That's a clever quote, but I know (want to believe) it's possible. We’re a species shaped by our cultures, and if the dominant culture changes, so can our systems. I meet many people who want social democracies, but then go out and buy $800 Taylor Swift tickets after ordering a meal on their phone and then complain about government environment policies and the size of their apartment in the same breath. Many people seem oblivious to how corporate-shaped culture manipulates them, but I know things can change because cultures can change. The places where social democracies work (almost) have the culture for it.
First, the social democracies are often the first to argue that they are not socialists; they have heavily taxed free markets that provide a range of services to their citizens. They also tended to have homogenous populations and productive work ethics. (It seems Sweden's experiment in manufactured ethnic diversity is failing. They are facing some very harsh realities.)
If we are talking about the kind of socialism where governments takeover businesses in the belief that profits can be used directly to fund programs for the poor, I can think of at least three reasons that approach never works: Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and Bernie Sanders. But seriously, government owned businesses are a rich source of graft and corruption. There is no real mechanism and ethic to keep them competitive, and in the end, they almost always end up requiring government subsidies to stay afloat.
Kevin Williams wrote an excellent dissection of the internal contradictions within various approaches to socialism that guarantees its failure, and it has always failed. Williams' book is called, unfortunately, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism. He spends a lot of time discussing the impossible task of managing a centrally planned, top down economic model.
And of course, there is always communism, which seems to be the next step after when socialism fails to work and the solution is slave labor (the gulags) and outright murder.
“They tend to have homogenous populations and productive work ethics” is something I was going to include in this article. I've also noticed that countries that pull off social democracies or have had some success with socialist parties in power are homogenous (something I don't advocate). However, then I started learning more about Belgium, a social democracy with socialist parties in power sometimes. And Belgium had a very diverse population. Yes, they also have a very popular right-wing (borderline fascist) party, but that's a whole new discussion. The point is a homogenous society isn't needed for successful social democracies. However, a productive work ethic is.
Denmark might have some of the highest work personal debt in the world, but Belgium does not. The personal wealth in Flanders is 3x that of the deficit, so the deficit isn't as dangerous because the money is in the country. That's an argument supporters of MMT use. Yes, Flanders has a lot of personal wealth because they have a hard-working and entrepreneurial culture. Still, Belgium also has indexation (unlike Denmark), making sure people don't get screwed over during times of inflation.
Of course, if we dive into the specifics of any of these countries, we will find problems. But the whole point is that we need a cultural change if we want any form of socialism or social democracy to work. You're right in pointing out that a productive work ethic is part of it. But the biggest problem is corruption. At this point, I'd just be restating what I already wrote in my article.
And no, I don’t believe in the government owning all the businesses. Again, I’d just be restating what I already wrote in my article.
I think my article was clear that I wasn't advocating for socialism, but social democracies that restrict billionaires. Most of all, the point was to stop celebrating materialistic superficiality and end this mass hallucination orchestrated my corporations. The amount of Orwellian double-think, especially from my generation, is disgusting. People say they want more social democracies, equality, and sustainable energy but then celebrate money-hoarding materialistic celebrities while ordering ready-made food brought in bags brought to their homes by car with the money they made from investing in HFTs, Bitcoin, or whatever other “intangible asset” making the earth and society sick.
You hit on the crux of the issue: how to have a society of people who strive for decency and goodness without using the government to force them to be “good” people.
I tend toward toward libertarianism, except there needs to be more substance to their platform than drug legalization, which seems to be the hill they prefer to die on. My brand of libertarianism is when individuals are motivated to freely accept the responsibility of identifying problems people struggle with (healthcare, housing, education, food security) and figure out solutions that work.
I wrote about several projects I got involved with as my “side hustles” when I worked overseas. One was a fairly large literacy project in Zimbabwe that cost almost nothing and opened up the world to a couple hundred men. Three or four of us donated a few hours and a big positive change happened. The reward? Seeing the look on a guy’s face when he signed his name for the first time on the payroll register. Did it change the world? A little. What if a billion of us out of the eight billion living on earth dedicated ourselves to side hustles like I just described? Maybe a world with its priorities in the right place?
Although I threw in "libertarians" with "corrupt officials, drug dealers, cybercriminals, terrorist financiers, human traffickers," when it comes to those who love tax havens, I'll admit that my heart often agrees with libertarians when getting down to the core of the matter. However, libertarianism is often highjacked by right-wing nutjobs or people who think legalizing drugs is humanity's priority.
"What if a billion of us out of the eight billion living on earth dedicated ourselves to side hustles like I just described? Maybe a world with its priorities in the right place?"
I think so, but the goodness of people gets used by the corruption of charities and NGOs. That's why, although I would want libertarianism to work, I know it won't. In a world that maximizes autonomy and political freedom with less government control, it only takes a few shitheads to ruin everything. And that's why I stand behind social democracies and government intervention. Although they can also be corrupt, bureaucracy and regulations (the things I hate deep in my heart) are what we need to limit corruption.
Yes, I know, socialist governments, especially authoritarian ones, can be incredibly corrupt. I'd bold social 'democracies' if I could.
Thanks, for the mention Nolan! For each participant in the retreat, I donate a starter olive grove via a local non profit in Puglia that will sequester 600kg per year, per person. It's great way to offset the travel to the retreat, if people come by plane. If they come by train, their trip will be carbon negative!
Thank you for including me in this fascinating piece. I find comfort in Beyond the Comfort Zone fitting inside the utopian appreciation for creative expression, life in harmony with the earth, life in the slow lane, and all manner of potentiality. AND I laughed A LOT reading this. Every utopia needs ample laughter.
Hi Nolan. Just thought I should mention you don't get good value from Substack when you highlight and give a link to someone else's page. Having read what you thought was relevant, I found I wasn't allowed to go back to your page. I had to close theirs and go back to your email. Maybe this isn't so in the app, but Apple insists you can only have the app on iphone or ipad (in English we don't use upper case in the middle of a word). Is this due to technological incompetence or is this another example of corporate arrogance and bullying? Just saying...
Thanks for letting me know, Ian. I've had similar experiences, but it depends on the browser and device. That's why I put most links in the citations for people to copy and paste. The links in the article are because I want to support those writers here on Substack. However, in this case, the writer I'm supporting never shares my work, so maybe it's not worth taking away from the reading experience of my articles.
*I just went through the article and made some changes, thanks to your comment.
You're general ethos is kind of like, "yes things are getting better but they still suck." And to an extent you are right, no one ever said "capitalism is the ideal" only that "it's the best economic model we've found so far." And that means there is certainly so much room for improvement!
And the economy only needs to grow enough that it can support everyone on the planet, and if we stay at about the same population size or a little bit larger, it won't ever need to grow beyond it. We just need to make sure it's not harming the planet and that we fix how that money is distributed in the meantime. Which is totally in our power to do.
And yes, the internet exists. But I do not believe it's making us stupider. That presumes that everyone was a bunch of intellectuals before it came along. Which they weren't (and they had plenty of other "time wasters" that now we idealize as quaint).
There is a lot to fix, but only because we will be tweaking everything for ever and ever as we figure it out as we go.
I've many thoughts and erm..addendums? but I just started thinking them-who knows whether I'll finish soon, or at all, or whether important to make sure you read them or something.
But in any case-thank you for the post..I love having thoughts especially in time when brain seems incapable of much thinking. Then, the day is still young.
I do need to recall the name of that book..the author there talks with Tommaso Campannella..as if he were still alive..Campannella is in prison, there, and the conversation revolves about what happenned in The City of The Sun...
..found it. "Assassinating Mirages". was censored and not allowed for publishing-until perestrojka times.
Thanks for responding so quickly, Chen! Of course, if the day is young and you’re gathering your thoughts, take your time, and I'm happy to discuss and read your thoughts later on.
As they say, Nolan, socialism is a great idea, but unfortunately, we are the wrong species.
That's a clever quote, but I know (want to believe) it's possible. We’re a species shaped by our cultures, and if the dominant culture changes, so can our systems. I meet many people who want social democracies, but then go out and buy $800 Taylor Swift tickets after ordering a meal on their phone and then complain about government environment policies and the size of their apartment in the same breath. Many people seem oblivious to how corporate-shaped culture manipulates them, but I know things can change because cultures can change. The places where social democracies work (almost) have the culture for it.
First, the social democracies are often the first to argue that they are not socialists; they have heavily taxed free markets that provide a range of services to their citizens. They also tended to have homogenous populations and productive work ethics. (It seems Sweden's experiment in manufactured ethnic diversity is failing. They are facing some very harsh realities.)
If we are talking about the kind of socialism where governments takeover businesses in the belief that profits can be used directly to fund programs for the poor, I can think of at least three reasons that approach never works: Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and Bernie Sanders. But seriously, government owned businesses are a rich source of graft and corruption. There is no real mechanism and ethic to keep them competitive, and in the end, they almost always end up requiring government subsidies to stay afloat.
Kevin Williams wrote an excellent dissection of the internal contradictions within various approaches to socialism that guarantees its failure, and it has always failed. Williams' book is called, unfortunately, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism. He spends a lot of time discussing the impossible task of managing a centrally planned, top down economic model.
And of course, there is always communism, which seems to be the next step after when socialism fails to work and the solution is slave labor (the gulags) and outright murder.
“They tend to have homogenous populations and productive work ethics” is something I was going to include in this article. I've also noticed that countries that pull off social democracies or have had some success with socialist parties in power are homogenous (something I don't advocate). However, then I started learning more about Belgium, a social democracy with socialist parties in power sometimes. And Belgium had a very diverse population. Yes, they also have a very popular right-wing (borderline fascist) party, but that's a whole new discussion. The point is a homogenous society isn't needed for successful social democracies. However, a productive work ethic is.
Denmark might have some of the highest work personal debt in the world, but Belgium does not. The personal wealth in Flanders is 3x that of the deficit, so the deficit isn't as dangerous because the money is in the country. That's an argument supporters of MMT use. Yes, Flanders has a lot of personal wealth because they have a hard-working and entrepreneurial culture. Still, Belgium also has indexation (unlike Denmark), making sure people don't get screwed over during times of inflation.
Of course, if we dive into the specifics of any of these countries, we will find problems. But the whole point is that we need a cultural change if we want any form of socialism or social democracy to work. You're right in pointing out that a productive work ethic is part of it. But the biggest problem is corruption. At this point, I'd just be restating what I already wrote in my article.
And no, I don’t believe in the government owning all the businesses. Again, I’d just be restating what I already wrote in my article.
I think my article was clear that I wasn't advocating for socialism, but social democracies that restrict billionaires. Most of all, the point was to stop celebrating materialistic superficiality and end this mass hallucination orchestrated my corporations. The amount of Orwellian double-think, especially from my generation, is disgusting. People say they want more social democracies, equality, and sustainable energy but then celebrate money-hoarding materialistic celebrities while ordering ready-made food brought in bags brought to their homes by car with the money they made from investing in HFTs, Bitcoin, or whatever other “intangible asset” making the earth and society sick.
You hit on the crux of the issue: how to have a society of people who strive for decency and goodness without using the government to force them to be “good” people.
I tend toward toward libertarianism, except there needs to be more substance to their platform than drug legalization, which seems to be the hill they prefer to die on. My brand of libertarianism is when individuals are motivated to freely accept the responsibility of identifying problems people struggle with (healthcare, housing, education, food security) and figure out solutions that work.
I wrote about several projects I got involved with as my “side hustles” when I worked overseas. One was a fairly large literacy project in Zimbabwe that cost almost nothing and opened up the world to a couple hundred men. Three or four of us donated a few hours and a big positive change happened. The reward? Seeing the look on a guy’s face when he signed his name for the first time on the payroll register. Did it change the world? A little. What if a billion of us out of the eight billion living on earth dedicated ourselves to side hustles like I just described? Maybe a world with its priorities in the right place?
Although I threw in "libertarians" with "corrupt officials, drug dealers, cybercriminals, terrorist financiers, human traffickers," when it comes to those who love tax havens, I'll admit that my heart often agrees with libertarians when getting down to the core of the matter. However, libertarianism is often highjacked by right-wing nutjobs or people who think legalizing drugs is humanity's priority.
"What if a billion of us out of the eight billion living on earth dedicated ourselves to side hustles like I just described? Maybe a world with its priorities in the right place?"
I think so, but the goodness of people gets used by the corruption of charities and NGOs. That's why, although I would want libertarianism to work, I know it won't. In a world that maximizes autonomy and political freedom with less government control, it only takes a few shitheads to ruin everything. And that's why I stand behind social democracies and government intervention. Although they can also be corrupt, bureaucracy and regulations (the things I hate deep in my heart) are what we need to limit corruption.
Yes, I know, socialist governments, especially authoritarian ones, can be incredibly corrupt. I'd bold social 'democracies' if I could.
Thanks, for the mention Nolan! For each participant in the retreat, I donate a starter olive grove via a local non profit in Puglia that will sequester 600kg per year, per person. It's great way to offset the travel to the retreat, if people come by plane. If they come by train, their trip will be carbon negative!
What a lesson in economics! I enjoyed it, and I very much liked the ending, about the models we need to have a chance at a more fulfilling future.
Thank you, Monica!
Nolan,
Thank you for including me in this fascinating piece. I find comfort in Beyond the Comfort Zone fitting inside the utopian appreciation for creative expression, life in harmony with the earth, life in the slow lane, and all manner of potentiality. AND I laughed A LOT reading this. Every utopia needs ample laughter.
The bullying is a reference to apple. I'm looking to escape. It's been too long.
Yup. Understand. I came back because I'm a stubborn bastard, but it's so easy to be distracted anyway.
Hi Nolan. Just thought I should mention you don't get good value from Substack when you highlight and give a link to someone else's page. Having read what you thought was relevant, I found I wasn't allowed to go back to your page. I had to close theirs and go back to your email. Maybe this isn't so in the app, but Apple insists you can only have the app on iphone or ipad (in English we don't use upper case in the middle of a word). Is this due to technological incompetence or is this another example of corporate arrogance and bullying? Just saying...
Thanks for letting me know, Ian. I've had similar experiences, but it depends on the browser and device. That's why I put most links in the citations for people to copy and paste. The links in the article are because I want to support those writers here on Substack. However, in this case, the writer I'm supporting never shares my work, so maybe it's not worth taking away from the reading experience of my articles.
*I just went through the article and made some changes, thanks to your comment.
> bereft of human understanding and brimming with unwarranted self-confidence
I laughed out loud
I *think* I am understanding what you're saying.
You're general ethos is kind of like, "yes things are getting better but they still suck." And to an extent you are right, no one ever said "capitalism is the ideal" only that "it's the best economic model we've found so far." And that means there is certainly so much room for improvement!
And the economy only needs to grow enough that it can support everyone on the planet, and if we stay at about the same population size or a little bit larger, it won't ever need to grow beyond it. We just need to make sure it's not harming the planet and that we fix how that money is distributed in the meantime. Which is totally in our power to do.
And yes, the internet exists. But I do not believe it's making us stupider. That presumes that everyone was a bunch of intellectuals before it came along. Which they weren't (and they had plenty of other "time wasters" that now we idealize as quaint).
There is a lot to fix, but only because we will be tweaking everything for ever and ever as we figure it out as we go.
I've many thoughts and erm..addendums? but I just started thinking them-who knows whether I'll finish soon, or at all, or whether important to make sure you read them or something.
But in any case-thank you for the post..I love having thoughts especially in time when brain seems incapable of much thinking. Then, the day is still young.
I do need to recall the name of that book..the author there talks with Tommaso Campannella..as if he were still alive..Campannella is in prison, there, and the conversation revolves about what happenned in The City of The Sun...
..found it. "Assassinating Mirages". was censored and not allowed for publishing-until perestrojka times.
Thanks for responding so quickly, Chen! Of course, if the day is young and you’re gathering your thoughts, take your time, and I'm happy to discuss and read your thoughts later on.