The slow revolt of Western electorates

[Cato.the.Elder]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Aye?

Brexit may have been voted for by people who are suffering from the downside of neoliberalism, but their vote is not one that will have any effect on the UK's neoliberal direction. So Brexit is meaningless in terms of any sort of revolt against neoliberalism, even if it's an expression of dissatisfaction with it.

And if anyone thinks trump is going to overturn neoliberalism they are completely deluded. Trump might say he is against globalisation and outsourcing. But the financial muscle behind the Republican party will never let Trump's public statements about globalisation ever become government policy. And IMO Trump is straight up lying. 

As I said before we are repeating exactly the same mistakes from 80 years ago. Fascism was also supported by the lower classes, as a reaction against the crisis, as a way of giving power to the normal people against "them". "Them" then was a conspiracy of the Jewish bankers, the liberal bourgeois elite and the evil weak intellectuals. Now instead of the "Jewish bankers" we have the "rapist refugees" and "the markets", but it's still "them". The real people is just everybody that supports this fight against "them".

The new fascist does not openly denounce democracy, as everybody take it, for the moment, as a basic pillar of society, but still reject democracy in a different way: they are the only valid representative of the "normal decent people", and everybody else is illegitimate, antidemocratic (sometimes even "unelected").

 

[Happy Ent]

Good thread.

One small comment, not opposing anything that has been said above: An interesting difference between Brexit and Trump-Sanders-etc. is that the former is decision about governance, rather than about policies (or “strategies” or “solutions”, if you want).

To make this more clear: The United Kingdom is now free to adopt even more neo-liberal policies. Or become more social democratic. The can choose to open their borders to the globalist dream of cheap labour without any rights. Or they can adopt extremely selective US- or Canadian-style immigration. Or close off the country. They can choose to turn Oxford and Cambridge into Stanford by a clever combination of researcher salaries, excellence-based base funding, and visas. They can choose to run their country into the ground, becoming increasingly a nation of tatooed louts who drive shitty cars.

The conditions can become much worse, or much better, for the British precariate. In fact, wrong decisions are inevitable. What’s new is that these wrong decisions can be grounded in a public sphere and executed by politicians that can be removed. This is a good thing, even if wrong decisions are made (as they will.)

Brexit is an event that allows the UK to make wrong decisions.

Trump, on the other hand, is a wrong decision.

I’m reading Popper right now (The Open Society and its Enemies, the most insightful, subtle, and powerful analysis of totalitarianism that I, or anybody else, ever read), and I’m quite sure he would have voted Leave.

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Brexit is an event that allows the UK to make wrong decisions.

Trump, on the other hand, is a wrong decision.

Brilliant way of putting it, and indeed it summarises why I'm instinctively pro-Brexit yet simultaneously repulsed by Trump.

[Cato.the.Elder]

Before Brexit Europe was, and is also free, to choose between neoliberalism or the previous socialdemocracy/Crhistian democracy system (and with the Tories out we have a bigger change of  going back this way). Nothing has changed. 

And there are too many different systems in Europe. Austria, where I live, is still a socialdemocrat state, it does not look it will change it the near future (and no, the evil Brussels bureaucrats don't have a say in that). The neoliberalism in the UK is not because of the UE, but because the Tories and Blairites, because of the UK citizens have consistently voted for a neoliberal state for the last forty years.

Following your logic, the city you live in should become an independent city state, because it would be allowed to make their own decisions. And then your neighborhood should become also an independent state. And then your household should break free from the oppressive neighborhood. And it can be, of course, a consistent way of thinking. But it you accept the existent of state as a positive tool, there are nothing more intrinsically democratic in the UK that in the UE, the same way as your city major is not more democratic that your nation president.

 

[Jo498]

For me the important (and mostly positive) point is that finally conflicts come out more clearly. Paradoxically, I even welcome to some extent the emergence of nationalist-rightist parties because their success shows that western electorates are not at all long past their "toxic" attitudes from the first half of the 20th century. And there is some advantage having these out in the open.

But the more important point is that the class struggle (or whatever its 21st century analogue) that was hidden for almost 50 years becomes more obvious. We have to admit that there really ARE competing interests, it's not all fine and the rising tide will not raise all boats.

If one looks at the graphic in the Washington post article, the losses of the developed world's working class were the gains of the top 1% and of the "world lower middle/working class" (This is imprecise, there are probably several gains of the ones around the world 40th-55th percentile not directly related to outsourcing of western world jobs). It should also be noted that if the economic growth would have been roughly equally divided, everybody should have gained around 40% or so in 20 years accumulated growth. But the poorest 5th (this is also interesting, the really poor, mostly African countries have not benefited much) and the richest 5th (except for the richest 1%) have done (much) worse than that and the gains went to the top 1% and the "middle third" in the world.

It therefore seems fairly cynical to claim that its o.k. to lift up the middle third of the world at the expense of basically only the lower/lower middle classes of the developed world (the percentiles directly above that world middle third) with even more gains going to the top 1%. Probably the graphics also underestimate the plight of the poor/struggling in the rich countries. Costs like housing, sometimes obligatory insurances and other basic amenities are often much higher in those rich countries, so despite being "rich" compared to the middle class in some Asian country, someone can struggle to keep his house or flat in a rich country because there simply are no cheaper rooms available as would be in less developed countries.

[Happy Ent]

49 minutes ago, Cato.the.Elder said:

But it you accept the existent of state as a positive tool, there are nothing more intrinsically democratic in the UK that in the UE, the same way as your city major is not more democratic that your nation president.

This seems to be a very basic misalignment in our priors, so I’m not sure we can have a constructive discourse.

But just to point out two differences between the EU and the UK which seem monumental to me in their conceptualisation of “intrinsic democracyness”: 

1. The UK has a public sphere in which political discourse is held. The boundaries of newspapers, schooling, national narrative, the media, literary tradition, argumentative tradition, and the language largely coincide. There are entire books written about how to define “public sphere” and how it interacts with “democracy” (however defined), so there is little chance of becoming more precise or comprehensive in the framework within a mere forum thread. But even at a first glance, the EU has nothing even resembling this, nor any chance of ever getting it. For instance, no common language. 

2. The UK has an elected government. The important part here is not that this government represents the population any better or worse than the EU commission, nor that it makes better decisions. Instead, the important part is that it can be removed by peaceful means. There is more to be said (entire books), but even at a first glance, the EU has nothing even resembling a de-electable government.

—
These points should make it clear that fracturing (for instance, into city states) is not a natural consequence of my analysis. Instead, it predicts that democracies fracture along national boundaries. Not along interests of the populace. This seems to be consistent with what we can currently observe.

[James Arryn]

In regards to the discussion on fascism, some very important context is seemingly being forgotten by both sides of these discussions, IMO. Yes, nationalism was central. Racism, to varying degrees, likewise. Nativism and nostalgic militaristic sentimentalism too. 

 

But THE principal thrust of all three major fascist states was it's opposition to communism. I think because the West took on these ideologies one after the other we remain confused by the fact that each saw the other...and not the varying democratic western states...as their primary enemy, domestic and foreign. Their leaders were extremely open in identifying these prioritized threats, and it is similarly evident in any examination of where WWII was mostly fought/won/lost, and the price each side paid in doing so. Arguably had either the fascists or Communists not focused on each other the West might not have been in the advantageous material position from which it defeated either.

So, when listing the elements which define current movements as fascist, it is worth noting that a central pillar is either missing entirely or has been somewhat replaced. But fascism is an ideology of fear and opposition, so what it fears and who it opposes must be part of the picture if it's going to fit.

That being true, it should also not seem a contradiction that large numbers of disaffected lower/middle classes prefer fascism to a previously more prevalent political/economic movement with which they are dissatisfied, because that too was part of the historic picture. Fascism didn't just one day appear. It grew out of dissatisfaction with the then prevalent form of capitalism, but that was also the motivation of the communist movement. Fascism became exponentially more powerful when it came to be viewed as the most effective/willing/extreme opponent to the communist alternative to capitalism, and it's power was secured when supporters of both capitalist and fascist sympathies rubber stamped any and all means the fascists used to combat/destroy the rise of communism in Europe. 

If we argued that neoliberalism is the new status quo and, for instance,  radicalized populist religious extremism the current bogey-man that parallels the early-mid 20th C. communist rising, then we might effectively argue that the current RW/nativist/nationalistic/racist movement is already starting to fulfill the reactionary role that mid-20th C. fascism clearly embodied back then. If true, as then, we might wonder whether the 2 newer alternatives will bond over their disaffection with the status quo or instead fight over which will ultimately replace it, as with the historical model. But the fact that this movement has supporters and is preferred by many to the other options in no way distinguishes it from fascism...if anything it helps make a somewhat awkward parallel somewhat less awkward.

 

[Cato.the.Elder]

8 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

1. The UK has a public sphere in which political discourse is held. The boundaries of newspapers, schooling, national narrative, the media, literary tradition, argumentative tradition, and the language largely coincide. There are entire books written about how to define “public sphere” and how it interacts with “democracy” (however defined), so there is little chance of becoming more precise or comprehensive in the framework within a mere forum thread. But even at a first glance, the EU has nothing even resembling this, nor any chance of ever getting it. For instance, no common language. 

The UE has a public sphere that has been growing for years. The worries and impact that the Brexit is having in the whole continent is a clear proof of that. You can, as an individual, choose not to worry about what happens outside the UK, in the same way as you can choose not to worry about what happens outside your town, but there is definitely a public European sphere.

 

8 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

2. The UK has an elected government. The important part here is not that this government represents the population any better or worse than the EU commission, nor that it makes better decisions. Instead, the important part is that it can be removed by peaceful means. There is more to be said (entire books), but even at a first glance, the EU has nothing even resembling a de-electable government.

The UE has an elected government: the Commission, that is voted by the Parliament. And the Parliament has also the power for dismiss the Commission. Not different of what happens in any other parliamentary democracy, including the UK.

[Happy Ent]

As I said, our priors with respect to what constitutes the meanings of words like “Not different” or “nothing more… than…” are too far aligned for this ever becoming constructive.

[Iskaral Pust]

In the US, possibly UK too, we may see a realignment of big-tent political parties.  Trump was heralded as the death throes of the GOP party alliance between social conservatives, fiscal people, libertarians (all of which tilt older, white and male), while the Dems had the positive demographics of youth, women and racial minorities. 

But now it looks like Dems could become a slightly flaky alliance of the most down-trodden, govt-dependent minorities -- some of whom want to naturalize illegal immigrants and some (African Americans) who really don't -- plus the upper middle class young, well-educated social progressives who support multiculturalism.  Clinton's coalition doesn't look as strong as Obama's, and she may struggle to placate both blacks and Hispanics on immigration (not that they are uniform citing blocs).

That makes the Dems a barbell of upper and lower socioeconomic groups while the GOP could claim a huge chunk of the belly of the bell curve plus the small slice of rich old white men.  Basically the blue-collar middle class may abandon the Dems, and it's not just about guns and God. 

[Clueless Northman]

12 hours ago, Cato.the.Elder said:

The UE has an elected government: the Commission, that is voted by the Parliament. And the Parliament has also the power for dismiss the Commission. Not different of what happens in any other parliamentary democracy, including the UK.

Unlike US or French president, or Israeli PM,EU Commission isn't elected. Parliament is elected, like most national ones.

Then there's that annoying bit that EU Commission has to have 1 member per country, and that every country proposes its own candidates. That makes for a very incompetent governing body since Commissars are either good buddies of the current heads of state/government, or people they want to get rid of, and head of Commission has to try to find which office is the less ill-suited for them.

Though all that, of course, is only made worse by the fact the current President of EU Commission deserves to be tried and jailed for a massive money-laundering and tax-dodging scheme.

[Kalbear]

This article by Vox indicates one major point that backs Happy Ent's favor - that the EU's monetary policy is deeply stupid, and no one apparently elected it.

Quote

 

But Beckworth finds that this relationship between high debt burdens and slow growth was stronger for eurozone countries. For countries outside the euro, high debts didn’t necessarily correlate with slow growth.

And Beckworth argues that this is because countries outside the eurozone could support their economies with looser money. In contrast, the only option for Eurozone countries was to prop up their economies with massive government spending. The countries with the highest debt levels were least able to do this, causing them to suffer the most from the recession.

 

While it is true that the EU has some elected officials, the actual power that those elected officials have isn't the same as governments. At the same time, the governments don't have the power to do things like decide monetary policy by themselves. This results in a situation where your government might be elected but it has fairly poor control of what it can and cannot do, and is heavily restrained by highly undemocratic systems.

Now, this is somewhat true about the US as well - monetary policy is set by the Fed, which isn't directly elected. It is, however, appointed by presidents who are elected, and the president is held responsible. Who would be the elected person or people involved that decide the EU monetary policy? As far as I can tell they don't exist, and that's sort of by design. 

[Altherion]

22 hours ago, Immobile Buffon said:

I've made a similar point in the past that there is no evil cartel who meet up to decide how to rule the world for their own gain.  BUT I'm going to be provocative and say if your income exceeds $100k (arbitrary threshold), then you are part of the "ruling elite", however small and/or unintentional your part.  It does not require conscious intent.  You are at the powerful end of the system, your participation enables it, and consciously or unconsciously you try to preserve or grow your stake in it and pass it on to your kids.  It's a less formal version of an aristocracy.  This system suits you more than most others.  You didn't design it that way but you are helping it to be.

I'm not sure that this is a helpful definition. Everybody who works is a part of the system and is helping it to be. It benefits some people more than others, but that does not make them part of the ruling class. Even the stock brokers, high-end lawyers and other professions which interact with big money and pocket sums of order $1M are not truly part of the ruling class: they are upper tier servants. They may be well off, but they don't make any decisions about issues that affect everyone else.

14 hours ago, Cato.the.Elder said:

Following your logic, the city you live in should become an independent city state, because it would be allowed to make their own decisions. And then your neighborhood should become also an independent state. And then your household should break free from the oppressive neighborhood. And it can be, of course, a consistent way of thinking. But it you accept the existent of state as a positive tool, there are nothing more intrinsically democratic in the UK that in the UE, the same way as your city major is not more democratic that your nation president.

There is some optimal size for a society which depends on the current level of technological advancement and on the degree of cultural and economic homogeneity. The EU is problematic because it creates laws (calling them directives or regulations) which apply equally to countries some of which are extremely different in every way.

13 hours ago, Jo498 said:

If one looks at the graphic in the Washington post article, the losses of the developed world's working class were the gains of the top 1% and of the "world lower middle/working class" (This is imprecise, there are probably several gains of the ones around the world 40th-55th percentile not directly related to outsourcing of western world jobs). It should also be noted that if the economic growth would have been roughly equally divided, everybody should have gained around 40% or so in 20 years accumulated growth. But the poorest 5th (this is also interesting, the really poor, mostly African countries have not benefited much) and the richest 5th (except for the richest 1%) have done (much) worse than that and the gains went to the top 1% and the "middle third" in the world.

It therefore seems fairly cynical to claim that its o.k. to lift up the middle third of the world at the expense of basically only the lower/lower middle classes of the developed world (the percentiles directly above that world middle third) with even more gains going to the top 1%. Probably the graphics also underestimate the plight of the poor/struggling in the rich countries. Costs like housing, sometimes obligatory insurances and other basic amenities are often much higher in those rich countries, so despite being "rich" compared to the middle class in some Asian country, someone can struggle to keep his house or flat in a rich country because there simply are no cheaper rooms available as would be in less developed countries.

Keep in mind that the Washington Post article employs a measure of sleight-of-hand by presenting that graphic the way it does. It's true that the middle of the global distribution did well relative to what they had before, but they were so poor before that it doesn't actually make them very well off in absolute terms even now. They went from living on roughly $2 per day to living on $3.50 per day. The 1% pocketed an overwhelmingly large fraction of the gains.

[Kalbear]

I also think that there's a lot to be said about the world becoming more global in many ways. The idea of free movement is one that is often held as a huge libertarian ideal, for instance - 'if you don't like the rules where you are, leave'. But that doesn't work if some places don't allow immigrants and are selfish asshats. 

That doesn't mean neoliberal ideals are the right ones, but simply dismissing all of them because they come from neoliberalism is a bad idea. In particular, I think that the UK in general would heavily benefit from immigration (and empirically has), but due to poor management and other factors outside of their control (like being dragged down by the EU's poor monetary policy) has suffered. And the real issue is that folks like me are getting richer and richer and having a really great time of it.

[The guy from the Vale]

16 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I also think that there's a lot to be said about the world becoming more global in many ways. The idea of free movement is one that is often held as a huge libertarian ideal, for instance - 'if you don't like the rules where you are, leave'. But that doesn't work if some places don't allow immigrants and are selfish asshats. 

That doesn't mean neoliberal ideals are the right ones, but simply dismissing all of them because they come from neoliberalism is a bad idea. In particular, I think that the UK in general would heavily benefit from immigration (and empirically has), but due to poor management and other factors outside of their control (like being dragged down by the EU's poor monetary policy) has suffered. And the real issue is that folks like me are getting richer and richer and having a really great time of it.

The UK isn't affected by the EU's monetary policy though. They still have the pound.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

The UK isn't affected by the EU's monetary policy though. They still have the pound.

They aren't directly. They are fairly heavily indirectly, however, because a lot of their overall economic success is tied up in how well the EU is doing as a whole. If the EU has a recession it's going to hurt the UK, just like if the US has a recession it's going to hurt China and Canada and Mexico.

There's a reason one of the talking points was that the UK wanted to kick immigrants out because they were visiting to take advantage of the NHS. Not that there was a ton of truth in that, but it did actually happen here and there.

[Iskaral Pust]

The U.K. is not all that dependent on the health of the EU economy or its monetary policy.  UK has a huge trade deficit with the EU (imports are 4x exports).  The U.K.'s economy is hugely affected by global capital flows that add high value financial services jobs but also increase cost of housing (real estate is used by foreigners like a Swiss bank account) and make the pound so strong and cost of living so high that it makes the industrial and agricultural sectors less competitive.  Similarly true for the US.  

[Happy Ent]

8 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Unlike US or French president, or Israeli PM,EU Commission isn't elected. Parliament is elected, like most national ones.

Then there's that annoying bit that EU Commission has to have 1 member per country, and that every country proposes its own candidates. That makes for a very incompetent governing body since Commissars are either good buddies of the current heads of state/government, or people they want to get rid of, and head of Commission has to try to find which office is the less ill-suited for them.

Though all that, of course, is only made worse by the fact the current President of EU Commission deserves to be tried and jailed for a massive money-laundering and tax-dodging scheme.

Just to make sure: the constitutional argument is not an argument “from incompetence” or “from nepotism” or “from criminality.” To make this clear, even if the EU Commission consisted of brilliant angels, the constitutional argument would remain. It’s also not about how the Commission is chosen. 

It’s about how to get rid of them. (Or, more precisely, how to get of bad ideas. It doesn’t have to be about persons. It can be about politics.) In the EU construction, the people have very few mechanisms to get rid of ideas. By contrast, the UK system (by virtue of it voting system) has very good mechanisms to get rid of ideas. This makes the UK system vastly superior from that particular point of view. So if you value constitutional arguments highly (say, because you like Popper’s ideas of the open society, which I am currently enchanted by) you will be more favourable towards Brexit.

The UK, just like the EU, has perfectly good mechanisms to make wrong decisions. The Euro is a good example of a disastrous idea based on good intentions, so is the European science funding model, so is Schengen without securing the external borders. What the EU lacks are mechanisms and motivations to get rid of these ideas again, in particular if the downsides primarily impact its people (instead of big business or the global elite). This makes the EU very fragils. Thus, Brexit. Good for the UK, bad for the rest of us. Congratulations are in order.

(Unless, of course, the EU from now on only makes correct decisions. Let’s just agree to do that. Ah… the spell of Plato!)

[Clueless Northman]

I have to admit, I was wrong. Terribly wrong.

Juncker is a great democrat at heart, the EU Commission is the peak of democracy in mankind's history, and the whole system is amazingly in the service of the people:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/29/canada-eu-trade-deal-ceta_n_10738298.html

Quote

It centres around whether or not the European Union’s executive leadership in Brussels can force ratification of a trade deal without the consent of the 28 member states.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, declared this week that the EU executive alone has the power to ratify the deal. Juncker is worried that allowing 28 different parliaments to vote on the deal would paralyze the process.

 

At this point, Juncker should just follow Brecht's advice.

Quote

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writer's Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

 

[Altherion]

On 6/28/2016 at 7:04 PM, Cato.the.Elder said:

They defend an authoritarian state (even if they say to be democrats), are racist, despise elites and intellectuals, defend the supremacy of their culture, militarism, and a over-protectionism capitalism. Every single characteristic of the interbellum fascist parties is present here. They are fascist. It´s just difficult to say this because "fascist" has become more just a despective word empty of their real meaning, but for once it is the proper word here.

I've read about this a bit more and I think it depends on the country. Some of the ones in Eastern Europe really do look an awful lot like fascists (the Slovakian version apparently even wants to rehabilitate the WWII-era leader executed for treason due to collaboration with Germany). However, I don't think Farage in the UK or Le Pen in France qualify for that term. For example, Farage is actually less militaristic than Britain's establishment (he opposed the various intervenetions in the Middle East).