[cstross]

Here, in case you don't want to read the entire piece, here's the conclusion it's all there to lead up to:

Today, we have become citizens of a global, Brezhnevian capitalist state, which, in its failure to provide an inspiring frontier—gone are the days of Kennedy’s “New Frontiers” or Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In”—has slowly ossified and wrapped back upon itself. My feeling is that all the troubles we’ve been witnessing over the last decade—Trumpism, Brexit, the rise of nationalism all over Europe, Russia’s virulent imperialism—are attempts to disrupt not just the dominant political systems, but the zone of eternal repetition.

(And when the author mentions a Brezhnevian state, bear in mind he actually grew up in one: he knows whereof he speaks.)

[bgrn89]

I think the authors argument is fascinating; the idea that Western capitalism is self-defeating precisely because it is so successful in ensuring political and social stability, thereby stifling the people living under it. However, I wonder if 'Trumpism, Brexit, rising nationalism, etc.' are better explaining within the context of wealth inequality. In other words by capitalism failing to provide benefits to subset of the population while still keeping the status quo.

[mytailorisrich]

I'd say Brexit and the "rising nationalism" is because the system is creating social instability by negating, even denying the existence of, people's desire to belong to a nation and to preserve their own distinct culture and social norms.

[toyg]

"People's desire to belong to a nation" is not a given - nations didn't even exist until roughly 300-400 years ago. People's desire to belong to something is a thing, but the definition of that something is very fluid: your town, your religion, your guild, your football club, your political party, your programming language community... The definition of one's "tribe" changes with the years, even in one's own lifetime.

Nation-states came into existence following the increased reach of reliable, everyday movement of people, goods, and ideas. Such limits are now disappearing, and not even slowly. This will continue to generate friction, while people's desire for belonging morphs political structures into something that suits the new conditions.

A reality in which the citizens of New York and London share more values than they do with people from the surrounding townships, is already here; one cannot wish it away out of nostalgia, sooner or later reaction gives way to progress.

[mytailorisrich]

It is not nostalgia. In Europe, for instance this is something actively forced on the people.

You put it like this is all inevitable and 'progress', which I think is both not true and dangerous by discarding the opinions of those unhappy with it (which leads to things like Brexit, IMHO)

This is a choice made on behalf of the people and Brexit, the recent election result in the Netherland, and the political situation in many other countries show that the people don't necessarily agree with it.

[toyg]

> this is something actively forced on the people.

Forced by whom? Changes are agreed by people, often very smart people who believe in a future where we won't squabble on silly things because someone drew a line in 1840something as far as they could drag their cannons.

In a world where your goods and services are built and sold all over the world at any given time, where everyone talks across continents at every hour of the day, a lot of the old "national" dimensions simply don't matter - or keep us in a state of vassalage towards folks who have already embraced the future.

There is always someone resisting change; you can still travel by horse if you really want to, but people will zip by you in trains and cars. Most of the Brexit-supporting public, for example, have already realized that they voted themselves on a buggy whip, and are busy trying to retrofit a steam engine on it.

[mytailorisrich]

You may remember how the Dutch, French, and Irish rejected the EU Constitution just for the EU to repack the same as the Lisbon Treaty and run with it anyway.

Immigration is a highly sensitive subject, and both in the UK and the EU governments have decided that 'more' is correct and anyone complaining is wrong and an extremist.

So I am not sure that changes are necessarily agreed by the people (not the same as "by people", which is the whole point).

> There is always someone resisting change

Again, you paint "change" as inevitable when most of what we're seeing is conscious decision by some people, not inevitable change (which is only mostly technology as in your examples).

[Shorel]

I disagree.

I think this desire to belong to a group is a very strong instinct, and it will be the strongest during our teenager years, up until we are 25 or so.

It is a biological imperative, not just a cultural construct.

Now, the size of the groups we are capable to create depends on our technology and culture, of course, but not the desire to belong to one.

Therefore, we have sports fans, anime and sci-fi subcultures, and so on.

[toyg]

That's what I said, verbatim: "People's desire to belong to something is a thing, but the definition of that something is very fluid."

The instinct is there, but how that instinct manifests is absolutely a cultural construct determined by circumstances. There is no biological imperative that says I should belong to the group of people born less than 10km from me (or 100, or 1.000, or 100.000).

[vixen99]

I can't speak for New York but I question just how increasingly many London residents do not share values with surrounding townships and vice versa.

[foobarian]

I feel that part of the problem is that we kind of ran out of advancements and reached a plateau. It's not capitalism's fault this happened (other than getting us there); but unfortunately it's possible that capitalism with its focus on growth is not compatible with that kind of regime and it will break. Hopefully something else big will come up and unblock more growth for a while (Starship + space colonization?)

[Shorel]

Democracy gives us freedom.

And that freedom carries the weight that now our decisions matter more, and help from our peers is less, and we can make shitty decisions that affect our lives. We can be stuck in dead-end jobs, and it will be our doing. We can be addicted to many things, like gambling, and it is our responsibility to breakout from that.

So, in a sense you are right, but in another, it's up to each person to change eternal repetition.

We are free, but only if we act on that freedom.

[cstross]

No, representative democracy does not give us freedom.

All representative democracy give us is the ability, collectively, to sack a government that has outlived its welcome for some reason. (What happens after that is a complete crap shoot.)

When opposition parties start to triangulate -- that is, to define their policies in terms of what the government and perceived extreme opposite are doing -- rather than by espousing a concrete ideology or policy platform, we end up with everything converging on one dominant faction's idea of how to do things: a one party state in all but name.

(Which seems to be where we are here in the UK right now, and to a lesser extent in the USA.)

[Shorel]

OK, let's say for your sake: democracy gives us some limited freedoms, that almost all other forms of government take away.

It's not in the definition of autocracy that you should self censor if you live in one. In reality, it is just a given.

Same for theocracy, etc. And there are countless other freedoms taken away in these other government systems.

Also, I don't want you to have total, unrestricted freedom. I don't want you to have the freedom to harm me without consequences =)

So, limited ability to sack a government, and freedom of association, and freedom of commerce are good enough for me, from a practical point of view.