Some label me a communist or a socialist. Others call me a conservative or a libertarian. It turns out, you don't have to pick an economic or political identity at all.
I think that this is part of the whole process described by Chomsky in 'The Common Good'
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
identity politics and labelling are inevitable consequences?
Hi Cameron, great article. My view is that all the 'ism' and 'ist' labels have limited utility and may be useful only as has some analytical tool that is looking to either do a historical socio-political analysis or as an easy to remember label for rolled up socio-demographic factors. Other than that they are worse than misleading in current political and economic debate. If you were forced to be labeled I would have thought being called a 'Confirmist' would be a harsh put down and might opt for something like 'Rationalist' or even 'Academic'.
Thanks for another great article. I would be interested on thoughts of a collaborative operating system as opposed to our typical hierarchy response it seems that this might allow all stakeholders to put aside their ism's and actually address a problem.
I thoroughly enjoyed this, Cameron. You are spot on. I guess the challenge is to work out how large societies can operate as harmoniously as possible without the “-isms.” I advocate for direct democracy as the ancient Greeks worked with, but we are forever told that won’t work in large modern societies. And it also requires that everyone is enlightened through education (not conformist education) as to understand how more voluntary associations can work. But hey, I’m an ancient historian, so I can tend to get carried away with more simplistic ideas!
Cameron, you are a pragmatist. I use that term loosely, not in the stricter terms of a friend, a philosophy major, who studied John Dewey and pragmatism rigorously. The world needs more pragmatists.
Jul 30, 2023·edited Jul 30, 2023Liked by Cameron Murray
Yes, the most productive discussions are more issue focused. I normally do not think of people's views with labels, -isms.
Of course I do think my views on issues are related, but there is not a handy label for my particular combination. ["Radical Centrist" was the name I came up with for my (still free :)) Substack.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com] "Left Neoliberal" gestures in the direction on economics, meaning using market incentives quite ruthlessly -- congestion taxes, taxation of net CO2 emissions, few land use restrictions, merit based immigration -- in pursuit of economic growth and higher taxes for near zero deficits and greater redistribution). On social issues I'm anti-anti Woke. Personally I'm a regular Mass-attending, sing in the choir Catholic who grew up Southern Baptist and hugely regrets the little misunderstandings with Luther, Calvin, and Henry and the decline of Christian practice in modern times.
The chances of getting anyone else to join my -ism is vanishingly small. :)
I like your thinking Cameron. I have question with regards to relationship between isms and identity, do you think retaining one’s identity through binary categories of isms helps retain psychological comfort as opposed pluralistic identity that is constantly under a state of flux?
Thank you Cameron. I've been trying to pigeon-hole you for quite some time (and failed). This article has been an epiphany for me and all I can say now is, I like your thinking! Please keep up the great work. And thanks again for opening my eyes...
I see a skeptical view of the establishment, whether it is powerful government and business figures, as in Game of Mates, or the economics establishment e.g.: the critique of superannuation, or health as in the discussion of possible responses to Covid. Another recent example is the discussion of the income from universities.
In terms of knowledge I see a long standing interest in housing, and training in economics.
Perhaps anti-establishment is the right ideological box.
I’m sympathetic to the frustration that comes from people using ideology as a mere tribal signal, but, I believe it’s literally impossible to not have one.
There are an unbounded number of problems. Whatever mechanism allows you to *realise the relevance* of the subset of these problems, define them and articulate desired outcomes is the mechanism that I’d call your ideology.
You also use this same mechanism to explain the through-line of historical events, your *theory of history*.
It’s good not to have some cartoonishly simple tribal adherence, but, it’s not good to think you have no ideology.
It simply means you’re unaware of the boundaries of your presuppositions.
What I love most about your writing is that I can't pin you down and can't predict what your take will be. Some people just don't like surprises I guess!
Side question: I haven't read all your articles, but do you have one you can point me to where you articulate what you think should be done about the housing situation?
Great piece Cameron
I think that this is part of the whole process described by Chomsky in 'The Common Good'
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
identity politics and labelling are inevitable consequences?
Hi Cameron, great article. My view is that all the 'ism' and 'ist' labels have limited utility and may be useful only as has some analytical tool that is looking to either do a historical socio-political analysis or as an easy to remember label for rolled up socio-demographic factors. Other than that they are worse than misleading in current political and economic debate. If you were forced to be labeled I would have thought being called a 'Confirmist' would be a harsh put down and might opt for something like 'Rationalist' or even 'Academic'.
Thanks for another great article. I would be interested on thoughts of a collaborative operating system as opposed to our typical hierarchy response it seems that this might allow all stakeholders to put aside their ism's and actually address a problem.
I thoroughly enjoyed this, Cameron. You are spot on. I guess the challenge is to work out how large societies can operate as harmoniously as possible without the “-isms.” I advocate for direct democracy as the ancient Greeks worked with, but we are forever told that won’t work in large modern societies. And it also requires that everyone is enlightened through education (not conformist education) as to understand how more voluntary associations can work. But hey, I’m an ancient historian, so I can tend to get carried away with more simplistic ideas!
Cameron, you are a pragmatist. I use that term loosely, not in the stricter terms of a friend, a philosophy major, who studied John Dewey and pragmatism rigorously. The world needs more pragmatists.
Yes, the most productive discussions are more issue focused. I normally do not think of people's views with labels, -isms.
Of course I do think my views on issues are related, but there is not a handy label for my particular combination. ["Radical Centrist" was the name I came up with for my (still free :)) Substack.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com] "Left Neoliberal" gestures in the direction on economics, meaning using market incentives quite ruthlessly -- congestion taxes, taxation of net CO2 emissions, few land use restrictions, merit based immigration -- in pursuit of economic growth and higher taxes for near zero deficits and greater redistribution). On social issues I'm anti-anti Woke. Personally I'm a regular Mass-attending, sing in the choir Catholic who grew up Southern Baptist and hugely regrets the little misunderstandings with Luther, Calvin, and Henry and the decline of Christian practice in modern times.
The chances of getting anyone else to join my -ism is vanishingly small. :)
Somewhere between “all taxation is theft” and “all property is theft” lies a fair and workable society
I like your thinking Cameron. I have question with regards to relationship between isms and identity, do you think retaining one’s identity through binary categories of isms helps retain psychological comfort as opposed pluralistic identity that is constantly under a state of flux?
Yes. It does provide comfort, and a social support network.
Thank you Cameron. I've been trying to pigeon-hole you for quite some time (and failed). This article has been an epiphany for me and all I can say now is, I like your thinking! Please keep up the great work. And thanks again for opening my eyes...
Nice one. This is exactly how I described you! Hard to place
What is the Cameron Murray ideology?
I see a skeptical view of the establishment, whether it is powerful government and business figures, as in Game of Mates, or the economics establishment e.g.: the critique of superannuation, or health as in the discussion of possible responses to Covid. Another recent example is the discussion of the income from universities.
In terms of knowledge I see a long standing interest in housing, and training in economics.
Perhaps anti-establishment is the right ideological box.
I’m sympathetic to the frustration that comes from people using ideology as a mere tribal signal, but, I believe it’s literally impossible to not have one.
There are an unbounded number of problems. Whatever mechanism allows you to *realise the relevance* of the subset of these problems, define them and articulate desired outcomes is the mechanism that I’d call your ideology.
You also use this same mechanism to explain the through-line of historical events, your *theory of history*.
It’s good not to have some cartoonishly simple tribal adherence, but, it’s not good to think you have no ideology.
It simply means you’re unaware of the boundaries of your presuppositions.
What I love most about your writing is that I can't pin you down and can't predict what your take will be. Some people just don't like surprises I guess!
Side question: I haven't read all your articles, but do you have one you can point me to where you articulate what you think should be done about the housing situation?