Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Calls for Unity in the US

January 13, 2021

Like the Republicans say, we need unity and harmony at this moment of national upheaval and sorrow. We need unity in standing up for Morals and Truth, and we need unity in declaring that Trump is a continual and unrepentant liar, and morally unfit to hold the position of President ever again, even for a day.

We need to admit that neo-fascism is a danger and that the riot involved neo-fascists, who declared their presence and praised their own actions.

We need to admit that even if Trump did not deliberately incite the riots, and was used by other sinister forces for their own purposes, he did nothing to try and stop those riots. He approved them by inaction.

We also need to truthfully reaffirm the integrity of the electoral process and the result of the election. Although having an inquiry into gerrymandering, voter suppression, intimidation of officials and so on, might be useful.

We may also need to investigate whether the defense of Capitol Hill was deliberately weak, whether the National Guard was held back, and whether rioters received inside help.

Americans may need unity in finding out why police reacted so strongly to BLM riots with weaponry and assault, and seemed so unprepared for the Trump riots, despite weeks of warnings.

Americans certainly don’t need to gain unity by ignoring the problems they face.

This might be difficult for some Republicans, but whoever said virtue was easy?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Endnote – uncertainties

I’ve read that the March for Science with Bill Nye had a bigger and heavier armed police presence than the Save America March. I don’t know if that is true, but it may need checking.

Normally in approved US demonstrations you are not allowed to bring weapons, poles, body armour, backpacks which could store weaponry, and such. At this protest there were no attempts to stop people from being equipped for violence.

If this is true, this also needs investigation.

Nuclear Energy and the Greens

January 11, 2021

The issue

Nuclear advocates in Australia often blame the Greens for the complete lack of nuclear energy in that country. They may argue that the Greens are obstacles to climate action in general, and try and prove this by saying the Greens opposed the first Carbon pricing scheme.

A1) Greens are not that powerful

The main problem with this argument is that the Greens are not that powerful.

While the Greens do oppose nuclear energy, because they think problems with it (such as waste, rare but massive accidents) have not been solved, if the two major parties wish to ignore them, then the Greens are ignored, as is the case with economic policy, or coal mining.

The Greens do not own or control any media, they don’t have regular spots on media, and generally cannot even get their policies reported, other than with denigration and inaccuracy. They have close to no public propaganda force, they can use, unlike the other parties (particularly the Coalition).

Neither the Coalition nor Labor have a pro-nuclear policy which is disrupted by the Greens. The Coalition has been in government a long time, and nothing has happened. During their time in power there has been zero levels of research into nuclear energy generation, zero nuclear energy generation, and zero plans for nuclear energy generation. Lucas Heights does not count; it primarily exists for small experiments and medical isotope generation. The Greens cannot be blamed for this ongoing situation. If either of the major parties wanted anything different, then it would have happened.

If you want to blame anyone blame the Coalition or Labor, or the electorate in general for worrying about where the reactors would be placed.

A2: Carbon Pricing

Greens also get blamed for the failure of carbon pricing in Australia. This story is not entirely accurate. Again the Greens where the minor party. If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull could have agreed on a carbon trading scheme then it would have gone ahead. They did not. Turnbull lost the support of his party, probably because of its cheerful connection with fossil fuel companies. Can’t blame the Greens for that.

Rudd refused to negotiate with the Greens. He just told them to take it or leave it. Can’t blame the Greens for rejecting that strategy either.

Even so, the Greens also took note of Treasury modelling which implied the Rudd policy was extremely expensive and would not reduce carbon emissions for a long time. Given Rudd’s failure to get the Coalition to support a policy similar to the one the Coalition went into the election proposing, the Greens cannot be blamed for his failure. The Coalition was the obstacle.

Furthermore, the Greens worked with Gillard to get a system which did not rip off ordinary taxpayers and which lowered emissions almost immediately. It was not perfect, but it was much better. It also shows what Rudd could have achieved, if he had chosen to work with the Greens, rather than against them and with the Coalition.

The Gillard scheme was destroyed by the Coalition. Not the Greens. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Coalition would not have destroyed any form of carbon pricing, given their love for fossil fuel companies.

Again the Greens cannot be blamed for this.

Failings of nuclear Advocates

It may be personal experience bias, but I more often read nuclear advocates arguing against renewables than I read them arguing against fossil fuels. Just as I read them opposing declarations of climate emergency or emissions targets. So I’m not sure I agree about the innocence of nuclear advocates. There is certainly no attempt to win allies in the Greens, just lecture them and blame them.

It is also extremely hard to evaluate nuclear plans that do not exist in reality, which almost no one has any enthusiasm for, and for a kind of truly enormous project which Australia has no commercial experience with. Current total energy generation in Australia is about 265 TWh per year; Hinkley Point in the UK is supposed to be able to generate 3,260MW (not sure over what time period, the text is ambiguous, but I presume a year). That is a reasonable number of reactors to build from scratch, in time to mitigate climate change, and there are no local companies which could be expected to carry out such a project.

Conclusion

Green obstacles to climate action are trivial when compared to the Coalition. It would be more practical to try and get the Coalition onside for nuclear climate action if anyone useful was really serious about nuclear power, but we all can be pretty sure that is not going to happen. And I’m reasonably sure there is no real attempt by anyone with any capacity to build nuclear power, to get it going.

Nuclear Energy in 2021

January 10, 2021

1) After about 70 years of building, nuclear is at about 5% of the world’s total energy supply according to the IEA.

2) If nuclear energy is going to be our saviour, then it needs the same exponential growth that renewables require. A growth it has never sustained in the world as a whole over those 70 years.

3) At the moment there is almost no serious agitation in Australia from politicians or business for even one nuclear power station, never mind the number we need to replace all use of coal, gas and oil.

4) On the other hand, there is agitation from business to build renewables, despite the best efforts of the Federal government to discourage this and promote a “gas led recovery” as the alternative to renewables. The government is not promoting nuclear as an alternative.

5) Avoiding declarations of climate emergency and the setting of emissions targets, as seems common amongst nuclear proponents, does nothing to help energy transition or nuclear energy. Indeed it resists recognising the need for such transitions. No one is going to transition to nuclear for the hell of it.

6) For nuclear energy to work, just as for renewables to work, we need to encourage electrification of all energy use, and the construction of a decent electrical infrastructure. This agitation, again, seems rare amongst nuclear proponents.

7) We could argue that nuclear proponents appear to aim at slowing and hindering transition to renewables, and hence any realistic energy transition at all. Therefore it is possible to suggest that they are inadvertently(?) assisting fossil fuel companies to stay in business.

8) Nuclear proponents in Australia don’t have to behave like this. They could argue for a transition which simply requires:

  • a) recognition of climate emergency, to help boost action,
  • b) emissions targets (perhaps with the addition of a carbon price) to help boost action,
  • c) general electrification, and construction of a new electrical infrastructure to cope that electrification,
  • d) complete phase out of coal, gas and oil for use and export,
  • e) money for research into energy sources with high energy return on energy input (EREI) and low greenhouse-gas emissions, and
  • f) nuclear as one of the energy sources we might need along with renewables or other possible sources.

But sadly this seems rare. They are generally more interested in slapping the Greens, as if with the Greens blamed, transition will just occur by itself.

The Trump Putsch 01

January 9, 2021

There are many things that can be said about yesterdays ‘insurrection’ at the US Capitol building. These are some of them.

Rough Timeline: Firstly the protestors started knocking the fences down at about 1:00 p.m. At about 1.20 Trump arrives back at the White House – some say his security detail said they could not protect him at the protest. He watches the riot on live TV. 1:34 pm Mayor Bowser of Washington, DC requests assistance from Secretary of Army. About 1.40 demonstrators break into the House. The Senate and House chambers were evacuated at 2:30 p.m, about the same time the Washington Mayor orders a 6pm Curfew. At about 3.40pm the National Guard arrives (?). Crowds start dispersing around 5 pm. About 8 pm, Capitol police declared the building secure. At 8.15 pm the House starts working again.

1) “Trump Media”

Parts of the Trump media and media groupings (One America Network, Parler, 4 chan, Q-Anon, Brietbart, Newsmax), after supporting Trump’s fake claims of election fraud, and calls for insurrection, are now saying things like “we all know Republicans don’t riot, consequently the rioters were not Republicans and the whole thing was a false flag operation”. The rioters were busloads of Antifa.

There is no evidence of antifa involvement and, even if there was, it does not give us new evidence about who was calling for the events, and who was cheering the events on. This includes those who are now claiming they had nothing to do with it, which appears to include those Republican members of Congress who were trying to overturn the election results, while depending on the election results for their own seats.

This is simple cowardice. Childlike cowardice. They could say, “I made a mistake and don’t like the results of that mistake,” or they could stand with the people they encouraged. But these people decide to hide their encouragement of violence behind blaming their opposition, or saying they suddenly came to understand what Trump was like.

By trying to blame others they at least show they recognise there is a problem they don’t want to be associated with. Interestingly even the leader of the Proud Boys supposedly announced ahead of the march:

“We will not be wearing our traditional Black and Yellow. We will be incognito and we will spread across downtown DC in smaller teams,… And who knows….we might dress in all BLACK for the occasion [like Antifa],” Mr. Tarrio posted on the social media service Parler. “The night calls for a BLACK tie event.”

Proud Boys leader says members will be ‘incognito’ for next pro-Trump protest in D.C. Washington Times, 29 December 2020

We can presume they wanted to hide and not be held responsible, although Tarrio later apparently said or wrote: “Proud Of My Boys and my country….”Don’t ****ing leave.”

Those who need to know, know they were involved.

2) Trump himself

From the wandering speech made directly before the riots, it is not clear what Trump wants, except to complain that he could not have lost because of statistics and fake claims, and that Mike Pence could fix it up by decree. [See endnote].

During the riots. Trump tweeted [Times on these tweets are from storage and not local times, the one immediately below is apparently from 2.24 pm during the riots.]:

More or less immediately after the Riots, Trump tweeted:

[And in case the tweet copy gets deleted:

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

twitter Jan 6 – see also Fox News and Forbes

So Trump defended his supporters for a while. Trump later claimed that violence was not what he wanted and that we should seek peace together.

My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.

This moment calls for healing and reconciliation…..

We must revitalize the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that bind us together as one national family.

Donald Trump Concedes Election, Condemns Rioters Video Speech Transcript January 7. Rev 7 January

Trump has never seemed to want peace before, other than the peace of everyone submitting to himself. It is however, reasonably possible to suggest that he did not think his speech would be followed by the events which followed it; that, for him, the march on the Capitol was purely a game for him. However it is equally possible he deliberately tried to engineer deniability, and he will keep feeding and inciting rage, while pretending not to.

Personally I think he is stabbing his supporters in the back because he does not want to loose the benefits and salary of an ex-President if he should be suspended or impeached, but who knows? Anyway, the point again is he could say, “I made a mistake and I’ve changed my mind”, or he could stand by his supporters and what he has been encouraging them to do since the last election or earlier, or even say he was surprised at how people reacted, but no, its all their fault. I suspect he will soon be telling us it was all the Democrats’ fault. For Trump, it seems like it is always someone else’s fault.

For those who wonder if the President would throw his supporters, workers and creditors under the bus, for personal advantage, just look at his career. This is what he has done his entire life. This and continuous falsehood, are his distinguishing marks, even for people in politics and business.

He has also refused to attend the inauguration. This is one way of making peace… but attending would show that he might put his own resentments on one side, and thus encourage his followers to do so as well – but that would not give him any political advantage, he needs to keep hatred going to have any chance of influence or another shot at the Presidency.

While so far it is rumour and third hand reports, so this paragraph will possibly be changed, there is some evidence to say that:

  • Trump watched the riot on live TV (was there live TV coverage?)
  • He did tweet about Mike Pence’s failure to steal the election for him
  • He ignored calls from Republicans trapped in the House
  • He only tweeted against the riots when it was clear they had not achieved any of their aims, beyond occupation.

If so, then we may assume that Trump did seek violence to change the election result and intimidate people in the House.

Mitch McConnell is reported as saying, after he helped acquit Trump,:

There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day… The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president… He did not do his job. He didn’t take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored… No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily — happily — as the chaos unfolded… Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger.

Sprunt After Voting To Acquit, McConnell Torches Trump As Responsible For Riot. NPR 13 Feb 2021

What Trump does not appear to have done is even more significant. He did nothing to help organise a response. He did nothing to calm the situation down. He appears to have made no protest against what was happening while it was happening – and this is especially notable if he was watching on live TV.

It does not seem unreasonable to see Trump’s first public comments on Jan 12, as directed towards his riotous supporters as they defend the wall with Mexico, which seems to be a defense against illegal immigrants and emphasises the race issue. “We completed the wall,” he says which does not seem to be true, and he more or less admits is not true in the next line “They may want to expand it. We have the expansion underway.” But then:

We’re stopping a lot of illegal immigration. Our numbers have been very good. There does seem to be a surge now because people are coming up. So caravans are starting to form because they think there’s going to be a lot in it for them, if they’re able to get through, but we’re able to stop it

Donald Trump’s First Comments Since Capitol Riots: Says He Wants “No Violence”, Rev.com 12 January 2021

Then he implies the violence is against him, and that impeachment could lead to violence:

we want no violence, never violence. We want absolutely no violence. And on the impeachment, it’s really a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics. It’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous. This impeachment is causing tremendous anger as you’re doing it. And it’s really a terrible thing that they’re doing. For Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to continue on this path, I think it’s causing tremendous danger to our country and it’s causing tremendous anger. I want no violence.

Donald Trump’s First Comments Since Capitol Riots: Says He Wants “No Violence”, Rev.com 12 January 2021

And the riot had nothing to do with him, all the fault of other people:

if you look at what other people have said, politicians at a high level, about the riots during the summer, the horrible riots in Portland and Seattle and various other places. That was a real problem, what they said, but they’ve analyzed my speech and my words and my final paragraph, my final sentence. And everybody to the T thought it was totally appropriate. 

Donald Trump’s First Comments Since Capitol Riots: Says He Wants “No Violence”, Rev.com 12 January 2021

His later speech was almost entirely about keeping illegal aliens out, and could be seen as a shout out to the ‘mob’. So he will almost certainly continue.

3) The Really Thin Blue Line

The Capitol was badly defended. There were hardly any police, and the national guard was not called in until way too late – apparently a guy Trump appointed to the job refused to let them be called in. In Washington DC the mayor does not command the National Guard, the President does. The guard eventually arrived because Republican and Democrat members of the house arranged it? (This is all very complicated, but see this timeline, which may or may not be accurate. The then chief of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, “says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed”). Trump tried to take credit for their arrival, but this does not seem to be accurate.

Many people ([1], [2], [3], [4] more could be given) have compared the thin lines of police with the heavy lines of police who faced Black Lives Matter protestors. and who seemed relaxed about using heavy violence to control and clear BLM protestors even if it was just for Presidential photo-ops. The police for the Trump protest seem to have been vastly outnumbered and under armed – I’ve seen videos of a few US police trying to hold back protestors with waist high portable fences, fists (!?) and no back-up. They had no hope against these white rioters.

I also read that 60 police where hospitalised with injuries and one police officer more or less definitely received deadly injuries from a thrown fire extinguisher. Video suggests one policeman was pulled down some stairs and beaten and kicked. One of the people beating him was using a flag pole with a US flag on it, and the crowd shouted “USA, USA”. Comments by Police Chief Contee also suggest rioters used pepper spray on the police. The police were not initially using tear gas and some had no gas masks. Pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails were also apparently found near the building outside the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee [5], [6].

This is where supporting people who claim to support the police, while they are suppressing others, gets you.

4) Police Complicity?

Some people say the police let the rioters in, and posed with rioters for selfies. This could be a cunning way of both getting photo ID of the perps, and/or avoiding being beaten up. There are pictures of police (or security guards) quietly standing by as occupiers walk past them. Perhaps some police where more gentle than people on the Left might expect them to be from their experience, and got out of the way, but this is not the same as deliberately letting people in.

If there was an inside job, it probably came from those people who ignored weeks of noise and warnings [7], [8], [9] and put in a thin blue line and blocked the National Guard. If you want to blame anyone, then blame the Trump Administration. They made the appointments and preparations. This obvert lack could also seem like pre-meditation.

5) Security Chaos

The failure of the police meant the Capitol was defended by security officers who had been trained to shoot terrorists and assassins. It is no wonder one person was shot, and amazing that more were not killed. Three of the four protestors who died are currently said to have died of medical complications. One was possibly crushed to death in the crowd.

The security at the Capitol was surprisingly low key. It appears to advertise that if any real and moderately competent terrorist organisation had wanted to, they could have invaded and shot up Capitol Hill without problem.

6) Lack of Revolutionary Aims

The rioters seemed to have no idea what to do when they achieved their aims. Some people have said they were going to burn the electoral college votes, but they failed to do that, and there is no evidence that was an aim shared by the majority of people – any more there is evidence the pipe bombs were the work of many people. While burning the votes might have been a great piece of symbolism, it would achieve nothing. There was no attempt to seize centres of power, to control the airwaves or barricade themselves in, or even bring automatic weapons into the building.

Most of the rioters seemed happy enough to frolic around, break into offices, steal souvenirs and pose for photos. This was not a crowd of organised revolutionaries. I’m not sure they can be called terrorists either, despite the Federal Code of Regulation definition that terrorism is:

the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof and furtherance of political or social objectives

As quoted by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser Press Conference Day After Capitol Riot Transcript January 7

Discontents is probably better. If it were not for the injured cops this might have been disorderly ‘fun’.

Image

On the other hand, some people wore neo-nazi symbols and apparently called for the execution of Mike Pence (who knows how seriously) for not obeying Trump’s call to neutralise the result. People have alleged there were plans to capture Nancy Pelosi, but the evidence seems conjectural at this moment. However, Neo-Nazis reportedly boasted they were there, and the Proud Boys reputedly sent out a message saying:

For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified…

The system would have you believe that you are alone. That’s why they want to ban all ‘radicals’ from social media. They want you to feel alone. But the truth is that you are not alone. We are everywhere.

Things will get difficult soon but don’t lose heart. We are growing and our unity will terrify the evil elites running this nation.

Proud Boys Boast About Politicians ‘in Absolute Terror’ During Capitol Raid. Newsweek, 7 January.

So some people had ambitions, perhaps after the event. The FBI says ‘Antifa’ does not seem to have had much if any presence. Earlier reports claiming this was not the case have since been discredited.

So let us be clear about this. Mainstream people on the Right are blaming a group for the riots, who almost certainly were not there, while ignoring right wing extremists who certainly were there, who are claiming responsibility for the occupation and the violence, and who are promising more of the same.

And these same people want unity and no prosecution of Trump for anything? Some of them because they fear what might come next. This again is cowardice, and indicates the possible take over of the Republican party by fascists.

7) Spread

The event was not confined to the Capitol in Washington. There were similar, generally peaceful, if less successful, protests across the country: in Arizona (which involved breaking glass and a guillotine), Colarado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and probably elsewhere. It is notable that many people were also protesting against coronavirus lockdowns and did not wear masks. So we can see this movement as a spreader event. Perhaps deliberately to generate more chaos for the new Administration to deal with, but more probably to do with disbelief.

With the Internet it is not necessary for there to be an organising body, but apparently the main event was organised by “Women for America First” and it allegedly involved people from the Presiden’ts 2020 campaign. When asked the Trump Campaign apparently said

We did not organize, operate or finance this event. No campaign staff was involved in the organization or operation of this event. If any former employees or independent contractors for the campaign worked on this event, they did not do so at the direction of the Trump campaign.

Trump allies helped plan, promote rally that led to Capitol attack. ABC NEWS (America) 9 January

As you would expect, they avertised the event to their followers, through twitter and facebook. For example:

and

Women for America First announced:

We are saddened and disappointed at the violence that erupted on Capitol Hill, instigated by a handful of bad actors, that transpired after the rally

Trump allies helped plan, promote rally that led to Capitol attack. ABC NEWS (America) 9 January and “Statement on Violence at the Capitol

And did the expected blame shifting, it’s got nothing to do with them and everything to do with people they don’t like:

Unfortunately, for months the left and the mainstream media told the American people that violence was an acceptable political tool. They were wrong. It is not. 

Trump allies helped plan, promote rally that led to Capitol attack. ABC NEWS (America) 9 January and “Statement on Violence at the Capitol

Apparently, no one ever listens to the right wing media…

The Women for America First website with the statement on it seems to have disappeared. Other people involved in the event appear to have included: “Stop the Steal,” “Wild Protest.com” “Turning Point Action,” “Rule of Law Defence Fund,” “Tea Party Patriots,” Eighty Percent Coalition”, not to mention “Proud Boys”, “Three Percenters” and the like – who do seem to have some familiarity with threatening violence.

Some allege that some of the misinformation and promotion of violence came from ‘big oil’ and those who promote climate denial [10], [11] which, if correct, shows how terrified they are of even the minor climate efforts Biden has promised to make. It is true, that Trump would have kept subsidies and profits up for a while longer if he ‘won,’ and fossil fuel companies have never shown much concern over democracy.

Fear is also part of the spread of misinformation. One Republican Representative is reported as saying:

“One of the saddest things is I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families. They felt that that vote would put their families in danger,”

Amash’s Successor Peter Meijer: Trump’s Deceptions Are ‘Rankly Unfit. Reason 8 January 2021

If true, this is fascism in action again, and not being denounced.

8) Fantasy

The following report may not be accurate, but while some protestors were disappointed in Trump, and his failure to produce evidence for the “storm” that many people on the Right had been expecting and inciting for so long (when the deep state Satanist pedophiles would be arrested and charged), some of the rioters or riot supporters claim that Trump’s apparent backdown is a deep fake video, or perhaps:

“He has a plan here President Trump would not back down that easily… We need to stand strong, keep watch and pray. Something big is coming and Gid [God] is going to see it through.”

“Trump did not concede. He used language to buy a little extra time because the senators and congressmen who support him are being threatened with dirty bombs and their families’ lives by the Deep State and/or communist Chinese … I have it on good grounds that Trump will be moving with the military And regarding the transition to a new administration, means Trump with a new VP Pence is obviously a traitor and is ‘fired’”

Donald Trump fans cry betrayal as he rebukes Capitol violence. The Guardian, 8 January 2021

If the Storm has not happened by now, we can assume it will never happen, and would never happen.

9) It is not Necessarily ended

Some have compared this event to the Munich Beer Hall putsch of 1923. Hitler’s failed attempt to take over Bavaria. From that event we learn that Hitler was no brave war hero, but he came back some years later and produced a lot of death. The point of the comparison is just to remind us that failure does not always mean that a movement is ended. Ten years from now, maybe Trump or someone like him will succeed in inspiring people who feel displaced and take over the government.

If politicians get the message that these people (like most people) cannot be controlled and selling one’s soul (for power) to a proto-fascist is not a good deal, then something has to change. The problems faced by real people trying to live in neoliberal America have to be taken seriously and people have to feel that government is something they can participate in without needing force. Neoliberalism has to go, because this is where it leads.

However, Republican leaders are generally not condemning either the rioter’s or their party’s association with neo-fascism and white supremacy, never mind putting the wealthy first. Hence we can assume they are happy to go along with things as they are. This increases the likelihood of that party being taken over by those forces and being used by those forces, just as QAnon appears to have tried to use Trump for its purposes, through the cultivation of fantasy and resonance.

The information mess of information society, is another problem. Propaganda is effective, and can easily promote these kind of events and this kind of resentment. Fascism is easy, not impossible because of some national spirit. It can happen anywhere. We somehow need to establish a truth which can be shared amongst all, but fascist propagandists seek a truth that splits and makes the acceptors superior. Or perhaps we need to establish a more general, non-directed skepticism. I don’t know a solution, but an approach is needed.

10) Election Inquiry?

Personally I would go for an independent open and public inquiry into the Election process. It would include all the alleged events that Trump mentions. This would allow them to be refuted in public. It would also include: investigation into Gerrymandering; voter suppression; refusals to have enough pre-poll booths; attempts to crush mail-in voting through sabotaging the post office or any other way; intimidation or attempted bribery of electoral officials and workers; the apparently deliberate delays in voting in certain areas; explanations about the way voting trends can change; and so on. It perhaps should investigate the rules around the electoral college or the consequences of its abandonment. It perhaps should recommend a public holiday to make voting possible for many people. It would have the power to charge the ex-President, and anyone else with offenses before a court, if they should be demonstrated. It should also consider making Washington DC, and Puerto Rico into States for electoral purposes. If people say this should not happen because Republicans would never win without restricting the vote, then let them think about their commitment to democracy or lack of useful policies.

Endnote: Trump Administration Speeches

Trump’s big speech before the riot, starts as it goes on.

This was not a close election. I say sometimes jokingly, but there’s no joke about it, I’ve been in two elections. I won them both and the second one, I won much bigger than the first. Almost 75 million people voted for our campaign, the most of any incumbent president by far in the history of our country, 12 million more people than four years ago. I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose.

By the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It’s a disgrace. There’s never been anything like that. You could take third world countries. Just take a look, take third world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we’ve been going through in this country. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. Even when you look at last night, they’re all running around like chickens with their heads cut off with boxes. Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen….

if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do. This is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution, and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The States got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice-President Pence has to do is send it back to the States to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.

Donald Trump Speech “Save America” Rally Transcript January 6. Rev 6 January


Despite being full of falsehood, denunciation of the election result, and self praise (he “had to beat Oprah, [who] used to be a friend of mine”), the speech does not seems to be a direct incitement to riot. There is little to no evidence for his impeachment on those grounds here [although see this analysis, which I think its a bit strained]. Indeed Trump said:

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard….

we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… [ellipsis in original to indicate change of track] The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. 

So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Donald Trump Speech “Save America” Rally Transcript January 6. Rev 6 January

He did not walk with them, although it is not clear why. Perhaps he wanted to be elsewhere if violence broke out – it would be safer for him. The only overtly but vague instruction for riot he gave was:

I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Donald Trump Speech “Save America” Rally Transcript January 6. Rev 6 January

This could easily be defended as a figure of speech. The violence, seems to have been plotted beforehand, and not at the speech. Trump may have been simply a focus for other people to make that move – perhaps this is something he wanted to take advantage of, but not be directly involved in.

During the riot he tries to steer both sides, those of the rioters and those who were not impressed by the riots:

I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great [pause] people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home at peace.

Trump Video Telling Protesters at Capitol Building to Go Home: Transcript. Rev 6 January and Facebook

This is a line made clear by his press secretary Kayleigh McEnany as well.

What we saw yesterday, was a group of violent rioters, undermining the legitimate First Amendment rights of the many thousands who came to peacefully have their voices heard in our nation’s Capitol. Those who violently besieged our Capitol, are the opposite of everything this administration stands for. 

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany Press Briefing on Capitol Riot Transcript

This massive backdown, implies either cowardice or that he was being used by other more competent people for their own purposes, to start something off, or to be a figurehead. QAnon seems to be that kind of movement, as the President seemed to make little use of it, or have little familiarity with its arguments and misinformation, even when it would have been useful for him. This probably means ‘Q’ not only does not have many ties with the President, but probably not with the Republican Party itself. This again makes impeachment hard.

Conservatism again

January 3, 2021

Most conservatism seems misrepresented by those modern movements which take the name of conservatism, which largely seem to have lost conservative approaches to conservation, trust, truth, and virtue. Neoliberalism has eaten conservatism.

I have a number of slightly weird, and possibly contradictory, political positions, as anyone who has read this blog will probably know, but there are some common threads. In some ways, I’m a more or less traditional conservative, ie Burkean, Coleridgean, Ruskinean. That means I don’t have much in common with most people who claim the Conservative label nowadays, but there is no reason we cannot have ‘left’ conservatives, especially if you think the post WWII boom was probably a good time to live, and a time which held promise.

Roots of Conservatism

The root of conservatism is conserving the best of our past while slowly improving it – the ‘slowly’ is often important, as I hope will become clear as we go along.

The two most important processes to conserve are: The Land, and Tradition or Culture.

The Land

The land needs to be conserved because life in whatever is our Country depends upon the Land. Humans relate to the Land, it is in their nature. Despoliation of the Land shows disrespect for our ancestors and traditions, and can put us in the place were we can no longer be self-reliant on the Land for food. Wild Land is important, because it reminds us of the grandeur of nature and power of God. There should be land in which people can be alone, and gain inner strength and self-reliance. We may need to keep predators that can challenge us, so that we don’t become human predators.

Preserving the Land, also preserves the particular beauties that are associated with our country and that helps shape the souls of those who live in our country. Despoliation of land is equivalent to despoliation of the ‘national soul’.

Of course cultivated land is good (I say this because people often fall into false dichotomies), but cultivation again should not mean despoliation. And ideally the land should be small holdings, supporting families in dignity, rather than large land holdings which turn the people away from care for their surroundings, into wage labour, or even serfdom or slavery, and an inability to self-support.

Tradition and Culture

Tradition is important, that is what shapes our culture and our way of life. It can often be related to the Land. Customs, habits and ecologies fit together in mutual support – this is what anthropologists used to call functionalism – everything, no matter how apparently irrational has an important social function. Disrespect for tradition is an attack on our way of life. However, tradition changes. It always changes. If we are careful we can improve tradition. Thus while an 18th Century conservative may well have approved slavery, a modern conservative should not, because we know it was a stain on the social fabric, an incidence of inhumanity and a corruption of spirit for both slaves and slave-owners, and it was counter to the trend of our Religion.

However, because of the delicate balance of these ‘systems,’ we need to be slow and careful when we make changes. We need to find out whether unintended consequences arise from removing checks and balances. It is often the case that while we think we are doing good, we are destroying what we seek to preserve.

Care and observation should the basis of conservatism, as well as respect for those who know, work and study.

Elites, Virtue and Art

All conservatives respect elites of some sort or another, but this can be a bit complicated.

All societies have elites, this is the nature of humanity, and sometimes elites can be destructive. However, the conservative idea is that society should be governed by the best people available, who are then held responsible by the people in general.

Elites should be trained and experienced, but not restricted to an ‘aristocracy’. Elites should ‘circulate’, that is they should admit the best people, whoever they are, and drop those who are no longer ‘up to it’. There should be social mobility. Effort in many different skills should be rewarded, so as to give people something to strive for.

When people have no visible chance of social mobility, then they may well support dangerous demagogues and revolutionaries. What other option do they have? This support will destroy social balance, harmony and tradition, so it is no solution, but it feels like one.

The populace will tend to emulate the elites – this again is human nature – so the better the elites, the more virtuous the elites, the better are the population and the better the nation becomes. If the elite are braggarts who seek their own wealth, power and exemption from the law, then that is what the populace will seek as well, to their own and society’s detriment.

This is why elites need stronger discipline than the populace. It is why a traitor among the elites is worse than a traitor amongst the people.

The point of the elites is that they should govern for the good of all, hence the importance of inculcating virtue and training. As soon as an elite starts governing for its own advantage, society begins heading for collapse.

Elites are not just responsible for governance, but for supporting the best religion, art, culture and beauty – not only traditional but new. They have the power to do this, or the power to neglect this, but it is an obligation, just as it is an obligation to be virtuous.

Again, the aim of this support, is to improve the souls of the people, to make them turn from the ugliness of sin, and cherish bountiful aspirations, and relationships. The elite need to be generous. Most good art should be public art. This does not mean that elites do not support art for their own glory as well, but the glory should be directed both ways to the people and the elite. Again this is building connection, which builds society.

Art is not secondary to money in terms of building tradition and social well being.

Unfortunately, elites may sometimes need to lie to govern, or to defend the Country. They may want to use what Plato called the ‘noble lie’. This is unfortunately sometimes necessary. However, lying needs to be discouraged. Elites need to respect truth, and to be honest whenever possible. Lies for a noble strategies’ sake, easily become lies for selfish ingroup, or personal, benefit. Lies break relationship, leading to the liar feeling falsely superior to the deceived. When lies are uncovered, the people cease to trust the elites. Elites have to be able to be held to account, and staying with the truth, as well as it is known, is the best way whenever possible.

Elites are privileged, and their privilege is only justified by the example they set, and their care for others ‘beneath’ them. Without this care, and this relationship, elites almost certainly become destructive.

Elites should put themselves on the line. They have a responsibility to be the first in combat, the first to take salary cuts, the first to give for their country, the first to step out of comfort and help others in distress. That is, they set the example. They become what the people will emulate.

Conservatism encourages relationships between the classes, as a society is built upon relationships (preferably personal not contractual, monetary or compelled), and relationships carry obligation and responsibility. If relationship, obligation and responsibility is denied or sabotaged, then society fragments and becomes factional. It is on the way down.

A society built on extensive cross-cutting relationships, will have ‘networks’ of support and responsibility, it is more likely to endure crisis. It is more likely the elites and the people will be connected, and governance will be for all.

The issue of elites becomes even more complicated, when we recognise ‘wealth elites’ or ‘capitalist elites’

Capitalism and its elites

Real conservatives, while accepting capitalism as a potential force for good, are also cautious about it. Capitalism does not respect tradition or Land, or good government for all.

If tradition and virtue can be corrupted to make a buck, then capitalists will corrupt them without any thought of the future. If despoiling Land makes money in the short term, then Land will be despoiled. The same with everything else of value.

Capitalism tends to reduce all virtue, all relationships and all government to money. All value becomes monetary value.

Capitalists, if not watched, will tend to set up an aristocracy of wealth, without any loyalty to anything other than making themselves more wealthy. Capitalism easily becomes plutocracy.

It is not conservative to think that markets will always deliver the best result for everyone and for the country. That is special interest lobbying.

We should remember that Edmund Burke spent a large proportion of his career and effort into attempting to curtail the East India Company’s actions in India because its business was not good for the subjects of Empire. Modern conservatives pretend business is always good. Real conservatives do not.

Conservatives know that that virtue is the basis of society and should be beyond money and purchase. Conservatives know that society is based in relationships and not money.

Money is useful, but money is not a god. You cannot worship both God and Mammon. If you try, you will loose God. You will get religions which insist that wealth is the only mark of virtue and that God wants everyone to have money (God probably ‘wants’ everyone to have spiritual wealth, care for others, and contentment).

These capitalist prosperity religions make the poor sick at heart. They say to everyone, “if you are not rich then you are not godly” and “if you are godly then you are rich”. This is not only blasphemy, but it is destructive of society. The poor may always be with us, but they can aim to be saints. Saints embrace poverty. Poverty is not necessarily a good thing, and we should do our best to help relieve it, but it is bearable while people have dignity and respect, and are not repeatedly informed they are without God, talent, virtue or use. Traditional Christianity strongly recognises this.

However, capitalism has no respect for truth. PR, advertising, cronyism and hype seem to be an essential and everyday part of its life. It cannot be left to seek its own level of falsehood, or society will be swamped in malevolent fantasy, which is only solved by collapse.

Capitalism, if not watched and cared for, as we would watch and care for a tiger, is dangerous as well as splendid.

Real conservatives realise this. Rule of the country should never be handed to the wealth elite alone, for they will rule according to greed, and according to the money they can make. They will destroy all the balances, and all the finer things of the soul, that make a country great.

That, again, is simply reality.

Division of Powers

Consequently, conservatives will encourage as many competing powers as possible, to ensure the Country is not taken over by one group alone.

Organised religion should be a power, but not the only power as it easily becomes tyranny, and suppressive of all other religions and religious variants.

Workers should be a power. Unions developed to save workers from capitalist greed. They are part of our Tradition and should not be bought out or destroyed to give capitalists more power. However, again, they should not be the only power.

The courts should be separate from the government and act as a check upon the government.

The military is a power and (sadly) necessary, but should always be subservient to the governors, in terms of not declaring war itself. War should be declared by Parliament not the executive. The military must be held to high standards of virtue and discipline, or else it can shelter barbarism and cruelty. The military should never approve war crimes, as this reflects badly on the rest of society and mutual trust.

Science should be a power. It is the best guide we have to the truth of the world. Hence scientists annoyingly give different advice as the evidence and understanding change. This is why they are advisors and not governors. People who condemn scientists, when listening to them would be inconvenient, are foolish at best. Scientists should be trained to respect both the truth and relationship.

Business should be a power, but not the only power. We need to understand what generates prosperity and nobility in the long term, and that may not come from business alone.

Civil Society organisations should be powers, to provide input from those who might be ignored.

Public servants should be a power, they have accumulated wisdom and experience, but clearly the bureaucracy should not rule alone, as one of it’s purposes is to check and regulate rule.

Everyone knows that any group can become self-interested, but the more groups involved in governance, the less chance we have of being taken over by one limited self interest.

Liberty

By respecting this variety we encourage liberty, not directed by the one group, so it is real liberty.

But conservatives remember that liberty is not the freedom to do everything you want. Liberty is constrained by consideration for others.

Without virtue, liberty becomes tyranny. This is the basis of the law. You are not free to steal, you are not free to murder, you are not free to defraud others, you are not free to slander with no regard for truth, you are not free to poison people or the Land, you are not free to betray your country and so on.

Conclusion

To conclude, and I could go on and on, I’ll repeat that conservatism is about conserving the best of the past (culture and traditions), changing things slowly, looking for unintended consequences, and preserving the Land.

It is not governing on behalf of one group alone.

Any politics which does not realise this, is not Real Conservatism, as far as I’m concerned.

Slobodian on Anti-democratic Neoliberal relations to the State

December 27, 2020

I have just encountered the writings of Quinn Slobodian. He has an interesting take on the role of the State in Neoliberalism, and Austrian Economics. It is worth looking at, but I have not yet read his major book The Globalists. His arguments make it clearer that Neoliberals and Austrian Economists are not Libertarians, or anarchist at all, despite the support they receive from Libertarians. Neoliberals primarily want protection of markets, and market organisation, from States, but have no objection to States in principle, as long as those States defend markets and market power – especially against the people.

Protecting the market, wealth and property

Neoliberals attempt to “to insulate the markets against sovereign states, political change, and turbulent democratic demands for greater equality and social justice.” [1] For them, the State exists to protect capitalism, its extracted property and the world economy as it is, not to open the economy to ordinary people on equal terms. Neoliberalism was “less a doctrine of economics than a doctrine of ordering—of creating the institutions that provide for the reproduction of the totality [of the system].” [2]

The Fascist moment

Consequently, neoliberalism is a form of regulation rather than a form of anarchism. It probably developed as a preventative response to socialist movements, and the fact that their favoured fascism did not provide quite the defense of property that they had otherwise expected.

Mises argued that communists were murderous and the fascists reacted reluctantly in kind, but they, unlike the Russians would be unable to get rid of thousands of years of civilisation. Mises wrote in 1927 that:

Because of this difference, Fascism will never succeed as completely as Russian Bolshevism in freeing itself from the power of liberal ideas…. Fascism, in comparison with Bolshevism and Sovietism, [i]s at least the lesser evil.

Mises Liberalism, Online Library of Liberty: p: 49.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

[3], & Mises Liberalism. Online Library of Liberty: p: 51. emphasis added.

This was not uncommon at the time. Slobodian remarks that Carl Schmitt “saw the need for what was effectively a fascist state as a way to prevent the rise of totalitarianism.” [4]

[I]n the late 1930s, Wilhelm Röpke, another leading neoliberal, would unabashedly declare that his desire for a strong state made him more “fascist” than many of his readers understood. We should not take this as a light-hearted quip.

[4]

In other words Fascism, and the autocratic State, was useful to maintain capitalism and its civilisation for a while. There seems little objection to the idea of an ‘intellectual’ fascist State as such, and of course, Mises could not understand where German fascism was to go. However, he fled the Nazis after the occupation of Austria.

Later on (1951) Neoliberals such as Mises and Hayek were to conflate Fascism and Nazism with socialism and Bolshevism, which ignores who sponsored them and why, and indicates a degree of hard and misleading binarism in their thinking. Socialist democracy in the UK and Australia between 1950 and the early seventies, and Scandinavian socialism is, according to them, the same as Nazism, Stalinist Communism and so on. If it is not the capitalism they support, it must be socialist, and must be evil. There is no ability to see degrees here, everything ‘bad’ is lumped together, as politically useful to support the idea that free markets lead to liberty, rather than to plutocracy and potential fascism.

We may also note the hostility of neoliberals to any effective idea of equality. Equality, in their view always demands an interventionist State, and therefore an authoritarian State of the wrong kind. Again the hard binarism is brought into play. They take a position we all know to be correct, namely that some people are more talented, dancers, musicians, painters, mathematicians, preachers, basketball players, swimmers etc, (and that some of these people work really hard to make themselves better), to say that one unlimited distinction in power and wealth between people based on the talents of business or inheritance is equally banal, harmless and even pleasurable.

Truly massive power and opportunity differences produced by the corporate market are to be defended at all costs, with the implication is that if you don’t succeed, you are inferior.

Neoliberals want to suppress the power of democratic peoples to challenge corporate capitalism and its wealth based power – and to prevent any kind of relative equality which might allow people to challenge corporate power. Hence the conflation of socialism, fascism and democracy, and the initial wary support of fascism which was common amongst the conservative and pro-capitalist Right at that time for similar reasons.

Containing protest through the State

The basic neoliberal position is that governments by attempting to control or interfere in the workings of the market generate inefficiency and autocracy – but it seems they refuse to consider the effect of corporations interfering in the working of the markets – or make it beneficial as with their denial of the market powers of private monopolies.

Therefore regulatory movements, and labour movements aiming at improvements for workers, or colonised people, must be crushed. Neoliberals had no objection to regulating protest against their favoured economic set up. Mises was, for example hostile to labour movements, and supported their suppression.

This led to some neoliberals supporting apartheid [3]. We are also left with Murray Rothbard’s lament against Martin Luther King:

mass invasion of private restaurants, or mass blocking of street entrances is, in the deepest sense, also violence. But, in the generally statist atmosphere of our age, violence against property is not considered “violence;” this label goes only to the more obvious violence against persons

Essentially, hurting property is as bad as harming people.

“Any lingering idea that neoliberals are anti-state will be dispelled because you can see that, in their own writings, the whole project of neoliberalism is about redesigning the state, especially in questions of law.” [4]

“Even a superficial reading of the primary texts of neoliberals makes this clear. Milton Friedman’s Economic Bill of Rights, James M. Buchanan’s fiscal constitutionalism, F. A. Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, Gottfried Haberler’s proposals for GATT, Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker on European competition law, William Landes and Richard Posner on intellectual property rights—the list goes on.” [5]

To some extent their way forward was through setting up international modes of regulation that were, explicitly non democratic, and not responsive to the people anywhere, such as the WTO.

This is not to say, that post the internationalist age, neoliberals are not comfortable with promoting nationalism and even tariffs if it helps support corporate power, or is seen as a tactic in compelling ‘free trade’. [7]

Unintended consequences (?) of neoliberalism

There is no “one-to-one transposition of blueprints from the pages of Hayek or Haberler or whomever to reality in some unmediated or direct way.” Ideas work through “uptake by domestic actors, who find certain of their own interests fulfilled by adopting neoliberal policies.” [4]

“The only reason why empire works is that it finds willing compradors and domestic elites who will do the work of empire for the metropole for the most part.” [4]

And this may have unintended effects (along with complexities of markets). For example:

Intellectual property rights become part of the WTO not because Friedman or Posner wanted them to be there, but because pharmaceutical companies, software companies, apparel companies, entertainment companies wanted them to be there and were very good at lobbying.

[4]

In other words, putting defense of the corporate market first, opens up further opportunities for important players to twist the market into favouring them, and diminishing the rights of ordinary people – in this case to use their own culture. In other cases we may note neoliberal attempt to defeat people’s right to drink non-poisoned water, and breath non-polluted air, and eat safe food.

Defending corporate liberty to pollute, set up monopolies, set up their own laws and police, or pay for politicians and political propaganda, may well set up the circumstances in which other people’s liberty is severely curtailed. Their liberty may not equal yours.

This loss of public liberty might count as an unintended consequence of neoliberal politics and theory intended to defend liberty but, then again, it might not.

Basic Complex Systems for eco-social analysis again

December 25, 2020

This is another go at formulating a list of basic systems which need to be considered for eco-social analysis. For earlier versions see here, here and here.

Introduction

As a guide to the factors involved in eco-social relations we can point to a number of different, but interacting systems. This list is not claiming to be complete, but it can be used as a set of reminders when we try to make analyses of our contemporary situation, and we may be able to make some general statements about how they interact. The order of relative importance of these systems is a matter for investigation, and the order of their presentation, in this blog post, is not a claim about their relative importance.

The seven main systems, discussed here, are

  • Political;
  • Economic (extraction);
  • Energy;
  • Waste, pollution and dispersal;
  • Information;
  • Technological;
  • Planetary Boundaries (geography) :

All these systems are complex systems, and it is generally impossible to predict their specific course. They are also prone to rapid change, gradual instability, and the ‘seeking’ of equilibrium.

Political System

The political system, includes:

  • the modes of struggle encouraged, discouraged, enabled or disabled,
  • the patterns and divisions (the ‘factioning’) within the State and wider society,
  • the differing effects of different bases of power: such as monetary power, communication power, power through violence or threat, hierarchical power, religious and cosmological power (the power to delimit the official views of the way that the cosmos works), organisational power, etc.,
  • who gets into positions of power and how, and so on,

Politics can affect all the other human systems. What activities (extraction, energy use, organisation etc.) are encouraged or discouraged, the kinds of regulation that apply, what counts as pollution or risk, what information is easily available, and who is to be trusted, and so on.

Political systems can forcibly ignore pollution or the consequences of energy production, economic extraction, the wage system, and so on, effectively rendering them part of a general unconscious, which eventually ‘bites back’.

Economic System

Most of the dominant economic systems currently in action can be described loosely as ‘capitalist’. The economic system involves modes of appropriation, extraction, property, commodification, exchange, circulation of ‘products’, technological systems, energy use, as well as accumulation of social power and wealth and so on. Most of which depend upon the State for their existence and reinforcement, although they may also challenge organisation and politics within the State. There is no inherent stability in current economic systems.

In many sociological theories the patterns of economic organisation and behaviour are known as the ‘infrastructure’ and are held to be determinate of most other social behaviours, primarily because the economic system seems the most obvious determinate of what people have to do in order to survive.

This organisation may have apparently unintended consequences, such as producing periodic crashes, or destroying the ecological base of the economy, and therefore threatening that organisation. They also may have quite expectable consequences, which are downplayed. In capitalism, political and economic patternings tend to be describable as ‘plutocratic’; as wealth allows the purchase of all other forms of power. However, different factions in the State can ally with different or competing factions in the economic system. For example, different government departments or political factions can support different types of energy: fossil fuels, renewables, or nuclear. The political system legitimates and enforces, allowable modes of extraction, property and pollution, and regulates economic behaviour among different social groups. Economics always involves political as well as economic struggle; politics is part of ‘the market’. ‘Crony Capitalism’ is normal capitalism.

Extraction

The Extraction system is part of the economic system, but it might be useful to separate it out from the economic system because extraction is one of the prime ways in which economies interact with ecologies and because different kinds of economies can use similar extraction systems. Extraction not only involves extraction of what gets defined as ‘resources’ (minerals, naturally occurring substances such as oil, coal or timber, and so on) but also the ways that human food gets extracted for consumption, via agriculture, gathering, hunting, industrial fishing, and so on. Ecologies are not passive, and they respond to human or other actions in ways which are often unpredictable in specific, but still disruptive. Ecologies seem to need attention, for survival to be possible in the long term.

Extraction in capitalist and developmentalist societies, often seems harmful to the functioning of ecologies, perhaps because of the need for continual growth, and thus a need for increasing extraction. Clearly, not all forms of extraction need to be destructive of the ecologies and geographies they depend upon. Extraction systems can allow the ecologies to repair after extraction, or attempt to rehabilitate the land. However, repair of ecologies can be considered an expense leading to reduction of profit, and hence is not attractive in a profit emphasising system.

As such, we can distinguish recoverable extraction, in which the ecologies and economies repair the damage from extraction, from irrecoverable extraction in which the ecologies and economies do not repair the damage from extraction within a useful time frame.

The Global Footprint network, suggests that:

Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.6 Earths to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and eight months to regenerate what we use in a year. 

Global Footprint network. Ecological Footprint

If this is correct, then the current extraction and pollution systems are generally irrecoverable, and deleterious for human and planetary survival. Investigating the differences between harmful and less harmful modes of extraction may well produce useful insights.

Economies are not the only possible harmful extractive systems – cosmologies can also require irrecoverable extractive behaviour to build temples, or to show the ‘other-worldly’ specialness of humans, and so on.

Energy System

All life and its resulting ecologies involve transformation of energy. These transformations stretch from transformation of sunlight by plants, the digestion of plants, to thermal gradients in the deep sea, to atomic power. Eco-systems require a system of energy release, energy generation and energy transformation.

Transformation of energy, together with effective ecological functioning, is necessary for any human actions to occur. The human energy system powers all other human systems. Because food is necessary for human labour, cultivation of food can be considered to be part of the energy system. The energy system and its ‘infrastructure’, could seem to be as important as the economic infrastructure.

The human energy system is organised, at least in part, by the political and economic systems, and by the environmental systems available. The environmental system includes possible energy sources from plant material, animal strength and docility, fossil fuels, sunlight, wind and moving water. Human labour, and its organisation, is (and has been) part of the energy system, and while not yet, if ever, superseded completely, can be supplemented and possibly overpowered by technological sources of energy. Coal and oil power, for example, provide masses amounts more directed energy than can human labour, and this ability is important to understanding the patterning and possibilities of the economic and extraction system, and its relationship to colonial/imperial history. Modern military expansion and colonialism, largely depends on this ability to apply large amounts of energy to weaponry, movement and organisation.

Important parts of the energy system include the amounts of energy generally available for use, and the capacity for energy to be directed and applied. Non-directable energy is often wasted energy (entropy), and usually unavailable for constructive use.

Another vital point is that human production of, or using of, energy takes energy. No energy is entirely free.

The availability of energy is influenced by the Energy Return on Energy Input (EREI) or ‘Energy Return on Energy Investment’. The larger amount of units of energy applied to gain a unit of humanly directable energy output, the less excess energy is available.

Fossil fuels have historically had a very high EREI, but it is possible that this is declining otherwise nobody would be tempted by fracking, coal seam gas, tar sands, or deep sea drilling. All of which require large amounts of energy to begin with, have very high risks of extractive destruction, and fairly low profit margins when compared to the dangers.

Renewables and storage currently have a high energy cost to manufacture (and possibly a high extractive cost as well) but for most renewables, after they are installed, the EREI changes, as very little labour, or energy expenditure, is required to gain an energy output – it is more or less free – whereas fossil fuel energy generation requires continual energy use to find and process new fossil fuels and keep the power stations turning, and produce continual pollution from burning.

Social power and economics may affect the ways that energy is distributed, what uses are considered legitimate and so on. However, the energy system also influences what can be done in other systems, and in the costs (social, aesthetic, ecological or monetary) which influence choices about the constituents of energy systems The system’s pollution products, which may be significant factors in producing climate and ecological change, may eventually limit what can be done.

As the energy system determines what energy is available for use, it is not an unreasonable assumption that social power and organisation will be partly built around the energy system, and that changes in energy systems will change energy availability, what can be done or who can do it, and thus threaten established social orders. Threats to established orders will be resisted. If an energy transition does go ahead, it is likely that the established orders will try and preserve the patterns, of organisation, wealth and social power which have grown up under the old system.

One important question is ‘how do we transform the energy system without continuing a damaging extraction and pollution system?’

Waste, Pollution and Dispersal systems

Transformation of materials through energy use, or through energy production, produces ‘waste’. The simplest human society imaginable (and this is an overt simplification), turns edible material into energy and human excreta, which in this case can usually be processed by the ecology – although, even then, dumping excreta into rivers may not help those downstream.

Understanding the Waste, Pollution and Dispersal systems is also vital to understanding possible energy and economic transformations.

In this book we will define ‘Waste‘ as material which can be re-processed, or recycled, by the economy or eco-system, and ‘Pollution‘ as material which is not re-processable within an arbitrary useful time frame, say over hundreds of years or more. ‘Dispersal’ occurs when some essential material is dispersed into the system, and becomes largely unavailable for reuse without ‘uneconomic’ expenditures of finance or energy – as occurs with helium and phosphorus.

When too much waste for the systems to re-process is emitted, then waste becomes pollution. This is what has happened with CO2. CO2 is normally harmless, even required for the system to work, but too much CO2 changes the ways eco and climate systems work. CO2 has also been dispersed into the atmosphere which makes CO2 extraction, which is stated to be essential by the IPCC and IEA for climate stability, difficult and costly in terms of energy expenditure.

These concepts, along with ‘extraction’, directly import the ecosystem into the economy, while pointing out that what counts as allowable waste, pollution or dispersal can change, economically, politically, scientifically and ‘practically’.

Waste, pollution and dispersal from the energy system and from modes of extraction, enter into the political system because that system decides and regulates what can be emitted, and where, and who is too valuable to be poisoned by the pollution. The political makes the laws allowing, diminishing or preventing, pollution. Often localisable pollution is dumped in ‘wasted’ zones or on poorer, less noticeable and less powerful people.

Energy and extraction may not the only significant sources of pollution, and other sources of pollution need to be curtailed, or turned into sources of waste.

Information about pollution from the fossil fuel energy system and from the extraction systems, provide a major driver for energy transformation, partly because this issue seems ‘economically’ politically and energetically solvable, while other sources of pollution seem more difficult to deal with.

However, even facing the problem, provokes a likely politicisation of the information system. How would people, in general, become aware of pollution and who primarily suffers from its effects, especially when it threatens established systems of power?

Information System

What people become aware of, what can be understood or done depends on the Information System. This system determines what feedback is available to conscious humans, about what is happening in general. The information system, in theory, could allow humans to recognise eco-feedback in response to systems such as waste and pollution, or extraction. Information is vital to social functioning, and part of social functioning. Accurate information is even more useful.

Unfortunately, information about complex systems, such as societies or ecologies, is almost always limited and inadequate. Some information may tend to be symbolised rather than literal, because of the difficulties of representing the information in a literal form (these difficulties can be political as much as in terms of human capacity).

Information systems can also hide, or distort, ecological feedback, because of flaws in their design, or because powerful people do not want it to bring the problems to general attention. This adds to confusion, and to the possibilities, that the information system primarily reflects human psychological projection, fantasy and shadow politics.

The political and economic systems also directly impact on the information systems, as politics often centres on propagation of politically or economically favourable information and the inhibition of politically unfavourable or economically information. Economic power, ownership and control of sources of information can also influence what information is collected, processed and made widely available.

Information is not so much ‘received’ as interpreted, so Cosmologies and politics which provide a framework for interpretation, play a big part in how the information is interpreted and, then, what kind of information is transmitted.

Government, Religious, Economic, or military (etc) regulation can be a further important part of both the information and political systems, sometimes affecting what is likely to be transmitted. Information systems, in turn, indicate the availability or coherence of regulation and the understanding of problems and predicaments. Regulation is based on information selection as well as political allegiance, and regulations can be opaque, or hidden, as well as easily decodable. For example, until recently it seemed very difficult to find out what the NSW governments regulations for Renewable Energy Zones, meant in terms of business, building, or connection to the wider system.

The information system does not have to be coherent, thus we can be both informed and disinformed of the progress of climate change and energy transformation by the system. Certain groups are more likely to be informed than others, even though everyone tends to frame themselves as being well informed – especially in an ‘information society’ when being well informed is a matter of status. Information does not have to be accurate to have an effect, it is also part of socially constructed propaganda – as we can see with climate and covid denial, and this can influence political process, victories and inaction.

In summary, most information distortion comes from: economic functions such as business hype, secrecy and deception; from organisational functions such as hierarchy, silo-isation, lack of connection and channels; from politics where information is distorted for strategic advantage; and from the complexity of the systems that the information tries to describe and the inadequacy of the language or approach being used.

Technological Systems

Technological systems enable the kind of energy use, direction and availability, a society can have, the kinds of extraction it can engage in, the range at which political and economic systems can have an effect, the modes of transmission of information, and the types of waste pollution and dispersion which are likely to happen. Technologies also necessarily use properties of the environment and ecologies around them in order to work, and thus interact with those environments and again cause unintended consequences.

People use technology to extend their power over others, extend their capacity, escape regulation, or render previous technologies less dominant, and hence technologies tend to be caught in struggles between groups, thus provoking unintended social consequences.

We could hypothesise that technologies, as used under capitalism (and perhaps elsewhere), tend to extract people out of their environment, and break the intimacy between humans and ecology, or shift human perception onto the technology rather than the world, therefore making it easier to regularly engage in processes of destruction.

In the contemporary world, technologies become objects of fantasy, and metaphors by which we think about the cosmos in general. For example the clockwork universe is now almost replaced by the information processing universe.

Planetary systems and boundaries

Finally we have planetary boundaries. The planetary boundaries are ways of conceiving the limits and constitution of ecosystems, and are, as such, fairly abstract. These boundaries represent systems necessary for human and planetary functioning.

They do not necessarily form the one system, and can be separated out for purposes of analysis. They act as guidelines, and probable reactive limits which are essential for the consideration of ‘eco-social’ relations, and the likely long term success of those relations. Measuring the boundaries may have a wide margin of error, as due to the complexity of these systems and their interactions. We will not know for sure when they will collapse until they do, and once they start collapsing they will affect the resilience of other boundaries. So the known limits on the boundaries will change as we take more notice of them, and keep challenging them.

Exceeding the boundaries almost certainly leads to the rundown, or breakdown, of ecological functioning, and this breakdown then adds difficulties to maintaining other systems. If they are maintained ‘artificially’ then this requires extra energy expenditure, and may have further consequences. Kate Raworth’s ‘donut economics’ presents a quick and easy way of conceiving functional economies in terms of ecological boundaries and human betterment [1], [2], [3].

Any global system which does not preserve or reinforce planetary systems will probably give impetus to global ecological collapse.

The systems are usually listed as involving: climatic stability, biospheric integrity (distribution and interaction between lifeforms, balance between species, rates of extinction etc), water flows and cycles (availability of drinkable, non-poisonous water, and water for general ecological functioning), biochemical flows (phosphorus and nitrogen cycles, dispersal of valuable materials which literally form the ‘metabolic rift’, etc), ocean acidity or alkalinity (which affects the life of coral reefs, plankton and so on), levels of particulates or micro-particulates (which poison life forms), ozone levels, and the introduction of novel entities into the global ecology and their unknown systemic consequences (new chemicals, plastics, microplastics etc.). [4]

It is the functioning and disruption of these boundary systems which make processes of pollution and extraction problematic. Thus they impact directly on society, and appear to limit the kinds of economic growth, extraction, energy and technological systems that can be deployed safely.

Capitalism and developmentalism tend to recognise boundaries only to ignore them, and claim that ingenuity and willpower, will overcome those boundaries forever without limit.

Geographic Systems

Then we have Geographic systems as a subset of planetary boundaries. Geography affects the layout of energy systems, the potential reach of political and economic systems, the ‘natural’ flow of air and water, changes in temperature, the availability of sunlight, and the kinds of extractions which are ‘economic’ or economic in the short term, but deleterious in the long term. Geography is relational, giving layout in space between spaces and constructions. Geography shapes and is shaped by politics, social activity, economics, pollution and so on.

Mountain ranges, forests, plains etc may affect the layout of Renewable Energy, or the RE may affect the land, if trees are felled, fields converted etc. Wind may be severe, putting a limit on size of turbines, or the angles of solar panels. Winter darkness, or heavy seasonal rain can affect the possibilities of solar power.

Geography constitutes the human sense of home, and transformation of geography or relations of geography can produce a sense of ‘unhoming’, or dislocation in place and in the future of place.

Conclusion and Provisional Advice

Recognition of the interactions of these systems, with their differing but interacting imperatives, seems vital to getting a whole and accurate picture of the problems and opportunities presented by energy transition.

All the systems that have been discussed here, are complex systems. They are composed of ‘nodes’ which modify themselves or change their responses in response to changes in the ‘system as a whole.’ The systems are unpredictable in specific. The further into the future that we imagine, the less likely our predictions are to be specifically accurate. We can, for example, predict that weather will get more tumultuous in general as we keep destroying the ecology, but we cannot predict the exact weather at any distance. Complex systems produce surprise and actions often have unexpected consequences. If we seek to apply a policy, we cannot expect it to work exactly as we think it should. For example, the political move to make ‘markets,’ the most important institution, did not deliver either efficiency or liberty, as was expected, almost the opposite in fact. In all cases of actions within complex systems we should seek for unintended consequences. Sometimes the only realistic way to approach unintended consequences is to realise that our theory could not predict those events, and without looking we might never even have seen the events, or realised their connection to what we did. Working in complex systems, all politics becomes experimental.

While complex systems adapt or seek balance, they do not have to arrive at the best conditions for human beings. From a human point of view, they can be maladaptive. For example, a social system can be maladaptive and destructive of our means of living. The ecology could arrive at a balance within which many humans could not live.

People involved in promoting Energy Transformation have to deal with the various complex systems we have discussed above. The complexity does not mean we cannot make any predictions, although we need to treat them cautiously.

  • People engaged in transition have to consider the effects of the political systems involved, and be aware that politics influences what is likely to be possible. A transition may be delayed by political action, and political patterning, no matter how sensible or affordable the transition is.
  • The Economic system will be entangled in the political system, and those who dominate the economic system will have disproportionate input into the political system, and this can cause problems. This recognition reinstates the economic process as both a political and a business process.
  • A transition has to fit in with existing economic patterns, or its supporters may have to be prepared to change those patterns.
  • Patterns of extraction, pollution and dispersal have to be less harmful than previous patterns or the harm will be continued, even if in a different manner.
  • Changing the energy system is a political problem, and may require a change in the economic system as well as in power relations.
  • We need to have the available energy to build the transformed system. As we are supposedly aiming to replace the existing harmful system without lowering the energy availability, this may prove difficult. Where does the energy come from to build the new system if not from the old? And we need to demolish the old system, because of its dangers.
  • We need to avoid using renewables to simply add to energy availability, without reducing energy from fossil fuels.
  • The new system and the path of transformation, has to reduce pollution and extraction damage, or ecological and climate crises will continue, and planetary boundaries will be given no chance to recover. A transition plan which does not consider this problem is probably futile.
  • Considering these problems may lead to conclusions about the necessity of some kind of degrowth.
  • Transition plans should consider diminishing the dispersal of rare and valuable materials. More of what is currently pollution and dispersal has to be transformed to waste, in amounts the systems can process.
  • The current information system does not seem to be functioning in favour of the transition. It seems highly politicised and does not report ecological feedback accurately, either denying crisis, or delaying the supposed arrival of crisis.
  • Our current information system is largely owned and controlled by the neoliberal fossil fuel based establishment, which is defending its power, wealth and ways of living in the world. Without an independent information system, it will be impossible to win the political struggle. At the same time accurate information will be attacked and dismissed as political.
  • Likewise, many people will see accurate information as political, because it potentially disrupts their way of living, or because of interpretation and projection issues.
  • At the least, people engaged in energy transformation have to be aware of the nature of complex systems and the normal arising of unintended and unexpected consequences. We need an information system that allows us to perceive such consequences, without attacking the transformation as a whole.
  • Geography will affect the layout and possibilities of the transition. Renewables appear to require far more land than fossil fuels per unit of energy although fracking and coal seam gas seem to require similar amounts of land and do far more permanent damage to that land.
  • Renewables should probably never be installed through deforestation.
  • Renewables should not monopolise agricultural land. They should co-exist with previous land use, or help rehabilitate the land.
  • We should note the capacity of any new form of energy generation, or large scale technology, to ‘unhome’ people. Fossil fuels are especially bad at this, and often also poisonous, but the information systems tend to find this easier to ignore.
  • The energy transformation should aim to avoid disrupting the planetary boundary systems as much as possible. They should be installed with the longer term target of restoring those systems.
  • Pointing to the range of boundaries will possibly remind people that climate change is not the only problem we face, and it should be clear that no energy, or social, system is going to survive if it violates these boundaries in the long term.

Neoliberal Conspiracy 08: Is the idea of neoliberal conspiracy plausible?

December 20, 2020

[This post is a slightly revised version of the original, and now deleted, end of the post Neoliberal Conspiracy 07]

Is the neoliberal conspiracy theory plausible?

Wealthy people do have power. The more wealth they have the more power they can exert if they choose to. The fewer non wealth based sources of power that are around, or are not phrased as businesses, the more power they can exert. They can buy all the other kinds of power from political representation and legislation, through violence, to communication and information. They can buy status, because they must have virtues if they are wealthy; they must be wealth generators for everyone, and deserve special privileges. Neoliberalism appears to both increase their power and hide opposition to that power. So wealth-power and neoliberalism fit together quite harmoniously or, as in a previous blog post, we can say that crony capitalism is normal capitalism, and neoliberalism intensifies crony capitalism.

It is not difficult to find the main propaganda points of neoliberal ideology in the media and elsewhere. It is widespread, although the analysis of what neoliberals actually do, and aim to achieve, is not. This lack is also significant.

Thus it is easy to find people extolling the virtues of business, the talents of business people, the centrality of ‘the economy’ to prosperity and freedom, the importance of growth, the importance of tax-cuts, the importance of cutting regulation, the importance of free markets, the connection of free markets to liberty, the idea that governments are always useless, the parasitic nature of people on welfare, the evils of socialism and the left, the evils of ‘greentape’, the need to encourage the economy whatever, and so on. Business news is expected, even if ordinary people don’t read it or watch it, union (marxist, or communitarian anarchist) news is not. Neoliberal ideas are widely and repetitively propagated. This is hardly surprising given corporate control of the media.

Thus not only do neoliberalism, crony capitalism and increasing the power of wealth (plutocracy) fit together but the main points of the ideology are so prevalent that they can be taken as ‘common sense.’ They can be referred to and accepted, without needing justification. They must be true. They can seem true a priori.

This does not mean the wealth elites are totally united. For instance, some of them don’t like Trump, even if he is carrying out most of the neoliberal programme, doing quite well at hiding it and cultivating passionate followers to help keep the project going. It is as equally possible they don’t like him because he defrauds other businesses and his word means nothing, as that they dislike him because he is doing something mysterious to benefit ordinary Americans, as is frequently alleged. Some people in dominant groups actually believe in climate change as well, but the media rarely explains why it is happening, and it usually reports climate change in a way suggesting its not that much of a problem for neoliberalism, or we just need to act as individuals. This is the more humanistic version of the conspiracy in action. The result is much the same; maintaining elite wealth and power comes before dealing with climate.

All this implies, the idea of Neoliberal conspiracy is plausible.

Neoliberal explanations of the problems

On the other hand, Neoliberals tend to explain the current crisis of democracy in terms of ‘government,’ which they control but pretend is controlled by others. These controlling and malevolent others appear to include ‘cultural marxists,’ ‘critical race theorists’, postmodernists, socialists or whatever is today’s evil figure. The problems that we face result from some big and dangerous conspiracy of the Left, or are invented by the conspiratorial Left out of thin air (i.e. the climate fraud, the covid fraud, the Biden victory). This is heavily implausible.

I’ve no real idea what cultural marxism or critical race theory is, and I’m not sure the general public would understand the main points of these ideologies either, as put forward by their supposed proponents. These theories don’t seem as widely distributed and explained as they would be if they were important to a major power group. So, if these movements exist, they are clearly not being promoted by a particularly powerful or influential class. They are not widely taken for granted by people. And the general approach in the media, would seem to suggest that you can just say ‘Cultural Marxism,’ or ‘Critical Race theory’ and know that your audience will assume whoever is being associated with these theories must be evil, even if the audience don’t know what they are. Jordan Peterson seems to have made a career out of behaving like this.

From this alone, it seems likely that the opponents of these cultural marxists, whoever they are, have all the relevant power, or the strategy would not work.

[My initial hypothesis was the neoliberals and their supporters could not use the old horror of revolutionary Marxism, because it was nowadays so rare, and so they turned cultural criticism (which is a standard from of Western behaviour, since Plato or the Reformation, depending on your choice) into a dismissible evil, by calling it cultural Marxism. But then I remembered how a few people who got together to protect some protestors from attacks by fascists, became portrayed as a vast, violent and subversive movement who conveniently wore black clothes and supported Joe Biden. So the neoliberals could have pretended that revolutionary Marxists were still a problem, and perhaps by magnifying anti-fa they did.]

Academics, who I suppose are supposed to promote these things, don’t have much power. Universities are nowadays run as neoliberal business, with generally relatively high level business executives in charge (often such overt neoliberal ideologists as Maurice Newman). Universities nowadays aim to bring in money, not change the world. Academics frequently have to ally with the corporate classes for research money, so the days of investigative independence is fading. In Australia academics were among the only people not eligible for the highest government support if their jobs were made redundant by Covid. Again not a mark of power. So the chances are high that those who tell you academics are powerful are lying to cover their own power and give you a relatively powerless enemy to dislike.

Then I guess there are scientists. Obviously neoliberals will argue that scientists are less trustworthy than businesses or the hunches of demagogues (Trump is great at that). The idea seems to be that, if science clashes with neoliberalism, it is necessarily wrong, despite all the successful stuff it does elsewhere. I’m more than a bit skeptical about that position. This does not mean scientists cannot be wrong; they are human (just like neoliberals), but they are the best we have got at the moment, and science tends to be self-correcting. That is how it works, and it is also why scientists and doctors can seem to change their minds quite often; they are ideally persuaded by the evidence, and new evidence is always arising. Yes they defend the positions they are currently holding, but eventually those positions fade – they are not held to be true a priori, and beyond challenge, like neoliberal economics. Scientists are often persecuted by governments and businesses, who remove data from websites, sometimes from libraries, forbid them to talk, smear them when it is handy, or sack them if they don’t give the correct neoliberal response. So they don’t appear to have much that much power as a class. They often can’t even get people in power to consider the desperate state of the planetary ecology. They also don’t have political unity as a class, as there is no particular politics necessarily associated with physics, geology, biology or whatever. Science is not like economics, where neoliberalism will get you places.

There is less obvious basis for scientific power outside the corporate sector anymore, and that is likely subject to neoliberal control. This is why we should not particularly trust pharmaceutical companies, insecticide and genetic engineering companies and so on. They are less concerned with scientific truth than with profit, and in neoliberalism profit is the true measure of everything.

There are a few billionaires who run charities, like Bill Gates and George Soros, and a few tech billionaires who routinely get blamed for the crisis and for deep conspiracies. But the odd thing is that the billionaire class is generally not mentioned as a class, and most members are not named. The people who attack Gates and Soros, rarely attack Rupert Murdoch even though he is clearly political and heavily involved in determining contemporary policies and issuing propaganda. They don’t furiously attack Meg Whitman, Jim Justice, Bill Haslam, Silvio Berlusconi, Suleiman Kerimov, Gautam Adani, Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Tom Steyer, Tommy Hicks Jr, Harold Glenn Hamm, Charles Schwab, Paul Elliott Singer, Joe Ricketts, Betsy DeVos, Linda McMahon, or Charles Koch (founder of the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Freedom Partners and the Koch Network) just to give a few names directly involved in political influencing unlike Bill Gates. Most people probably do not know many other billionaire’s names as they stay out of the media. We can conclude that while the billionaire influence on politics is pronounced, the neoliberal denunciation is highly selective.

Then of course there are those people protesting against being shot by police. This is obviously such a vast and powerful conspiracy they can’t even get the police to stop killing them, and the Republicans can just ignore them as they have such little influence, and some Republicans can support people who shoot at them, or drive into them. Not much ability for masses of evil power there, even if a few statues do get toppled.

Then there are the socialists. Well the Right fusses about them, but I haven’t seen nationalisation, as opposed to privatisation, of an industry for quite a while. In the US getting a general basic wage that people can live on, has not happened, and does not seem to have much hope of success. The US can’t even get a health system which does not bankrupt sick poor people, no matter how much Trump promised he would fix it easily. Furthering control of government by the working classes rather than the corporate class seems to have failed all over the Western World. ‘Socialism’ seems generally used as a swear word, and calling some idea socialist is the supposed end of many arguments. Again this could not happen if socialists had any power.

Not surprisingly because the corporate sector control the media, ‘left wing’ thinking and action, is passively censored; it is hardly mentioned, other than by its opponents, who are not always that accurate in their descriptions. If you want to find out what the Greens stand for, for instance, then you have to go to the Greens, or perhaps approach some lonely person selling a weekly or monthly newspaper on a street corner. The Left does not control the mainstream media or normal talk, so this takes effort and most people cannot be bothered. Why would they be? they are constantly told the Left is evil and idiotic. To most people this is just the way things are, even if they think they have worked it out for themselves.

At the end of all this, we can see that according to neoliberals, the enemies of liberty are a few named billionaires (Gates and Soros) who don’t fully subscribe to neoliberal theory (the huge majority of billionaires can be ignored as they support the establishment, or at least don’t overtly attack it), a few largely disorganised protestors and a bundle of academics who have next to no power in a system devoted to promoting fake news. These people have little in common, other than being despised by neoliberal followers. They do not seem a plausible danger, and if they form a conspiracy it seems extremely badly run and powerless.

Conclusion

Comparing the two ideas, it seems to me, that the idea of neoliberal conspiracy easily wins the plausibility stakes.

Ethics and positivity

December 1, 2020

Strong ethical guidelines

There is a pretty standard argument that goes something like this: ‘moral relativity’ is untrue, because it does not allow us to make strong moral evaluations and act against evil, or evil people. Therefore, we need a clear set of moral guidelines to guide us, and for us to be able to act decisively.

Now this may be correct but it is also extremely problematic.

Which Guidelines?

Firstly which set of moral guidelines do we choose?

Do we choose Christian ones, Buddhist ones, Islamic ones, Confucian ones, or the traditional mode of tribal societies, which we might call negotiated custom?

If, for example, we choose Christian ones, then which Christian ones? There is a considerable range of ethical systems within Christianity, and a fair amount of dispute over them. Its not immediately clear which set of Christian morals we would choose as they are all based on roughly the same set of texts and principles.

Even Sharia law has areas of dispute, and in practice people argue over how it should be applied.

Even the same sets of instructions do not always result in moral agreement. There does not seem to be an ethical ‘mechanism’ which can be rolled out and used infallibly in all cases, or which is immediately obvious, if you do not already accept it.

How do we choose?

Secondly how do we choose our preferred system?

I often suspect that people who make this allegation about the virtue of strong moral systems, have already chosen, or already know what they think people should choose, but let’s postpone that allegation for a while, and ask a question….

“Is it possible to make an ethical decision which is not already based on ethical principles?” How do I judge one set of ethical principles as being better than another, without already having made an ethical choice in favour of some ethical principles?

To rephrase a little, the question of “Should people base their life on this set of ethical principles?” may only be decidable by ethical principles.

For example. “Should we accept text A as the word of God, and should we obey it without question” is a set of ethical questions. We evaluate text A at least partially, by our feeling whether or not it is ethical enough for God to have “dictated it.” If we think not, then it is hard to accept it as a complete guide to ethics.

The assertion about obeying that text, then implies the question of whether it is ethical to obey whatever God is said to have said. People might think that particular ethical question is easy, but it is still an ethical question. Someone could assert that it is not ethical to obey God, because God gave use free will and allowed us to think for ourselves. Or we could assert it is not ethical to obey God because every situation is fresh and the text simply provides examples for that moment, or the moment when it was written or dictated. Or we could assert that some of what God is reported as having said, is contradictory, or immoral judged by other parts of what God is alleged to have said and taught, and we have to evaluate which statement has precidence and when.

Then thee is the old question of whether God give us ethical principles which are ethical only because God says so, or because they are really ethical, based on something else? If morals are only morals because God said so, then is God immoral and tyrannous? Different people give different arguments on these subjects.

Even a text which asserts ethics should be about human survival, makes the ethical assumption that human survival is good. Others may be more skeptical about that ethical assertion. We could at least ask, “at what cost can we privilege human survival?”

Are strong guidelines ethically beneficial, or do they just give us excuses for immorality?

Thirdly, is there any evidence that people with strong ethical guidelines are more ethical, on the whole, than those without? The Inquisition comes to mind. Islamic slavery comes to mind. Religious wars come to mind. The Nazis and Stalinists come to mind. These systems were pretty morally absolutist, yet to people outside them, they could easily look immoral, and need to be resisted.

We may need to ask, whether a demand for strong ethics is often merely a demand for the ability to harm people we don’t like, or think are inferior, with a clear conscience? The demand allows us to oppose those we have defined as evil, without examining whether our own views of righteousness also cause evil, or other harms? If so, then could a demand for strong ethics be immoral?

It is an interesting question because often these arguments in favour of strong morals, come from those who seem committed to acts others might define as evil. For example I’ve recently heard Trumpists declare “One must never tolerate evil” – that is apparently apart from Donald Trump, who is to be supported (not just ‘tolerated’) whatever. There is apparently, to be no question that he is moral as is the movement which supports him, and he is not to be questioned. This does suggest that the strong guidelines are demanded to excuse people from moral reflection, or from facing normal ethical difficulties, and to help them assume that they are correct and righteous without effort, or without much attention to their guidelines or the accuracy of their judgements. Other people might assert that this refusal to consider moral difficulty is, itself, immoral.

It could well be that if a person believed that failure to keep the strong moral code meant eternal damnation, that they would do everything they could to condemn others for their own failures, so as to try and persuade God not to harm them. And if God does harm people forever, is God moral, or are we just providing an excuse that He must be, in fear of what will happen to us if we consider the possibility that God is not moral?

Human psychology seems forever ingenious in its ability to engage in self-justification and self-protection. I could be doing the same, but at least I am aware of the possibility.

Are any parts of Moral Relativism useful?

As implied above it seems impossible to take a moral position without moral assumptions. In which case what others call ‘moral relativism,’ and immoral, may also derive from morality.

A real moral relativist may well not consider it moral to condemn others all the time. They might engage in self-defence, or decide someone could need locking away to protect people, but they may not assert that they were particularly righteous in doing so.

They might accept there is a God, but ethically leave absolute moral judgements to God, who is apparently capable of it and not insist on the righteousness of their own condemnation or dislikes.

They may well accept that an ethical basis of ethics is to admit that ethics is difficult, and possibly not certain in every single case.

They might accept that an ethical case nearly always involves some dispute between the parties involved, and that it was ethical to listen to the other sides, and to learn from the case if possible, before you came to an ethical conclusion.

They might recognise that it was easy for humans to deceive themselves about their morality, and judge actions of members of our own group as good, when those actions would be condemned if performed by members of another group, especially a disliked group.

They might accept that what was ethical action in one situation would not always be ethical in another apparently similar situation, as situations are rarely (if ever) identical.

They might doubt it is ethical to claim to be a moral authority, and hence be suspicious of people who did proclaim themselves to be moral authorities.

They might decide that as human knowledge was limited, the ethical approach to any ethical decision was to regard the decision as provisional and open to change.

They might accept that many acts appear both good and bad, depending on what aspects you focused on.

They might decide it is immoral to force their morality on others. They might also admit the possibility they could be wrong, which again reinforces the idea it is immortal to force their morality on others.

This does not mean that they would always have to choose to “resist not evil” (Matt 5.39), but that they understand it is probable the ‘evil person’, or immoral organisation, thinks they are doing good, as do their followers. They realise this fact could apply to themselves as well, but never-the-less they may act, after consideration, as best they can.

They are likely to accept that in this world we can only achieve imperfect good, and that virtuous acts, and organisations founded to pursue virtue, can generate unintended consequences which may not be judged as good. So we ethically need to pay attention to the consequences of our actions, rather than assume that because we think we are good, or doing good, we can do no harm.

I leave it to readers to think about other ethical goods of ‘moral relativism.’

If you cannot bring yourself to do this, then maybe you are being immoral? But of course you can dispute that ethical position.

Positive thinking and ethics

If you remember, the original position being looked at, apparently suggests moral relativism is harmful and is therefore untrue.

There is no reason a truth cannot be harmful, unpleasant or demoralising. To assert otherwise, is just optimism or positive thinking speaking, and there is nothing necessarily true about that. If someone makes this argument, it could appear they are either refusing to look at the subject, running away from the Truth, or simply trying to hold onto some kind of power.

Some of ex-president Trump’s reasoning seems to follow this pattern.

  • Covid-19 is unpleasant and harmful to the economy therefore it cannot be happening or its only of minor importance. The evidence people are dying in large numbers must be false.
  • Climate change is unpleasant therefore it cannot be happening or its only of minor importance. The evidence indicating it is getting worse must be false, and I will get by whatever.
  • Racism is unpleasant therefore it cannot be happening or its only of minor importance. The evidence that black people in the US get shot and injured by police disproportionately to their numbers in the population must be false. People on my side, cannot be racist, they are just misunderstood.
  • Being taken advantage of by North Korea is unpleasant therefore it cannot be happening or its only of minor importance.
  • Failure to build or extend a wall very far, or get the Mexicans to pay for it, is unpleasant therefore it cannot be happening or its only of minor importance. The wall is a great success.
  • Losing is unpleasant therefore it cannot be happening or its only of minor importance. As loosing is unpleasant, there must be lots of evidence that loosing did not happen, even if I cannot seem to present it in court. People who say I’ve lost are biased, or weak, enemies. Virtue says I have to have won.

Trump’s followers often seem to think, that if Trump (and Republicanism) is not on their side it would be unpleasant and there would be no hope of life getting better, therefore he must be on their side and working for them, and all the evidence he is not is pure fakery.

Sadly the unpleasant is often more accurate, and needs to be faced rather than avoided or concealed.

Harmful positive thinking denies reality.

Beneficial positive thinking can accept the unpleasantness, or “non-optimality” of the situation, but asserts we do not have to be victims, we might still have lots to be grateful for, we can survive, we can struggle to be in the best place possible, we may triumph if we persist in those struggles, or learn a new way of proceeding. We may even have God on our side, but the problems are real, and have to be faced, even the unpleasant problems of ethical uncertainty.

Trump and the deal

November 15, 2020

One of the things that has surprised me about Trump, is that I thought he might do deals – that is what he is supposedly famous for, and people keep telling us he is not a politician and he is always open to a deal. His famous book is The Art of the Deal

But he seems incapable of doing what normal people might call deals.

In normal business, my understanding is that a ‘deal’ leaves all sides relatively happy. In Trump world a deal seems to be an agreement in which Trump wins. Or as the co-author of the Art of the Deal remarks:

To survive, I concluded from our conversations, Trump felt compelled to go to war with the world. It was a binary, zero-sum choice for him: You either dominated or you submitted. You either created and exploited fear, or you succumbed to it — as he thought his older brother had….

In countless conversations, he made clear to me that he treated every encounter as a contest he had to win, because the only other option from his perspective was to lose, and that was the equivalent of obliteration. Many of the deals in “The Art of the Deal” were massive failures — among them the casinos he owned and the launch of a league to rival the National Football League — but Trump had me describe each of them as a huge success….

From his perspective, he operated in a jungle full of predators who were forever out to get him, and he did what he must to survive.

Tony Schwartz I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal’ with Trump. His self-sabotage is rooted in his past. Washington Post. 16 May 2017

The above is, of course, opinion from a person who listened to Trump for a long time, but there are plenty of people around, who allege that in their direct experience of him, as a business person, Trump’s idea of a deal was to not pay contractors or suppliers, and threaten them with legal warfare if they complained.

Obviously I don’t know how true any of these assertions are, but it seems characteristic of his visible politics, and he supposedly was involved in over 3,500 law suits before entering politics (see here for for an expanded list) – and some of his frauds like Trump University [2] and the Trump Foundation [3], [4] are quite well known – so its not implausible. It also appears that he took money from his presidential campaign funds and transferred it to his own businesses.

One example of the failure to make a deal is that, despite the Republicans controlling the Senate and the Reps for two years, Trump was unable to get a deal to improve Obamacare. He kept promising that one will turn up in the next fortnight, but it never happens. He could not even get the Republicans to fund his fence with Mexico. He even threatened to close the government over it towards the end of 2017, without any one yielding to the deal. He blamed Democrats, despite having Republican majorities, but he did not, would not, or could not, do a deal with Democrats. He had to take the money from other programmes. I quote from wikipedia to save space:

Trump signed a declaration that the situation at the southern border constitutes a national emergency.[101] This declaration ostensibly made available $600 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, $2.5 billion from the United States Department of Defense[b] (including anti-drug accounts), $3.6 billion from military construction accounts, for a total of $8 billion when added to the $1.375 billion allocated by Congress.[103] Around February 21–22, it emerged that more than a third of those funds had already been spent for their original purposes, and were therefore unavailable.[104][105]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_wall#cite_note-105

When both the Democrats and Republicans passed a motion to stop the US participating in Saudi Arabia’s war with Yemen, Trump did not deal, he vetoed it.

Some people say he has sabotaged two peace deals with the Taliban – but he has carried out his threat to bomb the shit out of them, apparently dropping more bombs than were used in all Bush Jr’s wars.

But then he has apparently carried out more attacks on Somalia than any other US President – and Somalia is not exactly a threat.

And the US is no longer required to report how many people it has killed through drone warfare – an achievement, but perhaps not a deal.

He did not do a deal in Syria, he just abandoned the US’s Kurdish allies, even while he kept troops there. He did not do a deal with the Iraqi government when they insisted he remove troops, he just kept the troops there.

He did not do a deal with Iran, he just withdrew. He seems to have deliberately destabilised a peace agreement and pushed Iran towards nuclear weapons. He could be looking for a war there. That is one reason he could be stacking the Pentagon.

He did not manage a deal with China. China is still pressing in the South China Seas, and suppressing democracy in Hong Kong. The Trade War with China, which he thought was easily won, is still going, with no obvious advantage to the US – although lots of taxpayers money has been used to prop up big agribusiness. It might be possible to think this is a good thing, but its not a deal.

He failed to get a deal with North Korea, and testing nukes continues.

He did not improve the deal with Paris agreement. He just withdrew.

The usual impression I get from international meetings is that few world leaders think Trump is great at making deals, and they seem to have little evidence he is any good. He appears to spend most of his time at such meetings saying how wonderful he is, how bad everyone else is, and talking with Putin in secret.

I don’t know of anything the US has got from his deals with Putin, but perhaps he benefits a bit.

The only deal I know that seems decent was the economic treaty between Serbia and Kosovo. I don’t know how much he had to do with that. I have read that he claimed he was ending centuries of bloodshed, in a war which ended 20 years ago, and Serbia still does not recognise Kosovo’s right to exist.

The middle East treaty seems to have been about giving Israel what they wanted, abandoning the Palestinians and getting signatures from people who were not at war and shared no common borders.

He seems to have even refused to talk with people in the US who were protesting about black people being shot and beaten up by police. Instead he seems to have encouraged the police violence that started the riots, and praises white guys for shooting bullets and paint pellets at rioters. No deal there. He seems to have decided it was to his political advantage to keep the situation tense, rather than to do a deal.

Likewise rather than deal, he seems to have overridden States’ rights, so as to push higher pollution levels on States that wanted to make their own laws about what was acceptable.

So he does not deal that well.

Most politicians would probably not insist on total subservience and loyalty to themselves. That seems to be Trump’s idea of a deal. Consequently it is not really a surprise that after years of FoxNews’ unswerving support, and the kind of lovey-dovey interviews he can cope with, he threatens to destroy them after they reported he lost.

To most people this could seem like a political attack on free speech – but hey its Trump and he is not a politician.

I don’t know of any deals done with the Democrats, but his 4th July Speech seems to reveal his attitude to deals again. This is traditionally a speech in which Presidents try to draw Americans together. Trump used it to blame the ‘the left’ (which to his audience would mean Democrats) for everything that was wrong. He tried to make them appear Unamerican.

as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure.

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children…

In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.  If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.  It’s not going to happen to us….

That is why I am deploying federal law enforcement to protect our monuments, arrest the rioters, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law….

 The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions….. [and so on and so on]

Remarks by President Trump at South Dakota’s 2020 Mount Rushmore Fireworks Celebration | Keystone, South Dakota. White House 4 July

Yet again, it appears that if you don’t completely admire and agree with Trump, you are evil and his enemy – there is no deal. There is certainly no attempt to understand what is going on.

That seems to be his main political strategy: Don’t deal, and stir up the conditions for civil war, to stop the other side from winning.

And now he won’t go, and personally I worry about what might happen next.

And he is ignoring Covid, so it will get worse and at best make Biden’s job harder. Biden has to deal with the Republicans, misinformation, and the disease, plus handle climate change.

It might be suggested that aiming to win, or stop the other side from winning, all the time, is not compatible with Democracy or dealing. Democracy needs people to be able to win, lose and share with other citizens.

****

For References for the “Trump at war” section see:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/donald-trump-defense-contractors

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/record-7423-bombs-dropped-afghanistan-2019-report-200128142958633.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/28/us-afghanistan-war-bombs-2019

https://ips-dc.org/ending-the-myth-that-trump-is-ending-the-wars/

https://ips-dc.org/remember-trumps-choices-war-walls-and-wall-street/

https://upstatedroneaction.org/wp/trumps-military-drops-a-bomb-every-12-minutes-and-no-one-is-talking-about-it/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-killings-count/

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/trump-yemen-war-civilian-deaths/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/02/trumps-plan-to-withdraw-from-somalia-couldnt-come-at-a-worse-time/