I appreciate these speculations about the various inconsistencies in populist thought, but I think the only reason the socialism/free market dichotomy doesn't work is because those concepts are deliberately misunderstood. Producerism and distributism dance around what works, but only inconsistently because they're not grounded in a sufficiently robust framework. Producerism gets that providing your fellow man with value is necessary if you want to live a life without taking anything out of anyone else's hide. The thing is, as you note, there are more ways to add value than via economic production. Services add value too, but there are also ways to add value that aren't economic.
There is a way to ensure over time that you're adding value, fortunately. Are the fruits of your labor on balance owed to cooperation, or coercion? This is the real fundamental split between the market and socialism, but this can't be understood without the foundation of property rights, because if there is public property differentiating cooperation and coercion becomes all but impossible.
Distributism comes into play because there will always be confusion on these points, and politics (legitimized violence at scale) seems to be an enduring feature of the modern human condition. The lowest level to which such authority for violence can be distributed, the better the chance that individuals within that community will be able to hold leaders accountable for misuse and abuse of such power.
I think left populism only fails due to economic ignorance and right populism will succeed formulated as the only true alternative to incompetocracy. Great fortune whether inherited in terms of tangible wealth or genetically comes with great responsibility, but this responsibility can't be enforced with violence or it loses its meaning. Voluntary exchange elegantly concentrates wealth into the hands of those who are best at providing to their fellow man over time, and this wealth isn't necessarily all economic. Socialism of any kind will always only serve those of inferior capability. Those skilled in taking over provision. You mentioned the right having an affinity for winners, I think it is critical for right populism to understand the manner of winning should always be entered into the calculus. Winning by employing coercion is essentially cheating, and it is natural to have disgust for cheaters. Those who spend their lives consuming the capital and savings of their countrymen while contributing nothing all while standing below a moral halo of victimhood invite contempt, but if they're only responding to their environment then are they worthy of such? Your admonition to focus on practicality is sage here. I don't think anyone should make a habit of indulging in strong emotions related to things they're ultimately not going to do anything about. Such emotion incurs a debt of action in my estimation, and those unwilling to pay should instead focus on the things they are willing to engage with.
Sorry this is such a rambling comment, this article was very thought provoking and I felt compelled to get some of it out.
Nonsense. BLM tried marching across rural America in 2020 and was escorted out of town at gunpoint, everywhere. Where are these migrants colonizing rural America for the progressive forces of globalism going to live in farm towns, and what would they do where all crops are harvested mechanically, which is everywhere in the interior of the United States?
'The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a key to what's happening now. While the gop bumbles, the dems have ticked off Everyone; blacks, Hispanics, lgb has dropped the Ts and after the massacre? Perhaps even the Jews who aren't orthodox (the orthodox are already Trump supporters) will move to the right?
We are having a Cultural shift. All economic levels (which generally determine friendships more than race) Are UNITING AS AMERICANS.
The Right isn't whom you believe us to be today; I was liberal until I was told I was not liberal enough. The Right today is made up of working classes of all colors and colored collars. The former Right has much more in common with the left. They form the Uni Party. We new Rights? We're that huge 50-70% right down the middle. Rejected by both ends that make up the uni party. I listen to the anti Biden pro Trump Hispanics and Blacks rap music and country.
We are indeed Uniting. The New Right? We have been rejected by our parties which gives us big hearts that embrace those who've also felt our pain. We're Americans.
We're not the Bush right any more. We reject Bush dynasty and their ilk as heartily as we reject Biden and his handlers.
Anthony is naive but most young people are liberal. He's like most of us who once believed the stereotypes put out by msm. I find more telling the responses to his song by minorities that Dems think they own. They FEEL the lyrics. Emotions are powerful in uniting us all against the common enemy.
I really had trouble with the following paragraph at the end:
"The current GOP populists are Producerists rhetorically, but more focused on culture wars, have remnants of Reaganism, and lack any coherent message. This rising populism is much more cultural than economic, and I would prefer it if the reverse were true. While the GOP should shift towards caring about the average American’s wellbeing, that does not mean we should be needlessly worshipping the average schlub. The populist right have this anti-ideology, in which cosmopolitan rich people are evil but so is socialism, that wokeness is a cancer but liberals are the real White Supremacists. They still believe in bootstraps like Reagan, but also have this obsession with a totally fair system like progressives. The worst are those who are blank slatist, yet economically rightwing while fetishizing the common working man. However, there are positive signs that the right is now more open to class consciousness, identity politics, and hereditarian thinking. The essence of populism is pride in being a commoner, rather than overthrowing the elites and replacing them with new superior elites. I advocate for building up new counter-elites, offering nobles oblige towards the common man rather than populism that worships them, economic distributism, with cultural and spiritually elitism."
While it is true that the cultural critique of the right-wing populists is mostly rhetorical nonsense in a time when serious problems demand much more, I do not actually think the movement lacks the economic solutions to address our current crisis of so-called neoliberalism. The problem is that you actually buy into the left-wing populist (socialist/communist) framework more than the right-wing populists you critique, as you clearly put way too much stock into class consciousness, identity politics and hereditarian thinking, as those are all part of the leftist model that proves itself flawed time and time again. You are a social engineer who thinks you know better how to organize society than voluntary, free markets that you distrust. And that is your core problem.
As Grant Smith notes in the comments, the key difference in America is now free capitalism versus crony capitalism, and the latter is not arising because of some inherent inability of free markets to allow even the (to use your terminology) genetically challenged to find meaningful work--indeed, David Riccardo showed long ago that an entire nation of challenged people can still partake in global trade via specialization, and so it is as individuals, never mind that we also freely associate with people well above and below our ability levels all the time. The fact that we have created a bunch of useless workers inside such rent-seeking industries as Wall Street or Silicon Valley, or worse, in universities, non-profits, NGOs and government bureaucracies is precisely because we continue to increase the amount of human activity within civil society (and even what was once private life) through the channel of government or its proxies. This is the shift from free market capitalism to crony capitalism (which is really a form of neofascism or neofeudalism with a smiley face of socialist Big Brother). Once you see this, and you learn to trust freedom, then all of these silly attacks on right-wing populism go away: MAGA Republicans don't resent Elon Musk although he is clearly elite, since he is perceived as a self-made billionaire who makes good products, rather than a crony capitalist who made money with dirty government contracts; Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously argued that affirmative action isn't restorative but should be permanent, on the only logical theory that African Americans are genetically inferior and will never get into Harvard without it, so the populists are correct about the racism (or at least soft bigotry) of liberals' low expectations; and populists see fairness and justice in equality of opportunity, rather than outcome, with a small safety net for the 0.7% that end up poor despite making the right decisions with regard to high school graduation, avoidance of drugs or pregnancy and willingness to hold a job. To say that right-wing populists fetishize shlubs reveals your disdain for others whom you think you are superior to. In this, you are badly mistaken.
The best civilizations are ones in which the vast majority are common men and see themselves as such, and feel a union not based upon economic class or ethnic or religious identitarianism, but based upon a nation. Because ours is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation, our nationalism does not risk falling into the violent and racist kind displayed by the German Nazis, and left-wing lies to the contrary are just that.
In short, what you call chaos or contradiction, we call the highly diverse melting pot that is America. We do not presume to be smart enough to determine how each individual will be able to give back, only that the "basket of deplorables" that elitists like you continue to cast aspersions upon will continually surprise you when they are allowed to operate within a free market rather than some highly bastardized version of it that an old or (according to your preference) new and improved group of powerful and (thus corrupt) elites (whether focused on redistribution, or production of tangible goods, or focused on only producing art, or whatever) will be putting their heavy thumbs upon. Man plans and God laughs. You think better planners are the solution. I think freer people in freer markets are the solution, and then let the future happily surprise us.
Great points, Stark. There's a lot to chew on here, particularly how producerism was most akin to the economy of the Founding and Jeffersonian principles.
Why is it that you believe that DoJ would, if antifa/blm tried, come down hard on opponents? DoJ does not "come down hard" on antifa/blm rioters/murderers? Why would DoJ step-up in one case and not the other? More word games, I know, but blm/antifa have yet to "try that here" where "here" is a non-democrat run cesspool.
"This rising populism is much more cultural than economic, and I would prefer it if the reverse were true. " The economics follow the cultural, this is the point the left never seems capable of understanding or, more likely, admitting aloud.
" a totally fair system like progressives. " lol. Uh-huh. Like, totally.
"The essence of populism is pride in being a commoner, rather than overthrowing the elites and replacing them with new superior elites." Seriously? Who tells you what to think? If Populism has "pride" in anything, it is the system that once enabled people to rise-up through the ranks, from nobodyies to leaders, if wanted; a system that had a fluid middle class with many more people moving up into and up out of that than the reverse.
Progressives are short-sighted with a lack of historical perspective and no (positive) proof of concept. Populism puts a thumb on Darwinism by creating systems whereby peoples have opportunity, progressivism simply drops giant turds on the scale, pats itself on the back, and takes a large cut of the turd.
I appreciate these speculations about the various inconsistencies in populist thought, but I think the only reason the socialism/free market dichotomy doesn't work is because those concepts are deliberately misunderstood. Producerism and distributism dance around what works, but only inconsistently because they're not grounded in a sufficiently robust framework. Producerism gets that providing your fellow man with value is necessary if you want to live a life without taking anything out of anyone else's hide. The thing is, as you note, there are more ways to add value than via economic production. Services add value too, but there are also ways to add value that aren't economic.
There is a way to ensure over time that you're adding value, fortunately. Are the fruits of your labor on balance owed to cooperation, or coercion? This is the real fundamental split between the market and socialism, but this can't be understood without the foundation of property rights, because if there is public property differentiating cooperation and coercion becomes all but impossible.
Distributism comes into play because there will always be confusion on these points, and politics (legitimized violence at scale) seems to be an enduring feature of the modern human condition. The lowest level to which such authority for violence can be distributed, the better the chance that individuals within that community will be able to hold leaders accountable for misuse and abuse of such power.
I think left populism only fails due to economic ignorance and right populism will succeed formulated as the only true alternative to incompetocracy. Great fortune whether inherited in terms of tangible wealth or genetically comes with great responsibility, but this responsibility can't be enforced with violence or it loses its meaning. Voluntary exchange elegantly concentrates wealth into the hands of those who are best at providing to their fellow man over time, and this wealth isn't necessarily all economic. Socialism of any kind will always only serve those of inferior capability. Those skilled in taking over provision. You mentioned the right having an affinity for winners, I think it is critical for right populism to understand the manner of winning should always be entered into the calculus. Winning by employing coercion is essentially cheating, and it is natural to have disgust for cheaters. Those who spend their lives consuming the capital and savings of their countrymen while contributing nothing all while standing below a moral halo of victimhood invite contempt, but if they're only responding to their environment then are they worthy of such? Your admonition to focus on practicality is sage here. I don't think anyone should make a habit of indulging in strong emotions related to things they're ultimately not going to do anything about. Such emotion incurs a debt of action in my estimation, and those unwilling to pay should instead focus on the things they are willing to engage with.
Sorry this is such a rambling comment, this article was very thought provoking and I felt compelled to get some of it out.
Nonsense. BLM tried marching across rural America in 2020 and was escorted out of town at gunpoint, everywhere. Where are these migrants colonizing rural America for the progressive forces of globalism going to live in farm towns, and what would they do where all crops are harvested mechanically, which is everywhere in the interior of the United States?
Where?
'Culture war' is a good way to pick a project that leaves oligarchic power while pretending to 'fix' things.
'The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a key to what's happening now. While the gop bumbles, the dems have ticked off Everyone; blacks, Hispanics, lgb has dropped the Ts and after the massacre? Perhaps even the Jews who aren't orthodox (the orthodox are already Trump supporters) will move to the right?
We are having a Cultural shift. All economic levels (which generally determine friendships more than race) Are UNITING AS AMERICANS.
The Right isn't whom you believe us to be today; I was liberal until I was told I was not liberal enough. The Right today is made up of working classes of all colors and colored collars. The former Right has much more in common with the left. They form the Uni Party. We new Rights? We're that huge 50-70% right down the middle. Rejected by both ends that make up the uni party. I listen to the anti Biden pro Trump Hispanics and Blacks rap music and country.
We are indeed Uniting. The New Right? We have been rejected by our parties which gives us big hearts that embrace those who've also felt our pain. We're Americans.
We're not the Bush right any more. We reject Bush dynasty and their ilk as heartily as we reject Biden and his handlers.
Anthony is naive but most young people are liberal. He's like most of us who once believed the stereotypes put out by msm. I find more telling the responses to his song by minorities that Dems think they own. They FEEL the lyrics. Emotions are powerful in uniting us all against the common enemy.
I really had trouble with the following paragraph at the end:
"The current GOP populists are Producerists rhetorically, but more focused on culture wars, have remnants of Reaganism, and lack any coherent message. This rising populism is much more cultural than economic, and I would prefer it if the reverse were true. While the GOP should shift towards caring about the average American’s wellbeing, that does not mean we should be needlessly worshipping the average schlub. The populist right have this anti-ideology, in which cosmopolitan rich people are evil but so is socialism, that wokeness is a cancer but liberals are the real White Supremacists. They still believe in bootstraps like Reagan, but also have this obsession with a totally fair system like progressives. The worst are those who are blank slatist, yet economically rightwing while fetishizing the common working man. However, there are positive signs that the right is now more open to class consciousness, identity politics, and hereditarian thinking. The essence of populism is pride in being a commoner, rather than overthrowing the elites and replacing them with new superior elites. I advocate for building up new counter-elites, offering nobles oblige towards the common man rather than populism that worships them, economic distributism, with cultural and spiritually elitism."
While it is true that the cultural critique of the right-wing populists is mostly rhetorical nonsense in a time when serious problems demand much more, I do not actually think the movement lacks the economic solutions to address our current crisis of so-called neoliberalism. The problem is that you actually buy into the left-wing populist (socialist/communist) framework more than the right-wing populists you critique, as you clearly put way too much stock into class consciousness, identity politics and hereditarian thinking, as those are all part of the leftist model that proves itself flawed time and time again. You are a social engineer who thinks you know better how to organize society than voluntary, free markets that you distrust. And that is your core problem.
As Grant Smith notes in the comments, the key difference in America is now free capitalism versus crony capitalism, and the latter is not arising because of some inherent inability of free markets to allow even the (to use your terminology) genetically challenged to find meaningful work--indeed, David Riccardo showed long ago that an entire nation of challenged people can still partake in global trade via specialization, and so it is as individuals, never mind that we also freely associate with people well above and below our ability levels all the time. The fact that we have created a bunch of useless workers inside such rent-seeking industries as Wall Street or Silicon Valley, or worse, in universities, non-profits, NGOs and government bureaucracies is precisely because we continue to increase the amount of human activity within civil society (and even what was once private life) through the channel of government or its proxies. This is the shift from free market capitalism to crony capitalism (which is really a form of neofascism or neofeudalism with a smiley face of socialist Big Brother). Once you see this, and you learn to trust freedom, then all of these silly attacks on right-wing populism go away: MAGA Republicans don't resent Elon Musk although he is clearly elite, since he is perceived as a self-made billionaire who makes good products, rather than a crony capitalist who made money with dirty government contracts; Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously argued that affirmative action isn't restorative but should be permanent, on the only logical theory that African Americans are genetically inferior and will never get into Harvard without it, so the populists are correct about the racism (or at least soft bigotry) of liberals' low expectations; and populists see fairness and justice in equality of opportunity, rather than outcome, with a small safety net for the 0.7% that end up poor despite making the right decisions with regard to high school graduation, avoidance of drugs or pregnancy and willingness to hold a job. To say that right-wing populists fetishize shlubs reveals your disdain for others whom you think you are superior to. In this, you are badly mistaken.
The best civilizations are ones in which the vast majority are common men and see themselves as such, and feel a union not based upon economic class or ethnic or religious identitarianism, but based upon a nation. Because ours is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation, our nationalism does not risk falling into the violent and racist kind displayed by the German Nazis, and left-wing lies to the contrary are just that.
In short, what you call chaos or contradiction, we call the highly diverse melting pot that is America. We do not presume to be smart enough to determine how each individual will be able to give back, only that the "basket of deplorables" that elitists like you continue to cast aspersions upon will continually surprise you when they are allowed to operate within a free market rather than some highly bastardized version of it that an old or (according to your preference) new and improved group of powerful and (thus corrupt) elites (whether focused on redistribution, or production of tangible goods, or focused on only producing art, or whatever) will be putting their heavy thumbs upon. Man plans and God laughs. You think better planners are the solution. I think freer people in freer markets are the solution, and then let the future happily surprise us.
Great points, Stark. There's a lot to chew on here, particularly how producerism was most akin to the economy of the Founding and Jeffersonian principles.
Why is it that you believe that DoJ would, if antifa/blm tried, come down hard on opponents? DoJ does not "come down hard" on antifa/blm rioters/murderers? Why would DoJ step-up in one case and not the other? More word games, I know, but blm/antifa have yet to "try that here" where "here" is a non-democrat run cesspool.
"This rising populism is much more cultural than economic, and I would prefer it if the reverse were true. " The economics follow the cultural, this is the point the left never seems capable of understanding or, more likely, admitting aloud.
" a totally fair system like progressives. " lol. Uh-huh. Like, totally.
"The essence of populism is pride in being a commoner, rather than overthrowing the elites and replacing them with new superior elites." Seriously? Who tells you what to think? If Populism has "pride" in anything, it is the system that once enabled people to rise-up through the ranks, from nobodyies to leaders, if wanted; a system that had a fluid middle class with many more people moving up into and up out of that than the reverse.
Progressives are short-sighted with a lack of historical perspective and no (positive) proof of concept. Populism puts a thumb on Darwinism by creating systems whereby peoples have opportunity, progressivism simply drops giant turds on the scale, pats itself on the back, and takes a large cut of the turd.