0:14

Hello. You're listening to The

0:16

Beautiful Idea. A podcast from

0:18

a collective of several anarchist

0:20

and autonomous media producers scattered

0:23

around the world. We're bringing

0:25

you interviews and stories from

0:27

the front lines of autonomous

0:29

social movements and struggles, as

0:31

well as original commentary and

0:33

analysis. Follow us on Mastodon

0:35

and at The Beautiful Idea.

0:37

Show. Thanks for listening. My

0:55

name is Jamie Merchant. I'm

0:57

a writer in Chicago and

0:59

I just published a book

1:02

called End Game, Economic nationalism

1:04

and Global Decline last fall

1:06

in the Field Notes series

1:08

that is published under the

1:11

editorial leadership of Paulmatic at

1:13

the Brooklyn Rail. And so

1:15

I've been writing for that

1:18

publication and a number of

1:20

others, including the Bafler,

1:22

the Nation in these times.

1:25

among others, since roughly the

1:27

mid-20-10s on this theme of

1:29

rising nationalism and kind of

1:32

right-wing radicalization,

1:34

not just in this country,

1:36

but around the world, and

1:39

what that means for contemporary

1:41

left radical politics right now.

1:43

And so that pretty much

1:46

sums up what I'm about. Great,

1:48

well thank you for taking the time to

1:50

come on the show. You've done some really

1:52

amazing interviews on the Antifota podcast and like

1:54

you said there's some great articles in the

1:56

Brooklyn Rail which we'll link to and of

1:58

course we want to encourage check out

2:00

in game. Yeah, we want to

2:03

talk about a lot of these

2:05

things about how tech capital, this

2:07

increasing push towards the right in

2:09

ruling class circles, you know, what

2:11

that all means, this increasing push

2:13

towards economic nationalism. And also, moreover,

2:16

what does all this stuff

2:18

mean for not only social

2:20

movements, but working class people?

2:22

Like, what are we actually

2:25

going to see into this

2:27

stuff? So just to kind

2:29

of get us started, I

2:32

think it would help to

2:34

define sort of the terrain.

2:36

So you talk about us

2:39

kind of living in like

2:41

a post-neoliberal world. I think

2:43

it might be helpful just

2:45

to define neoliberalism really quickly.

2:48

And how did those policies

2:50

shape us up until now?

2:52

So we don't hear as

2:55

much about neoliberalism these days

2:57

as we did maybe, you

2:59

know, 10 or 15 years

3:02

ago. But the ideology and...

3:04

political movement just to start

3:06

with a basic kind of

3:08

first pass at it here

3:11

in a kind of definition

3:13

for neoliberalism you know can

3:15

be traced back to the

3:18

global inflationary and stagnation filled

3:20

crisis of the 1970s and

3:22

the way that that crisis

3:24

which was global and especially

3:27

I mean it was basically

3:29

the entire world was caught

3:31

up in two different degrees

3:34

but a worldwide inflationary wave

3:36

that was accompanied in the

3:38

advanced sort of capitalist core

3:41

countries like the US and

3:43

Western Europe, Japan by kind

3:45

of rising class conflict and

3:47

class struggle in a variety

3:50

of arenas. And so the

3:52

ruling class of this country

3:54

and others was kind of

3:57

faced with a dilemma of

3:59

how to kick start. capitalism

4:01

or reorganize sort of ruling

4:04

class like opinion and thought.

4:06

and ruling structures and institutions

4:08

in a way that would

4:10

resolve that crisis and allow

4:13

profitability to continue again and

4:15

for capitalist corporations to kind

4:17

of escape this inflationary trap

4:20

that they were stuck in

4:22

throughout the decade of the

4:24

70s. And basically no one

4:27

knew what to do for

4:29

most of that decade, that

4:31

decade, that decade. Until you

4:33

get Paul Volker, the central

4:36

bank, a very famous central

4:38

bank chair of the Federal

4:40

Reserve of the US, pointed

4:43

by Jimmy Carter, in the

4:45

late 70s, who basically implemented

4:47

this, what's come to be

4:50

known as the Volker shock,

4:52

where he let interest rates

4:54

skyrocket up to close to

4:56

20%. Like right now, people

4:59

complain about interest rates being

5:01

really high, right. since the

5:03

inflation wave of a couple

5:06

years ago and the central

5:08

bank's response to it. But

5:10

we're talking back in the

5:12

late 70s, early 80s interest

5:15

rates of 18%, 20% set

5:17

by the Federal Reserve. And

5:19

this had the effect of

5:22

basically destroying what remained of

5:24

the old industrial working class

5:26

in this country. accelerating de-industrialization

5:29

as it became basically too

5:31

expensive to produce manufacturing and

5:33

sort of high-level industry here

5:35

at competitive cost and volume

5:38

and the beginning of what

5:40

we now call financialization just

5:42

kind of a defining feature

5:45

of neoliberalism which really took

5:47

off under Reagan. and then

5:49

came into its own in

5:52

the 90s and thereafter. And

5:54

so in a stroke you

5:56

had with the Volkers. shock

5:58

and the entrance of Reagan

6:01

on the scene, the taming

6:03

of inflation, the really extraordinary pickup

6:06

in the industrialization and the

6:08

disciplining of the working class,

6:10

the organized industrial working class,

6:13

and the kind of cowing

6:15

of the union movement, the

6:18

organized labor legacy movement that

6:20

was inherited from the sort of

6:22

class struggles of the 30s and

6:24

40s, beginning to the dismantling

6:27

of that in the rise

6:29

of. of what we now

6:31

call financialization and our current

6:33

sort of like dystopian finance

6:35

like finance and corporation based

6:38

form of domination that we're

6:40

seeing now. And so all

6:42

that was happening and

6:45

it was sort of the

6:47

I guess the policy side

6:50

of neoliberalism whose idiological message

6:52

was all about strengthening

6:54

markets and making

6:56

market competition. and free

6:59

trade, and political ideas

7:01

like individual rights and the

7:03

individual right to choose, the

7:06

right to work, all these sorts

7:08

of labor ideas that informed

7:10

the neoliberal vision of the

7:13

labor market, making those a

7:15

kind of political reality,

7:17

and getting ideological buy-in,

7:19

not just from elites,

7:22

but from the broader population

7:24

for this ideological project. There

7:26

was going to be this

7:29

new era in which

7:31

free markets and unregulated

7:34

capitalism and free trade

7:36

and another buzzword that

7:38

eventually became very popular

7:40

globalization. We're going to

7:43

connect the world in

7:45

this in a kind

7:47

of seamless global marketplace

7:49

that, you know, would have these

7:52

kinds of economic institutions as

7:54

it's material base and would

7:57

be accompanied by political

7:59

and culture. ideas and values

8:01

like individual human rights

8:03

and so on. And

8:05

so that kind of

8:07

in a encapsulated form

8:09

is what neoliberalism was about.

8:12

It was about essentially

8:14

the idea that the free

8:17

market knows best and

8:19

that the government can't

8:21

do anything to improve

8:23

on the outcomes that

8:25

free and competitive markets.

8:28

provide and if anything it only

8:30

gets in the way and it kind

8:32

of came out came about as

8:34

an unintended outcome of the way

8:36

that the ruling class resolved that

8:39

that global crisis of the 70s

8:41

that I was describing earlier and

8:43

so and so yeah that's kind of

8:45

neoliberalism in a nutshell to kind

8:47

of attempt to bring us up

8:49

to the present period, I think

8:52

the next piece in that puzzle

8:54

is sort of the response to

8:56

the 2008 economic crisis and how

8:58

that connects to the post-pandemic world

9:00

that we live in right now.

9:02

How does that then create the

9:04

world in which we are now,

9:06

which is defined for most people

9:08

by just huge costs, no one

9:10

can save any money, rent is

9:12

going up and up and up,

9:14

everything costs more and more. An

9:17

event that I talk... It's

9:19

some length about in the

9:21

book is the great financial

9:23

meltdown that happened in 2008

9:25

and which some listeners might

9:28

remember in 2008 2009

9:30

is aftermath kind of

9:32

grinding on for years after

9:35

that that almost brought down

9:37

the entire global economy. It

9:40

was so it was so

9:42

extensive. And what you

9:44

had then was this

9:46

system that was supposed

9:49

to be like the

9:51

advertisement for like the

9:53

rationality and efficiency

9:55

of this new free

9:58

market-based society. Right,

10:00

that was sort

10:03

of post-cold war,

10:05

post, like, post-idiological

10:07

conflict, post-communism, post-socialism,

10:09

right? Like, this was

10:11

the system we had to work

10:14

with, and it was the

10:16

American way, and it was

10:18

all about, you know, the

10:20

freedom of competition on the market.

10:22

Essentially, you have this

10:24

massive, like, financial crash.

10:27

that happened at the very

10:29

top of the economy

10:32

among the biggest financial

10:34

corporations in the country.

10:36

And furthermore, the very

10:38

corporations that were supposed

10:40

to be the leading

10:42

cutting edge of market-led

10:44

innovation. They called it

10:47

financial innovation, like all

10:49

of these derivative contracts

10:51

and weird arcane financial

10:53

instruments that they used

10:56

to trade. So what they

10:58

called in retrospect, retrospects subprime mortgages

11:00

in the U.S. housing industry for

11:03

years, and that they thought the

11:05

markets could simply handle, and that

11:07

if they spread the risk widely

11:09

enough, you know, it wouldn't eventually

11:12

amount to any kind of systemic

11:14

danger to the system at

11:16

large, because the market, it's

11:18

such an efficient administrator and

11:20

organizer of information. It would never

11:22

be a risk at that level. But of

11:25

course that was dead wrong. And it

11:27

turned out that it was

11:29

creating these giant systemic risks

11:31

across the entire financial system

11:33

that were building up over

11:36

years because people were defaulting

11:38

on their home mortgages and on

11:40

their home loans. And it was

11:43

happening on a large enough

11:45

scale that enough banks and

11:47

institutions were losing money. And as

11:49

that sort of began to creep

11:52

up the chain of the corporate

11:54

chain, it eventually had a critical

11:56

point and that's when you get

11:59

the big crash in the fall

12:01

of 2008. And so right around

12:03

the time that Obama was winning

12:06

that, the Barack Obama

12:08

was winning the presidential

12:10

election of 2008, you

12:12

had this massive government

12:14

bailout of the of the financial

12:16

system where all of the

12:18

old sort of fairy tales

12:21

about, you know, the market

12:23

and competition being the

12:25

way forward for society were

12:27

just kind of thrown out the

12:29

window and it all of a sudden became

12:32

the story about, oh well actually

12:34

the government has to simply step

12:36

in and bail out like the

12:39

entire financial system like of private

12:41

capitalism and so it turned out

12:43

maybe the government you know isn't

12:46

always a problem like it's the

12:48

the private capital system is going

12:50

to fail and there's going

12:52

to have to be these massive

12:54

you know bailouts essentially when it does.

12:57

And so that really kind of

12:59

destroyed the central

13:01

conceit of neoliberalism

13:05

and it destroyed

13:08

the foundation for

13:10

elite ideology because

13:13

they really believed in

13:15

this stuff and it

13:18

left them kind of

13:20

scrambling for a

13:22

new form of

13:24

governance or rule.

13:27

What essentially happened was

13:29

you get this massive

13:31

state intervention where

13:33

they bail out all of

13:35

the biggest banks, they privatize

13:37

the risks, they socialize the

13:39

costs, it's all done, you

13:42

know, at the public, at

13:44

the, to the public, to the

13:46

taxpayer, and the, the basic

13:48

kind of new policy regime

13:50

that comes together in the,

13:53

in the years that follow.

13:55

is to remove any kind of

13:57

and I promise this is getting

14:00

to the ground level

14:02

questions that you mentioned.

14:04

To remove any kind

14:06

of systemic policy risk,

14:08

right, from the financial system

14:10

that would threaten it in such

14:12

a way again. And so to

14:15

just to kind of make a

14:17

long story shorter, the

14:19

government and its kind

14:22

of regulatory agencies

14:24

began to put a new... kind

14:26

of suite of regulations in

14:28

place for banks and for

14:30

lenders and financial institutions

14:33

across the financial system

14:35

and using the central

14:38

bank that basically all

14:40

but guaranteed that there would

14:42

be no other major crisis

14:44

like that that was threatening

14:46

the whole system in 2008 and

14:48

at the same time you had

14:51

the federal reserve pumping billions

14:53

and billions of dollars of

14:55

newly printed digital dollars into

14:57

the financial system and into

15:00

onto the balance sheets of

15:02

private banks private institutions to

15:04

you know to fortify them

15:06

and to kind of strengthen

15:08

them in the wake of the crisis

15:10

and these new regulations and

15:12

this new policy of just

15:14

seemingly unlimited money and very

15:16

low interest rates I should I should

15:19

add led to this massive historic

15:21

run up in asset values. That

15:23

is to say financial like

15:25

property that is held in

15:28

the form of financial claims

15:30

to wealth among you know

15:32

very rich investors and owners.

15:34

And so you have all as

15:37

a result all of this this

15:39

capital all of this this money

15:41

sloshing around in the system

15:43

looking for something to

15:45

invest in and the US

15:47

doesn't have much

15:49

productive investment. opportunity

15:52

for like rich investors

15:55

looking for like old

15:57

line industry or

16:00

or productive like enterprises to invest

16:02

in because almost all that stuff

16:04

has been deindustrialized and shipped off

16:07

offshore. It's not a very productive

16:09

economy, the US. This is it

16:11

doesn't make very many useful things.

16:14

But what it does have is

16:16

tons of very valuable urban real

16:18

estate. And so for example, you

16:21

saw just a flood, you know,

16:23

floods of money, not just from

16:26

US investors, but from investors all

16:28

over the world flooding into American

16:30

cities. buying up property, pushing up

16:33

property values, pushing up rents, making

16:35

it increasingly difficult just to live

16:37

in these cities. And that's been

16:40

a huge factor in the cost

16:42

of living crisis in this country

16:44

and you know prices have and

16:47

rents, prices of property and rents

16:49

and mortgages have generally only been

16:52

going on and making it harder

16:54

and harder to simply to live

16:56

in. American cities. So that's a

16:59

major part of the kind of

17:01

everyday, you know, cost of living

17:03

crisis that that everyone is facing.

17:06

At the same time, a ton

17:08

of this surplus capital goes into

17:10

things like, well, we could get

17:13

into, I guess, a discussion about

17:15

things like limited language models, so-called

17:18

AI, I'm sorry, large language models.

17:20

an AI a little bit later,

17:22

but you have all of this

17:25

money going into venture capital directed

17:27

at startups and the so-called gig

17:29

economy, you know, that's taken over

17:32

more and more of the sort

17:34

of economic landscape and created like

17:36

a whole new sort of subclass

17:39

of these, you know, of gig

17:41

work and gig jobs that is

17:44

kind of like a catch-all for

17:46

the for the labor market and

17:48

for people who wouldn't be able

17:51

to, you know, to find jobs.

17:53

necessarily in other

17:55

parts of the

17:58

economy, it serves

18:00

as like an

18:02

employer of last

18:05

resort in

18:07

a lot of contexts. And so, I

18:09

mean, those are just two

18:11

kind of examples of the

18:13

way that this huge

18:16

mass of surplus

18:18

money or surplus capital,

18:20

if you want to call it

18:22

that, that doesn't really have

18:24

any other outlet for investment, goes

18:27

into assets like

18:29

real estate that, you

18:31

know, it does increase in value, but,

18:34

you know, great benefit to the investor, but

18:37

at great cost to the people

18:39

who can no longer afford,

18:42

you know, to live there. And

18:44

then, I mean, we now,

18:46

we have a cost like another

18:48

dimension of the cost of living

18:50

crisis, which has kind of

18:52

come into, really come into force

18:54

after the pandemic. And

18:57

that, again, is the results

18:59

of not just this kind

19:01

of factor that I'm describing,

19:03

but also the whole way

19:05

that supply chains and, again,

19:08

the kind of limitations of

19:10

the US economy ran up

19:12

against the kind of disruptions

19:14

of the pandemic era and led

19:16

to, you know, the prices

19:18

of a lot of basic products

19:20

going, just going

19:22

up because there wasn't, basically,

19:25

there wasn't enough of them to meet the

19:27

demand of the needs, the basic

19:29

needs of people. In your writing, you

19:31

talk about how both Trump and

19:33

Biden are both these post neoliberal presidents.

19:35

And you talk a lot about

19:38

the actions that Biden took, you know,

19:40

the CHIPS Act, you know, implementing

19:42

some tariffs and stuff like that. The

19:44

reason I want you to talk

19:46

about this is because if we were

19:48

to listen to, you know, like

19:50

the neoliberals at Pod Save America

19:52

or something like that,

19:55

which are, you know,

19:57

former speech writers for

19:59

Obama, the narrative from

20:01

them is that... Biden was the

20:03

most progressive president since FDR and all this

20:05

stuff and did all these wonderful things for

20:08

the working class. And I think it's interesting

20:10

because you kind of pick apart and say

20:12

like, well, actually, this is done for real

20:14

economic reasons and it really doesn't have anything

20:16

to do with making people's lives better, but

20:18

is this move to do X, Y, Z.

20:20

So pull that out a little bit for us.

20:23

There was a great deal of, well, let me,

20:25

yeah, I guess let's start with. with Trump

20:27

and the sort of post neoliberal

20:29

lot. Like... Trump's

20:37

first

20:46

in a really like hyper

20:48

intense form. All that

20:50

was of course started in Trump's

20:52

first presidency. when he

20:55

began to use tariffs as a

20:57

kind of economic coercion tool and

20:59

began to take a much more

21:01

belligerent line against economic enemies,

21:03

notably China, and just in

21:05

general, began to pivot towards

21:07

a much more aggressive, like

21:09

economic posture of very

21:11

nationalistic like economic posture of

21:14

very nationalistic like economic

21:16

posture of very nationalistic

21:18

like economic warfare of

21:21

very nationalistic like economic

21:23

warfare of very against other countries

21:25

in a way that was kind

21:27

of would have been unthinkable in

21:30

the old like the days of

21:32

neoliberalism when right that the idea

21:34

again was that you know government

21:37

shouldn't be in the business of

21:39

intervening and markets and they should

21:41

just let markets kind of do

21:44

the work and let trade and

21:46

private initiative you know organize our

21:48

our economic lives. Trump in

21:50

a lot of ways comes through

21:53

that rulebook like out the window

21:55

when he came into the first

21:57

term of his of his presidency.

22:00

and started basically down this

22:02

path that we're that we're

22:04

now seeing really sort of

22:06

culminate in this like in

22:08

some ways a what may

22:10

be a new era of

22:12

world history but we'll get

22:14

to that a little later

22:16

maybe. So Trump sort of

22:18

kicks this off and begins

22:20

with this much more hawkish

22:23

economic nationalism that would have

22:25

been you know, not really

22:27

entertained by his predecessors seriously,

22:29

certainly not Obama. And then

22:31

when Biden gets in there,

22:33

he, you know, when Biden

22:35

wins at me basically in

22:37

the first year, the end

22:39

of the first year of

22:41

the pandemic in 2020, it

22:44

was right after, you know,

22:46

historic uprising in the summer

22:48

of that year, biggest, you

22:50

know, mass uprising the country

22:52

has ever seen. I think

22:54

that's, I think that's factually

22:56

correct. and the George Floyd

22:58

insurrection, a really embarrassing and

23:00

humiliating for the U.S. state

23:02

invasion of the U.S. capital

23:05

by the, you know, the

23:07

conspiracy crazed Qananon mob in

23:09

January of 2021. And in

23:11

general, just the sense that

23:13

society was breaking down from

23:15

the stresses of the pandemic

23:17

and the population was losing

23:19

its mind. So by the

23:21

administration gets in there with

23:23

what they think is kind

23:26

of a mandate to you

23:28

know to really like put

23:30

the nail in the coffin

23:32

of neoliberalism and use the

23:34

you know use the machinery

23:36

of the government you know

23:38

public administration to do something

23:40

that will that will actually

23:42

help the majority of the

23:44

population right to pass like

23:47

some some new laws and

23:49

some economic policy. that would

23:51

be a break from the

23:53

past and that would actually

23:55

you know empower the mass

23:57

of the working population. and

23:59

get a handle on this

24:01

like really on this like you know

24:03

sizzling and almost explosive

24:06

social crisis that had been

24:08

brewing all throughout 2020 and 2021.

24:10

So they were kind of looking at

24:12

the whole terrain and being

24:14

like you're all crazy because

24:16

you've got the George Floyd

24:18

uprising you've got January 6th

24:21

and they're like we've just got

24:23

to put you know a lid on

24:25

this boil basically. Absolutely, yeah,

24:27

and then you saw this on

24:29

the national security side too, like

24:32

after January 6th, like there were

24:34

all these, you know, like the

24:37

Department of Homeland Security, FBI, were

24:39

releasing insurrection, basically like strategy guides

24:41

for the new, like the new

24:44

approach to domestic dissidents,

24:46

and it was, you know, it was

24:48

looking at the radical left and the

24:50

radical right, and sort of like, you

24:52

know, this, the rise of all these

24:54

new kind of like, like, like,

24:56

quasi paramilitary, you know, ish organizations,

24:58

like on the right, I mean,

25:01

like they were looking at the

25:03

proud boys, they were looking at

25:05

Antifa or Antifa, as Trump was

25:07

fond of saying, groups like that,

25:09

they were seeing as like basically,

25:11

yeah, like, per estate organizations that

25:13

they had to start cracking down on.

25:15

And so there was both a

25:17

national security and a kind of

25:20

economic side of this response to

25:22

this massive, you know,

25:24

upswell of popular

25:26

discontent. And it's, it's,

25:29

I think it's a

25:31

fairly true kind of

25:33

radical maxim that class

25:35

struggle drives ruling class

25:38

organization, that without

25:40

the kind of heat of, you

25:42

know, of basically mass uprisings

25:45

and mass insurrection and different

25:47

forms of class The ruling

25:49

class has no incentive to

25:51

organize itself and get serious

25:53

about actually governing with some

25:56

kind of legitimate mandate. So

25:58

I think that's what. But

26:00

that's what we were seeing with

26:02

the Biden administration. I feel like

26:05

most people, the feeling is that

26:07

despite what the people at POD

26:09

save America would say, and I

26:12

mean, you know, even what you're

26:14

talking about, most people feel that

26:17

the Biden years were not one

26:19

in which, you know, their lives

26:21

became better. You know, I mean,

26:24

this is one of the reasons

26:26

that I would say Trump won,

26:28

obviously. And just the feeling is

26:31

that. you know post pandemic everything

26:33

got more expensive like all of

26:36

the things that we associate with

26:38

kind of the neoliberal era or

26:40

I guess now the post neoliberal

26:43

era have just accelerated and I

26:45

mean I understand what you're saying

26:48

but I guess how does this

26:50

square with the reality that we're

26:52

feeling that yeah you he passed

26:55

the law that you know tried

26:57

to attack China you know, making

26:59

computer chips or something, like what

27:02

does that actually mean for me?

27:04

I guess, like, what did that

27:07

actually mean when the rubber hit

27:09

the road? Like, did it just

27:11

not make an impact or? Yeah,

27:14

they failed comprehensively is what happened.

27:16

They completely failed in their attempt

27:19

to act to do what I

27:21

was describing. That's what, like, I

27:23

think that's what they wanted to

27:26

do, right? They wanted to restore

27:28

domestic legitimacy for the American government.

27:30

Right restore popular respect for the

27:33

basic liberal institutions of the government

27:35

and restore American prestige abroad among

27:38

allies and Competitors and They completely

27:40

failed on both counts right for

27:42

all the reasons you mentioned the

27:45

the electoral campaign of Biden and

27:47

then Harris last year ended in

27:49

failure and Trump was restored to

27:52

power. The one thing that they

27:54

wanted to avoid the most right

27:57

was Trump returning to power and

27:59

and all of the like just

28:01

everything that entailed. I mean, did

28:04

Biden get pushback from economic elites

28:06

to not go too far? I

28:09

mean, that definitely happened. They had

28:11

a kind of, they had a

28:13

more like comprehensive idea or I

28:16

wouldn't necessarily call it comprehensive, but

28:18

they had the first version of

28:20

the kind of like social policy

28:23

they wanted to pass, which they

28:25

called build back, you know, the

28:28

build back better legislation. was aimed

28:30

at empowering like broadly the what

28:32

we call the care economy like

28:35

people who work in a particular

28:37

part of the the sort of

28:39

service work part of the workforce

28:42

you know who take care of

28:44

people who work in schools who

28:47

work in health care hospitals and

28:49

make up a huge and growing

28:51

portion of the workforce like they

28:54

were originally thinking of like intervening

28:56

in that area of the labor

28:59

market, right, and directing funding and

29:01

labor law towards empowering that sector

29:03

of workers, which seemed especially pertinent

29:06

in the wake of the pandemic,

29:08

right? But there was significant pushback

29:10

from corporate elites, especially in health

29:13

care and other sectors, against exactly

29:15

that idea. Once the kind of

29:18

elites, the business elites in those

29:20

and those areas, like like found

29:22

their footing again because they had

29:25

been momentarily thrown off by all

29:27

the chaos of the pandemic year

29:30

and then, you know, the huge

29:32

social uprisings of that year, they

29:34

began to regroup and realized that

29:37

they weren't, you know, they weren't

29:39

okay with the direction that the

29:41

Biden administration was going in with

29:44

that particular approach. And so what

29:46

you ended up getting was the

29:49

hilariously named inflation reduction act. and

29:51

a couple of other bills that

29:53

were aimed at infrastructure and semiconductor

29:56

chips. And the idea was that

29:58

they were going, you know, they

30:00

built this as basically a new

30:03

kind of, I mean, I don't

30:05

think they ever said it was

30:08

going to be, I don't know

30:10

if they ever said it was

30:12

going to be, or I don't

30:15

know if they ever said it

30:17

was going to be like the

30:20

new second coming of the new

30:22

deal, but certainly a lot of

30:24

commentators were calling him like, yeah,

30:27

the second coming of FDR, a

30:29

great industrial, power again and you

30:31

know it was going to just

30:34

like renew among other things renew

30:36

democratic the democratic alliance with the

30:39

working class which they're always you

30:41

know anxious and and freaking out

30:43

about but the problem is a

30:46

couple things it takes years and

30:48

years so they you know they're

30:50

basically just pouring government money at

30:53

private corporations to build any kind

30:55

of factory in these areas you

30:58

know green energy semiconductors and the

31:00

like, but it takes years and

31:02

years to build, like, for example,

31:05

a semiconductor factory. And beyond that,

31:07

modern factories barely employ a fraction

31:10

of the workers that they once

31:12

did, right back in the industrial,

31:14

like the sort of classic industrial

31:17

era. I mean, like a modern

31:19

semiconductor factory. You know, employees like

31:21

mostly a handful of engineers who

31:24

hang out in a control room

31:26

in pressing like pressing buttons on

31:29

a screen to manipulate the machinery

31:31

downstairs. And so, and so that

31:33

is the kind of investment, right,

31:36

that they were that they were

31:38

directing their their their law and

31:41

energy towards in the Biden years.

31:43

And it as a result is

31:45

just it doesn't produce. you know

31:48

the near the level of jobs

31:50

that they are advertising it as

31:52

you know it doesn't doesn't produce

31:55

the level of employment the the

31:57

new kind of you know well

32:00

paying jobs that they were saying

32:02

it was. And even, I mean,

32:04

even assuming it would, it would

32:06

take like the better part of

32:08

a decade to fully build out

32:10

their entire vision. And that's

32:13

assuming it doesn't get

32:15

completely overturned by, you know,

32:17

like Trump, part two coming in

32:19

and overturning all of it, which

32:22

looks like it's, it may very

32:24

well happen now. So just basically,

32:26

yeah. as a program

32:28

for restoring the legitimacy

32:31

of the U.S. state in the

32:33

eyes of its citizenry and the

32:35

world, you know, Bidenism was just

32:37

a total failure. And it didn't,

32:39

it had no effect, it

32:41

had very little effect on

32:43

the everyday lives of ordinary workers

32:46

and citizens, most of whom

32:48

don't even know what the

32:51

inflation reduction act is,

32:53

much less the CHIPS Act that's

32:55

aimed more at these. critical

32:57

technologies, resources like

33:00

semiconductors. And the

33:02

cost of living

33:04

crisis continues to go

33:06

up because the pandemic, you

33:08

know, resulted in all

33:10

of these really disruptive

33:12

changes in the global

33:14

supply networks that bring the

33:17

kind of products and

33:19

services to the US market that

33:21

has come to depend on

33:23

over the last several decades.

33:26

And In addition to that,

33:28

corporations were profiteering, you know,

33:30

like crazy, like marking up

33:32

like marking up the prices of goods

33:34

as much as they could get away

33:37

with, and during the Biden years, just

33:39

to make a, you know, to make

33:41

as much profit as they can, because

33:44

they could, because they could get away

33:46

with it, because, you know, an economy

33:48

like ours, capitalist economy, private

33:50

companies set the prices at which

33:52

they sell the stuff that they

33:54

offer. So. So yeah, so basically

33:57

they capitalized like corporations capitalized on

33:59

the short of products and stuff

34:01

that people need that was

34:03

created by the pandemic and

34:05

just jacked up their prices

34:07

and profits as a result

34:09

went through the roof for

34:12

most corporations, you know, throughout

34:14

the Biden years and while

34:16

it became ever more expensive

34:18

for ordinary people just to

34:20

get by. So for all

34:22

of those reasons, you know,

34:24

Bidenism and that whole project

34:26

and the Democratic Party was

34:28

a total failure. You know

34:30

reading some of your stuff

34:32

in the Brooklyn Rail is

34:34

interesting because my read of

34:37

it is like when you

34:39

talked about the Biden era

34:41

it's it's much more on

34:43

like an international stage it's

34:45

much more chaotic and cutthroat

34:47

than I think like the

34:49

neoliberal is painted as sort

34:51

of this kumbaya international order

34:53

all tied together through you

34:55

know the UN and all

34:57

these like legalistic bodies which

34:59

of course you know I

35:02

mean just like what's happening

35:04

in Gaza that's obviously bullshit

35:06

but you know you kind

35:08

of paint this picture where

35:10

even under Biden like all

35:12

of these supposedly aligned states

35:14

are all trying to cut

35:16

each other's throats either around

35:18

like climate policy or trade

35:20

agreements and stuff like that

35:22

can you talk a little

35:24

and of course like all

35:26

this stuff is just you

35:29

know going through the roof

35:31

under Trump now but talk

35:33

a little bit about that

35:35

push where It just seems

35:37

like it's a free-for-all, like

35:39

they're all just trying to

35:41

get ahead of each other

35:43

because of all these different

35:45

economic pushes. I don't know,

35:47

how would you describe it?

35:49

Yeah, that is, I mean,

35:51

that's the long and short

35:54

of it right there. I

35:56

mean, what we've been seeing

35:58

is since Trump won, each

36:00

administration, just doubling down on

36:02

the like the crazy nationalistic

36:04

policies of its predecessor. So...

36:06

Biden, the Biden administration, at

36:08

the same time that it

36:10

was trying to reposition itself

36:12

as this global, you know,

36:14

leader of democracy or whatever,

36:16

was implementing, yeah, all of

36:18

these, this new regime. of

36:21

this new regime of trade

36:23

warfare, basically, against its enemies,

36:25

mainly China and Russia, based

36:27

on kind of weaponizing the

36:29

global dollar payment system, particularly

36:31

in the case of Russia

36:33

after its invasion of Ukraine

36:35

in 2022, and increasingly invasive

36:37

and restrictive export restrictions and

36:39

penalties against China and its

36:41

affiliated companies and its affiliated

36:43

companies. that you basically were

36:46

just a major doubling down

36:48

on the first the first

36:50

Trump administration's policies and also

36:52

like a like a great

36:54

increase in the tariffs against

36:56

against China that Trump had

36:58

started Biden just increased those

37:00

even more and in fact

37:02

I think put a 100%

37:04

tariff on electrical vehicles from

37:06

China all but setting up

37:08

you know like a protected

37:10

domestic market for Elon Musk

37:13

and Tesla who otherwise couldn't

37:15

compete on, you know, against

37:17

China and other global electric

37:19

car manufacturers. So in addition

37:21

to that, the kinds of

37:23

policies that I mentioned from

37:25

your previous question that were

37:27

kind of directed at trying

37:29

to renew American manufacturing, it

37:31

was billed as right, what

37:33

they call industrial policy, which

37:35

is we're bringing back. old

37:38

school industrial policy where you

37:40

know the government can intervene

37:42

in specific strategic areas of

37:44

the economy to to support

37:46

them and to give them

37:48

advantage and advantage over their

37:50

their global competitors right like

37:52

the same thing that US

37:54

elites come used to complain

37:56

all the time about like

37:58

the China's government doing you

38:00

know like so-called supposedly cheating

38:03

and supporting their, you know,

38:05

their nationally owned, or I'm

38:07

sorry, their nationally based companies.

38:09

with government support. The US

38:11

is now just doing that

38:13

and complaining when, for the

38:15

most part, complaining when other

38:17

countries do the same thing.

38:19

And so when the rest

38:21

of the world sees the

38:23

United States like the former

38:25

flag bearer for neoliberalism and

38:27

free trade, just aggressively pursuing

38:30

industrial policy and capturing investment

38:32

from its former allies. like

38:34

a massive amount of investment

38:36

has come from Europe actually,

38:38

lured by these really lucrative,

38:40

you know, offers of state

38:42

subsidies and loans and tax

38:44

benefits from the US government

38:46

to invest here in the

38:48

US instead of Europe. They

38:50

see the US just, you

38:52

know, brazenly like capturing investment

38:55

from around the world and

38:57

using the state to do

38:59

it. And so they're going

39:01

to pursue the same kinds

39:03

of policies, right? The same

39:05

kinds of like... you know,

39:07

cut your neighbors' throat, aggressively

39:09

push your own corporations at

39:11

the expense of everyone else's

39:13

in all the other countries,

39:15

regardless of whether or not

39:17

they call themselves allies or

39:19

not, but pursue this really,

39:22

like, aggressive, like, state-managed form

39:24

of corporate capitalism at the

39:26

expense of your competitors and

39:28

even your erstwhile allies. And

39:30

so all around the world.

39:32

Right, yeah, you see, you

39:34

see, you see countries, governments

39:36

pursuing the same kinds of

39:38

policies, these same kind of

39:40

industrial policies that are, that

39:42

the Biden administration was trying

39:44

to pursue for this country.

39:47

And this is a zero-sum

39:49

game essentially, you know, there,

39:51

there is a limited amount

39:53

of. capital there's I mean

39:55

there's a there's a ton

39:57

of surplus capital you know

39:59

floating around in like worldwide

40:01

fine markets right now. And

40:03

so, but it won't invest,

40:05

people won't invest in it,

40:07

invest in, I'm sorry, people

40:09

will not, like investors will

40:12

not be okay with that

40:14

being used for production for

40:16

industrial right uses, unless it's

40:18

sufficiently profitable. And so in

40:20

order for it to become

40:22

profitable, you have to have

40:24

governments increasingly offering these, you

40:26

know. these really sweet monetary

40:28

incentives like subsidies and tax

40:30

breaks to private investors to

40:32

make it profitable for them

40:34

to invest. And so yeah,

40:36

basically we have a kind

40:39

of it's kind of like

40:41

a race to the bottom

40:43

right now between this new

40:45

policy regime of like state-directed

40:47

industrial policy where countries are

40:49

competing with each other in

40:51

an increasingly aggressive way to

40:53

attract investment much, you know,

40:55

like desperately needed investment in

40:57

certain areas and at each

40:59

other's expense. And so it's

41:01

a really deep economic crisis

41:04

that also has obviously a

41:06

very volatile military and geopolitical

41:08

aspects to it as well,

41:10

which of course we're seeing

41:12

accelerate pretty quickly. under Trump

41:14

right now, but who, you

41:16

know, Biden was obviously happy

41:18

to, to move along quickly

41:20

too. So that's, that's the

41:22

kind of trajectory we're on

41:24

is, you know, neoliberalism has

41:26

failed comprehensively. The global capitalist

41:28

economy can no longer grow

41:31

like in a transnational way

41:33

to support, like, all of

41:35

the most powerful countries growing

41:37

together. It just doesn't, it's,

41:39

it's not that productive anymore.

41:41

And so national governments have

41:43

to compete against each other

41:45

with increased... like massive subsidies

41:47

for private capital to invest

41:49

in their countries. And that's

41:51

the basis, yeah, for this

41:53

like economic, political, maybe you

41:56

want to call it neo-imperialist

41:58

competition that we're seeing right

42:00

now. Does that kind of

42:02

get your question? Yeah, I

42:04

mean, I think one of

42:06

the more interesting things that

42:08

you brought up in your

42:10

pieces is that the environmental

42:12

side of this is that,

42:14

you know, you know the

42:16

Democrats talk about oh we

42:18

need to combat climate change

42:20

if you look at the

42:23

actual policies like all of

42:25

these states are rushing to

42:27

just push as much as

42:29

they can especially now with

42:31

tech and AI all of

42:33

these industries that are just

42:35

destroying the planet and you

42:37

know it just seems so

42:39

nihilistic looking at it from

42:41

a bird's eye view of

42:43

just that you know there's

42:45

no consideration for the environment

42:48

or a desire I mean

42:50

Maybe there's they're thinking a

42:52

little bit like you know

42:54

maybe in a couple decades

42:56

we can kind of like

42:58

I mean there is some

43:00

of that but at least

43:02

in the short term right

43:04

now they just seem to

43:06

be doubling down as much

43:08

as possible and it seems

43:10

like also to I mean

43:13

from my perspective correct me

43:15

if I'm wrong but they

43:17

all see themselves as in

43:19

a mad dash to outdo

43:21

the other countries and try

43:23

to it's it's almost like

43:25

a. a race to get

43:27

to the finish line to

43:29

build up their infrastructure in

43:31

terms of tech stuff. Yeah,

43:33

yeah, absolutely. There's a focus

43:35

on these key kind of

43:37

technologies, you know, they call

43:40

them industries of the future

43:42

that are seen as the

43:44

ones that are essential for,

43:46

you know, for competition in

43:48

the years to come. I

43:50

mean, yeah, things like semiconductors,

43:52

areas like, you know, Green

43:54

technology post carbon infrastructure although

43:56

of course Trump and company

43:58

might be you know putting

44:00

the cabash on all of

44:02

that now, but certainly. during

44:05

the Biden years, there was

44:07

a thought that, look, China

44:09

is going to be dominating

44:11

all these areas in like,

44:13

especially like the postcarbon economy

44:15

in the years to come.

44:17

And we have to get

44:19

serious about this if we're

44:21

going to compete, you know,

44:23

globally with them. And Trump

44:25

may very well be pulling

44:27

the plug on all that

44:29

now. But that was, but

44:32

yes, it's essentially, it's a,

44:34

it's a race for investment

44:36

in these key. among other

44:38

things in these key technologies

44:40

and in these key industries,

44:42

AI of course being another

44:44

one which is which is

44:46

way way overhyped of course,

44:48

but they in any case,

44:50

you know, the elites do

44:52

see this as one of

44:54

the areas where they have

44:57

to maintain a competitive edge,

44:59

you know, against their global,

45:01

the global adversaries or we're,

45:03

we're cooked basically. So yeah,

45:05

it's definitely a big, a

45:07

big part of this. Well,

45:09

I wanted to. switch gears

45:11

again let's talk about the

45:13

terrain under Trump and you

45:15

know there's been a lot

45:17

discussed and we will talk

45:19

about this as well but

45:22

sort of the forces behind

45:24

Trump in terms of just

45:26

the the tech capitalists that

45:28

are backing him especially you

45:30

know tech elites and stuff

45:32

like that talk a little

45:34

bit about that like when

45:36

you look at those people

45:38

if you if you look

45:40

at the The sort of

45:42

economic ruling elites that have

45:44

formed part of his coalition,

45:46

what do you see? Why

45:49

is that there and what

45:51

do they want to get

45:53

out of Trump? This is

45:55

definitely one of the, I

45:57

think, most important questions of

45:59

the moment. I think right

46:01

now to sort of understand

46:03

what's happening in the American

46:05

ruling class, there's been kind

46:07

of a civil war within

46:09

the highest, like, tier of

46:11

the corporate. ruling class of

46:14

this country unfolding over the

46:16

last maybe maybe decade or

46:18

so, but it definitely picked

46:20

up speed like after the

46:22

pandemic. and during the Biden

46:24

years. And there are many

46:26

dimensions to it, but its

46:28

basic kind of cleavage is

46:30

between on the one hand,

46:32

the tech and kind of

46:34

private equity, and well, let

46:36

me say this, like the

46:38

kind of tech entrepreneurs, right,

46:41

which is represented by Musk

46:43

and Peter Thiel and David

46:45

Sachs and these kind of

46:47

weirdos who are the, you

46:49

know, the, the most recognizable

46:51

kind of figures of the

46:53

technological kind of the new

46:55

tech right we might call

46:57

it Mark Andreessen these kinds

46:59

of people and then like

47:01

the Silicon Valley set and

47:03

then you have in addition

47:06

to that a whole group

47:08

of financiers who come from

47:10

what is called private fund

47:12

the private funds industry basically

47:14

for shorthand which is like

47:16

private equity hedge funds and

47:18

just similar kind of smaller

47:20

private financiers like very wealthy

47:22

individuals, right? But like this

47:24

group of financiers whose numbers

47:26

have increased like just explosively

47:28

over the last seven or

47:30

eight years when money was

47:33

really cheap interest rates were

47:35

really low or near zero

47:37

and there was tons of

47:39

new money entering the private

47:41

financial system from the Federal

47:43

Reserve. It created this whole

47:45

new crop of small investors

47:47

and private funds, cryptocurrency, right,

47:49

which is fully a part

47:51

of this as well, that

47:53

all grew up in that

47:55

environment and became multiplied by

47:58

the thousands and became kind

48:00

of some of Trump's most

48:02

loyal, like, if I could

48:04

use the term petty bourgeois

48:06

like foot soldiers. And so

48:08

there's those are kind of

48:10

they're related but those are

48:12

kind of two different, like,

48:14

I guess, factions of Trump's,

48:16

like, financial backing in his

48:18

coalition. And then on the

48:20

other side of the cleavage,

48:23

you have these massive, like,

48:25

really powerful, government-connected corporations, like

48:27

Goldman Sox, you know, JP

48:29

Morgan Chase, the big banks

48:31

that you know most people

48:33

will be familiar with will

48:35

like that they've heard of

48:37

but even more so these

48:39

giant asset managers like Black

48:41

Rock and Vanguard and state

48:43

street advisors these these are

48:45

also extremely especially Black Rock

48:47

are extremely well-connected financial massive

48:50

financial corporations that are much

48:52

bigger than the investment banks

48:54

themselves financial corporations that are

48:56

much bigger than the investment

48:58

banks themselves banks themselves and

49:00

that controls something like 20

49:02

to 25% of most of

49:04

the stock market. I mean,

49:06

I should say they have

49:08

ownership shares in, for example,

49:10

like the S&P 500 stock

49:12

market index, like Black Rock

49:15

and these other big asset

49:17

companies I'm describing, right? Like

49:19

they own an average of

49:21

around 20% of like every

49:23

company in the S&P 500.

49:25

So it's like they own.

49:27

just a huge chunk of

49:29

the entire economy. And they're

49:31

very well connected to the

49:33

government. They help the government

49:35

design policies. They help the

49:37

they help government carry out

49:39

policies like execute them. And

49:42

so they're very well connected

49:44

to the state. And there's

49:46

been a kind of brewing

49:48

like conflict between that like

49:50

very powerful and kind of

49:52

well connected faction of finance.

49:54

and this smaller kind of

49:56

petty bourgeois and tech right

49:58

faction of finance. that has

50:00

lined up behind Trump. And

50:02

what you're seeing right now, I

50:05

think, is the Trump faction really

50:07

just going to town attacking

50:09

their enemies, you know, in

50:12

the state, like dismantling or

50:14

dismantling agencies, basically wholesale

50:17

or, you know, replacing

50:19

their leadership with their preferred,

50:21

like their preferred people who

50:23

were going to give them,

50:25

you know, advantageous federal contracts.

50:28

and lucrative deals instead of

50:30

the Black Rocks and the

50:32

Goldman Sox of the world.

50:34

And there's a lot more

50:36

to be said about that.

50:39

But I think that that

50:41

kind of that division in

50:43

the ruling class is a

50:45

really important one right

50:47

now. And I think it

50:49

explains a lot behind the

50:51

kind of like this this

50:53

weird Motley crew of you know,

50:56

like finance and tech

50:58

freaks who've lined up behind

51:01

Trump 2.0 and are really

51:03

doing a lot of the

51:05

like the sort of policy

51:08

and ideological labor like holding

51:10

the whole thing together. So

51:12

they see, yeah, so basically

51:14

they see Trump as a

51:17

figure to kind of launch

51:19

this power play, you know,

51:21

like launch this like economic

51:23

coup, you know, financial

51:25

like giant corporations and

51:27

and afford it to

51:29

themselves instead right through this

51:31

like new kind of corporateized

51:34

like neo monarchist state or

51:36

whatever we want to call it that

51:38

is that is coming together right now.

51:40

Yeah there's a recent piece by a

51:43

three-way fight where they quote Aaron Bartley

51:45

who said the you know these the

51:47

tech elites and tech writers you said

51:49

you know they wanted they want to

51:52

use the state to manage the transition

51:54

to crypto they want to push AI

51:56

of course but they also want to

51:58

use the state to aggressively shield

52:00

U.S. corporations from especially Chinese tech,

52:03

which I mean, I guess we

52:05

can see how well that worked

52:07

out. We also want to make

52:10

sure that the government will provide

52:12

infrastructure and push away environmental

52:14

regulations, which will allow them

52:16

to build more stuff up

52:18

and use more power because

52:20

all this stuff, especially AI,

52:23

uses so much power. And

52:25

yeah, just push like this

52:27

sort of. protectionist, nationalist economic

52:29

policies that will allow them

52:31

to compete with China. At

52:33

least that's what this person

52:36

argues. I'm assuming you're pretty much

52:38

in agreement. Yeah, absolutely. They,

52:40

I mean, people like Musk

52:42

and Peel and, I mean,

52:44

the whole, the whole crew,

52:46

like they, yes, they, they

52:48

need state protection and support

52:51

to basically batter down like

52:53

regulations and tax threats

52:55

and competition from you know

52:57

from global competitors in China

53:00

and especially Europe. Europe is

53:02

very keen on taxing multinational

53:04

American technology and internet companies.

53:07

They've been trying to make

53:09

that happen for for years

53:11

and of course you know

53:13

American companies don't want

53:15

to don't want to pay taxes

53:17

and so I think they're going

53:20

to use the Trump administration to

53:22

kind of badger Europe into dropping

53:24

that. And yeah, they need, they

53:27

need really forceful, like,

53:29

protectionist leadership or a

53:31

state that's willing to go

53:33

do whatever it takes to ensure

53:35

their, you know, their market, like

53:38

their market access and

53:40

their market opportunities and profits

53:42

against against competitors, especially in

53:45

companies in companies, especially in

53:47

companies, in countries, competing at

53:50

the same level as American

53:52

corporations are who are no

53:55

longer like kind of like

53:57

unequivocally the global leaders. Yeah,

53:59

so that There's definitely

54:01

also this global

54:04

dimension to it.

54:06

They want global

54:08

American technological and

54:10

corporate dominance and they

54:13

want to use this

54:15

administration as a kind

54:18

of battering ram to force

54:20

that through basically as much

54:22

as they can. People need

54:24

ordering prisoners. from the perspective

54:26

of the left. It's obviously

54:29

great stuff, but don't take

54:31

our word for it. Here

54:33

is a word from our

54:35

sponsor. I'm Jordan Peterson. Now

54:37

that I have been injected

54:40

with the anti-fascist super-soldier surum

54:42

I renowned all my rubbish

54:44

beliefs about hierarchies and the distribution

54:46

of sex and dedicate my life,

54:48

my soul to the 12 rules.

54:51

But what podcast? For what podcast

54:53

about the far right? Get it

54:55

anyway, your podcast. 12 rules. And

54:58

I mean, you know, Trump has

55:00

said this himself, but the allegiance

55:03

from the Democrats to Trump

55:05

now has really shifted with

55:07

a lot of the tech

55:09

elites. And we'll talk about

55:11

this a little more in

55:13

terms of, you know, the

55:15

ideological aspect to this. But

55:17

is it just because the

55:19

Biden, you know, kind of...

55:21

And a lot of the

55:23

people in that administration tried

55:25

to meagerly go after a

55:27

lot of these companies that

55:29

they just freaked out and

55:31

said we've got to go with

55:33

Trump now. That's definitely part of

55:36

it. The like if you, you

55:38

know, if you look at what people

55:40

like Musk say or people

55:42

like Mark Andreessen or or

55:45

even Peter Thiel, you know, a

55:47

lot of these like these tech like

55:49

leaders or whatever you want

55:51

to call them, maniacs, are

55:53

on the record basically describing

55:56

the, you know, the Biden regime

55:58

as this almost like quasi-socialistic

56:01

or outright socialistic

56:03

administrative overreach. I

56:05

think, you know,

56:07

they've, like, they've called

56:10

the Securities and Exchange

56:12

Commission under Biden, very,

56:15

you know, moderate, very moderate agency

56:17

was run by an old

56:19

Obama guy during the Biden

56:21

years. They described it as

56:24

conducting a war on on

56:26

crypto to try to destroy

56:28

it. going for light

56:30

regulations and cryptocurrency.

56:33

You know, they see it as

56:35

like potentially destroying their

56:37

entire industry. Lena Khan

56:39

in the area of

56:41

antitrust, you know, regulation

56:43

and enforcement was sort

56:45

of a very scary individual to

56:47

them as well. She was

56:50

especially interested in going after

56:52

like Amazon, but not just,

56:54

you know, among others. And

56:56

to... to actually get serious

56:59

about monopoly power from some

57:01

of these like legacy

57:03

technology companies. None of that got

57:05

very far in the event, but

57:07

that didn't stop the kind of

57:10

these kind of like tech right leaders

57:12

from, you know, seeing this as

57:14

like an existential, this very mild

57:17

like push for moderation or regulation

57:19

as some kind of like existential

57:21

threat to their very being. And

57:24

then if you look at like

57:26

Scott Bessent, who is, who

57:28

is Trump's treasury secretary. I

57:30

mean, he's, he has a

57:32

whole line about how, you know,

57:34

Bidenism, I mean, his argument

57:37

is that Bidenism was like

57:39

the, the complete replacement of

57:42

the market by central

57:44

planning, and that it was

57:47

like basically a kind of,

57:49

you know, like quasi-Soviet economic

57:51

model. that needs to be

57:53

fought back against and kind

57:55

of countered with good old,

57:57

you know, private capital.

58:00

and entrepreneurship and so yeah

58:02

and so they like whatever

58:04

they think I mean I

58:06

do think that they saw

58:08

it as they saw these

58:10

these very moderate gestures towards

58:12

regulation as a as a

58:14

as a major threat to

58:16

their industries but also beyond

58:18

that I should say that

58:20

banks and getting back to

58:23

the kind of ruling class

58:25

civil war theme I was

58:27

outlining a minute ago. The

58:29

banks, the big banks, you

58:31

know, are very, very interested

58:33

in like stronger, more stringent

58:35

regulations in the kind of

58:37

tech, like FinTech space and

58:39

cryptocurrency in like app-based banking,

58:41

like all of these kinds

58:43

of new tech company driven

58:46

like banking. initiatives and companies.

58:48

The old big investment banks

58:50

were very interested in pushing

58:52

for regulation on the kind

58:54

of tech right, that is

58:56

like Trump's tech right, during

58:58

the Biden years. And in

59:00

fact, the Securities and Exchange

59:02

Commission was run by this

59:04

guy, Gary Gensler, who's himself

59:07

like an old banking guy,

59:09

I think, from either Goldman

59:11

or JP Morgan. And so

59:13

yeah, there's a way in

59:15

which, you know, the Biden's

59:17

push for regulation of the

59:19

new kind of these newer

59:21

tech spaces was, you know,

59:23

coming from certain very powerful

59:25

and well-connected factions of capital,

59:27

you know, in its own

59:30

right. And yeah, beyond, beyond

59:32

that, I think there's a

59:34

very interesting interview that appeared

59:36

with Andreessen in the New

59:38

York Times like a month

59:40

or so ago. And He

59:42

was, it was with Ross

59:44

Dauphin, I think, and in

59:46

that he describes how basically

59:48

he was kind of like

59:51

a card carrying Democrat, you

59:53

know, as a Silicon Valley

59:55

tech entrepreneur for years and

59:57

years, until around, like, I

59:59

don't know, 2010, 11 or

1:00:01

12ish, when employees at startups

1:00:03

and technology companies started speaking

1:00:05

up about their work conditions

1:00:07

and about what the company,

1:00:09

about what these tech companies

1:00:11

are actually doing. And if

1:00:14

they're doing anything like. useful

1:00:16

or good for society. And

1:00:18

he in that interview, I

1:00:20

mean, I would encourage any

1:00:22

listener to check it out.

1:00:24

I mean, he sounds very,

1:00:26

like, very sort of, like,

1:00:28

scared and traumatized by this

1:00:30

episode. He went through, he

1:00:32

and his colleagues, you know,

1:00:34

the owners of these technology

1:00:37

firms, like, like Google and

1:00:39

Amazon, but many other smaller

1:00:41

ones as well, where this,

1:00:43

like, you know, politically conscious.

1:00:45

sort of middle range professional

1:00:47

like class of of professional

1:00:49

workers was were coming into

1:00:51

their workplaces and speaking up

1:00:53

consciously about political and economic

1:00:55

and environmental issues. And so

1:00:58

I think I think there's

1:01:00

also a class backlash element

1:01:02

at work here where these

1:01:04

all the a lot of

1:01:06

the investment in the anti

1:01:08

woke so-called woke like messaging

1:01:10

and backlash from the Trump

1:01:12

administration. is coming from, or

1:01:14

a big source of fuel

1:01:16

for it, are these, these

1:01:18

sort of tech figures like

1:01:21

Andreessen, who were freaked out

1:01:23

by the politically conscious cohort

1:01:25

of workers who joined their

1:01:27

companies in the 2010s, and

1:01:29

we're making it hard for

1:01:31

them just to be like,

1:01:33

you know, profit pursuing like

1:01:35

capitalist companies. And, you know,

1:01:37

doing these. like very inconvenient

1:01:39

like pushing for these inconvenient

1:01:42

environmental and social considerations into

1:01:44

the ways that companies were

1:01:46

operating. And so I think

1:01:48

that there's like a real

1:01:50

push, there's real interest in

1:01:52

using Trump and the larger

1:01:54

kind of anti-woke backlash, you

1:01:56

know, as a way to

1:01:58

discipline this like, kind of

1:02:00

budding radicalization within that kind

1:02:02

of professional stratum of workers

1:02:05

and kind of. basically, yeah,

1:02:07

tamp that down and reassert

1:02:09

sort of owner and boss

1:02:11

authority in that area of

1:02:13

the economy, if that makes

1:02:15

sense. Yeah, I mean, that

1:02:17

is just such like a

1:02:19

ruling class, elite statement, like,

1:02:21

you know, I didn't want

1:02:23

to be a fascist, but

1:02:25

then someone spelled the word

1:02:28

union, you know, at our

1:02:30

board meeting and I just

1:02:32

had to start quoting Hitler

1:02:34

because, you know, what else

1:02:36

can you do? Yeah, I

1:02:38

mean, I think that kind

1:02:40

of brings us to our

1:02:42

next. topic is really kind

1:02:44

of unpacking, you know, this

1:02:46

shift. You know, we've been

1:02:49

talking a little bit sort

1:02:51

about the nuts and bolts,

1:02:53

but I'm, you know, what

1:02:55

do you make of this

1:02:57

move by? I mean, you

1:02:59

brought up Thiel, Mark and

1:03:01

Drieson is another one, which

1:03:03

supposedly he's an advisor to

1:03:05

the new Trump regime. Obviously,

1:03:07

people like Curtis Yarvin has

1:03:09

been cited as an influence

1:03:12

by JD Vance. What do

1:03:14

you make of this move

1:03:16

from sort of like liberal,

1:03:18

libertarian... politics to just full

1:03:20

on neo-fascists and techno monarchists.

1:03:22

You know, or if you

1:03:24

look at someone like Musk,

1:03:26

you know, doing the Nazi

1:03:28

salute, coming out in support

1:03:30

of AFD, a couple years

1:03:33

ago, he was just this

1:03:35

weird guy that smoked weed

1:03:37

on Joe Rogan, and all

1:03:39

of a sudden he's like,

1:03:41

you know, the leading person

1:03:43

at the head of like

1:03:45

this neo-fascist movement. So what

1:03:47

does this say about sections

1:03:49

of the elites who are

1:03:51

openly backing such authoritarian far

1:03:53

right? neo-fascist political movements, what

1:03:56

else does this say about

1:03:58

our world? Well... I think

1:04:00

there's not a very, I

1:04:02

don't think there's a very thick

1:04:04

line between libertarianism

1:04:06

and fascism actually,

1:04:08

like American libertarianism,

1:04:10

you know, because I

1:04:12

mean, libertarianism, like, at his

1:04:14

core, is all about just the

1:04:17

absolute untrammel freedom of

1:04:19

the individual and in a

1:04:21

capitalist context. I mean, that

1:04:23

just easily translates into the

1:04:26

absolute. on untrammeled freedom of

1:04:28

the of the boss basically

1:04:31

of the business owner the

1:04:33

property owner the corporate autocrat

1:04:35

and as long as you

1:04:37

have a system based on private

1:04:39

property and wage labor where

1:04:41

you know economic activity

1:04:44

only happens through this this

1:04:46

class division between owners

1:04:48

and workers like libertarianism

1:04:51

is just a kind of. naturally

1:04:53

shades into these very

1:04:55

fascistic forms of like

1:04:57

personalized power and domination

1:04:59

because that's what economic

1:05:01

like that's what capitalists

1:05:03

are I should say private economic

1:05:06

power very often kind of translates

1:05:08

into right is just the the

1:05:10

power the freedom of the of the

1:05:13

individual industrial entrepreneur and so

1:05:15

on but so that's kind

1:05:17

of I think that connection

1:05:19

is always there. in

1:05:21

libertarianism and so it's not so

1:05:24

great a leap actually to to for

1:05:26

them to move towards this this new

1:05:28

vision of the the state and the

1:05:30

corporation within it which i think they

1:05:33

kind of find in yarvin right like

1:05:35

the like a convenient expression for

1:05:37

it i mean yarvin and

1:05:40

Peter Thiel right have been like kind

1:05:42

of associates for for many years i

1:05:44

mean yarvin for a long time is

1:05:46

just kind of like the you know

1:05:48

the court you know the court like

1:05:51

kind of like a court

1:05:53

scribe for Peter Thiel's like

1:05:55

unhinged musings about these things

1:05:57

but over years it over

1:05:59

years here's a kind of, yeah,

1:06:01

cohered into this larger take on

1:06:04

the, on the hollowed out state

1:06:06

and the corporate monarch who leads

1:06:08

basically society like a kind of

1:06:10

startup or something. It very, very

1:06:13

conveniently gravitated towards, you know, the

1:06:15

very kind of business that people

1:06:17

like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk

1:06:19

lead themselves in that kind of

1:06:22

vision that Yarvin outlines. And so,

1:06:24

yeah, I think there's. There were

1:06:26

a number of these forces that

1:06:28

came together. There are by no

1:06:31

means like ideologically fully aligned. There's

1:06:33

like a lot of these people

1:06:35

really hate each other like Steve

1:06:37

Bannon like one of Trump's guys

1:06:40

from magga 1.0 like one of

1:06:42

the main kind of ideological like

1:06:44

figures from the first Trump administration,

1:06:46

you know, it's really freaked out

1:06:49

by all of the new. like

1:06:51

tech ideology around especially transhumanism and

1:06:53

some of the weirder kind of

1:06:55

ideas that that Musk and that

1:06:58

crew get into. What do you

1:07:00

make of that? Because I mean

1:07:02

it's it's hard to read that

1:07:04

riff between Ben and Musk because

1:07:07

Ben will say like, oh yeah,

1:07:09

they want techno feudalism. He's just

1:07:11

this like crazy rich guy like

1:07:13

basically. his wealth and influence is

1:07:16

an affront to our populism but

1:07:18

then he'll turn around and be

1:07:20

like oh but I want to

1:07:22

use his money to like make

1:07:25

sure all these fascist groups win

1:07:27

elections so it's like well what

1:07:29

is it bro like right right

1:07:31

and plus it's like I mean

1:07:34

who is banning he's a he's

1:07:36

a guy that worked at Goldman

1:07:38

Sachs that literally got arrested on

1:07:40

a yacht owned by a Chinese

1:07:42

billionaire you know for stealing money

1:07:45

from like maga moms because he

1:07:47

was running a scheme so I

1:07:49

don't know But that tension is

1:07:51

interesting and I think if anything

1:07:54

is to be read into that

1:07:56

it's And I mean you can

1:07:58

see this in you know people

1:08:00

like Nick Fuentes and stuff as

1:08:03

much as you even want to

1:08:05

pay attention to him but I

1:08:07

do think it is telling that

1:08:09

they are anxious at Musk because

1:08:12

they see in him a potential

1:08:14

for the followers that they have

1:08:16

especially just like rank and file

1:08:18

maga people to potentially break. and

1:08:21

get disaffected by the new Trumpian

1:08:23

project, which has totally changed since

1:08:25

2016. And I mean, even like

1:08:27

a lot of people have made

1:08:30

a lot of Bannon's comments around

1:08:32

going after like Medicare and Medicaid,

1:08:34

but if you look at what

1:08:36

he actually says, he's totally all

1:08:39

about that. He just knows intrinsically

1:08:41

that those, the people that vote

1:08:43

for. Trump and like put the

1:08:45

signs out and stuff and go

1:08:48

to the rallies, a lot of

1:08:50

them depend on those programs. And

1:08:52

they remember in 2016 when Trump

1:08:54

said, oh, we're not going to

1:08:57

touch Social Security, we're not going

1:08:59

to touch Medicare and Medicaid. And

1:09:01

now, of course, that's totally changed.

1:09:03

It's a balancing act that like

1:09:06

the Bannon and MAGa 1.0 that

1:09:08

kind of like the so-called, you

1:09:10

know, grassroots, I guess, like electorate

1:09:12

or like electorate or constituency that's

1:09:15

been around since the first. Trump

1:09:17

administration. It's a kind of balancing

1:09:19

act between that they're trying to,

1:09:21

that the leadership is trying to

1:09:24

walk between that anxiety that you

1:09:26

describe about the potential for this

1:09:28

thing to go off, you know,

1:09:30

to be co-opted by the, like,

1:09:33

you know, the tech freaks and

1:09:35

their bizarre ideas and their obsession

1:09:37

with the H-1B program and their

1:09:39

contempt, their obvious contempt for ordinary

1:09:42

Americans. on the one hand and

1:09:44

then on the other hand the

1:09:46

the product of Bannon and his

1:09:48

contemporaries for you know since 2015

1:09:51

2016 has been to do what

1:09:53

he calls you know the deconstruction

1:09:55

of the administrative state and it

1:09:57

was something that was laughed off

1:10:00

by liberals and a lot of

1:10:02

kind of commentators for years because

1:10:04

it's like, haha, how are you

1:10:06

ever going to, you know, dismantle this

1:10:09

like bureaucratic, you know,

1:10:11

monstrosity that's been, this giant

1:10:13

state that's been built, you know, over

1:10:15

the course of more than half a century.

1:10:17

But in fact, that's exactly what they're,

1:10:20

they're going to work doing right

1:10:22

now and, you know, Musk and

1:10:24

his sort of like, like, poodle haired

1:10:26

Hitler Eugand. in Doge or are

1:10:28

or doge or how you say it are

1:10:30

running a muck, you know doing

1:10:32

doing exactly that like in

1:10:34

the in the Federal Reserve

1:10:36

in the treasury like in

1:10:38

the IRS like wreaking havoc

1:10:40

and doing everything they

1:10:43

can to you know to

1:10:45

go after whoever they see

1:10:47

as their perceived enemies of

1:10:49

Musk and Trump in the

1:10:51

administration more more broadly within

1:10:53

in the so-called beep state.

1:10:55

So it's like They are, they're,

1:10:57

you know, this, this coalition

1:10:59

currently being led by Musk

1:11:01

at all is, is pursuing

1:11:03

the, the, the deconstructed state

1:11:05

that Bannon and his faction

1:11:07

have been saying is their

1:11:09

number one goal since, you

1:11:11

know, for almost a decade,

1:11:13

or basically a decade now.

1:11:15

And, and that is, I

1:11:17

mean, that's really the, the

1:11:19

glue, I think, that's holding this,

1:11:22

this otherwise. very conflictual coalition together

1:11:24

right now is it's like it's

1:11:26

they're getting results you know or

1:11:29

at least looks like they are

1:11:31

and I think as long as

1:11:34

that proceeds that and it continues

1:11:36

to look like that you know the

1:11:38

the results can hold the coalition

1:11:41

together now I think that it

1:11:43

might start to get a little

1:11:45

dicier if some of the current

1:11:47

trends that we're seeing right

1:11:50

now continue to that continue

1:11:52

to get more pronounced in

1:11:54

terms of popular opposition

1:11:57

to what, you know, trumped two

1:11:59

points. is doing and if they

1:12:01

really do end up going after

1:12:03

like the the major you know

1:12:06

great society and you deal social

1:12:08

insurance programs and and cutting those

1:12:10

in order to make budgetary room

1:12:12

for billionaire tax breaks and yeah

1:12:14

I mean if they really do

1:12:16

you know go through with all

1:12:18

that you it's it's very easy

1:12:21

to see a major popular backlash

1:12:23

against it coming together. But, you

1:12:25

know, I wouldn't count on anything

1:12:27

as a sure thing at this

1:12:29

point. But it's what we can

1:12:31

say is that it's always those

1:12:33

programs have always been seen as

1:12:36

untouchable, you know, politically, and then

1:12:38

and that it would be political

1:12:40

suicide to go after them, you

1:12:42

know, with the budgetary cutting knife.

1:12:44

But so I so will that

1:12:46

remains to be seen. And if

1:12:48

that kind of if popular if

1:12:51

unpopularity with what they're doing begins

1:12:53

to really pick up more broadly

1:12:55

than I think you could start

1:12:57

to see that like that dormant

1:12:59

you know conflict between the the

1:13:01

ban in faction and the sort

1:13:03

of musk cadre break out more

1:13:06

more openly again so so we'll

1:13:08

see for the moment it's it

1:13:10

it hangs together I also think

1:13:12

that I mean the right is

1:13:14

just even though they all hate

1:13:16

each other it's like they're They're

1:13:18

not bad at, you know, the

1:13:21

art of political compromise and like,

1:13:23

you know, forging a broad coalition

1:13:25

where everyone may not necessarily agree

1:13:27

on everything, but there is one,

1:13:29

there's like a common sense of

1:13:31

a project that can hold everyone

1:13:33

together long enough to see themselves

1:13:36

as doing the same thing. I

1:13:38

mean, you know, even doing the,

1:13:40

the Sikh Isles that like the,

1:13:42

the events and stuff, it's like

1:13:44

that's it, it, everyone else like,

1:13:46

like, like, reels back and repulsion

1:13:48

from that, but it brings them

1:13:51

together, right? Because every... one that

1:13:53

they hate is like, oh my

1:13:55

God, how could you ever? And

1:13:57

all of them are sort of

1:13:59

in on it. And so it,

1:14:01

you know, it unites them ideologically

1:14:03

and kind of ritually, even as

1:14:06

the liberal America, you know, reels

1:14:08

back in horror from it. How

1:14:10

do you see like the Doge

1:14:12

stuff playing out? I mean, last

1:14:14

night, as we're recording this, Trump

1:14:16

just gave a big speech, sort

1:14:18

of the cornerstone of this is

1:14:21

celebrating. talking about how they're finding

1:14:23

all this fraud which is you

1:14:25

know largely BS. This is just

1:14:27

you know a smoke screen for

1:14:29

going in and privatizing a lot

1:14:31

of this stuff. When you look

1:14:33

at the news and see stuff

1:14:36

like you know they're going to

1:14:38

like go after Social Security and

1:14:40

you have the former head of

1:14:42

the Social Security agency saying like

1:14:44

yeah there's going to be a

1:14:46

collapse and massive disruption which would

1:14:48

mean I've talked to friends that

1:14:51

work with people that are largely

1:14:53

on Social Security and you know

1:14:55

their first thing they said is

1:14:57

yeah that means thousands and thousands

1:14:59

of people are going to be

1:15:01

homeless. They're not going to be

1:15:03

able to pay their bills. I

1:15:06

mean if you're on a fixed

1:15:08

income and that gets disrupted you're

1:15:10

screwed. you know, what are you

1:15:12

going to do? What is that,

1:15:14

what is the ripple effect through

1:15:16

society for that? It's hard to

1:15:18

make sure, you know, like sure

1:15:21

predictions because one thing I think

1:15:23

that we, that we have learned

1:15:25

over the last, like, decade or

1:15:27

so, politics in this country and

1:15:29

worldwide is like any, you know,

1:15:31

almost anything can happen and things,

1:15:33

something that you thought was undoable

1:15:36

or impossible or unimaginable. unimaginable or

1:15:38

whatever, it could just very well

1:15:40

one day, you know, actually happen.

1:15:42

And so it's hard to, you

1:15:44

know, it's, it's, things are very

1:15:46

unpredictable and are in a very

1:15:48

fluid historical moment right now, but

1:15:51

I think that the, I mean,

1:15:53

they're, they're testing the boundaries of

1:15:55

what they can get away with

1:15:57

in, in a lot of different

1:15:59

ways. And they may very well see

1:16:01

if they can like, you know, float

1:16:04

a trial balloon around like, so

1:16:06

maybe we, you know, maybe we

1:16:08

cut Social Security benefits

1:16:11

this much, but we give you,

1:16:13

we give you it back in

1:16:15

this like, you know, obscure tax

1:16:17

break or something. And so, you

1:16:19

know, it comes out like a

1:16:21

wash, but like it's, it's some

1:16:24

kind of deal like that, right,

1:16:26

right, where like. they can look

1:16:28

like the average voter can look

1:16:30

at it and be like, well,

1:16:32

they say I'm not getting fleeced

1:16:34

at least, but that would probably

1:16:36

not work out nearly as well

1:16:39

in practice as on paper. And

1:16:41

so there's the question of like,

1:16:43

you know, what will happen when

1:16:45

people's, let's say they do go through

1:16:48

with something like this and they do,

1:16:50

you know, cut, make large cuts

1:16:52

from Social Security,

1:16:54

Medicaid, Medicare, and so

1:16:56

on. I mean, the entitlement programs

1:16:58

right which is really

1:17:01

what they're interested

1:17:03

in I mean there's a there is you

1:17:05

know a line an old like an

1:17:07

old line that says you if

1:17:09

you do this it's going to

1:17:12

be a popular you know uprising

1:17:14

and there's going to be huge

1:17:16

massive backlash and that you

1:17:18

will be destroyed you know

1:17:21

electorally And you will be eternally

1:17:23

hated in the arena of politics

1:17:25

and so you can't do it.

1:17:27

But there's, you know, there's another

1:17:29

way of looking at it, which

1:17:31

is like they're trying out, they're

1:17:33

experimenting with basically all the old,

1:17:35

you know, received truths of politics.

1:17:37

Like, for example, you know,

1:17:39

you can't deconstruct the administrative state.

1:17:42

It's too big. It's too bureaucratic.

1:17:44

It's too entrenched or too many

1:17:46

interests at stake or whatever.

1:17:49

Well, they're just doing it. You know.

1:17:51

They do. They just, they make, they

1:17:53

cut these programs and they

1:17:55

come up with some sort

1:17:57

of political rationalization for it.

1:18:00

And then the question becomes,

1:18:02

like, do we see that big,

1:18:04

you know, massive backlash in response?

1:18:06

Or, you know, or do we

1:18:08

not? Like, do people, are people

1:18:11

just kind of resigned, you know,

1:18:13

to the current reality? And does

1:18:15

it seem, does it seem to like

1:18:17

kind of overwhelming and

1:18:19

just demoralizing, right, to

1:18:21

do anything about our

1:18:24

people? It's the sense of

1:18:26

loneliness and alienation, you

1:18:28

know, strong enough. amongst

1:18:30

the general population that, you

1:18:32

know, Trump and Musk and their

1:18:34

goons can can get away with

1:18:37

this. And that's kind of maybe

1:18:39

what they're betting on, right, is that

1:18:41

the, you know, the population has

1:18:43

been largely quiet since 2020. And

1:18:45

in terms of, you know, like, let's

1:18:47

say mass street level activity. And

1:18:49

they're wondering, you know, they're

1:18:52

toying with the idea like maybe we can

1:18:54

just do this and there won't be like

1:18:56

a big, like a big, like a big,

1:18:58

a massive backlash against it. But I

1:19:01

mean, they don't care about like

1:19:03

ordinary people getting hurt by it,

1:19:05

right? Like that's not what they care

1:19:07

about. It's just like, you know,

1:19:09

can they pursue this agenda without

1:19:11

massive consequences at the level of

1:19:14

politics and society? So that's what

1:19:16

we're about to find out, I

1:19:18

guess. In terms of AI, tech

1:19:20

and stuff like that, I mean,

1:19:22

this could be a whole podcast,

1:19:24

of course, in itself, but I'm

1:19:27

curious, you know, when you look

1:19:29

at... the doubling down on tech

1:19:31

and AI stuff. I mean, I

1:19:33

just see that as just such

1:19:35

a huge bubble. I mean, people

1:19:37

are already mad at automation and

1:19:39

jobs being taken over and cashiers

1:19:42

being replaced by automatic checkouts and

1:19:44

stuff like that. Yeah. Right. And

1:19:46

AI just seems to be, you

1:19:48

know, another thing towards that. And

1:19:50

also, too, it's like, what are

1:19:52

you getting? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I

1:19:55

mean. I mean, my, I guess,

1:19:57

like, short and quick.

1:20:00

how to say compact take on

1:20:02

AI is that it has our

1:20:04

so-called AI because it's not I

1:20:06

mean maybe it's a semantic issue

1:20:08

but it's not true intelligence like

1:20:10

artificial intelligence in my opinion but

1:20:12

these yeah these language models they

1:20:15

do have very like useful kind

1:20:17

of applications in certain you know

1:20:19

like certain mundane tasks or some

1:20:21

professional tasks like they're pretty good

1:20:23

at writing code and they're pretty

1:20:25

good at like regurgitating like boilerplate

1:20:27

messaging for you know public facing

1:20:29

organizations at that like you know

1:20:32

that that sounds very like trite

1:20:34

and sort of corporateized and soulless

1:20:36

but you can kind of go

1:20:38

in and like work on it

1:20:40

and and make it usable it's

1:20:42

good at like these kinds of

1:20:44

tasks you know and but these

1:20:47

are these are kind of you

1:20:49

know some niche some not so

1:20:51

niche but they're very specific like

1:20:53

tasks and certain and certain areas

1:20:55

of work for certain kinds of

1:20:57

workers. And so far, this broader

1:20:59

claim that it's going to revolutionize

1:21:02

the workforce and it's going to

1:21:04

unleash this new era of, you

1:21:06

know, like unimaginable productivity and prosperity

1:21:08

and, you know, launch like the

1:21:10

next big like revolution in, you

1:21:12

know, and capitalist in the capitalist

1:21:14

economy. on the same level as

1:21:17

like the Industrial Revolution or something.

1:21:19

I mean, there's no indication of

1:21:21

that so far, you know, being

1:21:23

anything close to, to, like, coming

1:21:25

in the future. I mean, there's,

1:21:27

there's a lot of hype. There's

1:21:29

a lot of, like, talk about,

1:21:32

well, maybe it'll do this, maybe

1:21:34

it'll do that, but, you know,

1:21:36

maybe one day it'll, it'll achieve,

1:21:38

like, God level sentience or, or

1:21:40

whatever, enslaved the human race, but

1:21:42

all of it is just hype.

1:21:44

so far and it has just

1:21:47

so far it's it's been very

1:21:49

similar to all the previous so-called

1:21:51

you know tech breakthroughs that Silicon

1:21:53

Valley was supposed to deliver and

1:21:55

then didn't you know I mean

1:21:57

if there was this idea of

1:21:59

big data like 15 years ago

1:22:02

that was going to revolutionize everything

1:22:04

you know there was the like

1:22:06

the stupid metaverse idea and like

1:22:08

virtual reality more broadly like that

1:22:10

was going to be the next

1:22:12

big thing that like revolutionize the

1:22:14

whole tech landscape and then there

1:22:17

was cryptocurrency and It's just like

1:22:19

it's one thing after another that

1:22:21

they have to keep trying To

1:22:23

kind of like come up with

1:22:25

the next iPhone or whatever that's

1:22:27

going to kind of change everything

1:22:29

or change much of how we

1:22:32

we work and live But it's

1:22:34

it's nowhere near being able to

1:22:36

do that it seems so so

1:22:38

yeah my take on that is

1:22:40

like some useful like particular use

1:22:42

cases here and there for very

1:22:44

specific kinds of work, but nothing

1:22:47

near what would be needed to

1:22:49

like justify these absolutely insane valuations

1:22:51

that these companies have on the

1:22:53

on the stock market. So it's

1:22:55

definitely a bubble. You know, this

1:22:57

is sort of a met speaking

1:22:59

of meta, a very meta question,

1:23:02

but you know, as we look

1:23:04

at this merging of tech oligarchs

1:23:06

and Trump, and we think about

1:23:08

or envision or hope for some

1:23:10

form of, you know, street action,

1:23:12

anti-capitalist opposition. You know, we look

1:23:14

at a lot of what's been

1:23:17

happening so far. It's been like

1:23:19

angry town halls. We're seeing protests

1:23:21

outside of Tesla. We're seeing lots

1:23:23

of anti-ice organizing, which is really

1:23:25

inspiring. But a lot of these

1:23:27

things are, you know, we're seeing

1:23:29

people showing up to support gender-firming

1:23:32

care outside of hospitals. We're seeing

1:23:34

a lot of different sort of

1:23:36

currents. They all seem sort of

1:23:38

disconnected to each other. is, you

1:23:40

know, if you look at, like,

1:23:42

a lot of the Tesla protests,

1:23:44

a lot of the sort of,

1:23:47

like, older folks with, like, witty

1:23:49

signs, type energy, no one voted

1:23:51

for Elon Musk, you know, a

1:23:53

lot of groups, like, indivisible are

1:23:55

out, which, you know, I think

1:23:57

it's great, don't get me wrong,

1:23:59

but I think it is sort

1:24:02

of like regimented to like a

1:24:04

certain section of society. And I

1:24:06

don't think there's necessarily an answer

1:24:08

to this, but if we were

1:24:10

to envision sort of like an

1:24:12

occupied 2.0 breaking out in this

1:24:14

moment, what would be the we

1:24:17

are the 99% type slogan for

1:24:19

now? I hope this question makes sense,

1:24:21

but I guess like how do

1:24:23

we, I think there is a

1:24:25

question, like how do we articulate

1:24:27

sort of the antagonisms? And the

1:24:29

overall reality of the moment of

1:24:31

what's happening in terms of the

1:24:33

state and capital coming together in

1:24:35

this new amalgamation and sort of

1:24:37

put that out into the world

1:24:40

because the liberals seem very interested

1:24:42

in talking about Trump's stance on

1:24:44

Ukraine and stuff like that and

1:24:46

like how this is illegal where

1:24:48

it seems like we've got to

1:24:50

really articulate a real. street

1:24:52

level class politics like what

1:24:55

does this actually mean for

1:24:57

our lived realities for our

1:24:59

workplaces for our lives for how we

1:25:01

live? Yeah I mean absolutely this

1:25:03

I think is a really great question

1:25:06

and I mean I the question of like

1:25:08

we have what would the new we are

1:25:10

the 99% slogan B is is

1:25:12

I think really interesting one and

1:25:14

in some sense I think it's like

1:25:17

we may not know until it happens

1:25:19

you know like it may be that

1:25:21

kind of that kind of moment

1:25:23

because these things can't

1:25:25

always be foreseen or

1:25:27

kind of pre-figured. But in

1:25:29

general, I think the problem with

1:25:32

99% versus 1% is it was

1:25:34

kind of this frame of, it

1:25:36

was a frame of inclusion

1:25:38

or exclusion from the

1:25:40

political order. It was like a

1:25:43

claim for representation. It was

1:25:45

like, you know. We represent the

1:25:47

99% they, you know, the

1:25:49

old, whatever the richest billionaires

1:25:51

are, the 1% and the

1:25:53

political system works for them.

1:25:55

Let's, you know, let's make a

1:25:58

government that works for. the 99%

1:26:00

and I mean there were you know their

1:26:02

nuances there but that's kind of

1:26:04

the like the logic that it

1:26:06

was that it was working within

1:26:08

and I think right now we need

1:26:11

to think bigger we need something on

1:26:13

the same scale or scope

1:26:15

as as the the band

1:26:17

and teams like deconstruct the

1:26:19

administrative state right like something

1:26:21

that sounds like it might sound

1:26:24

kind of outlandish and

1:26:26

its ambition until it's

1:26:28

ambition until it's not You know,

1:26:30

we need that, we need that kind

1:26:32

of scope to our, whatever we

1:26:34

want to, however we want to

1:26:37

talk about this, this nascent movement

1:26:39

that may or may not be, you

1:26:41

know, coalescing in the months to

1:26:43

come. So right now, yeah, like

1:26:45

you mentioned, there are a lot

1:26:48

of, like, important action happening

1:26:50

kind of in the, you know,

1:26:52

in the margins here and there,

1:26:54

some picking up pace. I know

1:26:56

there's been a lot of, There

1:26:58

have been some important school walkouts

1:27:01

happening. Yeah, and part of the

1:27:03

larger kind of ice solidarity, anti

1:27:05

ice solidarity work. Tesla, anti Tesla,

1:27:08

anti musk protests are great. I

1:27:10

rate people, you know, raising hell

1:27:12

at town halls, also great. And

1:27:14

so it's like, you know, how

1:27:17

can we, how do we connect

1:27:19

the dots between these disparate,

1:27:21

you know, these disparate actions

1:27:23

and also tie them into a

1:27:25

larger project of, What I

1:27:27

would say class formation right now,

1:27:30

I mean, I think we want obviously

1:27:32

class politics, like renewing

1:27:34

class politics is the goal

1:27:37

and figuring out like what

1:27:39

it would look like in this

1:27:41

moment and an effective form

1:27:43

of class-based, like

1:27:46

worker-led opposition to this new

1:27:48

corporate state, what it could look

1:27:50

like right now. But I think

1:27:52

there's almost a prior

1:27:55

question of class formation. that

1:27:57

we need to figure out like how

1:27:59

do we. How do all the incumbent

1:28:01

actors in the class landscape, the

1:28:04

community activists, the organizers, the union,

1:28:06

union organizers, like Frank and File

1:28:08

Union workers, teachers, programmers, students, you

1:28:11

know, everyone from across the kind

1:28:13

of landscape, the diverse landscape of

1:28:15

the working class, of what should

1:28:18

be right? unified working class but

1:28:20

is not like how do we

1:28:22

how do we connect the dots

1:28:24

in this moment of mobilization right

1:28:27

now in a way that is

1:28:29

that that sets our ambition high

1:28:31

enough and sets an inspiring enough

1:28:34

kind of tone for what we're

1:28:36

aiming at that isn't just like

1:28:38

you know throw the bums out

1:28:41

like Musk wasn't elected like in

1:28:43

that old kind of logic of

1:28:45

representation like I was describing before

1:28:48

but you know takes aim at

1:28:50

the whole system of exploitation and

1:28:52

expropriation itself. And how do you

1:28:54

make it accessible at an ordinary

1:28:57

level, right? Like so it's not,

1:28:59

I mean, part of the strength

1:29:01

of the big rhetorical strength of

1:29:04

99% first 1% was like anybody

1:29:06

could get it. You know, literally

1:29:08

it didn't take any kind of

1:29:11

like radical background or familiarity with

1:29:13

like radical traditions to get. It's

1:29:15

just intuitively it makes sense. You

1:29:18

know, like what's a similar. What's

1:29:20

a similarly intuitive kind of language

1:29:22

for us right now that also

1:29:24

captures the scope and scale of

1:29:27

what we need to do? Yeah,

1:29:29

and I guess to that point,

1:29:31

I mean, another question I have

1:29:34

is how important is it to

1:29:36

pick at and call out and

1:29:38

examine and sort of make the

1:29:41

case about the... push towards like

1:29:43

literally techno monarchy that a lot

1:29:45

of these that animates a lot

1:29:48

of the ideology of these people

1:29:50

like I mean for instance like

1:29:52

you know Bernie has been doing

1:29:54

all these town halls recently in

1:29:57

like red areas where thousands of

1:29:59

people have come out. And I

1:30:01

think, you know, I've listened to

1:30:04

his speeches and looked at that.

1:30:06

And if you listen to what

1:30:08

he's saying, he's mostly just basically

1:30:11

talking about what he usually talks

1:30:13

about, like, you know, shit sucks,

1:30:15

it's getting worse, these people just

1:30:18

want oligarchy, they want to enrich

1:30:20

themselves. I find it interesting that

1:30:22

what they're not talking about and

1:30:24

maybe this isn't important or maybe

1:30:27

this isn't what really is going

1:30:29

to move the dial but like

1:30:31

it seems like they're leaving out

1:30:34

the conversation about sort of the

1:30:36

ideology like the class ideology and

1:30:38

class formation of our enemies essentially

1:30:41

how much our interests are not

1:30:43

included in that and like they

1:30:45

are literally antagonistic. to the majority

1:30:47

of the people they seek to

1:30:50

rule and really hate them and

1:30:52

just want to obliterate them. That's

1:30:54

not an easy argument to make,

1:30:57

but I think like in 2017

1:30:59

there was a lot of discussion

1:31:01

about how bad and evil and

1:31:04

disgusting like the alt-right was and

1:31:06

I think that was an important

1:31:08

conversation to have and like how

1:31:11

that animated a lot of the

1:31:13

stuff that Trump was doing and

1:31:15

I think that that would be

1:31:17

in a like I think the

1:31:20

left should really take that on

1:31:22

like we should be having community

1:31:24

forums and discussions and education about

1:31:27

like look this is the ideology

1:31:29

that's really moving this stuff like

1:31:31

we've this is bad you know

1:31:34

yeah yeah for sure for sure

1:31:36

like these I mean These people

1:31:38

are like, you know, Musk and,

1:31:41

which by the way is super

1:31:43

unpopular, like he has his like

1:31:45

online, you know, like sycophants or

1:31:47

whatever, but most like, yes, like

1:31:50

ordinary people, what they think of

1:31:52

Musk and like a lot of

1:31:54

people will be like, you know,

1:31:57

he sucks, we hate him. And

1:31:59

I think that's, that's his popularity

1:32:01

has only increased since he's taken

1:32:04

more of a limelight. But people,

1:32:06

I mean, yeah, these people are

1:32:08

repulsive to most ordinary, you know,

1:32:11

the ordinary citizen, the ordinary worker.

1:32:13

And a lot of cases. And

1:32:15

I think, you know, it should

1:32:17

be like part of our task

1:32:20

is to make it clear that

1:32:22

like. They're not outliers, you know,

1:32:24

they're not like, they're not particularly,

1:32:27

like, uncharacteristic figures for our, for

1:32:29

our moment. They're like, they're the

1:32:31

worst excesses of one system, you

1:32:34

know, the capitalist system, like, they

1:32:36

represent, like, basically, system of private

1:32:38

ownership of economic resources, and it's

1:32:41

very worst and, most disfigured forms.

1:32:43

But they're not qualitatively different from

1:32:45

the same capitalists who, you know,

1:32:47

from the capitalists who basically, you

1:32:50

know, work more closely with the

1:32:52

Democrats, right? For example, so, I

1:32:54

mean, they, you know, it's, it's

1:32:57

two parties basically, one, but two

1:32:59

political parties, one, one party of

1:33:01

capital. And I think somehow getting

1:33:04

that message across so that it's

1:33:06

not just like, you know, we

1:33:08

have to get rid of the

1:33:10

kind of the kind of. these

1:33:13

outlandish and cartoonish villains and get

1:33:15

responsible leadership back in, you know,

1:33:17

back in, back in office, which

1:33:20

was kind of the narrative from

1:33:22

2016 to 2020, because that responsible

1:33:24

leadership is very, very likely not

1:33:27

to return or it's going to

1:33:29

look very different because, like I

1:33:31

said, each administration Republican and Democrat

1:33:34

is just doubling down on the

1:33:36

same, like, hypernationalistic and militaristic policies

1:33:38

of its, of its predecessor. And

1:33:40

so even if there were to

1:33:43

be, you know, a democratic successor

1:33:45

in 2028 or whatever, it's probably

1:33:47

going to look, you know, very,

1:33:50

very, very different in the wake

1:33:52

of four years of this Trump

1:33:54

administration than before or from what

1:33:57

people would have expected four years

1:33:59

ago. And so anyway, yeah, I

1:34:01

think we have to like emphasize

1:34:04

the inhumanity and freakishness of these