> "Nobody saw Reagan coming, at least nobody told me about it. I'm talking about this because I'm thinking about this perception that there are no ideas on the left. There are no new ideas, which is also part of what I talk about in that piece. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm not immersed enough in like the far left, like the serious Marxist activists or whatever, but I just feel like there's been a long-term intellectual exhaustion."
Yes and no. The "serious Marxist activists" saw Reagan coming. But of course they did. No one is a "serious Marxist" (I am interpreting that to mean something like 'revolutionary socialist' here, though perhaps it was meant in a broader sense) because they're opposed to social-democratic *aims* - that would be insane, social democracy is quite nice, assuming you can have it - it's because they don't believe social democracy can work in the long run. They've predicted nine out of the last five Reagans, as the saying goes.
As for new ideas - they absolutely exist. More importantly, there are old ideas which remain quite promising; from the likes of Kalecki or Polanyi, for instance. But they've failed to gain any meaningful political traction. The center-left is irreconcilably liberal, whether technocratic or radical; the far left is wedded to Soviet orthodoxy on the one hand and anarchism on the other.
The most promising - though I am biased here - sometimes goes by the name of "finance socialism". Matt Bruenig is probably the most prominent proponent. The general idea is that the way financial markets operate, here and now, and the existence of index funds especially, serves as a proof of concept for the viability of public ownership. Ownership is already decoupled from management; mild central planning is already applied - as we've seen with Norway's (somewhat ironic) divestment from fossil fuels and Blackrock's policy "guidance". All that really remains (though of course I am oversimplifying the matter, and ignoring politics completely) is to give Larry Fink a job offer he can't refuse.
Ownership structure hardly seems to be the biggest issue: look at China. The left continues to produce ideas that are not new, but novel in the way that the typical Humanities PhD thesis is novel. Until the left is willing to face up to certain realities of human nature, none of these ideas matter much.
This is bringing me quickly to the place of realizing I don’t even know what I or anyone else means by “new” ideas. I want to focus in a critical sense on the right and would also like to bring on people from the left who have something “new” to say, but what would that mean. Hmmm.
Why don't you write an essay or have a podcast with someone discussing the concept of Worldviews, and their importance in addressing our meta-crisis today.
I think what John Pistelli said in the wake of Trump's reelection is important: we should work on making our ideas more appealing, not only more persuasive. Also I think the sex war stuff keeps the left from harnessing some sort of libidinal energy to challenge what you and Bill call the "nihilist vitalism" on the Right (seriously can't you straight men and women just kiss and make up?) Great conversation, by the way.
I feel like this is relevant to your excellent discussion, especially wherein "the left" went sideways.
https://open.substack.com/pub/demianentrekin/p/the-progressive-impasse?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=dw8le
Will take a look.
I'm sure it could be more concise, but it was a process.
Re this part
> "Nobody saw Reagan coming, at least nobody told me about it. I'm talking about this because I'm thinking about this perception that there are no ideas on the left. There are no new ideas, which is also part of what I talk about in that piece. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm not immersed enough in like the far left, like the serious Marxist activists or whatever, but I just feel like there's been a long-term intellectual exhaustion."
Yes and no. The "serious Marxist activists" saw Reagan coming. But of course they did. No one is a "serious Marxist" (I am interpreting that to mean something like 'revolutionary socialist' here, though perhaps it was meant in a broader sense) because they're opposed to social-democratic *aims* - that would be insane, social democracy is quite nice, assuming you can have it - it's because they don't believe social democracy can work in the long run. They've predicted nine out of the last five Reagans, as the saying goes.
As for new ideas - they absolutely exist. More importantly, there are old ideas which remain quite promising; from the likes of Kalecki or Polanyi, for instance. But they've failed to gain any meaningful political traction. The center-left is irreconcilably liberal, whether technocratic or radical; the far left is wedded to Soviet orthodoxy on the one hand and anarchism on the other.
So what are the new ideas?
The most promising - though I am biased here - sometimes goes by the name of "finance socialism". Matt Bruenig is probably the most prominent proponent. The general idea is that the way financial markets operate, here and now, and the existence of index funds especially, serves as a proof of concept for the viability of public ownership. Ownership is already decoupled from management; mild central planning is already applied - as we've seen with Norway's (somewhat ironic) divestment from fossil fuels and Blackrock's policy "guidance". All that really remains (though of course I am oversimplifying the matter, and ignoring politics completely) is to give Larry Fink a job offer he can't refuse.
Ownership structure hardly seems to be the biggest issue: look at China. The left continues to produce ideas that are not new, but novel in the way that the typical Humanities PhD thesis is novel. Until the left is willing to face up to certain realities of human nature, none of these ideas matter much.
This is bringing me quickly to the place of realizing I don’t even know what I or anyone else means by “new” ideas. I want to focus in a critical sense on the right and would also like to bring on people from the left who have something “new” to say, but what would that mean. Hmmm.
Why don't you write an essay or have a podcast with someone discussing the concept of Worldviews, and their importance in addressing our meta-crisis today.
Say more.
I think what John Pistelli said in the wake of Trump's reelection is important: we should work on making our ideas more appealing, not only more persuasive. Also I think the sex war stuff keeps the left from harnessing some sort of libidinal energy to challenge what you and Bill call the "nihilist vitalism" on the Right (seriously can't you straight men and women just kiss and make up?) Great conversation, by the way.