The diversity of movements and organisations shapes them.
This might sound trite, but it also creates a barrier to more diverse movements. This 2011 Daily Kos article is one of my favourite things on the Internet. (I know. The headline. Persevere.) It’s a consultant’s story about trying to help feminist groups become more racially diverse.
This isn’t necessarily about racism or sexism or classism or anythingelseism. It’s more about a kind of Hayekian concept of privilege. We don’t know what’s in other peoples’ heads, so we miss stuff when we don’t interact with or listen to each other.
Treating the Daily Kos article as a case study gives some insight into the barriers to diversity and shows us why diversifying can lead to pushback. Read more
Earlier this week, Canada’s Prime Minister interrupted a woman to correct her after she used the word ‘mankind’. Trudeau asked that she instead use the word ‘peoplekind’ in order to be more inclusive. This exchange garnered international criticism, which led the Prime Minister to respond by saying the whole thing was just a “dumb joke”.
Apart from the fact that the Prime Minister used a word that doesn’t exist, à la Sarah Palin’s ‘refudiate’, he then claims it was a joke. This, to me, is much worse than if he had simply apologized.
We haven’t heard as much lately about panic over falling faith in democracy, but questions about the proper scope of democracy and what we mean by “democracy” are still relevant. Is democracy popping a ballot in a box, or does it include our conversations and what we do as communities?
Vincent Ostrom asks this question in The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerabilities of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge, and urges us to recognise a seldom-discussed danger to democracy. We often hear that we need to do more than just vote—we need to vote well. But, says Ostrom, we also need to be able to persuade each other—to use what Deirdre McCloskey calls “sweet talk“. Sweet talk is how we get people to act together when we can’t force them to. But we have to persuade well, the right way—building buy-in and consensus. The wrong kind of persuasion might be as dangerous as the wrong kind of voting. “Rhetoric pursued as an art of manipulation can be a trap contributing to the vulnerability of democratic societies.” (xiii)
Larry’s discussion of the different conceptions of capitalism and stateless society in his tribute to Ursula K. Le Guin reminded me of the discussions of capitalism and utopia in G.A. Cohen’s Why Not Socialism? and Jason Brennan’s Why Not Capitalism?
Cohen’s tiny book is a classic and an ambitious one. Though it barely clears 80 pages, it sets out to make the case that the utopia that we should wish for—even strive for—is a socialist one. As Brennan points out in his 99-page response, for many years Cohen’s opponents granted his claim that socialism doesn’t and can’t work, but if it could, and if we were good enough, it’s the morally best system to embrace.
Brennan makes it clear—more clear than Cohen does—that this is all Cohen argues for. He grants that the “design problem” of coming up with a workable economic system to replace capitalism might be one that we can’t overcome. All Cohen asks is that we want to overcome it, that we want to do better than capitalism. But this is ground that Brennan refuses to cede.
Rising alarmism about the amount of energy used to mine bitcoin is leading to a proliferation of confused articles like Eric Holthaus’s Bitcoin could cost us our clean-energy future (Grist, Dec. 15, 2017).
Most of these articles repeat an error popularized by Christopher Malmo, who has written and rewritten the same article about bitcoin’s awful energy consumption for Motherboard since creating the genre with Bitcoin Is Unsustainable back in 2015. The error is based on Malmo’s conviction that bitcoin is mostly a replacement for credit cards. The fact that a single bitcoin is at present worth more than $14,000 CAD might help him see the difference if he were interested, but he isn’t, because he insists on repeating his conviction in each new article.
Why is this important? Because it leads him into a more serious error, which is confusing bitcoin mining, which takes a lot of energy, and bitcoin transactions, which do not (except in the sense that the mining, for the time being, validates them). This leads to a raft of horrifying comparisons: each bitcoin transaction “uses as much energy as your house in a week” (my house in frigid Montreal, or Malmo’s house in temperate Vancouver? dunno, but either way he’s wrong); bitcoin consumes as much energy as [ insert name of tropical country here ]. The truth, of course, is not that simple. Read more
The debate about whether ‘identity politics’ is crucial or dangerous to liberalism is on. And it is frustrating.
Jacob Levy came out swinging yesterday in defence of the crucial role of identity politics in liberalism, against arguments about the role of identity politics in the rise of illiberalism (and Trumpism) in the U.S., such as those presented by Reason’s Robby Soave and in Mark Lilla’s recent NYT piece. Jason Kuznicki has responded to Levy. Elsewhere, Tom Palmer names identity politics as a danger to liberalism in his fabulous essay on the three fronts of growing anti-libertarianism.
The first order of business seems to be to decide what, exactly, we mean by ‘identity politics’. Jason Kuznicki agrees:
“An equivocation is occurring here, between good and bad, both claiming to be “identity politics.” In cases like that, it’s morally imperative to differentiate rather than to lump together.”
I am concerned about identity politics as it’s represented by Tom Palmer and Jason Kuznicki, so I’ll draw from them as I take a stab at nailing down a definition of the ‘identity politics’ that worries me.
As folks struggle to deal with the populist, anti-market realignment on the right, Godwin’s law has been making itself more relevant. People who make the mistake of equating today’s right-populism with national socialism might be forgiven, even if they go too far, for a more appropriate term has been drained of meaning: fascism.
Anyone who says that politicians today are fascist sounds nuts. The word has been applied indiscriminately to dismiss people and policies so often that it’s devoid of meaning, though it’s broadly associated with an unhinged lust for power, disregard for constitutional law, and eugenic racism. But the original intent of fascism aimed at none of these things. I’ve written on how modest the tenets of fascism sound in today’s political climate. Steve Horwitz has been pressing the applicability of the technical term since last summer. The fact is that, fallen as the word might be, there’s simply not a good substitute.