Those features aren't great, but this kind of criticism shouldn't be given too much weight since not only can make similar criticisms about virtually all activist political movements it's also particularly vulnerable to ideological bias.
When we think of political movements/identities that feel close to our own the distinctions feel very salient to us and the idea that the advocate of conservative leaning economic policy has any obligation to signal their differences with right wing huanta's seems silly. When we think of our own politics we think of particularly policy views so it seems unfair to consider the risk that in winning our policies open up the door to further extremism on our side of the aisle.
On the other hand, when we look further afield we tend to see the similarities not differences between the groups on the other side and rather than thinking of views as a particular set of policy positions we think of it as a movement and thus tend to hold any member of that movement accountable for the extreme views on that side or where people who resemble them might take the country.
I'm not saying the concerns have no truth to them but I suspect it's a kind of argument that's more prejudicial than probative.
To put the issue another way, I fear that when we apply these criticisms we measure things from our own views so we can blame the socialists for dragging things to the left (risking the harms that come from extremists on the left) but since we measure from our own views even if (hypothetically) we lean to the political right we aren't to blame for enabling crazies to our right -- they are to blame. We get to be evaluated for the arguments we make but the other side gets judged for the company it's arguments keep.
To illustrate the point, consider the most recent Amicus (very liberal law podcast with Dahlia Lithwick) discussing the federalist society. I don't agree with all the federalist society views but it's just a group of conservative law profs/students discussing their views yet the discussion saw everything they did through the lens of how it enabled aspects of the Trump administration -- presenting it as basically a malevolent conspiracy to enable Trumpism despite the fact that many participants might be deeply opposed to Trump.
Yet, causally speaking, Trumps election can also be blamed on far left voters who voted third party or stayed home in protest. Do the liberal law profs and students who lie to the left of the average democrat get painted as part of the left wing agenda and hence culpable for the role they played in legitimizing being even further left? Even if they actually supported policies that alienates the average voter or pulled democratic elites to the left that kind of left wing critic never pins the same kind of moral blame on them.
And I'm afraid that's what's happening here. Yes, Bryan is careful to not blame them for merely having views that resemble bad ones but it still leverages the same inherent tendency to inconsistently apply moral blame and to judge effects on the political landscape as measured from our own views.
Not that I'm immune..it's just that my political views are objectively correct so it makes sense to measure from them ;-)
Sweden, with a greater percentage of private land ownership than the US and with a much more regressive tax system, enjoys a work ethic much less responsive to and motivated by fiscal incontinence. Through taxes, everyone has a stake in the game. It is a welfare state, but one that does a much better job of paying as you go as their debt to GDP is 1/4 that of the US. Using Mussolini's definition, like virtually all modern states, save North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, economic fascism better describes them than socialism although the differences allow for overlap (what isn't overtly state-owned and operated tends to be state controlled and regulated which describes all western welfare states).
The Left should admit what has been obvious since 1917:
There are only 2 options for the Left:
1) Social Democracy - ie embrace a social welfare state within a liberal democratic political system and a capitalist economic system. The capitalist economy generates the revenue to fund the social welfare state. This is the Swedish model (and most of Western Europe).
2) Communism - ie embrace a violent revolution to overthrow liberal democratic system and set up a Totalitarian regime based on terror.
I don't believe there is a realistic alternative to the above two options and still be considered on the Left.
This is so much more charitable than just assuming it's all a motte-and-bailey. It's not. It's just that communism attracts thinkers who are willing to break different eggs to make omelets than economists like Caplan are.
I’m puzzled. I read possibilities 1-4 above and kept waiting for a possibility 5 that never came. That possibility is “modern socialists see the how totalitarian movements were able to punish their perceived inferiors and wish to do the same to their modern-day inferiors, which woke politics defines as anyone who doesn’t share their political preferences.”
Those features aren't great, but this kind of criticism shouldn't be given too much weight since not only can make similar criticisms about virtually all activist political movements it's also particularly vulnerable to ideological bias.
When we think of political movements/identities that feel close to our own the distinctions feel very salient to us and the idea that the advocate of conservative leaning economic policy has any obligation to signal their differences with right wing huanta's seems silly. When we think of our own politics we think of particularly policy views so it seems unfair to consider the risk that in winning our policies open up the door to further extremism on our side of the aisle.
On the other hand, when we look further afield we tend to see the similarities not differences between the groups on the other side and rather than thinking of views as a particular set of policy positions we think of it as a movement and thus tend to hold any member of that movement accountable for the extreme views on that side or where people who resemble them might take the country.
I'm not saying the concerns have no truth to them but I suspect it's a kind of argument that's more prejudicial than probative.
To put the issue another way, I fear that when we apply these criticisms we measure things from our own views so we can blame the socialists for dragging things to the left (risking the harms that come from extremists on the left) but since we measure from our own views even if (hypothetically) we lean to the political right we aren't to blame for enabling crazies to our right -- they are to blame. We get to be evaluated for the arguments we make but the other side gets judged for the company it's arguments keep.
To illustrate the point, consider the most recent Amicus (very liberal law podcast with Dahlia Lithwick) discussing the federalist society. I don't agree with all the federalist society views but it's just a group of conservative law profs/students discussing their views yet the discussion saw everything they did through the lens of how it enabled aspects of the Trump administration -- presenting it as basically a malevolent conspiracy to enable Trumpism despite the fact that many participants might be deeply opposed to Trump.
Yet, causally speaking, Trumps election can also be blamed on far left voters who voted third party or stayed home in protest. Do the liberal law profs and students who lie to the left of the average democrat get painted as part of the left wing agenda and hence culpable for the role they played in legitimizing being even further left? Even if they actually supported policies that alienates the average voter or pulled democratic elites to the left that kind of left wing critic never pins the same kind of moral blame on them.
And I'm afraid that's what's happening here. Yes, Bryan is careful to not blame them for merely having views that resemble bad ones but it still leverages the same inherent tendency to inconsistently apply moral blame and to judge effects on the political landscape as measured from our own views.
Not that I'm immune..it's just that my political views are objectively correct so it makes sense to measure from them ;-)
Geoism is a lonely place.
Sweden, with a greater percentage of private land ownership than the US and with a much more regressive tax system, enjoys a work ethic much less responsive to and motivated by fiscal incontinence. Through taxes, everyone has a stake in the game. It is a welfare state, but one that does a much better job of paying as you go as their debt to GDP is 1/4 that of the US. Using Mussolini's definition, like virtually all modern states, save North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, economic fascism better describes them than socialism although the differences allow for overlap (what isn't overtly state-owned and operated tends to be state controlled and regulated which describes all western welfare states).
It should also be noted that Sweden turned itself around and is now consistenly in the top 20 most economically free countries.
The Left should admit what has been obvious since 1917:
There are only 2 options for the Left:
1) Social Democracy - ie embrace a social welfare state within a liberal democratic political system and a capitalist economic system. The capitalist economy generates the revenue to fund the social welfare state. This is the Swedish model (and most of Western Europe).
2) Communism - ie embrace a violent revolution to overthrow liberal democratic system and set up a Totalitarian regime based on terror.
I don't believe there is a realistic alternative to the above two options and still be considered on the Left.
It’s the cult of affirmation for the idle and inept. And because the default human falls into that classification, it has a draw.
This is so much more charitable than just assuming it's all a motte-and-bailey. It's not. It's just that communism attracts thinkers who are willing to break different eggs to make omelets than economists like Caplan are.
I’m puzzled. I read possibilities 1-4 above and kept waiting for a possibility 5 that never came. That possibility is “modern socialists see the how totalitarian movements were able to punish their perceived inferiors and wish to do the same to their modern-day inferiors, which woke politics defines as anyone who doesn’t share their political preferences.”