capitalist, because it wouldn’t make sense to us to organize our societies this way. But we have made modifications to it at times. After the Great Depression, for example, we realized that if the rich were too rich, there weren’t enough customers with money, and that regulations were needed to keep capitalism from capsizing. So, in the US from about 1932, and in the rest of the “West” after the war we had policies to keep wages and prices of goods (but not houses or education) up, to discourage too much speculation in financial markets and to share the wealth.

That sub-ideology, which can be divided into the New Deal (32-46) and Post-war liberalism (46 to somewhere between 68 and 80), was destroyed when the oil shocks and inflation + high unemployment happened in the 70s, and in 1979 in Britain, and 1980 in the U.S. we moved over to neoliberalism, which is described well by the form of Economism I highlighted.

Possibly the best way to think of ideologies is as instruments meant to create a type of society. All forms of capitalism feature wage labor, concentration of capital and a primary role for markets: they all create powerful capitalists and remove capital (the means of production) from most of the rest of society.

But New Deal/Post War Liberalism created a large middle class, and even manufacturing workers could support a four person family on one salary, while neoliberalism produced a society where the good working class jobs were lost and families needed two salaries and a lot of debt to get along, while all unavoidable costs like healthcare and housing and education (since almost all good jobs are closed without it) skyrocketed.

However post-war liberalism had a dark side: the exclusion of women from the work force. The post-war era excluded women much more than the New Deal period had, and more than had been the case in the previous laissez-faire form which ended in the 20s. This was not accidental, it was part of the design: to keep wages high, you want a smaller workforce, so less people are competing for jobs. Make it so half the population can’t compete for any jobs outside the pink-collar ghetto, and you’re a long way there.

All ideologies have shadows. In some cases we may judge the shadow to be more than half the ideology: an ideology which justifies widespread slavery might be considered to do more harm than good, and many women might prefer neoliberalism, for all its problems, to post-war liberalism: neoliberalism wanted the biggest workforce possible, to drive down wages, so was OK with letting women work (though there was and still is a lot of prejudice and structural issue, societies turn slowly, like cruise ships.)

The other ruling ideology of the West, though in a lot of danger and retreat today, is representative Democracy.

As a rule, most societies have two to three ruling ideologies, usually with two of them in the cat seat. For most of the European Dark and Middle Ages, those were Christianity and Feudalism, but by the 1100s there is an oncoming commercial/city ideology which eventually turns into the bourgeoisie and later into capitalism. Free cities were ruled by guild masters and merchants and the church, not by the feudal nobility. These people had an ideology which opposed Feudalism, though not so much the church, but they were a minority and far weaker than either Church or the nobility.

Democracy is the most important ideology in our societies other than Capitalism. It is democracy which rescued capitalism, thru high Keynesian spending, price and wage supports and laws forbidding the worst financial excesses, after capitalism drove much of the world into a Great Depression.

In healthy periods, the ruling ideologies complement each other: stopping the worst excesses of the other ideology, and mitigating flaws. Welfare, universal health care, securities laws, industrial policy, and so on are ways that representative democracy manages, or in many cases managed (it now encourages the excesses, rather than mitigating them) capitalism.

Representative democracy is the story and belief that people have the right to choose those who rule them, and that no one who is not chosen by the population has a right to make public decisions.

This story puts democracy in fairly direct opposition to capitalism, because capitalists have a great deal of power to make public decisions, and are not chosen by the people. There’s a lot of effort in some circles to deny this opposition, by suggesting that consuming is the equivalent of democracy, but at the core the two ideologies have opposing visions.

A modus vivendi has been created, in which capitalists often talk up democracy and democratic governments claims that capitalism causes democracy (the Chinese beg to differ). Democrats in effect sanctify capitalism, and capitalism sometimes nods back and sanctifies democracy.

This is similar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages with the divine right of kings, and support for feudalism, even though it is hard to see most of Jesus’s teachings as supportive of wealth and power, save for the famous “Render unto Caesar.”

But the Church, in healthy periods, served many of the same purposes as Democracy does for Capitalism: it reined in the worst excesses. Churches were centers of charity, Popes often tried to enforce peace and mitigate the damage of feudal wars, and monasteries kept alive literacy and learning in a Europe which otherwise didn’t care for it.

Likewise capitalism might be seen as providing a market dynamism which democracy, by itself, would lack.

Each ideology is also a danger to the other. Democracies may decide that capital shouldn’t be controlled by private individuals and that markets should be regulated to such a point that capitalists feel they can barely operate. Capitalists upon becoming rich generally try and buy government, and often succeed, as they have in the United States and Britain as of this writing in 2021.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)

In time not only sub-ideologies change, but ruling ideologies rise and fall. Neither the church nor feudal nobles or even aristocrats rule much of anything any more. (Churches have hung on a bit better.)

The important thing, however, is to see that ideologies are stories about how the world is, and should be, and that those stories tell us how we should act, who should run our societies and what sort of societies it is right and good for them to create.

Ideologies do not float free of material circumstances. An ideology is constrained by technology and geography, and stories must explain our lives. A story which does not make sense any more will lose much of its power, as when the French Philosophes essentially demolished French aristocracy and much of the Christianity’s claim to be good rather than evil, or even make any sense. This was possible because even French aristocrats found it impossible to defend themselves as being better than others or doing anything to deserve their titles. Old-style feudal nobles, who ran their own estates, fought in wars and were generally healthier, stronger and a lot better in a fight than non-nobles would have laughed off such criticisms.

Because this is a short booklet, we can’t go a lot more into the details of how ideologies work. My upcoming “The Creation of Reality” deals with ideology at much greater length.

But we do need to understand what makes stories work; where ideologies get their power from. Just as legitimacy is powered by ideology, ideology is powered by identification and that is what we’ll discuss next.

Next: Identification


(My writing helps pay my rent and buys me food. So please consider subscribing or donating if you like my writing.)

Page 2 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén