The following is a conversation baskets and car he's a democratic socialist, a political writer founding editor of Jacobin president of the nation, for vice chair of the democratic socialists of america and the author of the socialist manifesto, the case for radical politics in an era of extreme inequality,. As a side. Now let me say that this conversation with baskets and car who's, a brilliant socialist writer philosopher, represents what I hope to do with this podcast. I hoped to talk to the left and the right to the far left and the far right, always with goal of presenting an understanding, both the strongest interpretation Their ideas and valuable thought provoking arguments against those ideas. Also, I hope, to understand the human being behind the ideas

I trust in your intelligence is the listener to use their ideas you here to help you learn to think to empathize and to make up your mind, I will often falls short in pushing back too hard or not came back enough of not bring up topics. I should have of talking too much of interrupting too much or or me sometimes in the rare cases, not enough too silly and a serious topic, to serious and a silly topic. I'll, try, My best I'll keep working my ass off to improve. In this way, I hope to talk to prominent figures the political space even controversial once on both the left and the right, for example, I have to talk to donald trump and alexandria, Abkhazia, cortez deronda, santas and Barack obama, and, of course, many others across the political spectrum. I sometimes hear

accusations about me being controlled in some way by a government or an intelligence agency ikea efforts, be massage now controlled in some way by the very human desire for money, fame power access. All I have is my silly little words. But let me give them to you: I'm not and will never be controlled by anyone. There's nothing this world can break me and forced me to sacrifice my integrity. People call me naive. I'm not naive about optimistic and optimism. Isn't a passive state of being is a constant battle. Against the world that wants to pull you into a downward spiral of cynicism. To me, optimism is freedom, freedom to think to act, to build to help at times in the face of impossible odds,

as I often do, please allow me to read a few lines from the palm if by roger kipling, if you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming on you? If you can trust me, self and all men doubt you make allows but their doubting too. If you can wait, not beaten by waiting, are being lied. Don't you in lies are being hate. It don't give way to haiti, and yet don't look too good. A talk too wise. Even this if palm his is my over romantic ridiculous. As I read it the irony is not lost on me. My friends well silly little kid trying to do a bit of good in this world.

For having my back through all of it all of my mistakes. Thank you for the love and now a quick few second mention of his sponsor check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got house of macadamias for snacks. Linode, for linux systems on it, for supplements inside tracker, for bio monitoring and expressing p for security and privacy. Shoes wasn't my friends and now under the velocity lottery, never any ads in the middle. I hate those I tried to. He is interesting, but if you skip them, please do check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. the show is budget by a relatively new and absolutely simon. Rather, it's absolutely objectively delicious, sponsor house of academia it's a company that ships delicious high quality and

if he macadamia noster attitude or in all kinds of snacks based on by claiming that the first shipment they sent me was just the source of a lot of happiness. For me, I'll go to some talk tough times. in my life recently, there's been a lot of ups and downs has been nah, it's been a wild ride, been a wild ride and there's something about sitting in that couch. I have, which I got so can feel like an adult and contemplating, the ups and downs of life and just lady, my mine become still emptied of thought and then just slowly with a stupid smile on my face who macadamia snacks there's a lot of sexual innuendoes? I can do here by the way, if you doubt my blade, do such remind us, how dare you, but I'm gonna, keep her respect and say that a thirty percent less carbon than omens off man. I can I you know. I think I've been always

criticised my life, one of the harshest criticism throughout my. They don't know how to pronounce comments. The downward The omens, almonds almonds omens is right, yeah, it's almonds anyway, what matters is the lacks, a delicious and actually a sponsor their awesome there with us for the long haul, and there has been so kind and respectful big fans and I'm just a big fan of theirs out at eighty due to support them. I would love. It just means a lot to me when there's great companies are doing great stuff and shipping great people, forget other, like the products and all that just a lover to support them. They're, really good people away speak really good people and a relic accompany these definite support is linode, This episode is brought to you by it. It's a linux, virtual machines. I use a lot. It's an awesome computer infrastructure, the lessee develop, deploy and scale what applications you build faster and easier

There's nothing better than linux, and here you don't have to I have linux, any machine. You can have it in the cloud. You could have it by just the little baby machine. You can scale, you can watch a giant machine. You didn't launch many machines by the way this they do have really good customer service. Twenty four seven, three sixty five, but that's not what matters! What matters is linux is awesome. Did I say that ah linus torvalds is definitely somebody to talk to somebody post on reddit. Why have you not talked to the torvald yet and it's a good question? I'm not sure I know exactly how to reach him, which sounds kind of funny, and I think he's not he's a devil person to get you to do a long form interview. I think source of happiness in doing the work in

serving the: when is community tuna, the low level of colonel development and managing the community. Now that I know how much he enjoys conversation or educating or inspiring others about the work. And I think, is really important that think the world in so many important things in the world run on linux and oh, why we don't always celebrate that night and is one of the things I really love doing with his pockets is just what amazing people I using them ology or using whatever skill they have taken to build a better world and thus lionesses doing this. What people want a linux all all through the stacks, with different distributions. The different packages in all the cost of this. for more than a general just beautiful, to see how the vizier get help he was my heart to see all these brilliant, a junior, just building, stuff, small self and big stuff

and many of it helps make the world a better place, really, I believe in honesty, does anyway is it limited the council s legs for free credit. This episode is bought, you buy on it and ensures and supplement unfitness company. They make off a brain and he tropic that help support memory, mental speed and focus I something Stick out your brain, if I know ever very difficult design a programming task at hand, it's gonna take several hours of just focused work, and I am not quite feeling it So, if I know this deep work session is going to involve some mental blocks met a struggle. Where is going to be dead, end and saw no I'll. Take it off a bit to help me out, I recently been, I too have just ways in which has lice my day. I really do find that accept

productive and mentally sharp and focused in the morning for several hours, so three four five six seven hours in the morning is was it then dropped his arms around talk or see other human beings or sees ok, seen smile. You know, like the warmth of humanity, is great, but The sunday about talking that really drains me, especially in the morning in the in the evening? The same I just am exceptionally productive and can really focus for long periods of time was that afternoon time they think, is best for more like exercise and the naps More relaxing warlike girl tasks that don't require much much brain power. It was kind of funny how each of us proud- have our little optimism: and problem there were trying to solve about what makes us feel good makes us, sir, would enable. To interact with other beings in our life that love and

Make them feel good and should be a productive our society for the stars be the best version of yourself, but also just enjoy it. I mean it's a it's a it's a weird, optimization problem that involves, nutrition. That involves exercise, and I think, in part at least that someone in your life and involves a kind of strict analysis, If your schedule of heisman, the menacing today, and I think part of that process is the then let it go similar would die. You can have a strict. I once you understood, and the nature of calories, nutrition, about and so on. They can let go of that and have think show understanding of food needs to start to really enjoy full. Anyway, you can get special. This got on alpha brain and legs friedman, dotcom, slash on it. The show is also body by inside tracker, a service. I used the tribal data that comes from my body and the isn't the suggestions about she doing my life now dosage

since their basic lifestyle decisions and diet decisions. Butter I can't wait into well something like break upon her face that enables each make their career decisions dating decisions, all kinds of decisions, of course not force them to giving you a vulgar, calliope pops up and says have you considered these red flags about this person they attacked or hey that interesting person does not look, I'm Joe could, of course, they think that the level of recommendation is difficult to achieve The point: is there so much data coming for me who human body that I think medicine in general recommendations should be based, at least in part, on their data forces, a generic population data about what's good for you, there's a diet exercise.

some sleep and all that kind of stuff. I think this is the future. An inside track has taken steps towards the future special savings for a limited time, and you go to incite tracker outcomes lash lex. Finally, the show is also bertie by express vps, I have used them for many many many years, the big sexy red button, you click and just works, and it protects your privacy. And this big beautiful, complex internet of ours, that that's full of chaos endangers and so on. A good vpn should be a first layer of protection, and it doesn't much of other things, of course, but I think the most important thing is it just works and works fast worse than any device. Any operating system works on linux, anything android,

it's very intuitive to use? It does one thing, and does it extremely well and that's what I think great pieces of software great services should do, do one thing and do it extremely well, though, to me expressing here for many years, has been the embodiment of that idea. Gonna expressly piazza car flash looks bad for an extra three months free. This is the lux figment podcast, the supported we check on our sponsors in the description and now, friends, his basket, sankara car. Yeah a let's start with the big broad question: what is socialism how'd you like to define it I'd like to think about it all there so many social out there,

and we can't seem to agree about anything. So my definition, I'm sure, is really just my definition, but I think at the minimum socialism is about making sure that the core necessities of life- food, housing, education and so on are guaranteed to everyone just by virtue of being born, so that those people can reach their potential, and I can that's it. That's a minimum requirement of socialism. Beyond that. I think socialism, especially democratic socialism, the type of socialism- and I believe it is about taking democracy from just the political democratic realm and extending it into economic and social spheres as well. So if we think that democracy is a good thing, why do we allow our workplaces to be run and autocratic ways, so economic, political, so

the show in all those realms the the ideas, the philosophical ideas apply like what what are, if you can put words to what are some philosophical ideas about human beings that are at the core of this. I think at the core. It's the idea that We have intrinsic value. We are individuals that have unequal talents, of course, wherein their jaws that want different things, but this unique individual venus can only truly come to light and a society in which there are certain collective or social guarantees. So we could think just like Stephen J gold,

the scientists and socialist used to say about how many thousands of potential einsteins or leonardo Da Vinci's that died in sweatshops and on plantations and never got the chance to cultivate what was unique and human about themselves and also never got a chance to have families and part of his special and important to them to future generations and to posterity my own grandmother, I was born in trinidad

baker. She was illiterate till her dying days. She been in the east orange new jersey. She never had the chance to write down her memories of her life in turn bad as a young woman in what it meant. She, of course, had lots of children. She was able to parts mystery start children and grandchildren, but I often think about what someone with her whip and intelligence could have done with with a little bit more support. But if all human beings have intrinsic value, you ought to be an einstein for the application of the ideas talking about, is their attention or a trade off between our human civilization society. Helping the unlucky verse.

Rewarding the skilful and the hard working, I think you do both there's always a balance between the two. I think outta roared people who make innovations and an error would prove lives for everyone for their innovations by giving them what they even more consumption. Even that level of an inequality, while still making sure that there is not people en in poverty and suffering and while making sure that heyward nah? I give these people who want to work that extra ten hours or twenty hours or want to apply their their hard work and some some extra benefits, but that these benefits would be not the extreme disparities that you have today. So at the core of

socialism and maybe democratic socialism is maybe a reallocation of wealth, reallocation of resources. I think its wealth and resources. Yes, but it's also power- and I just one way to think about this- is some thinkers on the ripe like hijack, they would say in their most generous moments, talking about socialists and socialism. They would say socialists want to trade some of your freedom for equality and that's them trying to just accurately described, but socialism is trying to do the way that I would put it a little bit. Different socialists are proposing it off, but it's really a trade off between freedom and freedom, and by that I mean let's say you set up a successful business and you set up a business right here in Austin Texas. Some sort of firm is producing some

if it were, or whenever rabbits are producing a good? The people really want and demand. But you have some competition. You decide to hire twenty thirty people to help you. You entered into a free contract with these people who, under capitalism, of course, we're not leaving it Tourism have the option to join any other firm, but they like you and they like this firm and they like your offer and you're, paying them at say twenty hours an hour for forty hours of work per week. Now, if the government comes along says: ok, there is now a new minimum wage, minimum wages, twenty two hours in our and also there's a maximum working week, thirty five hour working week, if you

work someone over thirty five hours, even if they agree you have to pay them time and a half now. That, of course, is now in abridgment of your freedom as an entrepreneur, your freedom to set certain terms of employment to engage in a contract with free people, but now your workers and other workers in the sector, because if he did it unilaterally, you just can't undercut by your competition. Now these people now have a few extra hours a week. They can do whatever they want with you. Now they could watch more and I fell with it. heavy and spend more time with their friends or family or whatever else, and there still getting paid the same, if not better than because the wages also went up since really a question, often of trade offs retreat.

Who, whose freedom in a tiny are you going to prioritize the freedom, and I talked to me of the entrepreneur or the capitalists in this case too, the freedom and tommy of ordinary workers. Now you could create a society that swings so far in the direction of prioritizing the freedom of one group or one class or or whatever else, compared to another, that you end up in some sort of tyranny. Now, if the state said you know you lex you're you're a capitalist, you don't get the right to vote or we're going to take away, your private home, or your ability to to do things we think are intrinsic human rights. Now this would be tony. This be an abridgment of of year, your rights. But shaping your ability in the economic sphere to be an economic actor, is acting within the realm and scope of democratic politics,

yeah? So those are the extremes you referred to, and one perspective I like to take on socialism versus capitalism is. under each system, the extremes of each systems and the moderate versions of issues them? How can people take advantage of it. So it seems like no matter what part of human nature is whatever the rules wherever the framework, wherever the system somebody's gonna take advantage of it, and that's the kind of pragmatic look at it in practice. What actually happens? Also the incentives and the human behavior? What actually happen practice under these systems. So if you have a higher and higher minimum wage and people Watch more more nfl, how does that change their actual behaviour as a productive members society and actually at the individual level,

as somebody as somebody who could be a nice time and chooses not to because nfl so often to watch so like is both. How do people malicious people they wanna take advantage? Maybe not malicious, but people that, like me, are lazy and want to take advantage and people that also, I think, like me, like I tend to believe about myself, that of potential and, if I let my laziness naturally take over, which it often does. I want I realize the potential so few, if you make it if too easy for me, I feel like I will never get anything done me personally. Of course, there's a giant set of circumstances of the, unlucky in and over overburden saw ok. So how can people take advantage of each system, socialism, capitalism? So for one thing, people are going to take

manage of systems are gonna, find loopholes, are gonna, find ways around they're gonna find ways to two. At times ams dominate chorus, others even in systems meant to get rid of domination and coercion. That's why we need a designer systems in such a way that that it eliminates as many of these things as possible, and also that's why we need democracy. We need freedom so in the soviet system. For instance, are you had the rise of this authoritarian bureaucracy that dominated course others in the name of socialism? Now that system desperately could have used some it's called democracy and some checks on what people were doing and some ability to reverse their power right and as soon as, of course, little elements of democracy was brought to that system and the system collapsed because they're they're, starting to be outlets for for dissent and for

Satisfaction, so I think we can design a priori a perfect system. We need to be committed to certain principles that allow systems to be perfected and for me, that's the importance democracy so even a few years ago, not to go on and attention but p or allowing chinese authoritarianism and their sang china's building this efficient system, this state grants are well there's, technocratic excellence, plus there's just productivity and they're, just working harder than americans and and whatever else, but look at in practice would really happen with coven, both the initial suppressing of information about what was happening and and and move on at the opera.

Acquire many of ordinary chinese workers and doctors and others were trying to get the word out and they were suppressed by communist party officials locally and and and move on properly, with the collusion of naturally nationally and now now, with zero covert policies and whatever else. So I think that that often we find that, even though it seems like these are our weak systems and democracy makes us less competent, technocratically and otherwise I think it's kind of a necessity for systems to grow and evolve to have that freedom and civil society, but as for individuals now the first part of it is. I think people should be free to make their own choices. You might have tremendous potential, but you might choose to spend it, and leisure and leisure doesn't only mean doing You know sitting around at home, drink a bunch of berries, kind of wasting your life away. That way, leisure might mean spending more time with their friends and family building the sort of relationships. That are,

maybe not change the world in some some medicines, but will change the lives of the people around you and will change your community for the for the better and I'm taking notes here cause I for me. you're just smoke playing a lot of sky island is voltaire, my relationship them and at the work on that realize that those including leisure, to reconsider my whole life here we re no reason should mean seventy two right I've been theirs, that famous book back the robber put them one bowling alone. whatever we decide that for now I mean, I'm because we're born nineteen, I, like you, know, The one computer games you now side. If we do that type of leisure to buy. I found a lot more richness in my life when and the you know decade, a lot of my region has returned to like going to the local bar for by the couple joints.

have a weak instead of doing it at home alone, watching tv or something you know, because you get that random conversation that sense of a place in an and belonging. But I guess what the undercurrent may be of your question was now: if you have a system with lots of carrots, but not the whip of hey, you might be destitute, you might be unemployed you, you might not be able to support yourself unless you're you're working a certain amount. Would we still be as productive will still be able to generate added value, for society, and I think that that's a question that that is is quite quite interesting. I think that we are living in a society now with enough abundance, that we could afford more people deciding to opt out of the system out up production and that the key

our of staying in a more money for consumption, more ability to do cool things, more just social rewards, the comes from being an successful or from from providing. I would be enough, but that's another thing, would have to be balanced in a system. So for your seeing mass unemployment by choice in a democratic socialist system, then you might need to reconfigure the incentives. You might need to encourage people to go back into production, but that's something that again, you could do through democracy and through good governance, and you don't have to set the perfect blueprint. I am in in motion- and right up a treatise. Now and fifty years for now you have tried her. I thought like scripture so but I do like I said weapon says, stick and carrot and stick. As putting a wait and see

scale of which is better for yes, but I would actually argue to push back that the wealthier we get us our societies as a world, the more comfortable the social nes become the so the less avaux whip or stick they become as well the negative consequences, even if your welfare as ike wildlife is. How could it be that great? But the wealthier. We become the better. The social progress become, the easier life becomes at the item I saw you might not have this motivation financially to get out from the bottom. That said, the push back in the push back. Is it something about human nature and general money aside, that strives for greatness does tries to provide.

A great life, a great middle class life. For your family is so that's the motivated to get off from the bottom, like a lot of people. who are stuck at the bottom of the labour market today, one these are people who are kind of are our troops antrobus cause. A lot of them are the ones who are working two jobs and are working sixty plus hours and are providing and in this country at such and such a bargain for their labor, because they are so underpaid, and so many of the things that the rest of us use up to to enjoy life and consumption or or whatever else like. I I got here from downtown austin, idbi left in I did tip, but I think my lift was like eight buck space or whatever. Whatever else you know, it's it's it's! It's it's the and I think that we are all indebted to people who are are working and we don't see it at various stages of the production process from you know the way

prison, china and taiwan producing veto technological things that were recording this on to you, no ground. Prison and, and and and workers and agriculture in the? U s. So so I think that one and working class people are already working, but as far as you know, getting out from under poverty and and and desperation were in a society that doesn't give people a lot of tools. So if you don't have access to good public course from you know, age, five, until twelve thirteen, as can be really hard to move from generations of of your your family being involved in manual labor to doing other forms of labour you're going to be stuck at a certain part of our of our labour market. As a result, if you dont have access to decent healthcare yonah throughout europe,

or you might be already preordained to an early grave by the time he that something kicks, and you really want to to change something or life in them that your your mid twenties. Obviously it's a common action of agency and all these other factors there stall something I think, namely human innately, stryver, that a lot of people I have, but we don't really give people in our current society the tools to really be full participants in our society we just take for granted. For example, I'm from the northeast I give like excessively ne examples where we take for granted that that someone from Hartford connecticut is going to have and your average worker person hartford's going to have a very different life outcome than someone born on the same day, the same hour admin in greenwich connecticut. You know we we we take for granted that accidents of birth are going to dictate outcomes,

you see me like, depending on their conditions of way, you grow up. There's going to be fundamentally different experience in terms of education. in terms of resources available to you to allow yourself to flourish. Yes the more city and urge said he in connecticut is as great as highly highly granted, but new yorkers and people from Boston, Kenneth, other color the owl feeling about connecticut, where we make fun of it and we try to carve up. You know the west belongs to new york, the east to Boston, but yeah. I'm I'm here, for it connecticut nationalism. I think it's it's a great place. Okay, can we actually step back a little bit on definitions, because you said that some of the ideas practically the you're playing with his his demo socialism. We talked about the higher level, the higher a vision of socialism, the ideals, the philosophical ideas, but how does it all fit into the big picture? Historically, of ideas?

marxism, communism, and socialism, as as it was defined and experienced and implemented in the twentieth century. So what's your key differences, maybe even just like socialism, communism yeah? Well, I hate the no true scotsmen sort of response of s virtues. Oh that socialism some bad news? I wasn't really socialism and my socialism is good, so it is, but I think that socialism and commune some share common ancestor witches. They both emerged out of the in turmoil on development of late nineteenth century capitalism and the fact that there was all these workers parties there were organizing across the capitalist world shown europe. For instance, you had this man party, called the german social democratic party in the then became probably the most important, the most vibrant party?

germany and the eighteen, eighty ease and eighteen ideas, but they were locked out upon because germany at the time this was still mostly a topic. You not had a parliamentary democracy, but it was a very undemocratic democracy. The kaiser stole store world. These movements took root across the catholics world, but including in russia and in condition the reality. So it was assumed for many many years and the workers movement across europe and among social of europe. They call themselves social democrats, then that the revolution would first probably happened in germany and this develop growing hub of industrial capitalism and not in the semi, futile russia. But then for one came. The workers movement was split between parties that decided to either keep their head down or to implicitly support

the war and- and you know, support the war for now. Keep your heads down, don't get banned, don't get arrested and then we'll just take power after the war is over and those like russia and austin the united states. For that matter they chose the path of resistance to the war, and it was the bolshevik faction about their the rights of the russian movement, but manning's bolshevik party. They took power in russia, After a period of turmoil where it didn't seem what was going to go to the fascist right or what

I'm gonna go to the far left. There is a period of flux and turmoil and in russia, but definitely old regime was not able to stand and these russian social backgrounds. These bolsheviks said social democracy has so betrayed the idea of internationalism and brother heard and progress of this post to stand for the weekend. Our self social democrats, no more we're going to go back to this old term. That marks used we're in a collar south's communists and that's where official kind of communist out of russia emerged in other parts of europe. Parties were actually able to take power, some in the inter war period, but most in the post war period and they

I came out of this old social democratic movement and these parties mostly just call themselves socialists and a lot of them still on paper- wanted to go beyond capitalism, but in practice they just manage capitalism better and the interests of workers, but they all have the same common ancestor and in practice to me. Social democracy means trying to insert doses of socialism within capitalism, but maintaining capitalism. Communism met this attempt to build a socialism outside of capitalism and often authority marion waste in part because of the ideology of these communist, but in part because of the conditions in which they inherited. Here they were inheriting a democracy there and hearing a country that had been a rule by this hours for for centuries and with very little condition like very weak working class.

very poor and devastated by war and so on. Where authoritarianism and landed itself to those conditions are then there's me Then there is democratic, socialist and the way I would define it. Is we like a lot of what the social democrats accomplished, but we. still believe in going beyond capitalism, and not just building socialism within capitalism, but we believe in this ultimate vision of a world after capitalism. What does that world look like and how is it different from communist, Maybe organ linger before about your vision of democratic socialism. Why was wrong with communism, stalinism, fermentation of communism in the soviet union. Why did go wrong. So and in what ways did not go along with what we did succeed succeed. Let me start with the second part of question and that's a very difficult one to answer and

because I, morally and ethically am opposed to any form of authoritarianism or dictatorship, and often when you talk about the successes of a government or when it did developmental aid that might have been positive. We have to abstract ourselves from what breed morally believe in just just kind of look at the record right, I would say that the soviet experiment started off by an lenin's time, as the attempt to kind of just hold a holding action: hey, we don't really have the conditions to rule this country. We have the support of the working class, or most of it,

The working class is only you, not three percent of the population. The peasantry is really against us. A lot of this three percent, the population has died, and war and half of them supported the mensheviki in the more moderate socialist anywhere, but the alternative in their minds was going to be a far right reaction some sort of general taken power in a coup, or whatever else or Them ended up back in prison because a lot of the world, and others are or just killed. So they figured out we're gonna have a holding action where we maintain as much of this territory of their all russian empire as possible, will try to slowly implement changes? We stabilize economy through something called a new economic programme which was kind of a form of

social democracy. If you, if you will, because it allowed market exchange for the peasants and combined with state ownership of industries in the cities and for a while, it seemed to be working, the revolution never came that they were expecting in western europe, but in russia itself, they were able to re stabilize things by the middle or end of that, the nineteen twenties and they were able to build more of a popular base for some of their policies, because people who had seen the chaos of war, one and revolution and civil war, and of just want us stability and after a decade plus of war. You had a government that was able to give you enough to eat and a job. You know that was good enough for them, then stone came into power and he wanted to rapidly industrialize

in his logic, was the revolution's not going to come in the west. We need to build socialism in one country and we need to catch up with the west. We need to turn ourselves into an industrial powerhouse as quickly as possible, and that's where you got forced collectivisation. try to increase the productivity of russian agriculture through state ownership of previously fragmented agricultural holdings and through the implementation of mechanism to bring in more machines to make our calls for more productive, all under state ownership, plus a more ambitious attempts to build heavy- and

straight through a five year plans. Now I say this kind of coolly, but we know in practice what that met in a forced, collectivization was a disaster. I mean for our first of all, I think, was built on the faulty premise. That scale always equals more productivity when in fact, especially in agriculture, but in any feel that some of the more complicated than men and it led to millions of deaths led to famine letter. two other problems industrialization in the way that it happened, understand also kind of unbalance the soviet economy, to lean to heavy towards heavy industry

not enough or medium or light industry, and but this did mean especially the and the five year plan industrialization did manage to put russia on a different developmental trajectory. So by the time the postwar period came one, it might gave them the ability to survive the nazi invasion. To begin, rather, that's a complicated question and then, by the time the postwar period came of russia had kind of jumped ahead of its developmental trajectory.

In a way that a lot of other countries didn't do. There are a few examples, Japan as one the banners to if you kind of ran a scenario where Japan would be in the eighteen, seventy eighteen, eighties and ran, and a hundred times the japan and post war period is kind of one of the best outcome, and I think that that you could say that about russian economic development, its ability to catch up at a certain level to the west and then after that, of course, some later on as economies, more complex as they kind of move beyond regular heavy industry and as as the main stable. They call me the russian economy and his command system was unable to adapt and cope and ended up falling back behind the west again by then. In writing seventies. So this is a very long sorry to say that a lot worse,

ron in russia, the economic picture is actually a little bit more complicated. Politically. I think it's just a small party without much popular this, but with real puppet for in a couple said. He you spend a lot without a lot of popular support, empire bide took power and they felt they couldn't get back power and they kept if you're on to power and eventually among their ranks in these conditions of one of history's great tyrants took power and was able to justify what he was doing and in the context of the russian nation and development, but also all the threats that came from abroad to the civil war wasn't justice, a boy was really an invasion. By by many am impair. Power, is all around the world as well So I think a lot of it was conditions and circumstance, and I guess the The question really is to what right,

oh ideology played ology there, something within the socialist tradition socialist. Might that lend itself to authoritarianism and authoritarianism? That's that something we should, That's really complicated human question, it down seem that the rhetoric, the populism of workers unite in fact, over far away too long. Let stand together somehow that message allows flawed or evil people to take power It seems like the rhetoric that ideas so good, maybe the opium nature of their ideas, so good that allows a great speaker to take power is suicide if the mission- and they come with me friends- beyond the horizon, a grey list does waiting for us that encourages serve yet dictators. Other

power is there's something within the ideology that allows for that, for the sort of for lying to people essentially. Who might surprise you? My answer is, I would say yes, maybe, but I think that it's not just socialism any sort of ideology that appeals to, the collective and appeals to our long term destiny, either as a species as a nation or as a class or whatever else can lend itself to authoritarianism. So you, I see this in many of the nationalisms of the twentieth century now. Some of these nationalisms use incredibly lofty collective rhetoric like in in Sweden, the rhetoric of we're going to create the people's home.

we're going to make this a country with dignity for all swedes. We're going to make this a country, that's more developed, more free and so on if they manage to build up a pretty excellent society. In my estimation, from that there are in countries like ashes, germany and ITALY. They managed to do horrendous things in japan and horrendous things with that in the u s where national popular appeals after I was What a united nation to elevate ordinary working class people enter sure they felt like they had a real stake in the country and, I think, did great things with the new deal in russia. Of course, this language was used to trample upon individual rights and to justify

hardship and abuses of ordinary individual people in the name of a collective destiny, a destiny of course of his just decided by the party in power and during the thirties and fortys by just on himself really now. I think that that that's really case for making sure that we have a bedrock of civil rights and democracy, and then, on top of that, we could debate. We could debate different. I am national destinies, we could debate different appeals, different visions of the world, but as long as people have a say in what sacrifices they're being asked to do, and as long as those sacrifices don't take away what's fundamentally ours, which is our life, you know witches are, and you know our our basic rights and voice our voice. So this this complicated picture,

because how matters stand you mention that social democracy as trying have social policies within it? Capitalist system in part, but you your vision, your hope for a social democracy is one that goes beyond that. You give everybody a voice, while not coming the soviet union on becoming were they People are silenced either directly through violence or through the implied threat of violence and therefore fear. So I think you need to limit the scope of where the state is and what the state can do and how the state functions. First of all, and now for me, a social democracy. I was like the equivalent of I

give up, for by analogy it was the equivalent of you are getting to the red zone, having kicking a fuel in our your take the three point, but you would rather got a touchdown and for me, socialism would be the touchdown. It's not a separate different plainfield. Some people would say socialism being reception. it's your here now and they would have. They would have the right to to you again and to say that and to say we shouldn't go, go further and, and most coaches would take. Can they take the safe route right so you're going to you're going to as the decision, in a way that such a thing, but I understand, urged and soap whatsoever, the goal is for socialism, but I'll take the three points of you know. It's it's a part of why I just want to march down the field I want to get everything's going position. That is the reason why we should really move from an apology

But the reason why I call myself a socialist is looking through am history and these examples of social democracy. You saw that they were able to give working class people, lots of rights and income and and and power in their society, but at the end of the day, capitalists still had the ultimate power, which is the ability to withhold investment. So they could say, in the late nineteenth sixties and early seventies, listen. I was fine with his arrangement ten years ago, but now I feel like I'm going I'll take my money and I'm gonna go move to a different country or I'm just gonna not invest, because my workers are paid too much, I'm still making money, but our guy, I feel like I could be making more. I need more of an opera hand right, so their economic power is then challenging the democratic mandate of swedish workers. There were voting for the social democratic party and were behind this this.

That's so to me, what socialism is in part is taking the means of production right where this cap was powers coming from and making it socially owned, so that,

ordinary workers can control their workplaces, can it can make investment decisions and so on? And now does that mean total state ownership of everything or a planned economy? I don't think that makes any sense. You know, I think that we should live in a society in which markets are harnessed and regulated and and so on. My main problem is capitalise ownership in part on normative grounds, just because I think that it doesn't make sense that we celebrate democracy and all these other spheres, but we have workplaces that are just treated like tyrannies and and in part, because I think that ordinary workers would much prefer a system in which, over time, they in accrued shares in ownership where they got in addition to base kind of wage, they got

I am dividends from there from being successful and that they figure it out how to get large firms they're not going to be making day to day decisions by democratic vote right. But maybe you would elect representatives of elected managements once every here too, depending on your operating agreement and so on. That's gonna, my my vision of a socialist society in this sounds, I hope, like agree or disagree like it would be a crazy leap into year. Zero right that this can be met, be a way in which we could take a lot of what's existing in society. But then just add this on top board would mean, is a society without a capitalist class, this class hasn't been individually. These people bid, I haven't been taken to re education camps or or whatever else but they're just no longer in this position, and there are now part of

economy in other ways like they'll, probably be the first set of highly competent technocrats and managers and and so on? They'll probably be very well compensated for their for their time and expertise and whatever, whatever else, but to me both a practical and things like taking away this ability withhold investment and am increasing our ability to democratically in shape investment priorities. to continue down the road of social democracy and unknown have grounds by the kind of egalitarian belief that that ordinary people should have more stake in their and their lives in the workplace and leads me beyond social democracy, to socialism. So there is a tricky thing here so in ukraine, especially by in the soviet union. There's the collapse, the possible trajectory of fire

for the beautiful message of respecting workers rights. Has this? dynamic of making an enemy of the capitalist class too easily making anatomy of the capitalist class with us. central leader, populous leader that says the rich and the powerful their ticket vantage view we need to remove them. We need to put them in camps, perhaps not said explore until it happens? It can happen overnight, but just putting a giant pressure on their capitals class and again, the stolen tape figure takes hold some trying to understand how the mechanism can prevent that and perhaps I'll reveal my bias here the reading out as a tool, which may be not enough, but a lot about in a book. Stones,

when ukraine and just agree a lot about thirty in the forties? For four percent isn't related to my travels in ukraine and all that kind of stuff. So I will little bit of are focus on the hill complications of communism, currently without kind of an updated view of all the possible future. Employment sooner or later out there. But I worry about the slippery slope into the authoritarian figure that takes this. Sexy message destroys everyone whose powerful, in the name of the working class and then fox the working class aft words so first? Well, I think it's worth remembering that the socialist movement had different outcomes across western european and and eastern europe and in some of these countries, and why

europe. There wasn't actually democracy before the workers movement and for the socialist group, and so the battle in Sweden, for instance, was about establishing political democracy, establishing troop representation for workers and that's how the parties became popular, something in germany too. I then it was the social democrats who were able to builds political democracy, then, on top of that add layers of economic democracy, social democracy. The swedish social democrats are ruled basing uninterrupted from there when I came thirties until nineteen seventy six, the kind of crazy about, but they were just in government. There were the leading member of government that a few different coalition partners would shift. Sometimes there their they're. Sometimes they were with the the communist briefly, but they ruled uninterrupted and they lost an election. The nineteen, seventy six and legislative power

and then they got back into power in the eighties. So, in other words, they created a democratic system, of course, with mass imports of working class people than they ve truly honoured the system, because when they lost power they lost power, they a bailiff black power, theirs, twenty cases like that across Europe, in the world and in other countries, I korea and elsewhere, where the workers movement and was militant the most class and trick workers spy south africa's the same weight created democratic systems. now rush. I think a lot of what happened had to do with the fact that was never democratic country. It was real by a party, and the party itself was very easy to shift from a somewhat democratic party in london

day to an authoritarian one in russia, and there is no distinction than between the party in the state secret or turn party then became authoritarian, total control over the entirety of the state. Now the fact that the soviet system involve total state ownership of production meant that the authoritarianism of the party state could go even deeper into the lives of ordinary people compared to other horrific dictator simply pinochet's, chile and so on. When maybe you could find some solace just at home or whatever else you didn't have the same sort of totalitarian. You know like control, of a people's lives, but I would say that that source was himself as your different outcomes. Now imagine a polarisation. I guess that implies that this polarization, this distinction

is a distinction that isn't real in society and that is kind of being manufacturer generated. Certainly in the capitals class, the working class to clarify yoga. So in certain populous distinctions d, the division is basing arbitrary are made up the us first them polarization depending who the essen with the Dmr yeah, it's it's. It's truly a a a a a something is manufactured, but capitalism itself as a system as the system based on class division, whether you support or oppose it. I think you should. We should acknowledge it's based on class division. That is the thing creating that polarization. Now I think what a lot of what socialists try to do. Is we try to

take bits of working class opposition to capitalism to their lives, to their weight, are treated at work and so on and ass. We do try to organise, on those basis to help workers take collective action help them organise and political parties and so on to represent their their interests, economic and otherwise, but the contradiction exists to begin with and if anything, this system, which, on proposing never socialism would be kind of a resolution of this this this conflict. This dilemma, this thing that has always existed since in a chief and follower, and and and so on. We ve had class divisions. Does the neolithic revolution in? I think this is a democratic road word out of that that tension in that division of of humanity tat. People who own and people have nothing to do but their ability to work so that the citizens ideas, grounded and are going out back to mark that

of human history can be told through the lens of class struggle. Is there some sand can you still man the case that this class differences over exaggerated, that there is a difference, but It's not the difference of the abuser and the abused. It's more of a difference of the people that were successful and people that were less successful, so I'll play devil's advocate, which is a that may be. One could argue that in purus earlier stage, capitalism was based on a stark difference, but then since then, two things have happened. One amount of socialists and workers have organized to guarantee certain rights for working class people certain protections. So then our system, now there are certain safety nets less than the? U s than in other countries, but on a lot of countries are

Extensive safety nets. Even like forty our work week, minimum wage safety. You nations is a kind of stuff and all those things are in my mind out the socialism within capitalism, because what you are doing is you are take, the autonomy of capitals to do whatever they want with people contracted to them and the only thing stopping them is, you know them. Potential being able to go to another employer, but even then it's kind of our potential a race to the bottom. If you know you, you can't get more than that, two dollars an hour from any employer and here in our market, you're gonna have to live with it. So one factor is we have built in those productions, so we ve taken enough socialism into capitalism that you could say that at a certain point, may be and makes a qualitative difference, and not just

on a date of deference in people's lives. The other thing is over time. We ve gotten wealthier and more productive as a society. So maybe at some point the climate Creative difference of just more and more wealth means that, even if, in the abstract, the division between a worker in a capitalist israel What, if that workers earning you know a quarter million dollars a year and has a good life and only has to clock in thirty five hours a week, thirty hours a week and has four weeks vacation then like he is and adjust like an abstract or philosophical difference. So I think you could level those two arguments, but I would say: is that one do a lot of these rights that we have fought for are constantly being eroded and they're under attacked in part, because the economic power, the capitals have bleed

into our political democracy as well. This constant lobbying for all sorts of labour market deregulation in an and so on, I fundamentally believe If, tomorrow, all those regulations went away, capitalist would fight to pay people as little as possible. We re back and nineteenth century capitalism and not because there, bad people, because if I'm running a firm and all that my competition is paying is, is able to find the labour porn is paying people less than me. want to be undercut cause I'll, be able to take some that extra savings and invest in new technology. Here whenever and though gobble by market chair before long. I then also beyond that. I do think there is a normative question hair which is now do we believe that ordinary people have the capacity to

to be able to make certain decisions about their work. Do we believe they know more about their work than their bosses, and now I don't think that's natural at every level, but I think there is no doubt that in the places workers now had who productively do their task in ways that their manager- my not now, I think we have all been in work places where we have had man, Jews or canada, I don't know what you do or what, whatever whatever else. I can. I think that, collectively, if incentivize, we could have have them one, instead of hoarding all that information and since they're getting a stake in and production and and so on, they be able to more freely, share it and be able to reshape how their day to day, work happens and also with with elected managers. You kind of take that up that the chain. I think you would have perfectly efficient

market based firms and that that could exist without capitalists. So there's a, I mean, there's a lot of things to say. Maybe, within very, very low level. Question of, if the cars are running, the show theirs brutal truth to the fact that some people are better and the workers. Now. This is the steve jobs. Players you want. I have all the players in the room, because one be player can poison the poor. and everybody gets demotivated by ike by the nature of that lack of excellence and competence. The suggested take said a crude devils advocate perspective, are the workers going too be able to remove the incompetent from the poor,

in the end, the name in the goal of towards the mission of succeeding as a collective. So I think that any successful model of socialism that involves a market in need to think one, is that the micro level you need the ability to fire people and for them to exit firms which might be a slower process and cooperative based firms than it is in their capitals firm without a union, but if you're, probably akin to that process, that would happen in a capitalist firm over many with unions. So we need that the macro level you need firm failure, you need to avoid up dilemma that happened in soviet style economies, which was soft budget constraints and firms basically not being allowed to fail, because the government was committed to full employment. The firms employing so even inefficient firms where, at the end of the day, they knew knew. They were gonna, be propped up by the government and they would be

and all the resources. They would need, no matter how a fish inefficiently beverage using those resources to maintain employment. So I think you need you need both Do you worry about this idea of firing people? I am uncomfortable with idea. I hate it, but I also notes extremely necessary So is there something about a collective, a socialist system that makes firing you might be slower? My it become extremely slow, too much friction. Isn't there a tension between respecting the rights of a human being and saying, like you, need to step up, may be served positive care. I give you really liked you really encourage, fellow There's no one. There there's a person that not pulling their side of the door doing this, a job as they could be. I did but isn't it. Person not do a great of a job go to start to manipulate the system?

slows the firing in their self interest. While I think that would be certain, maybe another way out to put it as thing about like a pure partner and a law firm right I don't really know how law firms work, so I polishing use this analogy, but but correct me if I'm wrong, but let's say your partner, kind of equity in your law from where something beyond your bearable hours, say you're going to be fire from firm or their laying off people are whenever ass, though they could just get rid of you, but they would also have to pay Add how to kind of buy you out too, after a certain point, so I think that, like in a in a cooperative firm you're, probably have a system where you are. After a certain point of working productively, you probably have a period where you get fired really quickly, bob no matter what, it's going to have job security kicks in. You would be able to add, and you know it would be a process it would probably be like and I'll have a day or two

ass to figure it out or maybe they would have progressive discipline process, which is first, you have to get a verbal feedback and then maybe a written performance review. I then you could be fired. I mean that's our work A lot of workplaces, with either unions or with just basic job security and in most countries that's how it works, cause there's not at will employment in most countries. So I think that that the real tension is, if you fire one. If you condemning them to destitution, then morally, you you'd really feel something there as you should as that as a human being concerned about other other people, but in social system or even basic social democratic system. Are there be mechanisms to take care of that person, so one eye for firm is failing for any reason: you're getting

compete or whatever. Whenever out those workers would then land in the hands just for a little bit of the state right and there could be active labour market policies to retrain people began to expanding sectors. Are your sector is now obsolete? But here you have the skills you're going to be trained and and and heres some resources to help you along your training and then there's a bunch of firms. Hiring salt gone your way and then also just with an expanded welfare state being destitute in certain countries are being unemployed in certain countries is easier than in other countries or situations. So you know you still I can fall back on on that mechanism and also my vision of a of of and a market socialism or democratic socialism. There would be an expanded state sector and not not anything you can imagine, but,

in which there is more of a state sector in countries like norway or denmark than there is now? U s, so there would be in a various forms of state employment and whenever, wherever else so I mean, I think that the railway as should being better job or getting fired for anyone, and nor getting laid up should that be a cause to have you here are totally lose shirt, or maybe should you just half their rebound. Maybe you have less money for consumption, every house and you'll be on your way onto a bigger and better things. You know, and I in a few months the source on social net. In many ways, get more efficient to fire. People were not good at their job because then, won't be what actually significant damage their quality of life. They have a chance to find a job. I wish they can flourish ship to step out into the macro. The.

There's a tension here as well, so you said that there's inequality between the classes, the capitalist, the capitalist, platinum, working class as that of a lot of ways you can may be correctly and the numbers we could say that the top one, percent of americans are more wealth in the bottom. Fifty percent. That's not talk about, perhaps capital class in them and the working class. But it's a good serve estimate right. flip side of that. If you just look at countries that have more economic freedom versus less economic freedom, more capitalism, which is less capitalism, their gdp ceased to be significantly higher, and so at the local level. You might say that the there's an inequality, but if you look historically over decades, it seems like the more capitalism there is the higher the gdp growth and therefore, the level of the coup

of life in the basic income, the basic wealth, the average. You, including the working class, goes up over time. He said like both sides of this, so I can definitely accept some of that premise, one within capitalism right and you want a bigger pie, then, if you divide up that pie, you know yo, even if, if the bottom, ten percent of the working class share of let's say, as is item, is less as a percentage, it's still more and and and raw term. So it's better for for everyone. The part that of a dispute is more economic freedom versus less economic freedom. So there's, obviously some countries in which capitalism doesn't work and may economic freedom plays a role like if you're in a country like egypt or india, with a highly previously highly bureaucratic system, soon need get licences

Do any thing and you need to run things for the state or bribe someone beginning operation down or whatever else that is encased in which I would accept the premise of okay, economic freedom to to take entrepreneurial risks. To start something new is limited and there's all sorts of factors in which it's too young, too difficult or too, and to start a firm and at benefits, and no one really except for whatever brackets he might be, might be undertaking their fifteen percent cut. But in general I think in advanced economies doesn't really work that way so think about it. This way, if your pretend like we're back, I'm sorry to go to scandinavia again, but this is you know a good a good example. Let's say you're back in the nineteenth venetian scandinavia, whatever else you're in a country with extremely powerful unions, so

Oh, the unions have a lot of labor rights. The state has certain high taxation, certain guarantees on you too, but you're you're you're a capitalist there. And now what would you do if your capitals, competitors in the us were able to pay workers and ten dollars an hour, and you have to pay them? Twenty, I you would probably and assuming you can't just flee or shut down or whatever else you'd probably find ways to use the labor saving technology right that that power of of the high wages might encourage you to invest more.

technology and to utilize people's time is better, so they're, more productive at work, so they're not just like sitting around or or whatever else. So this really happened in practice in the scandinavian countries in part, because it was combined with a certain type of and pattern wage bargaining. So when this really simply, but let's pretended you're an hey. I sector with three different, please also on automotive sector and I'll just say: one is gm. One is forward one as chrysler. Now all these workers in year, your sector are all unionized thereof. You know

swedish you w, whatever the kremlin as members and they're all paid the same and the union is setting through bargaining. The union is setting that wages across a sector, but the union's and lets a gm is the most productive of these companies for is number two chrysler's number three. The unions would intentionally set the wages and set their benchmark to forward in the middle. So what that would do is said. A ford okay forward will stay in business because they'll be able to meet wage demands. Chrysler's prompt might go out of business a buck. as you know, they won't be able to meet the demands of the hot there really adapt really quickly them. I had the lay our people they might have to restructure through union knows this in advance and all the autoworkers notice, but the most efficient manufacture. Gm now has access profits because if they were work negotiating with just the gmo

where's the jam over. It might even have been able to demand more, but instead, these workers are our pegging. Their wage demands to ford level and gm is, in theory, able to expand and employ more people and adopt new production techniques with their surplus. Then those chrysler workers would be absorbed by the state by active labour market policies are then put back to work for gm or for these expanding in all sectors, So in other words, you are now in a situation where the state has a pretty big role in your economy. Take a lot of money and taxes. He union These are our really shaping you're you're life as a capitalist, far more. That would happen in a country like the united states and yet still,

despite ear more limited economic freedom, you're still creating a more productive economy, so I could work it just has this system is to be designed right now think social democracy were designed the right when I think any future democratic socialism after such them. they would have to be designed the right way he's just linger in that a lot more. The pattern, wage bargaining, so gm is the most efficient. then, for it is the second most. Can you explain to me how I can explain to begin the wages saying the wages to the ford level, how that is good for gm so that encourages more area. This suggest on sectoral,

we're. Actually, in this case, centralized wage and bargaining so at setting the wages at a level that ford can afford, but at a level that would probably be too expensive to chrysler in the automotive sector would benefit gm because they're drawing what we could call excess profits because gm if the gm itself could potentially and have to deal with just the anchor. Eyes of gm workers, bargaining for wages and if they saw their profitability, was high it they would know their leverage, they would say tat even more else, we're going to go on strike, but instead there there dare accepting slightly lower wages than they would have otherwise had in return for the company having access profits that their throughout the state, their union- and sometimes I there's,

as worker councils or whatever else there playing a role in saying. Ok, we're gonna make sure this access profit is actually invested productively. I'm in order to expand employment and dinner just output. Ok, to look you talk about unions in general, what are the pros and cons of unions says the interest the union. Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. I have a lot to learn both but the economics and the human experience of the union. Do you His interest is to arm what to protect workers, aids and to maximize worker happiness, not the six thus in the productivity and efficiency for company right now I would disagree

I think a union's interest is an with collectively bargaining on behalf of workers, because in certain cases in I, Am I right now a manager at the nation magazine ripe, if I the problem, my working conditions or I need a raise or whatever else I could. With my skill set my background by will in the company I could go to, boss, the owner of the nation and say how can we negotiate my contract on these terms? I can bargain right now. I was a ordinary worker at like CBS or something if I didn t like my conditions, I went to my boss and said I need a two dollar rays and I mean TAT back behind me eight thirty cause you now. I have obligations at home. The boss would say, I'm sorry, that's not possible,

right, you know, maybe try the write it down the street nor the long range down the street or whatever. Now, if I went to the boss in a place like CBS or even better, if all the farmers schools suitable workers get us at right, aid, CBS walgreens went, my bosses and said: listen. You know we collectively need to two dollars more and and been better a shorter shifts or whatever else. Then they would probably have no choice, but to concede you half the bargain collectively at any level,

if you're an a a ordinary worker, and there are some exceptions, but that's for certain highly skilled workers, but even in and and those cases of course, all workers are scaled. I mean just the technical definition of them, even in those cases a lot of those workers have to bargain collectively as well, in order to get more more wealth, but but but they cannot make their demands so x. So that their firm gets out of business to the workers. Only our workers, as long as they're gainfully employed so often unions will try to select their waged man's as such. A level that it ensures the their firm or stay in business, yeah, but the problem is the way firms go out of business, isn't by an explosion like way, popcorn starts getting cooked I give you answered moment just as is over you. Can

it seems like the union can, through collective bargaining, increasing the wage, keeping increasing the interest of the worker until his suffocate company that doesn't die immediately, but it dies in five years, so that might still serve the interests of the worker. They doesnt serve the interests of society as a whole, this creating cool stuff and increasing their It is operating in increasing cool stuff and costly innovating, and so on We're creating more and more cool stuff and increasing the quality of life in general. Is I I disagree with the premise reflecting in your even taking your example. That would be better for society if a firm cannot pay it's workers a living wage, but it's competitors can

in that firm shared? He will either figure out a way to innovate, develop new techniques, new markets, new ways to be productive or it should go out of business, and it would be better for it to go out of business, then to stay in business or to be artificially captain business and any sort of way as the yet is celebrated You have my sincere my old centralized songwriting ramp, but but then there is no innovation costs money to so the flip side of that, I think to play. devils advocate? Is it it incentivize, automotive industries? It probably good apple, that it incentive ices cutting asked everywhere and sort of whatever been making money currently figure How to do that really? Well, without them into the long term, future the company for all the different ways it can pivot all the different interesting data could do was investing r and d whenever

more and more and more pressure on paying a living wage for the workers, it might not again it might suffocate and die over the next ten twenty years, which might be a good destructive force from a capitalist respect. but it might rob us of the einstein of a company of the former of the flourishing that the company and the workers within it can do over a period of five ten twenty years, for this is just a problem with a lot of capitalism, which is about short termism right has the same thing can be said from you starting accompany you have a plan for it to make a lot of money, but you're investors, not you want dividends right away, so you have to take away, from their long term, are indeed their plans and deliver short term dividends

It's often why a lot of I think our d is often rooted in state institutions and research and whatever else is being drought on and on also. I think that that's a reason why the state has some sort of role and fast bring firms in either a my version of a socialist economy or capless economies. I to help with these time horizon problems. So I won't dispute, that workers could play a role or waged man's, could play a role in time horizon problems, but more, often than that it's coming from investors, it's coming from just a host of other market pressures that people might might have and I would say that in the real world a lot of investment funds dont come from just retained earnings. It comes from a lot of vietnam sources, so I think this is a from that could be solved. Republic, say but definitely existed as well, so you mention living wage. Is there as there are ten

between a living wage, maybe cost to what a living wage means and the Chris, owning all of the profit of the company, said of this kind of stuff trump well. I guess the specialists from like. No oh no minimum wage, the lowest possible thing. You could pay worker, then when that spectrum is a living wage and then at at the at the top is like all of the profit from the companies owned by the workers so split, but to the workers I mean, I think that any society is going to have to make distributional choices and you could have imagined a variety of capitalism in which workers are paid quite little, but there's extremely high taxation and there's redistribution. After the fact you could imagine a system in which there is less taxation after the fact, but there's more guarantees and regulations of how much people are paid,

before the fact. In my vision of a socialist society, there would be some motorway that unions, work and, and my exempt the centralized bargaining or unions would would work that bargain at the second. or a level, and not just at the enterprise of all like our union's do do today, there could be benchmarks set for different occupations are way and the reason why you would want to benchmark and a worker controlled fun is you dont want workers self exporting themselves in order to gobble up market share more because I need him

and collectively deciding okay, we're going to invest in this longer term time horizon and out compete other people. That way, so you might say, okay, if you do the sort of clerical work, you have to be paid the equivalent of fifteen dollars an hour, that's minimum, but on top of that you get and you get of you know dividends from from excess profits and- and I think would also have to be combined with- and public financing for expansions and for development, which could be done in quite a competitive way. So you could have a variety of of banks in on my vision in estate, one banks, but while how would they decide who do I invest in and who do not invest and who to give a loan for expansion and who, who not to eat, because you don't want it to be like. Oh I'm going to invest in my my nephews from, and not this other firm or when anvil vast in disguise from because he's italian, but not disguise for him.

because he's albanian or whatever else just make it rational the level of their goal. Is just like any other investment person at a bank today too, I maintain a certain risk profile and to have an interest yield and decide to invest on on. That basis There is a huge automotive firm that has been on business for fifty years. That needs a little operating cash like tat. They could get there fifty million dollars at three percent loan, you have some crazy blue sky idea. You manage to get it to that that point. Maybe you, dear friends, would get it it you're, not twelve percent or something close to one of the sea, but it would offer today. So I only kind of going to these details, not because to say that a system doesn't have to in advance map out all the different possibilities, but I think it does have to be willing to accept a lot

the things that we know today. You know, I can't give you a version of socialism. That's everything's going to be fine, we're gonna live harmoniously and we won't have the sort of tensions, and you know you could in the evening and get our fish in our? You know afternoon and write criticism. You know what whatever else. I do hope that there's horizons beyond this that we can aspire to. I do have those visions, but for now I think our task as socialists is to imagine a you know: five that's after midnight fight. What more can we do right away within our lifetime vision? So that means, through some level of central planning, reallocating resources to the workers. So I think the primary mechanism in this private sector under socialism would be a market mechanism firms competing against each other to expand, are connected to a system of.

Public financing, but even at that level, the individual bankers and an public banks, and so on, will be operating based on their own rationality and the state would certainly scrape and went decisions but may be no more than I do and a lot of capitalist system, so the state might already today and a lot of countries too. We want to invest in green technology said, is, can be favourable rates for people or tax credits for people investing in green technology, so the state already shapes investment. I think what should be sent from a plan- and this is where I am proud to sound like an old school socialists- is things like healthcare things like transit things like are I natural monopolies, have lots of types I think can be done very well through their planning, and we already have plenty of examples.

but a lot of this society, I think, would be but be that the private sphere of worker, controlled cooperatives are competing against each other. The weak firms, failing as successful firms expanded and the banks your same publicly, I really owned publicly, and this is put on the table that is always guaranteed that every system has corruption, so I guess the bigger questions which system More corruption. Ah this this, with central planning and work of cooperatives, verses, unfettered capitalism or any flavour of capitalism. I think any system has potential for corruption. I think it depends on. I come you're civil services. How how much oversight do you have to resolve a problem once it arises? How does corruption happened in social system yet again? I apologise, but the large scale examples of it. So can we can look

at soviet union, china in Sweden. Fundamentally, for nations and histories and peoples, economic systems and political systems by all could be called in part socialist, and so why, in other it there's a ridiculous. almost caricature of corruption, the soviet system, a gigantic bureaucracy, that's built where somehow corruption seeps in through kind of this. And a responsibility and nobody's really responsible for the corruption at just had a cautious a college around who fought the the cartels and mexico, and theirs a huge amount of corruption met in mexico, but it's not like even seen as corruption you're. You understand when the cop was your rig of this with money and so on, and so that kinda seems to happen certain systems and it seems to have happened in social system

more than in capitalist systems in the twentieth century. Maybe I'm wrong that don't mean I think it. A lot of countries is seen as the cost of doing business now, in particular, countries built on a system of central planning or just stayed allocation of resources, estate, but produces and and allocates, and things run through bureaucracies. Then I think you're you're much more apt to have corruption, then an a system which is a smaller sphere for the state. So, for example, if you're in a hypothetical version of the? U s, you might see a lot more. Corruption like the post office, but you know you wouldn't have that corruption in your workplace

and I've learned to go around that and for one thing, even in states actors you can have- and this often is the case in democratic countries. You have a transparent civil service where people who are corrupt are prosecuted by judges where it's frowned upon and it just over time. It goes away. So you go from having political mission, means that were tied to certain had friends in certain police precincts and whatever else in the? U s in the nineteenth century, in and an early twentieth century too. Now today, thou be here scandal and unheard of ripe, citing overtime, having a independent courts from having a a truly meritocratic civil service can be implemented anywhere.

I think, though, in the soviet union, the extra little bit that that happened was you had a bureaucracy that just had so much power, because the bureaucracy was producing and distributing everything and everyone was rely on the bar cause. He was jobs the way to social advancement. I was through the bureaucracies who you end up with people. Like khrushchev, you know people going from peasants to arms. You know supreme leaders of of of countries just through I getting hooked up in the bureaucracy and advancing within it, and- and you know not all these were bad people yeah. I don't think russia was that bad of a person or gorbachev. You know the the date, but this is. Are there mechanisms advancement and systems like this in the vision of democratic socialism, then I propose the state doesn't have that overriding our power to begin with, but I think in either case you know. Corruption has arose in many different systems and has been

That will be dealt with, I think, on the developmental trajectory of even countries trade we think of his being very corrupt corruption. Will wool fade away as well, but you deaf? We need a system in which individuals individual. Are our incentivize to act rationally? So, if you're in a system in which cops who are corrupt, are prosecuted and investigated internal controls, a civilian border, you and kind of an internal investigators within police departments or whatever else there will be less corruption. Overtime. People are punished if you're innocent come on, which we are running: a firmer you're, the manager of a firm and elected manager and everyone that firm is trying for more efficiency and try for more excess profits or whatever else. At the end.

the day he had evidence at the end of the day. Then, if you try to hire your nephew- and he is not good at your job- you're, not gonna, win reelection right, see you you shouldn't, I think no system should rely on a change in culture that come naturally or some sort of individual altruism. I think the systems have to be constructed in such a way that it's not rational to behave. Poorly in of foma theoretical perspective, either a socialist or capitalist system can have can have. either culture. But it seems like if you prior to prioritize meritocracy if the people there are good, whatever the good means in terms of integrity in terms of performance in terms of competence, its it seems like that leads to less corrupt system, and it seems I capitalism, there's all kinds of ways of capitalism:

capitalism, because it does prioritize meritocracy more often leads to less corruption. So that's that's not a question of political or economic systems. The question of what kind of stuff do you talk about the least to culture, less corruption? First of all, I think in theory, maybe capitals and birds meritocracy. But I think in practice. Anyone wash in answer you or me would think of some of the people. We know that work the hardest and their often working class people work and, good service industry here or whatever else route. I think we we don't have in practice. I don't think we actually live in a society that rewards people for hard work. I think reward people for a combination of accidents at work.

Earth plus hard work so that we get it right, we pushed back because, yes, you so I agree with you, but let me put back and on a subtle point who connected to drug difference between hard work in words, meritocracy gas as a person who worked really hard. I got work crazy hard, but have also work with a lot of people there just much better than me so hard work does not equal skill, good, productive as well draw that distinction bag. Agree with you. I don't think our society rewards directly hard work or even high skill, theres many examples of these. We can see that it does not do so So we have an unequal distribution of talent, of course. So if we lived in society in which there was some level of acceptance- inequality and the normative kind of the question of how much we would save acceptable, ripe

and that inequality was based on this unequal distribution of talent. Then I think that would be fine with me, but that would actually be a meritocracy. What I see in the? U s is often okay, so if you are a upper middle class or rich kid and you get a good education, you know K through twelve and out of those people. There will be some that work extra hard and go on to do incredible. Things are very successful and will be other people that do not right and and decide for whatever reason are: go down a different path and you could say maybe, among that group, with our middle class, the you know there is a meritocracy right, ams but they're actually given those opportunities to make their own decisions and dead

to fail, whereas many many other people, the vast majority of of american society, I would say, sixty plus percent, don't really get those opportunities to make those choices to to begin with, and I would aspire to the type of world elisa as a first step in which are only inequalities are based on the are unequal innate kind of distributions of tasks, yeah. I guess a lot of people worry that when you have a us, socialist, in any degree, central planning or perhaps a collective of workers that it won't result in that kind of money I see that you're talking about but you're saying that now it's possible to have that kind of meritocracy. Think about it. This way the workers themselves are incentivized and are shaped by market forces to ripe they're trying to to respond to consumer needs and preferences. They're trying to expand market share they're trying to

made money so requires no kind of leap into these. People are going to be more altruistic or whatever else, even on purely bourgeois terms. The same way, you would maybe justify gonna competitive capitals firms. I think he would justify this this system as long as you think that that people elected management can perform just as well. I think, based on the experiences of cooperatives we seen the day they can then that the state level state bureaucracies have their own sort of sets of of of incentives, but In most systems that already have expensive state bureaucracies of these people at high levels are, are appointed or elected they're held to certain standards and at the national level a national government wants to maintain get the tax revenue that they need to pay for school services at the rear, ready, I think, have incentive structures You could say that some people might just, I think, disagree with the normative bang of life. Why would people have

on their own means of production control, their workplaces, whatever else. Why do we need level of equality. Can't we just get by with our existing system, but just I make these will be easier for capital to make money than ever and will benefit wherever else I mean that's enough. One of the question I had my vision of socialism. There'll, be plenty of you know multiple parties with different views and perspectives, trying to either push us deeper into more radical forms of socialism or, on the other hand, to kind of roll back to in a more capitalise forms of of government. So I think that again you can't try to make up a perfect system and try to implemented a you have to you know: do it as a process democratically and so on. So just sovereignty in your god, you're more concerned about the innate equal value

human beings versus the efficiency of this wonderful mechanism that we call human civilization, are producing cool stuff just like a gut. If we're a bar. That's why the gut feeling you come with me. You're mine is open, but that you, you want to protect the equal value of humans, so I dont want to fight the hypothetical saw say cloudy. I am concerned with it with equality, but I dont think the two are necessary I always in tension, but but also think about you when you think about all the great things that human beings have produced. Often, I think people today just look at the and outcome like we go to the pyramids and more marvel at the pyramids and and the human achievement that attempt to make it happen, but we won't stop to think about all the suffering they went into the making of that thing

so. I think we kind of lean in the opposite direction where we marvel at our achievements, but we don't often think about the suffering exploitation that went into certain human achievements. I would love a society in which we could marvel at things and not have to worry about the exportation that was involved because there was no exploitation or oppression involved. There was just human ingenuity and creativity and collaboration and to the degree which I disagree to the degree. There's a tension between the two at least give equal weight to the consideration of the suffering hour and don't just marvel at the beauty of the creations. To the degree there is a tension between what what Stalin did actually tear it's, not just capitals. What Stalin did was. He sacrificed whole generations, because he thought that he was building something for the future for future russians to to enjoy

for future people of the world to to eat and enjoy, and actually that analogy that I just gave by the pyramids was and was written by Karl kottke, the german and as a socialist or anti stalinists critic. When he was complaining about Eu S, journalists and others going too the nineteen, thirty and marveling and all the new industries. People blind to the suffering behind these things there marvelling about speaking of which I think you mentioned in the context of a social democracy, that freedom of speech and freedom of the press or basic the freedom of people to have voices, an important component, which I think is something that caught my ear a little bit, because, if you think about the soviet union, one of the ways that the authoritarian regime was able to control. It was part of the central planning. Is you have to control the message to limit the freedom of the press zone

the kind of notion, especially in my ideas, may be caricature- ideas of cultural marxism, sometimes caricatured even furthers walk ism that you wanna be careful. The speech was speech. You want the sensor speech because some speech hurts people, also? In some sense, you want to respect the value, the equality of human beings by being careful, the words you say, so what is it tension there for you, I think there's no tension and hard. I think that it is it's very condescending or patronizing for to assume that people can't take debate that people can't do either as society or individuals visually be and engage in the exchange of ideas and without we are even very vigorous debate without them being broken by it. It just

not the case. I'm base where free speech absolutist, I mean I would draw the line at obviously it direct incitement to violence or certain other speech, like but in general you think a lot of people be surprised to hear that. No, I mean that not people know my work, I mean more generally, I think a lot of people on the right people nor I think might have the idea that a lot of the far left wants to censor them. I think some of the centre left answer them. But I think I love I'm on the far left on the marxist are socialist laughed. I think that you are free speech is more or less than the one. Where is the the imperative to censor coming from? Is this just some. small subset of the left on twitter. Is there some philosophical idea behind certain groups that like, if were to steal man, a case in which group actually hasn't

the interests of humanity in mind in one to censor speech, I think we might need to just take it case by case for an example by example, because, honestly I I I would have to think about a particular case. But let's just say generally that a lot of american liberalism rightly sees the revolution around civil rights and later the extension of this rights revolution, fur gay rights in and and so on, as being a very positive achievement in the last half century, and I completely agree for me. Now that we want those rights alive of our battle for change needs to go beyond that, presentation will realm and needs to really re ground itself. In material, bread and butter struggles of ordinary people trying to survive that the battle for good health care for all of us.

Our kids and so on. These are my immediate demands. I think, there's a segment of american liberalism that doesn't want to go: that confrontational economic direction and wants stirred away from battles over things, I'd universal health care and so on and really are just still caught at this bad over rights representation and its devolved and such a way that they feel like they need to make change. The way they make change is only through interventions and culture cause, they don't really have the same sense of class and class. I struggle that agree or disagree with it. It's a very material plane. So instead you know they look at comedians, who said the wrong thing or jorge luck at all in all sorts of other, is to make change, is not really making change is just making them look bad, making our culture worse and there were that's where a lot of it comes from, but I think that a lot of

The left, even the left, is much more into battles over dinner, race and lots of other stuff like report serious anti anti racist and laughed, of course, I'm an anti racist. But a lot of my my work is focused on the primacy of class, but even these people very concerned about material struggles in it. And they don't really care about. You know these issues, they think are ephemeral, kind of issues, see when you focus exclusively on language that somehow leisure sri lanka, like being said about language or of like a deeper economic inequalities, it's on youtube, become an asshole. That's on twitter, pointing out how everything how how racist everyone is. So their anti racism becomes a caricature of anti racism exactly because Anti racism was really about the struggle of people for equal rights in voting

it was about the struggle for people who were trapped into bad neighborhoods because they were still and I couldn't get decent job is that in their neighborhoods or red lined or whatever else. It is really like a struggle for survival and what was the main ad demands like the language of this one? It was the march for for jobs and freedom. It was the slogan, I'm a man, you know certain the cannon, the universal dignity of a people that this what the cigarettes movement was was about, and it was a surprise and a lot of self describe socialist people. I bared russian retro, Bayard rustin a felt ran off more eartha king jr, I mean these- were people who, who were our baker. They were socialists in our end and I think a lot of americans agree with them with their immediate demands, even though they weren't themselves as socialists, but it was a very materialist struggle, and I think a lot of this has been co opted into just some sort of

they didn t, know disconcerting complains about language, or alter and so on martens the king was a socialist through a degree. The associate I would love to learn about that. Martin Luther king, I think broadway called himself at various points in his life, a christian socialist or a democratic and socialist, especially after his un speech against the vietnam war and the riverside church. I think there was sixty seven the last years of his life, he became much more involved and struggles against the war and also struggles for workers' rights. You know he he was assassinated when he was at a rally at workers' rights where he thought the next battle was going to be an economic battle. He had this famous line where he said. I don't just want to integrate the lunch counter if it means

it's that we can't afford to order a burger while we're there. You know that was the line along those lines, and I think that got to the point where the civil rights struggle was part of a of a step up, building some sort of wider movement. So he and these other civil rights leaders were very much interested in working with organized labor, with working with the left, as it was constructed then, and building some sort of mass base for not just rights but redistribution, is fascinating. His fancy, which figures self identified or more impart socialists albert einstein, was one hour as our albert einstein, wrote an article for the first issue of this and left wing magazines actually still publishing today called monthly review, and I think nineteen, forty nine and his his first article is called by socialism. I don't think it's paywall, so so people should should check it out, but yeah einstein was one

Ah, so probably the central idea is the pacifist, the anti war idea for him, or no I'm afraid it's better. Many years inside, since I read it, I think it was more about. I think it was actually more economically focus I would need to go back, and but this is war in general, a part of the fund, as I did. The socialists are again democratic, social against the ghost relation between socialism and war. So I think that tradition, we in the socialist movement more, was associated with capitalist competition and interred national competition and you look at. Moreover, one is very much a case where different nations working

With each other and developing quite rive of violent robberies, that was in part based on competition and that periphery, over access to markets and colonies and and whatever also you, it was very easy to draw a direct correlation, and I am opposed to two more or add I'm opposed to imperialism, the domination of strong nations yet dominating smaller nations, and I wouldn't call myself a pacifist. I think most socialists wouldn't call themselves pacifists, because there are some struggles that are worth fighting for. You know there is nationally. His struggles, and so on were if there is no democratic avenue fur for change. You don't positive change has been made through through arm revolves. and colonialism and whatnot, but we're living in an age where hopefully and know I know neither of us have children both are our children and our children's children in the future won't have to live through war, and that is one

that, as countries have gotten more developed as a world has changed we ve, actually seen less and less war. I won't dispute pinker on on this. I think it's true, I mean obviously invasion. Ukraine and the conflict in Ethiopia is like kind of an exception, but on the on the the whole, I think we're we're going in that in that direction, but I think it's always been. You know a major organizing clank of socialists against the war and against just kind of this sense of Right wing, nationalism and national identity that often leads to more and so not around. The right has embraced. A sat of libertarians are consistently anti war as well, but I think the right ideologically has been associated with war, even if some advocates of capitalism have

happen. Then there's the military industrial complex issues, which is the financial machine of the whole thing I presume well well, since a lot of that his government was released he's socialism and the multinational complex will alot of its government contracts, but it's private may produce strike by companies that are key market martin, and things like that, you could draw a very crude materialist connection between any of these things and took to approve an ideological point, but we could produce just as many arms adventures bury them or never find em off her whenever and whatever else. Obviously there are companies that have a vested interest in heightening up tensions or and we need to buy a new weapon systems to be prepared for conventional war with china. Russia. Meanwhile,

We all know that if there's going to be a conventional war between these countries, it's going to you know it's going to lead to something worse and and and you don't know, amount of events fighter. Doubts is gonna, make a make a difference, I try to avoid cruder, casual connections, evil Now there are relationships like it's kind of like the old slogan, which was an effective slogan in the early two, thousands at my by first anti war marches. When I was a teenager, I definitely shouted at the kind of no war for oil. I both is like correct in that it gets to what people senses of like. What's going on, how it's bad, but also like analytically, it's kind of wanting to explain what really happened or why we ended up in the union in the middle east, which is like a much more complex geopolitical story here. any it is a story, your politics, its perhaps less a story of capitalism or socialism

story arm. He hesitated the geopolitical story there, I think, actually operate outside of the economic system, the individual nations it has to do more with I in part, egos of leaders, and there is a international battle for resources, but surely there's alternatives. Yeah, definitely, and I think that part of what being a socialist is, is about dreaming in the long term about it I sort of world without in my mind, needless divisions of people into nations with standing armies. You know she, she I'm sure, we'll still have pride about where we're from and there still be a distinctive cultural features and so on about where we're from and we've definitely would at least for the foreseeable future, be divided two places as an administrative units, but the idea that there should be, a man, see an army in american army and a rush

army and in cleaning army is just on the face of it. I think in the long run will be seen as ridiculous. Just like we see it as ridiculous today, looking back at the idea that you now a lord from london, where do you know, be engage in several strife with lord from like liverpool and a bunch of peasants will die will die. He and I just kind of on the face of it. Just seems kind of ridiculous to these different places would have their own battle listen, lords and armies In the long run you might have the zoom out thousand years been the long run. People say the same about nation states standing armies in battle over here now. Specks of of of the mean nothing in a cosmic sense, yeah. I know for sure aliens would laugh at us or humans that go far beyond earth and look at the history or most of the history will be forgotten because

if he was successfully expand onto the universe. She's. The skin civilization girl so fast that the the bickering of the first few thousand years a human history, will be seen significant, there's a very marked idea that I, both upon shit one way, but, on the other hand, is kind of scary riches that you know, I'm humanist, It's only now beginning before we were in pre history, but in the future, like moby and cut em, real history, and I you know, I think that that a lot of really important history has already happened and and And- and I think posterity will- will remember, and I think that it will be easier to assign and get a certain people, the role of like villains, the people I meet are not to engage in the contentious back off topic of ukraine or whatever else, but the idea that you know one guy Women are bad when launching a you more or

However, you know, or to take it out several hundred square miles of territory and tens of thousands of people die evaluating, seems absurd, tossed many people today. Luckily, but would not have seen discern fifty six years ago. What has just been a normal thing like this kind of territorial disputes and so on? I think you know projecting the future. I think within our lifetime will live to see that kind of conflict be eradicated and, in part, do you could say that why? I think it's because a popular pressure and organization, so you could save kind of the pro worker socialist, organizing part of it, making it less normal. But if you're capitalists, you could say markets are more interlinked, so war is even more rational we have a firm answer or whatever it is. I think it's a good thing, as you mentioned marxist view of history, is kind of interesting to just briefly

But what do you think of it? What would you think of this massive view of how the different systems evolve from the perspective of class struggle is, we were talking about why funding till the imo marxist. I fundamentally believe in, and the broad concourse of of his work on materialism, but I think we should be clear of what marxist theory tells us and what it doesn't tell us. I think marxist theory tells us pertinent things about how societies have evolve about how the distribution of resources work in any given society who owens, who does and how do the conflict, distribution, conflicts and so on. I think, mark Latham can tell the toss a lot cos. Surplus is distributed exactly exactly what it can tell us is like and, as a friend put it like, they're a sex appeal, a blue jeans, or we were alsina that that's that

beyond what marxism is meant to do? What economic system can tell us about the sex appeal of blue jeans, no economic system, but socialism it on the soviets and one of his turn into you, know the soviet style. Dialectical materialism was meant to tell us everything a from of edo, explain ah, genetics and agriculture. Whatever else- and I very disastrous way, you know I definitely double even the application of these these ideas and an extremely wide away: also I'm a marxist, because it's a framework that helps and understand pertinent facts about the world. If at some point I no longer things, I think the framework

is doing that. I will not be a marxist, but I am a socialist on normative grounds, because I have certain beliefs about the equality of people, because I I believe in it. We should have a society with liberty, with equality with fraternity and that, I hope always be a socialist till the day I die, but it's kind of a very and scientific are on serious thing say this is my framework from beginning to end. You know for the rest of my life, but for perspective history, you say that sir mark says that you go to society's go through different stages. That could be crudely sunrises as primitive communism. Imperialism. Maybe slave society feudalism defined by market terrorism, capitalism and socialism and finally, stateless communism. Communism

as am I dead there miss something at me like that was very close enough. I mean I could get stuff. We true of a marxist theory that the contradictions of capitalism, the fact that it has brought together all these workers. All these materials and whatever else and its now allow me to socially create wealth and a mass scale, but that wealth is that process is being private, be directed and also the surplus is being privately. Have appropriated is a contradiction, and that would lead to some sort

rebellion, a revolution or change and will have, and eventually this contradiction would be a better on production tears. Who would have to move into socialist society to budge ashes to backtrack? So does the contradictions it starts when we're in a village on a gathers. That's what you call primitive communism for every kind of equal is kind of a collective right. Maybe if you could just just levy a holistic and then inequalities form of different flavors of that's what imperialism is this one dude rises to the top and has some control of different flavour. As for feudalism with when you have one dude at the top, and you have merchants doing some trading and so on. And then that leads to capitalism. We have private ownership of companies and they do some. They they result in some kind of class quality and eventually that's results in a resolution that says now: that's the

Inequalities now case, not natural, doesn't respect the value of beings and therefore goes to socialism where there is a marxist view, I guess some role for the state state is, do some redistribution and then the pure communism at the end is one it's. Ah, you know like it's a collective, where there's no state centralized power. So does this was part is as wrong. Now I think, and and broadway that the marxist theory of history is about different types, different modes of of of production that existed various times and based on material condition. So in the early times in this, this theory

and there was not much surplus being generated right and there was generally egalitarian societies and then, as we became agricultural as society developed, there was more surplus being produced and then a group of people, the ruling classes of their their age that controlled and distributed that that controlled, that division of labour and appropriated more of that surplus for themselves, and they were involved in productive labour and early print, society everybody is involved in productive labor later on, you had casts of priests who did nothing but kind of pray and write and and kind of lecture people direct. Then you have ban, kings and rulers and bureaucrats and traders. on you ever more complex division of labour, but also more inequity driving out of that

Capitalism was a revolutionary system because it took away one. It made us tremendously more productive and expand and production beyond our wildest imaginations. But also no longer bound workers to them lord or manner whatever else there are now free to move freely, engage in contracts with employers and and and so on.

But even that workers are not producing all this tremendous wealth and even their productive forces had been matured in such a way. They were ultimately taken away from all the wealth they were created. They got some of it back. There were in wealthy societies, but they were all. There are collectively together produce in this well, and that was a potent force so marks theorize. That would lead to a revolution or change in a and a socialist direction. I think, in fact, what we saw was it yes, workers are dependent on on capital are dependent on workers, but their dependency is obviously, if symmetrical in the sense of workers are also depend on capitalists. When, in fact is an asymmetrical depends.

and that ordinary workers need their jobs more than capitalists need the contribution of individual workers, so became kind of a collective action problem where you would need the mass of workers to get together, decide to change things, but also people be afraid, because they'd be dependent on their jobs for their livelihood and so on. So revolution became a lot harder than people thought, especially in democratic countries where workers had certain outlets and certain powers and rights and responsibility. You know it's no surprise that were you did have socialist revelations, they were in places like and the third world post colonial colonial states trying to emerge out of colonialism and they were in places like in china and russia, autocratic countries and never an a advanced capitalist country. Now, in marxists theory of history, even as interpreted by lot of sites

marxist like J coin and others. There is a certain inevitability to socialism after capitalism. The way that I would put it myself is, I kind of have a more. I guess you could say like kantian view of it like. I think socialism is something that ought to happen, but it's not something that necessarily will happen And will need to organise and persuade and also potentially again, the key part of any sort of system. That's democratic is you have to allow for the possibility of a democratic vision, ted, different sort of system? So I'd be more than happy in my vision of socialism for there to be capitalist parties and getting you know when my hopefully three four or five per cent of the vote, maybe more in the same way that in the u s or a public, we could right now

the monarch s body. No one can support him on a cross party in there in the: u s and serious numbers other, thus gaining popularity in europe no and it isn't there in the annexes, tradition Isn't there aren't they saying that to one of those You could have a leaders in monarchy because their more directly responsible does. And if you have a leader is how They are to have a monarch. oh yeah yeah this stated in the left wing anarchists traditions, like I'm an artist into closer, more, never out of it by their their slogan, is kind of no king. No guy I masters or whatever so no bosses they they. Definitely. I agree with that, but I am not familiar. Not anarchism is runs a gamut from left to right and interesting. Well, I'll have it about how to ask about that. But yeah. I guess a year

you're, not young, believe marxist theory. History in the sense that it everything every stage is a natural consequence of every other stage. Of course he would predict somebody like you must exist in order for the for those stages to go from one to the next cause you might cause. You have to believe ought in order for action to be taken to inspire the populace to take actions. So two things one is, I do broader believe in Marx's theory of history, because it just explaining how productive forces develop in the relations of production in any given system? I guess there's a theory of transition from capitalism to socialism that Marston really spell out, but I was kind of implied They were, it would naturally happen and marks is living in an era of tremendous upheaval of euro marks himself actually is when he was living in london in the eighteen seventys, the paris commune

and workers took over for just a few months, but they took over the producers of paris took over the city basic created there. government, their own system and so on. Are you living through an era of up a people and angles, especially oversight was the mentor to all these rising socialist parties. So he was very close closely. Collaborating with socialist.

and places like britain and germany when they were drafting their first programs and for the social democratic party. So it felt like this was going to happen and felt like this rise in working class would take power, but I think the stability of the system was underestimated. It's easy to see the contradictions in the system, but can you see it's mechanisms of stability and the way in which mass collective action or revolutions more the exception or the the norm? Could he have imagined if your marks not only how much wealth a system would produce over time, which I think he could have imagined, but also developments like the welfare state and mass democracy and universal suffrage, which might have changed how workers relate to the system or operate? And

within its. I think it's just it just the transition part that I think wasn't spelled out properly, but I think in either case as socialists, we can assume that history is working in our favour. We just need our kind of whole about and wait for the inevitable, revolution. We have to convince people above one the struggle for day to day reforms. lights, important to be politically organise whites important to be met the union or to advocate for things I universal health care

or whatever else, try to kind of build. The cohesion and sense of self of that the class- I then ultimately for the desirability once we accomplish it once we build social democracy of going beyond social democracy, which is, of course, the challenge. I don't think it requires leadership from the outside. I think there are plenty of organic leaders that have emerged from the working class and have advocated for for socialism from the working class, and, if you look at the class composition during the glory days of the, european socialist parties. I mean this was very much a working class parties and organisations. It's only been last, like thirty years that has been taken over by professionals and not on quince event way They they have accomplished for him went home does thirty years, so that that the practical and pragmatic and we actually jumped to the to the other

Rising is emerging as a social democratic. You focus on the positive today, but be also a vision, The dream of a future and so marks did as well. So all the perfect communism at the end Can you described the world ass? It is there, Mr Wurtz, that has elements if anarchism so ago, like I said it is my mouse next door, so I could narco communism. Have you no foundation? the term correctly, but sickly? No central control gave us. With our looks like we, I think the traditional socialists, vision of corruption, when a cloud full communism would be very to the anarchist vision about well without

coercion, mass abundance and so on. I myself don't share that vision. I believe that we will always need to have a state in some form as away tat one even just mediate. Difference I traditionally alot of marks of thought that, after your move, that primary contradiction, corner court of class, that the other all other political questions would be. as a result- and I think that's a lot behind a lot of the thinking of we're gonna- have a full communism after politics, I don't think there will be, and after politics I think for one thing, let's say I'll, give you another ne example: let's say me mean you are trying to with different groups of people who are trying to figure out how to build the crossing of the hudson river and

for various reasons you and the people around you want to build a bridge mean the people around me need one about the tunnel. That's a question that you will probably need a mediation for right. You'll need one big projects. There will be a very complex division of labour and so on, but beyond that, just a politically and you will need the state to mediate. The difference you'll need to have a vote, have a vote, that people trust, have institutions of people, trust and and and so on, to make a decision Society is never going to go beyond that decision. Make unity is possible outside the state to create stable. voting mechanisms or, as you Indeed, you can always seep into that. I just wonder why we would have to after estate is democratic and responsive. The state is an authoritarian, so might not be called a staple function as a state, but why not just call it a state, but in other words like? If you don't have something like that,

then don't you have a greater risk of tyranny or a tyrant emerging in the vacuum. So I think people's fear of the state is what would happen to the state had too much power and I think that's legitimate, fair. That's why we're if the democratic kind of checks on state power and and at certain guarantees and of of freedom and so on, but yeah, I guess I just wonder if I'm more afraid of the vacuum and not having a democratic, responsive state and what the world were turning to, and also I'm just not a utopian thinker that make sense, and I must I like to think that Dominic deleterious thinker, I'm a socialist my mind just goes to a dinner. I can see a vision of the

ensure that I would like, like fifty sixty years from now, and maybe there's some sort of future of superabundance and automation and there's some sort of techno utopian future. We don't want some of those things that that would exist in maya, and you know five minutes from now vision. of socialism, but I just don't see it and, in general, some kind of wary of visions of change that seem like they're, not built off little thing pieces than we have now and opt out of history and experience and whatever else it, I don't want a year zero. I don't even like the term pre history, because I think there is a lot in history that I want I want. I want shakespeare under socialism. Yet I want. I want a lot of things that that I think we should be grateful for, and there is a part of tradition that I think that exists, that is hierarchical and exploitative and whatever else but there's another part

tradition. That's our sense of plaice and belonging and our connection with the past, and hopefully there, the and I want to get that. Yes, worried about russia russian or otherwise, of action being created and new worried about the things that might the vacuum to the end guess so often worry about the. The same mechanism of the state that controls voting or keeps voting robust and resilient and stable, the same mechanism also having a monopoly on violence. As that. That's an intention to their very v day, give very nervous about

Central place having a monopoly on violence, whereas if there is going to be a place for them a monopoly on violence, what you say would temporarily take that for granted. She did not be a place with a skilled, elected, accountable, transparent civil service with a democratic mandate and so on. Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, we'll put speaking of ai just gonna tangent do thing is part of our future work for fifty years fifty hung a year's work ere. I I there's an egg eyes of central planning, so the we remove some of the human elements that I think get us into a lot of trouble, like you could. Take a perspective on the soviet union and the flaws of the system? There have less to do with a different idea It is more to do with

humans in a vacuum and how he was vacuums, vacuums in the nature of power so on. If we have ai that the ets more data driven, is not susceptible to the human elements. Is it possible to imagine such a world almost like a from a sci fi perspective may be in the future? You could imagine certain calculation problems that arose during central planning saw through advanced computing, but I would say that there's another whole set of problems with the system that were incentive problems and I'm not sure how that advance computing would solve the incentive problems of. How do you get people to actually produce things that other people want and cannot that informational question? How do you communicate without endless meetings?

or someone reading a brain what you actually want, and so so there's there's that kind of informational question, but then there's the incentive of you know: how do you get people to work efficiently at work? And how do you get a firms to do? to use their resources that they're getting a more more efficiently. I think solving the calculation problem solves some of these questions, but not all of them, but yet I did that they who now is. But if your vision of the future requires some sort of leap intact and logical now that's very hard to advocate for today, its exciting to consider the possibility of technology empowering a better reallocation of resources. If, if you care about of kind of the innate value of human beings and think of the mechanism for reallocation, resource good way. To empower that

equality that it's nice to remove the human element from that like, if you work really hard, and you really good eu job, it's nice to be really data driven in allocate more resources to do so. kind of like I kind of I think that the agency part requires human beings unconscious human activity. So I think, if you have a sort of planning system that works and lets say that knowledge is therefore to work. I would want it to be democratic planning in such way. There's a human element. There is some debate and deliberation society So, even in my vision of socialism, with the state sector and state investments and so on, I want there to be more public discussion and debate about certain things have not just left to technocrats cause.

Iranian within society, were year. You just find out the next day that there is a massive infrastructure project that you haven't had a chance to think about it, bade or feel eiger participating in berlin in that the debate is not just facts and logic. That's that's why? If the whole universe was about facts and logic, computers can do a better job of that this. Otherwise, humans debating each other. They got goes into the deep called grey areas of. of what it means to be human and what it means to have a life that's worth living. There requires humanity and I am also worried about while I'm excited by the patent. But if a controlling everything have joking it's. The reason I'm really terrified of that is because usually discipline the ability of a human taking control of that system to eat. You now start to get the same car ferry, authoritarian thing. Well,

I am a human, I'm smart enough to be able to control this ice system, and I will do based on what this says system says. What's good for you, it's kind of like talking down, people and then use that ass system to now have the same kind the thing is holler more and that in turn, is in all our preferences. My change, so an eye system might say the goal of humanity is to just increase infinitely efficiency or or increase output, whereas we might collectively decide that You know we we have enough and we want to now have a trade off right, and I think that you and me. The system that allows for people to make certain trade offs and have

or have this leisure that I've been learning about from you. This is very interesting concept, leisure, where to hide his father, alright. So if we can step into the practical we're talking about historical and philosophical into the practical of the day, What are some of the exciting policies that represent democratic socialism today, modern socialism, Did you mentioned some of them in amerika for all our universal health care? Those of you have mentioned is tuition. Free college increase minimum wage may be strong The union's I could talk about what is some ideas here. what are some ideas is expected policy especially exciting to you. Why think that ours reduction has always been important, demand firm socialists,

so I mean it's been a reality and in certain countries, like france and in recent decades, where part of logic is, if you have a bunch of people, working for forty plus hours a week, and you also have some unemployed people who would like more employment. then it's not a zero sum game. You can produce hours thirty five hours and still maintain the same output by employing more people taken. It filled up the slack in and ours as the one. I think it's a solid arrested thing in working last movements, Rien, unemployed and employed workers. I also think that Adam yeah? It gives people more time. Some marks was a big advocate in his day of a ten hour and a bill and in in the uk, that would reduce the hours of of working time, And reduce childcare eliminated for renewed child labour and

and in other things as well and part of it was. This is a radical demand because its producing this sphere as a sign of exploitation, sets limits on on how much time the capitals can take from ordinary workers and how much freedom they would they would have with healthcare one. I just think it set a government paulsen system? You know you could tell me that you don't want me, you ass, when you can't tell me doesn't work could be seen at work and the other major industrial system, indifferent forms to what? What is that involve what is universal healthcare care, involve so there's different varieties in the uk, for instance, they have a national health service and. Urge medical personnel in hospitals are run directly by the state and something of many soviet don't be honest, but just for healthcare works pretty well just for healthcare, and I One example of the way in which you could actually take the markets.

be a vision of socialism and involves a lot of market, but I think that certain spheres where you could remove the market from and still have, an efficient system may in part, because you know this

is a area in which we people don't have obviously for cosmetic procedures wherever they have preferences for for most routine things, that people do in healthcare. They just need to see a doctor or they need to get diagnosed, and some of these systems have had trouble with weightless for specialists or whatever, that's more of like an allocation problem of. If you want more specialists, you pay specialists more like this assist problems that could be solved by like through the mechanisms of a planning and and government run healthcare. So that's that's kind of the most left wing of that he could get his would have won the system, the united kingdom and beyond that you have a system like medicare for all where you say I most of the doctors besides for public hospitals already,

I are going to be privately employed by possibles. The hospitals are going to be private, but and instead of having all these different insurance carriers we're just going to have one national insurance hear they're all going to pay into that. National insurance carrier is going to negotiate the price of healthcare with doctor as a price of of drugs with the pharmaceutical companies and so on. To hopefully reduce prices and implement a different little bit of planning into into the system, because if there's only one, you know a big national insurance company that that company has a lot of weight and power. But you know you can still visit your same doctor And-

and there still some of the it's not as radical of a of a shift in that direction, and that's the dominant demand of Bernie sanders and the left right now. There's thirty plus million people in the? U s and would be ensured dead, currently aren't insured. We move this system is a lot of other people that are under insured or worried about how to pay co pay. is or our premiums involved, I think, would be a net benefit for the vast majority of europe's population. Even if it was offset by certain taxes could we spend a lot of money out of pocket with with health insurance, and it's a demand also this widely popular. So for me so much like if you're trying to build support for something by socialism, we were talking this lofty vision. socialism. After capitalism or what worker ownership, the means of production would look like in practice and when and so on, and by the way, you're one of the few interviewers who ever ass may be that the details,

it's it's good that I had a I've been thinking of a rough sketched, my head for the last. You know. Whatever sixteen years I've been a socialist but. But we have to start in the here and now and if you can convince people that the state should play a bigger role and their health insurance and can commence americans and aha the other sectors do. They should be living and the closer to social democracy, hurriedly and says people that there should be worker ownership of the means of production. It's kind of a ridiculous like leap if, if you dont have the credibility as the group of

organizing for universal healthcare, organizing for fifteen our been a wage, enable to get the goods and also in practice as we fight for these reforms, ordinary people will have a better sense. We somehow my hope, is of what it means to be involved with politics and what politics can do for their lives. It's positive because, right now, when we talk about politics and often just seems that we're talking about like a very glib cultural conflict, remove from the things that are important in our lives, there is in truth. I think politics can be a tool for us to make our lives better. Yeah. There's a deep ideas here were, in some sense universal health care and worker collectors are not so radically different. There's just there's philosophical idea exploring excel and also, from my perspective at least.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. But it seems like with a lot of things at the core of politics. Right answer from an alien perspective is not clear. ike everybody's very certain was the right answer, A certain universal health care is terrible war, Guess a universal health care majority people think it's a good idea, bout, a game or knows because I think that depends on cultural history. On the under particular dynamics of country of a political system on the dynamics of the economic system. This country of the changing world, the twenty first century, is definitely than the twentieth century. maybe the failures of communism in the twentieth century will not be repeated in the twenty first century or the footsteps May be, capitalism will actually truly flourish with the help of automation in the twenty first

regarding able knows so I give people like you are basically saying like arguing for ideas and where the explorers ideas together, Why do you think if universal health care is popular. Why don't? We have universal health care, ending states war. This is a great thing. Political democracy is wonderful. It came from the struggles of ordinary people to expand suffrage in and so on, but the economic sphere entrench power in the economic sphere bleeds into our political democracy. So I think, there's a lot of people with a vested interest in not having universal health care. There is large, industries for the vested interests and not having universal health care they pay for ads.

pay lobbyists, they influence government and they have made it very difficult. So you can't get universal healthcare and done without the bill. Even if you pass something you're trying to make a change like obamacare was supposed to have a public option. Everybody's been running on a public option in the democratic party for twelve thirteen years. Why don't? We have a public option and people know that if people have the choice of buying into government plan that might just keep that might be the slow road to really having universal healthcare. So I think a lot of it's opposition do like that idea. The public option may be, can like cousins, isn't it pluck cities like pre existing conditions, soccer, isn't a public option mean you can not have any insurance until you get the trouble and then you can, if it covers preexisting conditions, just start paying for insurance, then

Therefore, young people don't pay for insurance, isn't it better to golf fallen? I don't support a public option in part, because I think if we allow politicians to just say hey, I support a public option, but it just kind of a a way to signal your support for universal healthcare, but give us nothing, and I think that's what we saw under with Biden a lot of other politicians that have supported a public option. I think, in practice, if a public option is defined in such a way that it just means you you and you know, by default, can just opt in to a public plan and, let's say hypothetically, don't even have to pay for it. Then it's just a back door to universal healthcare, really quickly cause. I think that Ask the majority of people who aren't currently cover- and I saw a lot of employers to be honest- would probably drop their private coverage that they knew their employees can just get a public option and maybe would only provide supplemental insurance or or whatever else, and but I think,

Broad overarching point of all these demands is to say that socialist need to be really connected to the day to day struggles of people did just improve their lives So if you're feeling my dear paying four hundred five hundred hours on the obamacare market for health insurance and that's hampering your ability,

You do what you want to do in your life, then. Maybe you would support a candidate who is for universal healthcare if you feel like you're struggling to find work that he could afford to pay your rent with, or whatever else may be less important. A candidate committed to do all sorts of mechanisms to reduce housing prices are and increase your power as an as a tenant and and whatever else. I think it's like these day to day. Concerns need to be connected to the more abstract and lofty vision of change. Otherwise our politics just becomes like this. This fantasy world thing. That's that's. You know nice ideas to think about or debate, but but really won't make much of a difference in people's lives. What do you think about free college? Should college be free, so

I would say for college is not at the top of my list of priorities, but a definite should be free in my vision of a just a just society. What is the data is just to clarify, as is the universal health care up their gas universal, throws prize more higher or my priorities than than for college. I think right now, the way our system is built when someone goes to college there given credentials are driven decree that carry with them for the rest era, life it gives them a chance to join kind of a privileged part of the labour market. Right, it's not easy or some game. I dont want cogitate people to think that non college educated people either enemies and vice versa, cause a lot of them are just ordinary working class people trying to survive and their indifferent. in different sectors. You know some of them are in nursing the sector is where they need a college degree and and so on. But if you just make college tuition free, would you dont also back?

trade skills and other things. I too wish tuition freeze for someone to learn how to I'm electrician or a plumber. Whatever else, then, to some degree, your privilege, ing one sector Of the labour market over another, so I would advocate just if you're gonna make something like that, for you have to make sure you're doing any dotterine way and that one the options, the routes to college or more more equal. So you know, there's more. Investment in case were twelve education, so that more kids in rough neighborhoods have the chance to go to college and for those that choose the trade route from from any any part in a country that their given the skills and resources for vacation.

and yet our trainings and those are also free, and I just feels like it in terms of order of operation. I would just start with K through twelve education, improving it and and whatever else then college after, but I'm not opposed to it as a desert, improving get a proper education. Does I mean investing more into? It is as simple as just increasingly more money that is invested in the in public education in general, so the public sector or any any sphere that you're a restaurant, obviously found just a simple throwing money at a problem? I do think we have a lot of schools that are under funded, but we have other schools that are adequately funded, but the candy in which those schools are like the neighborhoods therein, and that and what's going on society and the problems are so deep that it's impossible for just education to solve everything, and I think, especially a lot of liberals think that education should be the panacea vessel

education. Your help, people, if kids, are living in poverty if they go into go hungry whatever our sake, education's, not gonna, give them everything. They need tat to succeed. So sometimes we, I think, put too much weight on on education and, of course, you could define education more broadly, which is like the care of the flourishing of the young mind whatever. That is a lot of crimes that early a lot of it starts work, so near city at least. We do have a universal prepay, so for major three onwards, you here the option for that I mean it's important for cancer illustration unite their parents are now able to get out now that they can go to work or do something else and have the general had the kids taken care of There's a lot of measures, I bad that we could do to two equalize things and again

for libertarians in the audience. Some of this stuff is scary, because it's obviously more state involve state involved in pre K. State is already very involve a k through twelve, more investment to state institutions like and are our state universities and in college. But for me it's not a question of state vs non state. It's a question of. Do you no good outcomes for for people, and it just happens to be that for working class people and having the collective power to elect representatives. We're build. A broader safety net is in their interest for operational, fast people for others they can afford to pay for their own provisioning, either directly or through, like obamacare, like caroline schemes, where you just get a subsidy and you pay the rest yourself and whenever this is really the bottom forty percent, so the population they really dont, have any options. They prioritize others things or they end up with with

some sort of injury or health problem or whatever else in it's it's bad for everyone in society, but especially bad for the people, the bottom of the labour market. So I various estimates for social programmes like so security expansion, fee college maker, for all will last upwards of forty trillion dollars over ten years? Four zero! Ok do give our with those numbers and so on, but so there's a cost. There's a taxpayer cost water. given the waiter that costs. Can you still make the case for these programmes, and can you try to make the case against them that This is too high, so I will not. with you. The numbers cause just random number I do think universal healthcare, if downright can be basically costs neutral. I think it's an exception because we spend tremendous amount of money on on on healthcare, huge percentage of gdp, so I think it can be done in a way this close to class neutral.

What is a it can, can you argue on the numbers wouldn't without arguing, and the number see you're saying just your gut says that There's a lot of depending on how these programmes are done, there's a lot of variance in how much will actually cost. There's a lot of barrage in building right now. Our healthcare sector, for example, there would be eliminated. There's. A lot of costs that are narrowing upward up provider costs from both doctors, hospitals, but also pharmaceuticals, had drunk house that insurance companies shoulder has their market share is too fragmented to really negotiate hard. Medicare can sometimes too if she had better rights, but a medicare for all would negotiate even better rates. I think there's a cost spiral that we can adjust with more government involvement,

there's a reason why we spend a bigger share of gdp on healthcare than other places. But, but let me just accept that broad premise that social programs costs money and now I think that that one for ordinary people, most of them, the trade off of even hypothetically, if, if taxes on the lower middle class and working class, people in certain it says: go up that tradeoff would still be in their benefit, because they're, the ones who currently who would be consuming more those goods and also are tax system and whatnot is, is progressive so that the ritual pay pay more, the majority will consume and more of them, and also, I think, a lot of these programs are the bedrock of a healthy society. So one reason, for example, the ample that we have so much crime

I am and violence in the: u s is also a cultural and other causes with I level an ownership american history in and so on, but one on really important factor is just the level of poverty inequality in the? U s compared to other other countries, that combined with guns and and other factors means we. Live in more violent, unequal societies. Avian a european would be shocked by the fact that the even summary are nice as areas, and I are not an city, as elsewhere, This is not a real violent stooped normally have gun. Violence is normal. The have drug related violence. You now, though, we have what like form hundred people, some years and in baltimore city of under a million getting getting killed the user. recipes for a society in which one the public sphere is, is drunk like crazy,

cause. You're not gonna, go wander out for an evening straw and park. If you live in a dangerous area or whatever else like that, the rod goes very deep and a welfare state is one way to to live we're now at a better society for everyone and there's been plenty of of studies. Others, one book called the spirit level, an eye on inequality that was quite poppy the just now, it's an inequality is really terrible for the psyches of the rich to not just for for the poorest, think spending some more money, living and more just society is, is doable. There's different ways to to address certain costs spiral One reason why our welfare states are getting more I more expensive is in part just cause. Our population is, is aging but many the same people who say we can afford. more in our welfare states, because I'm yet already spending so much and so security

These other entitlements are the same people also for one get out closing borders same immigrants can come hen to to help build the economy and to fill absolutely the enemy and also who aren't for things that will make it easier to have kids, you know I'm thirty, three years old, I have a lot of friends who have been putting off having kids until they save up x amount of hours, even though they have someone they could. You know have raised three children with and because they can't afford the cost of childcare, they cannot read, they can't. You know their job, probably won't give them more than four six weeks, of a family leave her or whatever else. This is not the case in other. Other countries I think there are all sorts of benefits from having a bigger welfare state loud. Yes, there are costs and there are gonna, be certain trade off

it's not a magical thing where you could, just you know, have everything without trade offs, so in a progressive tax system is there to to push back on. The costs here is they're, a point at which taxing the rich is gone. Productive in the long term. So in the short term, there might be a net benefit of increasing taxes, because the programmes No class law middle class gets is more beneficial. Is there Is there a negative side to taxing the rich in theory? Yes, of course, are one would be if you taxable so much, they change their consumption patterns and that has negative impacts on the economy as a whole. If you like, you would have done tat really model it out, but there would be a certain point in which that consumption changes might have net detrimental effects

I think that's more unlikely and the more likely scenario is you, tax corporations and, and and other how wealthy people in society to the point that they have potentially less money for product. Investment has your and our capital societies are reliant on capitalist to invest, so you could have done, on it being the worst, both worlds where you ve gone too far for capitalism, but not far enough for socialism and my vision, of course, socialism, that's one reason why we have to take the investment function away from cap worse than there has to be a if you're gonna make it so hard for them. They can invest a cannon ploy labour there, where their employer. Now you have to create another mechanism for supply to be created, and that's why you're panza transition point gas. What about longer term de incentivize in young people there dreaming

becoming entrepreneurs I realise that there is a huge tax on being wealthy. So if you take these big risks, which was required to be an entrepreneur, and you are lucky enough to succeed and good enough to succeed. That's the guy we'll take most your money away. I think, realistically, that's not a disincentive for most people. First, while we really have progressive taxation system The government does take take a bunch of the money away and people are still striving to become rich a lot of what people want when they dream of success. Is they want accolades? They want respect and, of course, they want some more wealth, while they consume luxury goods where there, whatever else, but at a certain point, it becomes better for the state to to tax in either redistribute directly or through social programmes or

redirect that money, through tax credits and other ways to shape investment towards productive investment. You know we don't want a society in which a bunch of rich people fly around in helicopters going from club to club, while the productive economy and kind of does nothing right. At that point, I think a lot of ordinary rich people might prefer the government to come in to tax them and to try to spur investment in certain productive. I sector, so it it really just just depends, but I honestly believe that that most people don't necessarily want to be rich for the sake of being rich, they want to be successful and there's many different dynamics to that and accolades and social respect is, is an important one of them. It's also why people would just become filthy, rich often the first

They do is start up philanthropic trusts and try to give away their money because they want the social respec enact and whenever our state, they don't want just their money on that topic, settled little bit of a tangent theirs alone. folks, in the in the left community I left community social committee that I think are at the source, kind of derision towards the bbc The billionaires a bother you or do you think this impart justified, I knew using the word billionaires. A dirty word, I think, is perfectly justified, and that is the populace shorthand right, I'm. So obviously, when I talk about inequality, I often talk about power dynamics ripe between workers and bought

it is, and so on, a billion areas, just the ninety nine one percent version of it is just a popular shorthand to just explain the fact that there's A lot of people who have accumulated I've seen wealth, these people aren't in my mind, parasites and there very, very old school socialist rhetoric and that, of course, cap was provide employment. Take out

when our s come up with new ideas, sometimes themselves so sometimes directly manage work and whatever, whatever else, but they exert so much power over the lives of not just their workers with society as a whole. Taking away some of their wealth and power is a way to just empower others again. These things have policy trade offs. If you keep a few just snap, your fingers and say- and you are muscular now and all your wealth is gone girl. Now you are on food stamps or whatever else, and that kind of arbitrary way you'd be a total, totally disincentivize people from trusting the

of a game as they ve been set up and a capital society, and I think that would have negative consequences for workers, but saying that paid his person is too much power and too much wealth and has too much ability to dictate things about the lives of others. I think is just simply a fact, and I think it's true the cases of people who are good people and and have risen to this position and as true in the cases of people who are maybe not so good people and one who have reason to these- these positions, So I agree with you in part by had to push back here. So one of the problems I see is in billionaires a short hand to talk about power inequality worth an inequality, often dismisses the fact that some of these folks Are some of the best members of our society? So outside of the did into. However, the sis was created, inequalities, a young

since today should dream to build cool stuff, not for the wealth, not for the power the fame, but to be part of building cool stuff now there's a lot of examples, a billion years that have gotten their in shady ways and so on, and you can point that out But in the same way we celebrate great artists and great athletes and great literary icons and serve writers, impose some musicians in. Engineers and scientists we should celebrate. We should sort of separate the the human creator from the wealth that the system has given them that at that, that's what I worry about is like in our system- some of the greatest humans are the ones who have become rich, and so we sometimes mix up the. If you want to criticise the wealth,

It was sometimes criticised the human and the creator wow that should actually the person we aspire to be. So I would agree with that. Lebron James is not ready in his lifetime will be a billinger and he got his money largely through just be an incredible athlete excelling in this field, more than any one size for Michael Jordan- and these are my number You might remember the lesson for us all it yeah, I'm willing to keep keep an open mind about the lebron versus jordan conversation. But do you know he got that through his merit and he's been reward in a party's getting rewarded because he's created vast amounts of wealth beyond what he is getting. This is just his share. He knows the salary cap league or whatever during a doors, meant obviously that company is this thinking worth more than but they're paying him for that that endorsement and so on, and to the extent we to most people see, innovate.

And they see someone who will put himself out. There would sometimes crazy ideas because he is trying to think about the future and trying to just. push things forward, instead of just sitting on whatever money he has now and just investing it earning six per cent. You know for the return for the rest of his life. You know, I think that that's that's a positive thing, but I think it it doesn't get to the broader. Policy question when people about billionaires their invoking the spectre of inequality and power, it's not Normally the rhetoric that I use, because I propose a poet can I use more traditional socialist rhetoric and and and terms, but I think it gets something real so often with these sorts of short hands, we use in politics. There are, you know their imperfect, but they speak to to

we all have real thing and they they feed a little bit of fun. That folks are gay or see anyone have with each other creates it. It feeds it inspires serve as a catalyst for productive discourse. Ok speaking a witch said your fat Bernie sanders. Would you myspace offers a Bernie brow was a technical definition of burning, as that of is a subset nodded I'll, say you're a sophisticated philosopher, writer economy Can political thinker. Of course you would not call yourself a Bernie bro. I'm gonna call myself a burner crap! That's because it was made up by liberal journalists to smear Bernie and his supporters escalate during the two thousand and sixteen campaign even though disproportionately his supporters were a young women in their twenties. You now Adam, but whatever

our arrived for Bernie, there's worse things and world, may call the bretton woods what would you like a ball bernie sanders and to what degree this represents ideas of socialism toward degree he represent? the more traditional sort of liberal ideas. I love Bernie. Most of all, like his clarity, is by far the best communicator we have on the left. He speaks with a moral force, he's related ble and he has taken a lot of socialist rhetoric from academia and brow. down to its core in a way this comprehensible for ordinary people and speaks their daily lives. So when Bernie does a speech,

people can finish his lines because I know what he's going to say. You know they. They know what points he's going to hit, because socialism, in my mind, should not be a complicated thing. Now, when we get to more abstract discussions about what a future system would look like when we get to the policy tradeoffs today, I think we need to put on differ. Tat. We should embrace all sorts of nuance in contradiction and complication when it comes to the core more I think appeal, I think Bernie grass that and how to communicate it now Bernie sanders was politicize a very long time ago. I actually once told them. I've only met a few times, but one time I took a joke that and in his in his book he mentioned that one politicizing moment in his life was when the brooklyn dodgers left town and he was there, Stay because if the doubters Van Europe from brooklyn- and I said this- is a twenty twenty camp

and this may be turned nineteen I said bernie running for president. You did not need to keep reminding people your age, but you know he he was politicized through the young people. Social leak betrays an. old offshoot of the norm. Thomas socialist party of america, very old school socialist tradition than he was age and labour struggles in the sixties. He was indeed in their civil rights movement. So he came from this old left generation that I think just had. A more planes broken more rooted way of understanding change and socialism. It wasn't, in my mind, polluted by academia, and by some there the turned towards she's of culture and an excessive focus on representation or whatever else it was rooted. It was really rooted in something economic and when I then obviously had all his ideas- and he was

also product of the left and that he went to vermont. He kind of did the back to the land thing. He was basically not quite a hippie in an effect, but he was out there trying to farm whatever, and you call this house northern the vermont and then he decided to to do politics. Do electoral law. Thanks and fail for a long time. He did third party politics. He kept. Losing races eventually became, live savvy, I can thanks. He learned the mayor of burlington vermont and he just kept with the same message and and my my book I talk about, and I quote, I think, bernie speech from then I can. Seventy is one of his early campaigns and compared it bernie speech during his twenty sustained campaign- was virtually identical knowing errors were swap with minors and donors from speaking milliners switches, which is beautiful unions? It's it's. I think, there's there's something you no great to what

offered american politics and also all around the world. There is this show is paul and politics where they agree with it or not, and in all these countries in europe and any any rich country, Japan and so on. In the u s really have that the further slapstick ago was, I you know Chris, amazon, see here, whatever unbearable that. There's a there's, a socialist paul and I think we are burning iter to thank for it to the extent that a lot of real self describe so dont think varies a real socialist, it's in part because he's, days, grounded and people's day to day lives struggles. I don't think he think often the way that that I you and other people more disconnected step remove from day to day, politics think about the future. contours of of a of society and so on, but I think he's morally committed to a egalitarian different sort of future. I don't think he at least haven't heard him talk

the boss of this big, broad history and future, so the marxist ideology, and so on. Not the he's afraid errors on this just now he thinks about it, yeah, I think so, practical thinker and also yeah. He is running even if he hee hee hee should be afraid of it too. because he is in our view, this is a major politics in running for president? I think what people want they want they want the left wing of the possible, and I am or at least the segment of the party that was voting for him. The democratic party is voting for him. They wanted something that was a step or two removed from what they had now and was visionary, but not so our move, that it seemed like a scary weep and I think we will have asked the bastard. Since and twenty sixteen tat like someone that I think would have beaten track, bear the very least would have been close. Do you think

democrats democratic scrutiny over? Yes, not in the way of the deliberate or direct vote rigging, but they put their found in the scale for sure, I mean, does this sound even conspiracy? Theory is all this stuff in the debates about Clinton in I've being couldn't people being fed questions and, and whatever else interests the tone of the media. The media was extremely dismissal and hostile to him I love they burn. You still does a fox news, town hall with as they just him speaking to the people than he's not afraid of of going and you know any sort of outlet and making his his But I think a lot of the the liberal media, in particular always had it out for Bernie Sanders wool is that this is really annoying really annoying. How dismissive they were I have seen that in some other candidates a they were dismissive towards andrew Yang in that same way, so forget the ideology

Why are they so smug, sometimes towards certain candidates? What is there because, I think, that's actually at the core two degrees Democrats or any party fails there: that smugness, because people see through that a lot of these people are friends, even if they don t that their friends they went as its aim. Schools, they know the same people, They have the same broad, just ideology, I'll give, so they had a sense of what the democratic powers you should be in who'd should be running and who is gonna win and also what serious and on serious ass, a burning would say some things about the world that objective way tat a lot of people seem correct or lease pretty close to crack, and a journalist who just look at him, like he's from outer space, to some extent the also happens to be on the right People on the right often say things. I find repulsive, or are just ron, but.

There are parts of the media that would describe their certain views as illegitimate. Around side this boundaries of acceptable conversation. I think there should be a few things outside the boundary of accepted while conversation, you're a hate speech in and so on? But there is this: tat to say their views are emerging men and therefore anyone no votes for them for any reason is legitimate to too. One reason why I think I fear that that of resentment animal autumn, and feeling the extremes of in politics that people feel like you're there. Not being listened to and some of it is also style speaking personality, where, if you're not willing to sort of play, kind of game of civility or there's a proper way of speaking, if your Democrat, if you're not do that kind of properly speaking people dismissal in certain says whenever you feel about him people this

donald trump for the same reason, why is the style of speaking, personality the person that he's not playing by the rules of of power its society of polite tis society and so on, and that that's really their troubles me. Because it feels like solutions. The great leaders will not be polite in, though they're, not they're, not going to behave in this way, they're supposed to behave as which the media was released. open minded like It gives me hope about the new media, which is like more district, citizen media right there, a mind to the revolutionary too to the outsiders, I actually first I really like Bernie sanders. I first heard him ah now in conversation, Tom Hartman. He had these eggs

like weekly conversations and just the authenticity guy, I didn't even know any codified, even know honestly. He was a democratic, social or the author see the huge being was really refreshing, and we, I guess, decide to one for present Those release stranger surely this code, this person has no chance just like he seemed to others you seem to like he's not going to be effective at playing a game of politics. So it was very inspiring to me to see that you don't necessarily need to be good at playing the game of politics. You can actually, every chance of winning. Yet, as does is by and see what some of the other popular candidate What do you think about air sea she self identifies as a socialist or not. She does self identifies. As a democratic socialist, I think she was a very inspiring trigger for for a lot of people. She was.

Kind of out of this bernie wave, the first set of burning candidates and twenty team that identified with him instead of the democratic party establishment? I think that she's deal developing as a politician and very difficult when you're in a deep blue district and when you don't often I have to worry about reelection or talk to the mods. My dear redirect whenever swing voters in your district, but then you're immediately a national and cultural figure. So s basically goes from her views, which are compelling. and in my mind, a lot of her her programmatic views are compelling winds. Her district I've been has her on rhetoric which, to me compared to Bernie, owes itself more too

to the academic left and the way that a lot of the left has learned to talk. I mean academic consensus. She is like a marxist or or whatever else, but academic, in the way that she may be using a times like confusing language, to convey basic points when she gets into like like language of intersection and whatever else, especially in the context of cultural issues of exactly, instead of just the plains. open bernie by gad discrimination is is wrong. If you asked me about a cultural issue, I come down on the same side as a o c, I'm sure you know nine plus tons out of times out of ten but AL try to rooted in to just basic, like yeah treat people with respect you now and I'll treaty with respect, and that's the way we should. Govern our civic sphere. He and I, and we don't need to talk about about intersectionality, to try and get that, but so there's that rhetoric

she's not just regular congressperson, deeply district she's, also aid, national and international cultural and political figure. Since she is now a spokesperson for of large, like a media event of her surprising upset election and her being You are young and like being really connected to this post bernie moment, and I think maybe these Carson one attacks on our from the right and also this media attention, this notoriety. She hasn't really modulator, adjusted her audience her rhetoric and how, Whenever someone who really hate lot? Are your ideas but might actually believe in some of your policies, and I think she's been ineffective quite frankly, and

last year making that transition, whereas I think other politicians who are not so far left, who don't identify socialist with a sad john veteran, has managed to become more effective and I will take question of character, or whatever else- and I like you, so I don't want to So harshly, but I think it has to do with her being congress person and a deep blue district and federation being running the statewide office in a in a quote: unquote, purple state and but at her best at her best. She does it. But it's like glimmers, you kate, it's kind of like come on. What's what's border your biggest fan of I'll give. You sports analogy. Like the anna, I mean the nfl is up there if a soccer's up there, but probably yossi no care well, I can't give you good for any of us. But I think it's a raw prospect yet. As someone who who as a glimmer of hope, so they were drafted really high. They bounce from tv team here like I'm,

beyond my air sea stock bide, but I think that that she needs to be said critical enough and our team. This be self critical enough to know that the goal is not merely to be a national, from a figure and when a reelection new, deeper district, the goal has to be to become The national political figure, which will require changes a unified air and inspiring figure about ideas issue. At present, definitely on, and she has other things against her. Like a modest classroom but there is no denying. I think that some the hostility to her is like sexism miasm rooted in. I think people wanting to sierra fail whatever else, but that's only some of it uniting some of it. eyes, is her struggling to relate to people who don't have a lot of her her starting points as far as moral and ethical beliefs, but she's actually greater flourishing in all the other attacks, she's getting

He's just do a good job that and allows a tax break me for picking up its yes, that's that the irish is under, but you don't want that to become a drug, to where you just get good at being a national figure. This costume fights and are using them for attention on, you still won't be the unified. That's a tricky tricky switched eat you there's a chance. There's a world in which she is you're able to modulate it enough to be the fire and run for president and when think she's very far away from being able to do that, I think dad Even other politicians that are also polarizing within this squad in terms of what they, They their ideas, whatever else are very effective, indicators that Johann Omar and others. I think I think I see I mean that's my hope. Right, my hope is that someone like Lugosi could

last year, plus have not has not been extremely promising here. I am I in my mind in part, because become or she's continued to position itself as a lightning rod. Cultural figure, whereas I think a national political figure needs to take their spots and also pick their moment for changing their their rhetoric and adjusting to their audience, and I think she does it in certain environments, but that needs to be your national message went out there and you need to be speaking towards the not already I can. I did, and I think Bernie does. I Bernie strips his politics down to the basics, I agree with you spiritual, but I also we also have an example, Donald trump winning the presidency. Isn't some. Is in some of the game of politics that separate from the policy being able

to engage in rhetoric, that's at least outrage and then what into the fire with grace birthright and was It's kind of a unique personality in american history is that's hard to two too, compare anyone, tat, tromp, but don't you think, elsie's comparable in terms of the uniqueness in the bullet system were and are now I try much more much more of a firebrand anti establishment force in that, and I mean this negatively for what it's worth, because I write it hard disk. Here too it dropped, but he was willing to set fire to the republican in establishment right. He was able to self. and your enlarged campaign. Anybody was a media figure without them the sea has been much more cautious with the democratic party establishment in public She is not trying to run a national political campaign right now for the outside, like a five percent

Secondly, president, let me set fire to everything she's trying to help people, and our constituents through the gate. Of getting committee appointments and europe getting winds in the margins and I think that's understandable, for what it's worth, but in the process. I think. What's the difference between a sea and a progressive democratic. In two thousand and sixteen used to be pretty easy to say the difference being that bernie crats and a progressive democrat right, because we were establishing our own outside third force in american politics, we're. You know you could knock on the door of a lot of people would end up voting for trump and they would say. Oh, I have a lot of respect for for Bernie, whatever there is still going to not vote for him, but he wasn't can there are part of the democratic party mill you I think now. If they see there's more, closer association of amc in our policies with ordinary democrats.

where is she needs to draw stronger distinctions? She doesn't need to do it like tromp, dead work. Just manner forgot. All of them I found some them amusing in the moment, like all his nicknames about a lion, ted crews, and then him than you know you, but I do feel like she needs. Do yes to differentiate herself a bit more, but it also just keep her language. Simple. Tromp was more complex than Bernie in his, literal language, but he was repetitive and there was kind of a rhythm and cadenced tromp speech. See new stir like bernie birds. Her rhetoric down to a couple q islands and signatures and focus our politics, not on twenty issues, but on three or four important issues and have that message: discipline Bernie, while doing it we with you and held right down, hope you do interview Bernie! I'd me to write down like five things

I am only going to talk about these five things asked me about It's! Ok, I'm compromises about these five. That's a message! Discipline that Bernie has been Similarly, on the azure, sober I think that's learn that can be developed. I think she could develop. It listen, I hope I'm asking question. I think not the way. I should answer it being someone out broadcasting. Dear, two people are now on the left and and and and and Ghana, elsewhere, I hope, as he goes in this direction, I just think that she is going against her just courtesies, already a national figure and she's in a deeper blue district, but what we it rude or politics than in working life, people and a lot of districts dead and that the type of kitchen table conversations. Are I hate that cliche, but I just used but a lot of east. These conversations are just different in their tone and cadence and is not just a question of

you get a fat man nor timorous, And then I can just might working class voters mean working class. Of any reason. There's their day to day needs the data things they want to talk about is just an indifferent plain than you know. I met gala cultural stay, yeah. I is clear, the your respect, a loving and would like to see different ways and she's young, so the different trajectories that she could develop. That would ultimately make good carried out just again odds here, for agree with them on bio, see, stock here, given these odds so in terms of democratic who's, gonna win the twenty four election setting running and winning on a democrat side. Is eighteen percent chance for Biden, so sound said chairs for a comma harris given useless six percent. Michelle bomber at three percent. Hillary Clinton.

two percent and a o c at one point, five per cent and then Bernie at one percent. So ah I would not buy earth denmark, out by Biden my crazy that I'm not? gambling man, but I would, I would totally toss a toss, a g at Biden at that amount see a one point. Five percent chance, I think, is, I think, it's I don't sure, she runs they antique yeah I'll get the down, I don't think Bernie will primary Biden, neither a biden, with enron than ever since and open field, but I just feel like getting by runs. Yes, I think by properly runs boy, the combat press, mused incumbent press, and so it's very hard to imagine other democratic being able to do better than him. What about the competition? I think donald trump, the best thing for the Democrats period, just as it would create this turn out mechanism. This excitement around

you have to stop donald trump he's attacking the santas. I mean already he's he's schriner he the descent demoniac thing but yeah he's. I kind of like the trumps candidate, the dawn king of in politics you know yeah, it's it's interesting. What kind of dynamic chaos is created? A probably lead to more people being interested in politics who are always going to lead to more people being issued in politics, but maybe not a healthy way, maybe created an unhealthy relationship with politics, where it created more partisanship, for me, and I don't have a problem with partnership. It's what kind of partnership citing tromp has cultivated like a lot I populous a relationship with his supporters. Tom almost like a leader follower relationship and a

that doesn't actually enhance people's knowledge or politics and the issues but actually just fall, leads them to all the party line idea. I think socialist politics and policies in the lab should be something different. I've eugene debs the great How can the socialist leader of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century used to save you, not yet moses. I can't promise to lead you to the promised land because Why can we do there and you just follow me there, someone just gonna, we do straight out since I'm gone and I think there is something nice about that kind of aunt. I you know line following leader, following a kind of dynamic on the left at its best. That said in the way The police- medical raised in the united states has turned out seems like its turn into a bit of entertainment, they're having

personalities and characters is is really important. So in terms of policy and actual leadership yes may be having a leader. Like an author terry and big leaders, not good, but maybe for the race. It is. but the drama of it either. What I have drawn, an intention on people who are asking go to turn out to be good leaders as a way. ballast strike then earned media as what they always talk about right and political campaigns lay again at the moron. Do you could get on tv, the better and, like I really like fetterman, he just one is campaign, but a good part of his early campaign. He had pivoted for talking about issues to just. Mad doktor eyes, levine new jersey and kind of having the tree campaign against him, which I found amusing, but also because a fact of our one buddy bit depressing, because I would rather a whole campaign cycle

about health care, jobs in other other issues, yeah I'll, and this is the hope- is that people just get better. That kind of solution media communications are, I do actually think there's. thing about doing political speeches, that makes you saw less authentic because have to like. to so many of them. It's emma. be exhausting till I, day after day after day make the speech you going to start to read laying the same stuff over and over, as opposed to. Actually thinking about the wars are coming out of my mouth and then the look. I know that you're not really being that authentic. Even though You believe those things you just is just tough. I just wish I didn't have to do because they do speeches. So I think that the fact that burning is speeches very clearly like came out of, if not directly, on pan, but his own rhetoric over the years and he kind of road. It seemed authentic. Yes, even if you are

repeating it, I've been tromp is just and improvisation. I think people found real yet and in a certain way, and I would love for the left more generally to tap to some of that anti establishment sentiment It obviously do in a way that is productive, that doesn't blame immigrants or whatever else for problems, but you know it is, is kind of built on a different basis, but people are fed up for good reason but not a conventional politics, and we need to speak to that otherwise it will only be the right that is taking advantage of those peoples manner, while I was forgot to ask about china so, both historically we talked about the soviet union. But what lessons do you draw from the implementation of socialism, communism in, maoist, china and modern china. What was that and the bad what is very similar to the soviet case and that socialism came to china.

through not a base of organised work, there is an end and I contrary to certain local development and so on, but it came through the countryside. in conditions of civil war strikes The japanese invasion, and whatever else and now built his base in the peasantry, then came down the city to govern and now the base and rule over workers so I ve been inversion of classic socialist theory. Now The same thing that I said before about stone and assessing the soviet union has to apply here is obviously an ipod. the authoritarian esm and you know by law office to all sorts of moral kind condemnations- I I should I should I should I should do, but to look at what the chinese communist party actually published. I think we're gonna need to take a step backwards from

mar moral opposition to the means and which they accomplish and just look at it developmentally china benefited greatly from the communist parties, implementation of basic education and health care so a lot of china, you had won the conditions. Women were absolutely terrible, there's stuff foot binding in all sorts of like terrible backward practice. You a huge vast majority of the population that was illiterate without any access to basic education, and you had no health access, especially in the countryside. So those are the three good things that that China did improve their status of women. get everyone enter our primary education and improve the lot of healthcare. Besides without

Their agricultural campaign was a failure just like stones for many. The same reasons I mentioned before the great leap forward, crash industrialization didn't really work either in a way. Is china better than india or other countries that that didn't have. basic education and the strong state authority, and and and that improvements in whatever. I think maybe. But I think that's why we need us. sometimes go beyond just economic measures, this success is a view. only tomorrow, the? U s will grow three percent. If we maintain democracy but it'll grow it, nine percent every wealthier. If we move to some sort of authoritarian government, I think you're.

in the wrong question. If we're going to make your decision based on growth right because it has to be based on some sort of principle, but the same dynamic of the beginning. The chinese communist party ruling over people amber from the outside through on complex and root willing over ordinary chinese People have continued since then the policies have been better economically and often times, not always. The technocratic governance has been quite good, but that doesn't mean that the party has a democratic mandate, or has the should have the right to govern, as I see it as they see fit, has clearly you know it doesn't have a mandate and swathes of the country or in places like hong kong were or or elsewhere, but to me nothing the chinese communist warranty dose has anything to do with socialism, I think, even by their own definition. Today, you really doesn't it's a

sort of nationalist authority and developmental state that has done some good thanks to improve the living standards of the chinese people. Are there things our accounts, productive and Adam yeah? a democratic socialist you know, I'd I'd, certainly don't support that state, but I also hope that the eu, some Biden will find a way to avoid united hence robbery and competition economically spilling over into something worse from democratic socialist respective? What's one policy one or two ways you could fix. If you could fix china, she took over china, or would you like to see the change? What the democratic part becomes before the socialist part, I would say, there needs to be multi party elections in china and state censorship. Ben control over the press, in other words, needs to be be done with this wiser

immediate economic policy. I think the dear maintaining a strong state control of certain in a coma heights, the economy, while liberalizing others views has done quite well. In china's case, lifting people out of poverty and but again you know, there's something really lost in a society, even if it's getting wealthier s, ear grade. If ordinary people dont have the ability to participate in descent freely, The chinese authorities have allowed some mean us, not north korea, it's not a totally to tall tarion there's been work. His protests have been all sorts of anti corruption, local anticorruption protests and things like that. But it's up the gun It decides what's permitted. What's not at one particular moment I think, the long run, even if it can survive

there is. There is a better way to do things, which is quite simply a democracy thing is, though, the lessons of history that china is looking at this dark aspect, so building the fact that it seems like under Stalin and undermined under Stalin, the soviet union and under MAO china has seen a lot of economic growth and then one dark aspect of that. While under the great leap forward You have a point of seventy million people dead today, think there's a large number of people who admire stolen, admire MAO. What they admirer is the stability and the strong leadership. So in this, there's a lot of people who missed the soviet union right this why? The message is that it was, the main new it provided the basics of their livelihood

afterwards, I look a russian. The nineties. People were in chaos in the communist party was had a huge amount of support. Democratically anti democratic measures to be taken ironic right against the communist party to keep it from regaining about a foot all in and russia. But we don't need that trade off. You know We could have a form of enough of russia went tat system closer to social democracy there maintained the stability, people wanted the welfare state the people wanted, but restrict the economy and not a shock way, but in a way that they made sense and that ordinary People felt ownership bob instead of just oligarchs who are former communist party bureaucracy, just dividing up the country for themselves. the same thing in china first, while certainly from the west. You know the: u S, government and people in the. U s should have you have no say over

what should happen in China right that chinese comedy- already as more authentic authentic authority than any of us, dear and the country, but you know I think that Fears that stability, that a lot of chinese people have why. I would imagine that, even in democratic election, the communist party- might have majority support is because they fear the unknown. They fair collapse there was one the big lessons about the soviet collapse ran china divided into five six states in know. Do you want economic turmoil do you want mass media privatisation do want whatever welfare state you have destroyed and so on. I think people are right, tat those fears, but there's a different route towards democratization. That maintain stability right, there's different routes that you could did. He could have gone democracy, not that every country had to do

down the route of gps beyond the ussr and and so on?. You are the founder of the magazine, Jacobin which I may subscribe. Grabber recommend everybody subscribe, what the year on the left or the right them them. In does tend to lean laughed officially says civilization and where a socialist publication we try to be interesting. Retried allied have articles in the economy have debate. in contestation and whenever aus, but where we're, definitely where our socialist well It's a lotta, really interesting article, so deftly recommended people subscribe support I only like to cook the like that product of the twenty first century. Only subscribe to the digital version there is also paper version. Yeah, there's like seventy thousand subscribers and and print in printer. Does

come like on a scroll, I don't even know the paper. Do they all this paper that says I'm gonna, I'm gonna mail, you a bunch of copies. I know it's perfect bound. You know it's long. Issues are are jackman's publisher, remaking. Four of his recently did a redesign of their publications I'll, look through the gate at sea and on its up there in the design award opposition range, its eyes, sexy again showed. After all, my friends look for your crops. Table you don't even have to read it first, I need to get a coffee table, but yes, I'll get both that's what a respectable dot. Listen a great in my life I haven't a couch ever so again, Cows recently got. Somebody told me that serious it does have a couch and also got a tv, because serious adults have a car. The t v sea has been here for many months and I still haven't like on box that so this I'm trying to learn how to be an adult looking up. I need How to be an adult learning. Slowly after that, I'll look into this whole leisure. Think, anyway, what

the origin of Jacamar was the was they d was the mission? Was the orgy story, so I started jackman when I was between my soft mine junior college. This way I was already a socialist. I was involved the democratic socialist america. I was in the section, the young democratic socialist, I was during the kind of youth on my magazine, called the activists back then and to be as I had my ideology, add my views. I had a group, people around me that we will debate together and occasionally right this other publication, the activist in and so on, and yet just a product of creative ignorance in the sense that I knew the capacity to maybe pull off an issuer two. I said no idea how long I would keep doing it. You know, and I eventually consume my life slowly, richer. like I had I'd different plans for my future. Our fight- I ended up in just being

magazine publisher? I literally didn't know what a magazine publisher was, but I he's. Gonna happened was the hardest part about running a magazine bore the hardest part is obviously things, just like any enterprise right, the things beyond our control, like you could put out something that you think is great, more interest in that and we need the feedback of people actually subscribing do it and you occasionally encounter periods where you feel like you're doing your best work but you're not getting there. The audience response, and I thought you just need- a kind of the self confidence just keep doing it and obviously, if you're, totally obscure and crazy and way off the mark. You're, never gonna build that that audience I think a lot of publications have tried to something I guess goes with youtube charged or else they try to adapt to what everyone else is doing right away when they don't achieve success where,

where's. For me, there early issues jackman got very little resonance and took allow for eta build into something, but A lot of it was just the confidence just keep going and keep publishing what I would want to read and just help. There are not so much of a weirdo that I'm the only one is there some pressure could speak to of audience capture because it is a social publication europe? and base our region the base is There are times you feel pressured not to say a certain thing not to call out bullshit not to criticise, candidates other Christoph yet Stephanie ass. Yet I am I myself loser on the self censorship than other people. That's only Because I've gotten this far just shooting from have for whenever Occasionally, you know you'll come to our our rash judgment right. Your speak too soon or complain about

into too soon and you'll have to color. their apologize are kind of reconsider. Whatever else come, but on a host of issues, We and I have used that. Maybe not all of the left has, but I know that the core, my politics is a politics against no oppression against exploitation against all the things that we we talked about, and if you know that's at the core, your politics, then you could maybe say- You know what I don't think the left shed should risk. onto the railways in the still around the world, by adopting like an excessively rationalized rhetoric that make sense, like I fundamentally aegis I'm a universal list believe that people in the matter where their backgrounds are, and someone kind of want. The same thing. for themselves and for their for their families, and I feel like a lot of their laughter, some of the left, not not enough laughed more like the centre left, has adopted.

The have a are you we need to by white privilege, or you know why care and these are white- guys- are all white guys hearing this or whatever else, and to me it's not only run in a moral sense, but is counterproductive. The last thing I want is a young white teenager who enough feels unrepresented politically and wants be a part of, maybe even the left, to feel like. I like, oh, should think more about my identity know the whole point of antiracist politics is and we want to live in a world where you know mean you can go around the corner and get a bare and we're not in our people of two different races: Abed would just to you now guys now they re there in. I just think we're trying to get we have type of society in which there is less about sort of community law rationalize identity, and that was

oh point of a whole generation of antiracist struggle. But now we seem to be kind up. real, fine it in the media and in culture and politics, and that one issue where I've been kind of banks, draw on this to the point that it's annoying in certain parts of the left. I don't think there's, maybe stream opposition among socialists, but it's more like a. Why do you keep focusing, this? Let's focus our real enemy, the right. Instead of criticising this part of I did it's really, I'm really glad you guess. I'm really glad being a job, because I think that's one of the young. One of the reasons that the left has not had a broader impact who has not heard by more people that could hear. Its message has been the other the the ring of legacy. if this there is, there is who teams of as if its black and white as a person

there's a common humanity in a common struggle among souls Do you also wrote the book a few times. The socialist manifesto- the case for radical politics. In an era of extreme inequality was the framework. What are the ideas of the book so, a lot of its look. Socialism is past present and future. This leaves a lot of. It is historical on the opening chapter This is a past us ass factory. he explained certain marxist concepts, but also theory of change. How we get from let's I pure capitalism, to more regulated, yet our union eyes and social and democratic systems and beyond and social democracy enter my vision of socialism? That's kind of the first little bed, a visionary had a bike, look at their debts, sure of socialism. But then I tried exe and why some pass social movements have gone wrong because I think we can take for granted

A lot of people want to live in a different or better society, but they look at past. samples in their skeptical, and I think there is good right, in four scepticism. So I tried to explain both these facets of certain systems like social democracy, but also what in russia, china and that kind of more historical overview. I then, The book on events in the present and ends with look in the Bernie sanders campaign. Why resonated looking at some of the problem miss facing the eu the uk other advanced economies, and why I think the socialists message is still relevant has for the longest time, I'm thirty three, I became a socialist as a teenager and for the longest time it seemed like? I was just a member of a historical society. You know keeping alive an idea that nobody was interested in anymore and now you know it's heartening to see more. People interested in the idea, but we actually

here too. I think about clearer sense of what we stand for and how we make her movement like it used to more rooted in the working class. If anyone were wise, the tape may go to. When we first started talking about where we socialism, when I was talking about the german, social, democratic workers, movement or all these different early part, I think at various points I use the word work and socialist movement interchangeably because in fact, at the time it was pretty interchangeable, so frozen- was the ideology they had. The appeal of the working class movement couldn't really separate between the two? Now obviously socialism saigon fringe ideological current among them. A small minority of the working class, which is fine, but we need to get to the point. I think, ideally where one

we'll talk about unions and people protesting unsociable bends and socialism, they all kind of our one and the same as part of the same broad, broad movement. How did you become a socialist. What what The war is the personal story where the idea to call you mind saw the so five, I was only one on my family born in the united states, so It was very obvious to me that my life, how comes were very different? The life outcomes, my siblings, so? My three all this headline scene? I didn't go to college after after high school. Some of them gathered degrees and get up much later on, as adults do. But I was from a pretty young age: had access to great public school district and and was put on the track that granny go out. She had hoped this. This is kind of the the outcome Said even my grandmother was illiterate. My mom

we have a lot of educational opportunities. Early yeah I've been and her in her life. the graduate from college the same year. I did so. She she later got her kind of degrees in and whatever else, but but to me was obvious at some much my life outcomes, weren't just a product of hard work or my family sacrifices was, of course either same family as by my siblings, but the product of state institutions helping out even things out: public school district, public library, all sorts of after scope. After all, that was the domain of the of the state. I really benefited from it. So in I asked it's my core was a social democratic, believe the state shed. We distribute a bed buildings, public institutions being equalizer. Now how became marxist and a socialist was much miranda intellectual interested in them and then where can emerge the two together, where

merged together, mine, more pragmatic and practical interest in today concerns and performs, and so on with my loftier intellectual interests and marxism. Inter you know, the politics have today, which I try to a kind of balance. Do both- and I think, a lot of- socialists in the organization I joined as a teenager, the democratic socialism, america and elsewhere. Try to do the two. try to maintain some sort of balanced stream, hair and beard out our vision of the future waiting marks or say if he were to read your book sources manifest under review. So I think marks would say that my vision of a social laughter, capitalism mainly the key elements of what he went of the commodity form so loud. What marks was concerned about wise, What markets due to human relationships and

you have sense, is early writings, especially focus a lot on the alienation of labour. My vision of socialism lacenaire term a lot about it is about declarative, Certain sectors of reducing the market, a certain sectors and reducing alienation, but not eliminating it. About eliminating exploitation and oppression. So knowing marks and knowing how critical he was of certain other socialist strands and tendencies, and he would often right very snarking notes and letters to people like angles being like this guy, le sallies, eternal asshole. I then he would send a separate us out, Saying hey. Can I borrow firebrands? Does this actually sure he did about ebert did about? I think the same like I'm the same month, He would be really good at twitters what you say, how he would be the best twitter and also he is to be edge. He was a journalist before with his work for the new york tribune. He was very

clever, very starkey. He would be awesome at at twitter. I thank him and the eu on, but have good back and for its vital factor. You'd be critical of some parts, but I think that the strangest part him would be reading the historic was actions and seeing the way in which his ideas, which is fundamentally ideas about human emancipation, were used for for evil, for hardship in and ways did the opposite. emancipated bite in some cases. You know enslaved people and I think he would have definitely want to be associated with them, probably would rather be associated with me than them, but even then only begrudgingly What advice would you give to young folks. in high school in college, how to have a career that can be proud of our how to change the world, I think be intimate to curious us in a red,

outsider your current beliefs and on stand a red authors on their own terms the worst thing in the world to do is to read anything special work, affection, but anything and tried to deduce the authors back or politics, whatever else a region on its own terms, first then you could re read it kind of do. Other examinations are, or whatever else and also read a lot of history so started off reading books like air copies bombs for bucks on history going from their seventeen hundreds all the way to nineteen. Eighty four, the last bugs age of extremes, but I think understanding history gives you whereas I view of everything, sociology economics, everything? So these big sweeping historical bucks, a really useful to know why everybody should know. Basically, you know

at your or at least like what decade you know, serfdom was abolished for decades. Servants as laver is abolish. You know what century magna carta was. You know when the roman our foul that's kind of debated by the roman empire, there. All these, I think, like being a person, with a general knowledge and general sense of history and whatever else just makes you more eclectic and interesting and its way better than just that, especially latin indian friends. You know that not just indians but the hyper focus on light, you got a specialised and you got to lighten focus on on man our engineering, when everyone do you just know your feel very well, but nothing outside, I think, there's something really to whether getting score just can do by yourself giving yourself kind of our liberal arts education. I think this not a power to having the facts. A history in terms of Taiwan still happen, but also really powerful is gnawing spatially. the geography they were

were point on the map and there's interesting dynamic. That happened throughout history of all, for nations in europe of all the different military conflicts in the expansions and and the wars and the empires and all kind of stuff is it really puts into context how how Human history has led to the place. We are today as all the different geo political conflict we have today. Even the politics of the day is grounded in history. Maybe less often united states goes as a very history that history, you from the earth is still there right from the civil war and understood that gives you context doing you tweet trend of stuff about this or that person or politician, and so on, yeah, very true, virtual one other gretta have currently is- I have perhaps been too far beside the twentieth century. in terms of history. The present in the twentieth century allotted

write to me that there's a lot of lessons to be learned and ancient history as well. I'll just even american history, but just looking farther and farther and farther back. That feels like it Another time it's another place, it's totally has no lessons, but then you remind yourself that it's the same human beings right yeah and also where no smarten them. We just have more crude knowledge in part because of them, but like They're, just as they were just as clever as us now would, you think is the meaning of this whole experiment will have gone on earth now. What's the meaning of life were, I think, there's no broad meaning of life. There's, and I was an accident We ourselves need to make maker on meeting and for me, a lot of it is about to posterity trying to do something worthwhile while on earth, but also leaving something behind it could just be relationships with friends or family in the future. May

having a family and then kind of like leaving behind that sort of legacy. Little bits of yourself, but also you know then being able to learn the same. I have little bits of my my parents, my my grandparents Jimmy then also, I think, an aim social sand zooming out from just the individual on the family law. the world behind a little better. You know I would love to be of a movement that created a well with a little bit less suffering a little bit less oppression are experts patients are or whatever else It's really. Why am I by the socialists in this? Not about staff? your fingers and curing the world of everything in one in one go, but it about, I think pudding, or alive, giving our lives some sort of meaning and purpose, and you don't have to be a socialist to do that. You could just do it at them. You know at the

micro level on your own data day interactions, but I'd feel like life. Has no good me without without thank you posterity in the future and to say thank you for doing so. Thank you. Or caring about the struggle of the people in the world through ideas that are bold and I think challenging- for a lot of people the time when socialism is something can be attacked aggressively by large numbers of people still persevering in still exploring those ideas, and seeing what of those ideas can make for a better world? That's beautiful, to see basket thinking. which were talking day. Thank you for the work you do. I can't wait to see what you do next. I appreciate and yeah thanks for keeping an open mind with these conversations and to your audience too, you know it's it's nice to have a space where you know people can debate and think at length and don't have to worry about soundbite culture. Thank you both

thank you for listening to this conversation with boss, gas and car the support this by gas. Please check out our sponsors in the description and now let me leave you with some words from Karl Marx. Democracy is the road to socialism. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time. Please