How Fantasies Support Late Capitalism

Posted on February 1, 2023 by greg

The market is an anxious social fantasy, supporting the purported natural order in the economic realm. ‘Late capitalism,’ in its current usage, is a catchall phrase for the indignities and absurdities of our contemporary economy, with its yawning inequality and super-powered corporations and shrinking middle class. The fantasy being that western consumerism, far from being intrinsically implicated in systemic global inequalities, could itself solve them. We are told that structural barriers to aspiration, achievement and contentment will melt away in our fantasy “choice” economy. All we have to do is buy the right products. Underneath the freedom of always being your own boss is the reality of fiscal precarity mixed with never having enough time for yourself. All happiness and dissatisfaction is reduced to lack of positive attitude. Since social class is no longer relevant, everybody ends up with the socio-economic position they deserve.

Frederic Jameson argues that postmodernism is the cultural response to the latest systemic change in world capitalism. Postmodernists contend that there is no objective truth, rather truth is constructed by society. All ideas of morality are not real, but constructed. Consistent with postmodern doctrine is the belief that institutions, such as science and language, are oppressive institutes of control. Postmodernity then corresponds to a phase of capitalism where mass production of standardized goods, and the forms of labour associated with it, have been replaced by flexibility: new forms of production – ‘lean production’, the ‘team concept’, ‘just-in-time’ production, along with diversification of commodities for niche markets. Last but not least, financialization creates profit through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production; enriches a select few at the majorities’ expense. Because of the way financial services are measured, GDP data does not measure changes in inequality.

 Governments in the West implement a series of tax and financial policies to stimulate a consumer society, while undermining and weakening social safety nets. We have reached a stage in the development of capitalism underpinned by financialization. One of the main features of late capitalism is the increasing amounts of capital investments into non-traditional productive areas, such as the expansion of credit. If the ideas that material affluence is the key to fulfillment, that only the affluent are winners and that access to the top is open to anyone willing to work hard enough, and if you do not succeed, there is only one person to blame. Supported by the proliferation of opaque financial products market, “shadow” institutions have emerged with heightened speculative behavior, and corporate and even household governance increasingly focuses on quick returns from speculation on financial assets, exchange rates, real estate, and mergers and acquisitions, often fueling asset price bubble.

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) believed the world intrinsically has no objective meaning, but through a combination of free will, awareness, and personal responsibility, we can create our own subjective meaning. For Kierkegaard, the present age is a reflective age – one that values objectivity and thought over action, lip-service to ideals rather than action, discussion over action, publicity and advertising over reality, and fantasy over the real world. Kierkegaard observes, “Everyone one wants progress, no one wants change.” Kierkegaard argues, without anxiety there would be no possibility and therefore no capacity to grow and develop as a human being. Kierkegaard argues anxiety is essential for creativity – if there were no possibilities there would be no anxiety. “The most common form of despair is not being who you are,” Kierkegaard observes. It is in our anxiety that we come to understand feeling that we are free, that the possibilities are endless.

It has been over a century now since Friedrich Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. Nietzsche saw that the old values and old morality simply didn’t have the same power that they once did. For Nietzsche nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning. He believed we could eventually work through nihilism – in the process destroy the main interpretations of the world, thus open the opportunity to discover the correct course for mankind. In the last thirty years changes in technology, education and economics have intertwined to create today’s cultural conditions. Nietzsche claims there is no objective fact of what has value in itself – culture consists of beliefs developed to perpetuate a particular power structure. The system, if followed by the majority of the people, supports the interests of the dominant class. Political nihilism involves the destruction of illusions, the negation of mythology and the removal of the elite who profit from the existing propaganda of artificial confusion.

A famous work from the Renaissance (1516), Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, presents an ideal society whose inhabitants exist in an imaginary world under seemingly perfect conditions. Utopia is a world in which order and symmetry are highly valued. Instead of maintaining the upper and lower classes that existed in Europe at this time period, the people of Utopia share their wealth with one another. The sharing of wealth creates order and symmetry because everyone is the same class. Disrupted order of the class system and in daily life that peasant revolts caused in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance could not take place in Utopia because everyone is equally wealthy. Also, during the time that Utopia was written, guilds existed to reward and benefit specialized labor. The citizens of Utopia saw all trades as equal, none being more prestigious than the other. Every trade and tradesman treated the same, created symmetry in the citizens of Utopia’s work lives. Many see this work as a satire.

The Victorian age saw the publication of one of the most groundbreaking and influential fantasy novels of all time – Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland in 1865……… “But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.                          
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.” Not only did this novel introduce a female protagonist who is not punished for venturing out on her own adventure without a male guardian or companion during the repressive Victorian age, but the entire premise of entering a new world of fantastical creatures through a mystical doorway has become its own subgenre. According to Charles Frey and John Griffin, “Alice is engaged in a romance quest for her own identity and growth, for some understanding of logic, rules, the games people play, authority, time, and death.”

The Enlightenment and the rise of market capitalism transformed Western culture significantly. Individualism became the dominant ethos, with self-fulfillment and personal authenticity the highest goods. Happiness became a fundamental right, something to which we’re entitled as human beings. Carl Cederström, a business professor at Stockholm University, traces our current conception of happiness to its roots in modern psychiatry and the so-called Beat generation of the ‘50s and ‘60s. He argues that the values of the countercultural movement – liberation, freedom, and authenticity – were co-opted by corporations and advertisers, who used them to perpetuate a culture of consumption and production. Late capitalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Capitalism knew what every great system before it, from feudalism to tribalism to empire, had. The ultimate form of regulation wasn’t extrinsic, money – it was intrinsic. When, if, people believed – then not a finger needed to be lifted to control them. And by now, capitalism used its cultural hegemony to control American society wholesale. Not a single dissenting view – was capitalism really good for Americans? – was allowed in a single mainstream article, book, essay, on a single TV show, movie, or film. Capitalism was the only thing that was allowed to be – and though no one really understood it, this was the ultimate form of social regulation. Left to its own devices, capitalism is the act of constructing a monopoly. The real problem capitalism regulated society, for its own benefit, its own advantage and profit, and still does, in every regard, socially, culturally, politically, economically.

Slavoj Zizek observes: “Ideology is not a dreamlike illusion that we build to escape insupportable reality; in its basic dimension, it is a fantasy-construction which serves as a support for our reality itself; an illusion which structures our effective, real social relations and thereby masks some insupportable, real, impossible kernel.” Ideology is always a reflection of the economic system predominant at any given time. However, there is antagonism in the present economic system. The social-ideological fantasy of the middle class is to construct a vision of society that is not split by antagonistic divisions – a system that is complementary and allows everyone to advance themselves – is a necessary counterpart to the concept of antagonism. Fantasy is precisely how the antagonistic fissure is masked. The neoliberal ideological fantasy differs noting that classes are like extremities, members each contributing to the whole according to its function. Fantasy is a means for ideology of late capitalism to take its own failure into account in advance.

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged | Leave a comment

On Achieving Sustainability Goals: Leave No One Behind

Posted on January 15, 2023 by greg

The three main dimensions of sustainability are: social, economic, and environment. At its core, social sustainability means the aspects of sustainability that relate to people. Simply said, it’s about ensuring that humans have what they need, now and in the future. Of course, part of that means ensuring that the physical environment stays in good shape. But really, the emphasis in social sustainability is on ensuring humans have what they need. The social pillar of sustainability refers to, in broad terms, public policies that support social issues. These social issues relate to our wellbeing and include aspects like healthcare, education, housing, employment, etc. This includes affordable housing, physical and mental medical support, education training opportunities, employment opportunities, access to support, and of course safety and security. Benefits of social sustainability: providing people with a high quality of life, affordable housing and services, and healthy, well-planned, walkable neighbourhoods, allows the city to attract new investments and migrants.

Another way to describe social, economic, and environment is “people, profit, and planet” respectively. Social sustainability blends traditional social policy areas and principles, such as equity and health, with emerging issues concerning participation, needs, social capital, the economy, the environment, and more recently, with the notions of happiness, wellbeing and quality of life. Social sustainability is much more qualitative than it is quantitative. It addresses the ways in which members of a community live their lives and interact with each other. It intertwines the maintenance of basic human needs along with the exercising of political, economic, and social freedoms. Social sustainability is a process for creating sustainable successful places that promote wellbeing, by understanding what people need from the places they live and work. It combines design of the physical realm with design of the social world – infrastructure to support social and cultural life, social amenities, systems for citizen engagement, and space for people and places to evolve.

ESG is a system for how to measure the sustainability of a company or investment in three specific categories: environmental, social and governance. That is, a successful business is one that makes a profit while supporting and sustaining the environment and society. ESG looks at how the world impacts a company or investment, whereas sustainability focuses on how a company (or investment) impacts the world. ESG metrics are a measure of how a company manages the risks of environmental, social and governance issues. The risks to its business and shareholders, not the risks the business creates for the outside world, to people and planet. ESG is often confused with the concept of sustainability. ESG metrics are used to screen investments based on corporate policies and to encourage companies to act responsibly. This only includes the risks to its business and shareholders, not the risks the business creates for the outside world, to people and planet.

The social equity dimension of sustainability refers to how burdens and benefits of different policy actions are distributed in a community. The more evenly they are distributed, the more equitable the community is, and this even distribution is reflected in economic, ecologic, and social outcomes. Social equity takes into account systemic inequalities to ensure everyone in a community has access to the same opportunities and outcomes. Equity of all kinds acknowledges that inequalities exist and works to eliminate them. The building blocks of social sustainability are inclusive, just, and resilient societies where citizens have voice and governments listen and respond. Such societies support growth and poverty reduction today and into the future. Social sustainability works alongside economic and environmental sustainability.  Social equity – and positive social impact more generally – was supposed to be central to sustainability from the start. Elkington has since expressed regret that the social part of the equation has fallen by the wayside.

Social factors such as addiction, family tragedy, job loss, domestic violence, mental illness, and more play a heavy part in the cause of homelessness. The common denominator is a major crack in their life foundation. Many people focus solely on structural factors, like a lack of low-cost housing. “Too often being homeless is considered a personal and a moral failing, when it’s actually a structural and political problem” that makes visible the growing inequalities of our society. The five most common reasons for homelessness: substance abuse, housing costs or the lack of affordable housing, escaping domestic violence, poverty, and disabilities and mental health. Homelessness is a manifestation of underlying social vulnerabilities such as physical and mental illness, disability, substance abuse, and chronic unemployment. Increase in rent and loss of employment coupled by high standards of living highly contribute to homelessness.

Housing instability encompasses a number of challenges, such as having trouble paying rent, overcrowding, moving frequently, or spending the bulk of household income on housing. Homelessness isn’t someone else’s issue. It has a ripple effect throughout the community. It impacts the availability of healthcare resources, crime and safety, the workforce, and the use of tax dollars. Further, homelessness impacts the present as well as the future. Many U.S. communities depend on the Point-in-Time count, an annual street count of people experiencing homelessness. However, this one-time snapshot does not show a clear picture of how homelessness changes from night to night, who is entering and existing the homeless response system, and the urgent needs of the people moving throughout it.  Think of homelessness as a bellwether. It’s an indicator for how well our systems are serving the needs of populations who are often the most marginalized, oppressed, or disenfranchised.

Housing First is example of a sustainable housing alternative that focus on providing rapid access to housing for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Housing First is grounded in a harm reduction philosophy. The basic underlying principle of Housing First is that people are better able to move forward with their lives if they are first housed. This is as true for people experiencing homelessness and those with mental health and addictions issues as it is for anyone. Housing first is a proven model that focuses on first providing stable housing for the homeless, followed by making available a set of individualized supports and services — is much more effective than the current fractured set of supports used to assist persons struggling with mental illness and homelessness, where costs can rapidly escalate. Housing First is an evidence-based practice intended to serve chronically homeless individuals with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorders.

Addiction is a chronic brain disease, leading people to lose control of their lives. It is a public health crisis. One of the key ingredients for a successful Housing First program is harm reduction-informed services. In 2011 the American Society of Addiction Medicine joined the American Medical Association, defining addiction as a chronic brain disorder (an illness), not a behavioural problem, or just the result of making bad choices. The final aim of Housing First regarding substance use is to offer the best potential conditions in which participants with substance addictions can develop greater resilience capabilities, which are known to help individuals overcome adverse (internal or external) stimuli and to respond better to crises associated with addictions (Southwick et al., 2014). Recovery is accomplished first by ending their homelessness and then by collaborating with them to address health, mental health, addiction, employment, social, familial, spiritual, and other needs.

The upstream causes of poor health in the homeless population include extreme poverty, harsh living environments, trauma and structural barriers to resources/care. The downstream causes include infectious diseases, heart disease, substance use disorders (SUDs) and suicide. They must also contend with competing priorities, such as securing food and shelter, which frequently take precedence over health care. Homeless people may also avoid care owing to a mistrust of the health-care system and experiences of discrimination from providers. Health, health care and housing are inextricably linked. All homeless patients should be connected to services that assist with obtaining housing. Widening socio-structural inequities, especially those arising from homelessness and housing insecurity, are drivers of the growing health inequities in the United States. The most cost-effective way to help the homeless is to give them homes. Addressing housing directly is cheaper than relying on cops and emergency rooms.

Social equity is impartiality, fairness and justice for all people in social policy. Social equity takes into account systemic inequalities to ensure everyone in a community has access to the same opportunities and outcomes. How can social equity be improved? Establish formal and informal networks of service providers and stakeholders. These complex and cross-sectoral networks increase community resilience and ensure that necessary resources and expertise are present to address social equity issues. First and foremost, addressing equity is not just a conversation about diversity, equity and inclusion, but rather it is about the systems change that needs to happen to address real inequity. A combination of public services and public transport accessibility as a degree of equity and a measure of social sustainability (social sustainability through accessibility and equity). What these and similar programs have in common is maximising the population served by government-backed public facilities, programmes or action.

Within countries, all people, regardless of their backgrounds, have rights and responsibilities to fulfill their potential in life, and lead decent, dignified and rewarding lives in a healthy environment. This means that goals and targets need to be met for all segments of society. Those often left behind are people living in poverty and other vulnerable situations, including children, youth, persons with disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, older persons, indigenous peoples, refugees and internally displaced persons and migrants. Their voices must be heard, and their active participation as agents of change needs to be promoted. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty and protect the planet; provide the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. The global challenges we face include poverty, gender equality, climate change, food security, sustainable agriculture. SDGs provide an opportunity to address these inequities.

The SDGs (sustainable development goals) are a commitment that seeks to address the most urgent problems of the world and they are all interrelated. The pledge to leave no one behind is embedded at the heart of the SDGs. It is a commitment to end extreme poverty in all its forms and to act explicitly to ensure that those who have been left behind can catch up to those who have experienced greater progress. Unless this process is managed in an inclusive way and basic services are provided for the most vulnerable populations, they are likely to be to be left even further behind. We need to identify those who are left behind and the circumstances that prevent their full participation in the benefits of development. The bottom line is that the SDGs are unlikely to be achieved (by 2030) unless progress is made faster for the most marginalized groups.

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged | Leave a comment

Shaping Norms: a Response to Populism and Loneliness

Posted on January 1, 2023 by greg

Social belonging will become a growing issue for western democracies, an emerging “epidemic of loneliness” – some draw the connection between this creeping crisis of social belonging and the rise of populism, stating that lonely individuals are a vulnerable target group for extremist and populist parties. Hannah Arendt’s friend, the theologian Paul Tillich, offered a formulation somewhat similar to Arendt’s: “Language has created the word ‘loneliness’ to express the pain of being alone. And it has created the word ‘solitude’ to express the glory of being alone.” Arendt paints loneliness as “the common ground for terror”: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi… but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e. the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e. the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

The global COVID-19 pandemic has created a crisis of suffering. We conceptualize suffering as a deeply existential issue that fundamentally changes people indelible ways and for which there are no easy solutions. Economies have halted. Schools shifted to remote learning. Many businesses closed. Daily routines have been significantly altered. Social isolation was rampant. Life has changed in dramatic ways. We do not think it is an understatement to say that this pandemic will leave an indelible mark on this generation of humanity. COVID is an existential crisis that comes from awareness of your own freedoms. Now that the familiarity of your life has been stripped bare, what is your life really about? You might have thoughts about the fleetingness of your existence and how you are living it. When you stop taking for granted that you will wake up each day alive, you might experience anxiety, but at the same time deeper meaning too. 

Hence the prolonged fear, uncertainty, isolation, and grief brought about by the pandemic has caused many people to reexamine what gives their lives meaning. Numerous studies show that when people are thinking about death and other heavy existential topics, they become more focused on what makes their lives feel fulfilling because meaning reduces existential anxiety by helping them feel like they’re part of something larger and longer-lasting than their brief, mortal lives. This search for meaning can influence job-related behavior and decision making – including about where to work. More than half of Americans have no one with whom they share their troubles and joys. Studies of elderly people only underline this pattern more dramatically. Loneliness is not some soft existential problem of the “worried well.” Research about the health effects of social isolation concludes that those older adults without adequate social interaction were twice as likely to die prematurely.

Loneliness and social isolation are growing public health concerns in our ageing society. Whilst these experiences occur across the life span, 50% of individuals aged over 60 are at risk of social isolation and one-third will experience some degree of loneliness later in life, observe British investigators. Loneliness and social isolation are risk factors for all-cause morbidity and mortality with outcomes comparable to other risk factors such as smoking, lack of exercise, obesity and high blood pressure. In addition, loneliness has been associated with decreased resistance to infection, cognitive decline and mental health conditions such as depression and dementia. Cattan, et al. conducted a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of health promotion interventions that targeted social isolation and loneliness among older people, and found educational and social activity interventions that target specific groups can alleviate social isolation and loneliness among older people.

Although smartphones and social media can bring people together, they are also contributing to social isolation and loneliness across generations. Individuals who have engaged in mobile phones constantly may be exposed to a decrease in the time allocated to other social relations, especially relations based on face-to-face interaction. Loneliness is positively associated with longer screen time and social media app use. Frequently picking up one’s phone and using communication apps are negatively associated with loneliness. Lower need for affiliation and higher need for social recognition are personality facets predictive of loneliness. In addition to the physical effects of COVID-19 on individuals, it has caused psychological and social problems on individuals. One of these problems is related to feelings of loneliness they experienced during the pandemic process and the increase in aggression and smartphone addiction levels, which are thought to be related.

(Today) we see this form of organized loneliness not in totalitarianism but in tyrannical thinking. But we see it in the emergence of populism from the left and the right. And we see it in the Republican Party, which is comfortable rejecting the facts of science in the face of a deadly pandemic and where the former president of the United States is unable to accept the reality of electoral defeat. Weak social belonging at the individual level is positively associated with right-wing populism, but not with left-wing populism. The right-wing populist narrative typically builds on a traditionalist worldview that aims for the preservation of the old and reduction of uncertainty (Jost et al., 2003), which likely corresponds with the affective reactions to loneliness. In line with that reasoning, studies were able to show that lonely individuals tend to endorse politically conservative values and that citizens living in societies with low social cohesion are more likely to hold racist beliefs.

Populists claim to be the only legitimate representative of the people. Populists also increase citizens’ anger over a perceived lack of representation by the institutions. Slogans offer a new way to connect with voters – another world is possible! With respect to the conceptual core, populist parties and leaders typically utilize dividing rhetoric stating that society consists of two antagonistic groups. On the one side, the righteous people, on the other side the misguided and corrupt elites. Populist parties differ in their sociopsychological messaging and vision of how society should develop in the future. Following this reasoning, populist parties can be differentiated in aspects that are associated with their historical ideological roots and their stance on social change. Left- and right-populist parties differ in their envisioned direction the society should develop. Societal pessimism, law and order narratives, and a nostalgia for the past are important characteristics of right-wing messaging.

Loneliness carries a stigma, so we don’t admit we’re lonely. Loneliness is associated with numerous emotional and psychological outcomes. Among others, lonely individuals are more likely to desire shared identity, community, and reaffiliation (Qualter et al., 2015), while they also tend to suffer from increased social anxiousness, more negative expectations of future events, increased fear of being negatively perceived by others, and lower social trust. We know that reducing loneliness can help people lead independent, happier and healthier lives, for longer. At the forefront in combatting loneliness are libraries: Libraries welcome everyone, regardless of their background. The free and open space a library maintains where people can feel comfortable to gather for social interaction, and develop specific interests – is a very powerful tool to wield against loneliness. Service to older adults is basic library service not ‘special’ service. It’s something that every library should provide.

In most democracies, living standards have declined or stagnated over the past 25 years while the real incomes of the wealthy have risen. Inequality increases the salience of status relations between groups, erodes social cohesion and trust, increases intolerance for out-groups and support for anti-immigrant messages, and drives up perceptions of threat and status anxiety among all income groups. Rising threat perceptions, in turn, drive people to support leaders they view as capable of holding social change at bay and maintaining the social order they want to protect. Loneliness is a distressing emotional state that motivates individuals to renew and maintain social contact. It has been suggested that lonely individuals suffer from a cognitive bias towards social threatening stimuli. Cognitive biases reflect mental patterns that can lead people to form beliefs or make decisions that do not reflect an objective and thorough assessment of the facts. Populists are good at exploiting our cognitive biases.

Although populism is a symptom of democracy’s larger problems, the strategies and tactics populist parties and leaders use also provide their own, direct threat to liberal democracy. Many of the tactics that populist leaders use weaken democratic institutions and constraints on executive power. Populism is also detrimental to democracy because it exacerbates political polarization, which makes it hard for democracy to effectively function. As societies grow more polarized, people become willing to tolerate abuses of power and sacrifice democratic principles if doing so advances their side’s interests and keeps the other side out of power. The polarization that populism fuels, in other words, increases the risk of democratic decline. Research shows, for example, that efforts to simply expose people to “the facts” or to break down echo chambers by exposing them to views that contradict their pre-existing beliefs are ineffective and can accentuate polarization.

Populists routinely lie. The core message of populist campaigns is that the established elite is corrupt and exclusionary and that existing regime institutions are therefore not really democratic. Successful populists like Trump essentially earn a mandate from their supporters to bury the existing system. By attacking the press and civil society, he seeks to limit accountability to pursue his agenda. Once in power, populists seek to limit the ability of citizens to demand that elected representatives act responsibly and transparently. An active civil society depends on active, engaged citizens committed to liberal democracy. Citizens who care about norms and values need to be willing to organize, stand up to power and use their voice to express discontent, and hold elected representatives to high moral standards.  Populists do not just criticize elites, they also claim that they and only they, represent the true people.

Some research suggests that the media give disproportionate attention to the sensational ideas of populists. Populists use of emotional and direct language, including short, simple slogans that are directed at people’s “gut feelings,” is especially effective in the current media environment. Loneliness is political as well as personal, economic as well as social. It is about populists exploiting our fears and vulnerabilities, including loneliness. We must learn to recognize when someone is playing us. We must not let people exploit us by twisting our emotions and using that collective anger and emotion for their own good. In a world reshaped by globalization, automation, austerity and most recently by the coronavirus and ongoing economic downturn, loneliness also encompasses feeling excluded from society’s gains, and feeling unsupported, powerless, invisible and voiceless. This combination of personal and political isolation helps to explain not only why levels of loneliness are so high globally today, but also why loneliness and politics have in recent years become so closely linked.

The danger posed by populism lies in the damage leaders can do to the norms and institutions of liberal democracy. Even in consolidated democracies with citizens who are strongly supportive of liberal democracy, polarization creates an environment conducive to incumbent efforts to dismantle democracy from within. Research shows that voters in polarized societies are willing to trade democratic principles for partisan interests and that their willingness increases with the intensity of their partisanship. In a sharply polarized electorate, a significant fraction of voters will be willing to sacrifice fair, democratic competition in favor of (re)electing an incumbent who champions their interests. Efforts to reduce polarization, therefore, will be key to containing the detrimental effects that populists can have on democracy. Focus on shaping people’s perceptions of norms. Rather than simply seeking to educate the other side, political actors should focus on shaping norms.

Combating Populism: A Toolkit for Liberal Democratic Actors, Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Carisa Nietsche, (march 19, 2020) https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/combating-populism

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Balancing Inequality and Competition: the Ideal Social Contract

Posted on December 1, 2022 by greg

Freedom is good, but security is better. That’s what Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed. He made his point by imagining what it would be like to live without government, laws, or society. In this ‘State of Nature’ you could do whatever you wanted to. But anyone else could do whatever they wanted to to you. Hobbes also considers humans to be naturally vainglorious and so seek to dominate others and demand their respect. The natural condition of mankind, according to Hobbes, is a state of war in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because individuals are in a “war of all against all”. Locke and Hobbes agree on a variety of ideas such as the non-divine origins of the political power, the need for social contract that sets out what a government can or cannot do, equal rights and freedoms of all human beings, and the existence of an ultimate state of nature for human beings.

Hobbes is famous for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons. Hobbes believed that the social contract was designed to invest absolute power in a ruler to govern the citizenry. Locke believed that the social contract meant investing some power in the hands of the ruler, whose power would be used to protect his citizens’ human rights. In simple terms, Locke’s social contract theory says: government was created through the consent of the people to be ruled by the majority, “(unless they explicitly agree on some number greater than the majority),” and that every man once they are of age has the right to either continue under the government they were born in or to leave that government.

Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people believe that if we live according to a social contract, we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it. Locke and Hobbes had very different views regarding human nature. Locke claimed human nature as reason while Hobbes claimed it as power and appetite. Locke believes that reason is the primary attribute. For Locke, the role of the social contract that placed authority over people was to protect human equality and freedom; this is why social groups agreed to a social contract that placed an authority over them. Rousseau (1712-1778) argued that inequality was not only unnatural, but that – when taken too far – it made decent government impossible. He believed laws should pursue freedom and equality.

In the 19th century the idea of social contract lost attractiveness because of the growth of historical studies and idealist and evolutionist philosophies. Anna Bramwell observed that “the back to nature” views of the Romantic poets of the latter half of the 18th century and the 19th century who described nature as the source of moral and aesthetic value, stressed on the necessity of the reunification of man and nature which had fallen prey to the destructive forces of the Industrial Revolution, and who talked of the need to recourse to nature as a panacea to the philistinism of Industrial Revolution. Evolutionist ideas were spurred by the development of the Malthusian ideas on the relationship between food productivity and population growth. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) urged the importance of examining social phenomena in a scientific way. Spencer’s survival of the fittest concept was believed to be natural, hence morally correct.

Spencer preferred the Lamarckian evolution of adapted characteristics in which he believed that societies like living organisms evolve from simple states into highly complex forms – equating evolution with progress. He saw evolutionary progress as an economic problem, worked out at the level of the individual. This supported the doctrine of social Darwinism promoted to justify laissez-faire economics, thought best to promote unfettered competition between individuals, and the gradual improvement of society through the survival of the fittest. On the other hand, when Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) applied the Darwinian evolutionary theory to societal changes he found that laissez-faire capitalism created two groups, with the rich getting richer and the income gap between the rich and the poor widening. Veblen pointed out that that Darwinian evolution did not guarantee progress; the leisure class reacted differently than the middle class from the environmental stimuli in a system in which each individual looks after his own interests.

Floyd Arthur Harper (1905–1973), a member of the Mont Pèlerin Society, was present at the group’s first meeting in 1947 along with Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Karl Poppe. He helped start up the Foundation for Economic Education, and founded the Institute for Humane Studies. The unique thing that Harper brought to the table was a social Darwinian account of human progress. Harper believed that progress was generated by the “variation,” i.e. the bell curve distribution, which “seems to pervade the universe”. Hayek claims social evolution rests upon the transmission of acquired characteristics tending towards equilibrium, that is, a theory of cultural evolution consistent with Lamarckian tradition. Hayek maintains that with social evolution “the decisive factor is not the selection of physical and inheritable properties of individuals but the selection by imitation of successful institutions and habits…the whole cultural inheritance which is passed by learning and imitation.”

In 1984, Charles Murray published Losing Ground. Its central thesis was that all government welfare programs should be abolished, supposedly because welfare hurt the very people it was intended to help by “rewarding bad behavior” such as “illegitimate babies.” Murray also called for ending food stamp programs. The New York Times wrote in 1985 that Losing Ground became “this year’s budget-cutters’ bible” noting, “in agency after agency, officials cite the Murray book as a philosophical base” for slashing social programs. Murray’s manipulation of data claimed to show welfare programs were the cause of minority poverty, rather than the cure. In order to get the numbers to work to “prove” that liberal social welfare spending created poverty, Murray excluded government spending on the elderly from his “evidence.” As Lester Thurow, former dean of MIT’s Sloan School of Management noted, 86% of federal social welfare spending went to programs to help the elderly; and the poverty rate for the elderly dropped from 25.3% in 1969 to 14.1% in 1983, refuting Murray’s thesis.

In the 20th century the notion of the social contract was the basis of two influential theories of justice, those of John Rawls (1921–2002) and Robert Nozick (1938–2002). Rawls argued for a set of basic principles of distributive justice (justice in the distribution of goods and benefits) as those that would be endorsed in a hypothetical agreement among rational individuals who have been made ignorant of their social and economic circumstances and their personal characteristics (the “veil of ignorance”). Nozick, in contrast, argued that any distribution of goods and benefits – even a highly unequal one – is just if it could have come about from a just distribution through transactions that did not violate anyone’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Because such transactions in a state of nature would have given rise to a “minimal state” (whose powers are limited to those necessary to prevent violence, theft, and fraud), only the minimal state is justified, according to Nozick.

Adam Smith’s theory of the invisible hand, which says that competition channels self-interest for the common good, is probably the most widely cited argument today in favor of unbridled competition – and against regulation, taxation, and even government itself. But what if Smith’s idea was almost an exception to the general rule of competition? Robert Frank, who coined the term “Darwin’s wedge” challenges this, resting his case on Darwin’s insight that individual and group interests often diverge sharply. Far from creating a perfect world, economic competition often leads to “arms races,” encouraging behaviors that not only cause enormous harm to the group but also provide no lasting advantages for individuals, since any gains tend to be relative and mutually offsetting. What Frank argues, is that Darwin’s understanding of competition describes economic reality far more accurately than Smith’s. Inequality and competition drive the debate on how much government we need.

Some observations from Secretary-General António Guterres delivered on the 18th Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in 2020: But income, pay and wealth are not the only measures of inequality. People’s chances in life depend on their gender, family and ethnic background, race, whether or not they have a disability, and other factors. High levels of inequality are associated with economic instability, corruption, financial crises, increased crime and poor physical and mental health. When we look around: Tax concessions, tax avoidance and tax evasion remain widespread. Corporate tax rates have fallen. This has reduced resources to invest in the very services that can reduce inequality: social protection, education, healthcare. The corrosive effects of today’s levels of inequality are clear. We are sometimes told a rising tide of economic growth lifts all boats. But in reality, rising inequality sinks all boats. Confidence in institutions and leaders is eroding.

A leading argument advanced in favor of cutting taxes for corporations is that this will make them more competitive in today’s global marketplace. But one important issue is when competition makes people less cooperative, promotes selfishness and free-riding, reduces contributions to public goods, and leaves society worse off. If a small number of businesses wield too much market power, they are often able to raise prices or decrease the quality of goods to increase profits at the expense of consumers. On the whole, taxes play a relatively small role in corporations’ decisions about where to invest. Other factors play a much larger role – factors such as strong worker skills and education, access to consumers, modern infrastructure, and well-functioning legal institutions. American competitiveness would be better served by ensuring that corporations pay their fair share of taxes and investing those revenues in education, infrastructure, and other public investments that make US a desirable place to do business.

Late capitalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Inequality is recast as virtuous. With respect to social needs, their belief is the market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. Despite its alleged commitment to market competition, the neoliberal economic agenda instead brought the decline of competition and the rise of close to monopoly power in vast swaths of the economy: pharmaceuticals, telecom, airlines, agriculture, banking, industrials, retail, utilities, and even beer. The drastic inequality of the control of resources – as the big get bigger – creates the majority of the problems we have today. This breeds cut-throat competition which leads to crime, corruption, non-cooperative behavior, and many other negative side effects. Indeed, the failure to recognize that we live in Darwin’s world rather than Smith’s is putting us all at risk by preventing us from seeing that competition alone will not solve our problems.

Prioritizing short-term profits for individuals has sometimes meant that the long-term well-being of society and the environment has lost out. During the 21st century the cost of many discretionary goods and services has fallen sharply, but basic necessities such as housing, healthcare, and education are absorbing an ever-larger proportion of incomes, aggravated by wage stagnation. These shifts point to an evolution in the “social contract”: the arrangements and expectations, often implicit, that govern the exchanges between individuals and institutions. Broadly, individuals have had to assume greater responsibility for their economic outcomes. For many individuals the changes are spurring uncertainty, pessimism, and a general loss of trust in institutions.1 Policy makers need to focus on two fronts to reduce inequality: tax relief and income supports or transfers to build the middle class and secondly, education and anti-discrimination policies.

1 The social contract in the 21st century. (Feb 5, 2020) James Manyika, Anu Madgavkar, Tilman Tacke, Sven Smit, Jonathan Woetzel, and Abdulla Abdulaal https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/the-social-contract-in-the-21st-century

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why We Need to Preserve Political Norms

Posted on November 1, 2022 by greg

As we have seen, political norms might be a fragile bulwark against a demagogue, but they also reflect a commitment to a set of shared rules and values that is an important indicator of the health of our politics. Without that commitment, preserving our freedoms will become a much more difficult and dangerous task. Political norms are essential to ensure the functioning of democratic institutions. Their importance is especially salient in high polarization settings, where opposing parties need restraints on opportunistic behavior in order to realize mutually beneficial outcomes. While the breakdown of norms has understandably received much attention, less is known about the nature of political norms in the first place. Governments can actively “manage” (try to influence) norms through such things as advertising campaigns, information blitzes, or appeals from respected figures. The critical enforcement mechanism for preserving political norms is ultimately the electorate.1

Edmund Burke argues that it is inner restraint that gives one liberty from his passion: “Men are qualified for liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Burke argues that men who do not restrain their passions, but rather pursue them are bound to them. This binding to passion is not true freedom. Burke named four institutions that help the individual in his pursuit of true freedom: social, economic, political and religious institutions. These institutions help balance out the individual’s passions, and keep them in check. In doing so, they “provide the means for him to develop fully into the virtuous, free human being that God intended.” These institutions that have developed over time and throughout tradition have freed, rather than imprisoned, man. By providing the individual with the means for virtue, these institutions have shown man how to maintain dominion over his passions.

Norms constrain the party in power by defining when politicians can change policies, and their effect is mediated by institutions that provide “hard” constraints on politicians’ ability to implement preferred policies. We therefore conceive of political norms as informal rules that help preserve mutually beneficial policies. Norms such as constitutional conventions can limit presidential power, but to act contrary to a constitutional convention does not violate any formal rule. Besides institutional checks and balances, constitutional scholars have identified another crucial ingredient for securing long lasting democracies: the development of strong political norms of cooperation among political opponents. Some other group, like the mob or the public press, that had an unofficial but often great influence on public affairs, was called the “fourth estate.” In the 19th century, “fourth estate” came to refer exclusively to the press, and now it’s applied to all branches of the news media.

Though Trump promised to release the returns during his campaign, he repeatedly refused to release his tax return information throughout his presidency, the first major-party U.S. presidential candidate or president since 1976 to do so. The calls for Donald Trump to release his tax returns began early during the campaign and never really let up. It was easy to assume he eventually would make good on his promises to turn them over. Every president since Jimmy Carter had released his taxes; Trump would have to do the same, right? What we’ve learned since then, of course, is that Trump didn’t have to reveal anything. The Constitution doesn’t require disclosure; plenty of federal officials need to submit their tax returns to the Senate, but not the president. Every American president or nominee since Richard Nixon had released his or her tax returns. It’s just a norm.

One of the crucial lessons of the past year, turns out, is just how much of American politics is governed not by written law, but by norms like these. Social scientists have long understood the importance of norms – the unwritten rules and conventions that shape political behavior – but our political system has largely taken them for granted. As a result, we have been slow to recognize how vulnerable these informal constraints on power are to someone who refuses to follow rules that everyone else respects. Trump’s assault on norms started during the campaign, when he encouraged violence among his supporters, attacked the ethnicity of a federal judge (a double norm violation) and called for the imprisonment of his opponent. Once he was elected, many observers assumed this pattern would cease: Surely there are constraints on this kind of behavior from the president.

Severe polarization damages all institutions essential to democracy. It routinely undermines the independence of the judiciary, as politicians attack the courts as biased or pack them with loyalists. It reduces legislatures either to gridlock or to a rubberstamp function. In presidential systems, it frequently leads to the abuse of executive powers and promotes the toxic view that the president represents only his or her supporters, rather than the country as a whole. Perhaps most fundamentally, polarization shatters informal but crucial norms of tolerance and moderation – like conceding peacefully after an electoral defeat – that keep political competition within bounds. Polarization also reverberates throughout the society as whole, poisoning everyday interactions and relationships. Partisan conflict takes a heavy toll on civil society as well, often leading to the demonization of activists and human rights defenders. More seriously still, divisions can contribute to a spike in hate crimes and political violence.

When democracy breaks down, it typically takes many years, often decades, to reverse the downward spiral. In the process, violence and corruption typically flourish, and talent and wealth flee to more stable countries, undermining national prosperity. It is not just venerated institutions and norms that are at risk – it is the future national standing, strength, and ability to compete globally. Democracy rests on certain elemental institutional and normative conditions. Elections must be neutrally and fairly administered. They must be free of manipulation. Every citizen who is qualified must have an equal right to vote, unhindered by obstruction. And when they lose elections, political parties and their candidates and supporters must be willing to accept defeat and acknowledge the legitimacy of the outcome. The refusal of prominent Republicans to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, and the anti-democratic laws adopted (or approaching adoption) in Republican-controlled states – violate these principles.

Journalism has long been regarded as an important force in government, so vital to the functioning of a democracy that it has been portrayed as an integral component of democracy itself. In 1841, Thomas Carlyle wrote, “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all”. The fact of the matter is that democracy requires informed citizens. No governing body can be expected to operate well without knowledge of the issues on which it is to rule, and rule by the people entails that the people should be informed. In a representative democracy, the role of the press is twofold: it both informs citizens and sets up a feedback loop between the government and voters. Without the press, the feedback loop is broken and the government is no longer accountable to the people. The press is therefore of the utmost importance in a representative democracy.

Journalism serves as a public ‘watchdog’ by monitoring the political process in order to ensure that politicians carry out voters’ wishes, and that they don’t abuse their positions. Journalism helps level the playing field by amplifying the voices of those who do not have the means to dominate the marketplace of ideas. The exchange of viewpoints through debate to help citizens reach conclusions. It’s Journalism’s job to provide citizens with a range of these such viewpoints. The media are a source of information; politicians depend on it for pure information and they can profit from the momentum generated by media information. The idea that political elites and institutions follow the media, and that the media thus possess at least some form of political power means that media coverage affects the political agenda is empirically proven in both majoritarian and in proportional democracies.

The media can create cognitive dissonance, the feeling of uncomfortable tension, which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time. The cult of individualism makes us particularly prone to cognitive dissonance because our personal identity is very important. We see ourselves as stable self-contained beings. However, advertising that we may be missing something, or not fitting in creates anxiety. Television tends to feed an information diet (of self-approval) similar to consuming too much sugar inducing short-term euphoria and happiness while distracting from reality. The weakness of the mass media remains an inability to transmit tacit knowledge and an inability to deal with complex issues, so they tend to focus on the unusual or sensational, and the promotion of anxiety and fear. Confirmation-bias draws us in to the one-sided outlets, and the cognitive dissonance pushes us away from conflicting ideas. Cognitive dissonance stops us from hearing other opinions that conflict.

Misinformation is not like a plumbing problem you fix. It is a social condition, like crime, that you must constantly monitor and adjust to, observes Tom Rosenstiel. Cognitive biases reflect mental patterns that can lead people to form beliefs or make decisions that do not reflect an objective and thorough assessment of the facts. For instance, people tend to seek out information that confirms pre-existing beliefs and reject information that challenges those beliefs. This bias is the tendency in all of us to believe stories that reinforce our convictions – and the stronger the convictions, the more powerfully the person feels the pull of the confirmation bias. The FTC has accused Facebook of breaking antitrust law by gobbling up many smaller social media start-ups and acquiring several large, well-established competitors, in what amounts to a concerted effort to build a social media monopoly.

The concept of information manipulation has largely remained the same through time; however, the speed at which it spreads and the magnitude of influence it holds today makes it very different from its historical counterpart. Today established political parties are using social media to spread disinformation, suppress political participation, and undermine oppositional parties. With every click, like and follow, we leave our digital footprints all across social media and the web. This is a fertile ground for deception – technology that leverages your online activities combined with the power of big data, supercomputing and artificial intelligence. Lies are always coercive for the one being lied to: Lies seek to persuade not by appealing to our freedom to choose but by compelling us via deception to narrow our field of choice. As such, lies give power to the liar and take power away from the persons being lied to. In turn, this shift in power accumulates over the course of repeated lies.

The political landscape has been transformed by social media which often works to change or influence opinions when it comes to political views because of the abundance of ideas, thoughts, and opinions circulating through the social media platform. This transformation has resulted in an increased rise of populism around the world. Subsequently, the active role of the audience as made possible by social media has become a great opportunity for populist actors to spread their political messages or agendas. The role of news and social media is central to the populism movement because it represents political strategies in novel and exciting forms. Hence, sharing messages in social networks impacts an individual’s emotions, which ultimately results in actual real-world actions. This finding serves to rule out any naïve understanding of social networks as a mere way of contacting “old friends” and family members or in positioning commercial brands.

The Trump era has been defined by its obliteration of political norms, the accepted way for the country to be governed, elections to be conducted, and political rivals to treat one another. Many of Trump’s critics have suggested that with his disregard for the norms and institutions of American politics, he’s the real anarchist. Once in power, populists like Trump seek to limit the ability of citizens to demand that elected representatives act responsibly and transparently. Yes, Donald Trump flouted norms that exist for good reason and that ought to be maintained. What Trump brought attention to was political institutions and norms are more fragile than many thought. An active civil society depends on active, engaged citizens committed to liberal democracy. Citizens who care about norms and values need to be willing to organize, stand up to power and use their voice to express discontent, and hold elected representatives to high moral standards. 

1Political Norms, Giovanna M. Invernizzi, Michael M. Ting, (September 2, 2020) https://giovannainvernizzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Norms.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Postmodern Deconstruction of the Cruelty of Late Capitalism

Posted on September 15, 2022 by greg

Postmodernism is the idea that individuals have both the intelligence and the right to decide for themselves what truth is. In the past, truth was a clearly defined fact that was generally accepted by each generation. Postmodern individuals see the definition of truth as less clear. As postmodern people search for truth, they base their conclusions on their own research, individual experiences, and personal relationships instead of on the truth accepted by their parents, government or church. This does not mean that postmodernists do not believe in truth; it just means they define truth for themselves. For most postmodern people, the concept of absolute truth does not exist. It has been replaced by a more personalized sense of truth that may vary from person to person. Even though much of the information collected may be accurate, it still possible to question the validity of what others have told them.

Postmodernity as a reaction against modernity, as Lyotard observes, is grounded in the Enlightenment, with its confidence in the faculty of reason to ascertain philosophical “truths” and its dedication to the progress of science and technology to enhance and improve the human condition. The content of knowledge we presently possess is continually being transformed by technology and according to Lyotard: “the nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this context of general information.” Culture, as it pertains to postmodernism, is more than a repository of data; it is the activity that shapes and gives meaning to the world, constructing reality rather than presenting it. There is debate whether postmodern culture is a new condition, or just an accomplice to late capitalism and conservative ideology. Many social theorists see postmodern culture as a symptom of global capitalist ideology – in which commodities and consumers enter into rapid, undifferentiated exchange in ever increasing and diversified markets.

Nearly 250 years ago, the economist and philosopher Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, in which he described the birth of a new form of human activity: industrial capitalism. It would lead to the accumulation of wealth beyond anything that he and his contemporaries could have imagined. Capitalism has fuelled the industrial, technological and green revolutions, reshaped the natural world and transformed the role of the state in relation to society. It has lifted innumerable people out of poverty over the last two centuries, significantly increased standards of living, and resulted in innovations that have radically improved human well-being, as well as making it possible to go to the Moon and read this article on the internet. When Adam Smith was observing nascent industrial capitalism in 1776, he could not foresee just how much it would evolve and transform our societies today.

Perhaps most significantly, in many developed nations late-20th Century capitalism has contributed to a significant gap between the wealth of the richest and poorest people, as measured by the Gini Index. And in some countries, that gap is growing ever-wider. It’s particularly stark in the US, where the poorest individuals have seen no real income growth since 1980, while the ultra-rich at the top have seen their income grow by around 6% per year. Even if the economy is growing, income inequality and stagnant wages can make people feel less secure as their relative status in the economy diminishes. Behavioural economists have shown that our status compared to other people, our happiness, is derived more by relative measures and distribution than by absolute measures. “If that’s true then capitalism has a problem,” says Stanley. As a result of rising inequality, “people have less trust in institutions and experience a sense of injustice”. 

Globalization was to bring increased prosperity in the community. This dogmatic belief purports that markets tend towards natural equilibrium, and the best interests in a given society are achieved by allowing its participants to pursue their own financial interests with little or no restraint on regulatory oversight. This faith in free market fundamentalism establishes a rigid framework for thinking. The 2008 crisis was brought on by excessive deregulation, and hit the working class in developed nations particularly hard. The subsequent bailouts of big banks led to resentment and helped fuel the rise of the ‘polarized politics’ we’ve seen over the last election cycle. And in the US, the political movement which spawned Trumpism is arguably fueled by economic inequality just as much as ideology. Among voters who have lost out due to globalization, the Trump administration won widespread political support for its more closed approaches to global trade, including withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and retaliatory tariffs on goods and services imported into the US.

Postmodernist philosophers in general argue that truth is always contingent on historical and social context rather than being absolute and universal and that truth is always partial and “at issue” rather than being complete and certain. The critic Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), asserts that one can never be sure that what one knows corresponds with what is. Since human beings participate in only an infinitesimal part of the whole, they are unable to grasp anything with certainty, and absolutes are merely “fictional forms.” For Derrida modern men and women have a duty “to deconstruct the opposition … to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment.” Capitalism today is a system of cruelty – a cruelty so subtle that people don’t know how much they are being manipulated. Technology which was predicted to shorten the work week has in fact been used to devise ways to make us work even harder.

When it comes to health, there are many factors that influence how long and how well people will live, from the quality of their education to the cleanliness of their environment. But of all social determinants of health, however, the one that is perhaps the most influential: income. Science consistently shows that low incomes are a significant risk factor in disease incidence and severity as well as life expectancy. Income security is the most important social determinant of health. Level of income shapes overall living conditions, affects psychological functioning, and influences health related behaviors such as quality of diet, extent of physical activity, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol use. Societies with greater income inequality have fewer collective resources to invest in the educational, medical, and cultural infrastructure, which in turn hurts health and stretches the social fabric. Those whose social determinants of health needs are left to the whims of the employment market, in general, suffer negative health consequences as a result.

Joseph Schumpeter wrote in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, published in 1942, capitalism has at its heart creative destruction, and that creates pain; it creates losers. This is the normal state of affairs, in late capitalism. Let us deconstruct the health effects of globalization and financialization, the harbingers of part-time work and the minimum wage. Late Capitalism and the Crisis of Pain is a new online initiative that seeks to examine the social, economic and political origins of the mental health crisis through the lens of contemporary visual culture. They charge that inequality, stagnant wages, immobility, job loss – the four horsemen of the neoliberalism endgame – have generated a massive surge in “deaths of despair,” especially from overdoses of opioid drugs. Mark Fisher encouraged us to see the connection between the dehumanizing machinations of capitalism and quotidian mental ailments like depression, social anxiety, narcissism, hyperactivity, chronic fatigue and insomnia.

What are the answers to counter the cruelty of late capitalism? First proposed by philosophers in the 16th century, the idea of an income delivered directly by the state has been seen in many quarters as a balm for all kinds of social ills. Progressives argue that a universal basic income (UBI) has the potential to lift communities out of poverty. Some conservatives and libertarians, meanwhile, see universal basic income as a cost-effective alternative to reduce pressure on hospitals and police departments. COVID-19 debates include political and economic ideas seriously discussed that had previously been dismissed as fanciful or utterly unacceptable: universal basic income (UBI), government intervention to house the homeless, and addressing the environmental crisis. There is a need to address stagnant wages accompanying increased inflation that troubles many workers today as the labor-market changes. The UBI approach buys time for progressives to reform neoliberal capitalism.

Under late capitalism, lies become an accepted feature of political leadership. The goal is purely to instrumentalize democratic legitimacy, in order to gain the power to make the necessary decisions that ordinary people can never understand or be persuaded of. We are being manipulated by a deluded group of powerful people who think they benefit from it – because they buy into the basic illusion that their own well-being is separate from that of other people. They too are victims of their own propaganda, caught up in the webs of collective delusion that infects virtually all of us, by a poison – ignorance.  In sum, it may be time to reconsider the social contract for capitalism, so that it becomes more inclusive of a broader set of interests beyond individual rights and liberties. This is not impossible. Capitalism has evolved before, and if it is to continue into the longer-term future, it can evolve again.

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Political Nihilism and Narcissism in Today’s Politics

Posted on September 1, 2022 by greg

A nihilist believes that life is meaningless and the only known truth is the existence of the self. For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Penetrating the façades buttressing convictions, the nihilist discovers that all values are baseless and that reason is impotent. An anti-foundationalist is one who does not believe that there is some fundamental belief or principle which is the basic ground or foundation of inquiry and knowledge. Karen Carr concludes, the happy anti-foundationalist approach is alarming. If we accept that all perspectives are equally non-binding, then intellectual or moral arrogance will determine which perspective has precedence. Worse still, the banalization of nihilism creates an environment where ideas can be imposed forcibly with little resistance, raw power alone determining intellectual and moral hierarchies. It’s a conclusion that dovetails nicely with Nietzsche’s, who pointed out that all interpretations of the world are simply manifestations of will-to-power.

As a narcissist’s self importance approaches infinity, the relative value of everyone else’s opinion approaches zero. Extreme narcissism and nihilism are functionally equivalent. Some people may turn to nihilism because of trauma or after coming under the influence of a narcissist. Political nihilism is the position holding no political goals whatsoever, except for the complete destruction of all existing political and social institutions – along with the principles, values, and social institutions that uphold them. The narcissist is calculating. He is utilitarian through and through. He refuses obedience to the basic requirements of the natural moral law, for obedience implies that there is something larger than himself of which he is not the measure, but which measures him. He is calculating for the sake of procuring power; for it is power that allows him the control he needs to protect himself from exposure and from his having to face his own finitude.

There is no better insight into the workings of the mind of the morally depraved and narcissistic leader than what is provided in chapter 18 of Machiavelli’s The Prince. The principal characteristic of such a leader is not prudence, but craft. Until now, nihilism and totalitarianism were considered opposites: one an orderless state of affairs, the other a strict regimented order. On closer scrutiny, however, a surprising affinity can be found between these two concepts that dominated the history of the first half of the twentieth century. Fyodor Dostoevsky had, in his work, explored what happens to society when people who rise to power lack any semblance of ideological or moral convictions and view society as bereft of meaning. There are eerie similarities with Trump’s narcissistic actions and rhetoric on the campaign trail; the January 6th riots, and the fiasco with secret documents “stored” at Mar-a-Lago.

Political nihilism is the belief that no government is really needed, it believes that humans can get by without any social institutions. Full political nihilism denies the meaningfulness of all social institutions, and results in personal political apathy. It is the belief that one can just drop out and be an observer and be fine as most of our youth do. “Totalitarian nihilism” is being used to describe a state of affairs in which any leader from among the population (and there is no “absolute leader” – hence the “nihilism”) can have his own ideas about something and then violently enforce them as he wishes – hence “totalitarianism.” The totalitarian ideology (whether it be nihilism, communism, Nazism) gives people the same feelings of safety as faith in a higher power might, but is far more dangerous. For the most part it is a form of radical skepticism – noting the specific values that are being negated are not themselves nihilistic.

Skepticism may also be cast through an identity lens and used for political ends, such as blaming social media misinformation on the opposing group, which can deepen the political divide over truth and falsehoods. Disinformation often layers true information with false – an accurate fact set in misleading context, a real photograph purposely mislabelled. The key is not to determine the truth of a specific post or tweet, but to understand how it fits into a larger disinformation campaign. Effective disinformation campaigns involve diverse participants; they might even include a majority of ‘unwitting agents’ who are unaware of their role, but who amplify and embellish messages that polarize communities and sow doubt about science, mainstream journalism and Western governments. On a tactical level, disinformation campaigns do have specific aims – spreading conspiracy theories – claiming that the FBI staged a mass-shooting event, or question who actually won the 2020 US election.

Often, however, the specific message does not matter. Many think that the pervasive use of disinformation is undermining democratic processes by fostering doubt and destabilizing the common ground that democratic societies require. Perhaps the most dangerous misconception is that disinformation targets only the unsavvy or uneducated, that it works only on ‘others’. Disinformation often specifically uses the rhetoric and techniques of critical thinking to foster nihilistic skepticism. Disinformation campaigns attack us where we are most vulnerable, at the heart of our value systems, around societal values such as freedom of speech and the goals of social-media platforms such as ‘bringing people together’. For example, internal emails and interviews with key participants reveal for the first time the extent to which leading advocates of the rigged election theory touted evidence they knew to be disproven, disputed or dismissed as dubious. As individuals, we need to reflect more on how we interact with information online, and recognize how easily we can be manipulated.

Nihilism of the Alt-Right refers to the attitude that the future collapse of civilization is impossible to avert; an attitude has evolved in the movement that no matter what one may do or believe, the end is rapidly approaching and inevitable. The Alt-Right want to be on the winning side, or if this is not possible, help bring down the existing system. Participants in the Alt-Right have responded and are continuing to respond to their deepening nihilism with suicidal mass violence aimed at those they believe are most to blame for their hopelessness: women, people of color, immigrants, and the traitorous white men who sympathize with them. Similarly, white evangelical nationalist ideas of self-preservation are driven by a negative response to the increased diversification of US society. They have no trouble backing violence to bring down the system, driven by the conviction that the end times foretold in the Book of Revelation are at hand.

Existentialism asserts that people make decisions based on subjective meaning rather than pure rationality. Existentialism is the attempt to confront and deal with meaninglessness…to not succumb to nihilism or despair: to not give up or avoid responsibility. Existentialists believe the world intrinsically has no objective meaning, but through a combination of free will, awareness, and personal responsibility, we can create our own subjective meaning. The nihilist says there can be no right or wrong, let’s do whatever we want, while the existentialist says you and I alone must figure out to make life meaningful and good – we must, in fact, work without cosmic aid to figure out what ‘good’ itself is.” Existentialists are looking for a way out of man’s inhumanity to man – we look around, but we must blame ourselves for the suffering and horror; and we must look to ourselves to ensure such horrors happen rarely.

The perception we have of our own ability to change – to find an inner means of repair and strength – is instrumental in the pathways of mental wellness. Often, we have to acknowledge that change is sometimes difficult or close to impossible. Empowerment happens when individuals and organized groups are able to imagine their world differently and to realize that vision by changing the relations of power that have kept them in poverty, restricted their voice and deprived them of their autonomy. Let us focus on empowerment that focuses on increasing poor people’s freedom of choice, and action to shape their own lives. Where is the main resistance to change? There is a small group who have been made very wealthy by the existing system. Change is a threat to them. It is this group that loves its status quo so much that it sees its own change as an underhanded attack on its way of life.

Democracy is in decline because economic inequality is on the rise. The bedrock of democracy is citizens’ political equality despite unequal wealth, as high inequality inevitably erodes the barrier between wealth and political influence. In the US exists a nihilistic populism driven by Donald Trump that directs his followers downward against marginal, and outwards against foreigners, rather than upward against the powerful. Dostoevsky warned of the strain of nihilism that infects Donald Trump and his movement: power for power’s sake, playacting at revolution. The only way to fight against this nihilism is to replace cynicism with a politics that offers the possibility of meaningful change. This means proposing bold progressive programmes that would dramatically challenge the status quo. In order to restore democracy in America it will be necessary to throw off neoliberal policies of wage suppression, deregulation, and tax cuts; and, once again, put political power in the hands of the American working class.

Posted in The Narcissist's Vocation and the Economic Debacle | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Seeking the Road to Social Change

Posted on August 1, 2022 by greg

When Servius Tullius, king from 578 to 535 BC, reformed the tribal system of Rome, giving the vote to men who had not been members of the three original tribes, he increased the number of tribes and assigned people to them on the basis of geographic location rather than kinship ties. Two main reasons for the extension of the suffrage, to increase the tax body and to add to the rolls of young men suitable for the military. Roman politicians passed laws in 140 CE to keep the votes of poorer citizens by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment – “bread and circuses”, became the most effective way to rise to power. What motive did the Roman government have for providing food and entertainment for the poor? The Roman government knew that a large group of poor citizens would be a threat or attempt to overthrow the rich or start a revolution, so they provided food and entertainment for the poor.

During the late 18th century and the early 19th century, pressure for parliamentary reform and social change in Britain grew rapidly. Some of it came from men who already had a large say in how Britain was run: country gentlemen angry about the use of patronage at Westminster, or manufacturers and businessmen keen to win political influence to match their economic power. Influenced by works such as Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man (1791-2), radical reformers demanded that all men be given the right to vote. The changes made in the British political system between 1832 and 1884 were nevertheless important. The electorate increased substantially in size from approximately 366,000 in England and Wales in 1831 to slightly fewer than 8 million in 1885. Parliamentary seats were redistributed to give greater weight to larger towns and cities. Also, the Ballot Act of 1872, which introduced secret ballots, made it far more difficult for voters to be bribed or intimidated.

Presidential candidates initially did not travel to campaign: they were called to be the nominees but it was considered inappropriate to ask voters directly to vote for them. Thus, it was up to local supporters to organize campaign events and speak on their behalf. Parades, rallies, and stump speeches by surrogates were followed on Election Day by voter drives in taverns and on the streets. Partisan newspapers were another part of the mix aligning themselves with a particular party and openly slanting news coverage to favor allies and excoriate enemies. Commercial publishers quickly realized they could make money by printing and selling broadsides, cards, and prints depicting the candidates of all parties. As one of Lincoln’s supporters noted, “I am coming to believe that likenesses broad cast, are excellent means of electioneering.” And an opponent complained, “the country is flooded with pictures of Lincoln, in all conceivable shapes and sizes, and cheap.”

In successive phases in the 1990s, the Kochs’ Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), mobilized a front group for corporate lobbying, in which the themes of a Tea Party anti-tax, anti-regulation, and antigovernment revolt, were developed together almost simultaneously by two of the largest tobacco companies – Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds – under the guise of political and business coalitions to fight excise taxes of all sorts, including cigarette taxes. It made good business sense – and good political sense as well. You could relabel just about anything as a tax, and heaven knows the American public hates taxes. This, at its core, was the beginning of the American Tea Party revolt against the power of the government to pay for its programs. They could recruit average citizens from a variety of ideological groups to their cause. Basically, Big Oil and Big Tobacco partnered to take over the GOP.1

Citizens for Sound Economy’s successor – Americans for Prosperity (AFP) – was built to coordinate the effort nationally. Within months of the 2018 midterm elections, “the sprawling Koch political network” known as AFP announced “a new tool to build broad policy coalitions in Congress to help advance AFP’s vision,” which “will advocate for candidates who share our commitment to breaking internal and external barriers that prevent people from realizing their full potential” according to CNN. AFP spent more than $1 million on campaigns to get Trump’s federal judicial nominations confirmed. AFP hired Sarah Field to the newly-created post of Vice President of Judicial Strategy to lead this effort. AFP states on its website, “President Trump has nominated more fair and qualified lower courts nominees than any other president in American history.” With the fall of Roe vs Wade, abortion has been returned to the states for regulation.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group focused on blocking rights and protections for LGBTQ people; expanding Christian practices within public schools and in government; and preventing access to abortion and contraception. The ADF garnered national attention in its 2014 challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Court ruled that the birth control mandate in employee funded health plans was unconstitutional. One of ADF’s goals is for Christianity to be reflected in the US legal system, based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In materials they share with donors, ADF says that they seek to spread a belief in “the framers’ original intent for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as it reflects God’s natural law and God’s higher law.” Christian nationalism has built a base that is ready and willing to subvert the will of the American people.

Populists propose economic and social change as dividers, not uniters. They split society into “two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other,” and say they’re guided by the “will of the people.” Populist economic policy claims to design policies for people who fear losing status in society, and those who believe they have been abandoned by the political establishment. The populist economic agenda focuses on single and salient political issues, over emphasizes negative aspects of international economic exchange and immigration, and/or blames foreigners or international institutions for economic difficulties. Much like other populist plutocrats who have come to power around the world, Donald Trump used anti-elite rhetoric to gain office, then performed an about-face to govern for the benefit of the very economic elites he derided as a candidate. He ran as a populist; but governed as a plutocrat.

Ayn Rand was defined by her rage, not her advocacy of a fantasy version of capitalism. Her message of creative aspiration laced with anger and cruelty, and endowed with the resulting selfishness and greed, is just the price of changing the norms of society. The individuals that Trump surrounds himself with is a collection of power- and wealth-obsessed closet Objectivists. Trump’s culture of cruelty views violence as a sacred means for addressing social problems and organizing society. His cabinet and donor lists are full of Rand fans who support neoliberal cruelty. Their cure for economic crisis is more cruelty, through which feelings of resentment, fear, anger, and loathing are enacted against the weak, who are considered a drain on the worthy. Trump calls for homeless to be put into encampments. The most consistent threat to democracy in the US has always been the drive of some leaders to restrict its blessings to a select few.

Are Republicans afraid of Trump? Actually, no – he’s destroying democracy and they love it. But these actions of the former president are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Republicans. As a group, they are pushing towards replacing democracy with a system where a powerful minority holds disproportionate and borderline tyrannical control over government and blocks the majority of Americans from having meaningful say over the direction of the country. No, many Republicans clearly feel empowered by Trump. He frees them to reveal their darkest desire – which is to end democracy as we know it, and to cut any corners or break any laws necessary to get the job done. The conservative chief justices are part of the plan. Trump’s populism of the right created a culture of victimhood to use as a tool to sustain conservative politics. Limiting the public’s knowledge now becomes a precondition for cruelty.

Military spending on defense accounts for more than 10 percent of the US federal budget and nearly half of the discretionary spending. The second-largest expense category is the military, after Social Security. The military offers a large scope of education opportunities that provides significant social advancement for many. Not only is income inequality rising in the U.S., it is higher than in other advanced economies. Only college graduates have experienced growth in median weekly earnings since 1979 (in real terms). In the United States, 21 percent of all children are in poverty, a poverty rate higher than what prevails in virtually all other rich nations. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world – 37% of those who are both young black males and high school dropouts are now in prison or jail, a rate that’s more than three times higher than what prevailed in 1980. The top 10% of households controlled 68.2% of the total wealth in 1983 and 73.1% of the total wealth in 2007.

Where is the main resistance to change? There is a small group who have been made very wealthy by the existing system. Change is a threat to them. It is this group that loves its status quo so much that it sees its own change as an underhanded attack on its way of life. The debate is no longer how fast the ocean is rising, rather how fast will we rise to the occasion to introduce change. This is about introducing equality, justice and fairness so that it not just a perception, but a reality, that the system is no longer gamed for those at the top. Public policy analyst Robert Reich argues that “the theme that unites all of Trump’s [budget] initiatives (was) their unnecessary cruelty.” The culture of cruelty has become a primary register of the loss of democracy in the United States. There is more to introducing social change than getting rid of Trump, there is a need to change beliefs to eliminate this pervasive irrationality in which democracy is equated to unbridled capitalism.

It’s important to realize that we are not being manipulated by a clever group of powerful people who benefit from manipulating us. Rather, we are being manipulated by a deluded group of powerful people who think they benefit from it – because they buy into the basic illusion that their own well-being is separate from that of other people. They too are victims of their own propaganda, caught up in the webs of collective delusion that include virtually all of us, acting out of ignorance. Interrogating a culture of cruelty offers critics a political and moral lens for thinking through the convergence of power, politics and everyday life – to seek social change. In 2009, the President of the UN Assembly argued, “The anti-values of greed, individualism and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion. The objective of our economic and social activity …  should be universal values that underpin our ethical and moral responsibility.”

1 The Secret Origins of the Tea Party (2016) Jeff Nesbitt  https://time.com/secret-origins-of-the-tea-party/

Posted in economic inequality, United States Economy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Response to the Oppression of Top-Down Systems

Posted on July 1, 2022 by greg

The Roman Empire came into contact with cultures and religious beliefs of major cultures, and was happy to assimilate any deities they encountered. Rome passed from a Republic to Imperial System when Julius Caesar declared himself Emperor. The Senate disapproved, and Caesar was assassinated. It was a stroke of good fortune for Octavian (Caesar’s heir apparent) that after Caesar’s death, a comet appeared in the sky above Rome and shone for seven straight days during funeral games held in Caesar’s honor. It was immediately believed that Caesar must have truly been descended from Venus, and the comet was Caesar’s soul returning to the heavens to join the gods. Octavian used the cause of deification to quickly build a base of political support that his rivals soon could not match. In ancient Rome the emperor as a god removed and superior supports the make up of the empire – a hierarchical society of control and order, unchanging, lasting eternally.

Octavian adopted the name Augustus Caesar and had coins minted with the comet with eight beams of light on one side. Over time, other coins were minted with the words “Devine Julius” and “sun of god” inscribed on them. Jesus was born during Augustus Caesar’s reign. According to the Gospels, Jesus of Nazareth preached and was executed during the reign of Tiberius, by the authority of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea province. The early followers of Jesus tried to explain to one another the events of the tomb. They adopted the imagery of the Roman imperial system that was significant in their lives. Their approach was framed deliberately to reject the story of the emperor(s), and by extension their claim to power. In their story, instead of Caesar at the centre, it is now Jesus, who ascends to heaven, as the Son of God, creating a God who always stands with the oppressed.

According to Constantine’s biographer Eusebius, Constantine and his forces saw a cross of light in the sky, along with the Greek words for “In this sign conquer.” That night, Constantine had a dream in which Christ reinforced the message. The emperor marked the Christian symbol of the cross on his soldiers’ shields. When he triumphed at Milvian Bridge (taking control of the Western Empire), he attributed the victory to the god of the Christians. Modern scholars still debate the tale and whether Constantine’s conversion was sincere or a political maneuver. Regardless, in A.D. 313 Constantine met with Licinius, the eastern emperor, and together they issued the Edict of Milan. The edict granted “to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred.” In 380 CE Emperor Theodosius declared himself a Christian of the Nicene creed. He outlawed pagan religions and closed pagan temples.

With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, the Catholic Church was the only organized force in western Europe. The church took on the top-down power structure of the empire. Richard Tarnas explains: “As the Christian religion evolved in the West, its Judaic foundation readily assimilated the judicial and authoritarian qualities of the Roman imperial culture…” The Medieval Church was the most dominant institution in western Europe; it was one of the largest landowners of the time and collected rent and fees for offices and services. Its top-down structure facilitated control of information and creation of wealth. People living in towns began to buy their freedom during the feudal system. During the 13th and 14th centuries the autonomous city states in northern Italy were able to thrive, while the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor maneuvered for influence. They developed a monopoly on the trade of spices to the rest of the world.

The trading systems in the West became a succession of monopolies. The next most urban area after Italy was the Low Countries. In Flanders, Bruges became an important centre as part of the Hanseatic League, what had a monopoly on the trade around the Baltic. The Portuguese gained control of the spice trade by aggressively displacing the Muslim middlemen from the markets of India and the Far East. In the 17th century the Dutch wrestled the spice trade from the Portuguese and forced the British to focus on India. Control of the Moluccas assured them monopoly of nutmeg, cloves and mace; and control of the cinnamon trade when they ousted the Portuguese from Ceylon. The Dutch monopoly was organized under the control of Dutch East Indies Company. The British East India Company had monopoly on the trade to India – once had one of the largest armies in the world – used its power to take over the sub-continent.

By the end of the 18th century, the Industrial age in Britain was heralded with mechanization of the weaving industry and the invention of the steam engine that allowed more effective pumping of water in coal mines to increase the supplies. More efficient, mechanized production meant Britain’s new textile factories could meet the growing demand for cloth both at home and abroad, where the nation’s many overseas colonies provided a captive market for its goods. On the social scene Herbert Spencer, who promoted Lamarckism, coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest”, and concluded that social evolution would eliminate the less fit or weaker individuals. In 1884 [Spencer] argued, for instance, that people who were unemployable or burdens on society should be allowed to die rather than be made objects of help and charity. To do this, apparently, would weed out unfit individuals and strengthen the race.

The wealthy elite of the late 19th century included the robber baron, a term for many of the powerful 19th-century American industrialists and financiers who made fortunes by monopolizing huge industries through the formation of trusts. The term “robber baron” dates back to the Middle Ages and carries a negative connotation. Robber barons typically employed ethically questionable methods to eliminate their competition and develop a monopoly in their industry. Often, they had little empathy for workers. The robber barons’ lack of concern for the social welfare of the community, and even their companies’ own workers, ruined millions of lives. Injuries on the job due to unsafe working conditions were a major cause of death and permanent injury for decades during this period. The yearly total of such deaths, injury and illness in the USA around 1900 has been estimated at around a million workers.

When the Mont Pelerin Society first met, in 1947, its political project did not have a name. But it knew where it was going. The society’s founder, Friedrich von Hayek, remarked that the battle for ideas would take at least a generation to win, but he knew that his intellectual army would attract powerful backers. Its philosophy, which later came to be known as neoliberalism, accorded with the interests of the ultra-rich, so the ultra-rich would pay for it. Hayek claims social evolution rests upon the transmission of acquired characteristics tending towards equilibrium, that is, a theory of cultural evolution consistent with Lamarckian tradition. Hayek maintains that with social evolution “the decisive factor is not the selection of physical and inheritable properties of individuals but the selection by imitation of successful institutions and habits…the whole cultural inheritance which is passed by learning and imitation.”

Americans for Prosperity, founded in 2004, is a libertarian conservative political advocacy group in the US funded by David and Charles Koch. The AFP Foundation describes its mission as “educating and training citizens to be courageous advocates for the ideas, principles, and policies of a free society — knowing that leads to the greatest prosperity and wellbeing for all – especially the least fortunate.” In reality, it is part of a network that uses dark money to fund an interlocking array of organizations that can work in tandem to influence and ultimately control academic institutions, think tanks, the courts, statehouses and Congress. This system eliminates the need to debate libertarian ideas in elections; but ensures that libertarian views on regulation and taxes are ascendant in majority of state governments, the Supreme Court and Congress. Their “social welfare” programs, for the most part, consist of promoting individual freedom.

C S Lewis observes, “My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse.” Top-down systems tend to deal with the abstract while bottom-up systems deal with ‘facts on the ground’. When something is designed and pushed down from the top there is an underlying belief that the few know better than the masses. We need to reject making public policy decisions through the lens of the market (complex and multi-faceted issues are oversimplified allowing self-responsibility to become the dominant issues, and life-style change the response) as determined by the few and switch to filter social and economic policies through a bottom-up system like the lens of the social determinants of health before they are implemented to ensure they support actions that reduce inequities in the system.

Hayek underestimates the contribution to evolutionary economics that is made by the bottom-up system of Charles Darwin.  Robert Frank argues that Darwin’s understanding of competition describes economic reality far more accurately than Adam Smith’s. And the consequences of this fact are profound. Indeed, the failure to recognize that we live in Darwin’s world rather than Smith’s is putting us all at risk by preventing us from seeing that competition alone will not solve our problems. Darwin’s insight that individual and group interests often diverge sharply – suggests Smith’s idea was almost an exception to the general rule of competition. The themes of inequality and competition are driving today’s public debate on how much government we need. The reason Frank gives is “Darwin’s wedge” – a term he coins to emphasize a divergence between individual and group interests which in turn causes wasteful competition and collective loss.1

A bottom-up system is data driven, focuses on incoming sensory data, and takes place in real time. The social determinants of health include factors such as income data, social support, early childhood development, education, employment, housing and gender. They include the factors that affect health outside of the four walls of the hospital. Governmental social policies have a direct impact on the social determinants of health. Research shows that the social determinants of health can be more important than health care or lifestyle choices in influencing health. The inequities in the conditions in which people are born, live and work are driven by inequities in power, money, and resources. Political, economic, and resource distribution decisions made outside the health sector need to focus on health as an outcome across the social distribution (as opposed to focus solely on increasing productivity of a top-down system), and include direct involvement with communities facing oppression and injustices.

1Darwin’s Invisible Hand Narrative (April 10, 2015) https://questioningandskepticism.com/darwins-invisible-hand-narrative-new-paradigm/

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Misinformation: A Tool Used by Cults (and Anti-vaxxers) to Control People

Posted on June 1, 2022 by greg

A cult is a group of people who organize around a strong authority figure. Cults, like many other groups, attempt to expand their influence for the purposes of power or money. No one joins a cult; they are recruited by systematic social influence processes. However, to achieve these ends, destructive cults employ a potent mixture of influence techniques and deception to attain psychological control over members and new recruits. This fundamental level of control is known alternatively as ‘brainwashing,’ ‘thought reform,’ or ‘mind control.’ A successful induction by a destructive cult displaces a person’s former identity and replaces it with a new one. That new identity may not be one that the person would have freely chosen under her own volition. Cult leaders are typically malignant narcissists and want people who will be obedient to them.

For the most part, normal, average people join cults – people like you and me. Research indicates that approximately two-thirds of cult members are psychologically healthy people that come from normal families. The remaining third are likely to have depressive symptoms, usually related to a personal loss–perhaps a death in the family, a failed romantic relationship, or career troubles. Only 5 to 6 percent of cult members demonstrate major psychological problems prior to joining a cult. When approaching new recruits, members pique interest by starting innocuous conversations that make it seem like they are concerned members of society, such as “We’re here today to talk to you about the recent issue of (fill in the blank of a legitimate current community event or tragedy.)” The next step in recruitment is to instill in the new recruit an early sense of fear and paranoia.

No one joins a cult voluntarily; they are recruited into it. There is lack of informed consent. Everyone has vulnerabilities. Possible situational vulnerabilities include illness, the death of a loved one, breakup of an important relationship, loss of a job, or moving to another city, state or country. Cults maintain their power by promoting an “us vs. them” mentality. Cults prove powerful because they are able to successfully isolate members from their former, non-cult lives. One of the ways cult leaders achieve this is to convince their followers that they are superior to those not in the cult. Cults isolate followers by controlling their personal relationships and by restricting information sources to the cult. The lack of alternate information and true havens undermine a follower’s cognitive processes on matters regarding the group. The cult can now do the thinking for them – the essence of brainwashing.

With the rise of social media and the Internet, vaccine hesitancy and vaccine denial may seem to be new phenomena. However, since the first vaccine was administered over 200 years ago, some form of vaccine hesitancy has existed. According to psychologist and cult expert Margaret Thaler Singer, cults flourish during periods of social and political turbulence and “during breakdowns in the structure and rules of the prevailing society.” Cults were prevalent after the fall of Rome, during the French Revolution, and in England during the Industrial Revolution. Since the popularization of cults in the mid-20th century, the intrigue surrounding these organizations and how they attract their members has grown. Despite the typical negative connotation, the controversial nature of cults is what some say makes them so appealing. Anti-vaxxers are using the same tactics as cults do to attract followers on social media.

Widespread smallpox vaccination began in the early 1800s, following Edward Jenner’s cowpox experiments, in which he showed that he could protect a child from smallpox if he infected him or her with lymph from a cowpox blister. Jenner’s ideas were novel for his time, however, and they were met with immediate public criticism. The rationale for this criticism varied, and included sanitary, religious, scientific, and political objections. For some parents, the smallpox vaccination itself induced fear and protest. Some objectors, including the local clergy, believed that the vaccine was “unchristian” because it came from an animal. For other anti-vaccinators, their discontent with the smallpox vaccine reflected their general distrust in medicine and in Jenner’s ideas about disease spread. Suspicious of the vaccine’s efficacy, some skeptics alleged that smallpox resulted from decaying matter in the atmosphere.

Many people objected to vaccination because they believed it violated their personal liberty, a tension that worsened as the government developed mandatory vaccine policies. The town of Leicester was a particular hotbed of anti-vaccine activity and the site of many anti-vaccine rallies. The local paper described the details of a rally: “An escort was formed, preceded by a banner, to escort a young mother and two men, all of whom had resolved to give themselves up to the police and undergo imprisonment in preference to having their children vaccinated. The three were attended by a numerous crowd – three hearty cheers were given for them, which were renewed with increased vigor as they entered the doors of the police cells.” The Leicester Demonstration March of 1885 was one of the most notorious anti-vaccination demonstrations. There, 80,000-100,000 anti-vaccinators led an elaborate march, complete with banners, a child’s coffin, and an effigy of Jenner.

Social media use has become a mainstay of communication and with that comes the exchange of factual and non-factual information.  The Internet has become a huge influence on vaccine knowledge and the emergence of social media has created a vast community that allows multi-person discussion to happen instantaneously and with little supervision. A handful of misguided influencers on social media – employing visuals on social media like memes, videos, photos, posters and emojis are processed faster, accepted without being questioned, and remembered for a longer period than text posts. These anti-vaccination groups use all the four propaganda techniques known to be effective in political campaigns. They define the pressing issue as vaccine safety/injuries and inefficacy and blame pharmaceutical companies for “cutting corners” to rapidly produce vaccines. They also make moral judgements by suggesting a coalition between corrupted politicians and profit-driven health care industries and recommend rejecting vaccines as a remedy to this problem.

Discerning accurate information from misinformation is a challenge that individuals may not be able to completely resolve. Social media puts us in a bubble called, “Echo chambers” where we are surrounded by like-minded individuals who reinforce our own existing views rather than being challenged by different views. Studies have shown that debiasing individuals especially from anti-vaccine beliefs is an extremely challenging task because health beliefs are deeply ingrained in our cultural backgrounds, political/religious beliefs and lifestyle choices. Thus, it is recommended to prevent populations that are especially vulnerable and susceptible to health misinformation from being exposed to it in the first place. It is essential to suppress the propagation of vaccine misinformation via social media. We should consider solutions that can be embedded in tools like fact-checkers installed in our web browsers that warn readers if the information to be presented is likely to be false.

A study showed that the anti-vaccine community is made up of many profiles that share content produced by a few influencers with large numbers of followers. Results show that, before his Twitter profile was suspended, former US President Donald Trump was the main anti-vaccine influencer: while he did not share anti-vaccine content himself, his tweets were widely shared by the anti-vaccine community. The tendency to believe in several conspiracy theories is likely due to how people come across various types of information on social media. For instance, if a person believes the 2020 US presidential election was rigged and is lingering or clicking on posts supporting this belief, then they will likely be exposed to anti-vaccine views, thanks to social media platforms’ polarization-reinforcing algorithms. This creates two diametrically opposed communities – one supportive of vaccines and one opposing their use – with little in common, and therefore no room for discussion.

The anti-vax movement has been radicalized by the far-right political extremism. Misinformation cannot be left unchallenged. Misinformation can exacerbate the gap between attitudes in society (i.e., issue polarization) and hostility among different-minded groups. Research on vaccine hesitancy around the world has demonstrated that a number of contributing factors to vaccine hesitation are directly linked to a persistent decline in public trust in institutions and government policy. In recent years, this trend, along with escalating political polarization, has shaped the anti-vaccine movement into its current form. Reconciling the divided public opinions on COVID-19 vaccination policies is not a simple task. As long as social media platforms continue to not bat an eye at misinformation out of concern for their click-through rates, and governments continue to ignore structural injustices driving political radicalization, it is unlikely that vaccine resistance will be reduced without increasing polarization.

History of Anti-Vaccination Movements https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment