[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).

[toyg]

> just for the EU to repack the same

"The EU" didn't repack anything - treaties are agreed or amended by national governments. If the Irish voted one way and then their government agreed something else, they can take it up with their own politicians.

> Immigration is a highly sensitive subject, and both in the UK and the EU governments have decided that 'more' is correct

Again, immigration is a topic managed almost exclusively by democratically-elected national governments. And it has always been - EU rules only apply to "traffic" between member states, and in fact give extra responsibilities to peripheral countries. Even between EU members, the only real EU rule covers right of employment; everything else (who can stay where for how long, which services they can access, etc) is for the local authority to decide.

The UK government, in particular, is currently schizophrenic on this subject. They spent inordinate amounts of time and money on grand public gestures (Rwanda policy, "hostile environment", Windrush fallout, or indeed Brexit) while, at the same time, completely failed to implement serious and sustainable policies on who is allowed to stay where and how - hence numbers skyrocketing.

You won't find a single UK cabinet minister not genuinely convinced that immigration should be curbed; it's just that nobody knows how to do it without looking like a buggy whip maker in a world of car drivers. To compete on the global stage of modern capitalism, a country needs talent and labor to go there, regardless of where they were born; a closed country inevitably declines, as it happened even to mighty Japan in the last 30 years. That doesn't have to mean that you relinquish entire towns to groups fresh off the boat. It's not a binary choice, and painting it as such is disingenuous at best.

> you paint "change" as inevitable

Because it is - change is driven by technological advancements. You can fight for the ancien règime as much as you want, sooner or later someone will show up at your port with a metaphorical warship and force you to join modernity.

[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?)