The chaos theory (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

So this is going to be a rather esoteric thread, hopefully wading deep into political theory. All are welcome to partake of course, but if you’re looking for a discussion of recent events and want to play the Team Blue vs Team Red game, there’s plenty of other threads for that. 

In recent days I’ve had recurring disagreements with @IvanKaramazov, @rockaction and others whom I have great respect for in this forum. The root of these arguments was not the usual liberal vs conservative, nor was it a disagreement on the right and wrong of any given event, but on the question of the importance and pattern of events. 
 

Back when I was a political science major over 30 years ago, there were competing theories as to why political events take place. Of these, there were 4 that were the most popular: 

The pluralist theory Competing groups of people push for certain things to happen or not happen; they are powerful because they are interested in that issue while most people don’t make it a priority. For example, the NRA has a minority opinion on gun control, but because it’s members are willing to cast their vote on that one issue while many of those in favor of gun control are not, that gives the NRA more power than their opponents. 

The elites theory A small percentage of our society, those who control financial institutions, big business, the media, and the universities make all important decisions in this country. Their disagreements are with each other; the vast majority of us are merely pawns. It doesn’t matter who we vote for because they decide our choices for us. 
 

The technocrat theory Technos control everything, only they don’t always realize it. But they have the real power in society. 
 

The chaos theory This is not to be confused with the mathematical theory, which is a different animal. Basically this theory suggests that while all of the other theories might be true some of the time, most of the time there is no reason at all for events. They either occur completely randomly or as a result of so many unlikely elements that it’s not indistinguishable from being completely random. Furthermore, any narrative that occurs after an event as a means to explain it is simply that: an attempt to find explanations when most of the time there aren’t any.
 

For decades after college I was a pretty firm believer in pluralism. But in the last decade or so I’ve come more and more to believe in chaos.  

 

[FairWarning]

I go with equal parts elites and technocrat.  As long as we have a very powerful 2-party system, the elites will always be in bed with them.  Technocrats can be the eyes of the government and control us in a number of ways.  The more freedoms we give up for safety,  the more powerful they get.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I go with equal parts elites and technocrat.  As long as we have a very powerful 2-party system, the elites will always be in bed with them.  Technocrats can be the eyes of the government and control us in a number of ways.  The more freedoms we give up for safety,  the more powerful they get.

I'm no political scientist but purely as someone who tries to see and understand how things work, it feels difficult to put our society fully into any one of the boxes. Feels like a blend of all of them. With Chaos theory being the most convenient as a catch all for when the others don't fit. 

 

[rockaction]

I go with all four, really. I think what you've been espousing lately shows your lack of familiarity with radical political activism. That is, an end is sought. The end is not in the Overton window, or is so unpalatable to most that the end cannot be spoken, and if spoken, is laughed at. So more modest goals that lead one further down the path to the end are announced and argued over. In time, the position either wins and we keep going down the path to the logical end, or it is defeated. If that position wins at the intermediate step, it keeps going down the path to the logical end and stops at another point along the timeline that is palatable to discourse and argument. And it continues until you have reached the end goal. 

That's what I think you're underestimating. That political activism seeks, when radical, aims that are not to be discussed or can't be discussed without derision. When it advances or lurches forward, it can be by any of the factors that you cite, but that there has never been an end and that everything comes out of thin air is very suspect. The ability to forecast ends has long lived in our law, especially tort law. Could the rational actor foresee that the result would happen from the result of his or her action? In our cases recently, it's been about speech and wokeness. And I assure you, the shouting down of speakers has the nullification of the First Amendment as its end. And that wokeness, in its modern form, is a product of illiberalism. They will both lead there. 

 

[rockaction]

I'm no political scientist but purely as someone who tries to see and understand how things work, it feels difficult to put our society fully into any one of the boxes. Feels like a blend of all of them. With Chaos theory being the most convenient as a catch all for when the others don't fit. 

Couldn't agree more and was typing all my gobblede#### as you were typing yours, it seems. 

 

[Manster]

The elites use technology to illicit emotional fighting amongst the competing groups, which creates chaos.......Boom! Mic Drop! 

 

[timschochet]

Appreciate many of the thoughts so far. I was thinking today, in reference to chaos theory, of the George Floyd killing. There have been killings of young black men before and after Floyd, yet that one brought the biggest reaction to any racial event since Rodney King. Why? Was it the nature of the way he died? Other deaths, also captured on video, have been just as horrible. Was it simply the final straw in a series of perceived unjust acts (but if this the case, what made it the “final straw”?) Was it because we were all still mostly on pandemic lockdown with nothing else to do, so this one killing drew an inordinate amount of attention? 

I don’t know the answer. But chaos theory would suggest there is no reason at all. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

If the elite theory is the construct where the super extremely wealthy and their politicians pit the remaining 99.9% of us against each other using divisive topics like guns, abortion, race, urban vs. rural divides, etc. then yes, that is a dominant construct in America. It plays out every day right in plain sight. I probably wouldn't even call it a theory.

I mention this here about once a quarter.

 

[rockaction]

Was it simply the final straw in a series of perceived unjust acts (but if this the case, what made it the “final straw”?)

It was a tipping point for long-simmering grievances that were brought home by the intimate nature of the recording rather than a video recorder from a bridge. It was also the culmination of millions of dollars being spent since Michael Brown was a community and national flashpoint in 2014. Remember "hands up, don't shoot"? There was serious organizing and community dollars flowing through these various organizations after that killing. Add to that a rebirth of black nationalism in hip hop and black culture with a renewed social conscience and leading intellectuals either calling for or passive about violence as a means to an end, mix it with media coverage and sympathy from the elites, and you get this. So it comes from 

pluralism
the elites
chaos theory
progressivist activist technocrats

 

[Manster]

Appreciate many of the thoughts so far. I was thinking today, in reference to chaos theory, of the George Floyd killing. There have been killings of young black men before and after Floyd, yet that one brought the biggest reaction to any racial event since Rodney King. Why? Was it the nature of the way he died? Other deaths, also captured on video, have been just as horrible. Was it simply the final straw in a series of perceived unjust acts (but if this the case, what made it the “final straw”?) Was it because we were all still mostly on pandemic lockdown with nothing else to do, so this one killing drew an inordinate amount of attention? 

I don’t know the answer. But chaos theory would suggest there is no reason at all. 

Media narrative.......happens every time.  They report it how they want it to come across......but yes, after that I dunno this one just picked up steam......I think people frazzled from vid lockdowns played a part for sure.

 

[dkp993]

Let’s leave it to the expert….

 

[General Malaise]

A Random Walk Down Wall Street.

 

[timschochet]

Another chaos theory moment: the election of Donald Trump in 2016. How many things had to go exactly right (or wrong, depending on your opinion) for that to happen? 

 

[timschochet]

I go with all four, really. I think what you've been espousing lately shows your lack of familiarity with radical political activism. That is, an end is sought. The end is not in the Overton window, or is so unpalatable to most that the end cannot be spoken, and if spoken, is laughed at. So more modest goals that lead one further down the path to the end are announced and argued over. In time, the position either wins and we keep going down the path to the logical end, or it is defeated. If that position wins at the intermediate step, it keeps going down the path to the logical end and stops at another point along the timeline that is palatable to discourse and argument. And it continues until you have reached the end goal. 

That's what I think you're underestimating. That political activism seeks, when radical, aims that are not to be discussed or can't be discussed without derision. When it advances or lurches forward, it can be by any of the factors that you cite, but that there has never been an end and that everything comes out of thin air is very suspect. The ability to forecast ends has long lived in our law, especially tort law. Could the rational actor foresee that the result would happen from the result of his or her action? In our cases recently, it's been about speech and wokeness. And I assure you, the shouting down of speakers has the nullification of the First Amendment as its end. And that wokeness, in its modern form, is a product of illiberalism. They will both lead there. 

Back to this point- it’s not that I underestimate the plan by some of these people, it’s that I believe that any execution of the plan has to have a lot of luck involved- so much so that it makes the plan itself unimportant. 

Case in point: the Russian Revolution of 1917. As you know I’m a huge fan of this subject and I’ve read many books on it. And here’s what I know: Lenin had a detailed plan to seize and hold power that he devised long before the Revolution. The other Bolsheviks had a different plan. The Mensheviks had a plan. As did the Social Revolutionaries, Kerensky, the supporters of the Tsar. They all had detailed plans. And then the Revolution broke out which nobody was expecting (Lenin was stunned by it) and all the plans were scrapped. As Mike Tyson famously said, everybody has a plan until you get punched. Lenin ending up winning because he was the best at improvising, because he and Trotsky were ruthless killers, and because of a lot of dumb luck. It wasn’t because of any ideology. 
 

 

[BladeRunner]

Another chaos theory moment: the election of Donald Trump in 2016. How many things had to go exactly right (or wrong, depending on your opinion) for that to happen? 

I don't think that was chaos theory. I think that was actually divine intervention once God got wind that Hillary was running.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

If the elite theory is the construct where the super extremely wealthy and their politicians pit the remaining 99.9% of us against each other using divisive topics like guns, abortion, race, urban vs. rural divides, etc. then yes, that is a dominant construct in America. It plays out every day right in plain sight. I probably wouldn't even call it a theory.

I mention this here about once a quarter.

They gave us fighting a culture war so we don’t start a class war.

 

[Terminalxylem]

While I agree with others that elements from all four theories come into play, the pragmatist in me tends not to invest much thought or effort into things which I cannot control, or at least influence. From that perspective, the only reason to bother with politics at all is to join in a pluralist movement.

Probably explains why I’ve been largely apolitical.

Heck, the one time I tried to get involved in the process (attending public meetings, soliciting local politicians and engaging national advocacy groups), I saw how easy it was for those in power to torpedo otherwise popular policy. Basically a proposed recreational use statute was turfed the last day of the legislative session, despite nearly unanimous backing from the public.

The lone opposition? A personal injury lawyer, who stood to benefit directly from maintaining the status quo. He conveniently arranged breakfast with the committee chair (also a personal injury lawyer) the day of the vote. She deferred it until the next session, but it ended up never being revisited.

 

[The Commish]

I'm no political scientist but purely as someone who tries to see and understand how things work, it feels difficult to put our society fully into any one of the boxes. Feels like a blend of all of them. With Chaos theory being the most convenient as a catch all for when the others don't fit. 

This is where I land as well.  All those theories are used as tools depending on circumstance and which one best keeps us minions arguing among ourselves rather than holding politicians accountable.  There's a calculated approach and intentional push towards having people bicker over other people/personalities than policy.  The "sides" continually argue over how their side of the coin is better than the other rather than asking if that coin gets the job done or not. 

At some point people will realize the "us vs them" is not the GOP vs Dems, rather the politicians vs the people.  

 

[Stealthycat]

I think all of us would be shocked if, for 3 months, we got to sit in on meetings where the most powerful people of the world talked strategy on how to get things done

The elitist theory is real - more so than most give it credit for and the waves from those decision makers can be attributed to chaos .... unpredicted things that happened as a result of planned things

 

[FairWarning]

This is where I land as well.  All those theories are used as tools depending on circumstance and which one best keeps us minions arguing among ourselves rather than holding politicians accountable.  There's a calculated approach and intentional push towards having people bicker over other people/personalities than policy.  The "sides" continually argue over how their side of the coin is better than the other rather than asking if that coin gets the job done or not. 

At some point people will realize the "us vs them" is not the GOP vs Dems, rather the politicians vs the people.  

The last paragraph sums it up nicely.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't understand why these four theories are framed as if they're mutually exclusive.  Some things happen because a central planner makes them happen.  Some things happen because of popular opinion.  Some things happen because of interest groups.  Some things just happen more or less randomly.  It doesn't have to be just one thing.

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand why these four theories are framed as if they're mutually exclusive.  Some things happen because a central planner makes them happen.  Some things happen because of popular opinion.  Some things happen because of interest groups.  Some things just happen more or less randomly.  It doesn't have to be just one thing.

They’re not mutually exclusive. Sorry if I made it appear that way. They were presented, 30 years ago, as alternative explanations but not necessarily exclusive ones. There may be, in political science classes, additional alternative explanations offered today. I’ve no idea. 

 

[quick-hands]

Another chaos theory moment: the election of Donald Trump in 2016. How many things had to go exactly right (or wrong, depending on your opinion) for that to happen? 

All it took was Hillary to not campaign that wasn't chaos at all.    It was an unwell woman.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

So this is going to be a rather esoteric thread, hopefully wading deep into political theory. All are welcome to partake of course, but if you’re looking for a discussion of recent events and want to play the Team Blue vs Team Red game, there’s plenty of other threads for that. 

In recent days I’ve had recurring disagreements with @IvanKaramazov, @rockaction and others whom I have great respect for in this forum. The root of these arguments was not the usual liberal vs conservative, nor was it a disagreement on the right and wrong of any given event, but on the question of the importance and pattern of events. 
 

Back when I was a political science major over 30 years ago, there were competing theories as to why political events take place. Of these, there were 4 that were the most popular: 

The pluralist theory Competing groups of people push for certain things to happen or not happen; they are powerful because they are interested in that issue while most people don’t make it a priority. For example, the NRA has a minority opinion on gun control, but because it’s members are willing to cast their vote on that one issue while many of those in favor of gun control are not, that gives the NRA more power than their opponents. 

The elites theory A small percentage of our society, those who control financial institutions, big business, the media, and the universities make all important decisions in this country. Their disagreements are with each other; the vast majority of us are merely pawns. It doesn’t matter who we vote for because they decide our choices for us. 
 

The technocrat theory Technos control everything, only they don’t always realize it. But they have the real power in society. 
 

The chaos theory This is not to be confused with the mathematical theory, which is a different animal. Basically this theory suggests that while all of the other theories might be true some of the time, most of the time there is no reason at all for events. They either occur completely randomly or as a result of so many unlikely elements that it’s not indistinguishable from being completely random. Furthermore, any narrative that occurs after an event as a means to explain it is simply that: an attempt to find explanations when most of the time there aren’t any.
 

For decades after college I was a pretty firm believer in pluralism. But in the last decade or so I’ve come more and more to believe in chaos.  

As we age, we lose the ability to imagine.  I submit this also results in a loss of ability in infer.  This loss of ability...or increasing unwillingness...to infer explains why you have reverted to the agnostic chaos theory explanation.  The correct answer is of course elites plus pluralists.

 

[timschochet]

As we age, we lose the ability to imagine.  I submit this also results in a loss of ability in infer.  This loss of ability...or increasing unwillingness...to infer explains why you have reverted to the agnostic chaos theory explanation.  The correct answer is of course elites plus pluralists.

So you think that my lean towards chaos as a likely explanation indicates an inability on my part to imagine or infer? Interesting and insulting at the same time. 

 

[skol asylum]

Chaos is a ladder.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

So you think that my lean towards chaos as a likely explanation indicates an inability on my part to imagine or infer? Interesting and insulting at the same time. 

I'm sincerely surprised (and sorry) that you're insulted.  Do you have any introspective explanations which might explain how your views have shifted?