[Rugoz]

No, it isn't. It really isn't. The West's social and economic elites are perfectly happy to concede every traditional cultural position to the progressives and the radicals, but the continued existence of capitalism and the neo-liberal paradigm is not up for negotiation.

Yes, it is. Maybe to a lesser extent for the elites personally but generally speaking. It dominates politics in the US and makes compromise more difficult.

Also, describe the "neo-liberal paradigm" to me. It's not clear what that is supposed to mean.

[Potemkin]

Yes, it is. Maybe to a lesser extent for the elites personally but generally speaking. It dominates politics in the US and makes compromise more difficult.

Even in the US, which is a special case, the cultural conservatives are fighting a losing battle. It's strictly a rear-guard action, and a losing one at that. The economic elites of the West - and yes, even of the USA - simply don't care about cultural issues. They care only about their own bank balance. Maybe some segments of the general plebeian population of the US care passionately about cultural and moral issues, but what leverage do they have? They were Trump's pawns throughout his presidency, and their march on the Capitol on January 6th was the greatest extent of their political 'influence'.

Also, describe the "neo-liberal paradigm" to me. It's not clear what that is supposed to mean.

Minimal regulation of capitalist markets, and the free movement of capital and labour across national borders. It is partly because of his opposition to some of neo-liberalism's shibboleths - his willingness to build a wall to block the free movement of labour and his love of tariffs, for example - that Trump became a reviled figure for most of the established elite. It wasn't just his plebeian brashness which offended them. Lol.

[Beren]

"Surviving Autocracy is about the Trump phenomenon and how it has transformed US society. It is about what he has learned from Vladimir Putin, among other autocrats he admires. It is also one of the few analytical books to suggest plausible ways he might be stopped."

I'd be really curious as to whether what Trump's learned from Putin, he definitely hadn't learned to consolidate and stay in power.

Putin's a fucking Caesar, or a Byzantine emperor at least, while Trump's like a Saxon chieftain, and the relationship between them was that Putin owned him with Netanyahu and others.

I also wonder if how the author of the article and Masha Gessen will stop him.

Suzanne Moore, author of the article
(The Guardian)

Masha Gessen

Masha Gessen is a Russian-American journalist, author, translator and activist who has been an outspoken critic of the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, and the former president of the United States, Donald Trump. Gessen is nonbinary and trans and uses they/them pronouns.

Using they/them pronouns must be his/her most effective weapon against Putin (and Trump).

[late]

I'd be really curious as to whether what Trump's learned from Putin, he definitely hadn't learned to consolidate and stay in power.

Putin's a fucking Caesar, or a Byzantine emperor at least, while Trump's like a Saxon chieftain, and the relationship between them was that Putin owned him with Netanyahu and others.

I also wonder if how the author of the article and Masha Gessen will stop him.

Russia was not a long standing democracy, we are. He needed the military to support him, didn't get it.

Trump is a buffoon, Putin is brilliant, and what spies call turning people was once his job.

Perhaps you should read the book, and find out.

[Beren]

Perhaps you should read the book

I even stopped following The Guardian on Facebook, actually, because feminist and LGBTQ+ opinions are the only things one can get from them there.

[wat0n]

The "actual problem" is rather unclear however. It could be economic, cultural or political. I don't think there's any consensus on that. There's a tendency to blame economic inequality, but of course that could be a symptom of the "culture war" (because economic issues are being pushed ot the background*) or of unresponsive political institutions.

*its generally easier to reach compromise on economic issues than on cultural/identity issues.

I'm leaning more towards economic issues and particularly the labor replacing technological change being incorporated into productive processes. This also does have a cultural angle, by the way, as I think it has a lot to do with the expansion of the postmodern identity politics we have to bear with, just as the industrialization of printing helped to expand European romantic nationalism during the Industrial Revolution.

[wat0n]

Minimal regulation of capitalist markets, and the free movement of capital and labour across national borders. It is partly because of his opposition to some of neo-liberalism's shibboleths - his willingness to build a wall to block the free movement of labour and his love of tariffs, for example - that Trump became a reviled figure for most of the established elite. It wasn't just his plebeian brashness which offended them. Lol.

There's far more regulation of both markets and national borders than during classical liberalism in the 19th century though. Governments are also far larger than back then (from the perspective of tax burden and government spending as % of GDP), and there's been a fairly constant trend of increasing government size since the 1990s.

[Rugoz]

Even in the US, which is a special case, the cultural conservatives are fighting a losing battle. It's strictly a rear-guard action, and a losing one at that. The economic elites of the West - and yes, even of the USA - simply don't care about cultural issues. They care only about their own bank balance. Maybe some segments of the general plebeian population of the US care passionately about cultural and moral issues, but what leverage do they have? They were Trump's pawns throughout his presidency, and their march on the Capitol on January 6th was the greatest extent of their political 'influence'.

The goal of cultural conservatism isn't necessarily to prevent change, but to slow it down. Futhermore, I wouldn't say all progressive goals are actually being achieved down the line. It depends on how extreme they are.

The idea that economic elites "simply don't care" about cultural issues is plain stupid, and its not only economic elites that matter in the first place.

Politics revolves around cultural/identity issues because the people care about them. You literally have be fucking blind not to see that. The claim was that this make politics more polarized, because it cannot be resolved with redistributing resources, something all modern nation states do to a greater or lesser extent. I heard this argument in political science a few times and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Minimal regulation of capitalist markets, and the free movement of capital and labour across national borders. It is partly because of his opposition to some of neo-liberalism's shibboleths - his willingness to build a wall to block the free movement of labour and his love of tariffs, for example - that Trump became a reviled figure for most of the established elite. It wasn't just his plebeian brashness which offended them. Lol.

Free movement of labor is not a reality anywhere, except in the EU. "Minimal regulation" is a meaningless term. Overall regulation has probably increased on all fronts in recent decades. Free movement of capital and goods can be seen as a prevalent paradigm I suppose.

[Rugoz]

I'm leaning more towards economic issues and particularly the labor replacing technological change being incorporated into productive processes. This also does have a cultural angle, by the way, as I think it has a lot to do with the expansion of the postmodern identity politics we have to bear with, just as the industrialization of printing helped to expand European romantic nationalism during the Industrial Revolution.

Economic issues can be addressed however, or at least to a large extent. The US is somewhat of an outlier in the industrialized world in terms of how much economic inequality has increased. So there's the question of what prevents economic issues to be addressed. That's the indirect channel of culture/politics, but I would argue there's also a direct one.

[wat0n]

Economic issues can be addressed however, or at least to a large extent. The US is somewhat of an outlier in the industrialized world in terms of how much economic inequality has increased. So there's the question of what prevents economic issues to be addressed. That's the indirect channel of culture/politics, but I would argue there's also a direct one.

You could redistribute more, but how do you deal with those who will become dependent on government help perhaps permanently?

I agree the US has to redistribute more, in all, but that only ameliorates the symptoms.

[Rugoz]

You could redistribute more, but how do you deal with those who will become dependent on government help perhaps permanently?

I agree the US has to redistribute more, in all, but that only ameliorates the symptoms.

Inequality before taxes and transfers is high in the US as well, so there's room for improvement there too.

Whether they become "dependent on government help" is largely a question of how you phrase it. Healthcare, education etc. can be seen as basic government services.

[wat0n]

Inequality before taxes and transfers is high in the US as well, so there's room for improvement there too.

It's high, but not unlike some European countries (e.g. Germany, Spain, Italy).

Whether they become "dependent on government help" is largely a question of how you phrase it. Healthcare, education etc. can be seen as basic government services.

Yes, but to be more specific, rent seeking in the form of cash transfers may become far more relevant as far as politics is concerned if there's a critical mass of voters who would have a hard time being employed. That would most definitely NOT help with the cultural/identity issues, at all - if anything, it would probably make them even worse.

Turning the clock back on technology is not desirable at all either, so instead societies need to figure out ways to allow as many as possible to switch to occupations in demand.

[Rugoz]

Yes, but to be more specific, rent seeking in the form of cash transfers may become far more relevant as far as politics is concerned if there's a critical mass of voters who would have a hard time being employed.

The employment rate of prime age males (25-54) was 87% before Covid. That's maybe 1-2% less than the average during the 80s/90s.

I don't think technological unemployment is a big thing in reality.

That would most definitely NOT help with the cultural/identity issues, at all - if anything, it would probably make them even worse.

I don't see how that follows.

Turning the clock back on technology is not desirable at all either, so instead societies need to figure out ways to allow as many as possible to switch to occupations in demand.

Sure.

[wat0n]

The employment rate of prime age males (25-54) was 87% before Covid. That's maybe 1-2% less than the average during the 80s/90s.

I don't think technological unemployment is a big thing in reality.

How about underemployment? People pick shitty menial jobs that don't match their now outdated degrees.

I don't see how that follows.

The stakes for your own livelihood become far larger, and so becomes the incentive to appeal to tribalism.

[Rugoz]

How about underemployment? People pick shitty menial jobs that don't match their now outdated degrees.

Is that more of problem today that in the past? If anything a college degree if more important.

The stakes for your own livelihood become far larger, and so becomes the incentive to appeal to tribalism.

I don't see how government transfers make that worse.

[wat0n]

Is that more of problem today that in the past? If anything a college degree if more important.

Is more important for what? To get into a high income percentile? Yes. But how about the actual return of going to college?

Furthermore, it may also be true a person can study a yet still end up in a shitty job.

I don't see how government transfers make that worse.

Your livelihood depends far more on those. Again, rent seeking.

[Rugoz]

Is more important for what? To get into a high income percentile? Yes. But how about the actual return of going to college?

A college degree may be only a signal, but the college wage premium is higher than ever and that means the skills associated with a college degree are in high demand.

Your livelihood depends far more on those. Again, rent seeking.

Your livelihood may depend on the transfer, but it still makes life easier and more plannable. Again, how does this increase tribalism?

[wat0n]

A college degree may be only a signal, but the college wage premium is higher than ever and that means the skills associated with a college degree are in high demand.

The college wage premium has actually stagnated. What you say only holds if you go to grad school:



And this masks both the relative increase in tuition costs and (more importantly) the large variance in earnings by field. For every data scientist or full stack developer there's some acting major muddling through, and often both paid the same amount of tuition.

Your livelihood may depend on the transfer, but it still makes life easier and more plannable. Again, how does this increase tribalism?

People appeal to tribalism to get more rents.

[Rugoz]

The college wage premium has actually stagnated. What you say only holds if you go to grad school:

It's still basically higher than ever, i.e. hasn't gone done, even excluding grad school.

And this masks both the relative increase in tuition costs and (more importantly) the large variance in earnings by field. For every data scientist or full stack developer there's some acting major muddling through, and often both paid the same amount of tuition.

It's an average, yes. Though I imagine the college premium is higher for all types of degrees. Again, compared to historical values.

People appeal to tribalism to get more rents.

Poor people are not a tribe.

[late]

I even stopped following The Guardian on Facebook, actually, because feminist and LGBTQ+ opinions are the only things one can get from them there.

Which has F all to do with the book.

There are a dozen books that cover this from various angles. Masha Gessen also wrote a long biography of Putin, that I've been meaning to read. Being knowledgeable is a very good thing, but it does involved the heavy lifting of books. If they're too heavy, I can suggest a bunch of Youtube videos on getting in shape. I use them myself regularly..