It is a convenient response. Label anyone and anything you do not like as the anti-Christ. My generation was raised on that in music lol. It is a major line in every right wing playbook. I am now wondering if having access to billions of dollars makes one mentally ill? It seems to cause all sorts of psychosis.
Chicken-and-egg. Sociopaths are disproportionately overrepresented in the billionaire class… and studies show that increasing affluence correlates to decreasing empathy.
But also: acquiring billions of dollars for yourself —while those around you, [the people of the society which has enabled & fueled your wealth accumulation] starve, suffer, and die from preventable diseases they cannot afford to prevent or treat— all while you shriek about “communism” and the “unfairness” and “tyranny” of those same victims whom you’ve economically & technologically tyrannized, stolen from, and hijacked & wrecked their democracy and their very same Rule of Law which protected you & your egregious wealth accumulation …that antisocial behavioral pattern [and its incapacity for the basic human empathy that makes society possible] requires an in-born level of sociopathy / psychopathology to begin with, as a prerequisite.
We allowed our public schools to disintegrate under Christofascists and racists. Our government is founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. Humanism and individualism. The enemies of religion and corporate Capitalism.
Those Liberal Arts and Sciences have been ripped out of our education system. Instead of educating citizens, we train worker bees.
Scary assessment of the powerful correlation of forces lining up behind closed doors in warm, wood-paneled rooms. I wonder whether the great potential energy of the DSA ++ in the streets will be in a position to take them on and face them down. NPCs of the world unite!
I've been in a number of conversations lately with good people who say that the current trend towards ecological and social destruction under "neo-liberal, late-stage capitalism" shows that "capitalism" in any form is no longer tenable. My side of these discussions is that some form of capitalism can still be viable, and even essential to rectifying current crises. I suspect that those saying "democratic socialism" are largely preferring some such highly-reformed capitalism, with the "capitalism" brand so tarnished they're preferring just about any other name for it, despite that they'd favor the fascistic forms of "socialism" as little as they do the fascistic "capitalism" beloved of our oligarchs.
As something of a political philosopher, I don't really share the notion that "capitalism" is a distinct ideological category. I prefer it as a description of political economy.
I don't think liberal democratic capitalism and democratic socialism are even articulately different descriptions of a polical economic theory.
If you are allowed to own a business, and re-invest the profits (after tax) into the business to grow the business (generate increased capital) — that's capitalism. Even if you have universal income, free healthcare, universal housing, etc.
That's a world democratic socialists want. And that world exists within the definitional boundaries of democratic capitalism and democratic liberalism.
A lot of why people reject this convergence across the ideological traditions is tribal and aesthetic.
A true socialist political economy would not allow the private ownership of capital. Decisions to open new businesses, improve them, etc. would be subject to some other form of community control. All experiments with this model have failed in the past century, and I don't think we're ever going back to that.
An individual owning a small business is one place to start the analysis. Yet the larger problem is how to handle capital formation and investment at scale -- the sort of scale necessary to build out new ventures. Once you have joint-stock companies such as the Dutch or British East India Companies operating, different questions arise than in an economy purely of farmers and crafts people. And once you have Ayn Rand disciples like Alan Greenspan successfully promoting the neo-liberal misreading of Adam Smith to encourage utter corporate devotion to the bottom line, monsters like Thiel and Musk are inevitable -- unless seriously constrained by government and society ("socialism," in their book, and in Mamdani's).
I mean, we have the Sherman Antitrust Act, the powers of the Federal Trade Commission, the Defense Production Act. If Democrats sweep the presidency, House and Senate, they can JUST DO these things with largely existing powers. It's merely political will. We did it twice before. During the Progressive era, and then against during the New Deal. This will the third time in US history that we smashed corporate power, massively raised taxes on the rich, and invested in the working glass, if Dems decide in 2029 to take up the occasion to do it.
Well revealed and said, Mike. You called out the Aspen conference for how it has allowed itself to degrade to a very low Peter Thiel common denominator. I remeber it differently from the 60s and 70s. Thanks for this article!
It is a convenient response. Label anyone and anything you do not like as the anti-Christ. My generation was raised on that in music lol. It is a major line in every right wing playbook. I am now wondering if having access to billions of dollars makes one mentally ill? It seems to cause all sorts of psychosis.
Chicken-and-egg. Sociopaths are disproportionately overrepresented in the billionaire class… and studies show that increasing affluence correlates to decreasing empathy.
But also: acquiring billions of dollars for yourself —while those around you, [the people of the society which has enabled & fueled your wealth accumulation] starve, suffer, and die from preventable diseases they cannot afford to prevent or treat— all while you shriek about “communism” and the “unfairness” and “tyranny” of those same victims whom you’ve economically & technologically tyrannized, stolen from, and hijacked & wrecked their democracy and their very same Rule of Law which protected you & your egregious wealth accumulation …that antisocial behavioral pattern [and its incapacity for the basic human empathy that makes society possible] requires an in-born level of sociopathy / psychopathology to begin with, as a prerequisite.
Excellent. Thank you for unpacking this.
You get me Mike B.
The laughter was because the line was ludicrous. The audience was saying Thiel is an ass.
Incumbents are losing because Thiel’s man is President and must be opposed far more energetically than heretofore
We allowed our public schools to disintegrate under Christofascists and racists. Our government is founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. Humanism and individualism. The enemies of religion and corporate Capitalism.
Those Liberal Arts and Sciences have been ripped out of our education system. Instead of educating citizens, we train worker bees.
Ignorance is destroying America.
Scary assessment of the powerful correlation of forces lining up behind closed doors in warm, wood-paneled rooms. I wonder whether the great potential energy of the DSA ++ in the streets will be in a position to take them on and face them down. NPCs of the world unite!
Peter Thiel does not look well, on all levels. A sad, sad man.
Working on behalf of evil can do that.
I've been in a number of conversations lately with good people who say that the current trend towards ecological and social destruction under "neo-liberal, late-stage capitalism" shows that "capitalism" in any form is no longer tenable. My side of these discussions is that some form of capitalism can still be viable, and even essential to rectifying current crises. I suspect that those saying "democratic socialism" are largely preferring some such highly-reformed capitalism, with the "capitalism" brand so tarnished they're preferring just about any other name for it, despite that they'd favor the fascistic forms of "socialism" as little as they do the fascistic "capitalism" beloved of our oligarchs.
As something of a political philosopher, I don't really share the notion that "capitalism" is a distinct ideological category. I prefer it as a description of political economy.
I don't think liberal democratic capitalism and democratic socialism are even articulately different descriptions of a polical economic theory.
If you are allowed to own a business, and re-invest the profits (after tax) into the business to grow the business (generate increased capital) — that's capitalism. Even if you have universal income, free healthcare, universal housing, etc.
That's a world democratic socialists want. And that world exists within the definitional boundaries of democratic capitalism and democratic liberalism.
A lot of why people reject this convergence across the ideological traditions is tribal and aesthetic.
A true socialist political economy would not allow the private ownership of capital. Decisions to open new businesses, improve them, etc. would be subject to some other form of community control. All experiments with this model have failed in the past century, and I don't think we're ever going back to that.
An individual owning a small business is one place to start the analysis. Yet the larger problem is how to handle capital formation and investment at scale -- the sort of scale necessary to build out new ventures. Once you have joint-stock companies such as the Dutch or British East India Companies operating, different questions arise than in an economy purely of farmers and crafts people. And once you have Ayn Rand disciples like Alan Greenspan successfully promoting the neo-liberal misreading of Adam Smith to encourage utter corporate devotion to the bottom line, monsters like Thiel and Musk are inevitable -- unless seriously constrained by government and society ("socialism," in their book, and in Mamdani's).
I mean, we have the Sherman Antitrust Act, the powers of the Federal Trade Commission, the Defense Production Act. If Democrats sweep the presidency, House and Senate, they can JUST DO these things with largely existing powers. It's merely political will. We did it twice before. During the Progressive era, and then against during the New Deal. This will the third time in US history that we smashed corporate power, massively raised taxes on the rich, and invested in the working glass, if Dems decide in 2029 to take up the occasion to do it.
Well revealed and said, Mike. You called out the Aspen conference for how it has allowed itself to degrade to a very low Peter Thiel common denominator. I remeber it differently from the 60s and 70s. Thanks for this article!
Thank you for this expose!
People do not know the about the tentacles Thiel up to no good!
Yep ... it [they] will lose the checks.
Theil should be Sued! Big time!