Central to "Canceling Comedians While the World Burns" is the question of whether the western left wants to win. Watch my 50-minute discussion with the author.
There’s no mystery to what is happening. It’s about dismantling anything and everything that is even remotely tied to individualism. That, above all, is what the left despises.
All of these preposterous dated or vague terms of “corporatism” and “working class” (do wealthy people not work?) obscure the real philosophical difference:
It is either individualism or collectivism.
Socialism is collectivist
Communism is collectivist
Fascism is collectivist
State run mixed economies are collectivist with a pretense of liberty.
The goods and services in all of these centrally planned, dreary, shitty collectivist systems has to come from somewhere. So they allow for just enough pretense of liberty to keep *some* people working for the unearned benefit of others.
But ultimately the phony concern for the “working class” is just that: phony. What the left cannot tolerate is anyone being free of state compulsion. They simply cannot bear it. They have see people subjugated. And the politicians simply use the whole lie as a means to gain, consolidate, and maintain power.
“It’s about dismantling anything and everything that is even remotely tied to individualism.”
If you don’t think that American businesses are already doing this, then I have to wonder what kind of workplace you’ve been in for the last 2 years.
In my line of work (which supports millions in this country) employers are asking even entry-level new hires for permission to pull credit histories (among other intrusive items). HR/management is also monitoring the social media accounts of even low-level employees.
I know of a person who was fired for posting “I hate my f***ing job” on Facebook, without even saying who his employer was. Welcome to at-will employment! They don’t even have to tell you why they’re firing you, you’re only hope is to have grounds upon which to file a discrimination suit. Which you’ll obviously need to demonstrate, assuming you can pay an attorney for long enough to stay in the game against the large company that fired you (even if you can prove discrimination which is a very, very difficult standard to meet).
We don’t need the “left” or the government to squash individualism, business will continue doing it as a means of shifting risk downstream.
For the love of God have you not noticed that big business m, and big institutions of any kind - is are totally intertwined with government?
And how do smaller businesses who are *not* intertwined with government behave? Have you noticed they are owned and run mostly by people that hate this crap?
So knowing that, is the problem business - or government?
Religions through history tried to be tyrannical too. Was the solution to regulate religion? Or separate religion from state?
Read a 10k from a large company. It sounds like a DNC campaign speech
It would be nice if you knew what the left even is, and stop conflating it with neo-liberalism. (And, yes, Glenn does this too; it's perhaps the biggest flaw in his writing of late.
I've shifted to "Progressive" but they're attacking that now too, and complete asshole rightists, such as Hillary Clinton, have claimed THEY are Progressive (to pander for votes, one would imagine), so all our vocabulary related to those who are trying, genuinely, to do the right thing is under assault.
So what you're saying is that nothing ever changes.
Doesn't matter who sits on top of the shit-heap... those under the heap all will suffer.
I think the industrial revolution really spoiled everyone in industrialized nations. Prior to that, it was all just so much feudal serfdom... there was a brief period that shines brightly after WWII and through the mid 1970s here in the US where people thought they could really have it all... but it turns out they can't.
But I don’t think you can unites the left under this. When it really comes down to it, the left will trade away every liberty of every person in order to being brute force to those who are economically productive.
I don’t think the state of the US can be solved by a political party. It’s a philosophical problem. Politics is the final effect, not a cause.
The reason a nation can be dismantled the way the left is dismantling the US right now is enough of a critical mass of people accept it, agree with the base premises, or are so apathetic and cowardly that they place no value on their own liberty. They will lower their head for the leash.
No political party can foist courage and independence on what is now a cowardly, collectivist culture.
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%.
And once we can salvage those people, I think the rest can start to be salvaged too. Vast majority for example agrees that they disagree with biological men competing in women's sports. So we need to find such uniting factors.
And my last point about "hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal" will help push out the Neo-con and Neo-libs and unite the rest. Thoughts?
The best way for me to summarize my view is if you started today with a completely blank slate, and tried to convince today’s Americans to accept the original constitution, you would be burned at the stake for being a deranged radical.
I have 51% optimistic and 49% black pilled. I consider myself to be a black pilled liberal. I think the sane people are responsible for what's being done by the insane people because the sane people were too busy doing more productive stuff while the insane people were busy taking over the culture wars. The sane people gave away their school boards, local elections etc and thus those got taken over by the insane people. The sane people were often too spineless and cowardly to speak up. I don't put 100% blame on them but a significant part of the problems rose from people being too complacent and spineless.
One has to ask how some of this nonsense, esp trans ideology, got past the "Sit down and shut up kid!" stage at University. Who was guarding the gates of Western Civilization?
For that matter who was guarding the gates of the academy against the erosion of intellectual rigor by medievalist belief, irrational subjectivity and Critical Theory that supplants critical thinking and now used to fabricate the ideological sophistry that masquerades as scholarship
But even still, even among the sane, you will find they cannot give up the notion of government doing all kinds of things they shouldn’t be doing at all. And when push comes to shove they won’t give it up.
I don’t blame the wealthy for exploiting loop holes. I blame the politicians for delegating their job of writing bills to lobbyists from the wealthy class.
This isn’t going to change until almost all the politicians from both sides are thrown out.
It should not even be a profession. It’s not a profession.
Politicians and government bureaucrats are the lowest level of human existence. They’re not even the first layer of parasitism. They are professional parasites on a system of parasitism. If it is no longer a profession, the incentive to be such a filthy species is at least mitigated.
One term only for all elected offices. Dont you realize that that 12 will slowly get an extension voted on it. You missjudge the psychology of human behavior and plain old Skinnerian operatant conditioning procedures
How does it follow? They'll just speed up the process. And term limits are a double-edged sword. It can be a tool for avoiding responsibility and be reckless with implementations.
Here is a little inside scoop on how the political power elite look at the Ben Burgis of the world:
They giggle and snicker to themselves. They applaud him and even the crazies on the left - overtly - because while they are going along with throwing a little socialist stipend to the peasants the plebeians, and agree to the socialist demands with a grin, they control the money supply and shower it by the trillions on themselves, they control the tax law, they lobby for special favors.
When the left says we are going to regulate you, the elites laugh at them. “Who is going to? Hahaha”
What the left simply cannot grasp and they never will, is the only way to *ever* have the “workers” have any justice is the opposite of what they advocate. It is only through a complete separation of state and economics, whereby government is constitutionally forbidden to intervene in the economy- then and only then will they get their justice.
"The government needs to intervene minimally to keep markets open and keep them from becoming monopolized." Funny the five largest corporation in my youth if they exist, exist as shadows of themselves. We have far less to fear form monopolies than the expanding power of the government who are now in bed with said government. Monopolies cannot exist without government that the big lie you been sold. No government is why monopolies exist without government putting their hand on the scale most if not all monopolies will fail.
Will all of you just watch #Varoufakis on youtube about this or read his new book #AnotherNow. He takes on all of this with incredible intelligence instead of medocre babbel that sounds good but can never be accomplished.
I'm fairly right-leaning, and I agree with this fully.
Unfortunately, that last sentence... it will always be a "should not be," it will never become an "are not." Wealth and power will always share a bed, no matter what political system we have.
The 401K model, in whole, has been a disaster, the only part of it worth retaining is that it's part of the impetus for the creation of the "Roth IRA" mechanism, but the 401K model could be fixed. The big problem with it is that employers have used it to gut having meaningful retirement accounts.
I could see an improved 401K / Roth system moving forward and, after fixing it, then move governmental employees, INCLUDING FEDERAL LEGISLATORS / OFFICIALS!
Frankly, it'd be simpler to simply state somehow or other that Federal legislators have to have the same system as everyone else in the country, and that would be all the impetus required to ensure our retirement system was completely sound. Trouble is, Congress would have to enact it and that's one of those "when pigs may fly" things.
I listened to this while I was cleaning my guns. That struck me to be pretty funny. Were it not for Glenn Greenwald, I would have zero exposure to Ben's new book. I always appreciate a nuanced discussion even if I don't agree with the conclusions. That is the marketplace of ideas in action.
To that end, Ben and Glenn touch on a number of very important issues. First, the left now exists to uphold the political hierarchy and the centers of power. They are able to maintain support through signaling on key issues without challenging established norms. This is not unlike the right.
Secondly, they both acknowledge that the left has been coopted by a puritanical brigade of assholes. Political and moral purity has displaced the liberal ethos of the innate human right to self-determination. Curiosity and humility has been replaced with moral certainty.
I was raised in the church but now, I consider myself to be an agnostic because the moral certainty for atheism and orthodox religion is too much to swallow. I choose the side of humility. I know what I don't know.
I am definitely not good or moral enough to be on team blue. I am not a proponent of a welfare state but the constant drone of moralism on the left is what makes me want to vomit. It is like an insidious virus that has infected every political issue.
It is just as creepy as it was on the religious right. I'm okay with going to hell if the religious left is who I can expect to find in heaven.
Is all the same yeah that leads to poverty, tyranny and death. The materialistic, secular leftists have no creed other than absolute power. Government is their god and they brook no opposition or apostasy to their creed.
"Is all the same yeah that leads to poverty, tyranny and death" - would it not make sense then to leave those countries alone? Why fight them - they're heading for what you've described on their own.
Sounds interesting. I will listen. My husband and I were once upon a time left-leaning activists. We saw the 'left' turning into Pol Pot. So we ran far and fast. (Maybe it has always been Pol Pot, we were just too blind to see it.) I actually think populism is both left and right. It's all about the people, or it should be, as opposed to the neo-cons, the neo-libs and corporations. Amy has some interesting things to say about the left.
The turned into Pol Pot comment is right up there with "Hitler was a socialist". Hilarious, but ubiquitous asshattery. You are in the majority... which is to say, delusional.
Well. I was so excited to listen and excited to read the book. But after listening to Ben speaking I don't want to, even though I would be happy for lots of "leftists" to do so. Besides his being boring (never you Glenn, never you) Ben showed his true stripe when he said that having built bridges (paraphrasing) we can "hope their attitudes will improve". This is just the kind of throwaway but revealing comment that makes people want to run in the opposite direction. Unconsciously he turns out to be the same kind of snobby ideologue he is trying to speak to in his book, who secretly or not so secretly agree with HIllary that "they" are "deplorables." This is especially interesting as he brought up the trans issues a couple of times and, in addition, the reaction and failure of the left when Bernie touted his endorsement by Joe Rogan. He didn't connect the two. Yet Rogan is hated because he has expressed concern about children and teens transitioning and I believe may also have heterodox ideas about women's sports. Is he one of the people Ben hopes will "improve" their attitudes? It seems to me Ben is coming from the same place as the rest of the Left in the Democratic Party without even knowing how what he says is heard by non ideological leftists and independents who want to free Assange but may also be pro girls and women or not want their children called racists.
Trump’s 2016 electoral victory broke many leftist brains. Some very intelligent people just couldn’t wrap their heads around it, and even though Trump has been out of the White House for 6 months, a lot them still haven’t recovered.
You really should get over it. Trump came and went, and yet we still have all our endless wars, upward wealth redistribution, crumbling infrastructure, record-breaking student debt, massive military spending, homelessness, environmental degradation, climbing CO2 levels, nuclear war threat, a hollowed-out industrial base, and no health care for millions.
Jacobin? Bernie Fucking Sanders? Hilarious. This is the pseudo left you are mischaracterizing here. This further marginalizes the actual left by association with a fake socialist who supports of our war crimes complex. Sanders has voted for hundreds of billions in "defense" spending and runs away when challenged on his pathetic take on the terrorist state of Israel. This false conflation by smart people like Glenn Greenwald and Caitlin Johnstone and the like is extremely stupid... unless the goal is to erase the actual left. Greenwald claims AOC is of the left, for instance. This is a right wing talking point... just like calling Sanders a Marxist. AOC is a shit lib sellout everyday DemocRAT(ick) politician, not a a leftist. Glad I could help.
With today's level of corruption, anyone today who wants to have *any* influence on US politics has to pay-the-piper or be banished to political hell. Sad but true. So I'd use a different metric if I were you.
I think you mean "anyone who wants to be subsumed/absorbed by the toxic American death cult will pay-the-piper". They are by definition garbage if they are in either party. The Regressives are transparent right wing assholes and the DemocRATS are deceptive right wing assholes.
Revolution... which is unlikely in a death cult with such sophisticated propaganda that most of the public will swallow any amount of transparent bullshit brought to them by their favorite presstitutes as long as it fits in their pre-fabricated partisan echo chamber.
Which revolutions do you think provide us a good historical guide?
I'm not going to be a hard-ass about your answer, of course every upheaval has mixed results. But, seriously, which do you think were clearly a net improvment to their societies?
The public, currently, will "swallow any answer" because that is the sophistication of the propaganda *system* today. We didn't *biologically* lose 10 to 20 IQ points in 100 years. So it is hard to lay the blame at their feet. In any case, the most capable of us better up our game, and fast.
You can find your own historical guide. I learned a long time ago not to get too far into the weeds with potentially disingenuous debate partners... a complete waste of time. We live in a death cult that has crushed revolutionary leftist movements on numerous occasions. Nothing will change until the average human stops being a victim of propaganda... so... nothing will change. I am glad I never had children, and I will not be around for the worst of what is to come. I will continue to brush my teeth, keep punching up, and enjoy my life as best as I can. You might do the same. Good luck to you.
Your question of “ whether there is more overlap than people realize between the populist or anti-establishment wings of the left and the right,” is on point, as demonstrated by the fact of how surprisingly often I, a former liberal and now conservative, agree with your positions. Intellectually honest and open-minded persons of both left and right must have SOME shared ground because neither human nature nor physical reality care about our politics, and the payback for ignoring either (usually both) of them is a bitch.
What Burgis is seeing is what I call the angst of the bourgeois socialist. These are people who come from a more privileged background usually petti-bourgeois where they are somewhat protected from the day to day struggle of working class families. They have been inculcated with bourgeois values in growing up and they undergo a political awakening in which they reject these bourgeois values without having a clear analytical framework for doing so. In breaking with the bourgeois values they need affirmation. So they might look in the mirror and decide they are white, and therefore suffer from white privilege. And of course they look at you and say you suffer from white privilege. Therefore you should undertake a guilt laden regime to purge yourself of this. All of this has zero appeal to ordinary people who are struggling to cope with the hand they have been dealt by capitalism. Many ordinary people reject this “left” attitude.
DSA and leaders like AOC don’t always deal with this. For example they will publish some white guilt piece written by someone but will never publish anything that asks the question “why weren’t you self proclaimed socialists able to take the Bernie campaign and turn it into a mass movement?”
The ability to accept criticism and analysis is fundamental to any political organization, right left or center. If you get locked into “who are you” and identity politics and are you one of us then you can never move forward.
I attribute much of this bourgeois correctness on the left to not learning from the past and frankly to social democratic leanings of DSA in which participants think they can convince capitalism to turn over a new leaf by getting everyone to accept their cultural values. Not goin to work and never has.
Glenn, as always I am delighted with the quality of your journalism, being able to bring interesting guests for the interview, your talent to select one of the most burning current issues and your courage to honestly explore it regardless of how inconvenient or even dangerous such exploration could be for you personally.
This time, however, I am afraid you and your guest were looking for answers in the wrong corner. Having lived in USSR for the first 25 years of my life I can attest first hand that the perpetual search for someone to cancel (aka oppressor aka a new purge target aka "enemy of the people") is not a phenomenon coincidental to a few particular implementations of victorious socialism. Instead, it is the essense of the victorious socialism, its fundamental enabling feature.
You see, the fundamental issue of the victorious socialism is that the wealth redistribution (aka "expropriation of the expropriators") can only work once (and only if corruption among the victors is at most moderate -- which it never is -- but for the sake of argument let's assume it is "this one time"). After that first flimsy "success" in handing out little something to those ruled to be entitled to it, it invariably turns out that the free dough is over and nobody wants to bother to dutifully deliver qualify goods and services when they may be redistributed / shamed / rules of the game changed arbitrarily. Then the victorious leaders of the socialist party or movement instantly get in trouble with their entitled followers. Should the leaders happen to be so naive as to tell those followers the new order does not work for them as they feel it should simply because they don't put in enough effort in constructive activities, they are immediately and violently replaced. The new generation of the leaders come to the same situation and the cycle repeats until a not-so-naive leader comes to power who understands the drill -- which is the necessity to permanently search for the next oppressor who ate everbody's pie.
Because the socialism is not YET fully victorious in US, you guys have not seen the funniest part yet (and God Forbids that you and I actually get to witness it). It is convenient to think that the cases of intolerance and cancellation you observe are the temporary abominations of the "democratic" socialism or its, speaking figuratively, schoolyard illnesses. In reality these are actually weak glimpses of things to come, all having one common cause: a very human desire of each member of the entitled majority to distinguish themselves, get recognized and respected, get "what's theirs" in a society where "becoming filthy rich" is a prohibited or "despicable" goal (or where it is made virtually unachievable by a network of perpetually and arbitrarily changing game rules).
Now, I think I understand why you and Ben Burgis may be so puzzled with these "illogical" cancellations you have observed recently. I think both of you are bright, smart and hard-working individuals. You certainly might have come through some hostility and struggle but you are unlikely to be in a mood of a loser who is trying to get what's rightfully theirs by finding the next oppressor or an expropriator to expropriate. Unfortunately, you are in a small minority among the people for whom the socialism is supposed to "work". Please portray in your mind a typical person who is hoping to benefit from socialism, then add to it your best shot at the picture of the victorious socialiasm and try to imagine what such a person will feel, think and do when the today's "oppressors" have all been defeated and their wealth redistributed / expropriated but the person still feels they did not get enough out of it (is it ever enough?). Try to honestly answer for yourself a question: "What will such a person then do?". Will they work hard to create goods and deliver services for other members of the society and come to terms if / when they don't get the expected (by them) reward from it?
Or, having smelt the blood (having gotten the "redistributed" goodies) once they will be looking for any reason or a pretext to purge / cancel / expropriate the next better-off victim (sorry, "an oppressor") they can think of? Remember, in absense of undefeated "filthy riches" the next enemy will likely be the individual who got rewarded / recognized / respected in the previous round regardless of how that happened -- via inherited wealth / birth privilege, personal talents, hard work, having been ruled entitled or a combination of the above.
I think both you and Ben Burgis recently felt these gentle trial bites but did not know them for what they were (a mundane dirty fight for power -- which is at this stage a power to have voice, suppress your voices and control the narrative -- at that the actual narrative or its usefulness for "common victory" is not important as it is the means, not a goal). Your surprise is understandable given where you, and especially Ben, see yourself on the political spectrum and how much you have been doing to advance democratic socialism. For a good student of the History of Socialism, however, what's happening is not a riddle at all. Being at the very left of the political spectrum or even being a bolshevik did not help Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and numerous others. Being at the ostensibly moderate left did not help Bukharin & Co (of few millions). In fact, their policital views did not matter to their destiny. What mattered was that the beast of victorious socialism, the need for "the masses" to be pointed at new enemies in response to their perpetual question: "Where is MY piece of socialism?".
The fact that Glenn buys into the BS that a limousine liberal like Ben Burgis represents the real left in this country is kind of shocking. But it explains why his comments seem to be dominated by right wing extremists now. He's feeding them red meat. Burgis revealed his true self to me during the debate over #ForceTheVote. No interest in hearing anything more he has to say or publish.
You seem to have taken my comment personally. Is there someplace where I said that RWers who agree with the left on issues like ending wars, and ending censorship are extremists?
Your entire response is a straw man. And for the record, there are most definitely areas of agreement even between the left and far right. But I add the label extremist for those who spread RW lies such as claiming that NAZI's were left wing socialists, as well as for the 30+ people who press the "Like" button on that kind of garbage.
The irony of the premise of Burgis' title is that we (meaning those populist leftists who financially supported) sent people like Omar, AOC etc. to Congress to act with the urgency required of those recognize, well, the world is burning. The minute we raise our voices in pointing out that they are not doing so, the first to gatekeep are Ben Burgis. If "the world is burning," then holding up the CARES act until monthly $2k checks or one lump $10k check is in it(Looking at YOU, Sen. Sanders), or Force The Vote(looking at YOU, the squadlets), were absolute no-brainers. Alas, for those like Burgis, this is no more than an exercise in high school clique in-crowd identification.
I enjoyed the video. Glenn, your questions were great. They were the ones I wanted to be asked. I especially enjoyed Ben's responses. He really tried to respond with meaningful answers. I feel I learned a lot from this video. Keep up the good work.
Sad this conversation produces only traditional left-right argumentation.
Yes to the right: any powerful state represents a threat of overreach and corruption. But it is no less true that there will always be a de facto state, whether we vote on it or it’s the king’s (or oligarchs’) mercenaries.
Yes to the left: if the state prioritizes the general welfare and a healthy unregulated dialectic, we could accomplish anything. But humans clearly struggle there as a historical rule.
So here we are. We have an authoritative state (as the right notes) controlled by private capital (as the left notes), and it, along with its functionaries in the media and elsewhere, keep us fighting one another while our current state raids our resources and tightens the chains.
Glenn, I am Canadian who has come up with these ideas for a new party which combines the populist left and populist right goals. What do you all think?
- Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory, discourage ad-hominen attacks from political office
- Legalize weed, mushrooms, cocaine and pardon all non-violent/non-second crime non-dealers
- 30 million population universal health care + private health care / public option + import drugs from safe countries + price transparency + drug price matching with foreign countries + violent felons become ineligible for 3 years after serving sentencing
- Minimum wage tied as a factor to the top salary of the franchise owner and salary of the franchise owner tied to the salary of the top executive of the company
- School choice / Vouchers + Encourage trade school + Make universities co-sign student loans + scholarships based on GPA
- Abolish corporate sponsored mass immigration: immigration of labour ONLY for those who come as students for 4 years (or their retired parents) and work to become permanent residents after 2 years of graduation and 3 years of PR to become American citizens. Non-past students do not get H1B visas. Companies must pay equal pay to immigrants as American nationals. Remove loopholes.
- Voter ID
- Opportunity zones
- Abolish insider trading for congress & senate
- Term limits for congress & senate of 12 years maximum
- Trim the bloat from federal government, trim military budget to make it efficient, fire unneccesary administrative work/bureaucrats, societal issues must be dealt at the state level
For every goal, hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal. For example hire Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, Jared Kushner, Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz to achieve the goal of "Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals".
- Conditional birthright citizenship: either foreign national parent having a baby in USA gets conditional citizenship - must stay in USA for 6 months each year for 7 years
- Abolish buying of USA property/land by non-citizens
For every goal, hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal. For example hire Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, Jared Kushner, Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz to achieve the goal of "Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals". Hire Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bret Weinstein, Donald Trump to achieve goal of "Free speech absolutist" and pardons.
Don’t know how anyone else feels, or even what level of awareness people have of him, but I’d make Matt Stoller the head of the FTC and let him lay waste to the landscape wherever he sees fit to do so.
He’s the author of Goliath: The 100 Year War Between Monopoly Power And Democracy (has a free Substack that I highly recommend, obviously).
He has a level of knowledge about how large companies shape the business environment that I haven’t seen anywhere else in what I suppose I’d call the activist class, and seems to be constantly learning things in new businesses. I promise I don’t know the guy personally :). But I think that anyone here who is familiar with his work will agree.
The only person that I’ve seen exhaustively cover, from what I’d think of as a populist perspective or any other perspective for that matter, the likely effects of Biden’s staffing choices in the regulatory realm.
Not familiar with Matt Stoller but I did find he was friends with Aaron Swartz (who was a big free speech advocate, opposite of what Reddit has turned into now) so I will learn about him more.
Stoller is very good. I have followed him for a very long time. Just not in Varousfakis's intellectual and charismatic brilliance. Watch V youtubes to see for yourself. Stoller at one time was backing a former governor of Fl that turned out to be a really big mistake of character and political judgment. Just not old enough or educated enough to take on anything like this.
For someone who seems universally "on the right", taking lots of "libertarian" viewpoints and railing against impositions on the individual (do I have that correctly?), you shockingly include some items that are obviously extremely dictatorial, such as - quite notably:
You raise good points but they are a bit too idealistic and broad. Things like "abolish political parties" is never going to happen. I am a big fan of Michael Malice who's an anarchist but even he is a bit too idealistic imo. Political parties are tribalistic end result because human beings like almost all animals are tribalistic. Abolishing all parties itself will become tribalistic in the end.
But I do agree that the current parties are useless. I describe Republicans as the spineless incompetent cucks and Democrats as the evil identity politics exploiters.
I think we have to be more narrow on HOW we are to achieve things like "Remove the tax loop holes" or "regulate Big Biz, Big Tech, Healthcare". These are too broad. HOW do we achieve it is the real question. That's why I brought up the more narrow points like:
- Big Tech/Corporations/Banks with over 1 million daily active users in the USA should be declared public utilities
- 30 million population universal health care + private health care / public option + import drugs from safe countries + price transparency + drug price matching with foreign countries + violent felons become ineligible for 3 years after serving sentencing
- Minimum wage tied as a factor to the top salary of the franchise owner and salary of the franchise owner tied to the salary of the top executive of the company
These are very specific and narrow and I think is something most sane anti-establishment people can get behind regardless of party.
There’s no mystery to what is happening. It’s about dismantling anything and everything that is even remotely tied to individualism. That, above all, is what the left despises.
All of these preposterous dated or vague terms of “corporatism” and “working class” (do wealthy people not work?) obscure the real philosophical difference:
It is either individualism or collectivism.
Socialism is collectivist
Communism is collectivist
Fascism is collectivist
State run mixed economies are collectivist with a pretense of liberty.
The goods and services in all of these centrally planned, dreary, shitty collectivist systems has to come from somewhere. So they allow for just enough pretense of liberty to keep *some* people working for the unearned benefit of others.
But ultimately the phony concern for the “working class” is just that: phony. What the left cannot tolerate is anyone being free of state compulsion. They simply cannot bear it. They have see people subjugated. And the politicians simply use the whole lie as a means to gain, consolidate, and maintain power.
“It’s about dismantling anything and everything that is even remotely tied to individualism.”
If you don’t think that American businesses are already doing this, then I have to wonder what kind of workplace you’ve been in for the last 2 years.
In my line of work (which supports millions in this country) employers are asking even entry-level new hires for permission to pull credit histories (among other intrusive items). HR/management is also monitoring the social media accounts of even low-level employees.
I know of a person who was fired for posting “I hate my f***ing job” on Facebook, without even saying who his employer was. Welcome to at-will employment! They don’t even have to tell you why they’re firing you, you’re only hope is to have grounds upon which to file a discrimination suit. Which you’ll obviously need to demonstrate, assuming you can pay an attorney for long enough to stay in the game against the large company that fired you (even if you can prove discrimination which is a very, very difficult standard to meet).
We don’t need the “left” or the government to squash individualism, business will continue doing it as a means of shifting risk downstream.
For the love of God have you not noticed that big business m, and big institutions of any kind - is are totally intertwined with government?
And how do smaller businesses who are *not* intertwined with government behave? Have you noticed they are owned and run mostly by people that hate this crap?
So knowing that, is the problem business - or government?
Religions through history tried to be tyrannical too. Was the solution to regulate religion? Or separate religion from state?
Read a 10k from a large company. It sounds like a DNC campaign speech
>>Religions through history tried to be tyrannical too. Was the solution to regulate religion? Or separate religion from state?
Excellent point.
Edit: that should say ‘10 years’, not ‘2 years’.
It would be nice if you knew what the left even is, and stop conflating it with neo-liberalism. (And, yes, Glenn does this too; it's perhaps the biggest flaw in his writing of late.
Why continue usage of the word "LEFT" anyway.My opinion
I've shifted to "Progressive" but they're attacking that now too, and complete asshole rightists, such as Hillary Clinton, have claimed THEY are Progressive (to pander for votes, one would imagine), so all our vocabulary related to those who are trying, genuinely, to do the right thing is under assault.
None of the labels work for me
So what you're saying is that nothing ever changes.
Doesn't matter who sits on top of the shit-heap... those under the heap all will suffer.
I think the industrial revolution really spoiled everyone in industrialized nations. Prior to that, it was all just so much feudal serfdom... there was a brief period that shines brightly after WWII and through the mid 1970s here in the US where people thought they could really have it all... but it turns out they can't.
Givemeliberty, what are your thoughts on this proposal:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/video-a-new-book-by-leftist-ben-burgis/comments#comment-2265186
It would take awhile to respond thoughtfully
But I don’t think you can unites the left under this. When it really comes down to it, the left will trade away every liberty of every person in order to being brute force to those who are economically productive.
I don’t think the state of the US can be solved by a political party. It’s a philosophical problem. Politics is the final effect, not a cause.
The reason a nation can be dismantled the way the left is dismantling the US right now is enough of a critical mass of people accept it, agree with the base premises, or are so apathetic and cowardly that they place no value on their own liberty. They will lower their head for the leash.
No political party can foist courage and independence on what is now a cowardly, collectivist culture.
Fair point. I do think at least 25% of the "Democrat constituents" and 90% of the "Republican constituents" can be salvaged based on this:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%.
And once we can salvage those people, I think the rest can start to be salvaged too. Vast majority for example agrees that they disagree with biological men competing in women's sports. So we need to find such uniting factors.
And my last point about "hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal" will help push out the Neo-con and Neo-libs and unite the rest. Thoughts?
I wish I shared your optimism
The best way for me to summarize my view is if you started today with a completely blank slate, and tried to convince today’s Americans to accept the original constitution, you would be burned at the stake for being a deranged radical.
I have 51% optimistic and 49% black pilled. I consider myself to be a black pilled liberal. I think the sane people are responsible for what's being done by the insane people because the sane people were too busy doing more productive stuff while the insane people were busy taking over the culture wars. The sane people gave away their school boards, local elections etc and thus those got taken over by the insane people. The sane people were often too spineless and cowardly to speak up. I don't put 100% blame on them but a significant part of the problems rose from people being too complacent and spineless.
You're so right
One has to ask how some of this nonsense, esp trans ideology, got past the "Sit down and shut up kid!" stage at University. Who was guarding the gates of Western Civilization?
For that matter who was guarding the gates of the academy against the erosion of intellectual rigor by medievalist belief, irrational subjectivity and Critical Theory that supplants critical thinking and now used to fabricate the ideological sophistry that masquerades as scholarship
The answer is now obvious
nobody was
Very significant part indeed
But even still, even among the sane, you will find they cannot give up the notion of government doing all kinds of things they shouldn’t be doing at all. And when push comes to shove they won’t give it up.
I don’t blame the wealthy for exploiting loop holes. I blame the politicians for delegating their job of writing bills to lobbyists from the wealthy class.
This isn’t going to change until almost all the politicians from both sides are thrown out.
One term for all elected offices. That takes care of all of it. Serving in an office is a service, not a career.
I think 12 years maximum should be the case for congress & senate. What are your thoughts on this proposal:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/video-a-new-book-by-leftist-ben-burgis/comments#comment-2265186
One term
It should not even be a profession. It’s not a profession.
Politicians and government bureaucrats are the lowest level of human existence. They’re not even the first layer of parasitism. They are professional parasites on a system of parasitism. If it is no longer a profession, the incentive to be such a filthy species is at least mitigated.
One term only for all elected offices. Dont you realize that that 12 will slowly get an extension voted on it. You missjudge the psychology of human behavior and plain old Skinnerian operatant conditioning procedures
Term limits were first enacted by the ultra-rich to preclude another popular "leftist" like FDR from taking power...
One term only and it wouldn't happen at all.
How does it follow? They'll just speed up the process. And term limits are a double-edged sword. It can be a tool for avoiding responsibility and be reckless with implementations.
Maybe. Another interesting reading on it.
Congress is NOT a career!
I am well aware of the tax code
Here is a little inside scoop on how the political power elite look at the Ben Burgis of the world:
They giggle and snicker to themselves. They applaud him and even the crazies on the left - overtly - because while they are going along with throwing a little socialist stipend to the peasants the plebeians, and agree to the socialist demands with a grin, they control the money supply and shower it by the trillions on themselves, they control the tax law, they lobby for special favors.
When the left says we are going to regulate you, the elites laugh at them. “Who is going to? Hahaha”
What the left simply cannot grasp and they never will, is the only way to *ever* have the “workers” have any justice is the opposite of what they advocate. It is only through a complete separation of state and economics, whereby government is constitutionally forbidden to intervene in the economy- then and only then will they get their justice.
Yes because the simple minded come up with simple minded proposals.
"The government needs to intervene minimally to keep markets open and keep them from becoming monopolized." Funny the five largest corporation in my youth if they exist, exist as shadows of themselves. We have far less to fear form monopolies than the expanding power of the government who are now in bed with said government. Monopolies cannot exist without government that the big lie you been sold. No government is why monopolies exist without government putting their hand on the scale most if not all monopolies will fail.
Will all of you just watch #Varoufakis on youtube about this or read his new book #AnotherNow. He takes on all of this with incredible intelligence instead of medocre babbel that sounds good but can never be accomplished.
I'm fairly right-leaning, and I agree with this fully.
Unfortunately, that last sentence... it will always be a "should not be," it will never become an "are not." Wealth and power will always share a bed, no matter what political system we have.
Thanks, 8G, well put.
The 401K model, in whole, has been a disaster, the only part of it worth retaining is that it's part of the impetus for the creation of the "Roth IRA" mechanism, but the 401K model could be fixed. The big problem with it is that employers have used it to gut having meaningful retirement accounts.
I could see an improved 401K / Roth system moving forward and, after fixing it, then move governmental employees, INCLUDING FEDERAL LEGISLATORS / OFFICIALS!
Frankly, it'd be simpler to simply state somehow or other that Federal legislators have to have the same system as everyone else in the country, and that would be all the impetus required to ensure our retirement system was completely sound. Trouble is, Congress would have to enact it and that's one of those "when pigs may fly" things.
Thanks, Amy, there's a comment I can fully agree with.
I listened to this while I was cleaning my guns. That struck me to be pretty funny. Were it not for Glenn Greenwald, I would have zero exposure to Ben's new book. I always appreciate a nuanced discussion even if I don't agree with the conclusions. That is the marketplace of ideas in action.
To that end, Ben and Glenn touch on a number of very important issues. First, the left now exists to uphold the political hierarchy and the centers of power. They are able to maintain support through signaling on key issues without challenging established norms. This is not unlike the right.
Secondly, they both acknowledge that the left has been coopted by a puritanical brigade of assholes. Political and moral purity has displaced the liberal ethos of the innate human right to self-determination. Curiosity and humility has been replaced with moral certainty.
I was raised in the church but now, I consider myself to be an agnostic because the moral certainty for atheism and orthodox religion is too much to swallow. I choose the side of humility. I know what I don't know.
I am definitely not good or moral enough to be on team blue. I am not a proponent of a welfare state but the constant drone of moralism on the left is what makes me want to vomit. It is like an insidious virus that has infected every political issue.
It is just as creepy as it was on the religious right. I'm okay with going to hell if the religious left is who I can expect to find in heaven.
Religious left? An oxymoron if ever there was one.
Socialism-Communism-Progressivism
Is all the same yeah that leads to poverty, tyranny and death. The materialistic, secular leftists have no creed other than absolute power. Government is their god and they brook no opposition or apostasy to their creed.
"Is all the same yeah that leads to poverty, tyranny and death" - would it not make sense then to leave those countries alone? Why fight them - they're heading for what you've described on their own.
Absolutely leave them alone to the extent they leave us alone. But, we have a doddering, sold out CHiCom shill for President.
"to the extent they leave us alone" - who is not leaving "us" alone? And apply the timeline when you reply so it would make sense.
So this was not the case during Trump? Or Bush? When was this the case?
I can’t help idiots not be idiots.
Enjoy your borscht
Another fuckhead made the list. Dimwits abound lately on the forum.
Sounds interesting. I will listen. My husband and I were once upon a time left-leaning activists. We saw the 'left' turning into Pol Pot. So we ran far and fast. (Maybe it has always been Pol Pot, we were just too blind to see it.) I actually think populism is both left and right. It's all about the people, or it should be, as opposed to the neo-cons, the neo-libs and corporations. Amy has some interesting things to say about the left.
The turned into Pol Pot comment is right up there with "Hitler was a socialist". Hilarious, but ubiquitous asshattery. You are in the majority... which is to say, delusional.
The better comparison for the American left is Maoists of course, but you have to admit the Pol Pot line was kinda funny.
In the sense that I snort with derision at this level of idiocy... yes.
Well. I was so excited to listen and excited to read the book. But after listening to Ben speaking I don't want to, even though I would be happy for lots of "leftists" to do so. Besides his being boring (never you Glenn, never you) Ben showed his true stripe when he said that having built bridges (paraphrasing) we can "hope their attitudes will improve". This is just the kind of throwaway but revealing comment that makes people want to run in the opposite direction. Unconsciously he turns out to be the same kind of snobby ideologue he is trying to speak to in his book, who secretly or not so secretly agree with HIllary that "they" are "deplorables." This is especially interesting as he brought up the trans issues a couple of times and, in addition, the reaction and failure of the left when Bernie touted his endorsement by Joe Rogan. He didn't connect the two. Yet Rogan is hated because he has expressed concern about children and teens transitioning and I believe may also have heterodox ideas about women's sports. Is he one of the people Ben hopes will "improve" their attitudes? It seems to me Ben is coming from the same place as the rest of the Left in the Democratic Party without even knowing how what he says is heard by non ideological leftists and independents who want to free Assange but may also be pro girls and women or not want their children called racists.
Trump’s 2016 electoral victory broke many leftist brains. Some very intelligent people just couldn’t wrap their heads around it, and even though Trump has been out of the White House for 6 months, a lot them still haven’t recovered.
You really should get over it. Trump came and went, and yet we still have all our endless wars, upward wealth redistribution, crumbling infrastructure, record-breaking student debt, massive military spending, homelessness, environmental degradation, climbing CO2 levels, nuclear war threat, a hollowed-out industrial base, and no health care for millions.
Jacobin? Bernie Fucking Sanders? Hilarious. This is the pseudo left you are mischaracterizing here. This further marginalizes the actual left by association with a fake socialist who supports of our war crimes complex. Sanders has voted for hundreds of billions in "defense" spending and runs away when challenged on his pathetic take on the terrorist state of Israel. This false conflation by smart people like Glenn Greenwald and Caitlin Johnstone and the like is extremely stupid... unless the goal is to erase the actual left. Greenwald claims AOC is of the left, for instance. This is a right wing talking point... just like calling Sanders a Marxist. AOC is a shit lib sellout everyday DemocRAT(ick) politician, not a a leftist. Glad I could help.
With today's level of corruption, anyone today who wants to have *any* influence on US politics has to pay-the-piper or be banished to political hell. Sad but true. So I'd use a different metric if I were you.
I think you mean "anyone who wants to be subsumed/absorbed by the toxic American death cult will pay-the-piper". They are by definition garbage if they are in either party. The Regressives are transparent right wing assholes and the DemocRATS are deceptive right wing assholes.
How does an idealist today wield power in the US against the grain of, in order to move, conventional wisdom? What do you consider good examples?
Revolution... which is unlikely in a death cult with such sophisticated propaganda that most of the public will swallow any amount of transparent bullshit brought to them by their favorite presstitutes as long as it fits in their pre-fabricated partisan echo chamber.
Which revolutions do you think provide us a good historical guide?
I'm not going to be a hard-ass about your answer, of course every upheaval has mixed results. But, seriously, which do you think were clearly a net improvment to their societies?
The public, currently, will "swallow any answer" because that is the sophistication of the propaganda *system* today. We didn't *biologically* lose 10 to 20 IQ points in 100 years. So it is hard to lay the blame at their feet. In any case, the most capable of us better up our game, and fast.
You can find your own historical guide. I learned a long time ago not to get too far into the weeds with potentially disingenuous debate partners... a complete waste of time. We live in a death cult that has crushed revolutionary leftist movements on numerous occasions. Nothing will change until the average human stops being a victim of propaganda... so... nothing will change. I am glad I never had children, and I will not be around for the worst of what is to come. I will continue to brush my teeth, keep punching up, and enjoy my life as best as I can. You might do the same. Good luck to you.
Who is the actual left
All of this!
It's really amazing that he seems untouchable by the left. You'd think they'd be outraged by the bait and switch.
Your question of “ whether there is more overlap than people realize between the populist or anti-establishment wings of the left and the right,” is on point, as demonstrated by the fact of how surprisingly often I, a former liberal and now conservative, agree with your positions. Intellectually honest and open-minded persons of both left and right must have SOME shared ground because neither human nature nor physical reality care about our politics, and the payback for ignoring either (usually both) of them is a bitch.
What Burgis is seeing is what I call the angst of the bourgeois socialist. These are people who come from a more privileged background usually petti-bourgeois where they are somewhat protected from the day to day struggle of working class families. They have been inculcated with bourgeois values in growing up and they undergo a political awakening in which they reject these bourgeois values without having a clear analytical framework for doing so. In breaking with the bourgeois values they need affirmation. So they might look in the mirror and decide they are white, and therefore suffer from white privilege. And of course they look at you and say you suffer from white privilege. Therefore you should undertake a guilt laden regime to purge yourself of this. All of this has zero appeal to ordinary people who are struggling to cope with the hand they have been dealt by capitalism. Many ordinary people reject this “left” attitude.
DSA and leaders like AOC don’t always deal with this. For example they will publish some white guilt piece written by someone but will never publish anything that asks the question “why weren’t you self proclaimed socialists able to take the Bernie campaign and turn it into a mass movement?”
The ability to accept criticism and analysis is fundamental to any political organization, right left or center. If you get locked into “who are you” and identity politics and are you one of us then you can never move forward.
I attribute much of this bourgeois correctness on the left to not learning from the past and frankly to social democratic leanings of DSA in which participants think they can convince capitalism to turn over a new leaf by getting everyone to accept their cultural values. Not goin to work and never has.
Glenn, as always I am delighted with the quality of your journalism, being able to bring interesting guests for the interview, your talent to select one of the most burning current issues and your courage to honestly explore it regardless of how inconvenient or even dangerous such exploration could be for you personally.
This time, however, I am afraid you and your guest were looking for answers in the wrong corner. Having lived in USSR for the first 25 years of my life I can attest first hand that the perpetual search for someone to cancel (aka oppressor aka a new purge target aka "enemy of the people") is not a phenomenon coincidental to a few particular implementations of victorious socialism. Instead, it is the essense of the victorious socialism, its fundamental enabling feature.
You see, the fundamental issue of the victorious socialism is that the wealth redistribution (aka "expropriation of the expropriators") can only work once (and only if corruption among the victors is at most moderate -- which it never is -- but for the sake of argument let's assume it is "this one time"). After that first flimsy "success" in handing out little something to those ruled to be entitled to it, it invariably turns out that the free dough is over and nobody wants to bother to dutifully deliver qualify goods and services when they may be redistributed / shamed / rules of the game changed arbitrarily. Then the victorious leaders of the socialist party or movement instantly get in trouble with their entitled followers. Should the leaders happen to be so naive as to tell those followers the new order does not work for them as they feel it should simply because they don't put in enough effort in constructive activities, they are immediately and violently replaced. The new generation of the leaders come to the same situation and the cycle repeats until a not-so-naive leader comes to power who understands the drill -- which is the necessity to permanently search for the next oppressor who ate everbody's pie.
Because the socialism is not YET fully victorious in US, you guys have not seen the funniest part yet (and God Forbids that you and I actually get to witness it). It is convenient to think that the cases of intolerance and cancellation you observe are the temporary abominations of the "democratic" socialism or its, speaking figuratively, schoolyard illnesses. In reality these are actually weak glimpses of things to come, all having one common cause: a very human desire of each member of the entitled majority to distinguish themselves, get recognized and respected, get "what's theirs" in a society where "becoming filthy rich" is a prohibited or "despicable" goal (or where it is made virtually unachievable by a network of perpetually and arbitrarily changing game rules).
Now, I think I understand why you and Ben Burgis may be so puzzled with these "illogical" cancellations you have observed recently. I think both of you are bright, smart and hard-working individuals. You certainly might have come through some hostility and struggle but you are unlikely to be in a mood of a loser who is trying to get what's rightfully theirs by finding the next oppressor or an expropriator to expropriate. Unfortunately, you are in a small minority among the people for whom the socialism is supposed to "work". Please portray in your mind a typical person who is hoping to benefit from socialism, then add to it your best shot at the picture of the victorious socialiasm and try to imagine what such a person will feel, think and do when the today's "oppressors" have all been defeated and their wealth redistributed / expropriated but the person still feels they did not get enough out of it (is it ever enough?). Try to honestly answer for yourself a question: "What will such a person then do?". Will they work hard to create goods and deliver services for other members of the society and come to terms if / when they don't get the expected (by them) reward from it?
Or, having smelt the blood (having gotten the "redistributed" goodies) once they will be looking for any reason or a pretext to purge / cancel / expropriate the next better-off victim (sorry, "an oppressor") they can think of? Remember, in absense of undefeated "filthy riches" the next enemy will likely be the individual who got rewarded / recognized / respected in the previous round regardless of how that happened -- via inherited wealth / birth privilege, personal talents, hard work, having been ruled entitled or a combination of the above.
I think both you and Ben Burgis recently felt these gentle trial bites but did not know them for what they were (a mundane dirty fight for power -- which is at this stage a power to have voice, suppress your voices and control the narrative -- at that the actual narrative or its usefulness for "common victory" is not important as it is the means, not a goal). Your surprise is understandable given where you, and especially Ben, see yourself on the political spectrum and how much you have been doing to advance democratic socialism. For a good student of the History of Socialism, however, what's happening is not a riddle at all. Being at the very left of the political spectrum or even being a bolshevik did not help Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and numerous others. Being at the ostensibly moderate left did not help Bukharin & Co (of few millions). In fact, their policital views did not matter to their destiny. What mattered was that the beast of victorious socialism, the need for "the masses" to be pointed at new enemies in response to their perpetual question: "Where is MY piece of socialism?".
Glenn YOU KNOW BETTER.
The Left's Political Culture is NOT Alienating, it's NEO-LIBERAL Culture that's Alienating and the Neo-Liberals ARE NOT FUCKING LEFT.
Please stop with this redefinition, Glenn... YOU KNOW BETTER.
The fact that Glenn buys into the BS that a limousine liberal like Ben Burgis represents the real left in this country is kind of shocking. But it explains why his comments seem to be dominated by right wing extremists now. He's feeding them red meat. Burgis revealed his true self to me during the debate over #ForceTheVote. No interest in hearing anything more he has to say or publish.
> "But it explains why his comments seem to be dominated by right wing extremists now"
LOL. Not wanting to bomb brown people or not wanting to censor 50% of the population is "extremist" now.
You seem to have taken my comment personally. Is there someplace where I said that RWers who agree with the left on issues like ending wars, and ending censorship are extremists?
Your entire response is a straw man. And for the record, there are most definitely areas of agreement even between the left and far right. But I add the label extremist for those who spread RW lies such as claiming that NAZI's were left wing socialists, as well as for the 30+ people who press the "Like" button on that kind of garbage.
Great reply, thanks.
Yeah, I don’t think he’s going to do that. Why? Can’t say for sure. Maybe he wants to be inclusive or doesn’t want to pin himself down ideology-wise.
The irony of the premise of Burgis' title is that we (meaning those populist leftists who financially supported) sent people like Omar, AOC etc. to Congress to act with the urgency required of those recognize, well, the world is burning. The minute we raise our voices in pointing out that they are not doing so, the first to gatekeep are Ben Burgis. If "the world is burning," then holding up the CARES act until monthly $2k checks or one lump $10k check is in it(Looking at YOU, Sen. Sanders), or Force The Vote(looking at YOU, the squadlets), were absolute no-brainers. Alas, for those like Burgis, this is no more than an exercise in high school clique in-crowd identification.
Completely agree with the teeny bopper analogy. And, I'm a snob, most of these Millennial wokies are sophomoric at best.
There's a reason you see Grammerly ads on youtube all day long -people are stupid and getting dumber by the day.
Really, the only thing left to do is wait it all out and try to survive.
I enjoyed the video. Glenn, your questions were great. They were the ones I wanted to be asked. I especially enjoyed Ben's responses. He really tried to respond with meaningful answers. I feel I learned a lot from this video. Keep up the good work.
Sad this conversation produces only traditional left-right argumentation.
Yes to the right: any powerful state represents a threat of overreach and corruption. But it is no less true that there will always be a de facto state, whether we vote on it or it’s the king’s (or oligarchs’) mercenaries.
Yes to the left: if the state prioritizes the general welfare and a healthy unregulated dialectic, we could accomplish anything. But humans clearly struggle there as a historical rule.
So here we are. We have an authoritative state (as the right notes) controlled by private capital (as the left notes), and it, along with its functionaries in the media and elsewhere, keep us fighting one another while our current state raids our resources and tightens the chains.
So what are WE going to do about it?
I wish you would cross-post these videos on platforms other than YouTube.
Glenn, I am Canadian who has come up with these ideas for a new party which combines the populist left and populist right goals. What do you all think?
- Freedom & Liberty Workers Party
- Free speech absolutist: pardon Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Ross Ulbricht, Kyle Lamar Myers and others from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
- Big Tech/Corporations/Banks with over 1 million daily active users in the USA should be declared public utilities
- Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Abolish the ATF.
- Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals
- Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory, discourage ad-hominen attacks from political office
- Legalize weed, mushrooms, cocaine and pardon all non-violent/non-second crime non-dealers
- 30 million population universal health care + private health care / public option + import drugs from safe countries + price transparency + drug price matching with foreign countries + violent felons become ineligible for 3 years after serving sentencing
- Minimum wage tied as a factor to the top salary of the franchise owner and salary of the franchise owner tied to the salary of the top executive of the company
- School choice / Vouchers + Encourage trade school + Make universities co-sign student loans + scholarships based on GPA
- Abolish corporate sponsored mass immigration: immigration of labour ONLY for those who come as students for 4 years (or their retired parents) and work to become permanent residents after 2 years of graduation and 3 years of PR to become American citizens. Non-past students do not get H1B visas. Companies must pay equal pay to immigrants as American nationals. Remove loopholes.
- Voter ID
- Opportunity zones
- Abolish insider trading for congress & senate
- Term limits for congress & senate of 12 years maximum
- Trim the bloat from federal government, trim military budget to make it efficient, fire unneccesary administrative work/bureaucrats, societal issues must be dealt at the state level
For every goal, hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal. For example hire Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, Jared Kushner, Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz to achieve the goal of "Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals".
Add:
- Conditional birthright citizenship: either foreign national parent having a baby in USA gets conditional citizenship - must stay in USA for 6 months each year for 7 years
- Abolish buying of USA property/land by non-citizens
EDIT:
- Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory, discourage ad-hominen attacks from political office, biological sex in sports only
Edit 2:
For every goal, hire anti-establishment representatives from populist left & populist right to debate and achieve the end goal. For example hire Aaron Mate, Jimmy Dore, Jared Kushner, Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz to achieve the goal of "Stop forever regime change wars, non-intervention, middle east peace deals". Hire Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bret Weinstein, Donald Trump to achieve goal of "Free speech absolutist" and pardons.
Don’t know how anyone else feels, or even what level of awareness people have of him, but I’d make Matt Stoller the head of the FTC and let him lay waste to the landscape wherever he sees fit to do so.
He’s the author of Goliath: The 100 Year War Between Monopoly Power And Democracy (has a free Substack that I highly recommend, obviously).
He has a level of knowledge about how large companies shape the business environment that I haven’t seen anywhere else in what I suppose I’d call the activist class, and seems to be constantly learning things in new businesses. I promise I don’t know the guy personally :). But I think that anyone here who is familiar with his work will agree.
The only person that I’ve seen exhaustively cover, from what I’d think of as a populist perspective or any other perspective for that matter, the likely effects of Biden’s staffing choices in the regulatory realm.
Not familiar with Matt Stoller but I did find he was friends with Aaron Swartz (who was a big free speech advocate, opposite of what Reddit has turned into now) so I will learn about him more.
Stoller is very good. I have followed him for a very long time. Just not in Varousfakis's intellectual and charismatic brilliance. Watch V youtubes to see for yourself. Stoller at one time was backing a former governor of Fl that turned out to be a really big mistake of character and political judgment. Just not old enough or educated enough to take on anything like this.
EDIT:
- Make universities co-sign student loans + School choice / Vouchers + potential future employers sponsor tuition + Encourage trade school + scholarships based on GPA
Also add:
- trim the corrupt intelligence agencies
I like #Varoufakis's proposal much much better. An imagined new way not a fix of the oldn to try to make it work again.
For someone who seems universally "on the right", taking lots of "libertarian" viewpoints and railing against impositions on the individual (do I have that correctly?), you shockingly include some items that are obviously extremely dictatorial, such as - quite notably:
"Abolish identity politics, abolish critical race theory"
Yeah, THOUGHT POLICE! AND, Abolish Free Speech!
Great ideas! -eyeroll-
EDIT: Big Tech/Corporations/Banks with over 1 million daily active users in the USA should be declared common carriers
You raise good points but they are a bit too idealistic and broad. Things like "abolish political parties" is never going to happen. I am a big fan of Michael Malice who's an anarchist but even he is a bit too idealistic imo. Political parties are tribalistic end result because human beings like almost all animals are tribalistic. Abolishing all parties itself will become tribalistic in the end.
But I do agree that the current parties are useless. I describe Republicans as the spineless incompetent cucks and Democrats as the evil identity politics exploiters.
I think we have to be more narrow on HOW we are to achieve things like "Remove the tax loop holes" or "regulate Big Biz, Big Tech, Healthcare". These are too broad. HOW do we achieve it is the real question. That's why I brought up the more narrow points like:
- Big Tech/Corporations/Banks with over 1 million daily active users in the USA should be declared public utilities
- 30 million population universal health care + private health care / public option + import drugs from safe countries + price transparency + drug price matching with foreign countries + violent felons become ineligible for 3 years after serving sentencing
- Minimum wage tied as a factor to the top salary of the franchise owner and salary of the franchise owner tied to the salary of the top executive of the company
These are very specific and narrow and I think is something most sane anti-establishment people can get behind regardless of party.