Reaction Points (#2)
Spandrell has been asking whether advanced modernity makes an ever larger fraction of society economically redundant. Jim has also been talking about the costs posed by “people of negative economic value” (or, with his signature delicacy, ‘the moron problem’.) It’s a running theme with Moldbug too, and he’s now gone epic on it.
Outside in is Austrian enough to predict that markets clear when they’re not politically screwed over, which would mean the problem isn’t techno-economic at all, but merely one of inequality tolerance. It seems that Federico agrees.
Foseti has been shepherding people towards Scott Alexander’s series on Reaction. The dubiously named ‘thrive/survive’ theory in part two is (really) interesting, but is there anything else going on there worth responding to? Attempts at persuasion welcome.
Most intense mind-meld moment of the week (Jim again):
… obviously China has been moving rightwards ever since the Gang of Four was overthrown, and will probably continue to do so, but they feel really guilty about doing so.
Nineteenth century anglosphere capitalism survived in Shanghai till 1941, long after it had become extinct in the anglosphere, and to some extent survived in Hong Kong to the present day. After the coup, Deng set to work reviving Shanghai capitalism before the show trial of the gang of four had even began, and in this sense, China has become deeply reactionary, preserving some of the best of the west’s past. On the other hand, in another sense they are still a bunch of commies kowtowing to elite white male leftists.
Can China fend off the Cathedral? The future depends on that. Either the CPC goes global PC, or reaction deepens all the way to total recall (that laissez-faire is the translation of a Chinese concept). Here’s one positive indicator. (And a negative one.)