Unifying Resistance

A comment I posted at Truthout. It pulls together several themes I've written about here:

"Trump is upping his game, and we, as resisters, aren't ready." 

Yes. It's also time to be proactive as opposed to reactive. But we need to understand the reflex to react and how to step back and see the forest to respond proactively. It's important to understand how politics divides people in both obvious and subtle ways. DJT is a practitioner of confrontational divisiveness; he outright declares his rejection of immigrants, Mexicans, unattractive women, prisoners of war, disabled people, etc. Divide and conquer can also be achieved by more subtle tactics, such as when Republicans and Democrats specifically void the needs of the poor by leaving them out of the debate (or DJT spotlighting the educated with his 'I love the poorly educated').  

The modus operandi of the body politic is to act on the interests of the elite at the expense of the larger population by dividing the larger group. Successful opposition would require some degree of unified resistance which is not the case with single issue movements. I would suggest single issue movements make their case under the umbrella of a larger 'meta' theme for the benefit of the larger overall. For instance, demanding that all policy be based on objective evidence would mean the numbers of gun injuries and deaths factors into gun policy and definitions of corporate personhood would correct for the differential influence such policy would confer on owners. Another useful theme would be to define economies as 'production, consumption and exchange of capital for the sustained wellbeing of humanity'. 'Sustained' would entail policy makers incorporate a long view of policy outcomes - think climate change; 'wellbeing' would require some degree of universal healthcare; and the 'economics' of warfare would be completely invalidated. A final theme would be maximize information transparency. The only way a small group (elites) can concentrate power to any extent is through the control of information. They use propaganda (selective/deceptive use of information) to create divides in the larger population and amplify infighting. Information transparency inoculates against propaganda.  

The resistance movement needs to recognize that although Trump is personally repugnant and vulgar, he is only a figurehead. The real adversaries in the long fight are the power elites.

Redress of disproportionate scale

The primary problem with the economy right now is enormous inequality expressed in many ways. On the meta level, the power of corporations to effect ecosystem scale damage threatens the survival of humanity through its impact on the environment - climate change, air and water pollution, fracking triggered earthquakes, water shortages, etc. My favorite example is the power to literally remove mountains by mountaintop coal mining. Bill Nye describes another example where tar sands oil extraction has denuded one quarter of the visible ecosystem in the Canadian province of Alberta.

As regular readers would know, my preferred solution is to make information fully transparent. Controlling information is how corporations concentrate power. There are two other options which would diffuse the ability of corporations to concentrate power. Neither would be as effective as information transparency but its always good to attack large problems from multiple fronts. One would be to force all corporations to have a fixed expiration dates. Corporations are legal entities. The Supreme Court has given them some personhood rights without the limits that natural persons experience with biologically imposed death. Corporate expiration dates would fix that problem. BTW, because corporations are owned by people, the extension of personhood rights to corporations means owners of corporations have more rights than non-owners. Its surprising this isn't seen as a challenge to one-person-one-vote.

The other option is to limit the size of financial institutions. Banks are tools by which corporations collect/borrow the money/capital to become powerful. No one individual has the money to buy the resources to blow up mountains. By pooling the money of many people, banks can collect the needed funds. Smaller banks can't collect as much money. This would not prevent the concentration of power but it would put up additional barriers because it forces the participation of more players who each would/could add their own conditions.

So not as simple as my preferred open information proposal but perhaps good options to add to the tool chest in opposition to concentrated economic power.

No Principles of Economics?

The latest episode of Economic Update, Where Economic Theories Clash, strongly implies something I feared regarding the field of Economics. In it, Richard Wolff called Neo-classical economics, Keynesian economics and Marxian economics 'theories' of economics which implies they have undergone some form of validation or testing (scientific theories are vigorously tested before they are called 'theories'). But in real economies, each of these 'theories' has failed in one permutation or other. This suggests that Economics has no unifying principles. [To use the physical sciences as an example (again): the Theory of Evolution is a unifying principle in biology - it connects all living organisms and justifies the study of model organisms to better understand life; Atomic Theory is a unifying principle of chemistry - it predicts the behavior of all matter.] An example of a possible unifying economic principle is the presumption that functional economies must yield profit; this would have strong implications for capitalism.

This is particularly troubling when it comes to policy. All public policy is economic policy and it is argued and made on the basis of Economic theory. If Economic theory is as poorly developed as implied above, then for all intents and purposes, Economic theory is ideology without basis in empirical principle. As it stands now, the science of climate change has very strong physical evidence backing it and thus should drive energy policy. In its stead, we have nonsense 'economic' arguments that the cost of protecting the biosphere is 'too expensive'. Policy makers are balancing the future of humanity against the profiteering of capitalists at our ignorance. If science can detangle systems as complex as climate to predicted global climate change, it should be able to apply similar methods to answer the question of how to best structure economies for the sake of mankind. Economies should serve humanity not the other way around.

Cult of Fear

This was intended as a comment on a Truthout.org post about how politicians, especially Republicans, use fear to manipulate voters into supporting them. However, my argument got a little too complex for a simple comment, so its only appearance is here:

Marketing appeals to fear and sex to sell because human biology is programmed to respond to these emotions. Monotheistic religions capitalize on fear in two ways: (1) Religions justify fear by providing an object – women are a constant threat to the power of men; their sexuality is their most fearsome weapon and must be brought to heel and under the control of men. (2) A fearsome all powerful, all knowing being has all the answers. But those answers are too much for men’s small brains and most men can’t communicate with the big dude anyway. Only special people (kings, emperors, popes, and the like) get to translate for him.

In modern times, religion teaches believers to trust their church authority (most people don’t read primary religious texts) over what can be objectively measured (faith over science). When personal faith is imbued in the words of an authority figure, it’s easy to transfer that trust into other people who present similar absolute certainty (for example, Rush Limbaugh is never wrong). Enter right-wing media which gives self-aggrandizing braggarts enormous forums and infrastructure to in essence to form cults (like Fox News under Roger Ailes). As bad as Democrats are, they have not codified the ideological Cult of Fear that Republicans so effectively used to ensnare their followers. Republican followers are told to fear women for taking men’s jobs and dignity; fear immigrants for taking jobs; fear Muslims for terrorism; fear liberals for taking their guns (but not to fear guns); fear science/scientists for their ‘self-interested agendas’; fear President Obama for being a foreign born Muslim; fear black people for existing; fear Obamacare for insurance mandate; fear the poor for needing social services; fear veterans for using the VA… In the face of such terrifying scenarios, cultists are told Republican politicians know how to keep them safe from all these threats.

Fear is the defensive emotion to the unknown. That’s why Republicans fear science. Science is a system of knowledge that seeks to determine patterns capable of accurately predicting the future. In other words, science answers questions about the feared unknown. The question is how to stage a cult intervention on the scale of roughly half the U.S. population.

Update: Yes, evangelical cults exists and they can be difficult to escape from.

economics is life

Economics is life because economics is how workers provide the necessities of life. In exchange for labor, workers earn the means to purchase food, clothing, shelter and all other sundries. But the policy and practice of economics does not account for the inherent life aspect of economics. Instead, economics is defined as "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" [Wikipedia]. And this has allowed governments and policy makers to couch the purpose of economic policy only to the end goal of creating capital, another word for wealth and profit.

With a 'pro-economy' argument, essentially every decision of the DJT presidency is intended to generate profits for the owner class without regard for workers. Oil pipelines have been approved at the risk of contaminating the soil and water necessary for human consumption and agriculture. Health care reform to profit insurance providers is under consideration at the risk of workers losing medical insurance or essential benefits with the projected likelihood of decreasing overall life expectancy.

These policies literally put profit over life. And that is completely contrary to the purpose of work. If work cannot provide the means to survive, their is no reason or purpose to work. So the current definition of economics is incomplete. It needs to include a purpose, the survival and wellbeing of workers. And because workers are always making more workers in the form of children, wellbeing has to extend into time, the sustained survival and wellbeing of workers.

Economic policy that must take the long term wellbeing of workers in account would change the nature of geopolitics and culture. It would be a positive change.

Susceptibility to demagoguery

Comment at Crooks&Liars:

People who have learned to believe myths and fairy tales, also known as theist religions, are more susceptible to demagoguery. They readily expand their circle of information/authority to demigods. Aggressive right wing braggarts are today's demigods.

Our five senses are essential to survival. They tell us when our environment is safe or dangerous and guide our daily activities. Religion and faith programs believers into believing the existence of beings that cannot be sensed and to trust the authority figures of their church. Larger than life political personalities assume a similar mantle of authority by the way they present themselves. Even the Bible, which is not the word of God, warns of worshiping false idols.

Scientific theories are emergent properties

Part of Wikipedia entry:

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit. 

Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things.
In philosophy, theories that emphasize emergent properties have been called emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels.

Scientific theories are the distilled explanations that emerge from the sum of known empirically observed facts.