I like your Abundance Network chart, in particular the Limitations column. For Abundants the answer is "Need to figure out how to explain in plain language". Completely agree! Nobody is ever going to have a cohesive notion of what "abundance" is. The same is true for "capture". "State incapacity" is better, only takes an example for two to make quite clear. Figuring out messaging that will play with the broader public is the imperative for this movement. The Right's messaging for "economic populism" is far more accessible that this. What are you doing to catch up and pass them?
In some sense it feels like State Incapacity was the '60s-'70s "progressive" reaction against the Capture of a muscular, highly-competent '40s'-'50s government. It became possible for concentrated power centers to take very large actions, like bulldozing neighborhoods to put up highways. That made the unions who built the projects happy, and made certain politicians happy since they got to do ribbon-cutting ceremonies, and distribute patronage of various sorts. But it didn't make the displaced residents so happy, and environmental groups rightly pointed out that the folks who held the power were engaging in short-sighted "planning" that wasn't delivering good results. But what we've ended up with is the worst of both worlds. Instead of actually breaking the Capture dynamic, they simply hobbled the government -- dismantled State Capacity, in favor of Incapacity -- so that capturing it is a booby prize.
I’m having a problem with the name of your movement. To me, abundance is a mindset that allows us to reorder society so that we’re not trying to hoard stuff, especially on a national or global level (governments and transnational corporations). It is sort of the opposite of a scarcity mindset, which is the philosophical backbone of capitalistic economics.
When you say abundance, I get the impression that it means development, which seems to be the solution to the scarcity of things — housing, education, etc. I feel that the use of that particular word — abundance — is muddying up the waters of the folks who want to move forward. Your agenda seems quite libertarian. This leaves out those of us whose agenda is much more progressive, in the true sense of the word. Maybe a change to the Progressive Movement would harken back to that amazing movement brought forth at another point in history where capture and state incapacity ran rampant.
A true Abundance Movement would advocate for a complete change of systems in things like the economy, housing, education, tax systems and politics that was modeled on an abundance mindset. It would avoid the inevitable disputes between groups that your movement, it seems to me, only exacerbates. It’s a little misleading, for instance, to say that the general public thinks we need more housing, when the consequences of that decision is not something they think about or are asked to think about. Similarly, people seem to advocate for empire and war, as long as it doesn’t affect them directly.
One thing you say here I agree with — setting up citizen assemblies to work on local issues to make things better for the overwhelming majority of local folks is a great idea. Let’s move forward with that, and not burden it with the wrong label.
I like your Abundance Network chart, in particular the Limitations column. For Abundants the answer is "Need to figure out how to explain in plain language". Completely agree! Nobody is ever going to have a cohesive notion of what "abundance" is. The same is true for "capture". "State incapacity" is better, only takes an example for two to make quite clear. Figuring out messaging that will play with the broader public is the imperative for this movement. The Right's messaging for "economic populism" is far more accessible that this. What are you doing to catch up and pass them?
In some sense it feels like State Incapacity was the '60s-'70s "progressive" reaction against the Capture of a muscular, highly-competent '40s'-'50s government. It became possible for concentrated power centers to take very large actions, like bulldozing neighborhoods to put up highways. That made the unions who built the projects happy, and made certain politicians happy since they got to do ribbon-cutting ceremonies, and distribute patronage of various sorts. But it didn't make the displaced residents so happy, and environmental groups rightly pointed out that the folks who held the power were engaging in short-sighted "planning" that wasn't delivering good results. But what we've ended up with is the worst of both worlds. Instead of actually breaking the Capture dynamic, they simply hobbled the government -- dismantled State Capacity, in favor of Incapacity -- so that capturing it is a booby prize.
I’m having a problem with the name of your movement. To me, abundance is a mindset that allows us to reorder society so that we’re not trying to hoard stuff, especially on a national or global level (governments and transnational corporations). It is sort of the opposite of a scarcity mindset, which is the philosophical backbone of capitalistic economics.
When you say abundance, I get the impression that it means development, which seems to be the solution to the scarcity of things — housing, education, etc. I feel that the use of that particular word — abundance — is muddying up the waters of the folks who want to move forward. Your agenda seems quite libertarian. This leaves out those of us whose agenda is much more progressive, in the true sense of the word. Maybe a change to the Progressive Movement would harken back to that amazing movement brought forth at another point in history where capture and state incapacity ran rampant.
A true Abundance Movement would advocate for a complete change of systems in things like the economy, housing, education, tax systems and politics that was modeled on an abundance mindset. It would avoid the inevitable disputes between groups that your movement, it seems to me, only exacerbates. It’s a little misleading, for instance, to say that the general public thinks we need more housing, when the consequences of that decision is not something they think about or are asked to think about. Similarly, people seem to advocate for empire and war, as long as it doesn’t affect them directly.
One thing you say here I agree with — setting up citizen assemblies to work on local issues to make things better for the overwhelming majority of local folks is a great idea. Let’s move forward with that, and not burden it with the wrong label.
Thanks for writing!!
You missed blame center — the Democrats. You substituted elites for Democrats. People blame the Democrats as well.
Great post, Misha! Some groups and substacks I recommend for NYC Abundance examples and solutions:
- https://nycpolitics101.substack.com/about my substack about NYC politics and power
- https://opennewyork.org/ NY's pro-housing advocacy powerhouse
- https://www.maximumnewyork.com/about
- https://www.sidewalkchorus.com/about
really terrific piece - thanks Misha!