The Isocracy Network

Most people, myself included, are guilty of using the word “fascist” hyperbolically. And a lot of people, myself included, use it to describe Donald Trump. So how fascist is Trump? Two weeks before the 2016 US Presidential election the Washington Post asked that same question (link in the comments below).

In the article the Washington Post used a checklist complied over decades by historians and political scientists. It lists 8 traits of fascism as a political ideology and a further 3 traits of fascism as a political movement. For each criteria Trump was awarded a score of 0 to 4 Benitos.

For political ideology Trump scored 20/32 Benitos, and as a political movement 6/12, for a total score of 26/44 Benitos. A pretty half-arsed fascist and a fair assessment at the time.

In late July, Dr. Gigi Foster, Professor, Director of Education, School of Economics, with a PhD in economics, University of Maryland, and a BA, magna cum laude in Ethics, Politics, and Economics, Yale University, made the suggestion that Australia "... can follow in the footsteps of many other countries in the world, some of which have not had lockdowns as strict as we have had here, such as again, Sweden - and look at the death tolls in those countries.." Indeed, Dr. Foster is quite correct, one should look at the empirical data. Because the argument that Australia should follow "the Swedish model" when managing COVID-19 has become a bit of a talking point among some in the community who feel that the economic damage is too much compared to the lives saved. Some, such as commentator Andrew Bolt, argued that all that the movement restrictions was doing was saving a few months off the lives of the elderly. The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has confirmed that as far as the National Cabinet is concerned, Australia will be following a path of suppression, rather than elimination.

Let us look at the evidence, and how well suppression has worked in Sweden, which has community social distancing, minimal movement restrictions, no mandatory masks, and an excellent health-case system. First, with any sort of comparative analysis, one should compare the nation in question with those who have similar conditions to ensure a close correlation for policy comparison. The following is as of August 5, 8.38am AEST (Denmark is August 10, 11.02pm, because I didn't include them originally), from world meters.

James Meade was, perhaps, the most innovative social-democratic theorist of the 20th century. An economics professor at the London School of Economics and, later, at Cambridge University, he won a Nobel Prize in economics in 1977. His Wikipedia page notes that he is remembered for his theories related to international trade and economic growth, but there is no mention whatsoever of his role in shaping modern social democratic thinking. There is also no mention of his profound influence upon John Rawls. Even the online Encyclopedia Britannica entry for him fails to mention his unique contributions to social democratic theory. My goal here is to give a brief introduction to his contribution to social democratic theory.

James Meade was, alongside figures like Anthony Crosland, part of the Labour revisionist movement of 1950s England. Meade followed the revisionist line in arguing that public-ownership of all enterprises is not necessarily desirable and ought not to be the goal of socialists. Instead, the revisionists promoted a mixed economy and a greater emphasis on the welfare state. Meade, however, was more radical than Crosland and was influenced by the ideas of his friend C. H. Douglas, as well as by the Lange-Lerner model of market socialism. As a result of this, he was a strong proponent of a social dividend (a policy akin to a universal basic income).

I find myself increasingly engaged in systems theory without having a self-awareness about it until just now. I'd pretty much forgotten about systems theory and hadn't studied it for quite a while. Anyway, after some review I don't think it's unfair to propose there are plenty of relevant and contemporary applications that leftist movements and general society would find practical. Ever since industrialization social theorists have gradually abandoned universal principles, simplistic reductions and totalizing models for a conceptual and perceptual disposition with more general forms of knowledge often involving evermore context-specific analyses. This is partially because industrialization represented a period of rapid evolutionary changes and growth in human social complexity.

"The language of intrinsic human rights represented a significant advance beyond the previous language of world religions in terms of its universal applicability and its thiswordliness."
Immanuel Wallerstein, World-systems Analysis: An Introduction, 2004

In the course of my life I have engaged in two major discussions with people who have completely misunderstood Machiavelli, in both cases thinking that he argues for the acquisition of power for its own sake in politics. To be fair, one of these people was an idiot sandwich, who would go on to win the aus.politics Net Kook of the Year award, apparently revived just for their benefit. But the other, more recent, was far more disappointing. With a doctorate in the natural sciences and an interest in ensuring public policy was better informed by scientific knowledge, one cannot doubt the honour of their motives. But what was common between both was in astounding inability that they had completely misunderstood Machiavelli, misunderstood his book on the power-hungry, "The Prince", and misunderstood how social institutions are positive and normative. Misunderstandings, of course, are acceptable if one makes the effort to correct one's self. Our interpretations may be incorrect, or memories might be faulty. But also in common with the two encounters was their absolute refusal to admit error, even when direct, checkable, empirical evidence was provided. It is understandable that the idiot sandwich would do this. It is utterly tragic that the otherwise intelligent person would lack the humility to recognise when they have it wrong. In either case, the following is a few notes on how Machiavelli is misunderstood, and how honour can be restored to his name.

If one wants to reference "The Prince" itself, a multitude of editions are available online. Project Gutenberg has the Marriot edition, the first modern English translation. Wikisource offers the Hill Thomson translation. The Bennet translation is available on Early Modern texts, the Burd translation, with an introduction by Lord Acton via the Online Library of Liberty (Mises Institute), IULM University has the Parks translation, Monoskop has the Soares edition, in Italian, and there is the ever-useful Annotated Prince website.

The Isocracy Annual General meeting will be held on Saturday 15th of August at 1300 AEST on the Jitsi video-conferencing system (which is the easiest out there to use). Just select the following link.

https://meet.jit.si/2020isocracyagm

In addition to the usual reports and elections of the committee, this AGM will have a round-table discussion on COVID-19 Economics

The COVID-19 pandemic of coronavirus disease affects the respiratory system. While death is not always the outcome, an infection will create lifelong health problems. To minimise the social and economic impact within this country, borders were closed, social behaviour was criminalised, and as of 1 July, 2020 over $176 billion was made available to Australian residents. As individuals, our focus is on protecting those who need it most. If we need to leave our homes we use hand sanitiser and cover our nose and mouth, or wear a face mask.

Covering our face and wearing a face mask is a constant reminder that there is a deadly virus living among us. The discomfort of wearing a mask is challenging. A visual barrier that hides a smile, fogs glasses, and muffles our voice, it further isolates us from human connection. Having the mask covering our nose and mouth makes taking in air difficult. When we exhale, the hot moist air mixed with the carbon dioxide in our breath makes for a fetid environment. For those of us outside the medical world, we look forward to relinquishing our mask-wearing responsibilities.

In late June Essential Research conducted a survey of over a thousand people[1]. From that survey, some 42% asserted that "Many of the new cases of Covid-19 in Victoria have been from people who attended the Black Lives Matter protest"; in contrast, only 37% of those surveyed disagreed. Prior to this survey there had been hysterics from conservative politicians (including the Prime Minister) who apparently thought that going to sporting events is acceptable and healthy, but political protests is not, going as far as saying that those who attended should be charged [2], whilst he flings around his scarf at a sporting event like a holy virus sprinkler.

In reality, it turns out, that one protestor "may have been infectious at the rally", and two others have tested positive that was not infectious at the rally. There is no evidence that they contracted it at the rally [3]. The rally, attracting some ten thousand people, was not something I was particularly in favour of at the time, even given the importance of the topic, for the health reasons raised. But it turns out that the combination of low outdoor infectiousness and what was then a low community rate worked in Melbourne's favour.

Biden and Bernie's Unity Task Force released their recommendations yesterday. They generally avoid more controversial areas, but there's still some pretty good stuff in here. Let's look at the section on climate change:

"We agree with scientists and public health experts that the United States—and the world—must achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, and no later than 2050."

This is the correct way to approach net zero. There's not a specific year where everything will be fine if we reach net zero before then but everything will collapse if we don't. The sooner we get to net zero, the less environmental repair work we'll have to do during the second half of the century.

For much of the world, it is obvious that this situation is not improving. Just over three months ago your author (when there were a "mere" 425,000 cases and 19,000 deaths) warned that the cases and fatalities "will double, and then double again, and then double again". If there was an error in that remark it was that it didn't continue for several more iterations. Now, at the time of writing, there are over 11,179,000 cases and over 528,000 deaths. And the previous iterations will continue; it will double, and then double again, and then double again. But even when the world reaches 90 million cases and 4 million deaths, there will be those who, despite all the evidence, will place ideology above reality in their mad worship of power and authority. Simply put, "the worst is yet to come".

At the time the United States, Brazil, and the United Kingdom were identified as three countries that were particularly susceptible to the virus due to political leadership that placed ideology above reality. Predictably, these three countries have suffered catastrophic failures. Continental Europe was, as we know, the first region to be hit very hard and the figures still show that that region as the deaths per million indicates, and whilst San Marino, Belgium, and Andorra still hold the unenviable position of the highest values in that regard, new cases in the EU have flattened whereas in the US, the UK, and Brazil, they continue to rise, to the extent that the US is facing a travel ban to the EU and, in an act of madness, Brazil re-opens its cities.