ZaneMullerFirstEssay 5 - 16 Sep 2024 - Main.StevenRaphan
|
|
< < |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
| > > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="ArchivedMaterial" |
| | Controlling Workers in the Platform Economy
I. The Rise of Worker Misclassification | | Worker misclassification is part of a larger trend of outsourcing and the dismantling of the 19th-century vertically-integrated corporation dating to the late 70s, but only in the late 90s and early 2000s did the problem gain wider attention. In this pre-smartphone period, misclassification was concentrated in the construction industry, where the work was especially dangerous (ie, expensive to insure) and the employment relationships often contingent and semi-formal. From 2004 to 2012, twenty-two states attempted to address the problem through legislation, tightening their statutory definitions and/or creating or increasing penalties for misclassifying workers, with mixed success.
These statutes, however, did not comprehend the rise of digital on-demand service platforms such as Uber and Taskrabbit, which effectively created a new class of worker uncomfortably situated between the two existing categories. These “platform workers” have been almost universally classified by their employers as independent contractors, though they do not fit neatly into either category. | |
< < | While initially trumpeted as win-win innovators creating better services for consumers and more freedom and opportunity for workers, in the last few years these companies have come under increased scrutiny. Two prominent class-action cases brought by drivers, O’Connor v. Uber and Cotter v. Lyft, were recently settled for hundreds of millions of dollars; however, the terms of settlement in each case stipulated that drivers were to remain independent contractors. Perhaps more significantly, in the past three years, Uber and Lyft mounted a successful lobbying campaign across 41 states to gain specific statutory carve-outs for rideshare drivers to ensure that they would continue to be defined as independent contractors. In many cases, these were passed as part of a larger package of ostensibly consumer-protection-oriented regulations, such as requirements that drivers carry certain insurance or pass background checks. These companies have been remarkably successful in their aggressive lobbying efforts by mobilizing their user bases to apply ‘grassroots’ political pressure and employing a substantial number of well-connected lobbyists, including former Obama strategist David Plouffe. | > > | While initially trumpeted as win-win innovators creating better services for consumers and more freedom and opportunity for workers, in the last few years these companies have come under increased scrutiny. Two prominent class-action cases brought by drivers, Trash._O’Connor v. UberTrash._ and Trash._Cotter v. LyftTrash._, were recently settled for hundreds of millions of dollars; however, the terms of settlement in each case stipulated that drivers were to remain independent contractors. Perhaps more significantly, in the past three years, Uber and Lyft mounted a successful lobbying campaign across 41 states to gain specific statutory carve-outs for rideshare drivers to ensure that they would continue to be defined as independent contractors. In many cases, these were passed as part of a larger package of ostensibly consumer-protection-oriented regulations, such as requirements that drivers carry certain insurance or pass background checks. These companies have been remarkably successful in their aggressive lobbying efforts by mobilizing their user bases to apply ‘grassroots’ political pressure and employing a substantial number of well-connected lobbyists, including former Obama strategist David Plouffe. | | III. Control |
|
ZaneMullerFirstEssay 4 - 12 Jun 2018 - Main.ZaneMuller
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
| |
< < | The Shape of the Coming Realignment | > > | Controlling Workers in the Platform Economy | | | |
< < | -- By ZaneMuller - 22 Feb 2018 | > > | I. The Rise of Worker Misclassification | | | |
< < | This idea is mostly built on Arnold’s Folklore of Capitalism and the Thomas Edsall piece posted to main page. | > > | While the numbers are contested, the last two decades have seen the arrival and rapid growth of electronically-mediated employment, often called “gig work” or participation in the “sharing economy.” Employers such as Uber, FedEx? , Amazon and others have rapidly grown their workforces in part by relying on differences in how the law treats “employees” versus “independent contractors”. By classifying their workers as contractors, they are able to avoid substantial costs in the form of unemployment insurance taxes, worker’s compensation premiums, and other contributions to the safety net that exists for traditional employees. The workers forgo these benefits in exchange for flexibility in their work schedules.
So what is the difference between an employee and an independent contractor? It depends who you ask. The distinction is premised on the idea that independent contractors are entrepreneurs with multiple clients who have relatively more bargaining power than employees of a single boss who can dictate terms. So employees receive protections and benefits as required by various state and federal statutory schemes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Security Act and the Affordable Care Act; independent contractors, in contrast, are expected to fend for themselves.
Various states and federal agencies, however, apply different legal tests to distinguish employees from independent contractors, and there is substantial variance in the tests and their outcomes. Employers thus have a clear incentive to stretch these tests to comprise as much of their workforces as possible, and they devote substantial resources to defending their classifications. | | | |
< < | Political parties in the United States pop like soap bubbles every forty or so years. | > > | II. Recent legal developments | | | |
< < | | > > | Worker misclassification is part of a larger trend of outsourcing and the dismantling of the 19th-century vertically-integrated corporation dating to the late 70s, but only in the late 90s and early 2000s did the problem gain wider attention. In this pre-smartphone period, misclassification was concentrated in the construction industry, where the work was especially dangerous (ie, expensive to insure) and the employment relationships often contingent and semi-formal. From 2004 to 2012, twenty-two states attempted to address the problem through legislation, tightening their statutory definitions and/or creating or increasing penalties for misclassifying workers, with mixed success.
These statutes, however, did not comprehend the rise of digital on-demand service platforms such as Uber and Taskrabbit, which effectively created a new class of worker uncomfortably situated between the two existing categories. These “platform workers” have been almost universally classified by their employers as independent contractors, though they do not fit neatly into either category.
While initially trumpeted as win-win innovators creating better services for consumers and more freedom and opportunity for workers, in the last few years these companies have come under increased scrutiny. Two prominent class-action cases brought by drivers, O’Connor v. Uber and Cotter v. Lyft, were recently settled for hundreds of millions of dollars; however, the terms of settlement in each case stipulated that drivers were to remain independent contractors. Perhaps more significantly, in the past three years, Uber and Lyft mounted a successful lobbying campaign across 41 states to gain specific statutory carve-outs for rideshare drivers to ensure that they would continue to be defined as independent contractors. In many cases, these were passed as part of a larger package of ostensibly consumer-protection-oriented regulations, such as requirements that drivers carry certain insurance or pass background checks. These companies have been remarkably successful in their aggressive lobbying efforts by mobilizing their user bases to apply ‘grassroots’ political pressure and employing a substantial number of well-connected lobbyists, including former Obama strategist David Plouffe. | | | |
< < | No, the two present parties have been stably in existence, unpopped
like ball bearings, since 1860. There are cycles of dominance, at
the somewhat misleading federal level, but the metaphor you've
chosen misrepresents rotation in office as existential failure. | > > | III. Control | | | |
< < | | > > | Transportation network companies, like most gig-economy employers, base their defenses of their worker classification schemes on the supposed freedom that workers have: after all, they may log in and out of the platforms at will, or even operate more than one simultaneously. Statutory and common law tests use a variety of factors to determine whether a worker is an employee, but a unifying feature is the element of control: does the employer determine the manner and means by which the work is accomplished?
Traditionally, workers were “controlled” through direct supervision on-site, with stipulated tasks and hours and the ever-present threat of termination. The platform economy relies on few of these levers to control the behavior of their workers, but it has replaced these with more subtle means. Smartphones allow the constant surveillance of workers, and their performance is constantly evaluated by customers whose ratings determine whether a worker retains her job. TNCs have begun using psychological techniques to influence driver behavior, using nudges to alter their performance of work in ways that benefit the platform but not necessarily the drivers themselves. Advances in wearable technology and “people analytics” promise a dystopian degree of worker control of which the industrialists of yore could have only dreamed. | | | |
> > | IV. Implications for the future | | | |
< < | We’re due.
The Republican Party’s flagrant screwing of its rank-and-file voters has been obvious since at least the 1980s, and is mirrored by the extent to which the Democratic party has forsaken its wards and ceased to seriously represent the interests of anyone without rich parents or at least an elite degree. Piketty calls this the “multiple elite party system”, or more colorfully, the Merchant Right vs. the Brahmin Left. I think he’s basically right in describing the state of affairs and diagnosing it as unsustainable.
I don't understand this yet. The United States became an
aristocracy, characterized by extremely concentrated ownership of
the society's wealth and income, from the end of the Vietnam War.
Because wealth is concentrated enough to control politics, the
parties naturally adopt the policies favoring fractions of that
dominant class (regional and cultural). The parties then arrange to
get their votes by the usual means, which have little to do with
rational debates about policy. What is unstable about the political
arrangement, which is not only familiar but conventional? Are you
saying that the social arrangement of wealth and power concentration
is not sustainable? It can't be static, but that's hardly the same thing.
The Republican soap bubble is showing more obvious strain, and I think the Democrats, despite their best efforts, might manage to make some lemonade for a cycle or two after Trump pulls down the pillars. But absent the singular appeal of Barack Obama (with whom the organization became dangerously overidentified), the only creed really holding the Democratic party together these days is a shared disinclination to overt sexism and white supremacy. There’s no reason to think that the Island of Misfit Toys that is the presumptive 2020 Democratic field won’t allow the Republicans to prolong our national nightmare for another term.
Is this rhetoric only? What is the analysis actually contained in this paragraph? I should think, if we are going back to the process of identifying parties with policies, that the policy offerings of the Democratic Party go far past what you've stated. Commitment to expansion of national health insurance, significant energy behind the idea of public guarantee of some higher education through community college at public expense, activist climate policy, efforts to increase unionization of the private economy and reverse de-unionization of the public sector, are surely all identifiable as parts of the party's policy basket. But why are we treating parties as primarily made of ideas for the thinking man?
Nor is it clear what epithets directed at potential candidates mean. Arnold would be asking how adroitly individuals might arrange to be the right sort of screen against which disparate groups of voters could project their hopes. What is the theory of a candidate's role that backs your expression of judgment?
I’m not unafraid of what’s emerged from Pandora’s box lately. Even Arnold, after all, wasn’t exactly sounding alarm bells in 1937; societies sleepwalk to disaster. The risks of a Franz-Ferdinand-assassination-type event are real, but, I think, small.
I would bet our current political moment will be remembered more as a freakish death spasm of white nationalist patriarchy than the beginning of some broader, fatal unravelling of the global social order.
I should think everyone bets that way, because no one wants to bet on the fatal unravelling of the social order. But while the language is lively, what is the actual idea of betting on how a moment you are living in will be remembered by some other people?
The old, bad, hard Right has emerged temporarily from the basement, but it’s more aggrieved, skulking gamer than aggressive, striding brownshirt. Demographics are not on their side, and, most importantly, racism is bad for business. It’s true that the Weimar crack-up opened the door for the fringe Right, but when one or both of our political parties implode, I just don’t see anything comparable happening; the nation isn’t humiliated enough. Things are still going too well for too many people.
My sense is that a more likely bad outcome is the consolidation and ascendancy of a technocratic-libertarian Soft Right — the McKinsey? Right — that promises lower taxes, data-driven solutions to social problems, more ‘personal freedom’ (social and economic) and a seductively agnostic, corporatist and ostensibly racially-inclusive solution to our polarized, stagnant present.
What is the sense that is sensing this likelihood?
I picture a consolidation of the elites in which the Brahmins choose the aesthetics and the Merchants keep their property. Such a program could unite urban, educated top earners with a broad slice of the political middle who find it socially untenable not to act woke and thus resent the activist Left, which refuses to give them enough credit for liking Oprah and shopping at Whole Foods — that majority of white Americans that hasn’t changed much since Dr. King described them in 1968.
I imagine something like the political-institutional embodiment of this Exxon ad. Its creed is not unappealing: optimistic, brochure-diverse, solutions-oriented, smart, connected, and inclusive of immigrants (with advanced degrees). Such a party would have ample room for the enduring culture heroes of American mythology, but would of course find its purest archetypes in the ascendant Zuckerbergian elite. The tech billionaire, in his wisdom and generosity, ensures that every kid in every classroom gets a Chromebook and becomes a scientist. Charging Bull in partnership with Fearless Girl.
The corporate elite has long since ceded the identitarian ground in the culture wars. People of all colors, creeds and sexual orientations buy stuff anyway. It’s not hard to imagine the Merchant holdouts fully conceding the culture to the Brahmin Left in exchange for our continued help patching up the cracks in the capitalist edifice. The material circumstances of a post-industrial economy and the threat of destabilizing populism dictate a realignment of the people to whom the benefits of hot capital have accrued in opposition to those who have been burned. The elites will make common cause because we have little choice, because we are geographically concentrated, because we fear the populists and realize that something must be done about them. It will feel acceptable because we on the Left, with our more refined humanitarian sensibilities, will get to dictate the social norms; correct pronouns, etc. The material realities we will leave to the Merchants.
The policies, after all, matter less than the heroes. Take, for example, basic income, a moral-panic-inducing idea which would surely poison the work ethic of the Bootstrapping American Laborer, but could also surely gain traction with rational, thinking people if it could be shown to comport with capitalist dogma. Mix basic income with virtual reality as opiates for mass disemployment, add in (goes without saying) generous salaries for the more sophisticated servants (engineers, lawyers, etc), make sure all categories of people are represented in the promotional materials, and you have a new system that meets the new material needs. Such an exchange wouldn’t even represent a concession from the Merchants; profits from automating most of the economy would clearly afford insurance against the type of real-deal social cataclysm that might interrupt the steady concentration of capital. Brahmins could call it Progress; Merchants, the cost of doing business.
But one would have to know how to do this. The problem with the
analysis is that, like some contemporary political activity you
don't identify with, it's all just fantasy about some TV show
describing a reality that isn't actually real. Nobody knows how to
enact a universal basic income in the United States, and you show as
little interest in the realities of the earned income tax credit as
the current president himself. We can say, for sure, that a "retail
offer" to solve the opiate addiction problem, so that young people
stop dropping dead in the front yards of decent, hard-pressed
working-class voters, will have an immediate effect on the
distribution of votes in the next Electoral College. But someone
has to do what to do and how to make it happen.
I imagine a party capable of declaring us innocent of racism, climate change, gross inequality and poverty, you name it. Personal freedom polls better than social justice in these United States, and privileged people are apt to confuse the two anyway. This future scares me because a lot of good people I know and respect would go along with it — because I think we of the Brahmin left are easy to co-opt.
The most important route to improvement here, from the mechanical
point of view, is learning to kill your darlings. Your effort to
harness rhetorical energy needs am additional injection of
restraint. As the critic Wilfred Sheed once wrote, in a phrase that
helped me over the years, "If you try to slay your audience with
every sentence, you run the risk that you may succeed."
Substantively, as I've noted above, the most important route to
improvement is to give the problem of governing a little attention
in the discussion of politics. When everyone is a super-punchy
talking head on video, it becomes difficult to explain how the
garbage is actually collected and how roads are built. (Either by
hordes of immigrants flooding over the borders to reduce wages and
destroy civilization or not at all, one is left to suppose.) But
when you ask how people getting involved with politics actually do
engage, you get a better lawyer's theory of social action out of it.
| > > | While jobs driving vehicles will soon go the way of the dodo, the problem of worker misclassification is likely to persist as long as it presents an opportunity for regulatory arbitrage. A few solutions have been proposed, from the creation of a third class of “independent worker” to more rigorous enforcement of existing statutes and definitions to include platform economy workers. Even some platform employers have proposed legislation for portable benefits for their workers, in the hope of avoiding employee classification for their workers.
But underlying all of this analysis is the fact that the various overlapping schemes and the need to classify workers at all would be obviated by more comprehensive safety nets. FLSA, ERISA and other programs came about as part of a grand bargain between labor and capital at a time when the nature of their relationship was changing due to structural factors. Technology is creating new power asymmetries between workers and employers, with implications that go beyond ride sharing. Such a change seems to be upon us again, and a more radical renegotiation of the labor compact may be called for. | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
ZaneMullerFirstEssay 3 - 02 Apr 2018 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
The Shape of the Coming Realignment | | This idea is mostly built on Arnold’s Folklore of Capitalism and the Thomas Edsall piece posted to main page. | |
< < | Political parties in the United States pop like soap bubbles every forty or so years. We’re due. | > > | Political parties in the United States pop like soap bubbles every forty or so years.
No, the two present parties have been stably in existence, unpopped
like ball bearings, since 1860. There are cycles of dominance, at
the somewhat misleading federal level, but the metaphor you've
chosen misrepresents rotation in office as existential failure.
We’re due. | | The Republican Party’s flagrant screwing of its rank-and-file voters has been obvious since at least the 1980s, and is mirrored by the extent to which the Democratic party has forsaken its wards and ceased to seriously represent the interests of anyone without rich parents or at least an elite degree. Piketty calls this the “multiple elite party system”, or more colorfully, the Merchant Right vs. the Brahmin Left. I think he’s basically right in describing the state of affairs and diagnosing it as unsustainable. | |
> > |
I don't understand this yet. The United States became an
aristocracy, characterized by extremely concentrated ownership of
the society's wealth and income, from the end of the Vietnam War.
Because wealth is concentrated enough to control politics, the
parties naturally adopt the policies favoring fractions of that
dominant class (regional and cultural). The parties then arrange to
get their votes by the usual means, which have little to do with
rational debates about policy. What is unstable about the political
arrangement, which is not only familiar but conventional? Are you
saying that the social arrangement of wealth and power concentration
is not sustainable? It can't be static, but that's hardly the same thing.
| | The Republican soap bubble is showing more obvious strain, and I think the Democrats, despite their best efforts, might manage to make some lemonade for a cycle or two after Trump pulls down the pillars. But absent the singular appeal of Barack Obama (with whom the organization became dangerously overidentified), the only creed really holding the Democratic party together these days is a shared disinclination to overt sexism and white supremacy. There’s no reason to think that the Island of Misfit Toys that is the presumptive 2020 Democratic field won’t allow the Republicans to prolong our national nightmare for another term. | |
> > |
Is this rhetoric only? What is the analysis actually contained in this paragraph? I should think, if we are going back to the process of identifying parties with policies, that the policy offerings of the Democratic Party go far past what you've stated. Commitment to expansion of national health insurance, significant energy behind the idea of public guarantee of some higher education through community college at public expense, activist climate policy, efforts to increase unionization of the private economy and reverse de-unionization of the public sector, are surely all identifiable as parts of the party's policy basket. But why are we treating parties as primarily made of ideas for the thinking man?
Nor is it clear what epithets directed at potential candidates mean. Arnold would be asking how adroitly individuals might arrange to be the right sort of screen against which disparate groups of voters could project their hopes. What is the theory of a candidate's role that backs your expression of judgment?
| | I’m not unafraid of what’s emerged from Pandora’s box lately. Even Arnold, after all, wasn’t exactly sounding alarm bells in 1937; societies sleepwalk to disaster. The risks of a Franz-Ferdinand-assassination-type event are real, but, I think, small. | |
< < | I would bet our current political moment will be remembered more as a freakish death spasm of white nationalist patriarchy than the beginning of some broader, fatal unravelling of the global social order. The old, bad, hard Right has emerged temporarily from the basement, but it’s more aggrieved, skulking gamer than aggressive, striding brownshirt. Demographics are not on their side, and, most importantly, racism is bad for business. It’s true that the Weimar crack-up opened the door for the fringe Right, but when one or both of our political parties implode, I just don’t see anything comparable happening; the nation isn’t humiliated enough. Things are still going too well for too many people. | > > | I would bet our current political moment will be remembered more as a freakish death spasm of white nationalist patriarchy than the beginning of some broader, fatal unravelling of the global social order.
I should think everyone bets that way, because no one wants to bet on the fatal unravelling of the social order. But while the language is lively, what is the actual idea of betting on how a moment you are living in will be remembered by some other people?
The old, bad, hard Right has emerged temporarily from the basement, but it’s more aggrieved, skulking gamer than aggressive, striding brownshirt. Demographics are not on their side, and, most importantly, racism is bad for business. It’s true that the Weimar crack-up opened the door for the fringe Right, but when one or both of our political parties implode, I just don’t see anything comparable happening; the nation isn’t humiliated enough. Things are still going too well for too many people.
My sense is that a more likely bad outcome is the consolidation and ascendancy of a technocratic-libertarian Soft Right — the McKinsey? Right — that promises lower taxes, data-driven solutions to social problems, more ‘personal freedom’ (social and economic) and a seductively agnostic, corporatist and ostensibly racially-inclusive solution to our polarized, stagnant present.
What is the sense that is sensing this likelihood?
| | | |
< < | My sense is that a more likely bad outcome is the consolidation and ascendancy of a technocratic-libertarian Soft Right — the McKinsey? Right — that promises lower taxes, data-driven solutions to social problems, more ‘personal freedom’ (social and economic) and a seductively agnostic, corporatist and ostensibly racially-inclusive solution to our polarized, stagnant present. I picture a consolidation of the elites in which the Brahmins choose the aesthetics and the Merchants keep their property. Such a program could unite urban, educated top earners with a broad slice of the political middle who find it socially untenable not to act woke and thus resent the activist Left, which refuses to give them enough credit for liking Oprah and shopping at Whole Foods — that majority of white Americans that hasn’t changed much since Dr. King described them in 1968. | > > | I picture a consolidation of the elites in which the Brahmins choose the aesthetics and the Merchants keep their property. Such a program could unite urban, educated top earners with a broad slice of the political middle who find it socially untenable not to act woke and thus resent the activist Left, which refuses to give them enough credit for liking Oprah and shopping at Whole Foods — that majority of white Americans that hasn’t changed much since Dr. King described them in 1968. | | I imagine something like the political-institutional embodiment of this Exxon ad. Its creed is not unappealing: optimistic, brochure-diverse, solutions-oriented, smart, connected, and inclusive of immigrants (with advanced degrees). Such a party would have ample room for the enduring culture heroes of American mythology, but would of course find its purest archetypes in the ascendant Zuckerbergian elite. The tech billionaire, in his wisdom and generosity, ensures that every kid in every classroom gets a Chromebook and becomes a scientist. Charging Bull in partnership with Fearless Girl. | | The policies, after all, matter less than the heroes. Take, for example, basic income, a moral-panic-inducing idea which would surely poison the work ethic of the Bootstrapping American Laborer, but could also surely gain traction with rational, thinking people if it could be shown to comport with capitalist dogma. Mix basic income with virtual reality as opiates for mass disemployment, add in (goes without saying) generous salaries for the more sophisticated servants (engineers, lawyers, etc), make sure all categories of people are represented in the promotional materials, and you have a new system that meets the new material needs. Such an exchange wouldn’t even represent a concession from the Merchants; profits from automating most of the economy would clearly afford insurance against the type of real-deal social cataclysm that might interrupt the steady concentration of capital. Brahmins could call it Progress; Merchants, the cost of doing business. | |
> > |
But one would have to know how to do this. The problem with the
analysis is that, like some contemporary political activity you
don't identify with, it's all just fantasy about some TV show
describing a reality that isn't actually real. Nobody knows how to
enact a universal basic income in the United States, and you show as
little interest in the realities of the earned income tax credit as
the current president himself. We can say, for sure, that a "retail
offer" to solve the opiate addiction problem, so that young people
stop dropping dead in the front yards of decent, hard-pressed
working-class voters, will have an immediate effect on the
distribution of votes in the next Electoral College. But someone
has to do what to do and how to make it happen.
| | I imagine a party capable of declaring us innocent of racism, climate change, gross inequality and poverty, you name it. Personal freedom polls better than social justice in these United States, and privileged people are apt to confuse the two anyway. This future scares me because a lot of good people I know and respect would go along with it — because I think we of the Brahmin left are easy to co-opt. | |
> > |
The most important route to improvement here, from the mechanical
point of view, is learning to kill your darlings. Your effort to
harness rhetorical energy needs am additional injection of
restraint. As the critic Wilfred Sheed once wrote, in a phrase that
helped me over the years, "If you try to slay your audience with
every sentence, you run the risk that you may succeed."
Substantively, as I've noted above, the most important route to
improvement is to give the problem of governing a little attention
in the discussion of politics. When everyone is a super-punchy
talking head on video, it becomes difficult to explain how the
garbage is actually collected and how roads are built. (Either by
hordes of immigrants flooding over the borders to reduce wages and
destroy civilization or not at all, one is left to suppose.) But
when you ask how people getting involved with politics actually do
engage, you get a better lawyer's theory of social action out of it.
| | |
|
ZaneMullerFirstEssay 2 - 27 Feb 2018 - Main.ZaneMuller
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
The Shape of the Coming Realignment | | I’m not unafraid of what’s emerged from Pandora’s box lately. Even Arnold, after all, wasn’t exactly sounding alarm bells in 1937; societies sleepwalk to disaster. The risks of a Franz-Ferdinand-assassination-type event are real, but, I think, small. | |
< < | I would bet our current political moment will be remembered more as a freakish death spasm of white nationalist patriarchy than the beginning of some broader, fatal unravelling of the global social order. The old, bad, hard Right has emerged temporarily from the basement, but it’s more aggrieved, skulking gamer than aggressive, striding brownshirt. Demographics are not on their side, and, most importantly, racism is bad for business. It’s true that the Weimar crack-up opened the door for the fringe Right, but when one or both of our political parties implode, I just don’t see anything comparable happening; the nation isn’t quite humiliated enough. Things are still going too well for too many people. | > > | I would bet our current political moment will be remembered more as a freakish death spasm of white nationalist patriarchy than the beginning of some broader, fatal unravelling of the global social order. The old, bad, hard Right has emerged temporarily from the basement, but it’s more aggrieved, skulking gamer than aggressive, striding brownshirt. Demographics are not on their side, and, most importantly, racism is bad for business. It’s true that the Weimar crack-up opened the door for the fringe Right, but when one or both of our political parties implode, I just don’t see anything comparable happening; the nation isn’t humiliated enough. Things are still going too well for too many people. | | | |
< < | My sense is that a more likely bad outcome is the consolidation and ascendancy of a technocratic-libertarian Soft Right — the McKinsey? Right — that promises lower taxes, data-driven solutions to social problems, more ‘personal freedom’ (social and economic) and a seductively agnostic, corporatist and ostensibly racially-inclusive solution to our polarized, stagnant present. I picture a consolidation of the elites in which the Brahmins dictate aesthetics and the Merchants keep their property. Such a program could unite urban, educated top earners with a broad slice of the political middle who find it socially untenable not to act woke but nonetheless resent the activist Left, which refuses to give them enough credit for liking Oprah and shopping at Whole Foods — that majority of white Americans that hasn’t changed much since Dr. King described them in 1968. | > > | My sense is that a more likely bad outcome is the consolidation and ascendancy of a technocratic-libertarian Soft Right — the McKinsey? Right — that promises lower taxes, data-driven solutions to social problems, more ‘personal freedom’ (social and economic) and a seductively agnostic, corporatist and ostensibly racially-inclusive solution to our polarized, stagnant present. I picture a consolidation of the elites in which the Brahmins choose the aesthetics and the Merchants keep their property. Such a program could unite urban, educated top earners with a broad slice of the political middle who find it socially untenable not to act woke and thus resent the activist Left, which refuses to give them enough credit for liking Oprah and shopping at Whole Foods — that majority of white Americans that hasn’t changed much since Dr. King described them in 1968. | | | |
< < | I imagine something like the political-institutional embodiment of this Exxon ad. Its creed is not unappealing: optimistic, brochure-diverse, solutions-oriented, smart, connected, and inclusive of immigrants (with advanced degrees). Such a party would have ample room for the enduring culture heroes of American mythology, but would of course find its purest archetypes in the ascendant Zuckerbergian elite. The tech billionaire, in his wisdom and generosity, ensures that every kid in every classroom gets a Chromebook. Charging Bull in partnership with Fearless Girl. | > > | I imagine something like the political-institutional embodiment of this Exxon ad. Its creed is not unappealing: optimistic, brochure-diverse, solutions-oriented, smart, connected, and inclusive of immigrants (with advanced degrees). Such a party would have ample room for the enduring culture heroes of American mythology, but would of course find its purest archetypes in the ascendant Zuckerbergian elite. The tech billionaire, in his wisdom and generosity, ensures that every kid in every classroom gets a Chromebook and becomes a scientist. Charging Bull in partnership with Fearless Girl. | | | |
< < | The corporate elite has long since ceded the identitarian ground in the culture wars. People of all colors, creeds and sexual orientations buy stuff anyway. It’s not so hard to imagine the holdouts on the Merchant Right fully conceding the culture to the Brahmin Left in exchange for our continued help patching up the cracks in the capitalist edifice. The material circumstances of a post-industrial economy and the threat of destabilizing populism dictate a realignment of the people to whom the benefits of hot capital have accrued in opposition to those who have been burned. The elites will make common cause because we have little choice, because we are geographically concentrated, because we fear the populists and realize that something must be done about them. It will feel acceptable because we on the Left, with our more refined humanitarian sensibilities, will get to dictate the social norms; correct pronouns, etc. The material realities we will leave to the Merchants. | > > | The corporate elite has long since ceded the identitarian ground in the culture wars. People of all colors, creeds and sexual orientations buy stuff anyway. It’s not hard to imagine the Merchant holdouts fully conceding the culture to the Brahmin Left in exchange for our continued help patching up the cracks in the capitalist edifice. The material circumstances of a post-industrial economy and the threat of destabilizing populism dictate a realignment of the people to whom the benefits of hot capital have accrued in opposition to those who have been burned. The elites will make common cause because we have little choice, because we are geographically concentrated, because we fear the populists and realize that something must be done about them. It will feel acceptable because we on the Left, with our more refined humanitarian sensibilities, will get to dictate the social norms; correct pronouns, etc. The material realities we will leave to the Merchants. | | | |
< < | The policies, after all, matter less than the heroes. Take, for example, basic income, a moral-panic-inducing idea which would surely poison the work ethic of the Bootstrapping American Laborer, but could also surely gain traction with rational, thinking people if it could be shown to comport with capitalist dogma. Mix basic income with virtual reality as opiates for mass disemployment, add in (goes without saying) generous salaries for the more sophisticated servants (engineers, lawyers, etc), make sure all shapes and colors of people are represented in the promotional materials, and you have a new system that meets the new material needs. Such an exchange wouldn’t even represent a concession from the Merchants; the profits from automating most of the economy would clearly afford insurance against the type of real-deal social cataclysm that might interrupt the steady concentration of capital. Brahmins could call it Progress; Merchants, the cost of doing business. | > > | The policies, after all, matter less than the heroes. Take, for example, basic income, a moral-panic-inducing idea which would surely poison the work ethic of the Bootstrapping American Laborer, but could also surely gain traction with rational, thinking people if it could be shown to comport with capitalist dogma. Mix basic income with virtual reality as opiates for mass disemployment, add in (goes without saying) generous salaries for the more sophisticated servants (engineers, lawyers, etc), make sure all categories of people are represented in the promotional materials, and you have a new system that meets the new material needs. Such an exchange wouldn’t even represent a concession from the Merchants; profits from automating most of the economy would clearly afford insurance against the type of real-deal social cataclysm that might interrupt the steady concentration of capital. Brahmins could call it Progress; Merchants, the cost of doing business. | | I imagine a party capable of declaring us innocent of racism, climate change, gross inequality and poverty, you name it. Personal freedom polls better than social justice in these United States, and privileged people are apt to confuse the two anyway. This future scares me because a lot of good people I know and respect would go along with it — because I think we of the Brahmin left are easy to co-opt. |
|
ZaneMullerFirstEssay 1 - 22 Feb 2018 - Main.ZaneMuller
|
|
> > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
The Shape of the Coming Realignment
-- By ZaneMuller - 22 Feb 2018
This idea is mostly built on Arnold’s Folklore of Capitalism and the Thomas Edsall piece posted to main page.
Political parties in the United States pop like soap bubbles every forty or so years. We’re due.
The Republican Party’s flagrant screwing of its rank-and-file voters has been obvious since at least the 1980s, and is mirrored by the extent to which the Democratic party has forsaken its wards and ceased to seriously represent the interests of anyone without rich parents or at least an elite degree. Piketty calls this the “multiple elite party system”, or more colorfully, the Merchant Right vs. the Brahmin Left. I think he’s basically right in describing the state of affairs and diagnosing it as unsustainable.
The Republican soap bubble is showing more obvious strain, and I think the Democrats, despite their best efforts, might manage to make some lemonade for a cycle or two after Trump pulls down the pillars. But absent the singular appeal of Barack Obama (with whom the organization became dangerously overidentified), the only creed really holding the Democratic party together these days is a shared disinclination to overt sexism and white supremacy. There’s no reason to think that the Island of Misfit Toys that is the presumptive 2020 Democratic field won’t allow the Republicans to prolong our national nightmare for another term.
I’m not unafraid of what’s emerged from Pandora’s box lately. Even Arnold, after all, wasn’t exactly sounding alarm bells in 1937; societies sleepwalk to disaster. The risks of a Franz-Ferdinand-assassination-type event are real, but, I think, small.
I would bet our current political moment will be remembered more as a freakish death spasm of white nationalist patriarchy than the beginning of some broader, fatal unravelling of the global social order. The old, bad, hard Right has emerged temporarily from the basement, but it’s more aggrieved, skulking gamer than aggressive, striding brownshirt. Demographics are not on their side, and, most importantly, racism is bad for business. It’s true that the Weimar crack-up opened the door for the fringe Right, but when one or both of our political parties implode, I just don’t see anything comparable happening; the nation isn’t quite humiliated enough. Things are still going too well for too many people.
My sense is that a more likely bad outcome is the consolidation and ascendancy of a technocratic-libertarian Soft Right — the McKinsey? Right — that promises lower taxes, data-driven solutions to social problems, more ‘personal freedom’ (social and economic) and a seductively agnostic, corporatist and ostensibly racially-inclusive solution to our polarized, stagnant present. I picture a consolidation of the elites in which the Brahmins dictate aesthetics and the Merchants keep their property. Such a program could unite urban, educated top earners with a broad slice of the political middle who find it socially untenable not to act woke but nonetheless resent the activist Left, which refuses to give them enough credit for liking Oprah and shopping at Whole Foods — that majority of white Americans that hasn’t changed much since Dr. King described them in 1968.
I imagine something like the political-institutional embodiment of this Exxon ad. Its creed is not unappealing: optimistic, brochure-diverse, solutions-oriented, smart, connected, and inclusive of immigrants (with advanced degrees). Such a party would have ample room for the enduring culture heroes of American mythology, but would of course find its purest archetypes in the ascendant Zuckerbergian elite. The tech billionaire, in his wisdom and generosity, ensures that every kid in every classroom gets a Chromebook. Charging Bull in partnership with Fearless Girl.
The corporate elite has long since ceded the identitarian ground in the culture wars. People of all colors, creeds and sexual orientations buy stuff anyway. It’s not so hard to imagine the holdouts on the Merchant Right fully conceding the culture to the Brahmin Left in exchange for our continued help patching up the cracks in the capitalist edifice. The material circumstances of a post-industrial economy and the threat of destabilizing populism dictate a realignment of the people to whom the benefits of hot capital have accrued in opposition to those who have been burned. The elites will make common cause because we have little choice, because we are geographically concentrated, because we fear the populists and realize that something must be done about them. It will feel acceptable because we on the Left, with our more refined humanitarian sensibilities, will get to dictate the social norms; correct pronouns, etc. The material realities we will leave to the Merchants.
The policies, after all, matter less than the heroes. Take, for example, basic income, a moral-panic-inducing idea which would surely poison the work ethic of the Bootstrapping American Laborer, but could also surely gain traction with rational, thinking people if it could be shown to comport with capitalist dogma. Mix basic income with virtual reality as opiates for mass disemployment, add in (goes without saying) generous salaries for the more sophisticated servants (engineers, lawyers, etc), make sure all shapes and colors of people are represented in the promotional materials, and you have a new system that meets the new material needs. Such an exchange wouldn’t even represent a concession from the Merchants; the profits from automating most of the economy would clearly afford insurance against the type of real-deal social cataclysm that might interrupt the steady concentration of capital. Brahmins could call it Progress; Merchants, the cost of doing business.
I imagine a party capable of declaring us innocent of racism, climate change, gross inequality and poverty, you name it. Personal freedom polls better than social justice in these United States, and privileged people are apt to confuse the two anyway. This future scares me because a lot of good people I know and respect would go along with it — because I think we of the Brahmin left are easy to co-opt.
|
|
Revision 5 | r5 - 16 Sep 2024 - 15:30:40 - StevenRaphan? |
Revision 4 | r4 - 12 Jun 2018 - 19:52:38 - ZaneMuller |
Revision 3 | r3 - 02 Apr 2018 - 15:16:18 - EbenMoglen |
Revision 2 | r2 - 27 Feb 2018 - 03:05:54 - ZaneMuller |
Revision 1 | r1 - 22 Feb 2018 - 21:28:56 - ZaneMuller |
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|