Brilliant takedown of the recurring apocalypticism in liberal critcism. The parallel to Slater's 1970s anxieties really nails how these "civilization is ending" framings come in cycles, usually right before the systme adapts. I've noticed this pattern in tech policy debates too where everyone panics about disruption until markets and institutions figure out guardrails. The self-critique capacity argument flips the whole postliberal narrative on its head.
The problem with this is all the unexamined assumptions involved in treating "markets," "liberalism," "capitalism," and "neoliberalism" as interchangeable. Markets are at least as old as the riverine civilizations.
Capitalism and the wage system were created in early modern times in close alliance with the absolute state, and relied heavily on land enclosure and state-imposed labor discipline for their creation.
Neoliberalism is a project just a few generations old, and relies heavily on states to create artificial comparative advantage via protectionist enclosure by draconian IP accords and massive subsidies to extended logistic chains.
A market economy simply requires allowing market-clearing prices to form without hindrance, regardle of the prior definition of property rules. Capitalism, as a system of rent-extraction -- and even more so neoliberalism -- requires a specific form of property rules, centered on what Polanyi called "fictitious commodities." In particular, it requires property rules that create artificial abundance of land and resource inputs, and artificial scarcity of information and technique.
Good review of a book every person who identifies as a liberal should read. I feel like a big part the technology revolution that has allowed remote work needs to be an integral part of the economy and not necessarily treated as optional. But these workers need to have the same benefits as the people in the so called drudge jobs. And also we need to have strong communities in real life and affordable housing with affordable commutes because especially given the job displacements from AI, automation and outsourcing to other countries which is still ongoing. This book seems targeted to roughly the same audience as Klein and Thompsons Abundance but seems to have a more skeptical attitude toward growth per se. 🤨
I think Lindsey is onto something in arguing that people need more face-to-face communities to belong to. Unlike those particularly religious communities, I think they should be more about bring many different people together in regular neighbourhoods and towns.
I live in England and earlier this year, I was part of a to project to run citizens' assemblies in a nearby town, to get people with many different views talking about what mattered to their town. Kind of like a New England town meeting, but we split the assembly into small groups and let them set the agenda. Participatory budgeting, using town meetings to decide how local councils spend money locally, is another example of the sort of innovation we need. First pioneered in Brazil in the '90s, it's now catching on more widely.
Robert Putnam had a similar point in Bowling Alone (2000), when he argued there was a difference between groups that were confined to the same social/economic/political group and those that brought different people together, like the bowling leagues.
I don't know the real intention of this review but it made me certain that I don't need to buy/read this book. "The Unpopulist" does a great job of pointing me toward or away from books which stretches my book buying budget. The reviews here are so helpful.
The notion that bothers me most from what I could gather in this review was this quote:
"we need to marshal capitalism’s capacity for technological and social innovation to develop new social arrangements that ease the strains of dependence on the impersonal system by supporting strong, functional face-to-face relationships."
The reality is that capitalism marshals us not the other way around.
I was in Phoenix in the 70s, too (also the 50s and 60s and beyond) and got ahold of Earthwalk, recommended by a friend. One advantage of old age is looking back at the trends and cycles and, believe it or not, sharing that with young people who are truly interested. A good sign.
>And both remind us that liberalism's secret weapon is its capacity for constructive self-criticism-something its competitors can never replicate.
Maybe start by killing the idea that only Liberalism allows for self criticism, even Monarchy, the conservative African countries do a lot of self criticisms of themselves. There's self criticism even in Iran!
And most of these Queer Feminists, Radical Feminists and Intersectionalists would call themselves liberals as well, the ones that specifically have a problem with Market Capitalism are "Socialists or Communist ones". Most of these people do not hate liberalism. The defining quality of the ones that do is like socialism or something else not "Intersectionality" something that doesn't on its own oppose liberalism.
The column rejects postliberal authoritarianism, but it concedes too much to its underlying premise. It seems to agree that capitalism must justify itself by delivering social cohesion, spiritual meaning, or psychological fulfillment. But capitalism’s moral defense is not that it cures loneliness or produces “flourishing” as a collective outcome, rather that it recognizes individual rights.
The recurring critique of individualism, consumerism, and abundance gets it backwards. If modern life feels hollow to some, the culprit is not individualism or markets but a culture that denigrates reason, ambition, and self-interest, which leads to unearned guilt for prosperity. It then blames capitalism for the resulting guilt and begins viewing prosperity as evil. This contradiction explains why it appears that "America so prosperous, yet so unhappy."
What liberalism needs is a recognition that individuals pursuing their self-interest is a profoundly moral act, which in turn produces flourishing societies.
IOW, rights-protecting government and capitalism works because it is moral.
I used to appreciate the ability of some human beings to intellectualize and postulate on the complexities of our current poly/meta crisis. But as of late I’ve grown to loathe the debate as a waste of time and energy. Why?
Because in the richest and most powerful nation state in the history of the world we can’t even agree on the obvious and come to consensus on a remedy.
Such common sense things like:
corruption is running the day, our country and government;
in a wealthy and civilized society, access to health care should be a human right, regardless of employment or financial status;
our children deserve to be well-educated and not subjected to the existential threat of being randomly mutilated or killed by a stranger with a gun;
No need to go on, but I could.
The simple answer in this moment of time is collectively we have lost our morality to the acquisition of money.
And even if you don’t want to play this game, you are forced to because to not crave money means you are the lowest, most exploited and least deserving among us. You are poor and therefore deserve no decent food to eat, no safe or pleasant shelter, no health care, no education. To each according to their own contribution to the GDP is our implicit creed.
You’re a cop, teacher, nurse, childcare or eldercare worker? How about a fast food or retail worker? Get multiple jobs so you can maybe afford to go to the doctor if you get really sick or a home one day, you slacker. (Primary school teachers must have master’s degrees in education! Ridiculous!)
I’m sick and tired of this game and I don’t want to talk about it or play it anymore.
Brilliant takedown of the recurring apocalypticism in liberal critcism. The parallel to Slater's 1970s anxieties really nails how these "civilization is ending" framings come in cycles, usually right before the systme adapts. I've noticed this pattern in tech policy debates too where everyone panics about disruption until markets and institutions figure out guardrails. The self-critique capacity argument flips the whole postliberal narrative on its head.
The problem with this is all the unexamined assumptions involved in treating "markets," "liberalism," "capitalism," and "neoliberalism" as interchangeable. Markets are at least as old as the riverine civilizations.
Capitalism and the wage system were created in early modern times in close alliance with the absolute state, and relied heavily on land enclosure and state-imposed labor discipline for their creation.
Neoliberalism is a project just a few generations old, and relies heavily on states to create artificial comparative advantage via protectionist enclosure by draconian IP accords and massive subsidies to extended logistic chains.
A market economy simply requires allowing market-clearing prices to form without hindrance, regardle of the prior definition of property rules. Capitalism, as a system of rent-extraction -- and even more so neoliberalism -- requires a specific form of property rules, centered on what Polanyi called "fictitious commodities." In particular, it requires property rules that create artificial abundance of land and resource inputs, and artificial scarcity of information and technique.
Good review of a book every person who identifies as a liberal should read. I feel like a big part the technology revolution that has allowed remote work needs to be an integral part of the economy and not necessarily treated as optional. But these workers need to have the same benefits as the people in the so called drudge jobs. And also we need to have strong communities in real life and affordable housing with affordable commutes because especially given the job displacements from AI, automation and outsourcing to other countries which is still ongoing. This book seems targeted to roughly the same audience as Klein and Thompsons Abundance but seems to have a more skeptical attitude toward growth per se. 🤨
I think Lindsey is onto something in arguing that people need more face-to-face communities to belong to. Unlike those particularly religious communities, I think they should be more about bring many different people together in regular neighbourhoods and towns.
I live in England and earlier this year, I was part of a to project to run citizens' assemblies in a nearby town, to get people with many different views talking about what mattered to their town. Kind of like a New England town meeting, but we split the assembly into small groups and let them set the agenda. Participatory budgeting, using town meetings to decide how local councils spend money locally, is another example of the sort of innovation we need. First pioneered in Brazil in the '90s, it's now catching on more widely.
Robert Putnam had a similar point in Bowling Alone (2000), when he argued there was a difference between groups that were confined to the same social/economic/political group and those that brought different people together, like the bowling leagues.
I don't know the real intention of this review but it made me certain that I don't need to buy/read this book. "The Unpopulist" does a great job of pointing me toward or away from books which stretches my book buying budget. The reviews here are so helpful.
The notion that bothers me most from what I could gather in this review was this quote:
"we need to marshal capitalism’s capacity for technological and social innovation to develop new social arrangements that ease the strains of dependence on the impersonal system by supporting strong, functional face-to-face relationships."
The reality is that capitalism marshals us not the other way around.
I was in Phoenix in the 70s, too (also the 50s and 60s and beyond) and got ahold of Earthwalk, recommended by a friend. One advantage of old age is looking back at the trends and cycles and, believe it or not, sharing that with young people who are truly interested. A good sign.
it's just social media bro. it's not capitalism or liberalism or anything like that. you solve this problem with flip phones, not revolution
>And both remind us that liberalism's secret weapon is its capacity for constructive self-criticism-something its competitors can never replicate.
Maybe start by killing the idea that only Liberalism allows for self criticism, even Monarchy, the conservative African countries do a lot of self criticisms of themselves. There's self criticism even in Iran!
And most of these Queer Feminists, Radical Feminists and Intersectionalists would call themselves liberals as well, the ones that specifically have a problem with Market Capitalism are "Socialists or Communist ones". Most of these people do not hate liberalism. The defining quality of the ones that do is like socialism or something else not "Intersectionality" something that doesn't on its own oppose liberalism.
The column rejects postliberal authoritarianism, but it concedes too much to its underlying premise. It seems to agree that capitalism must justify itself by delivering social cohesion, spiritual meaning, or psychological fulfillment. But capitalism’s moral defense is not that it cures loneliness or produces “flourishing” as a collective outcome, rather that it recognizes individual rights.
The recurring critique of individualism, consumerism, and abundance gets it backwards. If modern life feels hollow to some, the culprit is not individualism or markets but a culture that denigrates reason, ambition, and self-interest, which leads to unearned guilt for prosperity. It then blames capitalism for the resulting guilt and begins viewing prosperity as evil. This contradiction explains why it appears that "America so prosperous, yet so unhappy."
What liberalism needs is a recognition that individuals pursuing their self-interest is a profoundly moral act, which in turn produces flourishing societies.
IOW, rights-protecting government and capitalism works because it is moral.
I used to appreciate the ability of some human beings to intellectualize and postulate on the complexities of our current poly/meta crisis. But as of late I’ve grown to loathe the debate as a waste of time and energy. Why?
Because in the richest and most powerful nation state in the history of the world we can’t even agree on the obvious and come to consensus on a remedy.
Such common sense things like:
corruption is running the day, our country and government;
in a wealthy and civilized society, access to health care should be a human right, regardless of employment or financial status;
our children deserve to be well-educated and not subjected to the existential threat of being randomly mutilated or killed by a stranger with a gun;
No need to go on, but I could.
The simple answer in this moment of time is collectively we have lost our morality to the acquisition of money.
And even if you don’t want to play this game, you are forced to because to not crave money means you are the lowest, most exploited and least deserving among us. You are poor and therefore deserve no decent food to eat, no safe or pleasant shelter, no health care, no education. To each according to their own contribution to the GDP is our implicit creed.
You’re a cop, teacher, nurse, childcare or eldercare worker? How about a fast food or retail worker? Get multiple jobs so you can maybe afford to go to the doctor if you get really sick or a home one day, you slacker. (Primary school teachers must have master’s degrees in education! Ridiculous!)
I’m sick and tired of this game and I don’t want to talk about it or play it anymore.