58 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Why Fascism?'s avatar

It’s a dialectic capture or a dialectic hammer. Call it whatever you like.

Carlson is one of the people that discusses the issues afflicting the working class (although he does so from the aesthetic to the right). This is why he has such high viewership and such poor corporate sponsorships.

The elites need the left and right to stay the way that it is. Mitt Romney isn’t marching with BLM or supporting Biden because he cares about black people or working people: he needs to support the status quo.

Here Is an example of how the dialectic hammer work:

1) Education. Do we have a capitalist system? No. Do we have a socialist system? No.

The left comes in and says every single person in this country irrespective of ability, interest, income or societal need should be able to go to whatever university they want and major in whatever subject, irrespective of cost. The federal government guarantees the loans and universities can charge whatever they want irrespective of whether the borrower can eventually pay the money back. The “not for profit” universities can pay tenured boomer professors and administrators six and seven figures with obscene perks and transfer the cost to the student, who in turn transfers it to the public. If the student can’t pay it back, the public eats the cost. This is why education is the fastest rising item in the US today. Side note: the costs and defaults are spectacular, but we don’t have an honest picture because of programs like income based repayment that allow borrowers who otherwise can’t pay back their loans to pay a percentage of income as the balance of the loan grows.

If you aren’t down with this arrangement, your favorite very well compensated leftist administrator or tenured professor will summon his or her arsenal of identity politics fire power to let you know that there’s absolutely no way we can interfere with this instanity because a member of [fill in the blank protected group] wouldn’t go to Harvard medical school but for this program (never mind the legions of people attending no name universities staffed by ivy grads that are paying for degrees that will cripple them).

Now for the right. The right doesn’t focus on the fact that the universities are robbing the public coffers blind, oh no, there’s no care for fiscal responsibility here.

The right is just there to make sure the kids remain in permanent debt peonage and hammer the point “personal responsibility” over and over and over, never mind the fiscal catastrophe of writing blank checks to institutions governed by self interested actor. Trump’s Secretary of Education is notorious for this: just making sure borrowers can get out of the debt (even using legal means such as public service forgiveness programs).

The dialectic hammer at work. In this instance, the beneficiaries are leftists (professors and administrators), but for the con to work you need the tag team of the worst aspects of the left and right to bring you FASCISM.

There are people on both sides of the spectrum that can solve this problem by giving you real, solid and honest reforms, both on the right and left. For example, David Yang has a total command of this issue on the left and Carlson understands it from the right, but there’s no chance of either having any real power to do anything.

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

Great commentary overall. If I can add one insight: We push people to go to college with a narrative of long term financial incentive, and we offer many of them short term incentives to do so. (e.g. do you want to live with your parents for the next four years or come to college on a loan?) But at some point you push past the group that benefits from a college education and are giving people who would be best served by vocational training (skilled manufacturing, welding, etc) degrees that leave them suited mainly for social activism.

So basically, we're paying for the indoctrination of an entire generation to become social critics of the current system, and now we're surprised when they engage in social criticism and the activism we encouraged them to go learn.

American Madrasas!

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

But the military option doesn't indoctrinate people ? LOL !! This is very amusing ! So in essence your brilliant plan is to send all the poor kids into the military and trade school so that the children of the elite can go to the elite schools and continue to exploit the poor by both blood and treasure ? LOL !

That's the very system we have now ! Are you people CIA assets ??

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

It's not about rich or poor, it's about the right fit for the individual. Poor people with high IQ should be identified and put into the right course of study at a top school, and final job path. Rich and poor people with average IQ should be given a great career path that fits them. It may be coding, it may be welding, it may be high tech skilled manufacturing. But what we shouldn't do it push a person who can't handle a management job or an information economy job into college for the sake of having "a college degree" that doesn't change what they are best suited for. I'm all for keeping the rich who don't merit the spot from getting a pass into a college.

By the way, it is well known at this point that the actual education of college changes your income by +2-3%. It's primarily the selectivity of top colleges that affects their student's life outcomes, not what they teach them. Reverse that and "going to college" isn't what makes people successful.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

You are mostly righty, but we have dig in deeper.

Peter Thiel makes the excellent point that if the value in a Harvard degree was the actual instruction, then we could pay Harvard massive amounts of money and have their instruction provided online for everyone to consume. The value isn’t the instruction, it’s the selectivity and the network. The education has very little value there or elsewhere. It’s not practical.

The reason poor kids who to Harvard succeed is because the network advances them, sometimes. You get an opportunity to work for the institutions that control the country if you go to Ivy League schools because the rich send their kids there. The rich kid gets to pretend to hes competent because he goes to Harvard by pointing to the fact that poor people that went with the rich kid to Harvard, by and large, also become rich. However, the poor kids will actually have to compete in the real work place and TEACH THEMSELVES the skills required to succeed. If they can’t, they are really screwed, much more so than if they didn’t go to a place like that.

If you exclude the rich kids from the Ivy Leauge, it has no value. Rich kids want self esteem and a network. Poor kids want money and a network. You need both for the fraud to continue.

A real solution is getting back to practical skills, especially for the poor. Imagine if they taught martial arts the way they teach crap at university . Some asshole writing the moves on board, you memorizing the moves and then taking a test regurgitating it, without ever seeing how anything actually works in practice. The analogy would be bar brawl. If a rich kid with such a “martial” education stepped into a bar and a biker with no formal training but 500 street fights attacked the rich kid, the rich kids private security could handle it (and the analog to privy are security in the economy is a trust fund). A poor kid armed with such an education is going to get the shit kicked out of him. If the kid has natural gifts, speed, strength, endurance, etc., then he or she would learn how to fight in ten or so brawls and then be able to defend himself with the practical experience.

A better system is that the poor kid goes to a real Brazilian jiu-jitsu school and learn how to fight outright (military).

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

99% agreed! The poor kids who go Ivy don't just get a network, they also have talent. But, beyond the selectivity, as you say the schools' main benefit actually provided is network rather than the education.

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

And what about rich people with low IQ ? You know, the ones that go to Ivy league schools right after daddy or grandpa donate a few stolen millions ? Saying this isn't about rich or poor is what makes it funny. We all know about the economic draft set up by the elite into the military that gets poor kids killed and makes West Point grads rich and powerful.

Who do you think will choose which kids go to college and which ones go to trade school ? IQ is a horrible measure of character and especially of emotional intelligence.

You're just creating another hurdle to trip up kids who are at that stage immature to begin with naturally. The brain isn't fully formed until about 25 on average.

Barring kids from college due to some bs and incomplete standard like IQ is just wrong. Education is good for anyone that is willing to learn period. This whole BS social engineering by inbred elitist sociopaths who feel it's their birthright to exploit every aspect of everything having to do with life is what needs to go.

So does this consume for the sake of consumption BS economy that only drives more war and exploitation by the so called elite.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

Right, but without the rich kids the degree is worthless. That’s a contributing factor as to why millions of people can’t find employment. The education at 99 percent of universities is theoretical. Theoretical education is the province of the aristocracy, that’s never going to change.

Barring kids from college that aren’t rich or absolutely brilliant is a fabulous idea.

Americans need to get back to practical skills.

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

I think I said "I'm all for keeping the rich who don't merit the spot from getting a pass into a college," but I guess we should check the record.

"Education is good for anyone that is willing to learn period." I don't think taking a differential equations class is good for someone who won't understand differential equations. But we can agree to disagree.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

I suppose it’s a superior plan to send the poor kids to the elite schools, heavily in debt them for the privilege, and then not only do the rich kids continue to exploit just as if the poor kids went or didn’t go, but the poor kids have no tangible skills to get out of the trap and are pwned for life.

Oh and of course, a handful of poor kids will be given some parasitical function in the decaying institutions of this country, so the rich kid can pretend his or her success is due to attending an elite university, not inherited wealth (college admission scandal anyone?).

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

We can also see how much harm these elite Ivy league schools have done around the world and to society as a whole. I think all elite institutions should be shut down until an ethics review is done and a board made up of citizens reviews them. Look at WHINSEC for example. They've killed more people than 'ol Adolph the butcher ever did and are still at it !

Expand full comment
Sandy B's avatar

Best summation of current higher education system I’ve seen in a long time.

Expand full comment
verbrannt's avatar

This is not an even remotely true statement:

> The left comes in and says every single person in this country irrespective of ability, interest, income or societal need should be able to go to whatever university they want and major in whatever subject, irrespective of cost.

It is, at best, a hyperbolic cartoon of an actual goal of the American left, namely: ensuring free, public higher education is available.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

No its a true statement. Academia is run by the left. Specifically, it’s run by the tenured faculty and administrators, who are very well compensated and mostly exempt from market forces. The only market force is whether or not the kid can get into a school and if said kid wants to attend. If those conditions are met, the feds cover the costs and the kid functions as a student loan conduit between tax payer and academic institution.

Yeah, they advocate for free public education because then there will be no price controls. Right now, it’s possible some kid might say to themselves maybe this 250k BA in philosophy is going to hurt me, let me rethink it. Of course, in the vast majority of circumstances, friends and family will quickly assuage all concerns and tell said child that an education is critical success, attending the highest ranked school no matter the cost will pay off, and he or she doesn’t have to worry about anything. But there are (and increasingly so) kids that are looking at the price tag.

Who on the left is arguing for PRICE CONTROL of any kind (market or government)? Very few people with power. I can see why they not only want a blank check but a clandestine one as well, and that’s “free” public education.

Of course, if the right did it’s duty, it wouldn’t allow these institutions to do this. No private actor is going to lend a kid 200k for a BA (or even a BS) from no-name U, and to be honest, maybe not even the elite schools the way things are going.

This is why the cost of education has gotten so out of control.

Expand full comment
El Jefe's avatar

This is 100% correct. Every time I have run into someone bemoaning their crippling student debt, I ask the same questions:

1) What did you major in?

2) What were your grades?

3) What were the lower cost educational alternatives?

4) Did you consider post-graduation job prospects when making all these choices? If not, why not?

Invariably - and I mean, every time - they cannot justify the expense they undertook for their educational program. The most I have ever gotten is "Nobody told me."

Here's a simple plan to fix collegiate educational cost:

A) A sliding scale of borrowing based on course of study. If you change courses of study from, say, accounting or finance or pre-law to gender studies, you can borrow less. Doesn't mean you can't take those courses - just means you have to pay for it.

B) An overall capped amount of borrowing - if you want to exceed that, your parents or - wait for it - the school has to agree to be your co-signer.

C) Corollary to that...students who default on their obligations - and the default rules have to be stricter than they are now - are backstopped by the parents and/or the school. The school benefitted from the easy federal cash - let the school eat the loss.

If Harvard and its enormous $41 billion endowment wants to teach "Pre-Determined Gender Roles in Underwater Basketweaving", let them, but the public should not have to pay for that. I don't think the public should have to pay for any of it, but the resources should be funneled towards students willing to learn marketable skills rather than political activism.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

That’s mostly right. The key is making the institutions accountable, which making the universities co-sign the loans is the absolute best way to accomplish the goal of accountability.

Ultimately, I don’t care if it’s a right market based solution or a leftist oversight solution (as long as controls are put in place to avoid regulatory capture).

The personal responsibility argument though is dangerous. Here’s why: the information on what major is useful and what major is not useful just isn’t out there. For example, you mention prelaw. It’s not common knowledge but being a lawyer is not financially lucrative for the vast, vast majority of lawyers. Lower middle class and middle class families, especially immigrants, just do not have this information. If a poor kid tells his or her family that he or she read on the internet that going into debt for a law degree doesn’t make sense anymore, you can bet dollars to doughnuts the kid’s family is going to excoriate them for listening to nonesense. When the kid graduates 250k in debt and can barely eek out a leaving, the right wing personal responsibility crowd is going to take him or her to task, but the end the result is the same: the institution gets the money without being held accountable.

Years ago law students sued law schools for providing misleading employment statistics. In one case, a federal judge dismissed the case against one specific school on the grounds that the kids could reasonably rely on the representations of the school. The judge acknowledged that the school did lie, but the kids were naive on relying on the representations, and they should most lawyers don’t make much anymore (I can provide a citation if you are interested). Now, I’m not for bailing out lawyers, but the law schools got to the keep the money and the tax payer got shafted and the graduates got shafted. (The founder of the law school in question is entitled to a state guaranteed pension of 450k a year for life FYI.)

By way of another example, and Tucker Carlson discusses this all the time, there is absolutely no shortage of STEM graduates. Zero. The tech companies with outsourcing and H1B1 visas have made sure of that. Moreover, if you find work as an engineer, by 40 you’ll be unemployable.

I predict that finance is eventually going to be impacted as well. The only reason it’s not being impacted right now is the children of the very wealthy are going into the financial sector as a means of establishing connections and satisfying their ego, and for that to work, you have to pay everyone a high compensation so that we can pretend the game isn’t rigged. Eventually though, market forces are going to come to bear and your average ivy finance grad is going to have problems. (Why I do I have to pay a 22 year old kid with no experience 85k-200k right out the gate when thousands of kids are graduating ivy schools with finance backgrounds year in and year out?)

My point being that personal responsibility is relevant and bailing out people for being naive is a problem, but that has nothing to do with letting wolves feast on the naive to fleece the general public.

Expand full comment
El Jefe's avatar

I yield on pre-law. Fair enough. I saw years ago a NY Times article about people emerging from lower-tier law schools with $250k in debt who were unable and unwilling to pay it, saying they were "hoping for a bailout in the age of bailouts".

I graduated from business school with $200k+ in debt. It took me a very long time to pay it all off, but I did. That was my choice and my responsibility.

Ultimately, I could not possibly agree more about the key being blocking the wolves from feasting on the naive and fleecing the general public. College costs have exploded because there is too much free money available to subsidize college. The colleges - as the beneficiaries of the loans - should backstop the loans. I cannot respect anyone who says "Eliminate student debt" who refuses to look at the cost side.

Also galling is the concept that only those with debt should be reimbursed. The video when the dad asked Elizabeth Warren "My daughter worked two jobs to pay off her debt, and so did I. Do we get our money back?" and Warren mockingly laughed at him and said "Of course not." I saw a pretty left-leaning political commentator say "I chose to carry my student debt and spend money on vacations and cars, etc. I have friends who were more frugal and saved so they could pay it off, denying themselves things I chose to enjoy. Should they be penalized for paying down their debts? Should I be rewarded for choosing not to do so? That seems wildly unfair."

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

I graduated school debt free because I took scholarships to lower tier schools and I worked.

My point is that the focus should not be on getting emotional about personal responsibility when we are being robbed. From a fiscal point of view, we are being robbed blind because universities charge whatever they want without skin in the game. Falling trap to the right aspect of the dialectic hammer and wail about personal responsibility doesn’t make sense when the universities can steal.

The answer may be To not forgive the loans AND- going forward- making sure universities can’t charge whatever they want. But the former without the latter is going to result in a fiscal catastrophe. The kid that didn’t pay back his debts because he or she went on vacations still got subdized by the tax payer and the tax payer still eats the costs.

And one more point, having legions of young and indebted kids in the market is going to make everyone’s life more difficult. I remember one of my associates commented that when he was coming up employees couldn’t take a shit on him because he had options, now, and this is a quote “these idiots have so much in student debt, we can do whatever we want to them.” In other words, he can impose work place conditions that are bad for everyone because of the student debt situation.

It’s important that we don’t let our own suffering at a particular injustice perpetuate more suffering, especially when it doesn’t make fiscal sense. To me that’s a bedrock principle that the right and the left can work with.

Expand full comment
Alden's avatar

"The price of what we're winning, is the same as what we lost"

--Neil Peart

Expand full comment
Alden's avatar

Excellent post!

Expand full comment
Alden's avatar

That's why I'm raising my kids with the idea to understand debt. If you want to go to college, do something with your life first, like the military. It's what I did and graduated with 0 debt.

However, I've always told them that people will need plumbers, electricians, builders, mechanics, roofers, until the end of time. Apprentice under someone, then start your own business. You can be as busy or lazy as you want...but choices have consequences.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

Absolutely. My biggest regret is not joining the military. In a fascist system, and we are a fascist country (capital and the state has merged), the military is the best institution to give you real and practical skills.

It’s truly unfortunate that poor people with above average (but not extraordinary) abilities view the military as a bad option. If you have a 3.5 High school gpa and an SAT score in the 75-90th percentile, unless you come from money, the military is almost certainly going to be a much, much better option than going to an average college (irrespective of major).

Expand full comment
Alden's avatar

I agree Sir! I served for three years, and have free health care for life from the VA. The pros outweigh the cons. Got a bunch of money for college from the GI Bill. I always say the military wasn't all fun, but it was all good.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

It’s not about the free stuff in my estimation. It’s the last functioning institution that imparts (and for the foreseeable future can continue to impart) real skills to young people.

Expand full comment
Alden's avatar

Once again I agree. I was a Tanker (M1-A1). The skillsets I treasure most? Learning to work with people from a variety of backgrounds, and learning how to think critically. Kudos for the observations

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

All while in service of plutocrats who use the US boot to step on the necks of other entire regions to gain or maintain their social status.

Expand full comment
Carol Jones's avatar

you mean just like corporations who also use and abuse--just differently and oh yes destroy other regions (think Coke etc.) and countries for their gain

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

That depends on what country you live in now doesn't it ? Wasn't so good for the folks in the ME or South America now was it ?

Expand full comment
verbrannt's avatar

You've provided zero examples to substantiate your initial claim, instead made further claims about what your imaginary version of "the left" believes and does. This is not argumentation, it's delusional ranting.

> Who on the left is arguing for PRICE CONTROL of any kind (market or government)? Very few people with power.

There very, very few people on the left in power in the US at all, but let's set that aside to address your ill-informed main point.

There are abundant examples of free higher education in other countries, notably western Europe. There, staff salaries and tuition fees (if any) are generally strongly regulated if not set by the state. If you took the time to…ahem…educate yourself on this, you'd find that the status quo you've invented in your mind palace is not remotely rooted in reality.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

It doesn’t matter what people on the left who have no power advocate for. David Yang discusses these issues in depth, but he has no power. The American left is controlled by neoliberals, until that changes the dialectic hammer continues.

There are right wing solutions to this problem advocated for by libertarians on the right; for example, if the student loan program was eliminated in its entirety, the price of education would crater. If that happened though, the boomer-commie professors that are gourging themselves on federal tax dollars wouldn’t be able to live the life of the top one percent, while indoctrinating our youth that this fascist system is a capitalist system.

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

The American right is controlled by neoliberals as well so what's your point ? Libertarians can never understand that the "free market" is a fairy tale and that markets are political constructs. We get to choose how society is ordered and by which rules it operates, not some pixie dust magic BS invisible hand.

You wouldn't need a loan program if education was free and you wouldn't need insurance if healthcare were free.

The only reason they're not is it helps keep the elite the elite. Let's not forget the "right

wing war monger" professors that would be out of jobs as well.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

No, we don’t get to choose. Human nature is human nature.

You are right that libertarians are deluded in thinking that an idealistic and theoretical free market exists or won’t be eroded. The most anticapitalistic entity in the universe is the corporation. There is no limited liability in capitalism. The robber barons lobbied for the law to change, eg before the mid-nineteenth century, if you wanted a corporate charter, you need it granted by the legislature of a given state, and only if you demonstrated that you were acting in the public interest would you get it.

When libertarians discuss the history of the decline of free markets in this country, they usually bring with the New Deal or the creation of the federal reserve (with the more honorable ones focused on the latter). What they conveniently neglect to mention is that free markets declined at least seventy years prior with the creation of corproate entities that owed no fiduciary obligations to the public (the founders would have thought this is as anathema, no state, not even the slaveholding south allowed this). They conveniently neglect to mention that theformation of corporations and central banks, which were lobbied for by private (criminal actors),produced the regulatory stars They also conveniently neglect to mention that private actors lobbied for this change and no matter how small a government, if the population isn’t vigilant against criminality, totalitarianism will creep in no matter it’s form.

But the problem is that leftists are equally If not more deluded. Humans aren’t altruistic and at least five percent of the population has a criminal mind frame, eg to exploit the rest of the population, live at its expense, and not contribute anything in return. Also, even good people when given tremendous power are usually corrupted.

The hard left won’t yield on this point, eg that humans are greedy and self interested actors. If you don’t start from that point, and screech emotionally about how humans are, demanding some self sacrificial altruism, the very worst predators take power.

This is the problem idealogues in both sides miss: you need checks and balances in all facets. The constitution is a great example of the founders understanding that absolute power corrupts, hence separation of power. The founders didn’t provide a vehicle for this separation in the economic realm or for how to cure extreme corruption when it infects the body politic

The key to moving the ball forward is not fall prey to the theor

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

So funny how you have this emotional block that makes you ignore the obvious. The constitution was written by slave owners and elitists for the most part. America was built upon exploitation of people and resources. The elite write the history to cover their own asses and all you have to do is read some Smedley Butler to understand all America has ever been is a new empire with different tyrants in charge.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

It’s you who have the mental block because you define this country by its sins, not its achievements. This country has produced more wealth, more innovation and done more good than most.

Slavery and nepotism are not unique to American civilization, in fact now, in Africa, rich Africans are selling African slaves to arabs (right now).

Demanding an idealistic standard of morality and condemning whatever doesn’t meet that standard is as pitfiul, if not more so, than people that refuse to acknowledge the sins of this nation or its present state of extreme corruption.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

As a small l libertarian, I would strenuously argue against free markets being “ fairy tales”. Do we all-you, me, Trump, Bezos, Chinese peons-have to live in the real world of policy choices and limitations-absolutely. That said, human society will naturally drift towards free market solutions if left to it’s own devices. It has been suggested that the Cultural Revolution in China actually led to the toxic hyper-capitalism we now see in that land. During the 60s and 70s, while crazed students were trashing and killing everything in sight, the rural peasantry was basically ignored by the central government. Left to their own devices, the peasants reverted back to normal, market based-practices, instead of Maoist-Marxist collectivist idiocy. When Deng Xiao took over in the late 70s after Mao died and the Gang of 4 got the boot, he realized that market reforms had been implemented from below and he might as well roll with it, which he obviously did. Humanity will always naturally trend towards free markets in the most basic of ways,imo.

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

Markets are one thing, free markets are a fairy tale. It's also been suggested that the golden rule is that he who has the most gold rules.

Capitalism as well as all the other "isms" are exploitation, PERIOD.

Until we move beyond this "free market" BS that incentives hyper competition for resources we will continue to suffer the wrath of the elite and their petty egocentric scuffles over who's legacy will be written into the history books.

Until we destroy the concept of the elite and take back the vernacular from them, we as a species will continue to circle the drain.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

There will always be an elite. There are people who are better looking, smarter, stronger, better worth ethic, etc.

At my last job, my colleague was working-literally- one hundred hours a week. He was sleeping on the office floor when his wife was giving birth to his child. When most of us were let go because of the lock down, he was not among us- and rightfully so

The problem is criminality. Advocating for an “elite” not to exist is a fantasy. The issue is what that elite does, how much they take, and what they are allowed to do us.

For instance, some asshole (like Trumps number two man at the Treasury) whose family is in the junk bond business, should not be allowed to sell said junk bonds and pay less taxes on the profits than my friend pays working his ass off, ESPECIALLY, when the federal reserve is printing money and giving it to these parasites.

Advocating to get rid of an elite is contrary to every aspect of human nature. Advocating to prohibit wanton criminality is another thing all together.

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

Or maybe you could ask the elite to pretty please stop being so corrupt ?

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

Advocating to get rid of the elite is the only way to keep the elite from getting as corrupt as they currently are. We don't make the rules, we just have to play by them.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

No, the answer is to understand the criminal element of human behavior, and not slamming our feet up and down and demanding that human nature be different than what it is.

In your scenario, the people who will have the will to organize the population to displace the elite will likely be criminal sociopaths themselves, without any of the redeeming qualities of some of our current elite, namely the capacity to innovate and produce. This is what happened in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.

The people advocating to remove our current elite class, which consists largely of brutal innovators, nepotites, and corrupt financial parasites, will replace them with a group of people that can manipulate people’s emotions without more. That’s not moving the ball forward.

Different reforms are needed, and those reforms have to begin with a clear understanding of human nature, not fake idealism with an underlying ethos of revenge as the sole bedrock of political change.

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

Your magic pixie dust "free market" utopia cannot ever exist due to the fact it requires exploitation and division to operate. It necessitates an elite and divides people into those with capital and those without Please don't try to defend the lazy crooked elite who for centuries have colluded together to purposefully deceive the masses into working themselves to death to ensure a life of leisure and decadence for a bunch of mostly inbred sociopaths who gained their position of power by killing their parents, siblings, or anyone else that stood in their way to that power. With a few exceptions, this is how we as a species have refused to evolve. Just because it's always been that way doesn't make it right.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

I don’t advocate for a free market utopia because it doesn’t exist.

I don’t fail prey to the argument of revenge either though, demanding that America be some morally pure nation without sin that meets an academic standard of morality.

We did evolve in this country. We have massive numbers of self made millionaires and billionaires that have made incredible contributions to humanity, and yes, by extension, they are more elite than the rest of the population.

Just because we have features of corruption And immorality that plagued other civilizations does not mean those features define the United States. A very large portion of our elite have provided enormous innovation that makes everyone’s daily life better.

The corruption stems from demanding that a hierarchy not exist or refusing to acknowledge the corrupt elements of that hierarchy.

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

Your co-worker was not elite he was sick. There's nothing "right" about abusing your family and being stupid enough to be exploited to that extent.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nothing our elite are doing is illegal due to the fact they've legalized it. Law has nothing to do with it. Virtue is what is missing and any group or bloodline allowed to stay in power for too long will naturally become lazy and corrupt. That's human nature.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

He was elite. He’s going to be build a better life for his family. His kids are going to have options because of the sacrifices he is making, which is something you don’t understand.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

Just b/c someone has stock options or rich parents doesn’t make them better or more worthy of emulation. You need to own your personal intellectual happiness and understanding, instead of demanding that society validate you. Eric Hoffer covers this attitude much better than I-through his writings and his personal example/ career.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

Yeah, but you fail to understand that rich kids have parents because some in the chain of ancestry was either a criminal or made enormous sacrifices so the rich can live better, like my friend who is working his heart out so his kids won’t have to.

Too many people have children that don’t want to make that sacrifice.

Expand full comment
L.A. Sanchez's avatar

Heres some REALITY There is nothing wrong with meritocracy. The US Constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness. I’ll explain: this DOES NOT mean ur guaranteed happiness or wealth or whatever u think it is the lunatics you think are so caring are promising you. It means...anyone can WORK for it but the OUTCOME is NOT Guaranteed.

If ur under 30 and making under 50k a year it explains why UR...ahem...delusional and Alice is ur next door neighbor. Thats a reference to a book by Lewis Carroll (in case its been banned).

I’ve worked too hard to pay 60% tax on my income (not unheard of in EU countries, Serbia for one. In FACT it ranges from hi 30s to 60+). As an undergrad i worked THREE jobs one of which was RA which does not leave time to sleep. Guess what? i didnt make enough to pay my tuition but i made TOO MUCH to receive grants. I come from a working class widowed single parent family. I WORKED my way up to the income i EARN now and with taxes have probably financed the equivalent of several 4 year degrees and a couple of master’s.

In “free” education countries as it is here, one must also pay property tax. And tax on EVERYTHING ELSE. Make no mistake there are PLENTY of poor and working class families in EU who will NEVER be able to send kids to college. Why? Because they need everyone in the family to work. Go live in northern england or Spain.

The grass is always greener - you would know that if you actually earned anything You have. BTW - heres another fun fact - several “free” education countries require a certain term of public service. I wonder how many americans would be clamoring to GIVE something for the PRIVILEGE of an education.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

Excellent points.

I have to add some obligatory points, namely this, Europe, the US and the West has a very parasitic class of uber elites that pay nothing in taxes, dont work (or if they do work, the work is harming everyone else), and they are bailed out consistently by the remainder of the population. Right now, half of the United States is out of work and the Federal Reserve is printing money to keep the apex of the society intact, while giving a finger to everyone else.

This is particularly absurd when viewed in light of the tax code that dramatically favors investment returns over wage income. What risk are these parasites taking when the central banks bail their ass out and everyone else gets the finder with increased inflation and instability.

They have these fools on the left burning down working class neighborhoods lol, as they remain exempt from everything in their palatial estates on the coasts, it’s ludicrous.

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

Agreed. Not one mention of the overall cost of the MIC that has to kill or oppress entire regions to justify its existence. Very self serving and devoid of long term solutions.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

The military security complex is a very serious problem. Maybe the most serious. The beneficiaries are right wingers, but if you want to tell me the American left doesn’t support it as well, with these humanitarian missions, lol...

Expand full comment
Skutch's avatar

Don't hide behind the fake left/right paradigm. Left and right were over decades ago when the "3rd way" BS started.

Expand full comment
L.A. Sanchez's avatar

I believe thE left wants everyone to have access to free education but It is completely unrealistic to think it will be any school any degree. In the end it will be quota based on what is best for the system. The history courses they deem relevant, STEM programs, trades etc all quota based. Want to study philosophy? Okay 1% of all applicants can but only at these schools and limited to these courses. Engineering? 7-10% at these schools etc. Degree requirements as we know them will change.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

No one on the left with any real power is advocating for this.

In any event, this has its own sets of problems:

1) Measuring someone’s ability by how many resources their parents have to pay for private tutoring for standardized exams that don’t translate into real skills, is a waste of resources and potentially unfair in its own ways.

2) Once again, price control. I don’t see why the government needs to write massive checks to institutions without price control.

3) Are we making these determinations when someone is 18, 22? I know students that did extremely poorly in college because they weren’t mature enough in high school to do the work, but kicked ass in college, and went to super elite graduate programs as a result.

4) The marketability of certain degrees is deliberately misrepresented to mask the real problem: labor surplus. There is no STEM shortage. Zero. There is an army of foreign labor doing this work for peanuts. Leftist: you aren’t down with anyone coming here to do the work for half of what an American is willing to do it? Racist. Rightist: You want to restrict the free market from importing or exporting labor wherever aggregated capital sees fit? Commie.

5) Related to 4, what about the curriculum? They don’t teach. They don’t want to teach practical skills and most of them don’t. When does this change? If you centralize power in the state even more, the same people who want t safe and secure incomes (faculty) will do everything in their power to stop you from making meaningful changes to the curriculum.

But yeah, your proposal is better than what we have now.

Expand full comment
Louis's avatar

Really great, thought-provoking comment. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

Expand full comment
Marcos's avatar

Fantastic analysis. Thanks for your insight.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

My pleasure.

Expand full comment
Adele's avatar

Your statement does seem over reaching in terms of left’s proposals (eg Sanders) re public funding or anything/anywhere goes acceptance policies. Maybe it’s more accurately stated as a plausible slippery slope. Won’t argue with your other points. It’s a racket as it stands.

Expand full comment
Why Fascism?'s avatar

Show me where Sanders advocates price control. Also, he’s a fraud. They screwed him twice and he took it to preserve his personal position.

Expand full comment