"If you’re in favor of tariffs when you know you don’t have the votes but against them once they’re actually in effect, you’re just a politician with no balls."
"If you’re in favor of tariffs when you know you don’t have the votes but against them once they’re actually in effect, you’re just a politician with no balls."
The socialists? Try to keep up—the extreme capitalists were the ones enabling the loss of millions of jobs. Of both parties, or as some say, the UniParty.
A lot of capitalists were building things and making stuff and developing products, employing people and investing in the US economy. They got crushed by cheap labor and IP theft as did their employees and investors. The capitalists that went to the right business schools and do finance and have no contact with a physical product got dirty stinkin rich. Some of the money went to elected officials. And shame on us for falling for all this.
Why do we always end up with this idea that socialists LIVING IN A FULLY LATE-CAPITALIST WORLD are supposed to be poor? Marx never said "Give it all away." That was Jesus.
Of course not. That sleight of tongue was (part of) Marx's con. Create a series of de facto intranational armies (not parties) based on supposedly irreconcilable differences between segments of society, let their officers (aka vanguards) lead the charge. Then have those officers divvy up the spoils after they win, while saying the proles will get the spoils after the capitalist pigs are eradicated ... someday. The whole thing is a Trojan horse for totalitarian concentrated power, not democratic leftism, from start to finish, which is exactly how it always played out from 1917 on, communist or not. Marx was NOT a leftist, he was a long-con man. With the New Left from the 1950s, the malleable class-division was substituted with rigid identity-division, to pave way better boundaries for dividing-and-conquering.
There is no elevation of the powerless in a society without noblesse oblige. Healthy societies cannot perpetually have civil war, but that is precisely what has been orchestrated in the US (and West), in stages, between the 1950s and today.
The real problem is intelligent psychopathy, not capitalism or socialism. Hence the societal toxic rot that results from iron law of oligarchy. Trust me, we'll cease debating our traditional ideologies as AI sinks its claws deep.
And I suppose Marx never said "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" either. Similarly, neither have the LATE-CAPITALISTS. THAT is the problem! When the motto of your life is "Screw the little guy and the other guy", you are leading your fellow capitalists into a ditch. Your ways will not prosper for long. You're sins WILL find you out, and as it turns out, Donald Trump is the grim reaper. Prepare to die! (Or as Taibbi said, burn it all down! The globalists and their infrastructure, that is.)
Nothing crazy about RFK Jr. he just knows more than you do and he's not afraid to share his ideas in an effort to help people live better. It doesn't take any guts to believe the "approved narrative" and mock people who think for themselves.
Here’s a list of some fascinating historical figures whose ideas were initially mocked, suppressed, or dismissed—and though their work was later proven correct, many of them never lived to see full vindication. ---
No doubt you will not ever make a list like this....but RFK Jr. will:
1. **Ignaz Semmelweis – Handwashing in Medicine**
- **Idea:** Doctors should wash their hands before assisting in childbirth to prevent childbed fever.
- **Reaction:** He was ridiculed, rejected by the medical establishment, and eventually committed to an asylum.
- **Outcome:** After his death, germ theory proved him right. Handwashing became a medical standard.
- **Vindication:** Posthumous, but never personally vindicated or honored in his time.
---
2. **Nikola Tesla – Wireless Energy & Inventions Beyond His Era**
- **Idea:** Free wireless energy, wireless communication, and other radical innovations.
- **Reaction:** Labeled eccentric, undermined by competitors like Edison and JP Morgan, died penniless.
- **Outcome:** Many of his ideas laid the foundation for modern technologies (radio, remote control, wireless).
- **Vindication:** Pop culture reveres him now, but he died largely unrecognized for his contributions.
---
3. **Giordano Bruno – Infinite Universe & Multiple Worlds**
- **Idea:** The universe is infinite and contains many worlds with life.
- **Reaction:** Burned at the stake for heresy in 1600 by the Inquisition.
- **Outcome:** Modern astronomy supports the notion of countless galaxies and potentially habitable planets.
- **Vindication:** Celebrated centuries later, but brutally punished in his lifetime.
---
4. **Barry Marshall – Bacteria Cause Stomach Ulcers**
- **Idea:** *Helicobacter pylori* causes peptic ulcers, not stress or spicy food.
- **Reaction:** Laughed out of conferences, rejected by medical authorities.
- **Outcome:** Proved it by drinking the bacteria himself and developing gastritis; eventually won the Nobel Prize.
- **Vindication:** He was vindicated in his lifetime, but only after intense resistance and self-experimentation.
---
5. **John Snow – Cholera is Waterborne**
- **Idea:** Cholera spreads through contaminated water.
- **Reaction:** Medical community rejected germ theory; he was ignored.
- **Outcome:** His mapping of a cholera outbreak eventually influenced modern epidemiology.
- **Vindication:** Credited later, but dismissed during the 1854 outbreak when he could’ve saved more lives.
- **Reaction:** Widely ridiculed by geologists; lacked mechanism for movement.
- **Outcome:** Plate tectonics later proved him right.
- **Vindication:** Only decades after his death in 1930.
---
7. **Rachel Carson – Environmental Hazards of Pesticides**
- **Idea:** Pesticides like DDT were destroying ecosystems and harming human health.
- **Reaction:** Attacked as hysterical and anti-progress by chemical industry and media.
- **Outcome:** Her work sparked the environmental movement and led to bans on DDT.
- **Vindication:** Recognized eventually, but faced extreme backlash in her time.
---
8. **Alan Turing – Foundations of Modern Computing**
- **Idea:** Theoretical basis for computers and artificial intelligence.
- **Reaction:** Despite wartime contributions, he was prosecuted for homosexuality and chemically castrated.
- **Outcome:** His work underpins all modern computers and AI.
- **Vindication:** Received posthumous royal pardon in 2013; died tragically in 1954.
The Truth is more complicated than the sound bite lie (that you feed on). The sound bite lie makes it around the world 3x before the Truth gets out of bed.
RFK Jr. has it all figured out, imma right? Vaccines definitely cause autism. He'll be hailed as a revolutionary genius one day, on a par with Tesla and Turing. The countless studies showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism will be soundly discredited. You wait and see! Imma right?
What about the countless studies showing that there is a link between vaccines and autism that have been censored. Those are the ones that matter. Imma right? Troll much?
Retraction isn’t censorship, ya big dummy. Even Wakefield's garbage "study" is still publicly available for anyone who wants to read it. No one’s censoring you. You're just mad your nonsense isn't being taken seriously. Screeching "censorship!" is the last refuge of the chronically wrong.
RFK Jr. is a quack. He wants to ban phones in schools not because they’re anathema to learning but because he thinks radio waves fry your brain. It’s a shame that Matt’s comments are full of right wing lunatics, but 95% of the populace are now lunatics of some variety so I guess it’s unavoidable
RFK Jr is the quack. His supporters are merely ignorant. Oh, I'm sure a fair number of RFK Jr's apologists are also delusional and frighteningly unstable (most probably borderline unhinged my own research shows), but who's keeping track at this point?
Personally, I can barely afford the ink or parchment necessary for the project.
Calling people names doesn't dispute their arguments. It just means you have no counter argument.
In one post you called people you disagree with quacks + ignorant + apologists + delusional + unstable + unhinged.
I would say that is the lazy way out of the discussion.
You do know the definition of ignorant, right?
Ignorant is lacking knowledge or awareness in general;
I would say that those calling RFK Jr. and people who think similarly to him ignorant do not know what the word means.
I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true.
The average person listens to propaganda all day long and then when a person dares to step outside of the "narrative" and shares alternative findings, that person is called a "quack" or some other name by people who can't think outside of the "narrative" propaganda hive mind.
"Propaganda is information, often biased or misleading, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view. It’s designed to influence emotions and opinions, typically through selective facts, exaggeration, or manipulation, rather than fostering critical thinking. Historically, it’s been used by governments, organizations, or individuals to shape public perception—think wartime posters or modern social media campaigns. It’s not always outright lies; sometimes it’s just a heavily skewed narrative."
From my experience people get called quacks because they're quacks.
"I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true."
Now you're singling out the entire Republican caucus and that's not fair.
You weren't having a discussion. You were dismissing RFK Jr. and people who support his message as quacks without saying why his/their message was quacky. That's not a discussion. If you can't say why something is quacky with facts and you use name calling as your tactic you will not be taking seriously. I wouldn't waste my time responding to someone I disagreed with without presenting facts with sources otherwise it is considered trolling or inciting and not actually adding to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Unironically yes. There are perhaps six sane, rational journalists in all of American media; the same ratio holds true for anyone else in the Anglosphere who follows politics to any degree.
Thank heavens you're there to keep tabs on everything for the rest of us, at least as long as you haven't been consumed by the Anglophone Succubus who preys upon men of piety and rectitude such as yourself.
It's 2025 Lanny and if you don't know that EMFs from cell phones/towers have some type of affect on human brains and CNS (thanks to the poor little rats that came before us) well then you are an Ostrich.
It's really easy these days to disprove nay sayers who love to parrot the "official narrative".
You call people who think for themselves lunatics and free thinkers call people like you who parrot the "official narrative" NPCs that are slow to the ever changing times.
You can't dismiss someone as a quack when there is scientific evidence to prove what they say is true. That is ignoring and gaslighting - very troll like behaviors.
Here are several key scientific studies that have investigated the potential negative impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by cell phones on the human body and brain:
1. Increased Brain Glucose Metabolism
Study: A study published in JAMA found that 50-minute exposure to cell phone RF-EMFs increased glucose metabolism in brain regions closest to the antenna.
Implication: This suggests that cell phone radiation can affect brain activity, although the clinical significance remains unclear.
2. Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption in Rats
Study: Research led by neurosurgeon Leif Salford demonstrated that GSM cell phone radiation caused albumin leakage through the blood-brain barrier in rats, leading to neuronal damage.
WIRED
Implication: These findings raise concerns about potential long-term effects of cell phone radiation on human brain health.
3. Systematic Review of Adverse Health Effects
Study: A systematic review in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine reported that cell phone radiation exposure could lead to various health issues, including oxidative stress, DNA fragmentation, and hormonal changes.
Implication: The review highlights the need for further research into the biological effects of EMF exposure.
4. Genotoxic Effects and Brain Tumor Risk
Study: An article in Environmental Research discussed studies indicating that long-term cell phone use might be associated with an increased risk of brain tumors, such as glioblastoma.
Then there is the whole mental health aspect that RFK Jr. mentions and that is to be concerned about as well.
In The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt explores how smartphones and social media have contributed to a mental health crisis among Generation Z. He identifies four primary harms associated with smartphone use:
CASSY+3WSJ+3New York Post+3
The Human Journey
Social Deprivation: Reduced face-to-face interactions leading to weakened social bonds.
Sleep Deprivation: Disrupted sleep patterns due to screen time, especially before bedtime.
Sherwood News+2CASSY+2The Human Journey+2
Attention Fragmentation: Constant notifications and multitasking impairing the ability to focus.
Addiction: Design features of apps fostering compulsive usage patterns.
Haidt cites studies indicating that adolescent girls spending over five hours daily on social media are significantly more likely to experience depression. He also references research showing that the introduction of platforms like Facebook correlated with increased anxiety and depression among college students.
New York Post+5CASSY+5The Guardian+5
Critics of Haidt's work argue that the evidence linking smartphone use to mental health issues is correlational rather than causal. Some researchers suggest that the observed associations might be influenced by other factors, such as socioeconomic status or pre-existing mental health conditions.
Sherwood News
Despite the debate, Haidt advocates for measures like delaying smartphone and social media use until later adolescence, promoting phone-free schools, and encouraging real-world social interactions to mitigate potential harms.
Because they know their jobs are dependent on how he votes. The same goes for the aerospace industry, the teachers unions, the autoworkers, etc. The employers run campaigns in-house to influence politicians who vote to approve or disapprove what the corporation needs for the bottom line and the employee needs to keep his paycheck coming - the next big contract, the next rule-change that gives the company an edge. Apparently, pharmaceutical companies are good at this.
That's called bundling and it's due to campaign donation laws that put limits on individual donations.
Instead the corporations encourage (?) their workers to write checks and they make sure the recipients know where that money came from. Some even collect them and hand them in a "bundle" (not always legal but who's checking) to the targeted politician with a key vote so no imagination or speculation is needed as to the source.
A majority of his fundraising comes from small-dollar donations, and Senate races get more money spent on them than House races do. He’s probably in the top 5 Congresspeople for most industries.
Some other people in the thread say those ActBlue contributions are faked, that they come from big institutions misusing their employees’ names. I’ve never heard of such an accusation but it seems preposterous to me, particularly when applied to a self-proclaimed socialist.
I have never donated to a Sanders campaign, and I'm sure anyone who has must be mightily disappointed. I can't believe he's still stumping because it suggests that he must think his reputation is salvageable.
But then I suppose there may be some people out there who still fall for the fake populism of the former Democratic Party butt-boy.
I dunno, Bull, doesn't seem like the big, enthusiastic crowds Sanders draws are "mightily disappointed" with anything at all.
Maybe all the properly disappointed Sanders donors are avoiding the rallies, not wanting to rub shoulders with the cheap bastard Sanders supporters in their Birkenstocks and wool socks who write $5 checks and probably could be counted on (if not properly supervised) to swallow a few foamy steins of "fake populism" from, hell, even William Jennings Bryan.
Sanders has his faults, certainly, and plenty of detractors, but the bulk of the more jaundiced ones can be found in places like the comment sections of sites like Taibbi's who desperately want to believe Sanders has a reputation in need of "salvaging."
The latter site also alleges much higher donations from pharma, but unclear of the evidence or time frame involved (or the reliability of motivation of that site).
Correct me if I am wrong, but most of Bernie Sanders wealth is in real estate that he purchased years ago. A vacation home in Vermont 40 years ago would cost probably in the neighborhood of $50,000 , but would be worth over 1 million today. The same for any other home bought many years ago. The same with the stock market. If Bernie has been putting in even a small amount of his earnings into the market over the past 50 years, those funds would generate millions of dollars at the 11% per annum growth rate of stocks in general.
Bernie and his wife, an earner in her own right, are both over 80 years of age and I am sure that the assets they accumulated over the past half century have soared in value astronomically. It is shear speculation to conclude he came by his modest wealth dishonestly. I say “modest “ wealth because it is dwarfed by the billions of dollars our two political parties’ friends and donors have come by through hook or crook since say NAFTA and the WTO came into existence. Take for instance, Jared Kushner or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or our current president or Elon Musk or all the rest. Take for instance Charles Schwab, who made $2.5 billion in one day when Trump tanked the market and then changed course a few days later to call off his tariffs( Don’t take my word for it, president. Trump bragged about it at his press conference). Bernie’s just a common peasant compared to them. He’s like us.
Concerning Bernie’s position on strategic tariffs and a minimum wages for our working population, you might want to check his website or any reputable news agency to find out where he really stands. You’ll see he is for tariffs if properly applied to protect American industry and working people and always has been and he is the person who is introducing and has been introducing legislation for at least $17 an hour wage to deal with all the inflation being caused by President Trump, his party and the Democratic party. Not to mention affordable health care.
In short, find out the facts before you start ad hominem attacks against one of the few persons in Washington who has shown respect for his duty to his fellow Americans. I’m sure the oligarchs don’t mind you bad mouthing and marginalizing him, but I hope you’re not a tool for them and will use your own independent faculties before expressing as fact what is a lie.
I know the minimal gains of the stock market are supposedly 11% but I'd bet it's a rare fund that has averaged that for the last 20 years. Certainly none of the funds I've been in have. Not even close, and I invest aggressively. So Sanders must have really good advice if he made his money that way. But as you say, if his wealth comes in at the low end ($3m) it's not really much for a man in his position (though still much better than most of us).
However it happened, it could be unravelled if anyone wanted it unravelled. That it isn't is telling. If he was making IRA donations since the age of 18, it would be a wonderful story for everyone to emulate.
Why characterize Sanders' royalties as "a bit extreme?" Author's royalties are exclusively a function of sales.
If Sanders' wealth offends you, and if it's your belief that the senator is undeserving of such remuneration for his literary efforts, I would urge you to take it up with with his publishers and cavil with them, or buttonhole a few of his readers as they exit the bookstore with one of his books, demanding an explanation as to why in god's name people are buying and reading books written by this deviant Marxist from Soviet Vermont? What gives?
Perhaps even get to work on a book yourself offering a few salient reasons why the hispid, undoubtedly hirsute commie-hick senator from Vermont is properly seen (as you seem to suggest) volunteering in a soup kitchen rather than touring the country crassly hawking his literary wares. Not to mention bending the knee to BOTH Mammon AND Hermes. The ideer!
And what does the fact that a person is a socialist have to do with book sales? Are you intimating that the socialist senator from Vermont ought to give away his hard-earned royalties to the less deserving to better establish his "socialist" bona fides?
And there are dozens of websites and news organizations--- from Forbes to USAToday---that offer up details of Sanders' wealth and income---how much dough he's accumulated over the course of his life, where he got his dough, what sort of fancy stuff he owns---that sort of thing.
I never said his royalties were extreme. I doubt he made the bulk of 15 million off them though, and I suggested 15m was a bit extreme for as man of Bernie's means. I also said I was sceptical of the source that quoted that figure (15m), most quote the much lower figure of 3m.
Let's say you're right that socialists can't be rich and that Bernie's a hypocrite. What's your point? That Bernie's a hypocrite? That's a pitiably trivial conclusion. Incidentally, have you heard of the tu quoque fallacy? I despise fallacy bombs, but look it up.
It was an observation I made in passing, while trying to be open minded about whether Bernie was in fact getting massive campaign funding, or worse, getting rich, from pharma donations. If the higher end reports of Bernie's net worth are true, that does indeed seem hypocritical. It's not an argument against socialism, but are you saying that highlighting hypocrisy is not a valid exercise (because it's trivial)?
ActBlue is about to be blown up. You can't serve as a money laundering operation by not requiring CVV #'s off credit cards while taking in hundreds of millions of credit card donations, many from offshore bundlers and governments trying to hid their political influence on our elections.
Thanks for this link. The site's information can end a lot of misinformed arguments. For example, it lists Sanders' major funding as coming from "Small Individual Contributions (< $200) $22,732,498."
How he amassed his personal fortune is another matter, and I couldn't care less. He's useless as a politician.
They got busted? Kennedy made the misrepresentation that Bernie took pharma money but provided no substantive evidence to back it up. Which seems to be sorta his thing. If you produce receipts, have at it. But you can’t just claim truth because you think something may be the case.
You need to do your homework. It’s semantics. Kennedy said millions paid to members of congress not specifically Bernie. Bernie claimed he didn’t receive any money from CEOs, but did admit receiving from workers of big pharmaceutical companies.
Majority rank and file workers, no CEOs. I know this. I did my homework. I just didn’t jump to unfounded conclusions.
Is it that shocking workers care about labor rights? Or that health workers in particular care about Medicare for all? No, it’s gotta be corruption, right? No other explanation why people donated to a campaign that didn’t rely on corporate money.
Problem is Bernie’s never accomplished a damn thing no matter where the money comes from. He’s been feeding at the trough for decades with little to nothing to show for it except three mansions. He says a lot, does little. He’s 83 I think, and still can’t get away from the trough.
That's rich. And risible. Bernie Sanders has compiled a long list of legislative accomplishments during his time as mayor, congressman, senator.
He also should be commended at this stage of his career (and this low, mean juncture in American history) for remaining one of the few "respectable" congressman still at work, and I daresay as one of the few members at work in that building who genuinely believes and understands the things he says.
You're in a dream world, liberal utopia where Bernie is the Savior. Didn't you watch Thursday's podcast and Matt seething in his disillusionment in Bernie? Bernie's just a shill for the globalists and not a stalwart friend of the workers. Matt is mad as hell! If there were justice in journalism, he'd get a Pulitzer for this!
You’re good to express your opinions on Bernie, but you’re talking past the issue of this convo. We’re talking about donors motivations not your personal feelings about utopia.
Typically off target criticism when there are far bigger fish to fry.
Thst 'mansions' BS was a Hilary/DNC sophistry-talking point, proud of yourself?
Look into the actual mechanisms there and there is nothing off kilter (or do you have an ethical problem with someone dying and leaving you something, or profiting from a wildly popular book? Think better.) The BIG deal is Bernie caving to the dem establishment: Ask people who always LIKED him where he failed. Not people who were always looking for excuses to shoot holes in him... If you're already using socialist as a pejorative, no one's gonna listen to you about Bernie LOL.
He’s an old white guy who talks a lot but has done nothing. What’s the attraction? Plus if you spout socialism, which has never worked anywhere it’s been tried, and have three houses, regardless of how you got them you’re a hypocrite.
Considering you need at least 2 if you're a long time Senator, and he inherited the third, & made what money he has from his (ex)-fans buying a book he wrote, kinda means you're completely full of...well, I guess I'll just point out that you and Hillary are in total complete agreement, & she considers your parroting her custom-crafted reality-aversive nonsense brainless talking points--that any lucid fourth grader could kick to splinters--money very well spent. You represent a proud hilary accomplishment...which is the worst thing I could say about anyone.😂😂🫣🫣
Last time I checked, Bernie had three houses (dachas, is what I think they called them in the Soviet Union)... That's two more than any self-professed socialist should have, LOL.
Well, if we look at the homes of various leaders of socialist utopias over the years, we see that Bernie is not very good at socialism. I really wish he had not caved to the party establishment.
And last I read, Bernie the purist had collected at least several million from big pharma prior to belittling and waiving onsies at RFK during confirmation hearings
Basically this. It's humorous to pick on the rich Socialist, but the big problem with Bernie is that... he has ZERO balls, and everything he claims to stand for he only does so when he's at advantage, and has no risk of losing his place in the power order.
He's a massive hypocrite on literally every topic or belief he stands for. This is why I stopped voting for and supporting him years ago. He's a completely empty suit, and one of the best script actors in DC.
Democratic socialism. Where capital serves people, not the other way around.
If you’re a senator working in two different states, you’d probably need a residence in each. Bernie does and neither are mansions.
If you then wrote a best-selling book - something people actually were excited about and chose to buy - and used the earnings to buy a whopping $500,000 family lake house, I’d hardly see it as all that outrageous.
Instead, I’d say democratic socialism probably isn’t as scary as the bad-faith attacks make it out to be.
There’s no such thing as Democratic Socialism. By dint of its definition socialism can only be applied by force, you take from one and give to another who didn’t earn it. You have no idea of human nature if you think that will work without force. And it’s equally foolish to imagine, ah, but I’ll do it better than all those other millions who tried it. That’s magical thinking not grounded in reality.
If socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers or the local community, which is how it was defined back when people still could form sentences in English, then there are plenty of working versions of socialism, generally called "cooperatives", or something like that. It's just not that big of a deal. The main problem is most working people like to complain about the boss, but it's much harder to do that when you _are_ the boss. In any case, it's not going to be Utopia. You still have to get up in the morning. As for the use of force, that's what the state is, whether it's capitalist, socialist, fascist, or cloud-cookoo-land. But you're free to make up fables about it -- just avoid reading anything about political structure and other such tedious details.
Well, we’ve seen evidence of successful socialist programs here via public schools, Medicare, Social Security, libraries, etc.
Still not enough? There’s Norway, Sweden, and Finland to consider, who all have a high quality of life and seem to be much happier than both you and I while reading each others comments.
Every one of those countries you list runs on capitalism, by their own admission. By the way, are you aware of the decline of these countries due to their immigration policies and their socialist support of that horror?
And please, if you’re going to hold up public schools or social security, etc., as a socialist success, you need to do a little more research. Most are going broke or an abject failure.
Market with guard rails is what Bernie is pushing for. Very similar model. And I’m sort of betting you know this.
As for our own social benefits, you say let them go. I’d argue to manage and fund them. You’re pretty much getting your way in this current admin, so we’ll see how it shakes out for people….
That breezy, empty phrase about nonexistent, pie-in-the-sky guardrails is just as vacuous as globalism’s trope about rising tide lifting all boats. Time to face the harsh realities of human nature.
I would agree with you but we're finding out these programs have been horribly managed for decades and more money would not necessarily go any where close to where needed.
Wrong. Norway, Sweden, and Finland (and Denmark) are wrongly labeled as socialist by dummies on the left and right. They have market economies more open and free than the US in some ways. And they have very generous social welfare programs funded by very high taxes--on everybody.
I always gotta groan when Scandanavia is mentioned as an example of successful socialism. The Scandanavian countries you mention still have relatively homogenous populations and many citizens that still possess a strong work ethic and they are also still basically capitalistic. And none of these countries his highly popluated. For example, all of Norway with its 1300+ mile coastline has a population of less than 6 million. Noway also has great oil revenue they put in a fund for all citizens. Further, they don't seem to suffer the bureaucratic mark-up and high overhead costs that plague our government "do good social programs" (salaries and number of bureacrats and meetings needed to screw in a light bulb). Also interesting is the fact that Sweden made a determined effort about 10? years ago to reduce the relative size of its bureaucracy because its economy was terrible. The one difficulty they face now are immigrants that don't integrate culturally. Its helpful though that language classes are held and mandatory for new immigrants. Also noteworthy: they don't provide the expensive "translator on demand" that we have obligated ourself to provide for (often free) medical services.
Sweden has also figured out that it's cheaper to pay people to go back to their country of origin vs. trying to keep asking them to assimilate. Sweden is actually in some trouble right now, and the answer... Kindly ask people to self deport..... I am curious how long it will be until they stop asking....
So I guess I have badmouthed Apple not knowing they announced they will invest $500 billion in the US over next 4 years and the phones still are levied a 20% tariff. I think billionaire foundations just make me crabby.
Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Yes... Amazingly non-diverse nations that share a very common culture, and grew to be wonderful. Let's check back on this in say 5 years. Sweden in particular is starting to fall down hard because EVERYTHING that made them able to be the darlings of the "guardrails" crowd is no longer present, and they are collapsing under the weight of a massive leech society that they let into their country that take with no desire to contribute or give back.
Like placing something democratic in the name makes a difference, only fools fall for that . Tell me the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a paridise for the poor people living that nightmare . Wake up.
I mean, there is a difference if you care about being correct. Kind of like using an “i” where there should be an “a”. It might look similar, maybe even get lumped together by some people not interested in the details, but on a fundamental level it’s just not the same.
Keep dreaming, every socialist experiment that's since failed spectacularly started with the same stars you have in your eyes. The problem isn't in the details it's in human nature
Unless you're a natural-law freak, property is a set of social relations defined by (human-made) law and traditions. Or, you can just make stuff up, I suppose.
I’ve never understood the attraction of that man. He’s a grifter, just like most politicians and their parasites like Farrakhan. Sanders has talked but never walked. And he likes it that way.
If Bernie Sanders once had balls (which he may have), he cut them off himself under the scrutiny of millions when he zealously endorsed Hillary Clinton on prime time television. And once removed, never recoverable.
Perhaps the zeal was for the promises of book deals worth lots of bucks as recompense for Clinton and the DNC slandering his character to sabotage his own campaign. At the time he entered the 2016 race, he had a net worth of something like $300K, now he's a multi-millionaire. I guess he didn't come all that cheap, but he didn't come all that dear, either.
Nancy Pelosi, too, used to be concerned in public about the trade imbalance, especially with respect to China.
But now, of course, they are Trump's tariffs, Trump's attempt to redress the trade imbalance, and therefore evil, dangerous, and to be vigorously opposed. Because Orange Man Bad, or something, and anything he does is wrong, even when they wanted it themselves BT.
Ellen, it’s not about Bernie vs Trump or Pelosi vs Musk.
It’s American corporations (enabled by government) who killed the middle class, by shipping good jobs elsewhere and replacing them with shit jobs like Uber and Door Dash.
You gotta get over the distractions they want you focused on, like Democrats vs Republican. Keep your eye on the target—globalization, which has been long loved by leaders of both parties.
The Dems and the Republicans enabled the corporations to kill the American middle class. They couldn't have done it without the willing acquiescence of the two parties. So they do bear responsibility for this outrage.
Wrong. The Trump Republican Party is not the same as the Bush/Globalist Republican Party. Entirely different party with (almost) entirely different principles. The RINOs who helped to create this mess are mostly gone (looking at you, Mitch McConnell).
The Republican Party is still the Republican Party. It is still one of only two in this country that can guarantee ballot access, for one thing. It happens to have a very different politician running it now, different from most Rs or Ds.
And Matt and we are talking about the past few decades, not what Trump is doing now.
Republicans and Democrats are both responsible. If you guys want to argue whether it's 55-45 or 48-52 is inconsequential.
The fake fights you see in the media are always between the 40 yard lines meaning the UniParty is pretty much locked in unison with one another.
Which is why Populism was born.
Someday Populism will wain, but not before The Great Reset is done where the balance of power is recalibrated between the Establishment and We The People.
The UniParty is not liking any of this that's happening to them...dramatically changing the status quo and altering the Bureaucracy.
For it's worth noting the very nature of a Bureaucracy is Self-preservation.
MAGA is a amalgamation of We the People types who are tired of the Elites and Establishment lording over us at every moment of our day and serving themselves vs. the people they were elected/chosen to serve.
Then off to the corner you have the DSA and their Marxist/Anarchist wing who just wants to destroy America and remake it in the eyes of Karl Marx, which 99% of MAGA wants no part of, even lifelong Democrats disillusioned by Democrats today.
Choose carefully Pacificus...you're either with the UniParty, MAGA or the Marxists.
The negative effects of "free" trade had been visibly apparent for over a quarter century by the 1994 NAFTA debates. Our gold supply was in crisis debated in the Senate by 1968, going off the gold standard with the 'Nixon shock' of August 15, 1971. The entire decade of the 1970's was one of industrial decline.
You are 100% correct. And let's throw in the consultants and attorneys and accountants who pushed or facilitated all of this and the educational complex that brainwashed kids into identifying themselves as global citizens.
Look, though Tim Walz organized, orchestrated and led over 32 different missions of students from MN to China where he fascinated them with stories about how great it is when Communism means everyone is equal..it has nothing to do with Minnesota young people marching in the streets for Equity.
It's merely a coincidence...along with that very expensive shotgun Walz has that he seems unfamiliar with. I wonder if it came with instructions in Chinese.
And it's mere coincidence that Walz has pushed hard for the Confucius Institute Scholars being inserted into the University of Minnesota where some of the most advanced medica device technology is developed.
The Uni-party British politicians were certainly globalist. The Conservatives simply pretended to be otherwise, but it was a poor pretense in the end.
However, too many Brits did not catch on. They thought the Conservative Party had to be taught a lesson for its failures......and so they voted in large numbers for the opposition - Labour.
Bingo! That was the Uni-party plan all along -- to get Labour in power (with a majority). The British voters were like sheep being led over a cliff.
In capitalism (as we usually know it) globalization is inevitable. What's happening now is deciding who gets to cut the pie. If you're worried about it, might as well not -- you know what George Carlin said.
I take your point, but socialism is antithetical to living and working hard in a Republic where freedom is king. Bernie took his wrong turn when he backed so-called security for the worker over freedom for the people and fealty to a foreign power/philosophy over his own great country. (I mean who in their right mind believes any socialist regime ever is better in any way than the United States of America including in the way of late-capitalism.) And now he's dissolved into being a contradictory shill who has repudiated his own views, saying the opposite of what he once said. When the avowed socialist drinks the kool-aid of the evil, money-grubbing Hilary and crew from the DLC, you know his values are long gone and it's time to leave the party. Lights out.
We dodged a bullet with Bernie, and I say this as someone who supported him the first time 'round. He has proved himself either blackmail bait or spineless at this point. But I would have loved a NYC beatdown between Trump and Bernie. That is epicness that was stolen by sourpuss Hillary...
Bernie has always been a fake. Bernie plays Bernie on TV…the central casting token socialist created for public consumption; and has been rewarded handsomely, hence the multiple handsome properties.
And he’s family involvement in schools and charities. But Again they all do it. Write a few books and then blame the large increase in net worth as that. Something really worth watching, better than any day time soap opera. Audit every dam one of them. Start with McConnell, Pelosi and Schumer.
I was initially praying for a Sanders-Paul matchup back in 2015, as I thought that would for once give us a choice between two decent and honest men.
Now I am hoping Paul runs in 2028, and have nothing but contempt left for Sanders.
But, as a born NYC girl (small town Maine, now, quite contentedly), I would have to agree that showdown would have been worthy of many buckets of popcorn.
My second husband was from NYC. I met him on the west coast working in a NY style deli that employed mostly people from NYC and New Jersey. They taught me to love the 'no shits given'/'heart of gold' personality of that region.
Ralph Nader stood firm against the Democrats. He was marginalized and rendered ineffective by said party. I’m sure the lesson was not lost on Bernie when the Democrats threatened to do the same to him. He really didn’t have any good choices. He chose to keep his voice and some power over the political process rather than become a martyr. Try a little understanding before criticizing him from afar.
Ralph Nader I respect. Bernie Sanders, I did once, but, seriously, I understand quite well what (sucking Hillary Clinton's ass out for the nation to see, and becoming a pet lapdog, including lately shilling for the Chinese to keep us robbed, thereafter) and why (to save his career, get millions in payback, and retain some tiny bit of influence - not any real power). I do not think any of it, or him any longer, worthy of one iota of my respect.
Now, Rand Paul deserves plenty. But he's still willing to buck his party for what he thinks is right.
I don't think selling the country out to what you believe is wrong is anything but contemptible.
It's amazing to watch these podcasts and see in real-time Matt's struggle with his long held beliefs while being a distanced journalist. He has been a man weighing the options of his heart. I think he had an epiphany in Thursday's podcast (with his compatriot Walt and maybe mentor, gently being his wingman to safe and solid ground) and today's article, and he's mad as hell! His Pulitzer should be in the mail for dismantling globalism's destruction of America! Walt was much less a Republican and more an anti-globalist in that podcast. I noticed his restraint and his affection for the American worker, both an effect of and an encouragement of Matt's struggle. Remarkable podcast! I cannot overstate how instructive it was to me.
Everyone needs to experience the epiphany Matt has had about how "The System is Rigged and we're all getting F'ed."
Thankfully he's in the US where his free speech rights have not yet been rescinded, but then again...the FBI did pay him a visit to see what he's been up to on social media pages just a couple years ago under Biden.
Biden is back...and Andy McCabe and others are waiting in the wings to seize power...and when they do....poor Matt Taibbi is going to end up in Gitmo for crimes against the State.
We can't let that happen to Matt.
I for one will stand to defend his right to offend anyone...including me.
And that...my friends...is what makes America Great.
Speaking of "balls", if Matt had anything left down there dangling in the nutsack he would focus the anger he seems to direct toward China "stealing" little diddums' Merkin jobs toward the American capitalism that pisses all over American workers daily.
But when you are all lubed up to take MAGA dick so far up ya your voice cracks? Can't say the thing that is real.
I have been saying all along. Americans voted for big pay. Safety. And benefits. Then took their dollars to countries that use slave,slave like labor and no benefits and no safety.
I didn't know all the international stuff. But I saw clearly for years we got poorer the more money we made.
Govt is too expensive. Along with globalist ideology we need to strip govt much more than has happened yet. I was really hoping for a Twitter lean workforce.
Bringing mfg, farming,bavk home is critical. I'm in Healthcare and it was obvious during covid that we have lost our medical mfg. Wearing disposable ppe for a week when it's safe onky for thar 1 use....loud and clear. '22-'23 years when chemo, antibiotics and IV saline shortages called it out again
Depending on enemies for food, medical, and energy waa obviously self destructive and some of us have known for a decade or more.
But congress is full of compromised people. Both sides. Trump is only one i trust in this. He loves America. And Americans. For me. That's been enough. Someone on our side. Fighting for us. Yes he can run off at the mouth. But really. Sweet grandfather Biden is better?
And that is exactly it. I have commented before. Wall Street needs ever increasing numbers to run up the stock price and the value of their options to cash in. I saw it firsthand in the early to mid 2000s. And to build on your point, all the people that write about Wall Street or make money off it, and their politician friends are not the ones who lost their jobs. They are the ones getting rich off the changes they foisted upon everyone. The second kick in the teeth is the importation of cheap or cheaper (think H1bs) labor to compete with those who still had jobs or trades. I worked residential construction in the late 80s and early 90s with my stepdad even while in college and law school because it paid comparatively well. Everyone spoke English well, even Hispanics. Everyone was from here. By the late 90s, that was changing rapidly. Now we are told Americans won't do those jobs. I think they would if the pay and benefits kept up with American standards.
The awards for globalist corporations are many, including cheap labor and a free pass to avoid the cost and harrassment of safety and environmental regulations--you know, those laws that apply to "the common people". They can just look the other way on horrific human rights violations. Global corporations based in the US get all kinds of special privileges and treats such as subsidies, tax breaks, and special allowances to bring in trained foreign cheaper workforce, while basking in the comfort of property protections and due process guaranteed to US citizens. And with all their profits, heads of these globalist empires get to set up charitable foundations that allow them to further dodge US income and taxes, freeing them to amass billions which they then use to influence control and determine political outcomes. For example, Apple just put up enough pressure to get tariffs waived for the smart phones they contract to manufacture in China. Why? Because Apple's profit margin of 37% and stock holder shouldn't be affected because they are so special. So shout out for the globalists who showed up for the Trump inauguration but heavily fund the Democrats. MAGA is a pesky threat that they will work around. Why should anything change? Its all just hunky dorry for these folks whom our trade polices allowed to become masters (monsters?) of the universe who get to develop and then fly their private jets to their own private-bomb sheltered islands. All as these supra-national royals deserve, right?
Matt loved the perspective of this article and yours and Walter's ATW. It occurred to me on a long drive this AM is an active war of the globalist elites on the deplorable (or whatever they're calling Americans these days). This is a reverse revolution to me exemplified by the teachers unions who want to lock kids into failing schools. This seems so different than other historical revolutions. I would love to hear you and Walter's perspective on this notion.
Methinks you flatter yourself. Hard for you to see that the two are the flip side of each other but one and the same. Socialist being the cleaned up one welcomed to all the best parties while the Communist arrives with the blackjack smelling of sweat and unclean clothes who drags the ritzy party-goers off to the gulag. You're deluding yourself, but I can see why.
Initially, because I had no idea who he was until his campaign in 2015 caught fire, I thought he was hilarious.
I loved the way he punctured the conventions around political campaigning in the US. I liked his nicknames for the other ghouls in the race.
And I liked him because he apparently provoked fear and disgust in the rank assholes of US elite media and academia.
After he won I liked him because, as I wrote in a blog post at the time, he was like a mirror of American reality that almost no American wanted to look into: a crude, fundamentally ignorant, aggressive narcissist with no capacity to recognize the real existence of other people. In short, the perfect representative of America.
And now I like him because he is going to burn it all down and America is not going to be running the world any longer. Americans are going to be poorer and it is going to be increasingly difficult for their narcissism and stupidity to continue to maintain the false image they have of themselves.
I like him because the way his supporters defend him reveals the depth of ignorance and delusion that is the outstanding characteristic of Americans across the spectrum.
And I like him for legislating biological reality in spite of the fact that Americans ultimately can't handle even that portion of reality and so will revert to whatever ideological tap-dance the capitalist medical industry orchestrates in order to be empowered to carve up human bodies for profit in the future.
"I had no idea who he was until his campaign in 2015 caught fire, I thought he was hilarious."
So, the most salient thing that jumped out early on was that he's a master showman? Nothing POV/policy-related stuck out?
"I liked him because ... he was like a mirror of American reality that almost no American wanted to look into"
So, you then liked him because some 70-80 million people -- that is, about half the voters of the U.S. -- could, in an case of mass projection of "crude, fundamentally ignorant, aggressive narcissis[m] with no capacity to recognize the real existence of other people", shift their own manifest ugliness onto him without admitting it themselves?
"And now I like him because he is going to burn it all down and America is not going to be running the world any longer"
So, you'd rather the U.S. suffer immensely than that it learn fix its problems first?
"I like him because the way his supporters defend him reveals the depth of ignorance and delusion that is the outstanding characteristic of Americans across the spectrum."
How many "across the spectrum" do you know quite well personally? Serious question. Say, 5 or more unrelated people in each decile of wealth? Population-representative numbers of each (major) racial/ethnic group? geographic, age, LGBT, education, intelligence, etc. etc. Do you listen carefully to all, even those you disagree with? Do you find it hard to respect any who haven't (roughly) followed your path?
FWIW, I don't think you understand very well the vast majority of people who voted for him. (I didn't vote for him; I'm a Leftist.)
What *is* your preferred future? For the U.S. (if you're American)? For the world?
Ah… an American “leftist”. Who didn’t vote for Trump. How salient.
Is that the kind of “leftist” who does the whole pink hair and “trans women are women” thing and “whiteness is the root of all evil” thing and “America would be better if every gender, skin color and fetish were represented proportionately at every level of your liberal capitalist hierarchies” thing?
Or is it the kind of “leftist” who goes “Bernie woulda won” while voting for Kamala or Joe because “the lesser evil” is real and spends the next 4 years denying any responsibility for what the Dem fuckwit in office perpetrates because you’re a “leftist”?
In terms of “policy-related” things about Trump I have and had no fucks to give because ultimately POTUSes usually have little to no impact on foreign policy and what they do domestically is irrelevant because sucking up to capital and flicking crumbs of various sizes to the peons doesn’t concern me. Not American.
If there was actually a “left” in America there would be organized resistance through unions and less institutionalized organizations. And I don’t mean resistance to Trump. I mean resistance to capitalist domination of every aspect of life in the US, to the arms industry and the military machine that spreads death around the world to make money and support capitalist domination in as much of the globe as possible.
But the left in America either does gender woo or BLM or says “Bernie woulda won” and votes Dem because less evil. The left in America says things like “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” and “socialism doesn’t mean everyone being poor” in order to justify doing absolutely NOTHING about “leftism in America.
Being “on the left” in America is a way of speaking and nothing else.
The way things are going in Trump II, it looks like he may in fact turn out to be the kind of POTUS that FDR or Reagan was and bring a whole new paradigm into being. We’ll have to see. There are forces within the capitalist class who don’t want what he wants and conservatives who don’t want what he wants so his “first 100 days” may fizzle out over the next few months.
One way or the other, “the American left” will have no impact on how it goes.
What that means to me is that this is a moment of possibility in American history and it is just too fucking sad that the only people around to jump on it and do something about it are Trump & Co and the vast legions of morons that lurv him.
Whether there is a big war because Merkins gotta show the chinks what’s what or if we get past this without that likelihood, the world will be better off without America, Land of the Twee and Home of the Insipid Kneelers pushing everyone around cuz $$$.
This is long and at points sloppy, but I thought your points all worth commenting on...
"Is that the kind of 'leftist' who does the whole pink hair and 'trans women are women' thing and 'whiteness is the root of all evil' thing and 'America would be better if every gender, skin color and fetish were represented proportionately at every level of your liberal capitalist hierarchies' thing?"
No. IMO, none of those have anything to do with Leftism; the first is art fashion (a contradiction in terms), the others I consider useful idiocies under totalitarian propaganda. I'm an original Leftist, pre-Marx, way back when prioritizing it (as with Rightism) was still an (ideally-transient) choice on a policy dimension (as reflected in the multi-part 235-year-old French motto - liberté, égalité, fraternité), not a unitary religion (as is embodied in Marxism or Catholicism). Only because of the culture in America do I consider myself "semi-permanently" Leftist.
Purposely oversimplifying for a moment: Rightism = the prioritization of (individual/family) freedom, Leftism = the prioritizing of (society-wide) fairness, usually in reaction to excess Rightism. Both freedom and fairness are necessary in all healthy societies, and it is why Right and Left parties survive in some form or another perennially.
"Or is it the kind of 'leftist' who goes 'Bernie woulda won' while voting for Kamala or Joe because 'the lesser evil' is real and spends the next 4 years denying any responsibility for what the Dem fuckwit in office perpetrates because you’re a 'leftist'?"
Bernie has (since at least 2016) revealed himself as shameless shepherd for the Democratic Party, made completely pathetic this year as he is put on stage to assist the Democrats' thrashing and burning in the Trump 47 era. If you haven't yet heard/read it, I invite you to read Taibbi/Kirn's latest Friday dialogue in which he's well-skewered.
"In terms of 'policy-related' things about Trump I have and had no fucks to give because ultimately POTUSes usually have little to no impact on foreign policy and what they do domestically is irrelevant because sucking up to capital and flicking crumbs of various sizes to the peons doesn't concern me. Not American."
Unfortunately, might always makes right. Always de facto, but never de jure (that is, if you're a small-d democrat). Might, by sword or pen, writes history and does all the rest. For example: Do we remember the now-normalized establishment of enclosure laws? No. It's now the air we breathe.
"If there was actually a 'left' in America there would be organized resistance through unions and less institutionalized organizations. And I don't mean resistance to Trump. I mean resistance to capitalist domination of every aspect of life in the US, to the arms industry and the military machine that spreads death around the world to make money and support capitalist domination in as much of the globe as possible."
In certain ways, I disagree. Sure, unions should organize and act, but not as permanently active features, except for their institutional knowledge, so, dormant at times. Leftism (as well as Rightism) should be a transient political choice depending on the circumstances of polity in time and place. Marx is the globalist wrong fork-in-the-road that turned it all into a series of unnecessary, *permanent*, intra-national *wars*. He thoroughly changed the way we think about societies. He and his followers *ostensibly* fought and still fight for the naturally-democratic Left, but actually toward stealth totalitarianism, where vanguards doing the power-hogging via law, culture (psychology), and guns, instead of capitalists via law, capital, and guns. I see you are anti-capitalist (a system which I see in proper limited application as neutral, just like applied socialism in proper limited application), but Marxism in its many forms over the years is full-on societal toxicity. Yeah, it's been such a long time now, few Leftists think otherwise.
"But the left in America either does gender woo or BLM or says 'Bernie woulda won' and votes Dem because less evil. The left in America says things like 'there is no ethical consumption under capitalism' and 'socialism doesn’t mean everyone being poor' in order to justify doing absolutely NOTHING about 'leftism' in America. / Being on the left' in America is a way of speaking and nothing else."
Well, yes, Leftism (like Rightism) has long gone FUBAR, no matter where it is. I'd like to help fix that (I suggest as noted above).
"The way things are going in Trump II, it looks like he may in fact turn out to be the kind of POTUS that FDR or Reagan was and bring a whole new paradigm into being. We'll have to see. There are forces within the capitalist class who don’t want what he wants and conservatives who don’t want what he wants so his 'first 100 days' may fizzle out over the next few months."
He's a piece of work, no doubt about it. He, along with Putin, are in very different ways the most important political figures of the early 21st century. He has changed history in the last few months, even if he fails at this point. He's opened Pandora's box and there just ain't no turning back, wherever it goes.
"One way or the other, 'the American left' will have no impact on how it goes."
Just as it hasn't had an impact going back to the 2011 steamrollering of Occupy, and back to the 2003 failure of the Iraq War protests, and back to the 1999 Seattle anti-globalism protests. Its character been completely co-opted by the corporatists since its implosion in the 1970s, and Bernie's cuckery is the latest laugh in the faces of its constituents. It's going back into the desert as it did in the 1980s.
"What that means to me is that this is a moment of possibility in American history ..."
Yes.
"... and it is just too fucking sad that the only people around to jump on it and do something about it are Trump & Co and the vast legions of morons that lurv him."
I disagree. Trump-47 is simply the realization of a mid-2010s inchoate rebellion against creeping totalitarianism, which may well have peaked with the COVID "public health" episode. It's time to remake a completely new world, one that abandons the power concentration of all the forms of Marxism *and* that thing called "capitalism". I suggest our real problem is neither socialism or capitalism, but instead the perennial infestation of intelligent psychopathy/sociopathy in forming and occupying *both* of those approaches. We barely know how to recognize it, never mind contain it, yet it is what always turns the iron law of oligarchy toxic.
"Whether there is a big war because Merkins gotta show the chinks what’s what or if we get past this without that likelihood, the world will be better off without America, Land of the Twee and Home of the Insipid Kneelers pushing everyone around cuz $$$."
Certainly, in its current form, America has to change drastically. But I'd be damned careful when amending the Constitution. I'll leave it at that.
I have to say though that as a lifelong socialist who has viewed the American "left" with suspicion ever since the anarchiddy shitshow of the "Battle in Seattle" I hardly need the maunderings of a conspiracy boffin like Kirn or a former fellow-traveler like Matt to know what Bernie is and has been all along.
I will confess to allowing myself a modicum of "hope" during his first campaign, more fool me, but once he declared for and stumped for that fascist ghoul Killary I got my feet back on the ground.
You don't sound very "leftist" to me. I would guess just one of the 31K flavors of liberal that the US ideological mechanisms throw out on a regular basis.
Marx qua Marx is not about "concentration of power" and those Marxists who have in fact come to power have done so in a world dominated by the overwhelming power and amoral willingness to use it to slaughter and maim of capitalism.
So, where most American "leftists" would see the Vietnamese diaspora aka "the boat people" as escaped victims of "totalitarian Communist state", I see quisling bastards who collaborated with whatever colonial power wanted to fuck their daughters for a chance to make money.
The interesting thing about the tradition of "anti-communism" on the American left is its commitment to ignoring all the good things that communist/socialist states have done and emphasizing only what really really upsets liberals.
Education and healthcare for the masses is common to communist countries until they bite the neoliberal bullet and go for wealth creation under the "international rules-based order".
In the contemporary US, education and healthcare are shit. And whichever way the Trump Doctrine works out in terms of geoeconomics they are only going to get worse under the domination of the right, whichever variety ultimately settles in control.
You can't run a feudal society with a mass of educated healthy peasants. You need the kind of people who vote for Trump and think Obama was a socialist or believe men can be women and "whiteness" is something to overcome in your heart.
That is, you need Americans. And there is a whole shitload of them who never could trust and respect each other enough to stand up together to demand certain fundamental decencies from their massas in corporate boardrooms, at trading desks or even in the Oval Office.
As a longtime cyberpunk fanboi I suspect the America all you "leftists" are allowing to be foisted on you and your confreres on the right is something along the lines of Gibson's "Sprawl".
And eventually there will be a highspeed train (surreptitiously sourced from China) running the Acela Corridor and it will be called "The Spectrum", cuz if you ain't on it, youse is fucked.
I’m not a socialist, and not particularly an anti-capitalist. I am however against companies that evade labor laws by regulator-shopping. It wouldn’t make sense to attack “capitalism” in this piece because that’s not really the issue with US-China imbalances - the issue is opening “free trade” agreements with nonmarket countries that artificially suppress their currency, abuse workers, pollute, etc. Is that capitalism, communism, neither, both, a bastardization of all those systems? Without question I’m placing blame at the feet of American business leaders who beginning in the eighties cooperated with China (and Indonesia and other countries) to evade regulatory headaches and up their share prices at the expense of American workers. You’d have to be nuts to read this as jingoistic.
Along this line, I would love to listen/read your impression of the most recent All In podcast where the guests were Larry Summers and Ezra Klein. Your take would be interesting, to say the least.
Matt, I agree with your comment. I just don’t agree with the bombastic tone of your article. And I don’t think your criticism of Bernie is fair comment. Concerning those who agree with you , you might want to comment on how critical commentary doesn’t include cursing and swearing and general potty mouthing it. It does not speak well of your audience when they do this, and I hope you will discourage it. I’m sure the oligarchs like to see us fighting like cats and dogs and using all sorts of profanity against each other. They can continue to oppress us while we fight against each other.
yes. Especially to the detriment of mature business. However, they were fairly applied across the US. Going overseas allowed businesses to evade them completely. The original case of labor savings on low skill labor intensive industries had some weight but when management saw the regulation burden fall they went all in.
I agree with a lot of what this article says but there were people on the other side of this argument making valid points. As I said above, mature industries were getting their ass kicked by foreign competition for a variety of reason, labor costs, outdated equipment, regulations, bad management. Trade liberalization addressed a lot of those issues for the benefit of many but opened up a different cans of worms.
Capitalism in its contemporary form emphasizes "shareholder value".
Corporations have a "fiduciary obligation" to maximize profit. ie increase shareholder value.
The factories you say "China stole" were sent outside of the USA to cheap labor destinations to do what capitalism does, ie increase shareholder value by maximizing profit.
Most of the valuable things you've written over the years are forensic examinations of the workings of capitalism and the money-obsessed culture that it gives birth to inevitably.
But you're a jingoistic American so you can't bring yourself to actually see what it is you are looking at.
Because America is about "freedom" and that includes the "freedom" to fuck over your communities and your nation if it "maximizes shareholder value".
Corporate execs and business leaders are going to do capitalism as much as they and their shareholders can benefit from it. I would put greater blame on the people representing the American people for allowing the business sector to proceed on the backs of the American worker. But then this brings us right back to laws and regulations that are written to be broken. How do you fix corrupt politicians? You get a Pole to screw in a lightbulb.
One basic thing is to make sure that "free trade" no matter the trading partner is "fair trade" I think a lot of Matt's frustration is that this was obvious to anyone paying attention to how communist regimes work, CCP being the worst, and screwed American workers -- and the capitalists that make things -- anyway. There is no room for competition with the CCP. They lie, cheat, steal and game every system. How much IP has to be stolen, domestic companies crushed before Washington notices that this is not fair trade. It's an abuse that benefits the very few at the expense of all of us. And it's like we're just now catching on?
Don't you suppose it,s because our representatives are themselves so heavily invested in the corporations they regulate? Congress does well when business does well.
"The whole piece attacks the American capitalism that pursued globalization. Did you read the same words we did?"
As a bit of a stickler for grammar, I have to point out that your use of the restrictive relative in the phrase "the American capitalism that..." (deliberately?) suggests that there is more than one American capitalism.
There really isn't. And anyone criticizing "globalism" (the right's term of art for avoiding critique of capitalism) by naming "China" 15 times and "capitalism" none is a cuck.
I used to defend Matt (as recently as within the past 24 hours) when liberals cosplaying leftist attacked him with "he used to be _____ but now". But the fact is he's refused to recognize a genocide taking place and his jingoism, which is stupid but understandable, has mutated into outright MAGA buffoonery.
"Translation: a serial trade and human rights violator that with the help of decades of corrupt politicians from both parties polluted, price-dumped, and stole its way to a generation of American jobs and revenue, now owns so much of our debt that we must put up with its shit indefinitely. That’s the point of view of our own federal news agency. We have officially cucked ourselves past the point of no return."
"China" occurs 15 times in the article. No mention of capital or capitalism.
When Matt writes things like "It was an asset-stripping scheme, designed to help CEOs boost their share prices by cutting costs of American parts, labor, and regulatory compliance from their bottom lines", and your complaint is that he didn't explicitly use the words "capital" or "capitalism", you're not giving serious responses here.
When Matt writes things like that he is harping on about the trees and the result is the forest disappears.
Capitalism demands that CEOs "boost share price". It's not as if CEOs could have chosen to support America and American workers once the legal, military and infrastructural frameworks were in place to make it more profitable to make t-shirts in Bangladesh.
As Matt says above, he has no problem with capitalism. I suppose he actually believes that if a better class of person started taking over as CEOs these bad things just wouldn't happen.
The 30 year period that followed WWII, during which capital was hamstrung by the regulatory frameworks established in the wake of the Great Depression and as part of the war effort, was the result of FDR's program to save capitalism from itself.
When Bernie rants on about "billionaires" or Matt pillories "CEOs" we are just witnessing the left-liberal version of the right blaming "immigrants", "the Chinese" or "socialist feminazi trannies".
Talk about anything but the structures and institutions that necessitate that things run the way they do- capitalism and its insistence on increasing profit aka "shareholder value" as the be-all and end-all of everything.
Help!! The sh't has hit the fan Sir. Clowns to the the left of me. Jokers to the right. And I'm stuck in the middle with the rest of We the People. Money always helps but when lawyers and guns are the fall back the only alternative is a golden parachute and the parachute packers union has become totally unreliable. It ain't happening to me so it isn't happening is poor political policy and it doesn't matter who shot the sheriff when the darkness is lying through its teeth and the shadows are running on empty (running wild). But "C'est la vie" say the old folks, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse and a numbered account guarantees the harbor lights of St. Barts will always shine for thee. If I could only get some sleeves for my records and some laces for my shoes. But don't worry. Be happy.
(RACKET/Taibbi and the gypsy scribbler Kirn rule. Likewise--my opinion-Matt Stoller and N.S. Lyons. I can't read everybody.)
The recent quickly becoming controversial D.Murray/D.Smith Rogan podcast is interesting because Murray almost put his finger on the actual reality of the disease undermining our national conversation. Electronic media is pathogenic. It distorts reality and, despite their best intentions, the viewpoints of those dependent on it for their livelihood. If J.Haidt is correct about the addictive nature and harmful effects of electronic media on American youth it is also crazy making for adults. Manipulation of the American psyche is an industry. RACKET/truth speakers absolutely. But continuing to embrace an electronic sewer as the lens through which We the People view the world is not the solution. (And I know you're not saying it is.) Truth matters and subscription journalism is a two way street. The only path forward is creation of a truth/fact based national conversation that will create a solutions oriented truth/fact based American reality. Can we get there from here? There is the Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen. Everything else is psyop. Depart the psyop and live.
One Mike to another, what should have been the new Library at Alexandria became a weapon of surveillance, psyop lies and life cancellation. The potential is still there. Why manipulation and "algorithms" at all? Nothing is inevitable. For myself I've come to believe that I need to make a conscious reconsideration and realignment of my relationship to electronic media. Subscription journalism is in its infancy and the potential for the creation of the healthy solutions oriented truth/fact based national conversation that will heal what I see has a shattered and manipulated American national reality is growing daily. "It's getting better all the time..."
"Subscription journalism", like most manifestations of capitalist reason, will inevitably create "castes" to run in conjunction with "silos".
The more free cash you have, the more New Right posters on Substack you can shore up your prejudices with. Those unfortunate enough not to be able to afford to read widely will be left at the mercy of whatever agit-prop is freely available.
"Why manipulation and "algorithms" at all?"
Because when the investment bankers and VC vultures demand to know where the profits will come from, the answer is in the algorithms and the surveillance. On top of that fundamental, there is the state with its interest.
So... "inevitable"? Not in any hard determinist sense but in the world of capitalist relations? Relatively inevitable.
And just BTW... NS Lyons' "history" is about as "truth/fact based" as the 1619 Project.
Yep!! The world is a scary place, but never take the dying cockroach position when dealing with thugs, bandits and usurpers because, as We the People witness daily, it isn't the actual theft of material resources, it is as you've described, the violation of human moral reason, the shredding of human dignity and the creation of a machine to impose power and maintain the LIE that sustains it. People die.
We the People/the world, has entered a new age. The possibilities for a bright prosperous human future are endless. Yet, as our forefathers recognized when they launched the American Republic, human fallibility and avarice are as old as time. Hence the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, which I see, as the only engine of change and survival, and the only legitimate frame of political reference in the world. I'm no fan of bubble land, psyop, agitprop or silo. As caste goes, "I'd never be a member of a club that would have me as a member." And, patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels but I'm clinging to this Republic with both hands.
Again, subscription journalism is in its infancy. And I agree, it is bound to fall prey to human imperfection and foible. But truthful reality is THE TRANSCENDENT that dispels THE LIE. Applied to journalism, having an opinion about having your ass on fire is not the same thing as having your ass on fire. I'm trying to participate by supporting truth speakers.(Consider Starmer's England.)
N.S. Lyons? I never thought of him as an historian. His writing, seems to me, tries to focus on disease rather than symptom. (If you haven't, you might enjoy Cormac McCathy's double volume THE PASSENGER/STELLA MARIS.) Stay strong. Stay clear. As Lightnin' aways said: "You can use friend where a dollar won't spend. Amen."
"Translation: a serial trade and human rights violator that with the help of decades of corrupt politicians from both parties polluted, price-dumped, and stole its way to a generation of American jobs and revenue, now owns so much of our debt that we must put up with its shit indefinitely. That’s the point of view of our own federal news agency. We have officially cucked ourselves past the point of no return."
"China" occurs 15 times in the article. No mention of capital or capitalism.
As a bit of a stickler for grammar, I have to point out that your use of the restrictive relative in the phrase "the American capitalism that..." (deliberately?) suggests that there is more than one American capitalism.
There really isn't. And anyone criticizing "globalism" (the right's term of art for avoiding critique of capitalism) by naming "China" 15 times and "capitalism" none is a cuck.
I used to defend Matt (as recently as within the past 24 hours) when liberals cosplaying leftist attacked him with "he used to be _____ but now". But the fact is he's refused to recognize a genocide taking place and his jingoism, which is stupid but understandable, has mutated into outright MAGA buffoonery.
WAH! Matt hasn't covered your pet peeve topics, poor you.
Is every journalist expected to cover everything? Do you bitch about Hannity and Rachel Maddow not spending enough time commenting on how seamlessly Luka has fit in with the Lakers?
I don't know anything about Hannity and Rachel. That's the kind of "substance" American media consumers need to wrestle with.
The topic here is "globalism" aka "free trade" and how Matt sees it as a "bad thing" for America that "needs to go".
In my reading of Matt's celebration of Trump's tariffs, Matt concentrates, as does the Orange Man, on China, which he says "stole its way to a generation of American jobs and revenue" as one among 15 total mentions of China.
So Matt covers the topic we are talking about but he covers it with all the insight of a retarded MAGAss.
The responsible parties for all those American jobs and revenue is American capitalism writ large. China didn't steal them. Apple and Foxconn did. (Rhetorical)
No one forced your fat opioid-slurpers to buy Chinese-manufactured flat screen TVs. Some fatty could have gone to Japan and learned how to make them in bumfuck Ohio, set up a factory and a range of services for opioid addicts, and made them in the US.
And no doubt 7 or 8 patriotic fatasses would have paid the 500% premium to buy the low quality crap and a few thousand "victims" would have thanked them for their service.
But it didn't happen. Cuz you folks do one thing well. Whine and blame furriners.
But there are other things "we folks" do well. Ever heard of the Super Bowl, the World Series, SpaceX, white-tailed deer, Silicon Valley, Dow Jones, Lewis and Clark, Bob Dylan, the Lockheed-Martin F-35, firing squads in Idaho, the "moon walk" (Michael Jackson's and Neil Armstrong's), WWII, Ted Turner's Montana Grill and his Superstation, Orville and Wilbur Wright, or the Grateful Dead? (EDIT, to add:) The Masters!
I agree we are pretty worthless these days, but "American capitalism" isn't and hasn't been all bad. Even an avowed socialist can find something to love here, like Hollywood and the Democratic party for two examples.
Who is going to loan the money to build a factory when you can't demonstrate the ability to be profitable? Setting up a factory to produce electronics goods costs a bit more than the spare change in the back of your couch. How exactly is this magical strawman of yours actually supposed to work?
You seem to have an unhealthy hunger for fat, fatty fatasses, especially those hailing from Bumfuck, Ohio. BBW must be your go-to on adult sites. (Bumfuck is actually a well-known place in Iowa, not Ohio, but you can have a pass on this. Bumblefuck, Iowa is not too far from Bumfuck.))
You're missing the point. Journalists have a beat. Sam Donaldson used to have the White House. Bill Simmons has the NBA. Matt's beat has been, in the past, presidential politics, financial crimes, and now he has been focusing on free speech for a while. I don't disagree with you that Israel is doing terrible things in Gaza, and I suspect Matt doesn't disagree either. But it's not his responsibility to cover and comment on every story out there. Even if you call him names when he doesn't.
There also appears to be an unhealthy bone up your ass about the United States. Did we do something mean to you? Or your country? What is your country? Is your wife really fat? Are you, and are you projecting? You're projecting on a lot of stuff, but specifically here I'm talking about whether you're fat and therefore say mean things about fat people.
The US is full of fat people. That is people who sit around slurping sugary drinks and gorging on fatty "food" in front of Chinese flat-screen TVs being zomboid.
Liberals blame "racists" and "fatphobes" for making the fat feel bad. Conservatives blame liberals for pretending the fat are somehow their fault.
American "radicals" blame McDonalds.
Every now and again a goodly number of Americans hit the streets, usually to protest a misdiagnosis of the American disease: anti-racist, pro-queer, protect Muslims, Jews will not replace us. Good people on all sides.
It has been a very long time since any significant movement in the US has addressed capitalism directly or even indirectly through its favorite expression the arms industry.
A big part of the reason for this supine acquiescence to whatever the bosses and their Ivy League administrative minions fuck them with is fat. Fat lazy whining slugs whose most radical approach to protest is opioid overdose.
The most slim and healthy of Americans are usually cunts of a different order altogether: genocide is good when Israelis do it; globalization aka capitalism is always good except when them furriners get uppity and do shit; war and death in foreign land is good because they ain't Americans so fuck them.
I don't have a bone in my ass about America. I'm a socialist and therefore tend to look closely at the operations of American-dominated capitalism around the world with more of a critical eye than your usual American. One of the things I see is that when push comes to shove most Americans defend their system and the iniquities of their betters.
Unlike people like Matt, I don't see how waving the theoretical outline of "America" (the Constitution) at the reality of American capitalism and its imperialist manifestation changes anything at all.
And do knock off the jejeune dime store analysis. Just stick to "haters gonna hate" like you were 15 and it was 2012.
So... mostly, Americans are fat slobs who are lazy whining slugs who love opioids and are zomboid, but the slim and healthy Americans are just cunts? You must be lots of fun at a party. Is there a goldilocks zone in your view (between the fat slobs and the slim and healthy cunts) or do you just despise everyone?
Had to look up jingoism. That was NOT in Matt's article! Is that your MO, take your latest pet insult and then construct a false argument around it?
"The right's term of art for avoiding critique of capitalism"? Capitalism needs no critique. It can stand on its own based on 250+ years of success. It's the corrupt participants that deserve severe critique (as Matt was giving), be they CEOs, bought-and-paid-for politicians, greedy union bosses who abuse and sell out their members or the mad billionaire puppeteers like Rockefeller and Soros, all are evil, selfish destroyers. The ones to blame are the individual perpetrators within the system not the system, but then that's what socialists do, right? Create bitterness and revolt by maligning the system, so they'll sign up for slavery? And your ugly meanness is showing. Matt did not deserve your hateful critique.
This is all cover for impending absolute capitulation on tariff fallacy. Trump fucked around and your 401k found out. But we’re going to blame Bernie? The fuck outta here. But at the church of stupid pastor Taibi is god.
You may well be right. However, what we've been doing for the past 35-40 years continues to make things worse. When billionaires and rich people whine about market losses, it might be a sign that something good is happening. I lost a shit-ton of money in the past few weeks, but I have to be ok with it if I want to stick to my beliefs about what is good and what is not for working Americans.
Would someone else try to radically fix things if it weren't for Trump? I don't know. Some would argue that Bernie would have had he not been sabotaged by his own party and then did nothing about being shivved. Twice. There's no one out there that would have either the beliefs or the balls to do this.
My concern is what happens when Trump leaves office. Will his successor continue with the attempt at reshaping the economy with working people in mind vs. the ownership class? Something that took decades to fuck up won't be cleaned up in just a few years.
Sure, I'm concerned about what could go wrong. But when the alternative is guaranteed wrong, I'm willing to roll the dice.
You can tell I don’t have much to do this Sunday afternoon. I got a knee replacement and I spend my time sitting around or exercising so I’m waiting you back.
You’re a braver man than I am ( or more foolish). I’d be more swayed if he at least had been consistent, rather than undoing everything he did within three days much to the benefit of his oligarch friends. Then there’s his background which other than the rhetoric doesn’t show a heck of a lot of concern for the common man. I guess we’re gonna find out what’s gonna happen and who owns the dubius right of “I told you so.” I’m arguing the probabilities based on the available evidence right now are with me.
Sorry about your knee, and good luck with the recovery. Be as religious as you can with the P/T exercises.
I don't know about brave, but it may turn out I'm more foolish. Here's the thing--the current (pre-Trump tariffs) economic model worked great for me. Executive with two large publicly traded companies, getting rich from share price growth fueled at least partly by better margins earned by replacing expensive workers and ditching regulated America to find cheap labor that can be abused elsewhere. All companies did the same, as it was not illegal, and the crowds cheered globalization.
But I've always known that it's rigged against working people. And no one--no Democrat or Republican President has done shit about it for decades. Well, that's actually not true. Democrat and Republican Presidents have both made the problem worse. Shit, and remember Hillary trying to sell us on the TPP trade agreement when she was running? Would have been NAFTA cubed.
If the current system works great for me, and I STILL want change, I can only imagine the folks for whom it's not working. Maybe everyone will be disappointed. But to quote Lloyd Christmas: "So you're telling me there's a chance." Maybe it is only one in a million. But with any other candidate who was running (save RFKj) it would be a continuing zero in a million chance.
I didn't vote for Trump. I joined 1.2% of my fellow state citizens in supporting "None of the above candidates." But if he's successful in improving things for working people, and scaling back the influence of pharma companies and insurance companies on health care (maybe turning today's "sick care" into actual "health care," I will regret not pulling that lever.
I can't see that it attacks capitalism. It definitely attacks unscrupulous capitalists. There is a difference, you know. The system is good. The human corruption is not. Same old same old. Time for another flood - oh, but wait, God promised no more floods. Matt is right. It will be burned down.
Like any other belief system, capitalism has clear goals: the maximization of profit and growth. Except for maybe Ben & Jerry's, capitalism is not benevolent. And even Ben & Jerry's sold out to Unilever.
This is why capitalism is regulated. Getting the right balance of regulation is the important question.
Capitalism is the best system, but calling it good is a different story.
Capitalism is not a belief system. It's an organizational model for every facet of life in societies dominated by capitalist organization.
Liberalism is the belief system that interacts with capitalism in a never-ending chicken-and-egg shimmy.
And liberalism is why Americans cannot imagine a world without capitalism. Reality needs to impinge on the mind for actual thinking to be birthed into the world.
And liberalism is the most effective condom ever invented.
What? Capitalism is not just numbers on a P&L statement. Capitalism is the opportunity in a free society to end up better off than you started. And if not better off, then you were at least free to find your own way with your own skills and sweat in order to live the life God gave you on this earth. I know you want to boil it down to economics but it is chiefly people. And yes, people can be slaves to the almighty buck but that's nowhere near to what socialism enslaves the people.
Why don’t you refute his claims? Because you can’t. Matt was carefully explaining that you’re not a pos for shopping at Walmart and this Micheal fella ruined it by rubbing your nose in your mess. And now you want the mean man to go away.
I'm really tired of the caustic insults by commenters who style themselves as the next Taibbis or Hunter Thompsons, of which Michael's and many others here, pro and con his position, seem to feel expresses their post-modern literary brilliance.
Is there a real person and argument here, or has AI just been learning how to swear?
The "thing that is real" is not so much capitalism, it is the intelligent psychopathy that corrupts the iron law of oligarchy no matter what the system. We barely know how to recognize that problem, much less fix it. (I'm confident that's by design.) But fixing it is the only way out.
You can't have unions without strong businesses and you can't have strong businesses with "free" trade. How'd all the strikes in Britian in the 1970's work?
Eventually too many Brits wanted to be spanked on the botty by stern Margaret.
At least I got to confiscate money raised by our football team's Homecoming Event and send it to support the miners' wives and kids.
Solidarity across the globe more or less died somewhere in the 90s and the "left" capitulated to liberal identity politics in its embrace of capitalist values.
No other option but burn it down. I feel queasy when I hear politicians like Schumer want to call for meetings and committees and democrats to get in the discussions where nothing gets done but talk.
Trump has managed to get the world talking about the failure of the globalists. Before they completely rob us and feed us bugs.
Wall Street has very little to do with the working class and they don’t care either.
Other ironies include suddenly becoming concerned with human rights and other liberal niceties when the political wind changes with regard to one's official opinions about China's state policies and practices. How long will hate-China week be promoted this time around?
Hope everyone will enjoy paying $2500 for an iPhone from now on because that’s what Trump‘s 140% tariff on Chinese goods is going to do to America. Moreover, everything in your automobile and all of your prescription drugs come from China. Hope you got enough money to pay for them. I don’t like to say swear words, but “when the shit hits the fan“ a lot of people are gonna be changing their tune.
The 140% tariff on China is what they call a regressive tax. It means the increase cost of goods through tariffs will be paid disproportionately by ordinary Americans— not the rich. Chinese manufacturers will pay the tariff and that money will go into the treasury, but then it will be passed along to us in higher prices. Thuss, we pay that tax.
The added money into our federal treasury will then be used to offset the trillion dollar tax cuts Trump will give to the rich. The tariffs to be effective will have to last years and will not be effective if the Trump administration and Congress does not pass statues that assist domestic industry in rebuilding. Moreover, the rebuilt factories will be run by robots, not people so don’t expect the Working Man to benefit all that much.
So do you see where all of this is going? Don’t you think this should be brought up by a skeptical independent journalist like Matt Taibbi before he says “burn everything down?” Don’t you think we the public should be questioning Matt when he doesn’t rather than cursing and swearing everyone that disagrees with him?
Full disclosure: I am not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican. I vote independently based upon the best critical analysis I can make of the situation. I am for tariffs and other measures designed and actually capable of rebuilding America’s industry and employing people that are now hopeless. I do not agree with Mr. Sanders on many issues. I just don’t see enough evidence that Trump‘s true motive is to help the Working Man. I see nothing is background to support such a conclusion. People should be allowed to question his motives without being cursed and sworn at.
People have gotten so used to buying cheap shit off the backs of people in other countries who do not enjoy the same human right's protections, labour laws, or standard of living. I suspect most people don't think about that, and more importantly, don't want to think about that. Maybe it's good if "why is stuff from other countries so much cheaper?" becomes a mainstream topic again.
Heck no! I hate corporations! I’m from a broken down factory town. I saw what they did to my mom and dad and my friends. I became a lawyer because of it and I’ve been suing corporations every chance I get when I see them take advantage of people.
You got me mixed up with a Democrat. I don’t belong to either political party. Gives me an independent mind, don’t you know.
I’ll bet you and I and a lot of other people that I make critical comments to have a lot in common. I just believe in the constitution and critical thinking rather than flying off the handle with my gut reaction.
Your response to me shows the first step in critical thinking: Asking questions. Good on you.
My favorite line of the article:
"If you’re in favor of tariffs when you know you don’t have the votes but against them once they’re actually in effect, you’re just a politician with no balls."
Bernie Sanders, the American socialist with no balls and three mansions.
Yes, isn't that funny how all the big socialists are wealthy? Son of a gun.....
The socialists? Try to keep up—the extreme capitalists were the ones enabling the loss of millions of jobs. Of both parties, or as some say, the UniParty.
A lot of capitalists were building things and making stuff and developing products, employing people and investing in the US economy. They got crushed by cheap labor and IP theft as did their employees and investors. The capitalists that went to the right business schools and do finance and have no contact with a physical product got dirty stinkin rich. Some of the money went to elected officials. And shame on us for falling for all this.
My term for the phenomenon is totalitarianism, which is very specific. I can't direct what other people use.
Why do we always end up with this idea that socialists LIVING IN A FULLY LATE-CAPITALIST WORLD are supposed to be poor? Marx never said "Give it all away." That was Jesus.
It's called living according to the values that you presume to profess. "Late capitalism" (somebody went to grad school!) has nothing to do with it.
"Late capitalism" (somebody went to grad school!)
🤣🤣🤣
"Marx never said 'Give it all away.'"
Of course not. That sleight of tongue was (part of) Marx's con. Create a series of de facto intranational armies (not parties) based on supposedly irreconcilable differences between segments of society, let their officers (aka vanguards) lead the charge. Then have those officers divvy up the spoils after they win, while saying the proles will get the spoils after the capitalist pigs are eradicated ... someday. The whole thing is a Trojan horse for totalitarian concentrated power, not democratic leftism, from start to finish, which is exactly how it always played out from 1917 on, communist or not. Marx was NOT a leftist, he was a long-con man. With the New Left from the 1950s, the malleable class-division was substituted with rigid identity-division, to pave way better boundaries for dividing-and-conquering.
There is no elevation of the powerless in a society without noblesse oblige. Healthy societies cannot perpetually have civil war, but that is precisely what has been orchestrated in the US (and West), in stages, between the 1950s and today.
The real problem is intelligent psychopathy, not capitalism or socialism. Hence the societal toxic rot that results from iron law of oligarchy. Trust me, we'll cease debating our traditional ideologies as AI sinks its claws deep.
And I suppose Marx never said "Love thy neighbor" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" either. Similarly, neither have the LATE-CAPITALISTS. THAT is the problem! When the motto of your life is "Screw the little guy and the other guy", you are leading your fellow capitalists into a ditch. Your ways will not prosper for long. You're sins WILL find you out, and as it turns out, Donald Trump is the grim reaper. Prepare to die! (Or as Taibbi said, burn it all down! The globalists and their infrastructure, that is.)
Who takes the most (?) or close to the most pharmaceutical money…
In small-dollar donations from rank and file employees, not from CEOs or lobbyists. Bernie is a weakling but this point is invalid
It's Act Blue. A lot of those small donors don't know that their name is being used to spread out the con.
Exactly. Probably the biggest money-laundering scheme for political donations ever.
Ya, if you don't count Trump and a few thousand others...
RFKjr disagrees with you and said so to Bernie's face in his nomination hearing. Now THAT was balls and I have to think RFKjr has the goods on Bernie!
Or maybe RFK Jr is just still batshit crazy...
Nothing crazy about RFK Jr. he just knows more than you do and he's not afraid to share his ideas in an effort to help people live better. It doesn't take any guts to believe the "approved narrative" and mock people who think for themselves.
Here’s a list of some fascinating historical figures whose ideas were initially mocked, suppressed, or dismissed—and though their work was later proven correct, many of them never lived to see full vindication. ---
No doubt you will not ever make a list like this....but RFK Jr. will:
1. **Ignaz Semmelweis – Handwashing in Medicine**
- **Idea:** Doctors should wash their hands before assisting in childbirth to prevent childbed fever.
- **Reaction:** He was ridiculed, rejected by the medical establishment, and eventually committed to an asylum.
- **Outcome:** After his death, germ theory proved him right. Handwashing became a medical standard.
- **Vindication:** Posthumous, but never personally vindicated or honored in his time.
---
2. **Nikola Tesla – Wireless Energy & Inventions Beyond His Era**
- **Idea:** Free wireless energy, wireless communication, and other radical innovations.
- **Reaction:** Labeled eccentric, undermined by competitors like Edison and JP Morgan, died penniless.
- **Outcome:** Many of his ideas laid the foundation for modern technologies (radio, remote control, wireless).
- **Vindication:** Pop culture reveres him now, but he died largely unrecognized for his contributions.
---
3. **Giordano Bruno – Infinite Universe & Multiple Worlds**
- **Idea:** The universe is infinite and contains many worlds with life.
- **Reaction:** Burned at the stake for heresy in 1600 by the Inquisition.
- **Outcome:** Modern astronomy supports the notion of countless galaxies and potentially habitable planets.
- **Vindication:** Celebrated centuries later, but brutally punished in his lifetime.
---
4. **Barry Marshall – Bacteria Cause Stomach Ulcers**
- **Idea:** *Helicobacter pylori* causes peptic ulcers, not stress or spicy food.
- **Reaction:** Laughed out of conferences, rejected by medical authorities.
- **Outcome:** Proved it by drinking the bacteria himself and developing gastritis; eventually won the Nobel Prize.
- **Vindication:** He was vindicated in his lifetime, but only after intense resistance and self-experimentation.
---
5. **John Snow – Cholera is Waterborne**
- **Idea:** Cholera spreads through contaminated water.
- **Reaction:** Medical community rejected germ theory; he was ignored.
- **Outcome:** His mapping of a cholera outbreak eventually influenced modern epidemiology.
- **Vindication:** Credited later, but dismissed during the 1854 outbreak when he could’ve saved more lives.
---
6. **Alfred Wegener – Continental Drift**
- **Idea:** Continents move (continental drift theory).
- **Reaction:** Widely ridiculed by geologists; lacked mechanism for movement.
- **Outcome:** Plate tectonics later proved him right.
- **Vindication:** Only decades after his death in 1930.
---
7. **Rachel Carson – Environmental Hazards of Pesticides**
- **Idea:** Pesticides like DDT were destroying ecosystems and harming human health.
- **Reaction:** Attacked as hysterical and anti-progress by chemical industry and media.
- **Outcome:** Her work sparked the environmental movement and led to bans on DDT.
- **Vindication:** Recognized eventually, but faced extreme backlash in her time.
---
8. **Alan Turing – Foundations of Modern Computing**
- **Idea:** Theoretical basis for computers and artificial intelligence.
- **Reaction:** Despite wartime contributions, he was prosecuted for homosexuality and chemically castrated.
- **Outcome:** His work underpins all modern computers and AI.
- **Vindication:** Received posthumous royal pardon in 2013; died tragically in 1954.
The Truth is more complicated than the sound bite lie (that you feed on). The sound bite lie makes it around the world 3x before the Truth gets out of bed.
RFK Jr. has it all figured out, imma right? Vaccines definitely cause autism. He'll be hailed as a revolutionary genius one day, on a par with Tesla and Turing. The countless studies showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism will be soundly discredited. You wait and see! Imma right?
What about the countless studies showing that there is a link between vaccines and autism that have been censored. Those are the ones that matter. Imma right? Troll much?
Retraction isn’t censorship, ya big dummy. Even Wakefield's garbage "study" is still publicly available for anyone who wants to read it. No one’s censoring you. You're just mad your nonsense isn't being taken seriously. Screeching "censorship!" is the last refuge of the chronically wrong.
RFK Jr. is a quack. He wants to ban phones in schools not because they’re anathema to learning but because he thinks radio waves fry your brain. It’s a shame that Matt’s comments are full of right wing lunatics, but 95% of the populace are now lunatics of some variety so I guess it’s unavoidable
Everyone is crazy but you, right? 🤔
RFK Jr is the quack. His supporters are merely ignorant. Oh, I'm sure a fair number of RFK Jr's apologists are also delusional and frighteningly unstable (most probably borderline unhinged my own research shows), but who's keeping track at this point?
Personally, I can barely afford the ink or parchment necessary for the project.
Calling people names doesn't dispute their arguments. It just means you have no counter argument.
In one post you called people you disagree with quacks + ignorant + apologists + delusional + unstable + unhinged.
I would say that is the lazy way out of the discussion.
You do know the definition of ignorant, right?
Ignorant is lacking knowledge or awareness in general;
I would say that those calling RFK Jr. and people who think similarly to him ignorant do not know what the word means.
I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true.
The average person listens to propaganda all day long and then when a person dares to step outside of the "narrative" and shares alternative findings, that person is called a "quack" or some other name by people who can't think outside of the "narrative" propaganda hive mind.
"Propaganda is information, often biased or misleading, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view. It’s designed to influence emotions and opinions, typically through selective facts, exaggeration, or manipulation, rather than fostering critical thinking. Historically, it’s been used by governments, organizations, or individuals to shape public perception—think wartime posters or modern social media campaigns. It’s not always outright lies; sometimes it’s just a heavily skewed narrative."
And exactly what argument am I disputing here?
We're having a discussion?
From my experience people get called quacks because they're quacks.
"I see ignorance as someone who accepts the status quo or prevailing narrative given by talking heads and political leaders as truth and does not question if what they are saying is in fact, true."
Now you're singling out the entire Republican caucus and that's not fair.
You weren't having a discussion. You were dismissing RFK Jr. and people who support his message as quacks without saying why his/their message was quacky. That's not a discussion. If you can't say why something is quacky with facts and you use name calling as your tactic you will not be taking seriously. I wouldn't waste my time responding to someone I disagreed with without presenting facts with sources otherwise it is considered trolling or inciting and not actually adding to the discussion in a meaningful way.
Unironically yes. There are perhaps six sane, rational journalists in all of American media; the same ratio holds true for anyone else in the Anglosphere who follows politics to any degree.
Thank heavens you're there to keep tabs on everything for the rest of us, at least as long as you haven't been consumed by the Anglophone Succubus who preys upon men of piety and rectitude such as yourself.
I’m probably in the lower half of people you should listen to for an accurate view of the world, but I’m several deciles above RFK Jr.
Most roadkill have a more accurate view of the world than RFK Jr.
Exactly!
So you think those waves are good for brains?
Especially young brains.
There is no scientific evidence that suggests them waves is good OR bad...
It's 2025 Lanny and if you don't know that EMFs from cell phones/towers have some type of affect on human brains and CNS (thanks to the poor little rats that came before us) well then you are an Ostrich.
It's really easy these days to disprove nay sayers who love to parrot the "official narrative".
You call people who think for themselves lunatics and free thinkers call people like you who parrot the "official narrative" NPCs that are slow to the ever changing times.
You can't dismiss someone as a quack when there is scientific evidence to prove what they say is true. That is ignoring and gaslighting - very troll like behaviors.
Here are several key scientific studies that have investigated the potential negative impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by cell phones on the human body and brain:
1. Increased Brain Glucose Metabolism
Study: A study published in JAMA found that 50-minute exposure to cell phone RF-EMFs increased glucose metabolism in brain regions closest to the antenna.
JAMA Network+1PubMed+1 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/645813?utm_source=chatgpt.com - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28426166/
Implication: This suggests that cell phone radiation can affect brain activity, although the clinical significance remains unclear.
2. Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption in Rats
Study: Research led by neurosurgeon Leif Salford demonstrated that GSM cell phone radiation caused albumin leakage through the blood-brain barrier in rats, leading to neuronal damage.
WIRED
Implication: These findings raise concerns about potential long-term effects of cell phone radiation on human brain health.
3. Systematic Review of Adverse Health Effects
Study: A systematic review in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine reported that cell phone radiation exposure could lead to various health issues, including oxidative stress, DNA fragmentation, and hormonal changes.
PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38783888/
Implication: The review highlights the need for further research into the biological effects of EMF exposure.
4. Genotoxic Effects and Brain Tumor Risk
Study: An article in Environmental Research discussed studies indicating that long-term cell phone use might be associated with an increased risk of brain tumors, such as glioblastoma.
ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393512200648X?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Implication: While findings are mixed, some studies suggest a potential link between prolonged EMF exposure and cancer risk.
Different methods for evaluating the effects of microwave radiation exposure on the nervous system
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000939?via%3Dihub#sec0035
Unemployment's a bitch, I know.
You know nothing, obviously.
Then there is the whole mental health aspect that RFK Jr. mentions and that is to be concerned about as well.
In The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt explores how smartphones and social media have contributed to a mental health crisis among Generation Z. He identifies four primary harms associated with smartphone use:
CASSY+3WSJ+3New York Post+3
The Human Journey
Social Deprivation: Reduced face-to-face interactions leading to weakened social bonds.
Sleep Deprivation: Disrupted sleep patterns due to screen time, especially before bedtime.
Sherwood News+2CASSY+2The Human Journey+2
Attention Fragmentation: Constant notifications and multitasking impairing the ability to focus.
Addiction: Design features of apps fostering compulsive usage patterns.
People.com+3CASSY+3The Human Journey+3
Haidt cites studies indicating that adolescent girls spending over five hours daily on social media are significantly more likely to experience depression. He also references research showing that the introduction of platforms like Facebook correlated with increased anxiety and depression among college students.
New York Post+5CASSY+5The Guardian+5
Critics of Haidt's work argue that the evidence linking smartphone use to mental health issues is correlational rather than causal. Some researchers suggest that the observed associations might be influenced by other factors, such as socioeconomic status or pre-existing mental health conditions.
Sherwood News
Despite the debate, Haidt advocates for measures like delaying smartphone and social media use until later adolescence, promoting phone-free schools, and encouraging real-world social interactions to mitigate potential harms.
New York Post
Welcome to America!
Why is it that Bernie gets so much money from rank and file employees of pharma companies?
Because they know their jobs are dependent on how he votes. The same goes for the aerospace industry, the teachers unions, the autoworkers, etc. The employers run campaigns in-house to influence politicians who vote to approve or disapprove what the corporation needs for the bottom line and the employee needs to keep his paycheck coming - the next big contract, the next rule-change that gives the company an edge. Apparently, pharmaceutical companies are good at this.
That's called bundling and it's due to campaign donation laws that put limits on individual donations.
Instead the corporations encourage (?) their workers to write checks and they make sure the recipients know where that money came from. Some even collect them and hand them in a "bundle" (not always legal but who's checking) to the targeted politician with a key vote so no imagination or speculation is needed as to the source.
He doesn't.
A majority of his fundraising comes from small-dollar donations, and Senate races get more money spent on them than House races do. He’s probably in the top 5 Congresspeople for most industries.
Some other people in the thread say those ActBlue contributions are faked, that they come from big institutions misusing their employees’ names. I’ve never heard of such an accusation but it seems preposterous to me, particularly when applied to a self-proclaimed socialist.
If it's true that "a majority of his fundraising comes from small-dollar donations," it's also true that there's a sucker born every minute.
It's called "Bundling". Look it up.
Meant to get around those pesky laws limiting campaign contributions.
Which means Bull will be celebrating his birthday any minute now.
I have never donated to a Sanders campaign, and I'm sure anyone who has must be mightily disappointed. I can't believe he's still stumping because it suggests that he must think his reputation is salvageable.
But then I suppose there may be some people out there who still fall for the fake populism of the former Democratic Party butt-boy.
I dunno, Bull, doesn't seem like the big, enthusiastic crowds Sanders draws are "mightily disappointed" with anything at all.
Maybe all the properly disappointed Sanders donors are avoiding the rallies, not wanting to rub shoulders with the cheap bastard Sanders supporters in their Birkenstocks and wool socks who write $5 checks and probably could be counted on (if not properly supervised) to swallow a few foamy steins of "fake populism" from, hell, even William Jennings Bryan.
Sanders has his faults, certainly, and plenty of detractors, but the bulk of the more jaundiced ones can be found in places like the comment sections of sites like Taibbi's who desperately want to believe Sanders has a reputation in need of "salvaging."
I'd like to see evidence to back up allegations of ActBlue abuse.
Estimates of Bernie's wealth range from $3m to $15m (https://publicistpaper.com/bernie-sanders-net-worth-in-2025-a-look-at-the-financial-life-of-americas-progressive-senator/). If he's getting most of this from book royalties, fair enough I suppose, but at the high end this is a bit extreme for an author and self proclaimed socialist.
The latter site also alleges much higher donations from pharma, but unclear of the evidence or time frame involved (or the reliability of motivation of that site).
Correct me if I am wrong, but most of Bernie Sanders wealth is in real estate that he purchased years ago. A vacation home in Vermont 40 years ago would cost probably in the neighborhood of $50,000 , but would be worth over 1 million today. The same for any other home bought many years ago. The same with the stock market. If Bernie has been putting in even a small amount of his earnings into the market over the past 50 years, those funds would generate millions of dollars at the 11% per annum growth rate of stocks in general.
Bernie and his wife, an earner in her own right, are both over 80 years of age and I am sure that the assets they accumulated over the past half century have soared in value astronomically. It is shear speculation to conclude he came by his modest wealth dishonestly. I say “modest “ wealth because it is dwarfed by the billions of dollars our two political parties’ friends and donors have come by through hook or crook since say NAFTA and the WTO came into existence. Take for instance, Jared Kushner or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or our current president or Elon Musk or all the rest. Take for instance Charles Schwab, who made $2.5 billion in one day when Trump tanked the market and then changed course a few days later to call off his tariffs( Don’t take my word for it, president. Trump bragged about it at his press conference). Bernie’s just a common peasant compared to them. He’s like us.
Concerning Bernie’s position on strategic tariffs and a minimum wages for our working population, you might want to check his website or any reputable news agency to find out where he really stands. You’ll see he is for tariffs if properly applied to protect American industry and working people and always has been and he is the person who is introducing and has been introducing legislation for at least $17 an hour wage to deal with all the inflation being caused by President Trump, his party and the Democratic party. Not to mention affordable health care.
In short, find out the facts before you start ad hominem attacks against one of the few persons in Washington who has shown respect for his duty to his fellow Americans. I’m sure the oligarchs don’t mind you bad mouthing and marginalizing him, but I hope you’re not a tool for them and will use your own independent faculties before expressing as fact what is a lie.
I know the minimal gains of the stock market are supposedly 11% but I'd bet it's a rare fund that has averaged that for the last 20 years. Certainly none of the funds I've been in have. Not even close, and I invest aggressively. So Sanders must have really good advice if he made his money that way. But as you say, if his wealth comes in at the low end ($3m) it's not really much for a man in his position (though still much better than most of us).
An index fund can get you that result. If you u
What ad hominem attack did I make?
While TDS is a fake syndrome, HDS and BDS are very real...seek medical attention.
You should pay attention ...
However it happened, it could be unravelled if anyone wanted it unravelled. That it isn't is telling. If he was making IRA donations since the age of 18, it would be a wonderful story for everyone to emulate.
Are you suggesting he can be accused of something and then has to prove his innocence?
Why characterize Sanders' royalties as "a bit extreme?" Author's royalties are exclusively a function of sales.
If Sanders' wealth offends you, and if it's your belief that the senator is undeserving of such remuneration for his literary efforts, I would urge you to take it up with with his publishers and cavil with them, or buttonhole a few of his readers as they exit the bookstore with one of his books, demanding an explanation as to why in god's name people are buying and reading books written by this deviant Marxist from Soviet Vermont? What gives?
Perhaps even get to work on a book yourself offering a few salient reasons why the hispid, undoubtedly hirsute commie-hick senator from Vermont is properly seen (as you seem to suggest) volunteering in a soup kitchen rather than touring the country crassly hawking his literary wares. Not to mention bending the knee to BOTH Mammon AND Hermes. The ideer!
And what does the fact that a person is a socialist have to do with book sales? Are you intimating that the socialist senator from Vermont ought to give away his hard-earned royalties to the less deserving to better establish his "socialist" bona fides?
And there are dozens of websites and news organizations--- from Forbes to USAToday---that offer up details of Sanders' wealth and income---how much dough he's accumulated over the course of his life, where he got his dough, what sort of fancy stuff he owns---that sort of thing.
No need for empty speculation.
I never said his royalties were extreme. I doubt he made the bulk of 15 million off them though, and I suggested 15m was a bit extreme for as man of Bernie's means. I also said I was sceptical of the source that quoted that figure (15m), most quote the much lower figure of 3m.
Let's say you're right that socialists can't be rich and that Bernie's a hypocrite. What's your point? That Bernie's a hypocrite? That's a pitiably trivial conclusion. Incidentally, have you heard of the tu quoque fallacy? I despise fallacy bombs, but look it up.
It was an observation I made in passing, while trying to be open minded about whether Bernie was in fact getting massive campaign funding, or worse, getting rich, from pharma donations. If the higher end reports of Bernie's net worth are true, that does indeed seem hypocritical. It's not an argument against socialism, but are you saying that highlighting hypocrisy is not a valid exercise (because it's trivial)?
ActBlue is about to be blown up. You can't serve as a money laundering operation by not requiring CVV #'s off credit cards while taking in hundreds of millions of credit card donations, many from offshore bundlers and governments trying to hid their political influence on our elections.
There must be a list of pols who take $ from pharma.
opensecrets.org
Thanks for this link. The site's information can end a lot of misinformed arguments. For example, it lists Sanders' major funding as coming from "Small Individual Contributions (< $200) $22,732,498."
How he amassed his personal fortune is another matter, and I couldn't care less. He's useless as a politician.
I care. His vote, or lack of vote swings markets and stocks. Something they regularly use to generate wealth.
Bernie Sanders' senate votes moving markets! Maybe! Someday!
Who?
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?
Oh, thank you MG!
wow…..Conflict of interest. Should be banned.
$$ corrupts our politics.
I’m sure there are more, but those two got busted during a congressional hearing. Both sides are in it
They got busted? Kennedy made the misrepresentation that Bernie took pharma money but provided no substantive evidence to back it up. Which seems to be sorta his thing. If you produce receipts, have at it. But you can’t just claim truth because you think something may be the case.
You need to do your homework. It’s semantics. Kennedy said millions paid to members of congress not specifically Bernie. Bernie claimed he didn’t receive any money from CEOs, but did admit receiving from workers of big pharmaceutical companies.
No. He accused Bernie directly.
Majority rank and file workers, no CEOs. I know this. I did my homework. I just didn’t jump to unfounded conclusions.
Is it that shocking workers care about labor rights? Or that health workers in particular care about Medicare for all? No, it’s gotta be corruption, right? No other explanation why people donated to a campaign that didn’t rely on corporate money.
Problem is Bernie’s never accomplished a damn thing no matter where the money comes from. He’s been feeding at the trough for decades with little to nothing to show for it except three mansions. He says a lot, does little. He’s 83 I think, and still can’t get away from the trough.
That's rich. And risible. Bernie Sanders has compiled a long list of legislative accomplishments during his time as mayor, congressman, senator.
He also should be commended at this stage of his career (and this low, mean juncture in American history) for remaining one of the few "respectable" congressman still at work, and I daresay as one of the few members at work in that building who genuinely believes and understands the things he says.
Noted that Jae feels this way. But like the person above, you’re not really addressing the issue why we’re having this convo.
You're in a dream world, liberal utopia where Bernie is the Savior. Didn't you watch Thursday's podcast and Matt seething in his disillusionment in Bernie? Bernie's just a shill for the globalists and not a stalwart friend of the workers. Matt is mad as hell! If there were justice in journalism, he'd get a Pulitzer for this!
You’re good to express your opinions on Bernie, but you’re talking past the issue of this convo. We’re talking about donors motivations not your personal feelings about utopia.
Typically off target criticism when there are far bigger fish to fry.
Thst 'mansions' BS was a Hilary/DNC sophistry-talking point, proud of yourself?
Look into the actual mechanisms there and there is nothing off kilter (or do you have an ethical problem with someone dying and leaving you something, or profiting from a wildly popular book? Think better.) The BIG deal is Bernie caving to the dem establishment: Ask people who always LIKED him where he failed. Not people who were always looking for excuses to shoot holes in him... If you're already using socialist as a pejorative, no one's gonna listen to you about Bernie LOL.
He’s an old white guy who talks a lot but has done nothing. What’s the attraction? Plus if you spout socialism, which has never worked anywhere it’s been tried, and have three houses, regardless of how you got them you’re a hypocrite.
Considering you need at least 2 if you're a long time Senator, and he inherited the third, & made what money he has from his (ex)-fans buying a book he wrote, kinda means you're completely full of...well, I guess I'll just point out that you and Hillary are in total complete agreement, & she considers your parroting her custom-crafted reality-aversive nonsense brainless talking points--that any lucid fourth grader could kick to splinters--money very well spent. You represent a proud hilary accomplishment...which is the worst thing I could say about anyone.😂😂🫣🫣
Who rattled your cage. What a little grump. Laughed out loud at your Hillary comments though, hahaha!
Who rattled my cage? Gawrsh, appears to be an imbecile unable to digest English. Very sad.
Last time I checked, Bernie had three houses (dachas, is what I think they called them in the Soviet Union)... That's two more than any self-professed socialist should have, LOL.
Well, if we look at the homes of various leaders of socialist utopias over the years, we see that Bernie is not very good at socialism. I really wish he had not caved to the party establishment.
Another commenter hat does not bother to or cannot read English at all.
And last I read, Bernie the purist had collected at least several million from big pharma prior to belittling and waiving onsies at RFK during confirmation hearings
Can you actually literally not read English?
Basically this. It's humorous to pick on the rich Socialist, but the big problem with Bernie is that... he has ZERO balls, and everything he claims to stand for he only does so when he's at advantage, and has no risk of losing his place in the power order.
He's a massive hypocrite on literally every topic or belief he stands for. This is why I stopped voting for and supporting him years ago. He's a completely empty suit, and one of the best script actors in DC.
"The BIG deal is Bernie caving to the dem establishment."
Absolutely.
Yes, I use socialist as a pejorative and I couldn't care less what other people think of socialists.
You show all the makings of a fine Democrat🤣🤣🤣 bwahahahaha!!
Ok Bernie bro moron
Democratic socialism. Where capital serves people, not the other way around.
If you’re a senator working in two different states, you’d probably need a residence in each. Bernie does and neither are mansions.
If you then wrote a best-selling book - something people actually were excited about and chose to buy - and used the earnings to buy a whopping $500,000 family lake house, I’d hardly see it as all that outrageous.
Instead, I’d say democratic socialism probably isn’t as scary as the bad-faith attacks make it out to be.
Am I the only person who gets itchy when the phrase “democratic socialism” is being thrown around?
Nope 🙂↔️!!
No. Think Summer Lee of PA and lotsa other clowns.
There’s no such thing as Democratic Socialism. By dint of its definition socialism can only be applied by force, you take from one and give to another who didn’t earn it. You have no idea of human nature if you think that will work without force. And it’s equally foolish to imagine, ah, but I’ll do it better than all those other millions who tried it. That’s magical thinking not grounded in reality.
If socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers or the local community, which is how it was defined back when people still could form sentences in English, then there are plenty of working versions of socialism, generally called "cooperatives", or something like that. It's just not that big of a deal. The main problem is most working people like to complain about the boss, but it's much harder to do that when you _are_ the boss. In any case, it's not going to be Utopia. You still have to get up in the morning. As for the use of force, that's what the state is, whether it's capitalist, socialist, fascist, or cloud-cookoo-land. But you're free to make up fables about it -- just avoid reading anything about political structure and other such tedious details.
Thankths for da lethon, I wouldn’t know anyfing at awl were it not for enliten folkths like you, huh huh huh.
Glad to be of service.
You weren’t. But I’ll let you think you were, it’s important to you, I can tell.
Well, we’ve seen evidence of successful socialist programs here via public schools, Medicare, Social Security, libraries, etc.
Still not enough? There’s Norway, Sweden, and Finland to consider, who all have a high quality of life and seem to be much happier than both you and I while reading each others comments.
Every one of those countries you list runs on capitalism, by their own admission. By the way, are you aware of the decline of these countries due to their immigration policies and their socialist support of that horror?
And please, if you’re going to hold up public schools or social security, etc., as a socialist success, you need to do a little more research. Most are going broke or an abject failure.
Correct on all points.
Right. Just make stuff up. You can't go wrong.
Market with guard rails is what Bernie is pushing for. Very similar model. And I’m sort of betting you know this.
As for our own social benefits, you say let them go. I’d argue to manage and fund them. You’re pretty much getting your way in this current admin, so we’ll see how it shakes out for people….
You leftists really like the guardrails thing. Market with guardrails. Speech with guardrails. Voting with guardrails. Got any more in mind?
That breezy, empty phrase about nonexistent, pie-in-the-sky guardrails is just as vacuous as globalism’s trope about rising tide lifting all boats. Time to face the harsh realities of human nature.
I would agree with you but we're finding out these programs have been horribly managed for decades and more money would not necessarily go any where close to where needed.
It's a choice. Some people like the social-democratic environment.
Wrong. Norway, Sweden, and Finland (and Denmark) are wrongly labeled as socialist by dummies on the left and right. They have market economies more open and free than the US in some ways. And they have very generous social welfare programs funded by very high taxes--on everybody.
Nope. I'm happier than anybody in Norway, Finland, or Sweden, and I live in Texas.
I always gotta groan when Scandanavia is mentioned as an example of successful socialism. The Scandanavian countries you mention still have relatively homogenous populations and many citizens that still possess a strong work ethic and they are also still basically capitalistic. And none of these countries his highly popluated. For example, all of Norway with its 1300+ mile coastline has a population of less than 6 million. Noway also has great oil revenue they put in a fund for all citizens. Further, they don't seem to suffer the bureaucratic mark-up and high overhead costs that plague our government "do good social programs" (salaries and number of bureacrats and meetings needed to screw in a light bulb). Also interesting is the fact that Sweden made a determined effort about 10? years ago to reduce the relative size of its bureaucracy because its economy was terrible. The one difficulty they face now are immigrants that don't integrate culturally. Its helpful though that language classes are held and mandatory for new immigrants. Also noteworthy: they don't provide the expensive "translator on demand" that we have obligated ourself to provide for (often free) medical services.
Sweden has also figured out that it's cheaper to pay people to go back to their country of origin vs. trying to keep asking them to assimilate. Sweden is actually in some trouble right now, and the answer... Kindly ask people to self deport..... I am curious how long it will be until they stop asking....
So I guess I have badmouthed Apple not knowing they announced they will invest $500 billion in the US over next 4 years and the phones still are levied a 20% tariff. I think billionaire foundations just make me crabby.
Those countries dumped socialism decades ago. As to public schools, you sure you want to tout them?
They were never fully socialist (always had capitalist economies), nor is that what Bernie is fighting for
Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Yes... Amazingly non-diverse nations that share a very common culture, and grew to be wonderful. Let's check back on this in say 5 years. Sweden in particular is starting to fall down hard because EVERYTHING that made them able to be the darlings of the "guardrails" crowd is no longer present, and they are collapsing under the weight of a massive leech society that they let into their country that take with no desire to contribute or give back.
Like placing something democratic in the name makes a difference, only fools fall for that . Tell me the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a paridise for the poor people living that nightmare . Wake up.
I mean, there is a difference if you care about being correct. Kind of like using an “i” where there should be an “a”. It might look similar, maybe even get lumped together by some people not interested in the details, but on a fundamental level it’s just not the same.
Keep dreaming, every socialist experiment that's since failed spectacularly started with the same stars you have in your eyes. The problem isn't in the details it's in human nature
Uh, sure. Do you really think voting makes it ethical to take private property?
Unless you're a natural-law freak, property is a set of social relations defined by (human-made) law and traditions. Or, you can just make stuff up, I suppose.
Term limits
Sanders is an act, nothing more.
I’ve never understood the attraction of that man. He’s a grifter, just like most politicians and their parasites like Farrakhan. Sanders has talked but never walked. And he likes it that way.
If Bernie Sanders once had balls (which he may have), he cut them off himself under the scrutiny of millions when he zealously endorsed Hillary Clinton on prime time television. And once removed, never recoverable.
Perhaps the zeal was for the promises of book deals worth lots of bucks as recompense for Clinton and the DNC slandering his character to sabotage his own campaign. At the time he entered the 2016 race, he had a net worth of something like $300K, now he's a multi-millionaire. I guess he didn't come all that cheap, but he didn't come all that dear, either.
Nancy Pelosi, too, used to be concerned in public about the trade imbalance, especially with respect to China.
But now, of course, they are Trump's tariffs, Trump's attempt to redress the trade imbalance, and therefore evil, dangerous, and to be vigorously opposed. Because Orange Man Bad, or something, and anything he does is wrong, even when they wanted it themselves BT.
Ellen, it’s not about Bernie vs Trump or Pelosi vs Musk.
It’s American corporations (enabled by government) who killed the middle class, by shipping good jobs elsewhere and replacing them with shit jobs like Uber and Door Dash.
You gotta get over the distractions they want you focused on, like Democrats vs Republican. Keep your eye on the target—globalization, which has been long loved by leaders of both parties.
The Dems and the Republicans enabled the corporations to kill the American middle class. They couldn't have done it without the willing acquiescence of the two parties. So they do bear responsibility for this outrage.
Yes, but since they're both culpable, it does no one any good to argue which is worse.
Wrong. The Trump Republican Party is not the same as the Bush/Globalist Republican Party. Entirely different party with (almost) entirely different principles. The RINOs who helped to create this mess are mostly gone (looking at you, Mitch McConnell).
The Republican Party is still the Republican Party. It is still one of only two in this country that can guarantee ballot access, for one thing. It happens to have a very different politician running it now, different from most Rs or Ds.
And Matt and we are talking about the past few decades, not what Trump is doing now.
Republicans and Democrats are both responsible. If you guys want to argue whether it's 55-45 or 48-52 is inconsequential.
Obama called it.
There aren't 2 political parties in DC.
The fake fights you see in the media are always between the 40 yard lines meaning the UniParty is pretty much locked in unison with one another.
Which is why Populism was born.
Someday Populism will wain, but not before The Great Reset is done where the balance of power is recalibrated between the Establishment and We The People.
The UniParty is not liking any of this that's happening to them...dramatically changing the status quo and altering the Bureaucracy.
For it's worth noting the very nature of a Bureaucracy is Self-preservation.
MAGA is a amalgamation of We the People types who are tired of the Elites and Establishment lording over us at every moment of our day and serving themselves vs. the people they were elected/chosen to serve.
Then off to the corner you have the DSA and their Marxist/Anarchist wing who just wants to destroy America and remake it in the eyes of Karl Marx, which 99% of MAGA wants no part of, even lifelong Democrats disillusioned by Democrats today.
Choose carefully Pacificus...you're either with the UniParty, MAGA or the Marxists.
Oh I chose carefully, alright!
Yes, but Bill Clinton and others opened the door. The corporations followed him out the door.
Oh . . . Ross Perot was right after all.
The negative effects of "free" trade had been visibly apparent for over a quarter century by the 1994 NAFTA debates. Our gold supply was in crisis debated in the Senate by 1968, going off the gold standard with the 'Nixon shock' of August 15, 1971. The entire decade of the 1970's was one of industrial decline.
You are 100% correct. And let's throw in the consultants and attorneys and accountants who pushed or facilitated all of this and the educational complex that brainwashed kids into identifying themselves as global citizens.
Look, though Tim Walz organized, orchestrated and led over 32 different missions of students from MN to China where he fascinated them with stories about how great it is when Communism means everyone is equal..it has nothing to do with Minnesota young people marching in the streets for Equity.
It's merely a coincidence...along with that very expensive shotgun Walz has that he seems unfamiliar with. I wonder if it came with instructions in Chinese.
And it's mere coincidence that Walz has pushed hard for the Confucius Institute Scholars being inserted into the University of Minnesota where some of the most advanced medica device technology is developed.
The Uni-party British politicians were certainly globalist. The Conservatives simply pretended to be otherwise, but it was a poor pretense in the end.
However, too many Brits did not catch on. They thought the Conservative Party had to be taught a lesson for its failures......and so they voted in large numbers for the opposition - Labour.
Bingo! That was the Uni-party plan all along -- to get Labour in power (with a majority). The British voters were like sheep being led over a cliff.
I am aware. My initial comment was in response to one specifically about Sanders. The rest proceeded.
Not that I disagree with you, but please lighten up a bit.
In capitalism (as we usually know it) globalization is inevitable. What's happening now is deciding who gets to cut the pie. If you're worried about it, might as well not -- you know what George Carlin said.
I take your point, but socialism is antithetical to living and working hard in a Republic where freedom is king. Bernie took his wrong turn when he backed so-called security for the worker over freedom for the people and fealty to a foreign power/philosophy over his own great country. (I mean who in their right mind believes any socialist regime ever is better in any way than the United States of America including in the way of late-capitalism.) And now he's dissolved into being a contradictory shill who has repudiated his own views, saying the opposite of what he once said. When the avowed socialist drinks the kool-aid of the evil, money-grubbing Hilary and crew from the DLC, you know his values are long gone and it's time to leave the party. Lights out.
Translation: "Yeah, we shouldn't be talking about Bernie. But I'll go ahead and talk about him some more."
We dodged a bullet with Bernie, and I say this as someone who supported him the first time 'round. He has proved himself either blackmail bait or spineless at this point. But I would have loved a NYC beatdown between Trump and Bernie. That is epicness that was stolen by sourpuss Hillary...
Bernie has always been a fake. Bernie plays Bernie on TV…the central casting token socialist created for public consumption; and has been rewarded handsomely, hence the multiple handsome properties.
And he’s family involvement in schools and charities. But Again they all do it. Write a few books and then blame the large increase in net worth as that. Something really worth watching, better than any day time soap opera. Audit every dam one of them. Start with McConnell, Pelosi and Schumer.
I understand that now.
Was the highlight of his career his "onesie speech"?
I was initially praying for a Sanders-Paul matchup back in 2015, as I thought that would for once give us a choice between two decent and honest men.
Now I am hoping Paul runs in 2028, and have nothing but contempt left for Sanders.
But, as a born NYC girl (small town Maine, now, quite contentedly), I would have to agree that showdown would have been worthy of many buckets of popcorn.
My second husband was from NYC. I met him on the west coast working in a NY style deli that employed mostly people from NYC and New Jersey. They taught me to love the 'no shits given'/'heart of gold' personality of that region.
His wife's college land purchase scandal is obvious state leverage over him.
To be fair, that was a VERY nice second vacation home that Bernie got from the deal.
Ralph Nader stood firm against the Democrats. He was marginalized and rendered ineffective by said party. I’m sure the lesson was not lost on Bernie when the Democrats threatened to do the same to him. He really didn’t have any good choices. He chose to keep his voice and some power over the political process rather than become a martyr. Try a little understanding before criticizing him from afar.
Ralph Nader I respect. Bernie Sanders, I did once, but, seriously, I understand quite well what (sucking Hillary Clinton's ass out for the nation to see, and becoming a pet lapdog, including lately shilling for the Chinese to keep us robbed, thereafter) and why (to save his career, get millions in payback, and retain some tiny bit of influence - not any real power). I do not think any of it, or him any longer, worthy of one iota of my respect.
Now, Rand Paul deserves plenty. But he's still willing to buck his party for what he thinks is right.
I don't think selling the country out to what you believe is wrong is anything but contemptible.
I loved "bank sucking spokestools."
And CNBC’s ‘Whore Box’….
Probably one of the best articles that Matt has written IMHO.
It's amazing to watch these podcasts and see in real-time Matt's struggle with his long held beliefs while being a distanced journalist. He has been a man weighing the options of his heart. I think he had an epiphany in Thursday's podcast (with his compatriot Walt and maybe mentor, gently being his wingman to safe and solid ground) and today's article, and he's mad as hell! His Pulitzer should be in the mail for dismantling globalism's destruction of America! Walt was much less a Republican and more an anti-globalist in that podcast. I noticed his restraint and his affection for the American worker, both an effect of and an encouragement of Matt's struggle. Remarkable podcast! I cannot overstate how instructive it was to me.
Everyone needs to experience the epiphany Matt has had about how "The System is Rigged and we're all getting F'ed."
Thankfully he's in the US where his free speech rights have not yet been rescinded, but then again...the FBI did pay him a visit to see what he's been up to on social media pages just a couple years ago under Biden.
Biden is back...and Andy McCabe and others are waiting in the wings to seize power...and when they do....poor Matt Taibbi is going to end up in Gitmo for crimes against the State.
We can't let that happen to Matt.
I for one will stand to defend his right to offend anyone...including me.
And that...my friends...is what makes America Great.
Ok, true, but what do you mean by "Biden is back"? That guy wasn't back in 2020!
Best work when he's pissed off.
He went full New Jersey on this column.
And we're talking Exit 15W type anger (Harrison NJ)
So many gems in this article.
Matt is a very good journalist.
I'm trying to parse 'tools' and 'stools'. I guess both works.
I had to read it twice and sound it out :)
Spokes-tools
Is that a spokesman turned tool?
Speaking of "balls", if Matt had anything left down there dangling in the nutsack he would focus the anger he seems to direct toward China "stealing" little diddums' Merkin jobs toward the American capitalism that pisses all over American workers daily.
But when you are all lubed up to take MAGA dick so far up ya your voice cracks? Can't say the thing that is real.
Gotta say "chink chink chink", eh Matt?
The whole article is about Smerican business leaders exporting jobs to unfree labor zones to up their personal xompensation. Maybe learn to read?
I have been saying all along. Americans voted for big pay. Safety. And benefits. Then took their dollars to countries that use slave,slave like labor and no benefits and no safety.
I didn't know all the international stuff. But I saw clearly for years we got poorer the more money we made.
Govt is too expensive. Along with globalist ideology we need to strip govt much more than has happened yet. I was really hoping for a Twitter lean workforce.
Bringing mfg, farming,bavk home is critical. I'm in Healthcare and it was obvious during covid that we have lost our medical mfg. Wearing disposable ppe for a week when it's safe onky for thar 1 use....loud and clear. '22-'23 years when chemo, antibiotics and IV saline shortages called it out again
Depending on enemies for food, medical, and energy waa obviously self destructive and some of us have known for a decade or more.
But congress is full of compromised people. Both sides. Trump is only one i trust in this. He loves America. And Americans. For me. That's been enough. Someone on our side. Fighting for us. Yes he can run off at the mouth. But really. Sweet grandfather Biden is better?
And that is exactly it. I have commented before. Wall Street needs ever increasing numbers to run up the stock price and the value of their options to cash in. I saw it firsthand in the early to mid 2000s. And to build on your point, all the people that write about Wall Street or make money off it, and their politician friends are not the ones who lost their jobs. They are the ones getting rich off the changes they foisted upon everyone. The second kick in the teeth is the importation of cheap or cheaper (think H1bs) labor to compete with those who still had jobs or trades. I worked residential construction in the late 80s and early 90s with my stepdad even while in college and law school because it paid comparatively well. Everyone spoke English well, even Hispanics. Everyone was from here. By the late 90s, that was changing rapidly. Now we are told Americans won't do those jobs. I think they would if the pay and benefits kept up with American standards.
The awards for globalist corporations are many, including cheap labor and a free pass to avoid the cost and harrassment of safety and environmental regulations--you know, those laws that apply to "the common people". They can just look the other way on horrific human rights violations. Global corporations based in the US get all kinds of special privileges and treats such as subsidies, tax breaks, and special allowances to bring in trained foreign cheaper workforce, while basking in the comfort of property protections and due process guaranteed to US citizens. And with all their profits, heads of these globalist empires get to set up charitable foundations that allow them to further dodge US income and taxes, freeing them to amass billions which they then use to influence control and determine political outcomes. For example, Apple just put up enough pressure to get tariffs waived for the smart phones they contract to manufacture in China. Why? Because Apple's profit margin of 37% and stock holder shouldn't be affected because they are so special. So shout out for the globalists who showed up for the Trump inauguration but heavily fund the Democrats. MAGA is a pesky threat that they will work around. Why should anything change? Its all just hunky dorry for these folks whom our trade polices allowed to become masters (monsters?) of the universe who get to develop and then fly their private jets to their own private-bomb sheltered islands. All as these supra-national royals deserve, right?
Matt loved the perspective of this article and yours and Walter's ATW. It occurred to me on a long drive this AM is an active war of the globalist elites on the deplorable (or whatever they're calling Americans these days). This is a reverse revolution to me exemplified by the teachers unions who want to lock kids into failing schools. This seems so different than other historical revolutions. I would love to hear you and Walter's perspective on this notion.
Says the commie with TDS
I actually like Trump, chica.
And I'm a socialist, not a communist. I know for you knuckle-draggers words mean whatever your meme-circle pretends they mean.
But some of us can still think.
"Some of us still think we can think."
Fixed it for you.
Methinks you flatter yourself. Hard for you to see that the two are the flip side of each other but one and the same. Socialist being the cleaned up one welcomed to all the best parties while the Communist arrives with the blackjack smelling of sweat and unclean clothes who drags the ritzy party-goers off to the gulag. You're deluding yourself, but I can see why.
"I actually like Trump, chica."
For what, exactly?
Initially, because I had no idea who he was until his campaign in 2015 caught fire, I thought he was hilarious.
I loved the way he punctured the conventions around political campaigning in the US. I liked his nicknames for the other ghouls in the race.
And I liked him because he apparently provoked fear and disgust in the rank assholes of US elite media and academia.
After he won I liked him because, as I wrote in a blog post at the time, he was like a mirror of American reality that almost no American wanted to look into: a crude, fundamentally ignorant, aggressive narcissist with no capacity to recognize the real existence of other people. In short, the perfect representative of America.
And now I like him because he is going to burn it all down and America is not going to be running the world any longer. Americans are going to be poorer and it is going to be increasingly difficult for their narcissism and stupidity to continue to maintain the false image they have of themselves.
I like him because the way his supporters defend him reveals the depth of ignorance and delusion that is the outstanding characteristic of Americans across the spectrum.
And I like him for legislating biological reality in spite of the fact that Americans ultimately can't handle even that portion of reality and so will revert to whatever ideological tap-dance the capitalist medical industry orchestrates in order to be empowered to carve up human bodies for profit in the future.
Thanks for explaining that.
"I had no idea who he was until his campaign in 2015 caught fire, I thought he was hilarious."
So, the most salient thing that jumped out early on was that he's a master showman? Nothing POV/policy-related stuck out?
"I liked him because ... he was like a mirror of American reality that almost no American wanted to look into"
So, you then liked him because some 70-80 million people -- that is, about half the voters of the U.S. -- could, in an case of mass projection of "crude, fundamentally ignorant, aggressive narcissis[m] with no capacity to recognize the real existence of other people", shift their own manifest ugliness onto him without admitting it themselves?
"And now I like him because he is going to burn it all down and America is not going to be running the world any longer"
So, you'd rather the U.S. suffer immensely than that it learn fix its problems first?
"I like him because the way his supporters defend him reveals the depth of ignorance and delusion that is the outstanding characteristic of Americans across the spectrum."
How many "across the spectrum" do you know quite well personally? Serious question. Say, 5 or more unrelated people in each decile of wealth? Population-representative numbers of each (major) racial/ethnic group? geographic, age, LGBT, education, intelligence, etc. etc. Do you listen carefully to all, even those you disagree with? Do you find it hard to respect any who haven't (roughly) followed your path?
FWIW, I don't think you understand very well the vast majority of people who voted for him. (I didn't vote for him; I'm a Leftist.)
What *is* your preferred future? For the U.S. (if you're American)? For the world?
Ah… an American “leftist”. Who didn’t vote for Trump. How salient.
Is that the kind of “leftist” who does the whole pink hair and “trans women are women” thing and “whiteness is the root of all evil” thing and “America would be better if every gender, skin color and fetish were represented proportionately at every level of your liberal capitalist hierarchies” thing?
Or is it the kind of “leftist” who goes “Bernie woulda won” while voting for Kamala or Joe because “the lesser evil” is real and spends the next 4 years denying any responsibility for what the Dem fuckwit in office perpetrates because you’re a “leftist”?
In terms of “policy-related” things about Trump I have and had no fucks to give because ultimately POTUSes usually have little to no impact on foreign policy and what they do domestically is irrelevant because sucking up to capital and flicking crumbs of various sizes to the peons doesn’t concern me. Not American.
If there was actually a “left” in America there would be organized resistance through unions and less institutionalized organizations. And I don’t mean resistance to Trump. I mean resistance to capitalist domination of every aspect of life in the US, to the arms industry and the military machine that spreads death around the world to make money and support capitalist domination in as much of the globe as possible.
But the left in America either does gender woo or BLM or says “Bernie woulda won” and votes Dem because less evil. The left in America says things like “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” and “socialism doesn’t mean everyone being poor” in order to justify doing absolutely NOTHING about “leftism in America.
Being “on the left” in America is a way of speaking and nothing else.
The way things are going in Trump II, it looks like he may in fact turn out to be the kind of POTUS that FDR or Reagan was and bring a whole new paradigm into being. We’ll have to see. There are forces within the capitalist class who don’t want what he wants and conservatives who don’t want what he wants so his “first 100 days” may fizzle out over the next few months.
One way or the other, “the American left” will have no impact on how it goes.
What that means to me is that this is a moment of possibility in American history and it is just too fucking sad that the only people around to jump on it and do something about it are Trump & Co and the vast legions of morons that lurv him.
Whether there is a big war because Merkins gotta show the chinks what’s what or if we get past this without that likelihood, the world will be better off without America, Land of the Twee and Home of the Insipid Kneelers pushing everyone around cuz $$$.
This is long and at points sloppy, but I thought your points all worth commenting on...
"Is that the kind of 'leftist' who does the whole pink hair and 'trans women are women' thing and 'whiteness is the root of all evil' thing and 'America would be better if every gender, skin color and fetish were represented proportionately at every level of your liberal capitalist hierarchies' thing?"
No. IMO, none of those have anything to do with Leftism; the first is art fashion (a contradiction in terms), the others I consider useful idiocies under totalitarian propaganda. I'm an original Leftist, pre-Marx, way back when prioritizing it (as with Rightism) was still an (ideally-transient) choice on a policy dimension (as reflected in the multi-part 235-year-old French motto - liberté, égalité, fraternité), not a unitary religion (as is embodied in Marxism or Catholicism). Only because of the culture in America do I consider myself "semi-permanently" Leftist.
Purposely oversimplifying for a moment: Rightism = the prioritization of (individual/family) freedom, Leftism = the prioritizing of (society-wide) fairness, usually in reaction to excess Rightism. Both freedom and fairness are necessary in all healthy societies, and it is why Right and Left parties survive in some form or another perennially.
"Or is it the kind of 'leftist' who goes 'Bernie woulda won' while voting for Kamala or Joe because 'the lesser evil' is real and spends the next 4 years denying any responsibility for what the Dem fuckwit in office perpetrates because you’re a 'leftist'?"
Bernie has (since at least 2016) revealed himself as shameless shepherd for the Democratic Party, made completely pathetic this year as he is put on stage to assist the Democrats' thrashing and burning in the Trump 47 era. If you haven't yet heard/read it, I invite you to read Taibbi/Kirn's latest Friday dialogue in which he's well-skewered.
"In terms of 'policy-related' things about Trump I have and had no fucks to give because ultimately POTUSes usually have little to no impact on foreign policy and what they do domestically is irrelevant because sucking up to capital and flicking crumbs of various sizes to the peons doesn't concern me. Not American."
Unfortunately, might always makes right. Always de facto, but never de jure (that is, if you're a small-d democrat). Might, by sword or pen, writes history and does all the rest. For example: Do we remember the now-normalized establishment of enclosure laws? No. It's now the air we breathe.
"If there was actually a 'left' in America there would be organized resistance through unions and less institutionalized organizations. And I don't mean resistance to Trump. I mean resistance to capitalist domination of every aspect of life in the US, to the arms industry and the military machine that spreads death around the world to make money and support capitalist domination in as much of the globe as possible."
In certain ways, I disagree. Sure, unions should organize and act, but not as permanently active features, except for their institutional knowledge, so, dormant at times. Leftism (as well as Rightism) should be a transient political choice depending on the circumstances of polity in time and place. Marx is the globalist wrong fork-in-the-road that turned it all into a series of unnecessary, *permanent*, intra-national *wars*. He thoroughly changed the way we think about societies. He and his followers *ostensibly* fought and still fight for the naturally-democratic Left, but actually toward stealth totalitarianism, where vanguards doing the power-hogging via law, culture (psychology), and guns, instead of capitalists via law, capital, and guns. I see you are anti-capitalist (a system which I see in proper limited application as neutral, just like applied socialism in proper limited application), but Marxism in its many forms over the years is full-on societal toxicity. Yeah, it's been such a long time now, few Leftists think otherwise.
"But the left in America either does gender woo or BLM or says 'Bernie woulda won' and votes Dem because less evil. The left in America says things like 'there is no ethical consumption under capitalism' and 'socialism doesn’t mean everyone being poor' in order to justify doing absolutely NOTHING about 'leftism' in America. / Being on the left' in America is a way of speaking and nothing else."
Well, yes, Leftism (like Rightism) has long gone FUBAR, no matter where it is. I'd like to help fix that (I suggest as noted above).
"The way things are going in Trump II, it looks like he may in fact turn out to be the kind of POTUS that FDR or Reagan was and bring a whole new paradigm into being. We'll have to see. There are forces within the capitalist class who don’t want what he wants and conservatives who don’t want what he wants so his 'first 100 days' may fizzle out over the next few months."
He's a piece of work, no doubt about it. He, along with Putin, are in very different ways the most important political figures of the early 21st century. He has changed history in the last few months, even if he fails at this point. He's opened Pandora's box and there just ain't no turning back, wherever it goes.
"One way or the other, 'the American left' will have no impact on how it goes."
Just as it hasn't had an impact going back to the 2011 steamrollering of Occupy, and back to the 2003 failure of the Iraq War protests, and back to the 1999 Seattle anti-globalism protests. Its character been completely co-opted by the corporatists since its implosion in the 1970s, and Bernie's cuckery is the latest laugh in the faces of its constituents. It's going back into the desert as it did in the 1980s.
"What that means to me is that this is a moment of possibility in American history ..."
Yes.
"... and it is just too fucking sad that the only people around to jump on it and do something about it are Trump & Co and the vast legions of morons that lurv him."
I disagree. Trump-47 is simply the realization of a mid-2010s inchoate rebellion against creeping totalitarianism, which may well have peaked with the COVID "public health" episode. It's time to remake a completely new world, one that abandons the power concentration of all the forms of Marxism *and* that thing called "capitalism". I suggest our real problem is neither socialism or capitalism, but instead the perennial infestation of intelligent psychopathy/sociopathy in forming and occupying *both* of those approaches. We barely know how to recognize it, never mind contain it, yet it is what always turns the iron law of oligarchy toxic.
"Whether there is a big war because Merkins gotta show the chinks what’s what or if we get past this without that likelihood, the world will be better off without America, Land of the Twee and Home of the Insipid Kneelers pushing everyone around cuz $$$."
Certainly, in its current form, America has to change drastically. But I'd be damned careful when amending the Constitution. I'll leave it at that.
I appreciate the lengthy reply.
I have to say though that as a lifelong socialist who has viewed the American "left" with suspicion ever since the anarchiddy shitshow of the "Battle in Seattle" I hardly need the maunderings of a conspiracy boffin like Kirn or a former fellow-traveler like Matt to know what Bernie is and has been all along.
I will confess to allowing myself a modicum of "hope" during his first campaign, more fool me, but once he declared for and stumped for that fascist ghoul Killary I got my feet back on the ground.
You don't sound very "leftist" to me. I would guess just one of the 31K flavors of liberal that the US ideological mechanisms throw out on a regular basis.
Marx qua Marx is not about "concentration of power" and those Marxists who have in fact come to power have done so in a world dominated by the overwhelming power and amoral willingness to use it to slaughter and maim of capitalism.
So, where most American "leftists" would see the Vietnamese diaspora aka "the boat people" as escaped victims of "totalitarian Communist state", I see quisling bastards who collaborated with whatever colonial power wanted to fuck their daughters for a chance to make money.
The interesting thing about the tradition of "anti-communism" on the American left is its commitment to ignoring all the good things that communist/socialist states have done and emphasizing only what really really upsets liberals.
Education and healthcare for the masses is common to communist countries until they bite the neoliberal bullet and go for wealth creation under the "international rules-based order".
In the contemporary US, education and healthcare are shit. And whichever way the Trump Doctrine works out in terms of geoeconomics they are only going to get worse under the domination of the right, whichever variety ultimately settles in control.
You can't run a feudal society with a mass of educated healthy peasants. You need the kind of people who vote for Trump and think Obama was a socialist or believe men can be women and "whiteness" is something to overcome in your heart.
That is, you need Americans. And there is a whole shitload of them who never could trust and respect each other enough to stand up together to demand certain fundamental decencies from their massas in corporate boardrooms, at trading desks or even in the Oval Office.
As a longtime cyberpunk fanboi I suspect the America all you "leftists" are allowing to be foisted on you and your confreres on the right is something along the lines of Gibson's "Sprawl".
And eventually there will be a highspeed train (surreptitiously sourced from China) running the Acela Corridor and it will be called "The Spectrum", cuz if you ain't on it, youse is fucked.
Michael-bot is angry! 😡
This is really a big bucket of retard. The whole piece attacks the American capitalism that pursued globalization. Did you read the same words we did?
Exactly - I’m not sure what he’s reading.
I’m not a socialist, and not particularly an anti-capitalist. I am however against companies that evade labor laws by regulator-shopping. It wouldn’t make sense to attack “capitalism” in this piece because that’s not really the issue with US-China imbalances - the issue is opening “free trade” agreements with nonmarket countries that artificially suppress their currency, abuse workers, pollute, etc. Is that capitalism, communism, neither, both, a bastardization of all those systems? Without question I’m placing blame at the feet of American business leaders who beginning in the eighties cooperated with China (and Indonesia and other countries) to evade regulatory headaches and up their share prices at the expense of American workers. You’d have to be nuts to read this as jingoistic.
Along this line, I would love to listen/read your impression of the most recent All In podcast where the guests were Larry Summers and Ezra Klein. Your take would be interesting, to say the least.
Matt, I agree with your comment. I just don’t agree with the bombastic tone of your article. And I don’t think your criticism of Bernie is fair comment. Concerning those who agree with you , you might want to comment on how critical commentary doesn’t include cursing and swearing and general potty mouthing it. It does not speak well of your audience when they do this, and I hope you will discourage it. I’m sure the oligarchs like to see us fighting like cats and dogs and using all sorts of profanity against each other. They can continue to oppress us while we fight against each other.
Were regulations very onerous in the 80s ?
yes. Especially to the detriment of mature business. However, they were fairly applied across the US. Going overseas allowed businesses to evade them completely. The original case of labor savings on low skill labor intensive industries had some weight but when management saw the regulation burden fall they went all in.
I agree with a lot of what this article says but there were people on the other side of this argument making valid points. As I said above, mature industries were getting their ass kicked by foreign competition for a variety of reason, labor costs, outdated equipment, regulations, bad management. Trade liberalization addressed a lot of those issues for the benefit of many but opened up a different cans of worms.
Thank you!!!
Capitalism in its contemporary form emphasizes "shareholder value".
Corporations have a "fiduciary obligation" to maximize profit. ie increase shareholder value.
The factories you say "China stole" were sent outside of the USA to cheap labor destinations to do what capitalism does, ie increase shareholder value by maximizing profit.
Most of the valuable things you've written over the years are forensic examinations of the workings of capitalism and the money-obsessed culture that it gives birth to inevitably.
But you're a jingoistic American so you can't bring yourself to actually see what it is you are looking at.
Because America is about "freedom" and that includes the "freedom" to fuck over your communities and your nation if it "maximizes shareholder value".
Get a grip.
Corporate execs and business leaders are going to do capitalism as much as they and their shareholders can benefit from it. I would put greater blame on the people representing the American people for allowing the business sector to proceed on the backs of the American worker. But then this brings us right back to laws and regulations that are written to be broken. How do you fix corrupt politicians? You get a Pole to screw in a lightbulb.
One basic thing is to make sure that "free trade" no matter the trading partner is "fair trade" I think a lot of Matt's frustration is that this was obvious to anyone paying attention to how communist regimes work, CCP being the worst, and screwed American workers -- and the capitalists that make things -- anyway. There is no room for competition with the CCP. They lie, cheat, steal and game every system. How much IP has to be stolen, domestic companies crushed before Washington notices that this is not fair trade. It's an abuse that benefits the very few at the expense of all of us. And it's like we're just now catching on?
Don't you suppose it,s because our representatives are themselves so heavily invested in the corporations they regulate? Congress does well when business does well.
"The whole piece attacks the American capitalism that pursued globalization. Did you read the same words we did?"
As a bit of a stickler for grammar, I have to point out that your use of the restrictive relative in the phrase "the American capitalism that..." (deliberately?) suggests that there is more than one American capitalism.
There really isn't. And anyone criticizing "globalism" (the right's term of art for avoiding critique of capitalism) by naming "China" 15 times and "capitalism" none is a cuck.
I used to defend Matt (as recently as within the past 24 hours) when liberals cosplaying leftist attacked him with "he used to be _____ but now". But the fact is he's refused to recognize a genocide taking place and his jingoism, which is stupid but understandable, has mutated into outright MAGA buffoonery.
"Translation: a serial trade and human rights violator that with the help of decades of corrupt politicians from both parties polluted, price-dumped, and stole its way to a generation of American jobs and revenue, now owns so much of our debt that we must put up with its shit indefinitely. That’s the point of view of our own federal news agency. We have officially cucked ourselves past the point of no return."
"China" occurs 15 times in the article. No mention of capital or capitalism.
When Matt writes things like "It was an asset-stripping scheme, designed to help CEOs boost their share prices by cutting costs of American parts, labor, and regulatory compliance from their bottom lines", and your complaint is that he didn't explicitly use the words "capital" or "capitalism", you're not giving serious responses here.
When Matt writes things like that he is harping on about the trees and the result is the forest disappears.
Capitalism demands that CEOs "boost share price". It's not as if CEOs could have chosen to support America and American workers once the legal, military and infrastructural frameworks were in place to make it more profitable to make t-shirts in Bangladesh.
As Matt says above, he has no problem with capitalism. I suppose he actually believes that if a better class of person started taking over as CEOs these bad things just wouldn't happen.
The 30 year period that followed WWII, during which capital was hamstrung by the regulatory frameworks established in the wake of the Great Depression and as part of the war effort, was the result of FDR's program to save capitalism from itself.
When Bernie rants on about "billionaires" or Matt pillories "CEOs" we are just witnessing the left-liberal version of the right blaming "immigrants", "the Chinese" or "socialist feminazi trannies".
Talk about anything but the structures and institutions that necessitate that things run the way they do- capitalism and its insistence on increasing profit aka "shareholder value" as the be-all and end-all of everything.
That is the first rule of Fight Club.
Help!! The sh't has hit the fan Sir. Clowns to the the left of me. Jokers to the right. And I'm stuck in the middle with the rest of We the People. Money always helps but when lawyers and guns are the fall back the only alternative is a golden parachute and the parachute packers union has become totally unreliable. It ain't happening to me so it isn't happening is poor political policy and it doesn't matter who shot the sheriff when the darkness is lying through its teeth and the shadows are running on empty (running wild). But "C'est la vie" say the old folks, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse and a numbered account guarantees the harbor lights of St. Barts will always shine for thee. If I could only get some sleeves for my records and some laces for my shoes. But don't worry. Be happy.
(RACKET/Taibbi and the gypsy scribbler Kirn rule. Likewise--my opinion-Matt Stoller and N.S. Lyons. I can't read everybody.)
The recent quickly becoming controversial D.Murray/D.Smith Rogan podcast is interesting because Murray almost put his finger on the actual reality of the disease undermining our national conversation. Electronic media is pathogenic. It distorts reality and, despite their best intentions, the viewpoints of those dependent on it for their livelihood. If J.Haidt is correct about the addictive nature and harmful effects of electronic media on American youth it is also crazy making for adults. Manipulation of the American psyche is an industry. RACKET/truth speakers absolutely. But continuing to embrace an electronic sewer as the lens through which We the People view the world is not the solution. (And I know you're not saying it is.) Truth matters and subscription journalism is a two way street. The only path forward is creation of a truth/fact based national conversation that will create a solutions oriented truth/fact based American reality. Can we get there from here? There is the Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen. Everything else is psyop. Depart the psyop and live.
"the gypsy scribbler Kirn" is brilliant. Well done. And he would love it too.
Just having fun on a Spring Saturday. Keep on rocking'!!
Electronic media isn't "pathogenic". The way it is "monetized", ie turned into a profit center, is through algorithmic manipulation.
There is no law of nature that says the way algorithms distort the worldview of people who use electronic media is inevitable.
One Mike to another, what should have been the new Library at Alexandria became a weapon of surveillance, psyop lies and life cancellation. The potential is still there. Why manipulation and "algorithms" at all? Nothing is inevitable. For myself I've come to believe that I need to make a conscious reconsideration and realignment of my relationship to electronic media. Subscription journalism is in its infancy and the potential for the creation of the healthy solutions oriented truth/fact based national conversation that will heal what I see has a shattered and manipulated American national reality is growing daily. "It's getting better all the time..."
Well, I hope so, because I don't see another way out of the quicksand.
"Subscription journalism", like most manifestations of capitalist reason, will inevitably create "castes" to run in conjunction with "silos".
The more free cash you have, the more New Right posters on Substack you can shore up your prejudices with. Those unfortunate enough not to be able to afford to read widely will be left at the mercy of whatever agit-prop is freely available.
"Why manipulation and "algorithms" at all?"
Because when the investment bankers and VC vultures demand to know where the profits will come from, the answer is in the algorithms and the surveillance. On top of that fundamental, there is the state with its interest.
So... "inevitable"? Not in any hard determinist sense but in the world of capitalist relations? Relatively inevitable.
And just BTW... NS Lyons' "history" is about as "truth/fact based" as the 1619 Project.
Yep!! The world is a scary place, but never take the dying cockroach position when dealing with thugs, bandits and usurpers because, as We the People witness daily, it isn't the actual theft of material resources, it is as you've described, the violation of human moral reason, the shredding of human dignity and the creation of a machine to impose power and maintain the LIE that sustains it. People die.
We the People/the world, has entered a new age. The possibilities for a bright prosperous human future are endless. Yet, as our forefathers recognized when they launched the American Republic, human fallibility and avarice are as old as time. Hence the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, which I see, as the only engine of change and survival, and the only legitimate frame of political reference in the world. I'm no fan of bubble land, psyop, agitprop or silo. As caste goes, "I'd never be a member of a club that would have me as a member." And, patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels but I'm clinging to this Republic with both hands.
Again, subscription journalism is in its infancy. And I agree, it is bound to fall prey to human imperfection and foible. But truthful reality is THE TRANSCENDENT that dispels THE LIE. Applied to journalism, having an opinion about having your ass on fire is not the same thing as having your ass on fire. I'm trying to participate by supporting truth speakers.(Consider Starmer's England.)
N.S. Lyons? I never thought of him as an historian. His writing, seems to me, tries to focus on disease rather than symptom. (If you haven't, you might enjoy Cormac McCathy's double volume THE PASSENGER/STELLA MARIS.) Stay strong. Stay clear. As Lightnin' aways said: "You can use friend where a dollar won't spend. Amen."
"Translation: a serial trade and human rights violator that with the help of decades of corrupt politicians from both parties polluted, price-dumped, and stole its way to a generation of American jobs and revenue, now owns so much of our debt that we must put up with its shit indefinitely. That’s the point of view of our own federal news agency. We have officially cucked ourselves past the point of no return."
"China" occurs 15 times in the article. No mention of capital or capitalism.
As a bit of a stickler for grammar, I have to point out that your use of the restrictive relative in the phrase "the American capitalism that..." (deliberately?) suggests that there is more than one American capitalism.
There really isn't. And anyone criticizing "globalism" (the right's term of art for avoiding critique of capitalism) by naming "China" 15 times and "capitalism" none is a cuck.
I used to defend Matt (as recently as within the past 24 hours) when liberals cosplaying leftist attacked him with "he used to be _____ but now". But the fact is he's refused to recognize a genocide taking place and his jingoism, which is stupid but understandable, has mutated into outright MAGA buffoonery.
WAH! Matt hasn't covered your pet peeve topics, poor you.
Is every journalist expected to cover everything? Do you bitch about Hannity and Rachel Maddow not spending enough time commenting on how seamlessly Luka has fit in with the Lakers?
I don't know anything about Hannity and Rachel. That's the kind of "substance" American media consumers need to wrestle with.
The topic here is "globalism" aka "free trade" and how Matt sees it as a "bad thing" for America that "needs to go".
In my reading of Matt's celebration of Trump's tariffs, Matt concentrates, as does the Orange Man, on China, which he says "stole its way to a generation of American jobs and revenue" as one among 15 total mentions of China.
So Matt covers the topic we are talking about but he covers it with all the insight of a retarded MAGAss.
The responsible parties for all those American jobs and revenue is American capitalism writ large. China didn't steal them. Apple and Foxconn did. (Rhetorical)
No one forced your fat opioid-slurpers to buy Chinese-manufactured flat screen TVs. Some fatty could have gone to Japan and learned how to make them in bumfuck Ohio, set up a factory and a range of services for opioid addicts, and made them in the US.
And no doubt 7 or 8 patriotic fatasses would have paid the 500% premium to buy the low quality crap and a few thousand "victims" would have thanked them for their service.
But it didn't happen. Cuz you folks do one thing well. Whine and blame furriners.
"Whine and blame furriners." That's two things.
But there are other things "we folks" do well. Ever heard of the Super Bowl, the World Series, SpaceX, white-tailed deer, Silicon Valley, Dow Jones, Lewis and Clark, Bob Dylan, the Lockheed-Martin F-35, firing squads in Idaho, the "moon walk" (Michael Jackson's and Neil Armstrong's), WWII, Ted Turner's Montana Grill and his Superstation, Orville and Wilbur Wright, or the Grateful Dead? (EDIT, to add:) The Masters!
I agree we are pretty worthless these days, but "American capitalism" isn't and hasn't been all bad. Even an avowed socialist can find something to love here, like Hollywood and the Democratic party for two examples.
I wouldn't piss on the Democratic Party if it was on fire.
Hollywood has had its moments.
What nags at me about the fruits of capitalism and my fondness for them these days is KPop and Korean drama series.
Makes me wonder if living in a brutal culture is actually a good thing for art, pop or otherwise.
It’s ignorant to say it’s the fault of capitalism. Therefore you must be ignorant.
Who is going to loan the money to build a factory when you can't demonstrate the ability to be profitable? Setting up a factory to produce electronics goods costs a bit more than the spare change in the back of your couch. How exactly is this magical strawman of yours actually supposed to work?
You seem to have an unhealthy hunger for fat, fatty fatasses, especially those hailing from Bumfuck, Ohio. BBW must be your go-to on adult sites. (Bumfuck is actually a well-known place in Iowa, not Ohio, but you can have a pass on this. Bumblefuck, Iowa is not too far from Bumfuck.))
You're missing the point. Journalists have a beat. Sam Donaldson used to have the White House. Bill Simmons has the NBA. Matt's beat has been, in the past, presidential politics, financial crimes, and now he has been focusing on free speech for a while. I don't disagree with you that Israel is doing terrible things in Gaza, and I suspect Matt doesn't disagree either. But it's not his responsibility to cover and comment on every story out there. Even if you call him names when he doesn't.
There also appears to be an unhealthy bone up your ass about the United States. Did we do something mean to you? Or your country? What is your country? Is your wife really fat? Are you, and are you projecting? You're projecting on a lot of stuff, but specifically here I'm talking about whether you're fat and therefore say mean things about fat people.
The US is full of fat people. That is people who sit around slurping sugary drinks and gorging on fatty "food" in front of Chinese flat-screen TVs being zomboid.
Liberals blame "racists" and "fatphobes" for making the fat feel bad. Conservatives blame liberals for pretending the fat are somehow their fault.
American "radicals" blame McDonalds.
Every now and again a goodly number of Americans hit the streets, usually to protest a misdiagnosis of the American disease: anti-racist, pro-queer, protect Muslims, Jews will not replace us. Good people on all sides.
It has been a very long time since any significant movement in the US has addressed capitalism directly or even indirectly through its favorite expression the arms industry.
A big part of the reason for this supine acquiescence to whatever the bosses and their Ivy League administrative minions fuck them with is fat. Fat lazy whining slugs whose most radical approach to protest is opioid overdose.
The most slim and healthy of Americans are usually cunts of a different order altogether: genocide is good when Israelis do it; globalization aka capitalism is always good except when them furriners get uppity and do shit; war and death in foreign land is good because they ain't Americans so fuck them.
I don't have a bone in my ass about America. I'm a socialist and therefore tend to look closely at the operations of American-dominated capitalism around the world with more of a critical eye than your usual American. One of the things I see is that when push comes to shove most Americans defend their system and the iniquities of their betters.
Unlike people like Matt, I don't see how waving the theoretical outline of "America" (the Constitution) at the reality of American capitalism and its imperialist manifestation changes anything at all.
And do knock off the jejeune dime store analysis. Just stick to "haters gonna hate" like you were 15 and it was 2012.
So... mostly, Americans are fat slobs who are lazy whining slugs who love opioids and are zomboid, but the slim and healthy Americans are just cunts? You must be lots of fun at a party. Is there a goldilocks zone in your view (between the fat slobs and the slim and healthy cunts) or do you just despise everyone?
Just Americans, dude.
“Everyone” (I know this is almost beyond the ken of Americans generally) is a much larger category altogether.
You are truly a miserable cunt. They have people you could talk to about that.
Take a break from Pornhub and make the call to your EAP.
And you, sir, are an American.
Fat by any chance?
no one even cares what country you're from, loser
go jerk off to fat ladies
lol
Had to look up jingoism. That was NOT in Matt's article! Is that your MO, take your latest pet insult and then construct a false argument around it?
"The right's term of art for avoiding critique of capitalism"? Capitalism needs no critique. It can stand on its own based on 250+ years of success. It's the corrupt participants that deserve severe critique (as Matt was giving), be they CEOs, bought-and-paid-for politicians, greedy union bosses who abuse and sell out their members or the mad billionaire puppeteers like Rockefeller and Soros, all are evil, selfish destroyers. The ones to blame are the individual perpetrators within the system not the system, but then that's what socialists do, right? Create bitterness and revolt by maligning the system, so they'll sign up for slavery? And your ugly meanness is showing. Matt did not deserve your hateful critique.
This is all cover for impending absolute capitulation on tariff fallacy. Trump fucked around and your 401k found out. But we’re going to blame Bernie? The fuck outta here. But at the church of stupid pastor Taibi is god.
401k is irrelevant unless you're old enough to use it, then you are irrelevant.
Yeah, I agree with your comments, Lawyers and Guns. I just don’t believe we can ‘
burn it down as Taibbi advocates by following Trump. He might “burn it down,” but he’s gonna burn it down everything else with it.
You may well be right. However, what we've been doing for the past 35-40 years continues to make things worse. When billionaires and rich people whine about market losses, it might be a sign that something good is happening. I lost a shit-ton of money in the past few weeks, but I have to be ok with it if I want to stick to my beliefs about what is good and what is not for working Americans.
Would someone else try to radically fix things if it weren't for Trump? I don't know. Some would argue that Bernie would have had he not been sabotaged by his own party and then did nothing about being shivved. Twice. There's no one out there that would have either the beliefs or the balls to do this.
My concern is what happens when Trump leaves office. Will his successor continue with the attempt at reshaping the economy with working people in mind vs. the ownership class? Something that took decades to fuck up won't be cleaned up in just a few years.
Sure, I'm concerned about what could go wrong. But when the alternative is guaranteed wrong, I'm willing to roll the dice.
You can tell I don’t have much to do this Sunday afternoon. I got a knee replacement and I spend my time sitting around or exercising so I’m waiting you back.
You’re a braver man than I am ( or more foolish). I’d be more swayed if he at least had been consistent, rather than undoing everything he did within three days much to the benefit of his oligarch friends. Then there’s his background which other than the rhetoric doesn’t show a heck of a lot of concern for the common man. I guess we’re gonna find out what’s gonna happen and who owns the dubius right of “I told you so.” I’m arguing the probabilities based on the available evidence right now are with me.
Sorry about your knee, and good luck with the recovery. Be as religious as you can with the P/T exercises.
I don't know about brave, but it may turn out I'm more foolish. Here's the thing--the current (pre-Trump tariffs) economic model worked great for me. Executive with two large publicly traded companies, getting rich from share price growth fueled at least partly by better margins earned by replacing expensive workers and ditching regulated America to find cheap labor that can be abused elsewhere. All companies did the same, as it was not illegal, and the crowds cheered globalization.
But I've always known that it's rigged against working people. And no one--no Democrat or Republican President has done shit about it for decades. Well, that's actually not true. Democrat and Republican Presidents have both made the problem worse. Shit, and remember Hillary trying to sell us on the TPP trade agreement when she was running? Would have been NAFTA cubed.
If the current system works great for me, and I STILL want change, I can only imagine the folks for whom it's not working. Maybe everyone will be disappointed. But to quote Lloyd Christmas: "So you're telling me there's a chance." Maybe it is only one in a million. But with any other candidate who was running (save RFKj) it would be a continuing zero in a million chance.
I didn't vote for Trump. I joined 1.2% of my fellow state citizens in supporting "None of the above candidates." But if he's successful in improving things for working people, and scaling back the influence of pharma companies and insurance companies on health care (maybe turning today's "sick care" into actual "health care," I will regret not pulling that lever.
Yeah I’m hoping you are right.
I can't see that it attacks capitalism. It definitely attacks unscrupulous capitalists. There is a difference, you know. The system is good. The human corruption is not. Same old same old. Time for another flood - oh, but wait, God promised no more floods. Matt is right. It will be burned down.
Like any other belief system, capitalism has clear goals: the maximization of profit and growth. Except for maybe Ben & Jerry's, capitalism is not benevolent. And even Ben & Jerry's sold out to Unilever.
This is why capitalism is regulated. Getting the right balance of regulation is the important question.
Capitalism is the best system, but calling it good is a different story.
Capitalism is not a belief system. It's an organizational model for every facet of life in societies dominated by capitalist organization.
Liberalism is the belief system that interacts with capitalism in a never-ending chicken-and-egg shimmy.
And liberalism is why Americans cannot imagine a world without capitalism. Reality needs to impinge on the mind for actual thinking to be birthed into the world.
And liberalism is the most effective condom ever invented.
What? Capitalism is not just numbers on a P&L statement. Capitalism is the opportunity in a free society to end up better off than you started. And if not better off, then you were at least free to find your own way with your own skills and sweat in order to live the life God gave you on this earth. I know you want to boil it down to economics but it is chiefly people. And yes, people can be slaves to the almighty buck but that's nowhere near to what socialism enslaves the people.
Go away
Why don’t you refute his claims? Because you can’t. Matt was carefully explaining that you’re not a pos for shopping at Walmart and this Micheal fella ruined it by rubbing your nose in your mess. And now you want the mean man to go away.
"Why don't you refute his claims?"
It's hard to find a claim that doesn't pertain to Matt's balls or lubed MAGA dicks.
Valid
Gibberish. Talk about policy.
Who the F are you, and please seek help.
I'm really tired of the caustic insults by commenters who style themselves as the next Taibbis or Hunter Thompsons, of which Michael's and many others here, pro and con his position, seem to feel expresses their post-modern literary brilliance.
Is there a real person and argument here, or has AI just been learning how to swear?
The "thing that is real" is not so much capitalism, it is the intelligent psychopathy that corrupts the iron law of oligarchy no matter what the system. We barely know how to recognize that problem, much less fix it. (I'm confident that's by design.) But fixing it is the only way out.
derp, derp, derp.......brown nosing for china-globalism.
Potty mouth
What a great socialist. Errr guy.
Yeah.
The kind of socialist who knows that gormless fatties without the balls to stand up to the bosses are gormless no-balls fatties.
You are sure fixated on balls.
You can't have unions without strong businesses and you can't have strong businesses with "free" trade. How'd all the strikes in Britian in the 1970's work?
Capitalism won.
Eventually too many Brits wanted to be spanked on the botty by stern Margaret.
At least I got to confiscate money raised by our football team's Homecoming Event and send it to support the miners' wives and kids.
Solidarity across the globe more or less died somewhere in the 90s and the "left" capitulated to liberal identity politics in its embrace of capitalist values.
You should reboot the IWW. Wobblies always say Workers Unite!
The IWW relied heavily on immigrants, people who weren't as dickless as Americans tend to be.
Every time the actual left has had energy and impact in the US, it's because foreign-born people were influential at every level of organization.
The only counter-example is the 70s when some unions actually "stood up" and workers, some workers anyway, were willing to stand up with them.
Wildcat strikes are fun.
No other option but burn it down. I feel queasy when I hear politicians like Schumer want to call for meetings and committees and democrats to get in the discussions where nothing gets done but talk.
Trump has managed to get the world talking about the failure of the globalists. Before they completely rob us and feed us bugs.
Wall Street has very little to do with the working class and they don’t care either.
It is but “politician with no balls” is redundant
That would be Bernie Sanders.
Other ironies include suddenly becoming concerned with human rights and other liberal niceties when the political wind changes with regard to one's official opinions about China's state policies and practices. How long will hate-China week be promoted this time around?
Hope everyone will enjoy paying $2500 for an iPhone from now on because that’s what Trump‘s 140% tariff on Chinese goods is going to do to America. Moreover, everything in your automobile and all of your prescription drugs come from China. Hope you got enough money to pay for them. I don’t like to say swear words, but “when the shit hits the fan“ a lot of people are gonna be changing their tune.
The 140% tariff on China is what they call a regressive tax. It means the increase cost of goods through tariffs will be paid disproportionately by ordinary Americans— not the rich. Chinese manufacturers will pay the tariff and that money will go into the treasury, but then it will be passed along to us in higher prices. Thuss, we pay that tax.
The added money into our federal treasury will then be used to offset the trillion dollar tax cuts Trump will give to the rich. The tariffs to be effective will have to last years and will not be effective if the Trump administration and Congress does not pass statues that assist domestic industry in rebuilding. Moreover, the rebuilt factories will be run by robots, not people so don’t expect the Working Man to benefit all that much.
So do you see where all of this is going? Don’t you think this should be brought up by a skeptical independent journalist like Matt Taibbi before he says “burn everything down?” Don’t you think we the public should be questioning Matt when he doesn’t rather than cursing and swearing everyone that disagrees with him?
Full disclosure: I am not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican. I vote independently based upon the best critical analysis I can make of the situation. I am for tariffs and other measures designed and actually capable of rebuilding America’s industry and employing people that are now hopeless. I do not agree with Mr. Sanders on many issues. I just don’t see enough evidence that Trump‘s true motive is to help the Working Man. I see nothing is background to support such a conclusion. People should be allowed to question his motives without being cursed and sworn at.
People have gotten so used to buying cheap shit off the backs of people in other countries who do not enjoy the same human right's protections, labour laws, or standard of living. I suspect most people don't think about that, and more importantly, don't want to think about that. Maybe it's good if "why is stuff from other countries so much cheaper?" becomes a mainstream topic again.
Don’t know the answer. Maybe things will work out great, but I’m fearful they won’t.
I bet you believe corporations pay their corporate taxes.
Heck no! I hate corporations! I’m from a broken down factory town. I saw what they did to my mom and dad and my friends. I became a lawyer because of it and I’ve been suing corporations every chance I get when I see them take advantage of people.
You got me mixed up with a Democrat. I don’t belong to either political party. Gives me an independent mind, don’t you know.
I’ll bet you and I and a lot of other people that I make critical comments to have a lot in common. I just believe in the constitution and critical thinking rather than flying off the handle with my gut reaction.
Your response to me shows the first step in critical thinking: Asking questions. Good on you.
Erik
BurnNNeee👹