Wrt the tech one. Have you mayhaps stumbled upon companion discovery with browser add-ons yet? Conveniently copy-pasteable as well, offering a slew of easily customisable tweaks 😉
That’s very interesting and thought provoking. I’ve tended to think that the Left (taking the more general usage) has had two important strands – social radicalism and economic radicalism. Early on I thought the economic radicals gravitated to the communist parties – their goal was the complete destruction of capitalist society and its remaking along totally egalitarian lines, and in that they certainly did succeed. Most communist regimes were incredibly egalitarian in economic terms. They did espouse some socially radical policies – mostly women’s rights (and abortion) but for the rest they were pretty socially conservative. For convenience these could be termed the Old Left.
The social radicals I think sometimes flirted with communism but mostly ended up in the social democratic or liberal left parties (much later Green’s). Their aim, initially, was the preservation of the existing social structure (and capitalism), just its reform. And as time went by their social radicalism developed and became increasingly radical – today evident in radical environmentalist and transgender kind of policies.
I think it may have been in the 1060s that the social radicals really took off and became the New Left. Already then a split between them and the Old Left was becoming apparent (in France the Communists abandoned an initial alliance). There was still at times an uneasy alliance but it seems to me it was fraying badly and more so as times went on.
Today the Old Left has largely vanished in the west – its sympathizers like Jeremy Corbin relegated to the margins, and the New Left has essentially occupied all the state machineries in the west, co-opting a good deal of the establishment right, and become essentially the global American capitalist empire.
Anyway that’s’ just my personal speculations. I don’t think the Old Left is totally dead yet – they were wrong on important issues (the command economy; the political authoritarianism) but their radical economic egalitarianism will I think come again. It’s something that has repeatedly flared up throughout history. There are signs of it today in radical populism.
I believe the word "socialism" is overloaded. As in "socialized healthcare is socialism". No, not really.
Hence we need to be very careful when using that word. For me the line is in the upholding of private property rights. The more the regime is against private property the more socialist it is. [I believe there is no such thing as a purely capitalist or a purely socialist political economy.] In that respect "crony capitalism" might be closer to socialism than capitalism - since the "cronies" are close to the regime, and are not truly "private". And the regime funnels assets in their direction, rather than upholding property rights in a disinterested fashion.
Yes. Socialism = public ownership = government ownership = oligarchy ownership, or sometihng
""crony capitalism" might be closer to socialism than capitalism - since the "cronies" are close to the regime, and are not truly "private". And the regime funnels assets in their direction"
Yes, and the term used by economists for that is Cantillon money, and it goes back the Bourbon dynasty.
Actually the whole point of Michéa's historical analysis is that originally socialism did not conflate with government ownership, and there continues to be a strain of socialism that maintains that alternative approach. The instalment coming next week will spell that out in greater detail. Meanwhile, though, I've a sneaking suspicion that the instalment coming out today won't be one you'll find very agreeable. But, hey, give it a shot. Life's full of surprises. You never know.
Very interesting. I have a book by Michéa somewhere that I haven't read yet, should take a look. It seems that as so often in history, the good guys lost the narrative war. And I don't see how fighting against the sort of inequality that alienates people from their roots and community, in which their work is embedded, can't be seen as a conservative-populist impulse. Curious to see your take on how it went wrong, and what went down in the 2nd half of the 19th century!
Wrt the tech one. Have you mayhaps stumbled upon companion discovery with browser add-ons yet? Conveniently copy-pasteable as well, offering a slew of easily customisable tweaks 😉
Yes. So odd I was surprised to find that capacity in Word. But I was.
Oops, 1060s of course should be 1960s.
Ever bothered to look into what those enigmatic 3 dots hid? In line with the heart, under your own comment? 🤭
No, I hadn't. Thanks for the tip!
So you weren't talking about William the Conqueror. ;-)
Well, he certainly got his timing right!
That’s very interesting and thought provoking. I’ve tended to think that the Left (taking the more general usage) has had two important strands – social radicalism and economic radicalism. Early on I thought the economic radicals gravitated to the communist parties – their goal was the complete destruction of capitalist society and its remaking along totally egalitarian lines, and in that they certainly did succeed. Most communist regimes were incredibly egalitarian in economic terms. They did espouse some socially radical policies – mostly women’s rights (and abortion) but for the rest they were pretty socially conservative. For convenience these could be termed the Old Left.
The social radicals I think sometimes flirted with communism but mostly ended up in the social democratic or liberal left parties (much later Green’s). Their aim, initially, was the preservation of the existing social structure (and capitalism), just its reform. And as time went by their social radicalism developed and became increasingly radical – today evident in radical environmentalist and transgender kind of policies.
I think it may have been in the 1060s that the social radicals really took off and became the New Left. Already then a split between them and the Old Left was becoming apparent (in France the Communists abandoned an initial alliance). There was still at times an uneasy alliance but it seems to me it was fraying badly and more so as times went on.
Today the Old Left has largely vanished in the west – its sympathizers like Jeremy Corbin relegated to the margins, and the New Left has essentially occupied all the state machineries in the west, co-opting a good deal of the establishment right, and become essentially the global American capitalist empire.
Anyway that’s’ just my personal speculations. I don’t think the Old Left is totally dead yet – they were wrong on important issues (the command economy; the political authoritarianism) but their radical economic egalitarianism will I think come again. It’s something that has repeatedly flared up throughout history. There are signs of it today in radical populism.
I believe the word "socialism" is overloaded. As in "socialized healthcare is socialism". No, not really.
Hence we need to be very careful when using that word. For me the line is in the upholding of private property rights. The more the regime is against private property the more socialist it is. [I believe there is no such thing as a purely capitalist or a purely socialist political economy.] In that respect "crony capitalism" might be closer to socialism than capitalism - since the "cronies" are close to the regime, and are not truly "private". And the regime funnels assets in their direction, rather than upholding property rights in a disinterested fashion.
Yes. Socialism = public ownership = government ownership = oligarchy ownership, or sometihng
""crony capitalism" might be closer to socialism than capitalism - since the "cronies" are close to the regime, and are not truly "private". And the regime funnels assets in their direction"
Yes, and the term used by economists for that is Cantillon money, and it goes back the Bourbon dynasty.
Actually the whole point of Michéa's historical analysis is that originally socialism did not conflate with government ownership, and there continues to be a strain of socialism that maintains that alternative approach. The instalment coming next week will spell that out in greater detail. Meanwhile, though, I've a sneaking suspicion that the instalment coming out today won't be one you'll find very agreeable. But, hey, give it a shot. Life's full of surprises. You never know.
Very interesting. I have a book by Michéa somewhere that I haven't read yet, should take a look. It seems that as so often in history, the good guys lost the narrative war. And I don't see how fighting against the sort of inequality that alienates people from their roots and community, in which their work is embedded, can't be seen as a conservative-populist impulse. Curious to see your take on how it went wrong, and what went down in the 2nd half of the 19th century!