Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The deep roots of modern resentment

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#21

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

EekSnakePond wrote: post #13
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, exactly, does Western liberalism absolutely require cheap brown people?

Every single thing you touched (And every single thing connected to what you touched) to type that statement was made overseas. Welcome to the international system of currency and labor arbitrage, a core prerequisite for any democratic experiment. Democracy has ALWAYS and WILL always require slaves.

You are conflating economic neoliberalism (which is neither new nor contemporarily liberal) with social liberalism. They are not the same and nobody is pretending that they are.

I still fail to see your connection:

1: Slaves

2: Democracy

3: ????

4: Profit(?)

Could you explain with links or examples how exactly slavery (or economic peonage, depending on your definition), is required to maintain a democracy?

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#22

Post by ryanmarsh »

beat wrote: post #18
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, exactly, does Western liberalism absolutely require cheap brown people?

It doesn't. Western liberalism has, at times, relied on cheap white people, too. But the need for unskilled labor has dropped precipitously, while demand for skilled labor has spiked. See, for example, the IT industry's need for "cheap brown people" (from India, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Asia). They're only marginally cheaper than white citizen labor, and a lot more expensive than unskilled labor. This has been offs…

"the need for unskilled labor has dropped precipitously"

here, the need for unskilled labor has dropped precipitously here

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#23

Post by the_duke »

m_fayer wrote: post #12
dandare wrote: post #5

Sometimes I feel like the more has been achieved by western liberalism the more is it being criticized for not magically fixing everything there is to be fixed. Coincidentally those who criticize it never offer alternative realistic solutions.

Absolutely. The basics of liberalism as we see it today - rule of law and representative democracy, are young. How many presently-unthinkable violations of liberalism were committed by a Western nation within the lifespan of someone who is 90 today, with full public support? Outright genocide, systematic persecution and disenfranchisement of whole races and genders, violent militarised colonialism, you name it. Build…

It's easy to forget that what we understand now as a liberal democracy with free press, rule of law and the right for everyone to vote is extremely young.

Just look at the time when women were granted voting rights (1).

The US, by some seen as the 'holy grail' of modern democracy, officially allowed women to vote in 1919 (ironically many of the Democratic party were opposed), had extensive voter supression such as literacy tests until the 60ies and arguably still does today.

Many European countries were not real Democracies until after WW2, or event until the fall of the soviet union.

60-70, or even 100 years is basically nothing. That's one long lifespan.

Let's see if we see it all go down in flames in our lifetimes. (Probably not. Let's hope not).

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#24

Post by ChuckMcM »

EekSnakePond wrote: post #19
compiler-guy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't a proposal to replace capitalism, that is a small detail of a proposal. A single sentence that is a kernel of an idea (and probably a good one), but far from a sufficient argument. Please give an alternative proposal. A link is fine.

> That isn't a proposal to replace capitalism Put down the Marxism for 5 seconds and follow my original premise all the way to it's logical end. - Make the slaves as expensive as the natives. - Why would you need slaves in this scenario? - You wouldn't. - If slaves and natives are equal cost, then machines are given incentives to outperform both. - Western liberalism is completely flipped on its head in a world where…

And here is the challenge of that suggestion; what mechanism do you propose to "make them equally expensive" ? There are many things you can 'say' but not 'do', for example 'write the largest integer on this piece of paper'. That is easy to say, and it sounds easy, just put a number down on a piece of paper, but the number requested is not representable and so the suggestion is actually impossible.

Your statement "Make the slaves as expensive as the natives" has exactly this quality. And so any follow on argument is moot. Tell us how to accomplish that and we can debate what policy would make that real.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#26

Post by EekSnakePond »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #21
EekSnakePond wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single thing you touched (And every single thing connected to what you touched) to type that statement was made overseas. Welcome to the international system of currency and labor arbitrage, a core prerequisite for any democratic experiment. Democracy has ALWAYS and WILL always require slaves.

You are conflating economic neoliberalism (which is neither new nor contemporarily liberal) with social liberalism. They are not the same and nobody is pretending that they are. I still fail to see your connection: 1: Slaves 2: Democracy 3: ???? 4: Profit(?) Could you explain with links or examples how exactly slavery (or economic peonage, depending on your definition), is required to maintain a democracy?

> You are conflating economic neoliberalism with social liberalism.

I agree it appears I'm making this conflation. But

> nobody is pretending that they are:

Is not an honest statement. Any attempt to make cheap brown labor more expensive through legislation (See the Trump protests) or even by IMPROVING their quality of life (See gentrification) is instantly fought off as racist. The powers that be have deeply merged international currency flow with Western liberal morality after the 1940s and use their sacred cows as hostages to stifle any threats to their power.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#27

Post by germinalphrase »

EekSnakePond wrote: post #19
compiler-guy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't a proposal to replace capitalism, that is a small detail of a proposal. A single sentence that is a kernel of an idea (and probably a good one), but far from a sufficient argument. Please give an alternative proposal. A link is fine.

> That isn't a proposal to replace capitalism Put down the Marxism for 5 seconds and follow my original premise all the way to it's logical end. - Make the slaves as expensive as the natives. - Why would you need slaves in this scenario? - You wouldn't. - If slaves and natives are equal cost, then machines are given incentives to outperform both. - Western liberalism is completely flipped on its head in a world where…

How does this solution provide for the welfare of those natives/slaves [sic] once their labor is replaced by machines - as is your stated goal?

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#28

Post by compiler-guy »

beat wrote: post #20
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my perspective, the issue is less that the critics decline to offer alternative realistic solutions, but rather that they seek to repackage discredited and harmful solutions (like supply-side economics) as being the correct fix if only it gets implemented correctly and without opposition meddling. This line of argument is also often used to whitewash Communism by saying things along the line of: "Communism would w…

Those are almost always No True Scotsman fallacies. Supply-side failed because it wasn't supply-side enough . Etc.

It's not unlike abstinence-only birth control.

Practiced perfectly, yes, abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is no question about that.

And yes, some small fraction of people do manage to practice complete abstinence, and reap the benefit of not getting pregnant.

But as a policy, abstinence only for broad swaths of the population is a total disaster.

Re: The deep roots of modern resentment

#29

Post by pm90 »

the_duke wrote: post #23
m_fayer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. The basics of liberalism as we see it today - rule of law and representative democracy, are young. How many presently-unthinkable violations of liberalism were committed by a Western nation within the lifespan of someone who is 90 today, with full public support? Outright genocide, systematic persecution and disenfranchisement of whole races and genders, violent militarised colonialism, you name it. Build…

It's easy to forget that what we understand now as a liberal democracy with free press, rule of law and the right for everyone to vote is extremely young. Just look at the time when women were granted voting rights (1). The US, by some seen as the 'holy grail' of modern democracy, officially allowed women to vote in 1919 (ironically many of the Democratic party were opposed), had extensive voter supression such as li…

I was afraid of the whole burning down thing as well. The protests and outrage around the US have made me a lot more hopeful though.
Post reply on HN