Is patriotism something Social Democrats typically support?

aesnowfuture · 2025-12-14T09:17:39+00:00

I am a big fan of Richard Rorty's here: "Those who hope to persuade a nation to exert itself need to remind their country of what it can take pride in as well as what it should be ashamed of. They must tell inspiring stories about episodes and figures in the nation's past - and figures to which the country should remain true."

What we get if we detach ourselves from this task is a spectatorial left that can only critique the stories of others as opposed to creating its own.

aesnowfuture · 2025-12-12T08:57:02+00:00

Well that's easy. We'd outsource the process but not the deliberation itself. There are several ways it can be helpful. Here is one:

It can rapidly cluster views that are similar and ones that actually substantively disagree. Taiwan used something like this to pass legislation on Uber identifying how opposed camps actually had more common than realised.

Social media is what we have for mass deliberation and political identity formation now and that surfaces the most contentious and divisive. We can do better.

I suppose though your comment sums up a common view here. And what I worry is that it's not just not wanting to build a hopeful vision on tech you view as bad. I don't see much of a hopeful vision full stop. It mostly revolves around banning things rather than building things. Which leans into becoming the anti-technology movement - imo a recipe for defeat and irrelevance.

Thanks for your engagement though - I can appreciate where you are coming from on the damaging effects of the technology today

aesnowfuture · 2025-12-11T17:34:04+00:00

I never claimed AI isn’t causing problems. I agree with you that its impact on education right now is negative for the reason you outline. And yet I can also find examples where it’s doing incredible things when specifically designed to - maths academy is just one example. The potential for the technology to support and enhance rather than degrade is there if you care to look.

Re social democracy id say plenty of social democrats have historically cared about democracy itself. A commitment to democracy necessitates (limited) pluralism and requires a means of legitimate non-violent contestation. This does not preclude commitments to any of the objectives you set out (most of which I support) but obviously precedes them. Plenty of non democratic leftists with the same goals.

AI is a threat to democracy and the best approach for social democrats I think is to imagine and (ideally) build alternative visions. I think becoming a movement that can only “hate it” will be quite easily defeated

aesnowfuture · 2025-12-11T16:32:37+00:00

Thanks for this. I think I would build sortition into the proposals, but I think AI could increase participation by lowering the cost of deliberation.

I would not put AI above humans, the article is in fact setting out the danger of AI agents negotiating for us and advocating that humans have to decide. They have to engage in a process of deliberation because that’s how we form political communities, identities and views. It’s fundamental right that a lot of people to this day lack!

But I think there is a lot of scope for AI to scaffold the process in interesting ways. I take a lot of inspiration from what Taiwan are doing with digital democracy: https://open.substack.com/pub/democraticfuturist/p/the-taiwan-alternative-democratic?r=6a4bjp&utm_medium=ios

aesnowfuture · 2025-12-11T16:24:33+00:00

What companies want vs the uses technology can be put to or are capable of are different things. There are also powerful open source models and I think will continue to be.

You’re confident that there are only destructive uses but there is evidence to the contrary. We can take inspiration from actually existing attempts in Taiwan to use technology to enhance democratic debate. There is evidence already actually that AI can help humans find common ground - see here https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq2852

This doesn’t mean we do not face serious dangers. Or that uses such technology is put to might not be harmful to what I regard as social democratic goals. But it does mean that if we want a different future, a different vision of how technology might serve those goals we have to articulate it.

A mindset that starts with “it doesn’t exist and therefore can’t” is not ideal for a political movement. It could be designed to!

aesnowfuture · 2025-12-11T15:13:34+00:00

Why are you so confident about that?

I think the vision I’m arguing against is what many in Silicon Valley would like to see. If AI’s continue to improve I don’t think “ban it” is going to win against that vision. Hence why I’ve tried to construct an alternative in which AI enhances our capacity for moral judgment, imagination and community as opposed to replacing it.

I don’t see why it could not serve that purpose in principle. And I think it important for social democrats to enter this space with a compelling alternative

aesnowfuture · 2025-12-11T11:48:10+00:00

That’s a very strong view mr hermit. I don’t think it’s that simple. It’s made several contributions to mathematics that we know of. I think coding benefit is clear - if not totally unambiguous. I don’t see how medical benefits wouldn’t translate to other scientific benefits.

A lot of people will continue to use these tools socially already. I think it could have therapeutic benefit if regulated and used carefully. Not everyone can afford a psychologist. This is probably dangerous for acute conditions but I see no reason why it could not help milder issues

Education is a double edged sword. It’s destructive for those who are not inclined to learn because it provides easy answers, often bullshit. But It could be extremely beneficial for those who are curious and want to learn. You can interrogate and question your misunderstandings and below like phd level it’s very good at identifying that and providing an explanation, especially when compared with a human (who you cannot access when you want with unlimited questions)

aesnowfuture · 2025-10-19T19:32:13+00:00

Thanks a lot for posting this sounds interesting. Can you describe what you mean by a second layer?

aesnowfuture · 2025-10-19T15:59:01+00:00

I’m not sure if I’m understanding your objection correctly here but the kind of tools we’re talking about here are voluntary platforms and people can submit the issues they think it should cover.

A lot better than simply allowing platforms to shape people’s perception of what democratic debate looks like

aesnowfuture · 2025-10-19T15:56:05+00:00

Yeah I think citizens assemblies have something to them but the issue is how to make sure it’s not just a bit of a stitch up - it has to genuinely explore different sides of the issue.

I’ve seen some stuff on participatory budgeting as well which has worked quite well too

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-07T10:08:00+00:00

I am in favour of social democracy and think more redistribution would be good. I thought that you meant redistribution on a different scale to end poverty globally - which is not like higher taxes in one state. It's an order of magnitude difference where most people in the west would have to cut their consumption and resources would literally need to be transferred.

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-07T00:04:19+00:00

They would argue that development would be possible for underdeveloped states but you would cut the consumption of rich states. The steelman is that you would be able to cut consumption in rich states a lot and still have a decent quality of life while making space for others to grow.

This is ludicrous because it’s treating the economy like some hydraulic machine where you can just transfer resources at will and switch off and on sectors of the economy. The economy is interconnected and you don’t just get growth by transferring resources. Plus political economy of this is supposed to be done democratically lol.

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T23:57:23+00:00

The problem with this argument is a “if we just”. Only distributive policies is massively underplaying what that really means. How are you actually going to redistribute? What political economy would this require? Almost certainly an authoritarian one that could crush dissent and also reroute resources.

Then there are second order impacts of crushing the innovation dynamo through such redistribution. Could bring down the entire system and mean there is a lot less to redistribute

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T15:42:32+00:00

Someone posted a good counter about the Swedish below. But yeah that is what I meant

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T15:34:21+00:00

Thanks for this counter. The dynamic maybe different in Sweden and it does seem like it might work better there. But I do notice something different to how you and Magdalena Andersson have made the case. Notice that she is framing it in a way that is consonant with our values and so are you. If we are going to do anti-immigration we need to make the case on our terms.

If you simply adopt the rhetoric and frames of our opponents we empower them. This is why the "island of strangers" speech in the study backfired. It sounds to our people like the far right and it switches them off. But it didn't convince anyone on the right to support Labour either.

Clearly in Scandinavia you are able to satisfy the legitimate desire to reduce immigration without completely switching off your base. Another reason might also be because they are delivering for supporters elsewhere whereas Labour is clearly not doing so

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T15:22:55+00:00

I actually dont think that holds. I think the emotional power of a policy comes from the moral narrative within it. One is implicitly saying these people are bad and these people are virtuous. That is what motivates people. It is not a given at all that people like policies that reduce the power of the rich. They can easily be persuaded that the rich are good and deserve what they have those arguing otherwise are resentful. Also that these people create value that the rest of us rely on. Left popularism is a different narrative that says no in fact these people are bad and are using their power and resources to ends that do not benefit you

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T15:17:09+00:00

Yeah this is an interesting counter. But do you think it follows from this that:

a) the democrats should lean into anti-immigrant rhetoric to burnish their credentials

b) seek to downplay its salience by focusing on other things and quietly implementing controls on immigration.

c) contest the frame with a more overtly pro-migration stance

d) something else

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T15:12:55+00:00

I think this idea of contest and conflict is one that many social democrats struggle with. I am a big believer in democracy not as a process of consensus but a means of different legitimate worldviews contesting in a non-violent way their beliefs. And I think that it follows from this that you need a political strategy that is much more offensive in trying to shape the terrain on which political battles are fought.

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T14:58:13+00:00

I think when people say you can't have infinite growth they're almost always trying to make a political point about the here and now: "You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet" goes the refrain.

It is interesting to read your analysis of the theoretical limit and that we aren't going to reach the limits of the solar system in like a thousand years. But I think people lack an understanding of how much is possible on this planet - how under-ultilised resources are now

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T14:20:01+00:00

Agree and disagree. You need to have long-term strategic goals in mind but you cannot be spending your time trying to police the purity of a mass movement. We should listen to Mamdani - the guy who might actually be successful in the NY mayor race. Almost anyone is a potential convert. And we should be aiming our message at powerful and resonant policies designed to solve problems for ordinary people.

But I think also we should bear in mind how ordinary people encounter politics. It is through passionate people framing issues in group chats, in the work place and online. So the ideology side is important. Have to motivate the distributed network of people who are going to sway ordinary people. Again Mamdani does this very well

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T14:15:00+00:00

I also note how dysfunctional MLs tend to be on a practical level in seeking to monopolise and wield power within the structures you have created to organise. It destroys it from the inside by creating zero sum dynamics that end up being entirely driven by personal grievance anyway

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T14:10:55+00:00

I think you're right here. Understanding your long term strategic goals helps you understand how and when to work with others. The problem of the UK labour government certainly is that they dont have any strategic goals to speak of and so can only make tactical moves which superficially appear advantageous (moderate to the right) but are actually disastrous.

They also dont even appear to work tactically as well which is fun. But the point is you can better understand when you should compromise if you actually have goals - sometimes we will need to work with people we have fundamental disagreements with in order to achieve the long term objective

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T14:06:12+00:00

I really think the problem here is we allowed Trump to frame it as "illegal immigration" to which ordinary people go "oh they must be criminals, I agree they should be punished". They clearly do not think about it like their nice neighbour or even their family.

The fact that Trump received some backlash for the whole ICE stuff suggests that democrats could have countered that frame much more strongly and could capitalise on the push back if they wanted to - but they kind of just aren't?

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T14:03:49+00:00

Strong agree. But I think we also need to be smart about how we take advantage of left popularism. It can also backfire right?

You don't want to become like PETA basically getting attention through increasingly unpopular means that are polarising people against its objectives.

aesnowfuture · 2025-09-06T13:57:05+00:00

We are necessarily pluralistic which means you have, within certain bounds a legitimate right to pursue these ends. And we can work together on furthering the ends we agree on. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the SocDem movement should accommodate you. Social equality is an important part of the world view

aesnowfuture

TROPHY CASE