Love this! I’m a white Christian female and I so appreciate Monica’s voice. I agree that these language wars are creating huge divisions that will ultimately devastate us. We have to focus on what unites us and require accountability from our representatives. Thank you Monica for your work!
" Two halves of the country are constantly sparring with each other over which facts are “real” and which side is distorting them. " This "debate" has by now become ritualized, like a regular ritual that persons or peoples (cultures) deploy in order to maintain order. This is what keeps the world in equilibrium, without it there would be chaos. So, in an earlier time, this bad intellectuality had that cultural function. That is, at least, plausible. And if it was, plausibly, a way our democratic system functions: this is the concrete reality of 'American Life and Culture.' So this is the sort of debate that exists, for many generations of scholars; we are stuck with this. Yeah, well those are the old days so we have to quickly evaluate this new situation while not forgetting the old way of life this nation had, or seemed to have.
So, what is new? What is the current crisis? As the debate became more and more ritualized, it became a distraction. So that is how I believe the situation may have gotten worse. Eventually in my view the nation's politics can no longer be "carried" by only the old two-fold situation or contrast of the left vs. right. E.g. of who has got the right vision of what is real vs. who is the distorted one or who has got it wrong. Time for something new to arrive. (My Substack! Kidding...) By re-examining the old debate we can watch it become more and more irrelevant. The facts are no longer subject to a larger or more cultural system, in which actually the two parties are acting together to sustain society, the social consensus, etc. ---e.g. basic agreements about what is "decent" and what is not, what is legitimate political activity and what is incitement to violence, etc. All that is in danger, grave danger!
So, that I think constitutes the crisis (for our "civilization" if you will). What has happened is that today, while yes there still may be two sides but each of them, the Trump GOP and the liberal Democratic side are (in the wrong way) the same. Instead of cultural unity and personal dignity or freedom (I sound liberatarian, oooops) they are both of them going for the same exact goal. Having a full dictatorship. They are going to have plenty of problems with that. Let us hope so. [revised, 3/18)
Jun 3, 2023·edited Jun 3, 2023Liked by Monica Harris
Although you (Monica) talk about "our debt-based Ponzi scheme economy," I have a related but distinct way of looking at the economics side. I try to go deeply into it, with my own extremely independent economics. I have a unique, very different view about economics. It is my own view. I will admit that. That will scare persons off from reading it. I wish somehow it was different.
I say that in order to understand what is going on today, you would need to have a different understanding of the kinds of phenomena that economics purports to study. There is some kind of a subject field that economics (what I call it ECONO) is considered to be studying.
But the study has gone wrong. So, maybe we can revisit --- stay with me here! Could the temporary success of "capitalism" be more based on social factors? There was a century or two of prosperity (and some level of respect for one another, if not that much for gays and lesbians, sorry). Could that have had something to do with the population? All of us (thus that is "social")? Could it be that the whole population was participating in capitalism? That means from about 1810 onwards for maybe 200 years, but very possibly there can be no further extension of that type of capitalism. Therefore, this is what I believe. I believe that it was the popular and social factors that enabled the system to succeed and to survive. We may call into question the notion that the study of capitalism is always about what is "private." I call the more social sort of thing the "viable capitalism" that actually existed in this country in the past, but it does not seem that we have the basic system is there any more. We can see various reasons that this might be so. For example, while the people of this good country remain mostly "good" under certain criteria, those at the top of the system degenerated. It is the rich, the leadership, the big corporate people, the people running the various big institutions, the political elite, etc. who are disconnected with the older, more social parts of capitalism. And it follows, since they are cut off from viable capitalism or vialbe free markets if you will, that they have this need to go off the deep end. They are the ones who control the money. And those are the ones going to extremes. So, deterioration of the older more popular or people's capitalism leaves the bigger organizations in the hands of only these elites, who are considered the ones in the driver's seat. Capitalism does not reach down into the populace. But it used to! It does not do that anymore, with the result that the elites are deprived of the old sort of economic restraint (or balance). So elites are going more crazy. They are going in these crazy directions all over the place which seem to be into some joke system of liberal authoritariansim, and then good old conservative fascism on the other hand, because we do not have the same kind of market society like once we did. That society was capitalistic, but it was also a different kind of social organizing system. It was in reality a more popular kind of capitalism, although the economics profession never said this. They were always saying "private," "individual." That is not it. People were a real part of it. This applies to the earlier stage, the specifically viable [italics] capitalism. You can see this if you study it. Looked at more closely, we begin to glimpse that without a viable market economy the ruling class too will deteriorate, along with the rest. (They are not going to be happy in their bunkers, i do not believe) Everything will deteriorate. Capitalism thrives when it is more socially oriented. With this essential "social aspect" removed from capitalism the system will not function at all. And I do not think the ruling class will know how to act, either!
The "viable" sort of capitalism does have a certain sort of social participation. It is misleading to speak of capitalism only as "private property." Thanks for listening.
Thank you very much for your thoughts, Jacob. I enjoyed listening!
I am in sync with most of what you say. I wholeheartedly agree that capitalism thrives when it has more social participation. I agree that capitalism likely worked at some point for most people (but certainly not all people because capitalism inherently demands that some will have more than others; the presumption is that this distinction will be based on hard work and nothing else).
I do believe that capitalism has been bastardized and now serves only the ruling class. But I also believe that capitalism, like any “ism,” is prone to bastardization and deterioration because ALL systems in which human beings participate ultimately become corrupted. Full stop. It’s just a matter of time. The transition to a debt-based economy just accelerated this natural process and, as you put it, made it less viable more quickly because over time it prevents more people from participating. But it happens much faster.
The U.S. debt experiment officially lasted from 1913 to 1971 (when we left the gold standard, so a little shy of 60 years. We’ve been running on fumes with the petrodollar ever since). Yet the country had existed without a perpetually-chartered central bank for 137 years. I think we could have made capitalism viable for an even longer period of time had the Fed not been created.
I also question whether the ruling class will deteriorate and endure the consequences of failed capitalism. The may be planning to scurry to their bunkers in the case of a catastrophic natural event, but in the absence of that I believe they have sufficiently gamed capitalism to allow them to secure even more control after the inevitable collapse. Because that’s what always happens in a debt-passed Ponzi scheme after a crisis/collapse: more resources are consolidated into the hands of a very few.
This is a long way of saying that I don’t think that ANY economic system can last indefinitely or even for an extended period of time until the fundamental nature of man — which is prone to greed, self-interest, and a certain degree of sociopathy — changes. We need to start caring as much for others as we care for ourselves. We need to understand that we are all connected and when others suffer, we will ultimately suffer, as well. We need to understand that money should never be used as a tool of control, but solely as a medium of exchange. We need to evolve in our hearts and minds. That’s the only way out of this feedback loop.
"We need to understand that we are all connected and when others suffer, we will ultimately suffer, as well." So I GUESS I was supposed to be saying they do not understand Therefore, Um... they will deteriorate as spiritual humans. But I never really worked it out and thus I ended up with something that sounds tortured! As I said, you had 1,000 on M. and I only 400! Tells you something right there.
I do not think the ruling class will deteriorate. I think there I must have failed as a writer. They will deteriorate spiritually, maybe that is what I wanted to say. So that part may not have been clearly expressed. No, I don't think they will be sorry! They are doing well you could say. So I may have been unclear. I was sort of trying to put a big dipper into my soup and catch everyone up in it.
Ah, understood! Yes, we are on the same page. They will deteriorate spiritually —and that’s already happening. In fact, one might argue that their spiritual deterioration is what has allowed this rapid and abject failure of capitalism.
Your writing skills are completely fine! You are just trying to articulate a very nuanced perspective. Kudos to you! I hope I explained my perspective in a way that made sense?
Monica. You say you agree. Capitalism "thrives" when it has "more social participation." This is what I am saying as well. Capitalism is a form of society. It is therefore erroneous to say it is not a form of individualism.
before I get in trouble here I want say that now I did read about half and this looks to be very good. I like this discussion of language and thanks to you, someone said these things...! (And since "comments" were left open I too could ..... say something!)
Love this! I’m a white Christian female and I so appreciate Monica’s voice. I agree that these language wars are creating huge divisions that will ultimately devastate us. We have to focus on what unites us and require accountability from our representatives. Thank you Monica for your work!
Thank you so much, Karen! Christian, atheist, agnostic — no matter. We are all part of the same tribe, sister ❤️
" Two halves of the country are constantly sparring with each other over which facts are “real” and which side is distorting them. " This "debate" has by now become ritualized, like a regular ritual that persons or peoples (cultures) deploy in order to maintain order. This is what keeps the world in equilibrium, without it there would be chaos. So, in an earlier time, this bad intellectuality had that cultural function. That is, at least, plausible. And if it was, plausibly, a way our democratic system functions: this is the concrete reality of 'American Life and Culture.' So this is the sort of debate that exists, for many generations of scholars; we are stuck with this. Yeah, well those are the old days so we have to quickly evaluate this new situation while not forgetting the old way of life this nation had, or seemed to have.
So, what is new? What is the current crisis? As the debate became more and more ritualized, it became a distraction. So that is how I believe the situation may have gotten worse. Eventually in my view the nation's politics can no longer be "carried" by only the old two-fold situation or contrast of the left vs. right. E.g. of who has got the right vision of what is real vs. who is the distorted one or who has got it wrong. Time for something new to arrive. (My Substack! Kidding...) By re-examining the old debate we can watch it become more and more irrelevant. The facts are no longer subject to a larger or more cultural system, in which actually the two parties are acting together to sustain society, the social consensus, etc. ---e.g. basic agreements about what is "decent" and what is not, what is legitimate political activity and what is incitement to violence, etc. All that is in danger, grave danger!
So, that I think constitutes the crisis (for our "civilization" if you will). What has happened is that today, while yes there still may be two sides but each of them, the Trump GOP and the liberal Democratic side are (in the wrong way) the same. Instead of cultural unity and personal dignity or freedom (I sound liberatarian, oooops) they are both of them going for the same exact goal. Having a full dictatorship. They are going to have plenty of problems with that. Let us hope so. [revised, 3/18)
I revised the above. It may make more sense. I did not have time before. It is a better composition now!
Although you (Monica) talk about "our debt-based Ponzi scheme economy," I have a related but distinct way of looking at the economics side. I try to go deeply into it, with my own extremely independent economics. I have a unique, very different view about economics. It is my own view. I will admit that. That will scare persons off from reading it. I wish somehow it was different.
I say that in order to understand what is going on today, you would need to have a different understanding of the kinds of phenomena that economics purports to study. There is some kind of a subject field that economics (what I call it ECONO) is considered to be studying.
But the study has gone wrong. So, maybe we can revisit --- stay with me here! Could the temporary success of "capitalism" be more based on social factors? There was a century or two of prosperity (and some level of respect for one another, if not that much for gays and lesbians, sorry). Could that have had something to do with the population? All of us (thus that is "social")? Could it be that the whole population was participating in capitalism? That means from about 1810 onwards for maybe 200 years, but very possibly there can be no further extension of that type of capitalism. Therefore, this is what I believe. I believe that it was the popular and social factors that enabled the system to succeed and to survive. We may call into question the notion that the study of capitalism is always about what is "private." I call the more social sort of thing the "viable capitalism" that actually existed in this country in the past, but it does not seem that we have the basic system is there any more. We can see various reasons that this might be so. For example, while the people of this good country remain mostly "good" under certain criteria, those at the top of the system degenerated. It is the rich, the leadership, the big corporate people, the people running the various big institutions, the political elite, etc. who are disconnected with the older, more social parts of capitalism. And it follows, since they are cut off from viable capitalism or vialbe free markets if you will, that they have this need to go off the deep end. They are the ones who control the money. And those are the ones going to extremes. So, deterioration of the older more popular or people's capitalism leaves the bigger organizations in the hands of only these elites, who are considered the ones in the driver's seat. Capitalism does not reach down into the populace. But it used to! It does not do that anymore, with the result that the elites are deprived of the old sort of economic restraint (or balance). So elites are going more crazy. They are going in these crazy directions all over the place which seem to be into some joke system of liberal authoritariansim, and then good old conservative fascism on the other hand, because we do not have the same kind of market society like once we did. That society was capitalistic, but it was also a different kind of social organizing system. It was in reality a more popular kind of capitalism, although the economics profession never said this. They were always saying "private," "individual." That is not it. People were a real part of it. This applies to the earlier stage, the specifically viable [italics] capitalism. You can see this if you study it. Looked at more closely, we begin to glimpse that without a viable market economy the ruling class too will deteriorate, along with the rest. (They are not going to be happy in their bunkers, i do not believe) Everything will deteriorate. Capitalism thrives when it is more socially oriented. With this essential "social aspect" removed from capitalism the system will not function at all. And I do not think the ruling class will know how to act, either!
The "viable" sort of capitalism does have a certain sort of social participation. It is misleading to speak of capitalism only as "private property." Thanks for listening.
Thank you very much for your thoughts, Jacob. I enjoyed listening!
I am in sync with most of what you say. I wholeheartedly agree that capitalism thrives when it has more social participation. I agree that capitalism likely worked at some point for most people (but certainly not all people because capitalism inherently demands that some will have more than others; the presumption is that this distinction will be based on hard work and nothing else).
I do believe that capitalism has been bastardized and now serves only the ruling class. But I also believe that capitalism, like any “ism,” is prone to bastardization and deterioration because ALL systems in which human beings participate ultimately become corrupted. Full stop. It’s just a matter of time. The transition to a debt-based economy just accelerated this natural process and, as you put it, made it less viable more quickly because over time it prevents more people from participating. But it happens much faster.
The U.S. debt experiment officially lasted from 1913 to 1971 (when we left the gold standard, so a little shy of 60 years. We’ve been running on fumes with the petrodollar ever since). Yet the country had existed without a perpetually-chartered central bank for 137 years. I think we could have made capitalism viable for an even longer period of time had the Fed not been created.
I also question whether the ruling class will deteriorate and endure the consequences of failed capitalism. The may be planning to scurry to their bunkers in the case of a catastrophic natural event, but in the absence of that I believe they have sufficiently gamed capitalism to allow them to secure even more control after the inevitable collapse. Because that’s what always happens in a debt-passed Ponzi scheme after a crisis/collapse: more resources are consolidated into the hands of a very few.
This is a long way of saying that I don’t think that ANY economic system can last indefinitely or even for an extended period of time until the fundamental nature of man — which is prone to greed, self-interest, and a certain degree of sociopathy — changes. We need to start caring as much for others as we care for ourselves. We need to understand that we are all connected and when others suffer, we will ultimately suffer, as well. We need to understand that money should never be used as a tool of control, but solely as a medium of exchange. We need to evolve in our hearts and minds. That’s the only way out of this feedback loop.
"We need to understand that we are all connected and when others suffer, we will ultimately suffer, as well." So I GUESS I was supposed to be saying they do not understand Therefore, Um... they will deteriorate as spiritual humans. But I never really worked it out and thus I ended up with something that sounds tortured! As I said, you had 1,000 on M. and I only 400! Tells you something right there.
Lol. A difference of 600 followers on Medium is almost nothing, my friend...
I do not think the ruling class will deteriorate. I think there I must have failed as a writer. They will deteriorate spiritually, maybe that is what I wanted to say. So that part may not have been clearly expressed. No, I don't think they will be sorry! They are doing well you could say. So I may have been unclear. I was sort of trying to put a big dipper into my soup and catch everyone up in it.
Ah, understood! Yes, we are on the same page. They will deteriorate spiritually —and that’s already happening. In fact, one might argue that their spiritual deterioration is what has allowed this rapid and abject failure of capitalism.
Your writing skills are completely fine! You are just trying to articulate a very nuanced perspective. Kudos to you! I hope I explained my perspective in a way that made sense?
Monica. You say you agree. Capitalism "thrives" when it has "more social participation." This is what I am saying as well. Capitalism is a form of society. It is therefore erroneous to say it is not a form of individualism.
before I get in trouble here I want say that now I did read about half and this looks to be very good. I like this discussion of language and thanks to you, someone said these things...! (And since "comments" were left open I too could ..... say something!)