I deeply appreciate this psychological analysis of libertarian ideology. You're articulating the anatomy of their psychological framework, the interdependent concepts, talking points, and cognitive biases that enable it to be self-sustaining-- as well as the ambient environmental cues that conduces to this type of thinking. An excellent way to approach politics; we require more good faith psychologization of different ideological tribes in our discourse to untangle this messy, alienated, polarized situation we are in
Brett, I’m sorry to say that this particular post consists of a long chain of presumed logic about the nature of money but never reaches an explicit conclusion about that, then strays off into the nature of Bitcoin and the Trump agenda. I fail to see the connection.
I don't doubt you're right, but I had a really hard time following your article. It seems to me you're assuming that the reader will have some intuitive understanding of libertarianism, "true capitalism" etc. but some of us do not.
I was born and raised in a communist country and I didn't pick up (internalize?) those concepts from the surrounding culture because the surrounding culture didn't have a clue about them. It still doesn't for the most part.
Could you add a bit more explanations for the aliens who don't have intuitive understanding of the stories you're writing about?
I'm also very confused whenever you write "most people" or something similar. Most people live in countries like China, India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia and I very much doubt they have liberal or libertarian traditions.
So which people are your "most people"? (I really don't understand, I'm not trolling.)
Fifty years ago, I myself was working my way through Volume 1 of Capital. This was done in two contexts: (1) a graduate-level program in Political Economy; (2) a group of young people from a mixture of working-class and middle-class backgrounds, most of whom had been radicalized by the U.S's war in Indochina. In both contexts, the section on "Commodities and Money" was the most difficult but ultimately the most intellectually rewarding.
Many years later, I encountered Modern Monetary Theory and, by extension, non-barter theories of the origin and role of money. When I teach or am in conversation with lay people (non-political economists), I mainly present a state theory of money. In the back of my mind I'm always saying, "I really should re-read that first part of Volume One of Capital to see whether Marx's thinking was entirely reliant upon Adam Smith's account of money arising from barter or, on the other hand, if he would have been open to a state theory of money." In particular, we need to know what non-barter theories of money were circulating (and hence available to Marx) in the 1840s-to-1860s period in which he was researching what ultimately became Capital. Does Marx's description/critique of capital fall apart if we abandon a barter theory of money. I doubt it, but I've never had the time to thoroughly think about this.
The first half of this essay I found really interesting,relevant and educational since my knowledge of money is as limited as my relationship with the actual stuff in any form. But the second half seemed to unravel into meaningless waffle. Two observations by me. Money is extremely hard to come by and flies away like a bird on wings swiftly unless you practically tie it down with a ball and chain. And even then left unattended it can melt away. I agree that we are all interconnected by need and desire but (and I'm not a Tory and I've never voted Tory in my life and never will) I think Mrs Thatcher was right when she said 'what we call society is individuals all living individual lives but connecting in their needs.' Due to kind of non-church attending weird religious upbringing I gave up all my money,such as it was,everything aged 29 and voluntarily embraced poverty,and found out THE HARD WAY that the society of that poor is not the cheery all singing all dancing Cockney " whatever we got we share merriness" of that song in Oliver! in which actually a depraved boy is luring an innocent boy into a life of depravity. But since the alternative is starving....Luckily for me I was not in this invidious position for long as God kept that promise in Scripture and gave me back everything double and,having learned a good lesson and got great insights I kept the bloody lot. Sorry,but if you've got water,power,rent etc bills to pay or you'll get the bums rush outta there what the reality of money is doesnt matter. Dollars,Euros,Roubles so long as it's transferable,who cares. The worst thing about POVERTY is not shame or a lack of dignity. Many very poor people have great dignity. And no shame is in having very little money,deserved or not. But it's not a thing to be perversely proud of other. The WORST THING about poverty is the sheer inconvenience. You can't travel anywhere,buy food you like,etc it's all very well having a romantic idealised vision of poverty as you'll still have friends,real friends who will value you for yourself and they'll pay because your smile is so cute and warm,and your funny and engaging....that's straying into dodgy territory isn't it. Maybe I've gone a bit off topic myself but thanks for the instigation to think about all this.
Ooh! I started out thinking this was a really useful reframing of the Tarzan suite/Mowgli suite piece, but the insight about Trump's 'deals' attitude to the international order mirroring the Tarzan take on individuals is a zinger of an insight!
It suddenly clicked a bunch of things into place for me, and I'm still processing and re-aligning off the back of that.
Another brilliant post Brett. I just finished Timothy Snyder’s new book “On Freedom.” He makes a compelling case that libertarianism, with its obsession with “freedom from” (which Snyder characterizes as negative freedom), leads fairly directly to fascism. A process which we are seeing play out in real time in the United States under crypto convert Trump. BTW, Snyder’s conception aligns very well with Karl Polanyi’s. Both authors work from acknowledgement of the reality that we are parts of communities and always have been, as do you. Furthering understanding of this reality is one of the most important efforts occurring to stop the rise of authoritarianism. Thank you!
I deeply appreciate this psychological analysis of libertarian ideology. You're articulating the anatomy of their psychological framework, the interdependent concepts, talking points, and cognitive biases that enable it to be self-sustaining-- as well as the ambient environmental cues that conduces to this type of thinking. An excellent way to approach politics; we require more good faith psychologization of different ideological tribes in our discourse to untangle this messy, alienated, polarized situation we are in
I am reading Capital Vol 1 and currently on Chapter 3 so would really appreciate a similar piece on Marx's theory of money circulation!
Ha ha, sure I'll work towards that
☝️what Ed said. really enjoyed this, would love a part 2 on Marx.
Brett, I’m sorry to say that this particular post consists of a long chain of presumed logic about the nature of money but never reaches an explicit conclusion about that, then strays off into the nature of Bitcoin and the Trump agenda. I fail to see the connection.
I agree.
I don't doubt you're right, but I had a really hard time following your article. It seems to me you're assuming that the reader will have some intuitive understanding of libertarianism, "true capitalism" etc. but some of us do not.
I was born and raised in a communist country and I didn't pick up (internalize?) those concepts from the surrounding culture because the surrounding culture didn't have a clue about them. It still doesn't for the most part.
Could you add a bit more explanations for the aliens who don't have intuitive understanding of the stories you're writing about?
I'm also very confused whenever you write "most people" or something similar. Most people live in countries like China, India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia and I very much doubt they have liberal or libertarian traditions.
So which people are your "most people"? (I really don't understand, I'm not trolling.)
i think he means "most people" who live in those systems
Fifty years ago, I myself was working my way through Volume 1 of Capital. This was done in two contexts: (1) a graduate-level program in Political Economy; (2) a group of young people from a mixture of working-class and middle-class backgrounds, most of whom had been radicalized by the U.S's war in Indochina. In both contexts, the section on "Commodities and Money" was the most difficult but ultimately the most intellectually rewarding.
Many years later, I encountered Modern Monetary Theory and, by extension, non-barter theories of the origin and role of money. When I teach or am in conversation with lay people (non-political economists), I mainly present a state theory of money. In the back of my mind I'm always saying, "I really should re-read that first part of Volume One of Capital to see whether Marx's thinking was entirely reliant upon Adam Smith's account of money arising from barter or, on the other hand, if he would have been open to a state theory of money." In particular, we need to know what non-barter theories of money were circulating (and hence available to Marx) in the 1840s-to-1860s period in which he was researching what ultimately became Capital. Does Marx's description/critique of capital fall apart if we abandon a barter theory of money. I doubt it, but I've never had the time to thoroughly think about this.
The first half of this essay I found really interesting,relevant and educational since my knowledge of money is as limited as my relationship with the actual stuff in any form. But the second half seemed to unravel into meaningless waffle. Two observations by me. Money is extremely hard to come by and flies away like a bird on wings swiftly unless you practically tie it down with a ball and chain. And even then left unattended it can melt away. I agree that we are all interconnected by need and desire but (and I'm not a Tory and I've never voted Tory in my life and never will) I think Mrs Thatcher was right when she said 'what we call society is individuals all living individual lives but connecting in their needs.' Due to kind of non-church attending weird religious upbringing I gave up all my money,such as it was,everything aged 29 and voluntarily embraced poverty,and found out THE HARD WAY that the society of that poor is not the cheery all singing all dancing Cockney " whatever we got we share merriness" of that song in Oliver! in which actually a depraved boy is luring an innocent boy into a life of depravity. But since the alternative is starving....Luckily for me I was not in this invidious position for long as God kept that promise in Scripture and gave me back everything double and,having learned a good lesson and got great insights I kept the bloody lot. Sorry,but if you've got water,power,rent etc bills to pay or you'll get the bums rush outta there what the reality of money is doesnt matter. Dollars,Euros,Roubles so long as it's transferable,who cares. The worst thing about POVERTY is not shame or a lack of dignity. Many very poor people have great dignity. And no shame is in having very little money,deserved or not. But it's not a thing to be perversely proud of other. The WORST THING about poverty is the sheer inconvenience. You can't travel anywhere,buy food you like,etc it's all very well having a romantic idealised vision of poverty as you'll still have friends,real friends who will value you for yourself and they'll pay because your smile is so cute and warm,and your funny and engaging....that's straying into dodgy territory isn't it. Maybe I've gone a bit off topic myself but thanks for the instigation to think about all this.
Ooh! I started out thinking this was a really useful reframing of the Tarzan suite/Mowgli suite piece, but the insight about Trump's 'deals' attitude to the international order mirroring the Tarzan take on individuals is a zinger of an insight!
It suddenly clicked a bunch of things into place for me, and I'm still processing and re-aligning off the back of that.
Thanks, and can't wait for part two!
Another brilliant post Brett. I just finished Timothy Snyder’s new book “On Freedom.” He makes a compelling case that libertarianism, with its obsession with “freedom from” (which Snyder characterizes as negative freedom), leads fairly directly to fascism. A process which we are seeing play out in real time in the United States under crypto convert Trump. BTW, Snyder’s conception aligns very well with Karl Polanyi’s. Both authors work from acknowledgement of the reality that we are parts of communities and always have been, as do you. Furthering understanding of this reality is one of the most important efforts occurring to stop the rise of authoritarianism. Thank you!