DocWatts

My view is that the class distinctions proposed in Marxist Theory aren't so much wrong as they are a Reductionist and somewhat outdated way of looking at Society. Sure, divisions between people who own Capitol and people who sell their labor do exist, but some people on the far Left cling to 150 year old theory like nothing's changed over the course of the last century and a half. Here's just one Concrete example of how Marx's Theory is outdated: it fails to make a clear distinction between service industry workers and creative professionals, who in a technical sense are both proletariat because they both sell their labor rather than having access to Capitol; but still live in two different worlds as far as how creatively fulfilled they are, and how much control they have over their lives. A more updated model, though still somewhat Reductionist, has been proposed, and looks something like: - The Precarait (A general term for people in society who happen to find themselves suffering from precarious socio-economic conditions, and are excluded in some degree from making meaningful contributions to society. This would include both the working class as well as many middle class people whose livelihoods are being threatened by globalization and automation). - The Consumptariat (People who benefit from more stable socio-economic conditions, but are out of step with the larger culture, and are excluded from Contributing to society, only participating in it as Consumers.). - The Neocrats (The movers an shakers of Society, who possess the cultural capitol and skills to meaningfully contribute to our globalized, digitized age).

Good critique on developmental models like Spiral Dynamics from 'The Listening Society', that's worth keeping in mind:

Might be worth an addendum video of its own to the Spiral Dynamics series : 'Limitations of the Spiral Dynamics'. Or more broadly : 'Limitations of Developmental Psychology'. Powerful as Spiral Dynamics is, I do think that it tends to be overemphasized to some degree, and it might be worth taking some time to point to deconstruct the model in order to point some of its Limitations (for example how it tries to squeeze several dimensions of a person's development down to just one axis; namely thier cultural value code). And that models of developmental psychology like SD aren't immune to being applied in a reductionist way.

The Republican Party has a long history of using Voter Suppression tactics as part of its political strategy for the last half century (when more people turn out to vote, Republicans tend to lose elections). This is almost always done in a targeted way towards poorer districts that are disproportionately black, and who reliably vote Democrat. Voter Suppression is primarily done through gerrymandering, and through creating obstacles that make it harder to Vote. This will include closing Voting locations, restrictive voter ID laws, and limiting the ability to vote by mail. The idea is to place obstacles thay will dissuade people from Voting in a targeted way. These obstacles aren't nearly as hard to overcome if you're an affluent person, but were chosen to be especially difficult for poor people to navigate. The reason why this has been increasing as of late is a 2013 Supreme Court decision overturning parts of the Voting Rights Act, legislation that was drafted to prevent just these sorts of Voter Suppression tactics.

Basically this is advocating for an abandonment (in this instance) of the larger principle of accountability for people who commit crimes while in High Office, in exchange for a tactical political advantage. I'm not sure I like this at all. It sets a terrible precedent if people who hold high office can commit flagrant crimes, up to and including insurrection, and not face any consequences for it. And even if you're right and Trump running again would fracture and cripple the GOP, the emergence of a large crypto-fascist third party could come with unexpected consequences. Off the top of my head it could lead to an even larger increase in radicalization and political violence. It could lead to this potential 'Patriot Party' to wash thier hands of electoral politics once they realize that they have no chance of winning elections, and increasingly resort to terrorism as a means to effect political change. The two political parties have at least some moderating influence on these people, who's to say what might happen when that last constraint is removed.

Correctomundo; this is a structural issue built into the very foundation of our legislative system. As such, it's going to be very hard to change this without radically restructuring our entire legislative system. It's something we will probably just have to live with, as our time and energy would be more fruitfully spent on more achievable goals like abolishing the electoral college and restoring the Voting Rights Act.

Public ownership of the means of production is one way of doing Socialism, but there are also more Libertarian forms of Socialism which focus more on workers democratically owning the businesses they work for, where businesses still operate within a market system. What I see as a more workable system would probably end up being a blend of Social Democracy and Market Socialism. Most of the economy would still consist of businesses competing within a market framework, but businesses are run much more democratically than they are now. This wouldn't necessarily have to mean every workplace would be fully democratic, but could mean that companies above a certain size would have to include worker representation on its board of directors. In firms that are still traditionally run, the inherent power imbalance between employee and employer would have to be addressed in some way, either by much stronger protections for workers, or making it much easier for employees to start a Union. This system would also include public ownership of Industries that are essential to public well being, but only in places where Markets do not function well (health care, utilities, public transit, etc).

Incredibly instructive video from David Pakman on a focus group in which Trump supporters explain why they believe the things they do. Cringe inducing yet quite informative on how evident it is that these people have been programmed by manipulative Right Wing media.

While I do think we need to reevaluate the mistaken notion that all technology is inherently ethically neutral (try making that argument for something like nerve gas or nuclear weapons), money is one of those cases where it really is just an ethically neutral tool. All that money really is a means of exchange; one that exists under a socio-economic system that's either more or less humane. I don't disagree at all with decommodifying some essentials that markets tend to do a poor job of supplying (such Health Care, Education, or Utilities), but for most things money is really the only game in town. Maybe combine that with some sort of UBI to make sure people's basic needs are being met.

Weird how this doesn't seem like wildly exaggerated satire anymore compared to how Right Wing media operates these days.

@Yali @tuckerwphotography Pretty sure Jordan Peele already made a movie about just this subject. It would be silly to assume that racism doesn't exist at all in Green, the forms it takes will just be more subtle and implicit (rather than explicit) as one goes from Blue to Orange to Green, often attributable to ignorance or misunderstanding rather than malice. It will also become less and less prevalent (though not necessarily gone entirely) as one ascends up the Spiral. While Green will tend to not be explicitly racist, it can still be condescending in ways that can be considered racist (ie assuming you know someone's social or political beliefs because they belong to a certain group).

Just my perspective, but I think trying to map Artificial Intelligence onto any sort of human developmental model is likely to be highly counterproductive. Even though it sometimes gets analogized this way, our minds are not computers, and it's highly likely that computer intelligence will develop in a very different way to biological organisms. It's also not entire clear whether Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is even possible; it's development seems highly unlikely in the near future considering we don't really have a good understanding of how biological consciousness develops. We haven't solved the mind-body problem, and it's possible we never will. What seems more likely is that the future will consist of a much greater proliferation of low level, highly specialized AI built for particular tasks, and that this will have enormous impacts on the economy and on society.

That makes alot of sense. In addition to this, it does seem like there's also an explicit process where complex ideas get flattened and simplified enough to become paradigmatic. In our day these are the public intellectuals (take your pick), and in ages past these would have probably been priests, shamans, etc. I suppose creative types would also fill this role as well.

Man bun or pony tail required for entry into Green as well, not sure what the female equivalent of that is. Returning to being at least half serious though, there's good reason to doubt that Turquoise is even a thing yet. Not because individuals who are of a depth and complexity above Yellow don't exist, but more because the cultural paradigm for it doesn't exist at this point of time. I think it's more a case of rare individuals reaching a level of depth and complexity beyond Yellow, rather than Turquoise being a cultural force in any real sense. Think about it; for Turquoise to be a value system, it would come about as a response to the deficiencies of the Yellow value meme. But Yellow is still in its embryonic state, and the long term effects the Yellow meme will have on society remains to be seen. That would be like postmodernism popping up in the 16th or 17th Century, before the societal implications of Enlightenment values became evident.

Isn't it also true that most people in general aren't going ro relate in a deep way to the epistemological and ontological core of thier Cultural Code? Just like how most people at SD-Orange have only a vague idea of what Modernism is, how the Scientific method works, and what The Enlightenment was all about. And how SD-Blue people will often be ignorant about basic foundational aspects of the culture they esteem so much. As cultural codes become more and more complex, the only way these ideas can become widespread is if they are flattened and simplified in a way so that ordinary people can relate to them. This seems like an ironclad practical necessity for ideas to propagate throughout society, and for new paradigms to take hold.

For those not aware of how big of a deal this actually is, it will essentially give Bernie Sanders enormous leverage to push for progressive economic policies using the process of budget reconciliation to override Republican obstructionism through the use of the filibuster. Why this is important is because, unlike traditional Legislation which requires a two thirds majority in the Senate to pass, budget reconciliation requires only a simple majority. In the past, Republicans in the Senate have used the process of budget reconciliation to push through unpopular policies such as tax cuts for corporations, the flip side of that is that the same process can also be used to pass policies that aim to help ordinary people. Of course it's important to manage expectations, as there are limits on what can be achieved using this method, but it does at least give the incoming Biden administration an avenue to pursue policies like Covid relief, investments in Green energy and in Infrastructure, and support for families and small businesses. And for the record Joe Biden is far from a Social Democrat like Bernie, but from what we've seen so far he does seem amenable to popular pressure for needed reforms, and has been willing to work with more progressive Democrats in several areas. **I'm aware that using budget reconciliation to pass policy is far from ideal, but until the Senate filibuster is either reformed or removed, this is one of the few methods available to prevent public policy being held hostage to the obstructionism of a minority political party. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/politics/bernie-sanders-budget-committee.html Explanation of the Senate Budget Committee https://www.budget.senate.gov/about/committee-history

Agreed. Spiral Dynamics is a great starting point, but the model has limitations, and sloppy applications of it can be used to reinforce cultural stereotypes (assuming that everyone at Stage Green is a socialist, or a hippie, or that Stage Blue has to be a God fearing religious zealot, etc, etc). Even when applied properly and with nuance, one of the main limitations of Spiral Dynamics is that it attempts to merge several dimensions of development down into one Stage or Meme. It doesn't make a clear enough distinction between the complexity of someone cognitive capabilities (a person's mental 'hardware', if you will) and the cultural code (or 'software') that they operate from. Spiral Dynamics fails to incorporate how people can either out-complex, or be outcomplexed by, the SD-Stage they're centered at. Consider a 16 year old girl brought up by hippie parents and roughly at SD-stage Green. And let's compare her to someone like Aristotle, a deep and complex thinker who happened to be at SD-Stage Blue. Which one is at a higher stage of Development? The hippie girl relates in a very shallow way to a more complex stage of Development, while Aristotle relates in a more deeper, more complex way to a much simpler and less nuanced SD-Stage. Which of the two is more developed according to Spiral Dynamics? The fact that it doesn't give a clear answer is a demonstration of some of its limitations. Probably much too complex to cover in this thread, but works by people like Ken WIlber and Hanzi Freinacht combine Spiral Dynamics with other developmental models to arrive at a more nuanced and complete developmental system.

Heh, probably just means I internalized Ken Wilber's ideas more than I was aware of, as this wasn't intentional on my part I do think that Ken Wilber does strawman Green to some extent, but his basic critique of postmodernism is valid

Phrasing it that way is a bit of a strawman argument... A better way of putting it is that Green postmodernism is suspicious of Grand Narratives, with the contradiction being that the postmodern perspective fails to recognize that it itself is also a Grand Narrative. It also says that all knowledge and social values are contextual and socially constructed, while failing to see how that's also true of its own perspective. It's suspicious of hierarchies, while refusing to see how the postmodern paradigm sees itself as superior to all preceding paradigms.

Also, what I picture whenever someone mentions Turquoise in relation to themselves:

I read a handful of books on Developmental Psychology , so guess I'm what's known as 'Spiral Wizard' now. Do they send you your pointy hat and staff, or do you have to go somewhere to collect them?

In a strict sense no; it's a developmental model used to contextualize why people have the worldviews they do, how different worldviews relate to one another, and how worldviews change over time. A rough analogy might be something like the Hegelian Dialectic or Darwin's Theory of Evolution, in that all three are systemic ways of examining change over time for living systems. But because all three are very broad and have vast implications, they can still be used to provide structural support for various ideologies and worldviews, even if the models themselves are not ideologies. For example, the Theory of Evolution is not an ideology; at the same time it does end up being used to provide a sort of foundation for Modernist ideologies like scientism and new atheism (which couldn't exist without it). The Hegelian Dialectic, which proposes that new ideas result from a synthesis of two opposing thought systems being in tension with one another, is also not an ideology in the strict sense of the word. But it was used as a starting point for Karl Marx in the creation of his ideology. And in a similar way, I do think that insights from developmental models like Spiral Dynamics are being used to construct a newly emerging paradigm (or meta-ideology) that places itself in opposition to both postmodernism and modernism : metamodernism. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/202004/what-is-metamodernism

Michigan's really a microcosm of the entire country in a lot of ways; cities like Ann Arbor and Ferndale are as progressive as anything you'll find on the West coast, while rural areas forty minutes away are deep Blue Trump country. Only thing Michigan doesn't really have is a huge SD-Orange financial Capitol that would be an analogy to something like New York City.

The point to take away here is that it's possible to be an asshole about anti-racism, just like it's possible to be an asshole about veganism, or feminism, or any other number of laudable ideas that become counter productive when practiced in a very judgmental way.