The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Author: Ian Welsh Page 10 of 449

Character and Destiny

From 2012 to 2014 this blog’s project was a large number of pieces on ideology, and quite a few have been about character: how it is created by experience, and how specific types of character (like sociopathy) are selected for amongst our leadership classes. I want to reprint some of these, because they’re fundamental and at least half my readership has never read them.

We’ll star with “Matters of Character”.

Let’s parse this out:

1) Character (personality), determines how people act.

2) While part of character is clearly genetic, much of it forms out of our experiences. Different experiences create different types of character. As a simple thought exercise, you would be a very different person if you had been born five hundred years ago in, say, Central Africa, than you are today.

3) As children, our primary experience is of school. We are a very schooled society, with the upper classes starting school at age 5 or so, and continuing into their mid twenties. Twenty years of schooling is not uncommon. Fifteen to sixteen is completely normal.

4) This schooling takes place when we are forming much of our character, when we are most susceptible to having our character changed.

5) In addition to this, we are influenced by media of various kinds (including books), our parents, and our peer group.

6) Different time periods form different characters, as do different nations, because people born in those times and places have different experiences. The more synchronized events are, as Newberry has noted, the stronger this is. In a mass media society, with relatively fast technological and social change, it makes sense to speak of generations. The character of people born 20 or 30 years apart in modern societies will be different, and within cohorts similar experiences will tend to create somewhat similar patterns of character.

7) Society is nothing except people and their creations and interactions over time. Walk around an old neighbourhood one day, and look at the buildings, the road, the trees and think about all the people who made everything you see, and all the people behind those people. Read the laws, and know that people made those, and enforce those.

8 ) Because society is just people, past and present, the nature of society is formed by our character.

9) If we want a different society, we must deal with matters of character.

10) Because we should be leery of engaging in eugenics, for reasons which should be obvious, changing society involves changing character through changing our lived experiences.

11) Everyone’s character matters, but some people’s character matters more than others. The more power someone has, whether that power comes from political position, charisma, force, or money, the more their character matters.

12) Leaders inform the character of people. People tend to act up, or down, to their leadership.

13) Money is permission. The more money you have, the more you get to decide what other people do. This can be directly through hiring them, or indirectly by buying the products of other people’s time. As the market society has spread to more and more of our lives, what we do is what gets paid for.

14) Who we give money to, and be clear that what banks, government and financial institutions do is decide who gets money, and what they get to spend it on, determines much of the lived experience of adults, and indeed of children outside school, and with the rise of for-profit schooling, inside school.

15) Money positions are of three main types. Elected (taxes); officers (CEOs and so on who control a lot of money that isn’t theirs); actually rich (the money is their own).

16) In all three cases who gets that money is a social choice. Billionaires are a social choice, created by government policy including tax policy, and the entire structure of how profits are booked. Multi-millionaire CEOs are a social choice, created by tax and other laws as well as social norms. And politicians are a social choice, especially in a democracy, but even in autocracies, though in such societies few people’s active and passive consent is needed.

17) If we select for positions of power, whether monetary, political, or charismatic, people whose character is such that they do not insist on good outcomes for the majority of people, then those outcomes will occur only by chance, if the happenstance of technology and environment aligns in what amounts to random fashion. Having not been planned, having not been understood, any such prosperity and freedom will not last.

18) If society is just us, and is a matter of our character combined with environment and technology, then we must consciously choose what we want our character to be. If we look at how we raise children and see that it is not creating the sort of people required for a happy, free, healthy, and prosperous society, then we need to change how we rear children. This is a social decision, not an individual one: we can choose a different type of learning (not necessarily schooling), we can choose a different type of media, we can choose to encourage different types of parenting (parenting styles have changed massively over the last 100 years, more than once).

19) We can also change how we select our leaders, both political and economic, to whom we give money, and for what purpose. We already do: Who makes money is a social choice, embedded in our tax code, laws (like “IP”), and monetary system. We can make other choices and create a system where people make money because they do good, not because they do evil (see “bankers”).

20) We can change our adult experience of the world, and when we change how goods and services are distributed (note that I did not use the word “money”), we will change our experience of the world, and in so doing we will change our character.

21) We can do so even if our current character is flawed. The politicians who ended Jim Crow were themselves mostly racists. They were racists who knew that racism was wrong. It is possible to look at one’s own character and know that it is simply a product of experience: to say “I am racist and sexist but I still know that is wrong.” It is possible to be involved in corruption (Kennedy Sr., the first SEC chairman) and decide to help clean it up, to end it. It is possible to have all the accoutrements of privilege (FDR) and turn around and change society mostly for the better.

We are all products of our time and place. We are all products of our parents and our experiences; millions of small events which shaped our character, for good, for ill, for kicks.

All of us (except maybe a few enlightened sages).

The full realization of how shaped we are is one of the watersheds of any voyage worth having. If you cannot look at yourself, and see how shaped you were, then you are trapped by those experiences, an even more limited and finite being than you need to be.

Once, however, you see the shaping, feel it, know it, and acknowledge it, then you are not free, but you have the potential to be more free, to change what you are and who you are, both individually, and as a group.

Character matters. It is destiny. Change your character, change your destiny. Change the character of nations; change their destiny.

Change the character of humanity; change our destiny.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Why Do So Many Right Wing Parties Worship America

Yeah, I know. Domestic not foreign, but so perfect.

Back during the last election in Canada the Conservatives had a huge lead in the polls. Then Trump started attacking Canada: tariffs and threats of annexation and lots of shit-talk about how Canada wasn’t a real country, was completely dependent on the US, was taking advantage, etc, etc…

Poilievre, the Conservative leader, didn’t condemn this. He even agreed somewhat.

And Carney (a neoliberal scumbag, but a smart and competent one) came out hard against Trump, defended Canada rhetorically, and won an election he should never have stood a chance in.

In Korea the right are pro-American symps. Many European right wing parties are as well, though others are figuring out, finally, that it’s bad politics.

Not all right wingers fall for this, of course. Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, and a corrupt right wing bastard if there’s ever been, immediately fired back, took US liquor off the shelves and generally told Trump to go to Hell.

I think the issue here is whether the right wingers are alphas or betas. The classic fascist personality is kick down, kiss up. Those are the people who love Trump, especially overseas. They want to feel strong, so they identify with the strong.

Alpha right wingers, on the other hand, when pushed, push back as hard as they can. Someone challenges them, and they don’t bow unless forced to. Doug Ford is a jerk, but he isn’t fundamentally a coward. To him being strong means being strong against everyone, and knowing that you don’t back down because that makes you look weak.

Poilievre: fundamentally a follower. Ford: a bastard who’ll kick up or down. Oh he’s corrupt and evil and takes care of his cronies, for sure. But he isn’t a wimp.

Too many politicians in American satrapies are wimps. Their idea of being powerful is being chosen by America as the leader of a weak state, doing what they’re told, and being King over their own countrymen.

This, fundamentally, means they aren’t strong: not psychologically or in fact.

A strong right winger wants to rule a strong country which doesn’t have to do what other countries tell it to. They don’t want to be subject kings.

Heck, a strong ruler of any ideology wants a strong country and to chart their own course, not be a lackey.

Europe and most of the Asian satrapies (Japan is particularly obsequious) are ruled by weak politicians. Weak men and women. It’s just especially embarassing on the right because one of the right’s fundamental promises is “I’m strong. We’re strong! You’re lead by a strong person.”

Pathetic.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Americans Today Have Little To Be Proud Of

Pride in one’s nation is one of the weakest and most pathetic types of pride because a nation’s greatness is a result of so many different people’s contribution. Unless you are FDR level, you contributed very little.

But American pride in being American is ridiculous.

Americans have nothing to be proud of, not today’s Americans anyway. The people who made America great are all dead. The people in power today are those who threw away the greatness their predecessors: their betters, created. The same is true of the English. Victorians or even Regency English would despise their descendants pathetic weakness, foolishness and stupidity.

What are you proud of, exactly? Getting you asses whipped by Iran? Impoverishing 60% of your own population? Helping Israel commit genocide? Killing millions in Iraq for no goddamn reason, since Iraq never attacked America? Gutting the Bill of Rights? Having the most corrupt President in American history?

One can criticize FDR and the post-war liberals of the 40s and 50s and 60s for various reasons: but they built an America which was great in many ways: that worked for more and more people, that delivered a good life for many, and which became more fair over time (civil liberties, for example, and increased rights for women.)

Americans were given the best hand in the world: the industrial and tech lead, and they pissed it away. They literally, voluntarily, shipped their industry to China acting as if making a an extra percentage point more profit was all that mattered.

America’s always been evil. All Empires are, and so are all settler colonial states. It’s just the way it is. But Americans of previous generations were competent, and starting with FDR, they at least took care of their own people. They were an American Athens, where immigrants were welcome, where people could make something of themselves, where the world’s great scholars and scientists wanted to be.

America had it all, and pissed it away.

No country, like no person, is of a piece. There is always good and evil, things to be proud of and things to be ashamed of.

But everything great in America was created by people who are dead or old, or are downstream of the post-war liberal period. The tech for the internet was created by post-war government agencies. The world wide web was invented by a government scientist working in an agency created by post-war liberals. Modern GUI interfaces were created in the early 70s and everything that flows from all this, including cell and smart phones is a result of technologies created by government or Bell Labs.

The great tech revolutions of the 80s, 90s and 2000s were all matters of exploiting fundamental discoveries and work done in the post-war era and the cupboard is now bare. America is cutting spending on research, burning its seed corn, even as China ramps up research. America is impoverishing its own people, even as China forces housing prices lower and works to improve wages and living standards for the majority.

To be proud of being American today is pathetic. What is there to be proud of? Destroying the bill of rights? Having a president who openly takes bribes in office? Losing the the tech and industrial lead? Making most of the population poor? Being the attack dog of Israel, with most politicians doing the bidding of a foreign country to the detriment of their own people?

Everything great about America is a legacy of the past, not a product of the present and being proud of being American is like being proud your parents left you a billion dollars, and you’re now worth a hundred million.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Western AI Investors Are the Dumbest Money In The World

Regular readers will know that ever since Deepseek came out, with token costs of three to five percent of US models, and open source which you can run on your own servers, I’ve been saying that China would win the AI war.

Here’s another data point:

I Went From $3,000/Month on Claude to $5/Week on DeepSeek

And honestly? 80% of my work is identical.

For the past two months, I was burning $3-5K monthly on Claude Code. Every idea from design to development to testing – full end-to-end automation, even simulating users to test my products and provide feedback. Extremely token-intensive.

But Claude’s caching sucked, making it insanely expensive. Then I discovered DeepSeek V4.

The numbers: • Claude: $5 input, $25 output per million tokens •

DeepSeek: $0.28 input, <$1 output (with their current discount) • DeepSeek cached: $0.0002 – literally less than a penny The caching optimization is game-changing.

Once DeepSeek has seen content, it basically stops charging tokens. My result: $5/week vs $1,000/week for the same workload.

The Chinese have been optimizing for efficiency. Frontier models are a little better, at each generation, but the Chinese aren’t sitting still on quality either. What will happen is convergence: where all the models are about equally good. Until then, the Chinese models may be 3 months to 6 months behind, but that’s all and when they have the advantage of being, not just 95% cheaper as before but over 99% cheaper, and when they’re open source, so the vendor can’t just increase prices or restrict usage without users having any ability to run the model themselves, well, only an absolute moron would plan on using Anthropic/Claude or Open-AI.

The West is building vast numbers of data centers, far more than the Chinese, because nothing is optimized for efficiency. Our models use far more electricity, far more GPUs, and far more water. Additionally the Chinese are working hard on real-world AI uses: robotic AI, in other words, so that their AI can be used for actual production, and pushing on humanoid robots so they can take care of their old people, do household work and so on: Chinese AI is optimized to do shit work so you can read and write and paint, while Western AI is optimized to do creative work so you can shovel manure, do your own laundry and clean toilets.

I simply cannot fathom; I literally spent 5 minutes repeating to myself, “how can they be so fucking stupid?” what American tech leaders and the people throwing money at American AI companies are thinking. They lose money with every single query. Starbucks just got rid of their inventory AI because it couldn’t tell the difference between oath milk and cow milk even after months of trying to make it work. The only large use-case for American AI is programming and even there quality questions are rife.

But even if it winds up being as great as they say, they’re still going to lose, because it’s not going to be enough better than Chinese AI (if it’s better at all in a few years, which I doubt) to make up a 95 to 99% cost difference plus the safety that open source provides.

We are ruled by morons. Our rich people, whom we celebrate as brilliant, are idiots and fools. The moment Deepseek came out, the response should have been to figure out how it was so much more efficient and add that to American AI. No one even considered it, they just threw hundreds of billions of dollars more money at doing the same thing they were doing before.

You can’t look at American AI, as anyone who uses is, and not realize it’s massively subsidized and that at some point they’re going to have to charge the actual, real cost. As with everything else, the plan is to destroy alternatives, then once they’re damaged beyond repair (like Taxis and “rise sharing”, raise prices.”

But this won’t work with AI because the Chinese aren’t playing along and it’s software that can be run on any server, if you have access, and, again, Chinese models are mostly Open Source and way, way cheaper.

I’m shaking my head as I write this. This is the greatest mis-allocation of resources I’ve seen in my entire life. It makes the housing bubble (out of which we at least got some homes) look brilliant and wise.

Morons. Our leaders are morons. And this isn’t even a case of “well they’ll do well out of it and they don’t care about anyone else”, it’s a case of “they’re going to lose hundreds of billions of dollars.”

One more bailout. Maybe. This is the last time.

And the West is DONE.

Because we aren’t even ruled competent evil people. We’re ruled by utter idiots.

(I wanted to write that they’re the dumbest money in world history, but, alas, that still goes to the Dutch tulip bubble. Though, again, at least they did get a lot of beautiful flowers out of it, which is more than we’re going to get.)

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

 

Don’t Believe Weekend “Peace Deal” Leaks

So, this weekend there was a leak of a possible peace deal. Iran got most of what it wanted in this hypothetical deal. Israel said “we won’t obey any truce in Lebanon” and, well, that’s probably the end of it, though we’ll see.

I considered writing about it over the weekend, but so far every peace deal floated over a weekend has meant a manipulation of markets, some insider making bank by exactly timing it, and no peace deal.

The bottom line here is that if Iran is serious about a peace deal including Lebanon and Hezbollah, it can only happen if Trump is willing and able to discipline Israel. Doing so is in one sense easy: just stop sending them weapons and parts. They can’t go more than two weeks without US re-supply. (This is why Netanyahu has been saying Israel wants to be independent of the US.)

For whatever reason Trump won’t do this. It could be political fear due to the power of the lobby. It could be they have pictures of him raping kids. It could be, as a correspondent just argued, that in fact Trump is impotent and they can prove that and his ego can’t take it.

Whatever the reason is, it obviously exists.

Iran would like a deal, but it’s in no particular rush because the pain ramps up every week the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, and despite what various idiots say, the US is not immune to that pain.

Iran won the war. They want a peace deal that reflects that. They aren’t willing to give in peace what the US can’t win by arms.

As for the US, I think we’re looking at an opposition between American politicians fear of Israel and its lobby and their terror of what will happen in the mid-term elections. The Joker in the deck is the how many of them are subject to blackmail, because pictures of them raping teenagers trumps losing election.

Deleted AIPAC tweet

But be clear that the pain has only begun. It’s going to be even worse overseas. If Europe and large parts of Asia, including Australia, don’t start rationing soon, they’re not going to have enough energy to get thru next winter. That’s the sort of incompetence that leads to governments falling.

If the US was run by sane competent non-blackmailed people who cared about America, and not just their own class, Trump would be impeached, Israel would be reined in, and a peace deal would be cut. The US has lost, and the fallout from signing a peace deal which admits this is less than letting the Strait remain closed.

If this or another similar deal does pass soon, then it will be because Iran has cut Hezbollah loose and left them on their own, whatever they say. But trying to help Hezbollah isn’t just about doing the “right thing”, Hezbollah is an important proxy for Iran and they want to keep it around and not have to support it in a multi-year war against Israel.

And, again, their negotiating hand gets stronger every day. Sure, they’re suffering from the US blockade, but not as much as the US (and almost everyone else) is from theirs.

The only country which could compel Iran to make peace is China, and since they are run by competent people who think ahead, they’re one of the few nations that can handle the Strait being closed. Not, perhaps, forever, but certainly much longer than the US can.

Meanwhile America keeping the Strait closed (which is how it is perceived by many) is doing vast damage to America’s subject states. That too will have consequences: they may publicly blame Iran, but behind the scenes they know this was a US war of choice, that the US lost, and that the US doesn’t care what is happening to them as a consequence of not cutting a peace deal.

Losing wars has consequences. Failing to admit you lost a war has even worse consequences. The US has yet to figure this out.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Freedom To, Freedom From & Capitalism (Freedom Series #3)

This is the third in the series:

1) Freedom Under Capitalism

2) Freedom Under Representative Democracy

Scholars often divide freedom into two types: negative and positive. Negative freedom is “freedom from”. From arbitrary search and self incrimination, for example. Freedom from is primarily about what other people, including the government, cannot do to you.

Positive freedom is the ability to do things: free speech and freedom to follow any religion are two of the positive freedoms enshrined in American Constitutional law (though freedom of expression is much violated in the practice, as opposed to principle.)

The preamble of the Declaration of Independence says that everyone has the inalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Obviously, again, these principle are more theoretical than practical, given how busily the American government kills people. (Nothing is said in the preamble about these rights being only for Americans, indeed they are supposed to be for everyone.) And then there’s how many people America locks up, which isn’t exactly liberty.

No rights, positive or negative, to do or to be free of, are actually ordained by the Creator, nor are any of them inalienable. All of them exist exactly and only to the extent that one has the power to enforce them. The English Magna Carta, which gave nobles the right of jury trial was forced by the Barons on the King, not granted by the King out of some beneficience. Later expansions of the right to jury trial were won by Republican and Parliamentary powers, and indeed, right now the British government is removing the right to jury trial for most offenses, in part so that opposition to genocide can be quelled without juries refusing to convict, as they have done.

Israel’s lobby in Britain is more powerful than those who believe in jury trial. And power is all that matters when it comes to freedom and rights.

This is why the actual left is always concerned about restricting concentrations of power and wealth and why most modern liberals are fools, believing that rights can exist with concentrated. Older liberals were not so foolish, FDR knew, and so did Justice Brandeis:

“You can have a great concentration of wealth or you can have democracy. You can’t have both.”

You can have the form of democracy, as the US does. But not the reality.

But there is another type of freedom to. We touched on it when we discussed freedom under capitalism, but let’s revisit it.

Elon Musk has far more freedom to than anyone reading this post. So does Mark Zuckerberg. They have vast wealth, and money is, at its heart, the ability to tell other people what to do and to command the results of their labor. If either man wants to do something, they can get a thousand people to do it for them. If they want almost anything they can buy it. They never have to work for anyone else, and other than (sometimes, but not most of the time) obeying the law, there are few practical limits on what they can do.

Compared to them, or to top political leaders like Trump or Putin or Xi or even Starmer, you and I have no freedom to do things. We obey our lords and masters.

This is especially true under capitalism, because capitalism is a system in which the means of production are controlled by a very few people. Under feudalism or for hunter-gatherers, this was not the case. You had land. You had animals. You could take care of yourself. This isn’t to say such people free in all ways, just that they had a freedom we have mostly lost. Work for the lord for 60 days, give him his cut, and the rest of their time was theirs to do with as they saw fit.

To create capitalism required removing their land and animals and rights from them. In exchange, over time, they received other rights.

But as long as we must work for others, and do what they say, we are not and cannot be free in the sense of having “freedom to do”. Most our life is spent doing what others insist on.

To be free means an end to capitalism and a system where we can, hopefully as individuals, but more likely as small groups, provide most of our own needs and where we do not have to spend most of our time accepting orders from bosses.

This is one of the essential points of this series of essays and we’re working towards looking at what such a society would be like both in principle and in practice. But the bottom line is that if you must spend almost all your days working for someone else, you are not free. And if you cannot create, if you cannot do, you are not free, no matter how much “freedom from” you have—and in the West, we have less and less of that freedom from each year, with the rise of surveillance, the constant assaults on free speech, association, and due process. Almost every Western nation, it seems, is restricting due process and allowing people to be destroyed by administrative order, as for example when the Canadian truckers and opponents of genocide were de-banked and/or sanctioned, making it impossible for them to pay rent or even buy food.

We have very little real freedom. We find that out when we do something the government disapproves of, like saying “please don’t help Israel mass murder children, torture and rape.” We find that out when we realize that we spend 8 or more hours a day obeying a pin-headed boss, and that if we don’t, we’ll wind up homeless and starve.

Neither represenative democracy nor capitalism has worked, and while China is more generous now that most of the West and better run, they have not solved these problems either. Perhaps they will. Perhaps they’ll make that transition to true communism, the withering of the state, and the control of the means of production by the proletariat.

Maybe. But I doubt it. Not without a clear picture of what such freedom would look like. And that’s the real question, and the real problem.

So that’s what we’ll tackle.

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Page 10 of 449

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén