image: @copyright S Gross

I have been trying to understand the worldview of the people who are on their way to change Chile. In some sense I wanted to go beyond left/right divides, trying to understand the fundamental model of the world that Chileans of different camps have in their heads. I don’t really think that intelligence alone can explain such a large gap in how people view the world. There are plenty of intelligent people who make outlandish claims; scientists who claim the world is 6000 years old (or at least believe it), economists who claim increasing demand will not increase prices when supply is limited, or in general people who have spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the world and then make claims that plainly contradict their own training. I have found that this happens in Chile with some frequency, and I was a bit lost in the fog, trying to fit this into some model that is not simply ideological. 

I then came across this post by Scott Alexander, someone I read frequently and whose posts I always find thoughtful and generally well argued. I would strongly recommend it, it is succinct and makes a few subtle distinctions that took me a while to internalize. I am going to highlight some paragraphs that I quite enjoyed, but I really recommend the whole thing, it is really worth it. He sets up two ways of modeling the world/governance; mistake theorists and conflict theorists:

“Mistake theorists treat politics as science, engineering, or medicine. The State is diseased. We’re all doctors, standing around arguing over the best diagnosis and cure. Some of us have good ideas, others have bad ideas that wouldn’t help, or that would cause too many side effects.

Conflict theorists treat politics as war. Different blocs with different interests are forever fighting to determine whether the State exists to enrich the Elites or to help the People.”

After reading the post and the following comments it dawned on me that these two types tend to dominate the political spectrum. The extremes are generally conflict theorists, because you cannot have the potent intensity necessary to believe absurdities without thinking that the other side is engaging in some humanity-ending, evil behavior. And I think Chile is full of conflict theorists, and not the easy kind, but hardcore ones. In fact, it is not just Chile, it is most of Latin America where a proportion of the population has or can be convinced of a conflict theory view of the world. With a few breaks, the right and left (mostly the right) have governed here with an iron fist, and this is not an accident. 

But how do I know these people are conflict theorists? 

Well the communists are almost by definition conflict theorists. But some of the signals are 1. Support for the government of Maduro 2. Refusal to punish perpetrators of violence that are on your side 3. The desire to destroy institutions regardless of the consequences (opposition to an independent central bank is one of the most egregious examples of this)

“Mistake theorists naturally think conflict theorists are making a mistake. On the object level, they’re not smart enough to realize that new trade deals are for the good of all, or that smashing the state would actually lead to mass famine and disaster. But on the more fundamental level, the conflict theorists don’t understand the Principle of Charity, or Hanlon’s Razor of “never attribute to malice what can be better explained by stupidity”. They’re stuck at some kind of troglodyte first-square-of-the-glowing-brain-meme level where they think forming mobs and smashing things can solve incredibly complicated social engineering problems. The correct response is to teach them Philosophy 101.”

For example,  No más (fill in blank) is the most repeated mantra among the protesters. It is basically pure repudiation, it is based on the idea that whatever the blank is, was concocted by some evil group meant to keep the masses down. While that may be possible, once you start poking holes  in their arguments, you can clearly see that they haven’t thought through the reasons why the blank exists in the first place. The most prominent is the pension system, which, in its current form is clearly insufficient to meet the retirement needs of Chileans. People who study these things were already aware of this since the days of the Bravo commission and everyone was in favor of some sort of government help. But hardcore conflict theorists cannot build on something, their model of the world does not allow it; whatever came before was built by an evil structure that aims to keep people from acquiring their true potential and therefore must be destroyed. It is no coincidence that no más _____ is a battle cry in Chile, it is fundamentally the only possible outcome of a conflict theory mindset. It is not replacement, it is mere opposition. It reminds me of a quote by Revel – 

“Utopia is not under the slightest obligation to produce results: its sole function is to allow its devotees to condemn what exists in the name of what does not”

Eventually, when presented with data that contradicts their model of the world, conflict theorists will misrepresent, argue motivation, and outright ban the use of data. There are plenty of people who still argue that the shortages during Allende’s time were due to capitalists refusing to produce for political reasons, and not failed pricing policy. If you ever asked yourself how it is possible that, in 2021, Argentines are again trying price controls, it is precisely this. This model of the world resists updating because updating is an existential risk. Once you start thinking of the world as a mistake theorist you cannot go back to the simplicity of conflict theory. That’s why conflict theorists appear religious in nature. Their model of the world is so simplistic and so averse to logical argument that it eventually calcifies into religion. You try to argue details and you will invariably end up receiving insults. In some version of the definition, they are very conservative in their outlook, because they refuse to update when doing so is essential.

There is something I would add to Alexander’s post. My suspicion is that conflict theory eventually ends up dominated by scammers, at least hardcore conflict theory. There is a certain level of distrust of dialogue in conflict theory that makes the interchange of ideas difficult, and thoughtless adherence a litmus test for membership. Thoughtlessness is a unique equilibrium outcome. It eventually solidifies into a cult, and membership requires repeating mantras like a drone. This is where scammers come in.

A scammer is someone who uses conflict theory purely for private gain. Whether or not they believe in the central tenets of the ideology is immaterial. They use the passionate intensity of the central message to rise in status, either materially or socially. Most followers of conflict theorists are not scammers, some of their leaders clearly are. Some examples of scammers in the current Chilean climate are people like Baradit, Rodrigo Rojas, Gino Lorenzini, Bacigualupe, Pamela Jiles etc. These are people that repeat the mantras of the estallido (el pueblo exige – the people demand) as a signal of belonging and then proceed to do whatever possible to rise in status. They attack anyone who contradicts them as part of the “neoliberal/fascist elite” without engaging with the argument because this works. It is not the argument itself that is important, what is essential is the signal of belonging to the cult. When people try to engage in arguments of good faith, they generally come out insulted. 

“Mistake theorists view debate as essential. We all bring different forms of expertise to the table, and once we all understand the whole situation, we can use wisdom-of-crowds to converge on the treatment plan that best fits the need of our mutual patient, the State. Who wins on any particular issue is less important [than] creating an environment where truth can generally prevail over the long term.

Conflict theorists view debate as having a minor clarifying role at best. You can “debate” with your boss over whether or not you get a raise, but only with the shared understanding that you’re naturally on opposite sides, and the “winner” will be based less on objective moral principles than on how much power each of you has. If your boss appeals too many times to objective moral principles, he’s probably offering you a crappy deal.”

Scammers always lurk, they’re always there. But because conflict theorists treat debate as having minor effects, ideas are not properly vetted, and they tend to come from a place of passion, not deliberation. This allows room for scammers to rise in stature, since their passionate intensity can be sufficient to convince other conflict theorists that they are part of the movement. This is not to say that mistake theorists cannot be scammers, this is clearly far from the truth. Deliberation over uncertain outcomes can create scenarios in which scammers turn out to be right for the wrong reasons. However, since deliberation over ideas is central to what Alexander calls ‘mistake theorists’, conflict theory is more likely to produce scammers, especially in times of revolt and upheaval.

My conjecture here is that movements that are based on conflict theory eventually get taken over by scammers. It is a natural progression. At first a movement with some central model of the world births itself. Then it confronts the real world and it either morphs into a more moderate version because it adjusts to actual realities, or it rigidifies and rejects all criticisms as coming from the “evil side”. If the latter happens, it creates a space where real debate becomes impossible and adherence is measured by the intensity with which one repeats the same old tired phrases. This is fertile ground for scammers, as they can parrot phrases even if they don’t believe in any of the things that are being said. And because they never really cared about actual outcomes, they will use all of their cunning and guile to oust anyone who finds them out. Since drone like obedience is the norm, they will just be the loudest denouncers of deviations from the narrow space that defines the movement (the cultural revolution is possibly the most vivid example of this, but there are plenty in the communist world). Conflict theory is guided by moral certainty, and moral certainty can result in a complete suspension of your logical faculties. 

the enemy is neither from Venezuela nor Haiti, he is rich and lives in Las Condes and Vitacura (two wealthy neighbourhoods of Santiago) – Graffiti in the streets of Santiago

Chile is a place where, historically, being a conflict theorist is an easy and even reasonable choice, especially when looking at the long term, something that I tried to outline here. There is however a structural break in the last thirty years that requires a strong updating of your prior beliefs. The last thirty years will be remembered as the best years for Chile, bar none. They were prosperous, lifted a large chunk of the population out of poverty and reduced inequality. You would have to be a hard core conflict theorist not to be able to see this. The model needs tinkering, this is true. Education and pensions are very weak links. But this is a job for mistake theorists, not conflict theorists. The very fact FA/PC talk of the Concertación as a neoliberal ticket is in itself a sign that they’ve stopped updating. The structural break in Chile in the last thirty years managed to create a lot of mistake theorists, but apparently not enough. The Concertación itself actually performed this updating, and, in a very paternalistic way, included the more extreme elements in its coalition, as a way to co-opt them. It lost that battle, and it lost it badly. It was a good attempt, but people who did not update were never really going to do so, regardless of the evidence.

It is not necessarily true that conflict theorists are entirely wrong in their understanding of the world as conflict between elites and the rest. But what they are clearly wrong about is their insistence on framing everything on that basis. Eventually the world is about more than good and evil, and the longer you take to internalize that, the harder it becomes to do so. 

In the end conflict theorists either; 

1. moderate and eventually become mistake theorists (Mujica, Lula, Concertacion), or 
2. they fail miserably in the day to day routine tasks of governing (Allende, Chavez) and they are overtaken by scammers (most eastern-bloc countries, Maduro).

The new Chilean conflict theorists will eventually have to face hard choices. It is possible that the movement, faced with the constraints of governing, constraints that have become much more binding after the pandemic, changes its position and governs moderately. It is entirely possible that once in office, they realize that some of what they’ve called ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘economic-ism’ is just the budget constraint, nothing else. All of this is possible, but not likely. What I find more likely to happen is that they will fall to b. The fact that they are in coalition with the communists is a big red flag that signals a very strong conflict theory bent. The general mood of the coalition is one of conflict and reasonable voices will get dismissed as ‘amarillos’ or traitors, as they have been recently. My prediction is that they will come in enthusiastic, trying to change too much and the economic climate will be prohibitive. There will be no money for the things that they want to do. At this fork in the road they will either moderate their goals and do what is possible, or they will start performing the typical song and dance that we’ve seen in LATAM since time immemorial: capital controls, price controls, expropriation of pension funds, government control of means of communication, constitutional changes etc etc. My money is on the second.

On a personal level, when I first moved to Chile and got to understand my surroundings a bit better, I became a conflict theorist. Chile does this to you, it is fundamentally more unequal and more unjust than most of the developed world (but not the rest). Take any long trip from Pudahuel to Vitacura and you will see exactly what I mean. Enter any campus of the elite universities and you realize that there are two different countries that almost don’t overlap. The naked segregation is shocking to a non-Chilean and infuriating to anyone with a modicum of awareness. My evolution resulted from being in the company of other conflict theorists. I met a lot of them at social events, and I realized, slowly, that their reverence for countries like Cuba or Venezuela or for the days of Allende verged on the religious. I argued that things were not great in Cuba or during Allende and was met with a sort of incredulity and violent repudiation that I can only describe as the response of a Catholic being told heaven does not exist. They spoke of ex-UP ministers that had participated in governments after 1990 as traitors and vendidos (sellouts). Once, a guy tried to convince me that Cuba was better than Chile because it had free education, and there was no amount of arguing that could move him from that position. Before coming to Chile I thought this was a caricature dreamt up by some fevered anti-communist mind, but it happened with enough of a frequency that I was forced to update. I don’t think most Chileans belong to this camp, what I am describing here is a small percentage of the population. However, they have been successful enough after October 2019 to rise in the polls. I think they are overrepresented in the political sphere; the average Chilean (outside of Ñuñoa) does not really agree with their worldview. Yet here we are, watching the new wave of conflict theorists finally have their day in the sun. It should be interesting.