Age of Disorder

[TeacherinExile]

I couldn’t resist posting this new thread based on related articles published today. They have some relevance to Fourth Turning theory, in general, and to intergenerational conflict, in particular:

Millennials to redistribute wealth from older generations to the young in new ‘age of disorder,' warns Deutsche strategist - MarketWatch

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-wo...1599589831

The Age of Disorder - the new era for economics, politics and our way of life - Deutsche Bank

https://www.dbresearch.com/servlet/reweb...0000511857

Here is an excerpt (opening paragraphs) from the MarketWatch article:

It probably won’t take a great deal of persuasion to convince investors that there’s an “age of disorder.”

That’s the title of a new Deutsche Bank research note, which says the world is entering its sixth distinct era of modern times. 

So say goodbye to the “era of globalization” and brace yourself for the “age of disorder” where millennials, firmly established as the generation of ‘have nots’,take their revenge and redistribute wealth from the old to young. Millennials are usually defined as those between the ages of 22 and 38 years old in 2019, according to Nielsen Media Research. 

What I find interesting here is the counter-narrative to the argument posed by Strauss and Howe in their book.  They maintained that any fiscal crisis that arises in the fourth turning would be addressed by a willing sacrifice on the part of Boomers for the sake of younger generations.  The Deutsche Bank analysis argues quite the opposite, that Millennials will vote for redistributive reductions in Boomer wealth (and entitlements?) in order to make up for the intergenerational inequities.  In other words, rather than the heroic financial sacrifice on the part of older generations for the benefit of the young, as predicted by S&H, Boomers will be sacrificed—unwillingly—at the ballot box.  Revanchism, not altruism, as a way to balance the scales.

Should America fall off some kind of fiscal cliff, that’s actually how I see things playing out, the way that Deutsche Bank has predicted.  You can already see glimmers of that in the stark contrast between the old and the young with respect to COVID-19. The attitudes and behaviors, taken as a whole, could not be more different.  I fully expect that much steeper tax rates will be enacted on both income and wealth.  And local policies that tend to deny Millennials and Gen-Z opportunities to have affordable housing, such as restrictive zoning laws (NIMBY), will also go by the wayside. 

I find it interesting, too, that the Deutsche Bank report refers to the time period lasting from 1980 to 2020 as a bygone epoch. This epoch, of course, is the neoliberal era that becomes a “dead letter” now, in my opinion.  What comes next is anybody’s guess...

[David Horn]

Bang-on in my opinion. The only issues are when and how. The time may still be in the future, though not the distant future, and how is up to the rest of us. Political means beat the hell out of violence and mayhem, but either is possible.

[TeacherinExile]

(09-09-2020, 12:51 PM)David Horn Wrote: Bang-on in my opinion.  The only issues are when and how.  The time may still be in the future, though not the distant future, and how is up to the rest of us.  Political means beat the hell out of violence and mayhem, but either is possible.

The one encouraging note from the MarketWatch article appears in the last paragraph:

There have been 16 occasions over the last 500 years, when a rising power has challenged the ruling one, and on 12 occasions it ended with war. One piece of solace is the report notes that military conflict is unlikely.  

The last sentence accords with my own benign view (and Bob Butler’s?) that a total war between superpowers is probably out of the question, as long as rational heads of state prevail. Can’t rule out asymmetric acts of warfare on a smaller scale, though.  And as for internal conflict in the U.S., anarchic violence is certainly a possibility, though I would not characterize that as “war,” per se. But if the armed street violence that we have witnessed in Kenosha and Portland escalates, that could usher in a reactionary regime, akin to what followed after the German elite tired of the running gun battles between the Communists and fascists that plagued the streets of the Weimar Republic.  Not saying we’re there yet, but we’re inching toward a “spiral of violence” that makes a reactionary regime more likely than a left-wing revolution.  BLM and antifa protestors must take the high road, and forswear arming themselves when confronted with right-wing militias.  Take a page out of Gandhi’s and MLK’s book on nonviolence, and eject anyone from their ranks who are armed with weapons of any kind. The vigilante violence that occurred in Portland is a dangerous development that must not be repeated.

[David Horn]

(09-09-2020, 02:34 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(09-09-2020, 12:51 PM)David Horn Wrote: Bang-on in my opinion.  The only issues are when and how.  The time may still be in the future, though not the distant future, and how is up to the rest of us.  Political means beat the hell out of violence and mayhem, but either is possible.

The one encouraging note from the MarketWatch article appears in the last paragraph:

There have been 16 occasions over the last 500 years, when a rising power has challenged the ruling one, and on 12 occasions it ended with war. One piece of solace is the report notes that military conflict is unlikely.  

The last sentence accords with my own benign view (and Bob Butler’s?) that a total war between superpowers is probably out of the question, as long as rational heads of state prevail. Can’t rule out asymmetric acts of warfare on a smaller scale, though.  And as for internal conflict in the U.S., anarchic violence is certainly a possibility, though I would not characterize that as “war,” per se. But if the armed street violence that we have witnessed in Kenosha and Portland escalates, that could usher in a reactionary regime, akin to what followed after the German elite tired of the running gun battles between the Communists and fascists that plagued the streets of the Weimar Republic.  Not saying we’re there yet, but we’re inching toward a “spiral of violence” that makes a reactionary regime more likely than a left-wing revolution.  BLM and antifa protestors must take the high road, and forswear arming themselves when confronted with right-wing militias.  Take a page out of Gandhi’s and MLK’s book on nonviolence, and eject anyone from their ranks who are armed with weapons of any kind. The vigilante violence that occurred in Portland is a dangerous development that must not be repeated.

I agree that violence will be limited to domestic actions, more like Chicago in '68 than what's occurred so far.  I'm hard pressed to see how this is avoided, frankly.  The PTB are so smug and self-satisfied that a humble willingness to relent to anything short of a direct threat seems unlikely in the extreme.  40 years of riding high and making all the rules tends to warp ones perspective, and this Gilded Age set new records.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-09-2020, 04:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: I agree that violence will be limited to domestic actions, more like Chicago in '68 than what's occurred so far.  I'm hard pressed to see how this is avoided, frankly.  The PTB are so smug and self-satisfied that a humble willingness to relent to anything short of a direct threat seems unlikely in the extreme.  40 years of riding high and making all the rules tends to warp ones perspective, and this Gilded Age set new records.

In democratic countries, non violence should work most of the time. One party or the other will get the idea of listening to the people, and the other goes caput. Autocratic cultures like Russia or China? You can get awfully deaf to the will of the people.

The Soviet Union did yield to protest, but I don't feel they had the most tone deaf of leaders. They also reverted in time. You would have to get really really close to resorting to violence, convince the autocrats that you will go violent, before they are apt to listen. I cannot see clearly how they will act.

[pbrower2a]

(09-09-2020, 02:34 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(09-09-2020, 12:51 PM)David Horn Wrote: Bang-on in my opinion.  The only issues are when and how.  The time may still be in the future, though not the distant future, and how is up to the rest of us.  Political means beat the hell out of violence and mayhem, but either is possible.

The one encouraging note from the MarketWatch article appears in the last paragraph:

There have been 16 occasions over the last 500 years, when a rising power has challenged the ruling one, and on 12 occasions it ended with war. One piece of solace is the report notes that military conflict is unlikely.  

The last sentence accords with my own benign view (and Bob Butler’s?) that a total war between superpowers is probably out of the question, as long as rational heads of state prevail. Can’t rule out asymmetric acts of warfare on a smaller scale, though.  And as for internal conflict in the U.S., anarchic violence is certainly a possibility, though I would not characterize that as “war,” per se. But if the armed street violence that we have witnessed in Kenosha and Portland escalates, that could usher in a reactionary regime, akin to what followed after the German elite tired of the running gun battles between the Communists and fascists that plagued the streets of the Weimar Republic.  Not saying we’re there yet, but we’re inching toward a “spiral of violence” that makes a reactionary regime more likely than a left-wing revolution.  BLM and antifa protestors must take the high road, and forswear arming themselves when confronted with right-wing militias.  Take a page out of Gandhi’s and MLK’s book on nonviolence, and eject anyone from their ranks who are armed with weapons of any kind. The vigilante violence that occurred in Portland is a dangerous development that must not be repeated.

The contemporary USA is more analogous to the Weimar Republic than to Imperial Russia, with formal democracy but entrenched inequality Imperial Russia had almost no democratic heritage with some transition from a feudal agrarianism to early-industrial capitalism. In neoliberal America the economic elites (big landowners, urban landlords, tycoons, financiers, bureaucratic elites, the Religious Right, and even organized crime) seem to share the same ideology. Those economic elites endorse an ethos that states that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as the elites get everything possible, and their pet politicians share that ideology. I look at some American politicians and I can imagine the Tsar's flunkies in the Duma around 1910 or the DNVP (German National People's Party) in Germany in the 1920's.

The Hard Left may eventually have  the despair of the exploited masses (basically anyone not in those elites) on their side, but the Hard Right (Distinguished so far from the neo-fascist Right that includes KKK and neo-Nazi types who would put minorities in concentration camps if not shooting pits and gas chambers. There is now no meaningful difference between the KKK and the neo-Nazis. They are too discreditable to be called upon to defend the elites and their class privilege yet... but if those elites ever feel themselves under threat they can lavish funds upon such people to smash strikers, dissidents, and people of suspect loyalty to America for their origin or beliefs.  The German elites clung closely to the DNVP  until there were pitched battles in the street, and then the elites started backing the Nazis just to be safe from the Commies who seemed intend on doing to those elites what they did after the Bolshevik Revolution. Mass suffering gains no sympathy from people willing to mow them down as "losers".

The Hard Right is more bloodthirsty and larger than the Far Left... but we know well who would get lavish funding from the economic elites that we already have. Let those elites become the spearhead of reaction as American democracy vanishes, and this country could be a nightmare as brutal as the Third Reich, only with a greater scale of killing of people who now consider themselves Americans. 

I have occasionally heard of people describing themselves as "Tenth Amendment" citizens. Considering that that somehow ignores subsequent Amendments, especially the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth. it would seem that "Tenth Amendment citizen" means "white". Now you know.

Yes, it is better that the Left keep their guns at home or avoid having them altogether. They don't have enough, and they are not ruthless enough to use them in a successful revolution.

[sbarrera]

[quote pid='56838' dateline='1599670128']
What I find interesting here is the counter-narrative to the argument posed by Strauss and Howe in their book.  They maintained that any fiscal crisis that arises in the fourth turning would be addressed by a willing sacrifice on the part of Boomers for the sake of younger generations.  The Deutsche Bank analysis argues quite the opposite, that Millennials will vote for redistributive reductions in Boomer wealth (and entitlements?) in order to make up for the intergenerational inequities.  In other words, rather than the heroic financial sacrifice on the part of older generations for the benefit of the young, as predicted by S&H, Boomers will be sacrificed—unwillingly—at the ballot box.  Revanchism, not altruism, as a way to balance the scales.

Should America fall off some kind of fiscal cliff, that’s actually how I see things playing out, the way that Deutsche Bank has predicted.  You can already see glimmers of that in the stark contrast between the old and the young with respect to COVID-19.
[/quote]

 As in, COVID-19 =  "Boomer Remover"  

[sbarrera]

I have to say, I feel like we've been holding our breaths forever waiting for the 'blue wave' of Millennial voters ushering in a a progressive redisritibution of wealth. It's always just around the corner in the next election. And yet (and here I'm beating a dead horse) Sanders and Warren, the two candidates proposing exactly such a thing as wealth redistribution, have been sidelined politically. Where were all those Millennial voters during the Democratic primaries?? I know, history isn't linear, at some point the curve will bend, but I feel like this is another fantasy like the Green New Deal.

[David Horn]

(09-09-2020, 07:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-09-2020, 04:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: I agree that violence will be limited to domestic actions, more like Chicago in '68 than what's occurred so far.  I'm hard pressed to see how this is avoided, frankly.  The PTB are so smug and self-satisfied that a humble willingness to relent to anything short of a direct threat seems unlikely in the extreme.  40 years of riding high and making all the rules tends to warp ones perspective, and this Gilded Age set new records.

In democratic countries, non violence should work most of the time.  One party or the other will get the idea of listening to the people, and the other goes caput.  Autocratic cultures like Russia or China?  You can get awfully deaf to the will of the people.

The Soviet Union did yield to protest, but I don't feel they had the most tone deaf of leaders.  They also reverted in time.  You would have to get really really close to resorting to violence, convince the autocrats that you will go violent, before they are apt to listen.  I cannot see clearly how they will act.

Actually, I'm most worried about the business community -- especially in the US.  After the refocus on profits and only profits back in the Reagan era, followed by the neoliberal love fest under Clinton, it's been a long time since business has been challenged in any meaningful way.  That has to change, or we descend into a neo-Feudalism, with the very wealthy, the well-paid intelligencia that serves them, and the serfs.  I don't see democratic governance in that model.

[David Horn]

(09-10-2020, 08:17 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I have to say, I feel like we've been holding our breaths forever waiting for the 'blue wave' of Millennial voters ushering in a a progressive redistribution of wealth. It's always just around the corner in the next election. And yet (and here I'm beating a dead horse) Sanders and Warren, the two candidates proposing exactly such a thing as wealth redistribution, have been sidelined politically. Where were all those Millennial voters during the Democratic primaries?? I know, history isn't linear, at some point the curve will bend, but I feel like this is another fantasy like the Green New Deal.

Electoral politics is a numbers game, made inherently unfair by the Constitution.  Today, roughly 30% of the populace elects half the US Senate.  By 2040, 70% of the US populace will live in 15 states.  That means that 30% of the populace gets to elect 70% of the Senate -- and don't get me started on the Electoral College.  Progress is nearly impossible until it is demanded by an overwhelming majority, and I'm not sure we're there yet.  Worse, changing that at the Constitutional level requires unachievable supermajorities.  Anything that rebalances the body politic endangers the privileged minority. 

At some point, that changes, but when and how is a mystery.

[sbarrera]

Exactly, with politics in the state it's in today, it's a mystery how this change is going to happen.

But here is a hopeful article- it's a long read so I won't repost the whole article, just the first couple paragraphs as a teaser. The article ties into the idea of how Covid-19 is the perfect 4T event (because it forces us by its nature away from individualism).

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...MaGu3w0LTA

Quote:“There are in history what you could call ‘plastic hours,’” the philosopher Gershom Scholem once said. “Namely, crucial moments when it is possible to act. If you move then, something happens.” In such moments, an ossified social order suddenly turns pliable, prolonged stasis gives way to motion, and people dare to hope. Plastic hours are rare. They require the right alignment of public opinion, political power, and events—usually a crisis. They depend on social mobilization and leadership. They can come and go unnoticed or wasted. Nothing happens unless you move.
Are we living in a plastic hour? It feels that way.

Beneath the dreary furor of the partisan wars, most Americans agree on fundamental issues facing the country. Large majorities say that government should ensure some form of universal health care, that it should do more to mitigate global warming, that the rich should pay higher taxes, that racial inequality is a significant problem, that workers should have the right to join unions, that immigrants are a good thing for American life, that the federal government is plagued by corruption. These majorities have remained strong for years. The readiness, the demand for action, is new.

[David Horn]

(09-10-2020, 09:30 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Exactly, with politics in the state it's in today, it's a mystery how this change is going to happen.

But here is a hopeful article- it's a long read so I won't repost the whole article, just the first couple paragraphs as a teaser. The article ties into the idea of how Covid-19 is the perfect 4T event (because it forces us by its nature away from individualism).

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...MaGu3w0LTA

Quote:“There are in history what you could call ‘plastic hours,’” the philosopher Gershom Scholem once said. “Namely, crucial moments when it is possible to act. If you move then, something happens.” In such moments, an ossified social order suddenly turns pliable, prolonged stasis gives way to motion, and people dare to hope. Plastic hours are rare. They require the right alignment of public opinion, political power, and events—usually a crisis. They depend on social mobilization and leadership. They can come and go unnoticed or wasted. Nothing happens unless you move.
Are we living in a plastic hour? It feels that way.

Beneath the dreary furor of the partisan wars, most Americans agree on fundamental issues facing the country. Large majorities say that government should ensure some form of universal health care, that it should do more to mitigate global warming, that the rich should pay higher taxes, that racial inequality is a significant problem, that workers should have the right to join unions, that immigrants are a good thing for American life, that the federal government is plagued by corruption. These majorities have remained strong for years. The readiness, the demand for action, is new.

We can only hope.  The entrenched monied elites will fight to their last penny to stop it, and making it permanent requires at least one Constitutional amendment.  No easy task.

[pbrower2a]

The elites will fight to the last mercenary that they can buy . Ultimately, revolutions and other momentous change happen when those in power as the leaders in charge pay the soldiers and the police, which explains more clearly and crudely why someone so cranky as Vladimir Lenin won "his" revolution.

[pbrower2a]

(09-09-2020, 11:48 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: I couldn’t resist posting this new thread based on related articles published today. They have some relevance to Fourth Turning theory, in general, and to intergenerational conflict, in particular:

Millennials to redistribute wealth from older generations to the young in new ‘age of disorder,' warns Deutsche strategist - MarketWatch

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-wo...1599589831

The Age of Disorder - the new era for economics, politics and our way of life - Deutsche Bank

https://www.dbresearch.com/servlet/reweb...0000511857

Here is an excerpt (opening paragraphs) from the MarketWatch article:

It probably won’t take a great deal of persuasion to convince investors that there’s an “age of disorder.”

That’s the title of a new Deutsche Bank research note, which says the world is entering its sixth distinct era of modern times. 

So say goodbye to the “era of globalization” and brace yourself for the “age of disorder” where millennials, firmly established as the generation of ‘have nots’,take their revenge and redistribute wealth from the old to young. Millennials are usually defined as those between the ages of 22 and 38 years old in 2019, according to Nielsen Media Research. 

What I find interesting here is the counter-narrative to the argument posed by Strauss and Howe in their book.  They maintained that any fiscal crisis that arises in the fourth turning would be addressed by a willing sacrifice on the part of Boomers for the sake of younger generations.  The Deutsche Bank analysis argues quite the opposite, that Millennials will vote for redistributive reductions in Boomer wealth (and entitlements?) in order to make up for the intergenerational inequities.  In other words, rather than the heroic financial sacrifice on the part of older generations for the benefit of the young, as predicted by S&H, Boomers will be sacrificed—unwillingly—at the ballot box.  Revanchism, not altruism, as a way to balance the scales.

Should America fall off some kind of fiscal cliff, that’s actually how I see things playing out, the way that Deutsche Bank has predicted.  You can already see glimmers of that in the stark contrast between the old and the young with respect to COVID-19. The attitudes and behaviors, taken as a whole, could not be more different.  I fully expect that much steeper tax rates will be enacted on both income and wealth.  And local policies that tend to deny Millennials and Gen-Z opportunities to have affordable housing, such as restrictive zoning laws (NIMBY), will also go by the wayside. 

I find it interesting, too, that the Deutsche Bank report refers to the time period lasting from 1980 to 2020 as a bygone epoch. This epoch, of course, is the neoliberal era that becomes a “dead letter” now, in my opinion.  What comes next is anybody’s guess...

Those elites still have the wealth and thus economic power. They may not have the vote, but I expect them to open the spigots on campaign cash in 2022 to support anyone who concurs with them that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it enriches, pampers, and maintains the power of those elites. Will 2022 be another year like 2010 or 2014? We have yet to see how the 2020 election has gone.

It would be great (if too late for me) to see the Neoliberal order pass into the dustbin of history. That was almost the entire span of my potential as a member of the workforce. I am a Boomer, but Boomer elites in economic and bureaucratic power have done me no good. I will not miss those elites. let alone the degradation that they have inflicted upon me. 

It may be that the Millennial and Homelander generations have learned the hard way that politics matter not only with the Presidency but also local politics. It is safe to assume that the influence of the Millennial Generation, which has gotten as a whole no good results from neoliberal economics and politics, will repudiate such with legislation. We will see far more Millennial pols achieving political office, whether by replacing those Silent, Boom, and early-wave X pols who retire or get discredited. 

Because Democrats were unable to gain much in the 2016 election which should have been the "reverse wave" of 2010, 2022 offers that opportunity. Democratic gains in the US Senate could be in unlikely places -- the equivalent of the thoroughly-awful Ron Johnson supplanting Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. (Senator Ron Johnson is one of the heavy promoters of right-wing conspiracy theories in public life). One seat that will be under contest will be the Senate seat from Wisconsin that Ron Johnson now holds.  

...If I want to see castles and palaces, then I want to see those in places like Austria in which those castles and palaces are recognizable as expressions of architecture of medieval times whose mass suffering in the service of their residents is long gone -- and not to gaudy monuments to contemporary greed and to power of economic elites who get very rich by treating Americans badly. (Austria would be close to the top of the list of countries to which I might seek refuge from a fascistic America, should it ever get down to that).

[pbrower2a]

The end of political and economic disorder will be the start of the 1T. In any event I cannot imagine Millennial or Homelander adults seeking to do violence to the rich-and-powerful when such will only create more violence.

[Eric the Green]

(09-09-2020, 11:48 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: I couldn’t resist posting this new thread based on related articles published today. They have some relevance to Fourth Turning theory, in general, and to intergenerational conflict, in particular:

Millennials to redistribute wealth from older generations to the young in new ‘age of disorder,' warns Deutsche strategist - MarketWatch

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-wo...1599589831

The Age of Disorder - the new era for economics, politics and our way of life - Deutsche Bank

https://www.dbresearch.com/servlet/reweb...0000511857

Here is an excerpt (opening paragraphs) from the MarketWatch article:

It probably won’t take a great deal of persuasion to convince investors that there’s an “age of disorder.”

That’s the title of a new Deutsche Bank research note, which says the world is entering its sixth distinct era of modern times. 

So say goodbye to the “era of globalization” and brace yourself for the “age of disorder” where millennials, firmly established as the generation of ‘have nots’,take their revenge and redistribute wealth from the old to young. Millennials are usually defined as those between the ages of 22 and 38 years old in 2019, according to Nielsen Media Research. 

What I find interesting here is the counter-narrative to the argument posed by Strauss and Howe in their book.  They maintained that any fiscal crisis that arises in the fourth turning would be addressed by a willing sacrifice on the part of Boomers for the sake of younger generations.  The Deutsche Bank analysis argues quite the opposite, that Millennials will vote for redistributive reductions in Boomer wealth (and entitlements?) in order to make up for the intergenerational inequities.  In other words, rather than the heroic financial sacrifice on the part of older generations for the benefit of the young, as predicted by S&H, Boomers will be sacrificed—unwillingly—at the ballot box.  Revanchism, not altruism, as a way to balance the scales.

Should America fall off some kind of fiscal cliff, that’s actually how I see things playing out, the way that Deutsche Bank has predicted.  You can already see glimmers of that in the stark contrast between the old and the young with respect to COVID-19. The attitudes and behaviors, taken as a whole, could not be more different.  I fully expect that much steeper tax rates will be enacted on both income and wealth.  And local policies that tend to deny Millennials and Gen-Z opportunities to have affordable housing, such as restrictive zoning laws (NIMBY), will also go by the wayside. 

I find it interesting, too, that the Deutsche Bank report refers to the time period lasting from 1980 to 2020 as a bygone epoch. This epoch, of course, is the neoliberal era that becomes a “dead letter” now, in my opinion.  What comes next is anybody’s guess...

Of course, this is basically correct. The neo-liberal era is not quite over yet, but it might be after this election, if Americans finally quit going back and forth between moderates and right-wingers, as they did in 1994 and 2010, and which will require that this new generation become real civics and vote in midterm elections as David Hogg reminded them in 2018.

It's not really a generational issue, except for the voting pattern. Plenty of boomers are also victims of the neo-liberal regime, but being older have been more prone (along with Silents and Xers) to accept the established propaganda. Millennials are just more hip to the situation and are more frequently held back by the neo-liberal regime than are older generations.

If there is disorder, which seems likely in the 2020s, it will because the right-wing is still hooked on its dated culture and ideology and is fighting the needed changeover from neo-liberalism, which also involves the right-wing's attachment to christian propaganda (using the abortion issue as an anti-feminist weapon) and to their guns and their xenophobia.

What comes next, although it's not clear just when, is the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, which are now anti-left buzzwords, but are actually just what is needed. In general, a return to more of what the right-wing calls "socialism" combined with more democratic, green and humanistic values, but not replacement of "free enterprise" per se, but more control of the oligarchy; an updated version of the New Deal and, just simply, renewed progress after the unnecessary stalemate and regression imposed upon us for the last 40 (quickly-passing, empty) years by the charming faux-macho actor and his followers.

[Eric the Green]

(09-10-2020, 09:30 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Exactly, with politics in the state it's in today, it's a mystery how this change is going to happen.

But here is a hopeful article- it's a long read so I won't repost the whole article, just the first couple paragraphs as a teaser. The article ties into the idea of how Covid-19 is the perfect 4T event (because it forces us by its nature away from individualism).

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...MaGu3w0LTA

Quote:“There are in history what you could call ‘plastic hours,’” the philosopher Gershom Scholem once said. “Namely, crucial moments when it is possible to act. If you move then, something happens.” In such moments, an ossified social order suddenly turns pliable, prolonged stasis gives way to motion, and people dare to hope. Plastic hours are rare. They require the right alignment of public opinion, political power, and events—usually a crisis. They depend on social mobilization and leadership. They can come and go unnoticed or wasted. Nothing happens unless you move.
Are we living in a plastic hour? It feels that way.

Beneath the dreary furor of the partisan wars, most Americans agree on fundamental issues facing the country. Large majorities say that government should ensure some form of universal health care, that it should do more to mitigate global warming, that the rich should pay higher taxes, that racial inequality is a significant problem, that workers should have the right to join unions, that immigrants are a good thing for American life, that the federal government is plagued by corruption. These majorities have remained strong for years. The readiness, the demand for action, is new.

Quite so, exactly right. My cosmic indicators say this change could happen in the 2020s, but that's no guarantee that the conservative American public will fully respond to the times and the needed trends.

[Eric the Green]

Where the violence comes from depends a lot on whose ox is being gored, so to speak. It depends on which party controls the state. Right now the right-wing is still in power, and is stoking racism, and that allows racist cops to kill and maim black folks, which means that BLM and antifa rise up, and leads to occasional riots (aided by rightwing provocateurs hoping for a fascist reaction, which Trump supplies).

But if Biden wins, and a Democratic Party regime continues in power (in spite of Biden having picked the wrong VP), and the needed legislation to curb gun violence is passed, then the gun nuts may be the major source of the violence, stoked by the other right-wing obsessions over xenophobia, white identity culture, christian fundamentalism/anti-feminism and anti-abortion, tea-party style opposition to taxes and pro neo-liberal entitlement, etc. The militias then could be the major source of violence, and would be suppressed by the liberal state, just the reverse of a reactionary state suppressing antifa and BLM riots.

[Warren Dew]

(09-09-2020, 11:48 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: What I find interesting here is the counter-narrative to the argument posed by Strauss and Howe in their book.  They maintained that any fiscal crisis that arises in the fourth turning would be addressed by a willing sacrifice on the part of Boomers for the sake of younger generations.  The Deutsche Bank analysis argues quite the opposite, that Millennials will vote for redistributive reductions in Boomer wealth (and entitlements?) in order to make up for the intergenerational inequities.

Both predict the same events.  Whether the Boomers are heros or victims is just a matter of how we want to spin the story.

I don't believe that Millenials understand enough about the issues to vote for the right thing, anyway.  It's not like they told their elected representatives to keep the economy open and let the old people die, which the Deutsche Bank theory would say they should have done.  I think it's more likely that a Boomer led government will make the necessary changes.

All that said, didn't Generations say it was the Reactives, not the Idealists, that voted against their own economic interests?  Why do we think it will be different this time?

(09-10-2020, 08:17 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I have to say, I feel like we've been holding our breaths forever waiting for the 'blue wave' of Millennial voters ushering in a a progressive redisritibution of wealth. It's always just around the corner in the next election. And yet (and here I'm beating a dead horse) Sanders and Warren, the two candidates proposing exactly such a thing as wealth redistribution, have been sidelined politically. Where were all those Millennial voters during the Democratic primaries??

Those Millenial voters were voting for Sanders.  They just weren't a majority of the Democratic party, so they didn't get their candidate.  The power in the Democratic party is still solidly with the neoliberals.

"[P]rogressive redisritibution of wealth" isn't an actual solution, anyway.  What's needed is a systemic change from rewarding capital investment to rewarding working.  That took 17 years, from 1929 to 1946, last time around.  We're party way through that, but we've got at least 5 years to go, and a war to get through first.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-11-2020, 05:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: "[P]rogressive redisritibution of wealth" isn't an actual solution, anyway.  What's needed is a systemic change from rewarding capital investment to rewarding working.  That took 17 years, from 1929 to 1946, last time around.  We're party way through that, but we've got at least 5 years to go, and a war to get through first.

That actually underestimates the length of the progressive pro worker time. Strong unions, strong benefit and in general benefits towards the workers continued through LBJ. Reversing that has barely begun.