BlackRock and Stakeholder Capitalism
How many people know what this is? Without Googling or Wikipedia-ing it, I'd like an honest answer.
There's a reason for why I'm asking, one that at its core has to do with the relative dominance of stakeholder vs. shareholder theory among those who identify themselves as "capitalists" -- and especially the upper echelon who essentially own the world. But I'd first like to get an idea about how familiar we are with this before diving in.
There's a reason for why I'm asking, one that at its core has to do with the relative dominance of stakeholder vs. shareholder theory among those who identify themselves as "capitalists" -- and especially the upper echelon who essentially own the world. But I'd first like to get an idea about how familiar we are with this before diving in.
Comments (65)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock
Famous move w/Spencer Tracy. 7.7 on IMDB.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047849/reference
The firm has hired notable policy-makers over the years, and two executives with the New York-based asset manager on their resumes are now set to hold prominent roles in President-elect Joe Biden's cabinet."
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-to-know-about-blackrock-larry-fink-biden-cabinet-facts-2020-12?r=US&IR=T
Somehow I'd never (to the best of my memory) seen any movie with Spencer Tracy until I caught a snippet of Inherit the Wind on TCM the other day. Wasn't super into the movie, but goddamn could that guy act. It's like method-before-method (and in some ways less pretentious.) 99% of people in old movies seem like hypnotized robots - but he's amazing. News to no-one but me, but still good news nonetheless.
I went on a 100 mile trek through the Owyhee Desert once. I passed through a region called Black Rock. When it comes to money, I let my fund managers handle the investments. I've spent as much time and money making myself an investment guru as I have in making myself an expert on Covid and the vaccines: None.
Very true -- but you'd be surprised by how few know what they are.
The point of my asking this, as I mentioned above, is that they're one of the more important players in the economy. They own significant shares of major corporations, etc.
BlackRock's chairman and CEO is Larry Fink. He's been pushing a "new" ideology called "stakeholder capitalism" -- which means emphasizing the importance of the community, employees, and world in which the business operates, rather than simply increasing shareholder value. That means more investment in ESG funds, using their proxy vote to elect directors on various boards, etc. We saw it this week with their backing of the nominees of Engine no.1 at Exxon. I think that's significant.
What do we make of this? More window-dressing? A much-needed transitional step away from Friedman/neoliberal economics?
It's monopolism window-dressed as "socially conscious" economics. Concentration of financial, economic, and political power in the hands of self-interested elites. Power taken out of the hands of people and governments by stealth.
I'm over my head on this, but here's my speculation: A system that imposes a fiduciary duty (look that up if you don't know what it really entails) upon anyone, which said duty shoe-horns itself into legality, ethical and moral righteousness and defense, is the concentration of power in the hands of self-interested elites. It is power taken out of the hands of the people and governments openly and brazenly. It is self-interest alone.
The scenario you set forth, if I understand it, may be a re-awakening of what used to be called "enlightened self-interest." If I remember Adam Smith, et al, these guys who first articulated free-market capitalism, had this old fashioned notion that, while "greed is good" it cannot stand alone. First, you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg just because you want to eat goose. Second, you don't want that goose to rise up and cut your fucking head off with a guillotine. That's called "enlightenment." People used to be enlightened, before greed ran away with them, removing ethics and morals from the fiduciary duty, and then considering such to be moral and ethical, providing a defense to any who would invoke it in a court of law.
So, if I'm right about what you are saying, it sounds like some folks may be waking up. They see the goose dying, or the guillotine being rolled out.
You're blessed to be in a position where you can rely on others to manage your money while you focus on stuff more important to you. Hopefully the people (the grunts in the company) managing your money are also able to carve out time to pursue spiritual things. I can't quite grok the moral of what you've said, or why you tagged me, but your lack of time-investment in those things is predicated on others investing time in them.
I tagged you because you were the first to swim so far from the OP, and I felt in need of company as I did likewise. A movie, and the desert, are far indeed from the OP, and further still from those who choose, of their own volition, to make lots of money managing mine, even if it results in their failure to pursue the spiritual. They get latte's delivered to their cubicles, donning nice suit and tie, extending pinkies over wine and cheese, groveling before their overlords with overtime, and secretly wishing they were me. Or not. Their choice.
Quit paying them.
P.S. I don't know where you get "disdainful" from. I merely said I had not chosen to invest the time and resources to become as expert at what they do as they are. Like Covid, or a thousand other pursuits.
Quoting James Riley
You don't get the story because you are obstructing yourself. You are reading your assumptions into it. Where the hell did I ever say I don't respect these people? Where the hell did I ever imply I was disdainful of their trade? Pump the brakes, csalisbury. My story of the Black Rock desert is no different than your story of the Black Rock movie: irrelevant to the OP.
If I didn't respect the people who manage my money then I sure as hell would not let them manage it. To the contrary, I specifically trust them with my money because they were willing to put in the time and effort to learn shit that I was not willing to learn. I'm not a brain surgeon, or a rocket scientist, or an infectious disease expert, or a thousand other things, either. I don't play an instrument but I pay for music. What does that say about me in your book?
Quoting James Riley
That was in response to your post:
Quoting csalisbury
You crying over the poor wretched slaves making a metric shit ton of money on Wall Street solicited my response, above.
In addition, that is not necessarily true. It makes an assumption that if they were not doing it, I would have to do it myself. Wrong. I don't have to invest my money in the markets.
I guess I should have responded to fishfry instead of you. Maybe I could have avoided all your misunderstanding.
Quoting csalisbury
Agreed. That's why I posted about the desert, and letting others manage my money for me. Does that make me ignorant, in having never heard of the financial BlackRock? Maybe so, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I wouldn't lose sleep, no - like I said I don't think it says anything about someone to know or not know about blackrock.
:100:
:joke:
Never heard of it and I don't think this diminishes me. There are lots of things I don't care to know about.
:100:
I tend to agree, as much as I want to believe the opposite. Seemingly nothing will happen with the merchant value system unless people intervene -- and that means governments. Still, it's surprising to see BlackRock and others use their proxy voting to back directors, etc. That's a good thing, regardless of the fact that we need 100X more effort.
Quoting James Riley
Yes. In my research, however, fiduciary duty isn't what I thought it was. I thought it was basically the law that CEO's and boards of directors have a legal obligation to make the most money for shareholders. It turns out that isn't quite true. It's more of a dogma that's been held for a long time, and we need to look no further than 50s and 60s corporate behavior to see an alternative. Shareholder theory -- what's basically the "Friedman principle" -- has dominated ever since, but only now beginning to crack.
This is being replaced by "stakeholder theory," pushed by guys like Larry Fink and others. It's really just a softer version of capitalism, in the same way as Keynesian economics was still capitalism. But maybe that's the path that needs to be taken, who knows? I'd prefer to see much quicker reaction and, ultimately, the overthrowing of corporatism (and capitalism) altogether, in favor of real democracy (i.e., extending to the workplace as well) -- but I'm also a pragmatist. If that's a pipe dream, short of a revolution, then I'll take whatever viable path there is. If we have to go push through by manipulating the game these plutocrats are playing, then we should do so and hit them where it hurts. We see glimpses in Engine No. 1's efforts, in court cases, and even in things like the Gamestop short squeeze. I say: good. We should be attacking from all angles, both within the political system and, perhaps more importantly, from within the economic system as well.
Quoting James Riley
Yes -- irrelevant.
Quoting Tom Storm
No one mentioned anything about being diminished. Yet I would argue it's still worth knowing something about, given their power. In the same way as knowing something about Standard Oil in the early 20th century would have been worthwhile.
I hear you. I was being flip. Sorry. I was not saying anyone else had mentioned 'diminished' I introduced this as a personal reflection on missing bits of knowledge. I am skeptical that knowing history or politics is of much use, unless you are in a direct position to influence or make substantive changes.
Well there's an argument that they're worthwhile in their own right, regardless of use. But I do take more of the position that unless they're applied, it's basically a kind of hobbyism. But I've argued the same thing about philosophy, too.
Politics and history helps one understand the current state of the world, why things are how they are, how they got here, how they function, and so on. That's as worthwhile as studying physics or chemistry, in my view. Perhaps more so.
Personally, I don't think capitalism is the problem. The problem is self-described capitalists who externalize the costs of their activities onto those who have not agreed to assume those costs in a knowing, arm's length, free-market transaction. That, and the ownership of the state by corporations, resulting in limits on liability, and shareholders being protected from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions. All this hiding behind the skirts of big government is inimical to true capitalism. They also avail themselves of artificially low prices for goods, services and labor provided by their communist and dictatorial/junta partners-in-crime over seas. And tax loopholes. In short, they are parasites.
Well that depends on what "true capitalism" is. Many influential people, like Friedman and Ayn Rand and others, would probably define "true capitalism" as free-market or a laissez-faire capitalism. But never in history has that existed. It's an abstraction, purely theoretical -- namely, a pipe dream. Even if taken as a kind of unachievable "limit" or ideal to move towards, it's still ridiculous. But because it's never been achieved, in the same way as "true socialism" has never been achieved, it always allows proponents to claim we need more actions to get closer to that ideal in order to see the promised results -- more deregulation, privatization, "Big Government" getting out of our lives, etc. Let the market decide and there will be a natural equilibrium achieved, and so forth.
However sincere these people may be, I think after 40 years of this ideology being put into practice (neoliberalism) and the results of it, people are starting to see that perhaps they've been used as a cover for simply giving the capitalist class what they've wanted all along: more power for themselves. They've always hated the New Deal, for example, and had been pushing for its dismantling for years. With Reagan, it was finally achieved in the political realm. Now the foxes were guarding the hen house. Look at John Shad of the SEC and others around this time.
Window-dressing most probably, in that they probably wouldn't do anything that doesn't benefit them in the first place and I'd assume care very little about anything else.... but that doesn't mean that some of the time what benefits them, cannot also benefit the population at large.
Noblesse oblige... Ideally we'd have no one group dominating others, but if we cannot manage that, maybe it's better to have a group identified as such, than to have nameless and invisible groups working in the background. At least they have a window to dress.... Maybe that's part of what's going on here, they are starting to feel the heat of being pushed into the light?
Well in the case of BlackRock it's kind of interesting. The CEO is a lifelong Democrat, and so already buys into this stakeholder theory version of capitalism. But besides that, when it comes to asset managers, where the mentality isn't so short-term, it does well to consider things like climate change -- it's sensible, just as it is with insurance companies. Therefore, shifting investments to ESG funds (which no doubt have their issues) and promoting more transparency and accountability for climate-related strategies seems like a self-interested move. These aren't stupid people.
When it comes to industries most culpable for climate change, like Big Oil and Big Agro, while they are beginning to acknowledge climate change is real and will try to convince everyone that everything they do is "green" are always going to be the ones most resistant to change, as it directly effects their livelihoods. For asset managers, who make their money off of how much they make for their investors (along with fees), there's a different set of priorities. If they see the energy sector as unprofitable in the long term (meaning fossil fuels), it stands to reason they will divest -- if they have any sense at all and, again, this is assuming they're not idiots.
Too little too late, perhaps.
Yes that seems like a plausible explanation. Though I'd guess that a general shift in public opinion and demand for 'green assets' also plays a role here... by which I mean they presumably also see some direct short term profit in shifting these policies. I remember I asked specifically for investment in green funds the last time I discussed my investment strategy with my bank... I'm probably not the only one.
And it is on that point where I don't know why the opposition has not called them on it: "You want true capitalism? Okay, no more government sanction/recognition of the corporation. You are all now strictly, jointly and severally liable for your actions. Sound good? You now have to pay others for the costs you impose upon them. Sound good? No more statutory limits on liability. Sound good? No more tax exemptions. Sound good? You want to use the commons, then you pay fair market value. Sound good? No? What's the matter? I thought you wanted government out of the way? How's about you are prohibited from benefiting from communism, dictatorships and other 'emerging markets'?"
I could go on, but you get the picture. True capitalism, which they claim they want, would crush them. They are a bunch of government tit-sucking hypocrites and true capitalism would show them for the cowards they are. Show me a true risk-taking, bootstrapper who did everything on his own and I'll kiss Ayn Rand's dead ass.
Reasonable people can come to the table and agree it would be nice to free up cowardly held capital for investment by providing limitations on liability, etc. But the so-called "capitalists" should first post a bond and promise to refrain from whining like a little bitch about the paltry taxes placed on their winnings to cover a fraction of the damages they impose on society, and to build the infrastructure they use. They should also be precluded from whining about regulations designed to protect them from each other and to protect the citizens from them.
But somehow the left has let them turn the narrative, steal our flag, and turn "liberal" into a dirty word. I guess if we allow that, we deserve it.
End rant
This is sometimes true, and may largely depend on the inferences you make from the history you accept. I studied history once. But it need not be compulsory and I have no need for it these days. Was it Tolstoy who said, 'History would be an excellent thing if it were only true."
Quoting Xtrix
Exactly.
Overthrowing capitalism is easier said than done. Everyone can criticize but few can offer workable solutions. "Real democracy" remains a mystery, like "real capitalism" and "real socialism". The basic question remains what it was at the time of Marx and his Capital: what can we replace capitalism with?
The examples of Soviet Russia and Maoist China suggest that Marxist economies tend not to last without capitalist assistance and eventually are forced to reintroduce some forms of capitalism to avoid total collapse. By the way, some would describe Keynesian economics as "Fabian Socialism".
This is fantastic. :lol:
I agree wholeheartedly. Of course Friedman was too clever not to see this — so his line would be something like “no subsidies or bailouts, let the market punish and eliminate the weaker companies” while keeping corporate personhood, etc.
Yep, they all are. And they are smart enough to fool the stupid people into thinking they are a bunch of self-made, risk-taking, boot-strapping captains of daring-do; wild stallions running free and creating jobs and tech (they suck off of publicly funded universities) and blessing us with their hard and smart work ethic. "Look at me! You can be like me too! Just work harder and smarter, like (for) me! I will trickle it down to you!" And working class, conservative Republicans swallow that shit, hook, line and sinker: willing to die for them.
True capitalism would be great. It's just that all the self-described capitalists are "Socialism for me, capitalism for you."
Eh, I don't even think it would be great -- it'd be a disaster, in fact. At the core of it -- private ownership and profit-making -- are values I don't fully agree with. They've been around a long time, and it's hard to even see alternatives to them, but I think it is as worthy of questioning as systems of slavery, feudalism, and caste.
A system where communities control their lives through collective involvement and engagement, similar to what is done politically in small towns here in New England, seems like a reasonable alternative. The difference is simply including economic affairs, i.e. the workplace.
For some reason, everywhere else we want and expect some say, but inside the buildings of Lowes, Home Depot, Wal Mart, Wendys, McDonalds, Starbucks, Krugers, Dunkin Donuts, and so on -- we resign ourselves to our allotted roles, relegated to whatever tasks we're charged with -- settling for whatever hours, wages and benefits they give deem worthy of giving us. Everything gets decided from a central location someone -- some headquarters, where a handful of people on the board of directors, elected by a handful of major shareholders, and in collaboration with CEOs and other top executives, make all the decisions that hundreds of thousands (or millions) of worker bees have to live with. Why?
Instead, switch from a system of top-down tyrannies to one where things are decided democratically, where representatives (like managers, supervisors, and other leaders) are elected by the workforce, and where the workforce (in conjunction with the community as a whole) decides what goods and services get produced, where and how they get produced, and (perhaps most importantly) what to do with the profits.
Incidentally, this isn't a pipe dream. It has happened in the past and it happens now -- all over the world, including the US. Cooperatives are one example. They provide a basic model for what I'm talking about. A lot of interesting (and somewhat surprising) things to learn from, most of which I've been unaware of for most of my adult life -- and I live fairly close to a major one: Ocean Spray. Never knew that was a co-op!
Unions play a big role in all of this too -- historically, anyway. But they can today as well. I'd like to see more unionization across the board.
Regardless, co-ops and unions are both important. But embedded in both examples is a more local focus and a more social focus. Both involve practical things we can do in our workplaces, provided we do it with other people. As long as we feel there's no alternatives, or aren't aware of any, we remain hopeless. Likewise, whether we see alternatives or not, nothing will happen without other people -- to learn from, to help educate ourselves with, to organize with and to act with.
But I digress. The point is: there are alternatives to capitalism, the "true" version of which not only has never existed, but which isn't even an ideal to work towards.
I agree. I just don't think the pure form has ever been tried. The original efforts to lure ill-gotten gains out from under the beds in the castles and into the merchant markets for investment capital, was profit-making's and speculation's foot in the door. That could be corrected through the imposition of personal responsibility that these grifters like to blab about.
I think collective bargaining is a great idea, but so long as capital can run over seas to take advantage of communist (or other non-democratic) labor, then it can't work. The labor supply reduces demand and lowers the value.
But yeah, along with severe questioning, I think it could be tried, if only to shut up the self-identified (but disingenuous) proponents of something they have no clue about. Showing the king has no cloths might actually push more people in your direction.
Not sure about that. Even among the forum, it's not as well known as it should be. It should be as known as Amazon and Tesla, in my view.
Quoting Shawn
And almost certainly is.
Quoting James Riley
We can very easily change that as well. It's not like there's nothing we can do. We can prevent tax havens just as well as we can prevent outsourcing. You put restrictions and regulations on what companies can do. This threat of "we'll just take our business elsewhere" is an empty one. These companies would not survive if it weren't for the United States government and general society, and they know it.
I agree. Let's do it. It's an alternative to the "socialism" they whine about as they take advantage of it. Here's something else I like the idea of: "Claw back." So, if any do decide to run, they lose their citizenship and the U.S. goes on the hunt for assets to recoup all that was gleaned from the U.S. If they want to try and offset it with what they've "given" (LOL) in the way of jobs, etc. then we say "Cool, let's go into a court of law and have an official accounting. And don't forget, we get to include that old grant of the "creature of the state", i.e. corporate registration. You all ain't such a "person" after all, now are you?
Oh, and let's not forget the blood and lives of the servicemen and women who protected your "right" to loot."
We'll all get to sit back and watch the best rendition of a Michael Jackson Moon Walk we've ever seen.
The answer is education; teaching people how to think (as opposed to what to think). One of the problems is, the left, when it is in charge, tends toward tepid, timid overtures toward moderation and accommodation. That is often couched in terms of "cooler heads", and "wait and see," and "test the waters" and all that BS. Such strategies may have indeed been wise in the past, and there is no doubting the appeal of the man of "gravitas" and calm demeanor when shit gets real (read Kipling's "If").
But that is what the likes of Mitch McConnel count on the left doing, all while ramming shit down our throats when he has the cat bird seat. However, there comes a time where the door is closing and you best get up off your fucking ass and run through it. Shit on the bastard, kill the filibuster, don't succumb to the "long game" BS about "Better not, because some day the shoe will be on the other foot and then you will regret it. Blah blah blah." The only way that could be true is if the left is not bold in action now (read Roosevelt's "The Man in the Arena").
Failure to be bold and seize the moment now will indeed let the other side have their turn again. And then we will be fucked. The acceleration of time means now is the time. It's a last opportunity to quadruple down on education and giving the people what they want and need to thrive into the future, leaving these conservative Republican rusty ball-and-chain assholes in the dust. This isn't about panic or Chicken Little or Henny Penny. This is about our republic, democracy and the aspirations and ideals set forth in our organic documents. They are under threat like never since the Civil War. One asshole let the roaches out from under the fridge and they are threatening to take over the house.
Short of that, in the past it took war. Or, at the very least, massive social upheaval. So there is always that. I don't want to see my son have to fight in that. But alas, maybe it's his time and I should take a seat.
School. School. School. Public education per the founding fathers. Languages, reading, writing, philosophy, arts, history, civics, sociology, psychology, poly sci. critical and analytic thinking, etc. Start in pre-school and teach kids how to think. How to use that fucking brain flopping around atop their stupid shoulders.
This similar to what John Dewey proposes, to make democracy really work you need educated citizens. I like Dewey, and I like this idea... but again to get to that point you probably need policy and institutional reforms, and for that you need political will which seems to be lacking.
The way I see it there seems to be an 'agency problem' in politics, which is prior to any proposed solution that needs political action. None of the political parties seem to be able or willing to push through reforms that would actually make a difference for the better. I strongly feel that something needs to be done about that to be able to effective tackle some of the other problems.
And yes, it certainly is possible, post WWII politicians were able to come together and actually implement some kind of vision for society, both in the US and in Europe. It hard to see how that could happen now, so maybe massive social upheaval would be what it takes.
Education plays a big role, but I think this other aspect does as well. We can educate ourselves and one another, but it takes work, and usually has to be done outside the system. Our public schools have been attacked for decades, of course. Underfund or defund anything we don’t like. Claim there’s a problem that doesn’t exist, defund it, watch it fail, then point to the failure and say “You see!” Then you can privatize it, turning it more into a “business” — so that now you have the student debt problem, with degrees that don’t do much, and kids never really learning anything about the world or about themselves. At least at the majority of schools.
Personal story: I went to a public university, with half the expenses paid in scholarships and half in loans; I was in state for 1 1/2 years, and was an RA my senior year (free room and board), and also worked.
I’m still paying off my loans to this day, while I barely use my B.A.
My story is fairly typical I think. I liked my time in school, as many of us do— I liked my friends and some professors. I often look back nostalgically.
But as I get older things become clearer: the state of the university was bad. It was overpriced and too big. It was a lot of fluff, most of which I didn’t retain or use. Despite some exceptions, most courses weren’t very interesting. Teachers tried their best, and it’s partly my fault for choosing the major and the classes that I did, but you would think somewhere along the way they would teach you about meditation, Karl Marx, or demand a history course be taken. There was too much test taking and focus on GPA, and so little time thinking and discussing. Everyone who did study hard was doing so to get a high paying job. Political organizing was very weak indeed— the mindset was more party-oriented and nihilistic.
It was a big school, and perhaps I just overlooked what was right under my nose all along— who knows? One simply can’t know all the ways in which one misses out by not being in more serious schools.
Anyway— I tell of my experience to demonstrate that I was very much in the meaty part of the educational curve during the neoliberal era. I think my case is representative.
What I’ve learned since has been far more valuable— on my own through books, from friends, from traveling, and even from YouTube (which can be a fantastic resource if you know where to look).
So we can educate ourselves, and we should. I think we’re catching on that education is largely a scam, a factory of testing where you’re award s degree, a ton of debt, and then shoved off into the world to be a good employee. That’s the underlying attitude: be a good capitalist. And don’t rock the boat by questioning certain things.
I think the social upheaval part is more what’s needed now. Nothing seems to change otherwise. But we also see from the Capitol riots that without a set of objectives or beliefs worth fighting for, we’re left standing around scratching our heads. While I like the willingness to act, there are no ideas behind the actions. So education in that respect becomes relevant, otherwise it’s empty machinations.
It’ll come down to enough people organizing. We saw it with Occupy, with Bernie, we saw it with the Womens March, with climate marches and with BLM. Just in the last decade. It’s all around us. We already have the numbers politically— polling and voting statistics show this clearly.
So what’s missing other than organization?
Do you mean like Trump's Capitol insurrection or something bigger?
I mean something a bit different I suppose, and it'd need to be bigger in the amounts of people supporting it, yes that too. Trump is a sign or symptom of underlying discontent, not the cause right? He's merely the one giving political direction to that discontentment, like extreme right populist parties are doing in Europe. They find fertile ground for their populist ideas, without which their politics wouldn't gain traction... The problem with populism though is that it isn't a solution, their political 'agenda' is mostly things people want to hear, not things that have a chance of being implemented in any sustainable way.
Political parties in Europe around the period of WWII still were tied to their base via unions, health insurance organisations, representation in the education system etc etc... there were links in all layers of society and the institutions. And so the leaders of political parties were still held accountable for what they did, part of the political decision making grew bottom up... The other side of this representation across society was that, if something was decided, they could count on it being implement by their base.
Now these links seem to be gone for the most part and political parties have become these top-down PR-machines that only seem to be geared at getting into power without the ability and ambition to actually implement a political vision.... which is what I would call the "agency-problem" in politics.
So what I think would be needed is
1) social upheaval/discontent. You need 'fertile ground' to be able to grow a political movement that wants to change things.
and 2) someone or some group of people giving direction to that discontent in the form of a political vision and political organisation. That's what was lacking for instance in the occupy movement or the Arab spring,
Yes, but if you have neither 1 nor 2 then there is nothing you can do.
There will be no social upheaval/discontent because the state will find ways of bribing people or otherwise suppressing their movement.
If there is no appealing political vision, there will be no coherent or organized movement. That's why there isn't any.
You could take communism for your political vision but most people will not go along with that. That's why you only get minority or single-issue movements like Occupy or BLM.
Yeah no disagreement here, that's why I tend to stay out of politics these days, because I don't see it going anywhere.
But I don't want to close the door entirely or forever either. Maybe things will get bad enough that societal upheaval can't be suppressed, or maybe someone with the right idea's, charisma and willpower, will stand up and succeed in forging a political movement against all odds...
Actually, most people do go along with that — and growing. Calling it “communism” can mean almost anything, but if that’s supposed to mean anti-neoliberalism, then yes, that’s already caught on. On the left and right.
True, we can also convince ourselves that there’s nothing to do and that nothing will happen. But I reject that. That’s defeatism, very passive, and exactly the reason nothing changes to begin with.
:100: I equate it to little Billy and Sally coming home from school and daddy coming home from work. They argue current events around the dinner table and kick dad's ass. He says the schools are filling his kid's heads with commie liberal shit and won't vote for the next mill levy increase for schools or otherwise support them. He's all for STEM and making his children good little consumers and producers but not individual thinking human beings. Too dangerous.
Quoting Xtrix
Love. That's all I can think of.
I don't think I was being defeatist. The way I see it, philosophy does have or should have an interest in politics. For, example, what if a new or existing political system decides to ban philosophy and philosophers?
I was simply trying to realistically analyze the situation. We probably agree essentially, but possibly hold divergent views in political terms.
Maybe you're right. Another way of saying it perhaps is care -- caring for one another, for people who aren't in our social circle or from our part of the world, and for the environment. But that's all a kind of love. So maybe there's something to these religious figures, like the Dalai Lama, and to the 60s and the Beatles. :grin:
A part of me thinks that's it -- a lack of love.
Another part of me thinks that love, care, and concern for others (and for where one lives -- Earth) are as much a part of human nature as anything else -- as greed, fear, or hatred. Human beings are complex creatures.
It's simply the fact that powerful forces are acting in ways that manipulate and control us -- without our knowing it. We know advertisers and big business do this all the time, and the media. But now we've got social media to contend with as well, and that's even more efficient because it's got mathematics behind it -- A.I., algorithms, etc. This is all being programmed using essentially the same model that the mass media used long before social media came on the scene, and which Herman and Chomsky analyzed in Manufacturing Consent. On top of all this, there are just structural issues in place, embedded in our lives -- like the very fact that nearly all of us are essentially forced to work for wages, to become employees (subordinate to an employer), and to spend most of our lives within the confines of jobs that by their nature have to underpay us. This alone takes time, attention, energy, and life away from things we could be doing -- pursuing our own interests, acting creatively, dedicating our lives to causes of mutual concern, etc.
Bottom line is that love/care needs to be brought to the fore, but is currently suppressed under a system that values personal gain (basically greed) above all else -- i.e., accumulation of wealth, money, profits, etc. That's capitalism. This is especially true in the most savage variant of this type of thinking: the neoliberal era that we've all been living in for 40 years.
How to reawaken those aspects of human nature within such a system?
A tough question, especially with the powers owning and controlling the data and information we all see and hear. Tough to break outside of it and "think for oneself"... but it can be done.
Putting down the newspaper, turning off the TV, and putting your iPhone away for a little while can help, I think. But equally important is getting other people to as well, having conversations with them, and taking action collectively -- that's why we need organization.
Yeah, I just disagree with how accurate that analysis is. But most importantly I sense a kind of passivity in the way you describe it -- as if we're waiting around for the right movement to come along, where in reality there are all kinds of people organizing right now, all around us, and all kinds of movements as well. And not just here but all over the world.
But perhaps I misinterpreted.
Of course there are. And have been for a long time. No one is disputing that.
It's just a matter of identifying the right ones according to one's own political outlook and deciding what to do about them.
I myself have suggested at least one:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10955/al-aksa-mosque-temple-mount-and-the-restoration-of-peace-to-the-middle-east/p1
I don't see how your linked post has much relevance to what I was discussing. If you want to defend Israel's brutal, decades-long occupation and war crimes, there's a different thread for that.
I don't think I was "defending" anything. On the contrary, it was a suggestion of how to achieve peace. But if you aren't interested in peace, that's OK, it's not a problem.
It comes through loud and clear in your framing of the situation. And yes, I'm in favor of peace -- which is why I'm in favor of a two-state solution, blocked for decades by Israel and the United States.
That was exactly what I said. Point 2 of my proposal says:
Quoting Apollodorus
So, we agree at least on that point. But, as I said, it doesn't matter. I see no point in arguing over it.