Ship of Fools: New political divides - does anyone recognise them?

Thread: New political divides - does anyone recognise them? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020478

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm trying to get a handle on a nascent French political movement which has some Christian inspiration. A friend of mine has just taken up regional responsibility with them.

One of its leaders sets aside historic left-right divisions in favour of:

quote:
"transhumanism versus bioconservatives; individual entrepreneurship versus collective intelligence; disappearing social ties versus rootedness in creative communities"

with their choice being in each case the latter of two (source).

Bioconservative, collective intelligence, creative communities as the foundation of a post-liberal society, then. What does this mean? [Help]

They also seem to set store by Emmanuel Mounier and his "personalism".

I'm no political scientist and basically unread in this field. Can anybody work out what this is all about, and/or point to any similar streams of political thought elsewhere?

[ 17. February 2018, 17:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Sounds like sci-fi to me.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I don't read French. From your brief translation, it sounds like it might be a European version of Communitarianism?

But who are Bioconservatives, and is this new ideology supposed to be for or against them? By the name, I'd guess Bioconservativism is conservtivism rooted in sociobiology, ie. not much point in trying to alleviate inequality because we're all genetically programmed to be either princes or paupers anyway.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

And the reference to "Creative Communities" sounds like an echo of Richard Florida.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But who are Bioconservatives, and is this new ideology supposed to be for or against them?

A transhumanist is AIUI someone who thinks that we ought via either cybernetic or genetic means to improve the human condition. Extreme transhumanism would be plotting to upload human consciousness into indestructible robots.
Bioconservatives would be the reverse. So an extreme bioconservative probably is aghast at the idea of pacemakers and hearing aids.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I would guess at a modern rebranding of Distributism.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But who are Bioconservatives, and is this new ideology supposed to be for or against them?
A transhumanist is AIUI someone who thinks that we ought via either cybernetic or genetic means to improve the human condition. Extreme transhumanism would be plotting to upload human consciousness into indestructible robots.
Bioconservatives would be the reverse. So an extreme bioconservative probably is aghast at the idea of pacemakers and hearing aids.

Yes, within the context of "...vs. transhumanism", that's a more likely explanation than my sociobiological one.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would guess at a modern rebranding of Distributism.

Which that article links with Christian Democracy, which in turn this article links with Communitarianism, as I mentioned earlier. And you can thrown in "One Nation Conservativism" and Red Toryism in there as well. (Plus, Social Credit, but they have a wacko monetary theory that no one else buys into.)

Basically, there have always been successive claims made by various ideologies to represent a "third way" between unfettered capitalism and stagnating socialism. Even the campaign-trail Trump with his promises to keep rust-belt factories afloat via protectionist measures had echoes of that, though he likely didn't know it.

[ 17. February 2018, 18:07: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I don't read French. From your brief translation, it sounds like it might be a European version of Communitarianism?

Yes indeed. The leader tips his hat to the Big Society.

Communautarisme is however a dirty word in French, as it refers to tribalism, most often of Muslims, and runs counter to the "Republican Ideal" whereby there is just one community, that of the Republic.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would guess at a modern rebranding of Distributism.

Yes, that sounds very much like it, very useful. And I see while composing this post that Stetson has linked this to Red Toryism.

At first blush this all seems a little idealistic (one paper by one of the leaders is entitled "the revolt of the hobbits"). The leader keeps saying things about how bad the "world" and the "system" is; when I objected that we are all in the world and that communitarianism was also a system, it didn't go down well. I wonder whether it's not a plan to cut state spending à la Big Society.

I must however admit to being drawn to some of the ideas. I'm really not sure about bioconservativism though. I picked up an opposition to surrogacy, which they tried to say they were opposing on grounds of monetization of the human body ("the system"), but with the benefit of Dead Horses experience I quickly unmasked as actually being a "natural law" standpoint, which no longer fully convinces me.

Hmm.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

E. baby. No. Just no. You're too damn smart for your own good. K.I.S.S. baby, K.I.S.S. It's a distraction. A.K.A. pseudointellectual, typically French connerie.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well the wider question is if Macron has successfully blown a hole in the left/right divide, what opposition can there be?

I'm broadly happy with Macron's performance so far, and think the French need a Napoleonic leader at least right now, but I'm concerned at his concentration of power (not least how he has emptied the national assembly of its experienced politicians in one fell swoop) and the lack of alternatives. I'm trying to work out if this one has any traction.

(and how can one be too smart for one's own good? [Confused]

)

[ 17. February 2018, 21:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ooh, Enoch's Rule will apply soon enough.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

According to the Interwebs, this either means that

quote:
Money is Energy. Currency = Power

or that one should

quote:
treat everyone as you want God to treat you

which might have something to do with Reciprocity, which these people seem to like.

Are you going to become less enigmatic, or are you looking to start a UK equivalent of this movement yourself?

[ETA or, apparently, something about dating in the OT. I'm sure you could use that over in Kerygmania...]

[ 17. February 2018, 21:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

God is fair. What He gives in smarts He takes away in... other ways. He being a metaphor for genetics. Smarts often subvert themselves, create pareidolia of a high order or otherwise exact a very high price. Tanks theory and all that. Your strength is your weakness. You know the drill.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

All political lives... end in failure. Enoch Powell.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Tanks theory? [Confused]

Pareidolia? That means discerning order in randomness. Presumably at least some people have put some thinking into this movement. It's not just random. It might be a series of dog-whistles, but it's hard to know what for exactly.

And political lives are not the same thing as political thought.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yeah, can't find a reference, bin in my lexicon for years. Water levels in two linked otherwise sealed tanks. Up in one means down in another.

Pareidolia is seeing images, patterns that aren't there. Apophenia. The cleverest people I know spectacularly are prone to it. And are unable to transfer their visions. A certain RC convert used to do it here. A nasty generalization mediocrities like me like to comfort themselves with I'm sure. Funny... that looks like...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The political life that will fail is Macron's. The political thought is the bollocks in the OP. That isn't actual political thought. Unless it's on a par with Lacanian analysis which I believe is on to something but is utterly beyond me.

[ 17. February 2018, 22:46: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Haven't read the articles yet. But, based on the OP, sounds like some sort of artistic commune of flower children, who also have small businesses.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well Martin it gives me exactly the same feeling I get when I try to make sense of Lacanian analysis; almost but not quite convinced this is total bullshit, tortured by the idea there might actually be something there.

(What gets me is how people can write entire books on a phrase or two of Lacan's, as though they are writing a Bible commentary; there aren't just Lacanian schools of thought, there are schools of thought about Lacanian schools of thought...our local psychology department is a hotbed of them).

Taking another look at Ricardus' link makes me think again there actually is something in this political movement's thinking, and that it very much is distributism, only these folks I met substitute "France" for "England" - there's an odd streak of nationalism there.

I'd already thought of CS Lewis when listening to these people, and Ricardus has reminded me that in That Hideous Strength, Lewis has one of the bad guys in N.I.C.E. (Curry) dismiss one of the Friends of Logres (Denniston) as having "gone quite off the rails since then with all his Distributivism [another term for distributism] and what not", implying Lewis himself thinks it's a good thing.

Certainly Lewis seems to sit close to the likes of Chesterton (mentioned in Ricardus' link) and other mid-20th century Catholics like Tolkien (cf "The Revolt of the Hobbits" [in French], mentioned upthread).

Certainly the NICE embodies the concept of transhumanism, and the end result is both prophetic and scary. But again, much as I love much of CS Lewis' thought, just as I balked at "bioconservativism" listening to these people (and found their explanations of what it was a bit disingenuous) I find myself stumbling over Lewis' strong emphasis in his works on natural law; his casual misogyny and talk of submission brings out all my worst misgivings about it.

Natural law (which I think is actually the non-political way of saying "bioconservativism") looks like it is a bulwark against all sorts of nasty dystopian developments, but on closer inspection looks (to me) rather like a way of perpetuating patriarchy and oppression - indeed, distributivists apparently look back fondly to the Middle Ages.

So, any views on distributism, any one? Fans? Critics? Is it inevitably bound up with natural law or not?

And for afters, is there any developed Christian political thought that isn't founded in some idea of natural law?

[ 18. February 2018, 06:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

[Big Grin]

I was thinking of That Hideous Strength as well.

I'm sure I've seen references to bioconservatism, although not under that name, in an article recently about young French Catholics. The idea was that modern society sees nature either as an enemy to be overcome or a tool to be remodelled if it doesn't work properly, and this manifests itself on the societal level in the kind of large-scale interventions that destroy ecosystems, and on the personal level by abortion and gay adoption.

Personally I do not think it is possible to draw a coherent distinction between natural and unnatural ways for human beings to organise our own society.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus

So, any views on distributism, any one? Fans? Critics? Is it inevitably bound up with natural law or not?

Distributism is fine in theory, but seems impossible to deliver in practice. It dovetails with Schumacher's so-called Buddhist Economics - and basically calls for a political-economic system whereby people actually matter more than the bottom line. The Chestertonian concept seemed to be that individuals should be trained and equipped to be their own agents in the economy - imagine a situation where the whole country are self-employed - and any corporations only serve their interests rather than exploiting them. Thus Gilbert's quip that the problem today is not too many capitalists but too few.

Schumacher saw things a bit differently, and believed people could naturally form small economic units in local areas, thus "small is beautiful". I think the ideas of mutually and co-operation naturally flow from Chesterton and Schumacher; prioritising the small group of workers, hating the large profit hungry corporation.

In practice, the problem tends to be that corporations have economies of scale and organisation that it is hard to replicate (and compete with) on the small scale. Co-ops which are successful tend to be massive and tend not to be truly accountable. Small artisans attract a certain audience - with fancy food outlets, farmers markets and so on - but very often they're expensive and hipster.

In a very large number of real-life cases, self-employed people might hold their own tools and education but lack the ability to make much money in the economy and therefore are exploited by others.

Distributism was positioned as a better middle way between socialism (or communism) and capitalism but in practice seems to usually only amount to "wouldn't it all be nice if we were all artisans and everyone was jolly nice to each other" - and because it lacks the attention-grabbing large scale solutions of communism or The Market tends to be ignored.

[ 18. February 2018, 07:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Ricardus, yes, absolutely, the Catholic former boss of a (very) small group of (very small) environmental engineering companies where my daughter works wrote a book very much along these lines, and I was just thinking I should send him a link to this movement!

Mr Cheesy: ah, so it isn't just so much sci-fi? [Biased]

(probably my poor initial explanation didn't help).

In answer to a question of mine sort of along your lines, the argument was made (but not supported) that research had shown that smaller companies where people were better treated were actually more financially profitable.

You scratch some of my itches, notably is it actually possible for such a scheme to beat capitalism on its own terms, or should an attempt to make some form of accommodation be made?

(I was wondering how many of those involved owned Apple products [Devil]

)

I'm out of time right now to respond to all the questions this has set buzzing in me. For now: how does natural law fit with all this? What is the distinction between distributist systems of Christian inspiration and the decidedly non-Christian anarchist systems such as that practiced by the ZADistes and their ilk? Is natural law foundational to this school of political thought, or is it an optional extra?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Mr Cheesy: ah, so it isn't just so much sci-fi? (probably my poor initial explanation didn't help).

Oh that's because I didn't recognise the terms. If it had been labelled as Distributism, I'd have a better idea what it was on about.

quote:

In answer to a question of mine sort of along your lines, the argument was made (but not supported) that research had shown that smaller companies where people were better treated were actually more financially profitable.

Well I think the research is contradictory - I saw some suggesting that a very large number of the British self-employed have very low incomes. Personally I'd be surprised if there was a general truth that a certain size of business was most profitable - I think profits and losses are made everywhere.

quote:

You scratch some of my itches, notably is it actually possible for such a scheme to beat capitalism on its own terms, or should an attempt to make some form of accommodation be made?

Depends what you mean. I could bore you stupid with different examples of co-ops and how some do very well. Or we could talk about how large numbers of distributed workers in fields like IT are able to find a niche without being employees. But equally I could show you co-ops which are really struggling and individuals who cannot even earn the minimum wage as self-employed.

quote:

(I was wondering how many of those involved owned Apple products )

Well certainly that's one sector which at least gives the image of successful small companies.

quote:

I'm out of time right now to respond to all the questions this has set buzzing in me. For now: how does natural law fit with all this? What is the distinction between distributist systems of Christian inspiration and the decidedly non-Christian anarchist systems such as that practiced by the ZADistes and their ilk? Is natural law foundational to this school of political thought, or is it an optional extra?

Well I suppose to start answering that, Chesterton and Belloc saw their developing ideas of Distributism as coming out from Catholic social teaching, and Schumacher was at very least influenced by it. And some of the most successful co-ops have developed directly from the church, such as Mondragon in Spain.

The link is a bit more tenuous in the UK. The co-ops have generally been more closely linked to non-conformist churches and labour unions rather than the Catholic church.

Without mumbling on too much now, I don't think anarchist ideas usually develop into embracing Distributism. Many anarchists are squeamish about institutions and for some I think even Distributism sounds too deliberate and organised.

Possibly also worth saying that CS Lewis was influenced by Chesterton.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

For me, the most relevant thing about these new divides, especially the amount of ultimately fake self-employment around, is the inequality of tax treatment that comes with it. If our beloved tax overlords had anything about them, they would be destroying the wave of fake consultancy (working for their own one-person limited company) which is sweeping industries such as IT and treating these people as the employees they are, and ensuring that people who set themselves up in this way are not allowed to live on islands of fake self-sufficiency with borders that can be breached by them at will as soon as a public service is required.

To my mind, this is one of the most important emerging frontiers of the ever-evolving class war, and it is one which must be dealt with before it becomes an unbreachable bulwark of privilege.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So I start wikiing all the terms and ohhhh, yeah, right. Nah. Doesn't touch Lacan. Or Islam. Or the rest of the real world, i.e. capitalism. It has nothing to say apart from the bleeding obvious (bioconservatism). What's speaking to me at the moment is the superbly empirical The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Now he IS right.

The trouble with Lacan is I don't even know what language I'm too old to learn is necessary, whereas with physics I need a masters in 'math' for a start, which will have to wait for the first decade or so after I'm dead with whatever learning capacity a glorified head gets. The language of analytical philosophy and psychology would be the key to starting with Lacan. I'll pick that up as I go along. Ask me a century after I'm dead. Better yet, teach me, walk with me then.

Macron is a thinly veiled maintainer of the status quo. I respect Hollande infinitely more. And he couldn't embrace SCIS.

Until we die, let's reach out without grasping.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Martin, sadly I'm going to go back to simply ignoring the parts of your posts that are too obscure. I sincerely wish you wouldn't leave us to join the dots so often. Sometimes I can intuitively follow you, but very often not (eg your obscure acronyms).

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I saw some suggesting that a very large number of the British self-employed have very low incomes.

I'm a bit intrigued by what Thunderbunk said about the self-employed.

I'm self-employed, mostly happy to be so (and pay masses and masses in tax and contributions with none of the fringe benefits you get as an employee, at least here). I learned not so long ago that many Plymouth Brethren were self-employed, and that it seemed to be their way of sort of making a truce between them and The World™.

quote:
I don't think anarchist ideas usually develop into embracing Distributism.

That wasn't really what I was asking. I'm trying to work out whether bioconservatism is really foundational to distributism (and secondarily, how anarchism sees the issues of transhumanism and bioconservativism).

If these distributists are hardline bioconservatives I think I'll find it hard to be a fellow-traveller, especially if they disguise objections on the grounds of commoditisation when the real objection is on natural law grounds.

(They probably don't like the fact that Macron is a technocrat, whereas I think one needs at least a dose of technocracy in today's world - obscure the benefits of technocracy and you get the likes of "we've had enough of experts" Brexit).

Which is one thing I do want to ask Martin. Why is bioconservatism "bleeding obvious"? I'm really not sure about that either politically or theologically, or about "the natural as a moral category" as Wikipedia puts it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That wasn't really what I was asking. I'm trying to work out whether bioconservatism is really foundational to distributism (and secondarily, how anarchism sees the issues of transhumanism and bioconservativism).

If these distributists are hardline bioconservatives I think I'll find it hard to be a fellow-traveller, especially if they disguise objections on the grounds of commoditisation when the real objection is on natural law grounds.

I had to look up this term on wikipedia - it seems to be a "friendly" version of neo-ludditism. Assuming that is what it is, then I'd say that Chesterton had an ambiguous attitude to technology, and many of those who like the ideals of Distributism can sometimes talk as if they are luddites.

I've heard it said that the Amish are not against technology, but that they're still waiting to decide if the positives are worth the negatives.

I think this was basically Chesterton's view; he cautioned that technologies didn't always lead to benefits for individual humans. But then he often seemed to argue this in strange ways and couched in terms that seem misogynistic and paternalistic.

Less so with Schumacher, whose background was working as an economist for British Coal, an industry reliant on the best technology. But then Schumacher's ideas have often been interpreted as calling for the removal of high technology and a return to some kind of local, pristine, simple person-to-person production, uncontaminated by association with massive multinationals who reduce people's humanity and so on.

Less so again with co-ops, although they like to claim that they are businesses with values, and that might well lead to choosing human centred outcomes over technology.

I don't know what the transhuman thing means.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Transhumanism was not mentioned as such in the meeting I attended; what was mentioned was an opposition to surrogacy and dislocation of the family. I suspect this might have been a dog-whistle rather than a worked out political standpoint, nevertheless the visceral opposition to "evil technology" (as exemplified in "That Hideous Strength") seemed real, if unrealistic.

[ 18. February 2018, 17:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Transhumanism was not mentioned as such in the meeting I attended;

For an amusing take on transhumanism (with some truth in it) take a look at Charlie Stross' keynote from the recent 34th CCC:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you-broke-the-future.html

I think he's correct in labeling some forms of it a 'christian heresy'. There's a 'Christian Transhumanist' body too:

https://www.christiantranshumanism.org/

Their blog and podcasts are occasionally interesting - though tend in parts to edge towards the post-millenial.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Well again, Chesterton often seemed to talk as if the family unit was the only thing that mattered, which I think he got from Catholic social teaching. Part of the point about Distributism was that it maximised the economic benefits of working (by distributing the tools a man needed to make money for himself) leading to better off, stable happy families.

Quite how this is being used by contemporary religious conservatives, I couldn't say - but it would seem to be a blockage between them and anarchists, who tend to be against the patriarchy of marriage and family and all that stuff.

From what I read on wikipedia of transhumanism, this seems to be about maximising the benefits of technology (including body modifications etc) to encourage/direct optimum human evolution. Which wouldn't be something Distributism would support, I don't think, as they'd see that as a denial of humanity.

But I think we might be getting into the weeds here; exactly what the terms mean is going to depend on the way people are using them.

But I would say that I'd be surprised if Distributism could be repackaged as a political manifesto. It seems to me to be much more about "grassroots" and DIY change rather than (let's say) imposed changes via the conventional political process. I can't even really imagine what a local government run as Distributist would even look like - I suppose it would be commited to self-reliance and so on.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

From what I read on wikipedia of transhumanism, this seems to be about maximising the benefits of technology (including body modifications etc) to encourage/direct optimum human evolution. Which wouldn't be something Distributism would support, I don't think, as they'd see that as a denial of humanity.

Historically that is correct, but is a side effect of the era in which it developed (and is also the reason for the Chesterton connection, as he was in all other aspects fairly reactionary). From a transhumanist point of view, Distributism reaction against it would be a category error, purely because they would not seek to define humanity in the same way.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Oh yes, those links remind me of a lot of stuff I've read before and which have a lot of links to neo-fascism.

The idea seems to be that we need to embrace the new tech in order to progress (and/or survive the coming collapse and/or apocalypse) - but that the majority of the sheeple will not know what to do until it is too late and so we'll need thinkers with TEDlike YouTube channels and dedicated bands of gamer and sci-fi fan followers to tell us what to do. And if we don't want to, or our democratic political systems are not up to the task, then they'll have to be turned over.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh yes, those links remind me of a lot of stuff I've read before and which have a lot of links to neo-fascism.

I think that's a fairly uncharitable (and relatively unhelpful) reading of those ideas, unless you want to dismiss everything labelled 'transhumanist' out of hand (see the allusions to what was considered such in the past upthread). I also don't think either of those links really dealt in the forms of elitism you claimed you diagnose.

There's a certain grappling with new/different forms of being that is needed if one doesn't end up being a fairly reactionary arsehole (as was Chesterton in his Chesterbelloc phase).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Historically that is correct, but is a side effect of the era in which it developed (and is also the reason for the Chesterton connection, as he was in all other aspects fairly reactionary). From a transhumanist point of view, Distributism reaction against it would be a category error, purely because they would not seek to define humanity in the same way.

Mm. Well I have seen some in the hacker sphere ideolising Schumacher and pushing ideas of the future which involve using new technologies in neo-luddite ways.

Which seems contradictory, but for example I know of some people working on developing methods of genetic modification which can be used by everyone. They've often got this idea that technology is less scary if it is held outside of the existing structures and/or are accessible to everyone. So often they're really into stuff like blockchain and bitcoin.

Sort of advanced psycho steampunk.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think that's a fairly uncharitable (and relatively unhelpful) reading of those ideas, unless you want to dismiss everything labelled 'transhumanist' out of hand (see the allusions to what was considered such in the past upthread). I also don't think either of those links really dealt in the forms of elitism you claimed you diagnose.

Ok. Well this is what it sounds like to me.

quote:

There's a certain grappling with new/different forms of being that is needed if one doesn't end up being a fairly reactionary arsehole (as was Chesterton in his Chesterbelloc phase).

Ha. Well I'd rather talk about Chesterton, who I've read quite a lot of, than bioconservatism and transhumanism which I know much less about.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ok. Well this is what it sounds like to me.

The first link is completely skeptical, the other is just another niche organisation pushing a fairly gradualist set of questions (unless having a blog etc discussing a set of ideas is in itself elitist), which makes the response seem knee-jerk.

Certainly on the neo/near-fascism side, 'bioconservatism' seems to be nearer the mark as many soi-disant 'bioconservatives' direct it in service of ethno-nationalism and historically traditionally gender roles (with transgenderism being seen as a terrible other).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Quite how this is being used by contemporary religious conservatives, I couldn't say - but it would seem to be a blockage between them and anarchists, who tend to be against the patriarchy of marriage and family and all that stuff.

I agree. What I'm trying to fathom is whether it underpins distributism or not.

Social mobility seems difficult in distributism, and the preoccupation with the Middle Ages suggests some nostalgia for the Elizabethan Chain of Being, "the rich man at his castle, the poor man at his gate", which brings with it lots of unhelpful associations of patriarchy.

quote:
From what I read on wikipedia of transhumanism, this seems to be about maximising the benefits of technology (including body modifications etc) to encourage/direct optimum human evolution. Which wouldn't be something Distributism would support, I don't think, as they'd see that as a denial of humanity.

AIUI that's the exreme end. Your version sounds like it's veering into Roko's basilisk territory.

The lot I met sought to include surrogacy and issues like euthanasia, probably abortion though I didn't dare ask that one. I suspect they would see gender theory and self-determination of sexual orientation as essentially transhumanist because not according to the natural order. I can see my anarchist ZADiste friends not being too worried about those kinds of issue, but they would be very anti Monsanto, GM crops, commoditisation, technocracy, and so on.

quote:
But I would say that I'd be surprised if Distributism could be repackaged as a political manifesto. It seems to me to be much more about "grassroots" and DIY change rather than (let's say) imposed changes via the conventional political process. I can't even really imagine what a local government run as Distributist would even look like - I suppose it would be commited to self-reliance and so on.

Yes, and this is one of the things that puzzled me, since my friend has just become regional delegate with a view to them putting forward a list in the 2019 EU elections (totally tangential question, what's happening in the UK about those?).

It's one of the reasons I'm a bit suspicious of the national leader's motives (he was a former high-up in the Socialist party).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Certainly on the neo/near-fascism side, 'bioconservatism' seems to be nearer the mark as many soi-disant 'bioconservatives' direct it in service of ethno-nationalism and historically traditionally gender roles (with transgenderism being seen as a terrible other).

Yes, because talk of "local communities" can quickly morph into local ethnic communities (immigration policy seemed to be another gaping hole in their agenda). But then again transhumanism veers off into eugenics and Nietzsche's Superman, doesn't it?

My current state of thinking is that you can't resist technological change, but you can educate people into not feeling obliged to avail themselves of it. That sounds more like a religious job than a political one, but it needs to be more than just reactionary.

[ 18. February 2018, 18:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, because talk of "local communities" can quickly morph into local ethnic communities (immigration policy seemed to be another gaping hole in their agenda).

I'm reminded of Chesterton's novels The Napoleon of Notting Hill and The Man Who Was Thursday.

quote:

But then again transhumanism veers off into eugenics and Nietzsche's Superman, doesn't it?

I don't know if the groups that I'm thinking of are transhuman, but they certainly seem to be neo-platonist at least in the sense that they imagine themselves as kinds of philosopher-kings who are destined to lead and save mankind in the near future.

But I'd also say that the groups I'm broadly describing as Distributist are far from being fascist. The groups which look to Schumacher (Schumacher college, Practical Action, the Organic movement etc) tend to be very fluffy - lots of earnest people in wooly jumpers and beards. The few that bother reading Chesterton tend to be focussed very much on tiny local activities and Catholicism. I don't see much sign that they're assembling a rebel movement to take over the government.

To me, one of the distinguishing features of fascism (if we are using the term with meaning rather than as a form of abuse) is the idea that one is prepared to use violence to gain political control to force the population to conform to your will.

I've heard people who are in this hacker subculture who believe that there is to be an imminent collapse actually say that. I don't know if that's exactly the same as the label transhumanism, but it sounds similar to me.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, because talk of "local communities" can quickly morph into local ethnic communities (immigration policy seemed to be another gaping hole in their agenda). But then again transhumanism veers off into eugenics and Nietzsche's Superman, doesn't it?

Maybe. ISTM that the folk for who it does so aren't primarily interested in questions of transhumanism itself so much as some form of neo-feudalism (with technology as a possible enabler) and themselves at the top - the level of technology is somewhat immaterial to them (see Nick Land and others)

quote:

My current state of thinking is that you can't resist technological change, but you can educate people into not feeling obliged to avail themselves of it.

I think you need to go further than this - in educating those who don't avail themselves of it to live in the same society as those who do and vice versa. Certainly there's a large strain of trans-humanist thought that seems to focus on these sorts of lines.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm trying to work out whether bioconservatism is really foundational to distributism

Not convinced there's any connection at all.

Distributism AIUI is the belief that ownership of the means of production - capital & land presumably - should be spread through the population. Rather than being either in the hands of a few plutocrats (arguably the end-state to which capitalism tends) or in the hands of the State (held in the name of the people).

I find Chesterton rather vague as to how this desirable state of affairs should be brought about, but it seems to involve a deliberate choice by society to eschew the efficiency gains from economies of scale. Either structuring the tax system to create diseconomies of scale, or by legislating against takeovers that would create too large a business.

To the extent that it would work at all, it seems at first sight possible to combine such laws with a highly bioconservative society in which all tampering with the human form or human genetics was outlawed. Or equally with a society where small bio-labs offer a wide range of modifications to the human genome.

Am I missing something ?

"Collective intelligence" on the other hand, sounds like a contradiction. There can be collective wisdom, where different individuals, focussing on different aspects of a situation, together make better decisions than any one person. But there's also collective stupidity...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Natural law looks like it is a bulwark against all sorts of nasty dystopian developments, but on closer inspection looks (to me) rather like a way of perpetuating patriarchy and oppression - indeed, distributivists apparently look back fondly to the Middle Ages.

I think it can be a way of perpetuating patriarchy and heteronormativity, and indeed often is, but I don't think it need be. In fact, I'd say that the fundamental principle of natural law is that one should arrange one's ethical principles for the sake of human beings as they are, rather than human beings as your favourite theory thinks they ought to be.

I don't see anything wrong with looking back to the Middle Ages for inspiration if it's done critically.

quote:
So, any views on distributism, any one? Fans? Critics? Is it inevitably bound up with natural law or not?

I don't know enough about it as a political theory. I suspect it's utopian. But utopianism has an important role.

quote:
And for afters, is there any developed Christian political thought that isn't founded in some idea of natural law?

I should think most forms of secular political theory have a baptised version.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In fact, I'd say that the fundamental principle of natural law is that one should arrange one's ethical principles for the sake of human beings as they are, rather than human beings as your favourite theory thinks they ought to be.

As they are now? And where they are now? (I mean, are you saying natural law can be contextualised and still be called natural law?).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry Eutychus. And my very thought, Macron's a technocrat. Not a democrat. And the trouble is he's not faceless, he's very personable, he's completely trumped Trump more than once.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert

Is it really possible to be a Christian thinker and not espouse some concept of Natural Law, even if you disagree with the interpretations many others place on the term and the conclusions they draw from it?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm waiting to see if I've understood Dafyd's meaning of the term, because if I have, it seems to me to be everything the movement I encountered didn't mean by "natural law".

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Any idea of natural law seems Aspy to me.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't know if I'm understanding the term Natural Law correctly, but I think Distributism sees the current state of things - in particular the distribution of property and the treatment of individual people - as unbalanced and therefore against the true, proper way of things.

Many of those who still use the term Distributism are Catholic and would assert that the pervasive economic system is evidence of rebellion against God as shown by the evidence of bad thing happening to people.

But then I'm not clear how these bioconservatives define themselves. I don't know, for example, how much they consider themselves fellow travellers with Vandana Shiva - who has for a long time been resisting technological changes in India she identified as negative, calling for a return to simpler, more local solutions. I read a lot of overlap between Shiva and Chesterton, and although she's clearly not speaking from a Catholic perspective, maybe it can be said that she is operating from a form of Natural Law perspective in that she's calling for a return to the true human-focused way of things and the way that they should be.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Like many of these concepts, my idea of natural law is sketchy. It basically arises out of Ship discussions of Dead Horse homosexuality and christianity, and notably Joan Outlaw-Dwarf's definition (now over 16 years old!) here (position 3).

When I discovered these people's opposition to surrogacy (which they saw as the ultimate aim of SSM) was due to it being, in their terms, part of their "bioconservativism" and "obviously not natural", I put it to their leader that the foundation of his anti-surrogacy argument was not (as claimed) anti-commoditisation of the human body (i.e. rent-a-womb) but "natural law", with Joan's definition in mind, and was met with a resounding "yes".

I'm not sure we can get much further with this aspect of the discussion outside Dead Horses, although I wonder whether further investigation of what bioconservativism and/or natural law and the related ethics might be would have legs here.

[ 19. February 2018, 08:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Distributism AIUI is the belief that ownership of the means of production - capital & land presumably - should be spread through the population. Rather than being either in the hands of a few plutocrats (arguably the end-state to which capitalism tends) or in the hands of the State (held in the name of the people).

Am I missing something ?

Yes, I think you are missing the purpose of the whole idea; which is about human dignity. The idea isn't just about spreading the ownership for the sake of it, but because it would enable stable, worthwhile livelihoods rather than having people using their skills to make other people rich whilst living in poverty. And the idea is that instead of creating millions of capitalists who then fight tooth-and-nail against each other to make a profit, instead they'll see the value of other non-economic benefits in society and will co-operate with other local people in ways that would make no sense to a market focussed capitalist.

And I don't think it really is about capital and land - it is much more about the tools of production. Giving individuals the ability to become their own economic agents to support themselves (and their family) rather than needing those things to be supplied by an employer.

So we're back to the neo-luddite idea of having a shoe-maker in every village rather than buying them from a shop which obtains them from massive factories.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

When I discovered these people's opposition to surrogacy (which they saw as the ultimate aim of SSM) was due to it being, in their terms, part of their "bioconservativism" and "obviously not natural", I put it to their leader that the foundation of his anti-surrogacy argument was not (as claimed) anti-commoditisation of the human body (i.e. rent-a-womb) but "natural law", with Joan's definition in mind, and was met with a resounding "yes".

I'm not sure we can get much further with this aspect of the discussion outside Dead Horses, although I wonder whether further investigation of what bioconservativism and/or natural law and the related ethics might be would have legs here.

Ok, well that certainly seems to overlap with some of the arguments put forward by the anti-GM campaigners - namely that it is dangerous because it is not natural. I hadn't thought of that as a natural law argument.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So we're back to the neo-luddite idea of having a shoe-maker in every village rather than buying them from a shop which obtains them from massive factories.

Pretty much, I think, yes. That certainly sounds like the Shire.

It's ok in values so far as it goes, but like organic farming, I'm not convinced it could actually sustain the world's population, and certainly would be difficult to implement in cities.

Moreover, I suspect (as I have suspected about anarchism for a while) that in a post-industrial-revolution society, as a sustainable lifestyle it is available only to a small, relatively well-off, well-educated segment of the population. It feeds off the excesses of capitalism; I'm not sure it can replace it.

quote:
Ok, well that certainly seems to overlap with some of the arguments put forward by the anti-GM campaigners - namely that it is dangerous because it is not natural. I hadn't thought of that as a natural law argument.

If that isn't a natural law argument, I'd have to do (another) radical rethink of my approach to DH issues - or at the very least, of the terminology involved.

[ 19. February 2018, 08:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Yeah, it's my fault for compartmentalising things. I suppose I'm aware of DH issues, I hadn't thought about applying the same criteria to those who are making a "it's not natural" argument outwith of a Christian context.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That takes me back to my other questions. Is "natural law" (thus understood) an intrinsic component of distributism, or a cultural hanger-on? I think it might be an intrinsic component, as I suspect nostalgia might be.

If so, then this isn't the right way to engage Bablyon meaningfully, despite the siren-song.

Transformation cannot be built on rearguard actions.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Or to put it another way, how much of CS Lewis' thinking as worked out in That Hideous Strength can I meaningfully salvage, and how much must I regretfully discard?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

It's ok in values so far as it goes, but like organic farming, I'm not convinced it could actually sustain the world's population, and certainly would be difficult to implement in cities.

I think the problem is wider than that - unless one has somehow been able to change the whole economy, then setting up individual bookmakers is going to mean that they are competing with mass-produced stuff. I think one can think about ways to compete differently - for example I think France still retains protection and support for rural crafts such as clogmaking, which means that there still is some kind of niche which means that the clogmaker can support himself. We don't really have that in the UK, so our rural crafts are disappearing, partly because the products are too expensive, partly just because they're not valued and the craftspeople are dying without passing on the knowledge and skills.

But then I suppose a question can still be asked whether one could sensibly rearrange the local economy based on the smallest units of production. Maybe we could have individuals with 3d printers producing things locally that are needed. The question is about the point where that becomes more viable than buying from Amazon.

quote:

Moreover, I suspect (as I have suspected about anarchism for a while) that in a post-industrial-revolution society, as a sustainable lifestyle it is available only to a small, relatively well-off, well-educated segment of the population. It feeds off the excesses of capitalism; I'm not sure it can replace it.

I'm not sure it is quite as bad as this. I think there is more potential for a wider number of people to be supported by local production for local needs - but the problem is that we often lack structures that make this kind of thing "normal" rather than exclusive and hipster.

But I am also convinced that neo-luddite ideas are nonsense. The trick is knowing how to use technology in small but beneficial ways rather than allowing the "wider system" to dictate consumption patterns. I'm not sure anyone has worked out a system that really works - and the current efforts such as Transition are notoriously shite.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

That's Transition Towns and Rob Hopkins rather than anything else...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

When I discovered these people's opposition to surrogacy (which they saw as the ultimate aim of SSM) was due to it being, in their terms, part of their "bioconservativism" and "obviously not natural", I put it to their leader that the foundation of his anti-surrogacy argument was not (as claimed) anti-commoditisation of the human body (i.e. rent-a-womb) but "natural law", with Joan's definition in mind, and was met with a resounding "yes".

Which certainly jibes with my interactions with self described bio-conservatives, where IVF was seen as the thin end of the wedge that had started the whole process of things they didn't like.

Posted by Zogwarg (# 13040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That takes me back to my other questions. Is "natural law" (thus understood) an intrinsic component of distributism, or a cultural hanger-on? I think it might be an intrinsic component, as I suspect nostalgia might be.

If so, then this isn't the right way to engage Bablyon meaningfully, despite the siren-song.

Transformation cannot be built on rearguard actions.

Hi, French person living in Japan here.

Yes, I think that "natural law" is an essential part of distributism, this is very much about things ought to be.

The way "On the Social Contract" (Rousseau) is taught in France, or for that matter "Le Mal" (evil), definitely advances that the ills of this world are born from a bent society which bends its participants. And the whole core of the French Republic is taught as being a re-assertion of natural law, of which the rights of man are the embodiment.

Article 2 of the 1789 declaration asserting the natural and imprescriptible rights of man:
- liberty
- property
- safety
- resistance against oppression

And Article 1, specifying that
Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

I don't think this particular movement, leans too far towards unnecessary fancy ideas, even under the stated goal of "franc-parler" (on their website). I think their ideal is commendable, but that the delivery is lacking by being overly wrapped in academic language, and I personally dislike some apparent aspects of what they take to mean bio/social conservatism.

Now I do think that as we move to a post-scarcity post-modern world as they put it, current society is dysfunctional, and can only become more so unless we radically change our approach to day employment.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm not entirely convinced by what they have to say, and i don't think most French people would be convinced by the kumbaya vibe.

(Personally, I'd like to see something like a less fascist version of star trek take place, but that is science-fiction for now)

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
So we're back to the neo-luddite idea of having a shoe-maker in every village rather than buying them from a shop which obtains them from massive factories.

I've been following this thread with interest - I don't know much about politics, but I've read a little Chesterton and Lewis and I'm interested in industrial history.

The shoe-maker illustration is interesting - it takes us to a time when rich people had a pair of shoes, and families of poor kids shared a second-hand pair which didn't fit any of them. Likewise the textile industry - employed folks not so long ago had their suit, and their old suit for gardening, and that was about it. And that was during the steam-textile era - before that, the poor were in rags.

Cogenitally I'm a Luddite, but I can't see how this works out across all of society. I live in a strange publicly-funded bubble (university lab workshop) where my artisan skills (hah!) are valued way above their market rate. But this is all funded by a tax system which runs on the 'real' monster economy. I like reading self-sufficiency books by people like John Seymour - but his position was like mine in that he could opt back in to the real economy -
perhaps the NHS - any time he needed, our neo-medievalism coming without the boils and leeches.

ISTM that resource issues are likely to bring about big changes faster and harder than the adoption of some or other political theory. When it gets too expensive to ship stuff from China, we'll need to make it. Since we've used up our own natural resources, we'll have to make more of it out of recycled stuff.

It will all cost a lot, lot more. A cheap-ish UK-made colour TV from 1968 would cost over £6k in today's money - and having demolished our supply chain, starting again things would be even more expensive. Where I live, the worry is not that we'll have less, but that we'll be breaking into each others' houses to share what little we have like it's 1987.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it really possible to be a Christian thinker and not espouse some concept of Natural Law, even if you disagree with the interpretations many others place on the term and the conclusions they draw from it?

The most obvious alternative is some form of divine command theory. Natural law takes it that natural beings have a good appropriate to their nature; and this decides what is ethical for them to do. To a divine command theorist, who believes that what is good is what God commands, this simply imposes on the freedom of God to command what God wishes.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In fact, I'd say that the fundamental principle of natural law is that one should arrange one's ethical principles for the sake of human beings as they are, rather than human beings as your favourite theory thinks they ought to be.
As they are now? And where they are now? (I mean, are you saying natural law can be contextualised and still be called natural law?).

Where humans are is rational animals. To be more precise, rational language-using social placental mammals.
I think natural law approaches start from a basically Aristotelian framework, even if they move beyond any of Aristotle's specific doctrines. One Aristotelian way of thinking would be that actions are done by the whole animal not merely a part. So from an Aristotelian standpoint what is wrong with the usual natural law approaches to contraception or same-sex relationships is that the usual conservative natural law doctrines see sex as the action of the genitals and reproductive system rather than as an action of the whole animal. And so they lay down ethical laws based on their theory of what the reproductive system ought to be, rather than based on the goods of the whole human animal.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That's very useful, Dafyd. I grew tired of the Ed Feser-type argument that 'genitals are for making babies, therefore gay sex is bad', but your points change the perspective somewhat. What are humans for?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Thanks Dafyd, you've blown my philosophy fuse.

Without going too far into Dead Horse territory (otherwise I'll have to reprimand myself...), in a word does this mean Joan Outlaw-Dwarf's use of "natural law" in the link posted above is an incorrect or over-narrow use of the term?

Zogwarg, thanks for joining the discussion - unless France has recently annexed Japan, your "location" line needs updating [Biased]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't know: I don't think Distributism necessarily has to have this air of "oh well, this is the way things should be, if you disagree you are against nature".

Maybe I'm wrong and co-operatives are too much of a step beyond Chesterton - but it seems to me perfectly possible to make the argument that what you are doing is making the best of a bad situation.

I live in a Welsh mining area. Labour unions went hand-in-hand with the development of local co-operative solutions, usually set up by miners. That included co-op shops and miner's libraries.

I don't think the suggestion was that a co-op shop or the 'stute or the allotment were part of some concept of what the "natural" looked like - but that this was an effort to make an (arguably) bad situation for miners and their families better.

I don't think that "natural law" thinking is carried over into those things that follow Schumacher either - or at least if it is then the stigma is about different things.

IVF, SSM etc has been mentioned - I don't get the impression from (for example) the Organic enthusiasts that they're signing up implicitly to statements about human reproduction. And yet they clearly have this understanding of what is "natural" and what isn't with regard to agriculture (deceiving themselves, IMO. There is nothing natural about organic agriculture).

Schumacher College uses these buzzphrases - holistic, ecological, sustainable - which certainly imply something (as far as I'm concerned, that's basically code for anti-GM, pro-Organic etc), but I don't see any evidence that they're also against the DH issues mentioned above.

Does that mean it is possible to use ideas about natural/unnatural about some things without it necessarily spilling over into others?

I've no idea, again, where the French bioconservatives are positioning themselves with regard to things like Schumacher, Organics, Transition and so on. Maybe it is just me who sees them as a modern manifestation of Chestertonian Distributism.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

When I discovered these people's opposition to surrogacy (which they saw as the ultimate aim of SSM) was due to it being, in their terms, part of their "bioconservativism" and "obviously not natural", I put it to their leader that the foundation of his anti-surrogacy argument was not (as claimed) anti-commoditisation of the human body (i.e. rent-a-womb) but "natural law", with Joan's definition in mind, and was met with a resounding "yes".

With the caveat that I'm never entirely sure what people mean by 'natural law' - is it possible to construct an argument against commoditisation that doesn't amount to a form of natural law argument?

I understand natural law to entail that things or acts or entities can have in-built moral purposes, and that violating those purposes is a Bad Thing in itself even if all agents involved in the activity are happy with the outcome.

The implication of the charge of 'commoditisation' is that the thing being commoditised ought not to be commoditised. So it's permissible to rent a woman's brain for the purpose of solving an engineering problem, but not to rent her womb for the purpose of growing a child for infertile parents. But this in turn implies there is something intrinsic to the womb that makes it unsuitable for being rented out even if the woman herself is happy to rent it out.

(One could argue that surrogate mothers aren't happy, just desperate. But that wouldn't be an argument from commoditisation but from utilitarianism.)

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Without going too far into Dead Horse territory (otherwise I'll have to reprimand myself...), in a word does this mean Joan Outlaw-Dwarf's use of "natural law" in the link posted above is an incorrect or over-narrow use of the term?

Sadly, I should think most people who say they are adherents of natural law ethics are using it in the Joan Outlaw-Dwarf sense. I think they are wrong to regard that as a valid argument from their principles. Nevertheless they so do. (The situation is somewhat analogous to a Kantian who thinks that on Kantian principles Kant was wrong to forbid lying to an assassin about his victim's location.)

In something of the way that I would think that family values politics should mean campaigning for equal and generous maternity and paternity leave rights, and being happy when Tom Daley and his partner announce they're having a child. Whereas most politicians who say they espouse family values mean by it something nearly the opposite.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
With the caveat that I'm never entirely sure what people mean by 'natural law' - is it possible to construct an argument against commoditisation that doesn't amount to a form of natural law argument?

I understand natural law to entail that things or acts or entities can have in-built moral purposes, and that violating those purposes is a Bad Thing in itself even if all agents involved in the activity are happy with the outcome (...)

Thank you for expressing my puzzlement so perfectly and making it even more acute [Help]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This is all so much not in the Lacanian league.

I vastly overestimated it.

Anyone got an experiment that shows the law of nature?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Dafyd, that was really helpful to me too, until you got to this bit

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
and being happy when Tom Daley and his partner announce they're having a child.

I'd thought specifically of this event in this context and specifically the BBC news coverage of it:

quote:
Tom Daley has announced he is expecting a baby with his husband, US film director Dustin Lance Black.
(...)
They have not revealed any more details about the pregnancy

Again trying to steer clear of the Dead Horse, while I'm OK with this in terms of equal rights, I'm not OK with the reporting; it makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

If one knew nothing about humans but had a reasonable command of English, the first sentence would suggest (at least from where I'm sitting) that no third party is involved; the last maintains this ambiguity. I hope the couple will be more honest with their child once they start asking where they came from than the article is.

I've been around the Dead Horse enough times to have decided that there is no inherent moral advantage to any way of becoming a parent to a child provided it is embarked upon responsibly by all concerned, but where I suddenly have qualms is: - if there really is no moral difference between different methods by which one becomes a parent, why does the article seem to try as hard as it can to make it look as much like the "natural" method as possible?

"He and his husband are expecting a baby"? OK. "Expecting a baby with his husband?" Not OK.

And then the gossipy coyness of that last sentence subverts the whole thing by its insinuation.

Put another way, this kind of reporting, along with CS Lewis' eerily prophetic passage in That Hideous Strength, makes me instinctively want to become a bioconservative even when my intellect can't manage to argue the case:

quote:
“There dwell an accursed people, full of pride and lust. There when a young man takes a maiden in marriage, they do not lie together, but each lies with a cunningly fashioned image of the other, made to move and to be warm by devilish arts, for real flesh will not please them, they are so dainty (delicati) in their dreams of lust. Their real children they fabricate by vile arts in a secret place.”

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I seem to recall years back that theoretically a male human could bear a child implanted on the outside of the large bowel. Just as women can ectopically. This isn't that tho'. Just surrogacy. As you say, it's all in the language.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

And I don't think it really is about capital and land - it is much more about the tools of production. Giving individuals the ability to become their own economic agents to support themselves (and their family) rather than needing those things to be supplied by an employer.

So we're back to the neo-luddite idea of having a shoe-maker in every village rather than buying them from a shop which obtains them from massive factories.

Tools yes - but that's part of what an economist means by capital.

Distributism doesn't mean no employers, it means many small employers running small firms where they know everyone. Where they deal with their workers person-to-person and not through unions and HR departments.

If you want to call that dignity, well OK. But it's not the essential dignity of the human person, not work as it should be according to natural law. It's a society-level choice. To make work less alienating, less cog-in-a-machine, more satisfying, more human-scale for people as producers. At the cost of making them worse off as consumers.

A shoe-maker in every village means no economies of scale means fewer shoes produced at higher prices. More people who only have one pair of shoes. Or none.

It's a trade-off.

And I don't know how possible it is for one country to make that trade-off in a globalised world. Or whether people would really be any happier thereby.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Distributism doesn't mean no employers, it means many small employers running small firms where they know everyone. Where they deal with their workers person-to-person and not through unions and HR departments.

It means people working for themselves and together in cooperatives.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm never entirely sure what people mean by 'natural law' - is it possible to construct an argument against commoditisation that doesn't amount to a form of natural law argument?

(...)
(One could argue that surrogate mothers aren't happy, just desperate. But that wouldn't be an argument from commoditisation but from utilitarianism.)

A quick look here suggests the opposing philosophies might actually be personalism (rather than "natural law"; personalism was explicitly championed by the folks I met) and utilitarianism.

I'm just clueless about all the recongised terms and established joined-up thinking for these things. I lean towards pragmatically looking at outcomes, which sounds utilitarian, but I'm also quite hot on essential human dignity, which sounds personalist, but which according to Russ does not derive from natural law (what does it derive from, then?).

I seem to be missing a lot of tools to express the thinking, which is frustrating when it comes to discussion.

[ETA mr cheesy, what Russ describes sounds a lot like what these people were talking about, and raised in my mind the sort of limits he describes. There were both employers in small businesses and representatives of cooperatives in the room].

[ 20. February 2018, 05:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

[ETA mr cheesy, what Russ describes sounds a lot like what these people were talking about, and raised in my mind the sort of limits he describes. There were both employers in small businesses and representatives of cooperatives in the room].

Ok I don't know, I wasn't there. But Chesterton wasn't into having employers making a profit off workers, whether big or small. The point was that the workers could make a dignified life if they kept the profit they earned rather than giving it to someone else.

Distributism wasn't a manifesto for small business owners.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Chesterton, Outline of Sanity:

quote:
When I say "Capitalism," I commonly mean something that may be stated thus: "That economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists, roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage."

Contrary to what Russ wrote above, Distributism imagines a situation where labour unions are not necessary - not because employers are close to employees, but because there are no employers, wages or labour disputes.

[ 20. February 2018, 06:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That might be what Distributism says - I honestly have no idea - but it doesn't seem to be what that quote from Chesterton says.

If you imagine a situation with little or no income disparity between employer and employee, and only small businesses, then capital could be more widely distributed.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Show me a situation where an employer gains no profit advantage from having an employee.

It might happen, but that's not a normal situation. Part of the point of business is making a profit, part of the point of having employers is that they're making money for you.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't see that this is a controversial idea: a factory owner has invested in all the machinery and training and offers employees a wage to do a job. They earn more per hour of their work than the costs. That extra goes as profit to the employer.

There's no substantive difference if it is a newsagent with a single employee. The newsagent has invested in the building, stock, etc. The employee earns a tiny wage in order to keep the shop open - and ensure that the newsagent makes a profit.

Chesterton is saying that in both scenarios the employee isn't seeing the full value of his labour - and someone else is taking a good chunk of it simply because the worker doesn't own his own tools to make something in the economy.

And his solution is that individuals, families and cooperatives own their own tools of production - rather than having capitalists and wages.

[ 20. February 2018, 06:54: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm assuming you meant "employee" at the end of your last post but one there.

There's a big difference between what the employer as a natural person takes home at the end of the month and the profit of the "employer" as a legal person (the company).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm assuming you meant "employee" at the end of your last post but one there.

Yes, I see it now - sorry.

quote:

There's a big difference between what the employer as a natural person takes home at the end of the month and the profit of the "employer" as a legal person (the company).

What do you mean "as a natural person"?

In every business, employee labour is a cost. If you are paying more than you can afford in wages, you don't make a profit. The worker's labour usually has to earn enough to pay all the other costs - including their wages - to make money.

Ideally you pay employees as little as you can get away with and make as much money from their labour as possible.

How do you think it works?

[ 20. February 2018, 07:06: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think you are confusing the employer in the sense of the business (the "legal person") and the employer in the sense of the individual owner of the business (the "natural person").

Of course there is a temptation for employers to award themselves fat salaries from the profits, but this is not the only possible use of profits: they can also be ploughed back into the business or indeed redistributed to employees through profit-sharing schemes.

I do contract work for one of the largest companies in its field in the world, which is privately owned. The boss is in the top ten wealthiest individuals in France, but this of course includes his business, and from what I know of him, the vast majority of the profits go back into the business (of course he's not short of ready cash himself, but I don't think he's into an extravagant lifestyle in any way).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Mm. Exploitation of labour is exploitation of labour however the profits are spent.

If one had a factory of workers on minimum wage making very expensive clothing, you might well see a lot of profit per piece. And you might well be in a position to use those profits in positive ways.

But Distributism says that instead of working for £10 on something your employer can sell for £1000 - get your own sewing machine. Even if you only sell something for £20 instead of being part of a company selling things for £1000, you'd be better off.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Your first paragraph pretty accurately describes how I perceive the company I mentioned to operate.

But I think your opening sentence trips over the word "exploitation". In English that implies unjust exploitation, whereas the same word in French can, in some contexts, simply mean "use" or even "make the most of" (as in "exploit the potential").

And where I think your second paragraph falls down is that you are considering the employer/employee relationship purely in monetary terms, which I think is at odds with this whole "personalism" thing. You're defining "better off" solely in financial terms.

Employers (both natural and legal persons) shoulder more responsibility for the business than employees. Some people may be happy with less compensation and less responsibility, perhaps enabling them to engage in other activities and areas of responsibility with non-financial rewards.

I also think the margin that you imagine evil capitalist factory owners pouring into their own personal pockets is wildly high. The best product margin in another company I recently worked for was 30%, and that was far ahead of their other products. That company is heavily committed to a profit-sharing scheme, by the way, and aims to become a leading "great place to work".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Well I'm sorry but you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with the basis of Distributism - and, by the way, with Marx's analysis of capital - and saying that exploitation of capital which is Marx's term is fine if the employer is reasonable.

Marx and Chesterton would disagree. Their reasoning is slightly different from each other, but for Chesterton the problem is that individuals lose agency and become tools in someone else's profit-taking system, and as a result too often cannot really support themselves even though their labour is worth far more than they are paid.

Chesterton's solution is to take away the layer of ownership of other people's labour and to give people the tools so that they can earn their own crust without the need to have a boss.

It isn't as if Chesterton and Marx didn't have examples of good industrialists who looked after their employees and were philanthropists - but they both identified the problem as being that businesses were not human-focused.

Chesterton's solution was quite different to Marx's. While Marxism looked to replace capitalists with the state, Chesterton looked to empower the workers to become their own bosses.

[ 20. February 2018, 07:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Dammit. Exploitation of labour not exploitation of capital was Marx's big thing.

Sorry, I mistyped again.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
you are arguing with the basis of Distributism - and, by the way, with Marx's analysis of capital - and saying that exploitation of capital which is Marx's term is fine if the employer is reasonable.

Marx and Chesterton would disagree (...) - but they both identified the problem as being that businesses were not human-focused.

Where I struggle with this is that while I have every sympathy for the complaint that businesses are not human-focused, I cannot fully reconcile that with the complaint about capital being expressed in purely monetary terms.

There are no shortage of people of my acquaintance riling against "the bosses" (which, like "the political class", tend to be seen almost as another species here in France), but I never hear their grievance expressed in terms of a lack of human focus; it's only ever about disposable income. The only people bewailing a lack of human focus are people who are already reasonably comfortably off and may indeed already be their own bosses.

quote:
Chesterton's solution was quite different to Marx's. While Marxism looked to replace capitalists with the state, Chesterton looked to empower the workers to become their own bosses.

OK, I'm not sure that self-employment is everyone's idea of empowerment (plus I'm not sure how you have railways).

[not sure if your edit invalidates my point or not; certainly the group I went to seemed to pit "commoditisation" against "human focus"]

[ 20. February 2018, 08:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It's about ownership. And in theory workers would organise into co-ops to do things that they can't do on their own.

But you are right - not everyone wants to be self-employed. But I think for Distributism the point is that this is a choice; you can choose to continue in low wages, or you can believe in yourself and with the right support you will do better on your own.

In practice, I think this very often comes down to how much pay individuals get for a job. These ideas sound attractive to workers who know that they're getting paid £50 whilst being charged out at £450 to the company's clients.

But where the rubber-meets-the-road, living these ideals is difficult. Sharing ownership in a co-op of a business is hard work and people often don't have the headspace - without bosses and owners you have to decide things for yourself and/or with other owner-workers. You have to solve your own problems and have to decide for yourselves (for example) what other people's wages should be.

This thing about human-focused business comes directly from Schumacher. His whole thing was that if one could design businesses that were there for the interests of the people who worked for them rather than (often absent) owners, they look quite different.

And that'd look different to standard businesses, even one's which offer good things to employees and one's which seek to do good things in society.

Because, the theory goes, businesses which were focussed on the human wouldn't pay people less than they needed to live on, wouldn't ask them to do degrading things, would seek to create exceptional working conditions and would be looking for the betterment of wider society and the environment.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because, the theory goes, businesses which were focussed on the human wouldn't pay people less than they needed to live on, wouldn't ask them to do degrading things, would seek to create exceptional working conditions and would be looking for the betterment of wider society and the environment.

As I said, the group I met claimed this was possible whilst also delivering better profit margins.

I'd like to think this is true (certainly the profit-sharing firm I mentioned looked like it was making a go of this) but again it strikes me as odd for people so ideologically committed to non-monetary benefits to measure the success of their idea in such monetary terms.

I fully get what you're saying about cooperatives and it leaks into my struggles in trying to organise church on a cooperative basis.

Another misgiving I have is that cooperatives can be just as exploitative, not only financially but also in human terms, and that this exploitation can be all that harder to detect because success is not being measured in purely monetary terms. We might hate money, but the bottom line does at least provide an easy metric.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I think for Distributism the point is that this is a choice; you can choose to continue in low wages, or you can believe in yourself and with the right support you will do better on your own.

I'm beginning to think that the extent to which political action can have an effect on the "human worth" sort of issues we're discussing is to promote education and facilitate the act of choosing as a responsible decision, rather than trying to legislate what that might look like - and I'd apply this principle to all the sorts of issues covered by bioconservativism too.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Chesterton's solution was quite different to Marx's. While Marxism looked to replace capitalists with the state, Chesterton looked to empower the workers to become their own bosses.

Actually, that was Marx's solution as well. He just thought that you'd need really large workers' co-operatives, possibly the size of the state, to run factories. Marx thought that factories were a good thing in producing the necessities of life efficiently.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Mm.. Chesterton was ambivalent about machines, I suspect he didn't think large factories were necessary.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As I said, the group I met claimed this was possible whilst also delivering better profit margins.

I'd like to think this is true (certainly the profit-sharing firm I mentioned looked like it was making a go of this) but again it strikes me as odd for people so ideologically committed to non-monetary benefits to measure the success of their idea in such monetary terms.

Dunno, seems contradictory to me. Co-ops rarely have high profit margins, I suspect that the ideal for a true-believer Distributist would be to earn only what you need to live on - if you can do that in a day, good. Spend the rest of your time in the allotment.

quote:

Another misgiving I have is that cooperatives can be just as exploitative, not only financially but also in human terms, and that this exploitation can be all that harder to detect because success is not being measured in purely monetary terms. We might hate money, but the bottom line does at least provide an easy metric.

One problem with a co-operative model is that it seeks to address one problem but may be incapable of seeing how to bring changes outwith of their group.

So a co-op clothing factory might do a reasonable job at bringing benefits to their own workers but, as a consequence, might need to look for price-competitive materials to do this. In theory co-ops should be looking to help each other and looking to make changes throughout the community. In practice that can be really hard to do.

I think it is an exaggeration to say that a co-op is "just as exploitative" if it is truly worker-owned. Problems sometimes arise when the model is fudged and people are working for a co-op without actually being a member of it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0