This is fascinating and I think it applies strongly in the activist space as well. The term I've always used for it is 'escalators' - people or organisations who, given a crisis, will always try to increase the complexity or drama involved instead of breaking it down and working towards a solution. So with e.g. climate activism, you can see this in protest groups who wrap the whole thing up with ending capitalism, Gaza, minority rights and god knows what else, until there's this massive intractable knot of stuff that precludes any notion of actually fixing it.
It's almost like they *want* a gigantic omnicrisis because that's more exciting than just boring climate change. So they go and scream at people on the M25 and it feels like that's... sort of the point, to go out and do chaotic, shouty, cathartic stuff without any risk that you might have to actually take responsibility for a real problem or fix it.
And inevitably the kinds of activists doing this are often time-rich, public-school types who are relatively insulated from the consequences, which is why I think the Just Stop Oil jail sentences were quite triggering for some of these groups - they were essentially privileged middle class people who were shocked that doing something illegal and disruptive might actually result in serious consequences for themselves. There's a sense of "yes but surely prison isn't for real people like me?"
I loved this because FADFO essentially 'recodes' the concept of 'luxury beliefs' in a way that has resonance for a left-wing audience (and, helpfully for those of us on the right, is a useful reminder that luxury beliefs are not necessarily the preserve of the left - I think you're on the money on the 'protected from consequences of chaos' point).
As someone who thinks luxury beliefs are real, and a problem, I will be referencing this post next time someone tells me they are a 'far right myth'.
Just on luxury beliefs: I too believe that there are such a thing and that this piece actually explains two kinds. First, beliefs whose consequences, if put into practice, the believer is insulated from. These can be both domestic (e.g. tax rises that never happen or changes to social norms that the believer preaches but does not practise) or foreign (e.g. Gaza). Second, beliefs held because it's fun to hold them: the political hobbyist and online contrarian are rather like the sports fan enjoying seeing David beat Goliath.
Thank you so much for this. It finally explains why a surprisingly large number of my mates (those who had retired early & play the stock market) voted Brexit.
Because the whole nonsense is still the mastodon in the downstairs loo we’ve never ‘gone there’ re discussing it.
I remember when I first learned how bankruptcy law worked being surprised that the goal was an orderly dissolution of a business so that the owners could move on and try again with minimal damage to all parties. It helped people take reasonable risks and try things, also preventing larger scale collapse. I was brought up to think bankruptcy was something shameful - a failure to be responsible, but actually it’s good to try things even if sometimes they don’t work out. There are consequences but they’re not devastating because starting a business is worthwhile. A lot of the chaos agents have not faced any consequences and that clearly needs to stop.
The most immensely disruptive and chaotic "fuck around" policy this century was the mainstream response to covid. Summarised approximately as shutting down everything and home-imprisoning everyone for an indefinite period of time to see if this magically makes covid disappear somehow (it didn't). The only reason I can think of for why this isn't mentioned in your analysis as the big, obvious demand for chaos (whether by burning the world down, the need for a natural disaster to be as important as possible etc) is because it's not populism-coded to do lockdowns. Instead, by some quirk of history, everywhere but Sweden opposition to lockdowns was treated as populist. Much of our subsequent economic troubles have come from denying the inevitable finding out and instead pinning it on scapegoats such as so-called greedflation.
Of course, accepting that the mainstream response to lockdowns was a demand for maximum chaos upends the entire argument advanced in this piece, which is approximately that populism is chaotic and non-populists are not.
“But just because people are unhappy does not mean they will always reward the mainstream opposition.”
Aside from the largely rejected Schumer/Carville do nothingism (yes, don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake, but That’s different), I do see several strong responses among American liberals/progressive/Democratic socialist, in two primary veins. First, there is the AOC/Bernie economic populist approach. Second, there is the Ezra Klein abundance approach. I don’t think either of these is sufficient, but together, And with other elements “grassroots, organizing, developing a mediia machine, etc.) they point to a pathway for a strong response.
I don't think Kurtz ever asks Willard ‘are my methods unsound?’. When Willard is sent on the mission I think someone, possibly Willard himself, uses the 'unsound / methods' pairing to describe the problem with Kurtz's operation ... but Kurtz himself, no.
Did you know you have your Blue Sky account set up so that nobody can reply to you, maybe if you follow them, those ppl only can reply to you.
You tweeted about the Atlantic piece, Jen Rubin retweeted your tweet. I tried to reply to you, but can't because you have set your account up that way on Blue Sky, he does nat accept replies. That is rather snobby don't you think?
This is fascinating and I think it applies strongly in the activist space as well. The term I've always used for it is 'escalators' - people or organisations who, given a crisis, will always try to increase the complexity or drama involved instead of breaking it down and working towards a solution. So with e.g. climate activism, you can see this in protest groups who wrap the whole thing up with ending capitalism, Gaza, minority rights and god knows what else, until there's this massive intractable knot of stuff that precludes any notion of actually fixing it.
It's almost like they *want* a gigantic omnicrisis because that's more exciting than just boring climate change. So they go and scream at people on the M25 and it feels like that's... sort of the point, to go out and do chaotic, shouty, cathartic stuff without any risk that you might have to actually take responsibility for a real problem or fix it.
And inevitably the kinds of activists doing this are often time-rich, public-school types who are relatively insulated from the consequences, which is why I think the Just Stop Oil jail sentences were quite triggering for some of these groups - they were essentially privileged middle class people who were shocked that doing something illegal and disruptive might actually result in serious consequences for themselves. There's a sense of "yes but surely prison isn't for real people like me?"
Thanks - great point on logic of activism in general and trust fund anarchism. Love your Substack btw
I loved this because FADFO essentially 'recodes' the concept of 'luxury beliefs' in a way that has resonance for a left-wing audience (and, helpfully for those of us on the right, is a useful reminder that luxury beliefs are not necessarily the preserve of the left - I think you're on the money on the 'protected from consequences of chaos' point).
As someone who thinks luxury beliefs are real, and a problem, I will be referencing this post next time someone tells me they are a 'far right myth'.
Many thanks Iain!
Just on luxury beliefs: I too believe that there are such a thing and that this piece actually explains two kinds. First, beliefs whose consequences, if put into practice, the believer is insulated from. These can be both domestic (e.g. tax rises that never happen or changes to social norms that the believer preaches but does not practise) or foreign (e.g. Gaza). Second, beliefs held because it's fun to hold them: the political hobbyist and online contrarian are rather like the sports fan enjoying seeing David beat Goliath.
Thank you so much for this. It finally explains why a surprisingly large number of my mates (those who had retired early & play the stock market) voted Brexit.
Because the whole nonsense is still the mastodon in the downstairs loo we’ve never ‘gone there’ re discussing it.
I remember when I first learned how bankruptcy law worked being surprised that the goal was an orderly dissolution of a business so that the owners could move on and try again with minimal damage to all parties. It helped people take reasonable risks and try things, also preventing larger scale collapse. I was brought up to think bankruptcy was something shameful - a failure to be responsible, but actually it’s good to try things even if sometimes they don’t work out. There are consequences but they’re not devastating because starting a business is worthwhile. A lot of the chaos agents have not faced any consequences and that clearly needs to stop.
The most immensely disruptive and chaotic "fuck around" policy this century was the mainstream response to covid. Summarised approximately as shutting down everything and home-imprisoning everyone for an indefinite period of time to see if this magically makes covid disappear somehow (it didn't). The only reason I can think of for why this isn't mentioned in your analysis as the big, obvious demand for chaos (whether by burning the world down, the need for a natural disaster to be as important as possible etc) is because it's not populism-coded to do lockdowns. Instead, by some quirk of history, everywhere but Sweden opposition to lockdowns was treated as populist. Much of our subsequent economic troubles have come from denying the inevitable finding out and instead pinning it on scapegoats such as so-called greedflation.
Of course, accepting that the mainstream response to lockdowns was a demand for maximum chaos upends the entire argument advanced in this piece, which is approximately that populism is chaotic and non-populists are not.
“But just because people are unhappy does not mean they will always reward the mainstream opposition.”
Aside from the largely rejected Schumer/Carville do nothingism (yes, don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake, but That’s different), I do see several strong responses among American liberals/progressive/Democratic socialist, in two primary veins. First, there is the AOC/Bernie economic populist approach. Second, there is the Ezra Klein abundance approach. I don’t think either of these is sufficient, but together, And with other elements “grassroots, organizing, developing a mediia machine, etc.) they point to a pathway for a strong response.
I don't think Kurtz ever asks Willard ‘are my methods unsound?’. When Willard is sent on the mission I think someone, possibly Willard himself, uses the 'unsound / methods' pairing to describe the problem with Kurtz's operation ... but Kurtz himself, no.
Good analysis. You didn’t mention Liz Truss…
Did you know you have your Blue Sky account set up so that nobody can reply to you, maybe if you follow them, those ppl only can reply to you.
You tweeted about the Atlantic piece, Jen Rubin retweeted your tweet. I tried to reply to you, but can't because you have set your account up that way on Blue Sky, he does nat accept replies. That is rather snobby don't you think?