Political discussion thread

I know I'm resurrecting a thread I rarely participate in, but one of my favourite bloggers - the philosophically curious psychiatrist Scott Alexander - recently posted a lengthy essay analyzing the very exact hows and whys of the way tribe mentality manifests itself in political discourse. What I like about his philosophical blogging is the very practically minded , perhaps because of his job involving a lot of ethical considerations, and this is no exception. His concrete examples ar a bit too US-centric for my taste, though, but I think anyone here would find it interesting.

The self-declared "insight porn" group blog Carcinisation has followed up SA's essay with one expanding upon his basic theories, most notably investigating exactly where religion fits into the equation. (which Alexander somewhat neglects in his analysis of political tribalism) To be honest I'm not sure how much I understand Carcinisation's take on things since it's very dry and somewhat heavier on the jargon of social sciences which I don't understand that well.

Edited by Slartibartfast - May 04 2014 at 11:30

Slartibartfast wrote: Cynicism guarantees that things won't change for the better... And yet activism gets totally pooped on...

Blacksword wrote: The T wrote: Politicians think in terms of friends vs acquaintances; politicians think on terms of will-get-me-elected/re-elected vs will-hurt-my-chances; politicians think of terms of will-make-my-company/family/donors-more-money vs will-hurt-my-company/family/donors-bottom-line.  I don't think there is any gargantuan conspiracy though. It's just rich and wealthy and powerful people protecting their own interests and they all sail in the same direction, therefore it looks like a premeditated action run by some master of puppets.  After all has been said and done, it IS all about classes protecting their own. One class has been told that it is illegitimate or naive or stupid to think in that way, while the other one, the one that has concocted this assumption, actually does think as a class and acts as in class warfare, though nobody would even notice. As Marxist (and therefore, discredited before even considering the point) as this sounds, it's true.  There doesn't need to be a puppet master. It's a conspiracy by definition, because the corporate and politcal class have 'conspired' to scratch each others backs to protect their own interests. The fact that this is contrary to the well being of the rest of society may not be the intended outcome, but that's not relevant.

I am teaching my students what a "conspiracy" is this week as we study Julius Caesar.  It is interesting to me that the word should come up today in this discussion and that it's definition should be remarked upon.

A conspiracy need not be a secretive arrangement.  The word "conspire" literally means "breathing together."  Con ("with")  + Spiare ("to breathe").

Politicians think in terms of friends vs acquaintances; politicians think on terms of will-get-me-elected/re-elected vs will-hurt-my-chances; politicians think of terms of will-make-my-company/family/donors-more-money vs will-hurt-my-company/family/donors-bottom-line. 

Slartibartfast wrote: Cynicism guarantees that things won't change for the better... And yet activism gets totally pooped on...

Information is the key to bringing about change imo. Activism is a noble pursuit in principle but it does need to be backed up with a basic understanding of how things work. Merely demanding more money doesn't cut the mustard. One would need to understand why wealth is distributed so unfairly in the first place, who the key players are in ensuring that happens, how they connect with each other, why they do it and then going to the centre of that and publically and very vocally challenging it from an intellectual perspective. I don't know anyone who can join all the dots, do you?

We would be talking about a complete taking down and re-assembling of the current system of economics and there are too many powerful people and interests who benefit from the current system to allow that to happen. They connect with government and it is in government interest to keep the that symbiotic relationship intact. I'm afraid it is a gargantuan conspiracy that goes beyond party politic and has been evolving over the decades to where it is now; a melding of government and corporate power that has got bigger than the sum of all the key players within it. It's out of control.

This goes beyond liberals vs conservatives or any illusionary partisan divisions. Politicians don't think in terms of left vs right. WE think is those terms because thats how we categorise party policy and allign ourselves to the party of our choice, as we allign ourselves to a football team. Different colours. Same game.

I'm pretty much smack in the middle of the 80-95 period.

Ever more proof our whole mess was not a "surprise" and that it not only should have been expected, but could've been dealt with. 

JJLehto wrote: This is the 5th time I've seen a person involved with finance, speak about their sector of the economy with disdain, others being Michael Hudson, Barry Ritholtz,  Warren Mosler and Marshall Auerback.  Not enough time for now, but all have spoken about negative impacts of the financial sector on the economy, this guy may be the most scathing yet! http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/03/financial-sector-greatest-parasite-human-history.html For ya lazy b*****ds  basically, finance exists to manage existing resources. It does not create (many of us have said this since the recession, but now finance guys are saying!) just manage, so the larger the financial sector, by nature, there is less left for the "real" economy.  Finance is necessary, and isn't the problem per se, but a financial sector that is large and unrestrained, is disastrous.  Again, echoing the sentiments of "progressive" economists that finance must be restrained and regulated for a healthy economy. I can't say liberal, because most of those guys are apologists for the status quo and suckle the teat as much as any.

Not to disagree with the overall point, but that's a bit like saying that natural gas companies don't create anything anything because they just take something that already exists and move it around.

Time, location, accessibility, and really just about any property that an object has is a part of the product itself.