ŷ

Kevin's Reviews > It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism

It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism by Bernie Sanders
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
35434974
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: econ-inequality, 2-brilliant-intros-101, econ-health, econ-market, econ-state-welfare

Bernie 2023 and Beyond: Uses and Limits

Preamble:
--On the uses and limits of Bernie, we should consider the contexts (time/place) of the audiences, Bernie's content, and the political situation:
--Audience (considering the process of critical education):
i) Beginner: the ideas may indeed be revelatory; after all, we all start from the default status quo.
ii) Experienced: if the ideas do not keep up with the experiences of the audiences, they may become limitations at a certain point.
--Bernie's content vs. political situation:
i) My expectations for the content of Bernie's 1st campaign (2016 Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In) is comparatively much more lenient, given the context of his debut as a censored senator from Vermont.
ii) For his 2nd campaign in 2020, expectations had to rise and keep rising as his small-donors fundraising started shattering records. We all watched how the campaign crashed the party before the party crashed it.
iii) In the aftermath, my critical expectations are raised even higher: we have to learn from such a missed opportunity, sabotaged by the Democratic Party, where the prospect of a third party had been debated by those around Bernie.
iv) 2024 update: okay, I'm back to discussions with bros who think Trump is still somehow an outsider against "the system". Capitalism has funded the creation of such stupendous . In such dreary moments, I'm reminded of how useful Bernie is (yes, ). Our intellectual bias compels us to look away, but we have to start with where the public is. And for this, I'm forever grateful of Bernie's educational impact.
...To those who see themselves as "pragmatic" and cannot fathom the third party option, this same "pragmatism" not so long ago scorned Bernie entering the 2016 elections. The context (audience/Bernie/political situation) changes; if you do not keep up, you end up a "pragmatic" loser.
...Bernie's platform was never going to be allowed to waltz into the White House by itself. The critical question was always how much popular power could Bernie unite to force his platform into office.
...What are the uses and limits of Bernie now, with close supporter Cornell West running for a third party in 2024?

The Good (for beginners):
--Rhetorically (important given Bernie’s crucial role as a lead communicator of social needs in the home of the Red Scare), a couple techniques stood out:

1) US context:
--To frame political action for social needs as common sense (even “American�) rather than “radical� (foreign/scary), Bernie recites popular US historical figures. This centers around FDR’s 1944 speech recognizing the need for economic rights (and thus the limits of FDR’s 1933-39 New Deal reforms):
As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.
--This is followed by the most successful Socialist presidential candidate in US history (I do wonder if Bernie's direct acknowledgements of "socialism" has actually decreased), Eugene V. Debs:
I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence [ex. debt/compound interest/speculation raising cost of living].
...Bernie compares greed-addicted Wall Street speculators vs. essential workers with precarious low-wage jobs. As a public communicator focusing on inequality/class, this really should be Bernie's bread-and-butter. There is so much more he can elaborate on regarding Wall Street's debt-fueled passive income (capital gains/debt-leveraging speculation/compound interest) resulting in sky-rocketing cost-of-living (esp. housing prices, medical/education debts): The Bubble and Beyond
--Of course, MLK, particularly the radical direction (The Radical King) MLK took when he combined antiracism with anti-capitalism (1968 Poor People’s Campaign) and anti-imperialism (protesting the US war on Vietnam).
--Several other popular US presidents are invoked, including Eisenhower (continuing FDR’s wartime restrictions on profiteering into postwar boom), LBJ’s “Great Society� programs, and Theodore Roosevelt taxing robber barons:
[…] a Republican who possessed considerable wealth of his own, recognized that taxing extreme wealth was necessary not merely to collect revenues but to preserve and extend democracy. “The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power,� he warned in the 1910 “New Nationalism� speech, where he outlined a plan to “change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare.� At the heart of Teddy Roosevelt’s plan was an ambitious wealth tax that targeted both the income and the estates of the robber barons of his time.
2) Moral values?:
--Bernie flips conservative elites� rhetoric of “moral values� to target capitalism’s system goals of endless accumulation/money-power (moralized as “greed�) and how this fails the Golden Rule (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you�) found in all major religions.
--Have you noticed the glaring contradiction where conservative elites avoid the most significant driver disrupting social relations (be it “traditional� or any sense of community): capitalism?
Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois [capitalist] epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned […]
-The scary pamphlet
--Substance: beneath the rhetorical tactics, the substance is grounded in structural critiques rather than individuals (“a couple of bad eggs�):

3) System goals and Social costs?:
--Bernie considers what happens when social services are commodified (buy/sell on market), with healthcare taking a chapter. How do the system goals change (Thinking in Systems: A Primer)? What are the social costs of private profit-maximization? How does (supposed) market efficiency/optimization serve profit-maximization and how does this conflict with social needs? Other social costs of profit-maximization include financial crashes/bailouts, climate change/ecological crisis, endless wars, legal bribery (lobbying), Big Pharma’s drug prices, etc.
--Nothing excites me more than seeing political economic structures described in an accessible, engaging manner that captures both the human needs as well as the big picture abstraction, which is why I always recommend Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails.
--It’s not just conservatives that avoid the big picture structures of capitalism; liberals also avoid this, leaving a vacuum for right-wing “populism� to parody public concerns during crises by acknowledging something is wrong (Trump’s “American carnage�) but immediately scapegoating visible minorities to avoid structural causes: The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump. This is why Bernie’s structural critiques are crucial to defusing Trumpism.

4) Alternatives?:
--Bernie’s platform is built on:
i) Social Commons (social services/public utilities): revive (take out of profit-maximizing one-dollar-one-vote markets and into public as human right) and expand, esp. healthcare, education, publicly-funded elections (we should note Bernie’s huge success using only public small contributions in his 2020 campaign)/money out of politics, technology, media (Bernie notes manufacturing consent is more prevalent than “fake news�: see Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies) etc.
ii) Redistribution (taxing wealth/white-collar crime rather than labour)
iii) Predistribution by changing capitalist property rights: Bernie only hints at this in the context of the workplace (i.e. worker co-operatives, worker representation on corporate boards). I’ll cite Richard D. Wolff (Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism) on how redistribution is inherently conflictual compared to predistribution: for 2 children, give one child 2 popsicles and then demand this child to hand over 1 to the other child (this is maldistribution from capitalist property rights requiring redistribution), vs. give both children 1 popsicle each (predistribution).

…See comments below for the rest of the review ("The Bad/Missing")�
102 likes · flag

Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

February 21, 2023 – Shelved
March 1, 2023 – Started Reading
March 22, 2023 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-25 of 25 (25 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Kevin (last edited Jul 22, 2023 03:21AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kevin The Bad/Missing (it's 2023, the aftermath of rising expectations and another loss!):

1) System goals and Social costs (expanded):
--I appreciate Bernie’s hesitancy with relying on labels like “capitalism� (mostly referred to as “modern-day uber-capitalism�/“unfettered capitalism� in this book) and “socialism� (avoided) given these labels� excessive Red Scare propaganda baggage in the US, instead focusing on the substance (for-profit market commodification vs. social needs).
--However, short-cuts for accessibility inevitably leave ambiguity:
There’s nothing wrong with a business or an entrepreneur making a profit. There is something profoundly wrong, however, when massive corporations, controlled by the wealthiest people on earth, lie, cheat, bribe, and steal in order to make profits that are funded by the destruction of our lives, our environment, and our democracy.
…We can see how pro-capitalists (esp. right-wing libertarians) can trap us in a narrow, abstract debate (similar to the political theatre of Democrats vs. Republicans) between:
a) “Free market�: some abstract entrepreneurial utopia, where there’s indeed nothing wrong with making a profit. The illusion here is a world of shop-keepers (conveniently owns the means of production rather than dispossessed) harmoniously buying/selling normal goods (real commodities), vs.
b) “The state�: conveniently always present in the real world to take the blame, corrupting the “free market� into “corporatism� (after all, the state built and protects capitalist property rights). However bad it gets (“Three firms—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—now control assets of over $20 trillion, equivalent to the GDP of the United States of America.�), just blame the state! It’s convenient when the definitions exclude inconvenient realities, ex. sprawling private bureaucracies most successful with the system goals of short-term profit/rent-seeking:
-The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power
-Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy
-Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
--Bernie has the steps to escape this trap (requires more pages): expand his system goals analysis of healthcare commodification and apply it to the other peculiar capitalist markets (esp. labour/land/money) which feature “fictitious commodities� (i.e. humans/nature/purchasing power are not “produced� like real commodities for buying/selling in markets), and directly connect this to their social costs (which he already mentions). We need to unpack how capitalist property rights rewards money-power, where:
a) money grows more money for owners of capital (i.e. capitalist wealth made from rent-seeking/inheritance/absentee ownership via shareholder dividends/capital gains), which is built on
b) exploiting the dispossessed doing the actual work (dependent on wage income, i.e. working; disposable rather than being stakeholders)
...Of course there are contradictions to this (ex. middle class baby boomers real estate ownership benefiting from housing prices), but we must see the big picture to expand our alternatives (biggest rent-seekers are private banks via mortgage interest, financial/real estate giants like Blackstone Inc., etc.)
…This is the system goals behind Debs� quote on the capitalist social order. This is the maldistribution that is currently bandaged with tepid redistribution and requires predistribution by directly addressing capitalist property rights (shareholding, private banking, land speculation, etc.). Favourite intros:
-Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
-Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
--Let's remember the capitalist social order is global. The reformist side of Bernie simply frames US military spending as a waste of money when it could be spent on social services (including for veterans). Less mentioned is how the US foreign policy enforces global capitalism and crushes alternatives. Bernie doesn't even have to refer to radical Debs for this, as there's a perfect anti-war US patriot, former Major General Smedley D. Butler (War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier):
I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force � the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from a second lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. […] Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. […] I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. […] During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents.

[-Common Sense, Vol. 4, No. 11 (November, 1935), p. 8; bold emphasis added]
-The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
-Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations
-On the Red Scare: reframing the Cold War from the perspective of Global South decolonization: The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World


message 2: by Kevin (last edited Jan 17, 2024 08:23PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kevin 2) Keynesian reforms: dead-end?:
--Bernie starts with FDR’s 1944 speech which in a sense recognizes the 1933-39 New Deal (“Keynesian� reforms, i.e. state spending/welfare to rescue capitalism from the Great Depression) was not enough to secure economic rights. Bernie’s proposals include short-term relief and with hints of long-term root-cause fixes (ex. labour market: worker cooperatives, worker representation on corporate boards). Expanding his critique opens the door for more long-term fixes: Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
--Pertinent to how far Bernie pushes beyond short-term relief: how come FDR’s economic rights never became reality, with Keynesian reforms lasting under 30 years? Bernie portrays the vast productivity gains that stopped matching improvements in standard of living (more wages, more leisure time) with a rising gap since the 1970’s dismantling of Keynesian reforms by (Neoliberalism). Somehow, reformists think we can just re-couple productivity gains with wages/standard of living? How and why did real-world capitalism prevent this in the first place?! Here we witness the irrationality of capitalism (profitability, class struggle, debt, etc.) compound in the real-world (thus, we must consider geopolitical economy):
-The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy
-Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present
-The Bubble and Beyond
-Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance

3) Democratic Party: dead-end?:
--Yes, there's a section titled "What I Liked About Joe Biden". This should not be about individuals and personalities. Biden's structural position represents so much of what Bernie critiques.
--Given the questionable framing/omissions of Keynesian reform’s ending, it’s sadly not a surprise that Bernie is still clinging onto a capitalist party that would rather risk losing to Trump than see Bernie win. I try to avoid the vortex of the US political theatre circus, but I've updated this review's preamble with my critique of Bernie 2020-and-beyond regarding the Democratic Party. I’m curious the debates on strategy between Bernie, Cornell West, Chomsky, Corbyn, and Varoufakis/The Progressive International�


Kevin Carson TBH I hate the expression "unfettered capitalism" because it implies that capitalism is natural and what spontaneously arises unless something imposes "fetters" on it from outside. When in reality it was founded on robbery and enclosure, it depends on the state to enforce absentee title to all the land and resources it stole, and its whole profit model is based either on the extraction of rents from state-enforced artificial scarcities or on the state socializing operating costs. Capitalism is defined by fetters.


message 4: by Kevin (last edited Mar 24, 2023 02:32PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kevin Kevin wrote: "TBH I hate the expression "unfettered capitalism" because it implies that capitalism is natural and what spontaneously arises unless something imposes "fetters" on it from outside. When in reality ..."

For sure, "unfettered capitalism" and "modern-day uber capitalism" also reveal the time/space bias here, i.e. the assumption that capitalism is naturally post-WWII US "Golden Age of capitalism", which omits the unique context of the period:

i) booming war/reconstruction markets from the greatest world war in human history finally wiping away global capitalism's Great Depression
ii) capitalist welfare compromise (watered-down socialist policies!) in response to the Soviet alternative/Third World decolonization/war-time labour anti-fascist mobilization

...capitalism prior to this period seems pretty uber (enclosures, dark satanic mills of the Industrial Revolution, naked colonialism/slave trade, robber barons of the Gilded Age, etc.).

From your left-libertarian perspective, how would you accessibly introduce and distinguish markets vs. capitalism?


Kevin Carson Probably just reference Marx's distinction between simple commodity production and capitalism, or Hudson's statement that markets have always existed but capitalism is a totalizing *system* that's just a few centuries old.
There are right-libertarians who pine for the Gilded Age as an ideal era of laissez-faire, and treat the creation of the Fed or the federal income tax as the serpent in the Garden. Of course when you point to all the historical stuff like slavery, railroad land-grants, high tariffs and patents, they might walk it back and say "well, except for that..." Then again, they might just get huffy and accuse you of misrepresenting them.
Case in point: c4ss DOT org/content/42070


message 6: by Kevin (last edited Mar 25, 2023 11:40PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kevin Kevin wrote: "Probably just reference Marx's distinction between simple commodity production and capitalism, or Hudson's statement that markets have always existed but capitalism is a totalizing *system* that's ..."

I always wonder with Progressives/socdems like Bernie, how much they:
1) personally believe in/make use of lefitst analysis of capitalism (M-C-M', totalizing market system esp. labour/land/money etc.)
2) why they omit explaining this to their wider audiences? Are they:
a) concerned it's not the most accessible/engaging? (Bernie's preivous book was more listing off surface issues and using moralizing rhetoric).
b) Or do they personally not find it that useful to begin with? (This book could have really used it when considering system goals/social costs beyond commodifying healthcare).

Your article reminds me why I can't take right-libertarians seriously, just can't keep their John Galt worship in check. I'm more wondering how the left-libertarian structures the Markets Not Capitalism argument, i.e. which markets are kept/altered, which are abolished, and non-market arrangements.


message 7: by John (new)

John Moralizing seems to trigger an acute response where some immediately relate to it while others are put on the defensive. It would be interesting to see the polling done on moral values approach compared to others.


Kevin John wrote: "Moralizing seems to trigger an acute response where some immediately relate to it while others are put on the defensive. It would be interesting to see the polling done on moral values approach com..."

John wrote: "Moralizing seems to trigger an acute response where some immediately relate to it while others are put on the defensive. It would be interesting to see the polling done on moral values approach com..."

I'm reminded of the usual social media interactions I have that follow a certain process (when someone is willing to engage) with glimmers of potential despite social media's barriers (trash formatting making it difficult for longer dialogue/attention span):

1) Meme posted by leftist group:
"Every time when you say perhaps we can improve society somewhat" followed by profile pictures of men in sunglasses with angry face reactions :(

2) Reaction:
"Capable people don't like communism. Losers do, because it's just a way to mooch off the labor of winners".

3) Clarification phase (as memes inherently trigger confrontation with their lack of long-form clarifications; I make sure to use their language in my rebuttal, to communicate as clearly as possible):

Me: "'improve society somewhat' = 'communism'? Speaking of 'mooch off the labor of winners', what labor is involved in passive income?"

Reaction: "if passive income grew on a tree, you’d still have to water and prune the tree, things of that nature. The reality is much the same: passive income doesn’t appear out of thin air. Someone has to create vehicle through which “passive� income is generated. And that person owns the fruits of that creation. but I think we can agree to all and the Fed, where bankers are printing money out of thin air as their source of 'passive' income."

Me: "you do realize a select few have privileged access to huge amounts of passive income by writing perverse rules while many can labour all their life without such opportunities, so why play the 'mooch off others labor' card besides enjoying the taste of boot polish? The Fed was created on behalf of elite private bankers. Of course we agree they are elite moochers. Capitalism is maximizing profits for private accumulation; it happens that private bankers are the winners at the game they write, with the state being crucial to protecting the rules of the game. My question is why are you so insistent on defending this game as if the winners do all the labor and the rest are undeserving?"

Reaction: "because it relates back to rights of people. You have the right to work hard and build something great in your life and pass that great thing onto whoever you want. It’s presumed at law that you would want to pass it on to your children more than anyone, if you die without having a will that’s who it goes to. And part of the incentive to be able to work hard your whole life and build great things is so you can pass them on to your children. If your ancestors haven’t done that for you, I’m sorry to hear that, but it doesn’t mean that the beneficiaries of those who did owe you something for that. Do better with your own life if you desire something you weren’t born with."

Me: "we have some privilege to access universities and do better, but why such a narrow view? Do you think just because I want to support fairer rules I'll just give up on my own pursuits? I'm talking about global capitalism, how hot money can rush in with speculative bubbles and then vanish with capital flight leaving rust belts, opioid slums, etc. I know some of us have the privilege to move and adapt, but why the turmoil? What do you have against fairer rules like more localized banks with community stakeholders rather than absentee speculators?"

Reaction: "Everything moves in natural cycles. And when a place turns into a “rust belt�, things get cheaper and create new opportunities of upward mobility for people. so I’m not sure us trying to human engineer societies natural cycles is going to necessarily be a net positive."

4) Middle ground phase:

Me: "the fact that you think banking speculators are just 'natural cycles' and not 'human engineer' says a lot :/"

Reaction: [thumbs up]. "is banking inherently bad?"

Me: "no, that's why I support localized stakeholder banking and not absentee shareholder speculative banking (which btw can profit from pillaging businesses)." [i.e. getting to the actual structures of capitalist property rights rather than relying on labels with all their baggage]

Reaction: [thumbs up] "so i take it you’re not in favor of these big bank bailouts? centralized banking is part of what creates the big banks, and the central bank is the fed."

Me: "of course. Let's not get trapped in the false dichotomy of the state vs. free markets. The state created capitalist markets, specifically money/labor/land. Markets for regular goods are pre-capitalist. Money/labor/land are uniquely capitalist markets with fictitious commodities (purchasing power/humans/nature are not 'produced' just to buy/sell). If you rely on a profit game for these, letting speculators win, you have 'human engineering' with perverse outcomes :/
...'centralization' is perfectly fine for capitalism (petrodollar, WTO, World Bank, IMF). The reason central banking was necessary was because the biggest private banking kept crashing thanks to speculation ('winning' the game of profit maximization), that's why they lobbied for the Fed. I'm focusing on the system goal: profit maximization (favoring absentee shareholders) or long-term investments for social needs (favoring community stakeholders). The latter doesn't need to just abolish everything and grow gardens. I'm talking about the system goals and rules."


Reaction: [end of social media attention span]


message 9: by John (new)

John The other question is whether the Bernie Sanders moment has passed. Where is his base and potential base relative to his positions and how has this changed?


Kevin John wrote: "The other question is whether the Bernie Sanders moment has passed. Where is his base and potential base relative to his positions and how has this changed?"

That's indeed a crucial issue and something I hinted at when I ended with "Democratic Party: dead-end?".

Obviously, with a radical lens comes stronger opinions (although to be honest I mostly stopped following after the Democrats all got behind Biden while the snake Warren waffled, and esp. when Bernie gave in; my excuse is I don't live in the US and don't want so much of my time consumed by the US political theatre).

My moderate review is intended for the moderate readers of this book, the target audience.


message 11: by John (new)

John 4 stars still? Wonder how Bernie responds to Cornell West running as a third party candidate?


message 12: by Kevin (last edited Jul 22, 2023 08:20PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kevin John wrote: "4 stars still? Wonder how Bernie responds to Cornell West running as a third party candidate?"

Bernie has to be the most difficult Left-leaning voice to rate as he has the largest platform and thus the widest range of audience. I'm assuming his response to Cornell West will be disappointing for me smh


message 13: by John (new)

John Before considering Cornell West, how did Bernie handle Joe Biden in this book? "My good friend Joe Biden"?


Kevin John wrote: "Before considering Cornell West, how did Bernie handle Joe Biden in this book? "My good friend Joe Biden"?"

3-stars it is. It really depends on who is reading the book, whether it's:
a) those already on board, thus this book offers little new.
b) those on the fence.
...I have a strong suspicion the readership will be predominately the former.

Reading Bernie on Biden: no, no, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
While Biden and I have very different political views, I have known him for years and consider him to be a friend and a very decent human being. [...]

It was not a typical concession speech, because ours had not been a typical campaign. I, of course, congratulated Joe Biden as �a very decent man who I will work with to move our progressive ideas forward.� I spoke of how I would work with him to forge a progressive platform and how, together, standing united, we would defeat Donald Trump. [...]

What I Liked About Joe Biden

I met Joe Biden when I was elected to the Senate in 2006. He was a senior Democratic senator, with more than thirty years of experience in the chamber. I was a freshman senator who arrived not as a Democrat, but as an Independent who would caucus with Democrats under the leadership of the late Harry Reid. We were not on the same committees, and we did not travel in the same circles. Joe was the ultimate insider. I, to say the least, was not. Yet, while Joe was a good deal more conservative than I was on foreign and domestic policy issues, I liked him personally. He was a decent man, down-to-earth, family-oriented, warm, and good-humored. He talked a lot about his working-class roots, which I appreciated, as I did his enthusiasm for organized labor [did he do more than just talk this way in front of Bernie? How did he talk, and more importantly, act, in front of his lobbyists?].

When Joe served as President Barack Obama’s vice president, he invited me several times to the Naval Observatory, the vice presidential residence in Washington. He took an interest in my 2016 presidential campaign and, while he remained neutral in the competition between Hillary Clinton and myself, he was not shy about offering insights and advice. That drew us closer, as did the fact that my wife, Jane, and Joe’s wife, Jill, developed a friendship as Senate spouses and, eventually, on the campaign trail.

Joe and I got to know each other better during the 2020 campaign. [...] I was always impressed by his decency when, during breaks in these multi-candidate events, he would go out of his way to comfort a candidate who had just been attacked or who had stumbled in answering a question [united capitalist class; served Biden well when the Democratic Party needed to sabotage Bernie]. Even though we took different positions on the issues, and even though we were trying to outmaneuver each other in pursuit of the nomination, we developed a sort of camaraderie. There’s a behind-the-scenes relationship that opens up among candidates who are on the same long campaign trail—especially for those of us who have known each other for years. We share reactions to news stories, compare notes on hotels, complain about early wake-up calls, and commiserate with each other about the challenge of finding a good meal on the road. [...]

Drawing a stark contrast with Trump, I made the case for Joe Biden as an honorable man who was running—thanks to the work of the task forces—on a progressive platform.



Michael It took me a while to absolve everything in this book. I think Bernie Sanders should get together with the Democratic Party and push his agenda to the limit. Make the Democrats both locally and nationally how they can make a difference for the working class by listening to their needs and gathering them together to open the eyes of the American people how we can change today’s climate to a better future for ourselves and our future generations.


message 16: by Kevin (last edited Oct 26, 2023 06:17PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kevin Michael wrote: "It took me a while to absolve everything in this book. I think Bernie Sanders should get together with the Democratic Party and push his agenda to the limit. Make the Democrats both locally and nat..."

Cheers Michael, I think we need to carefully consider the material conditions/incentives/bargaining powers, or else we keep reproducing the same cycle:

1. “I think Bernie Sanders should get together with the Democratic Party�:
--Bernie has tried exactly this for 2 presidential campaigns spanning 7+ years. Both times the Democratic Party proved their capture by Wall Street and frankly made more collaborative effort to sabotage Bernie than to challenge Republicans.

2. “push his agenda to the limit�:
--Bernie has proven he is only willing to rock the boat so far. He keeps framing Biden in a positive manner, confusing voters on the differences between Wall Street Democrats vs. Bernie’s platform.
…During COVID, a historical moment providing unique material conditions for rallying around Medicare-for-All etc., Bernie still could not rock the Democratic establishment to get through much progressive outcomes.
…Yes, there is always the threat of Trump/Republicans to excuse such limitations; that is the brilliance of the 2-party political theatre. But with Bernie’s age, are we condemned to repeat the same campaign thrice?

3. “Make the Democrats both locally and nationally how they can make a difference for the working class by listening to their needs and gathering them together to open the eyes of the American people how we can change today’s climate to a better future for ourselves and our future generations.�:
--Here’s the crucial point on incentives and bargaining power.
--Without a significance external challenge, internally the Democrats are bought by Wall Street. This contradicts the working class. Wall Street’s product (and power) is debt/rent/short-term speculation, the parasitic overhead that crushes the working class� cost of living/long-term social needs. To address the working class� needs means directly reducing Wall Street’s power/wealth. How do you just convince Democrats to help the working class, when they are paid to do the opposite?
--Internal to the Democratic Party, I do not see enough contradictions to harness. Ex. Green industrialists willing to collaborate against Wall Street speculation/outsourcing? Maybe during a crisis like 2008 crash, if there was enough external pressure on Obama to transition the nationalized auto industries to Green tech, financed by Green public banking from nationalized banks. But this didn’t happen because there was not enough external pressure on Democrats.
…And how do we build this external bargaining power? Wall Street Democrats will not sabotage themselves. To target the arteries, one idea is evolving the labour union movement’s factory strikes (i.e. sites of production, which have largely been outsourced and de-centralized into competing sub-contractors, thus neutralizing the threat of factory strikes) to now target distribution (“supply chain�, made famous during COVID shortages) and social services (hence the rise of strikes/unionizations in food and delivery services strikes/nursing/long-term care/education, popularized as “essential workers� during COVID).
…Of course, essential services are essential to daily needs (as opposed to factories churning out more junk commodities they cannot sell), so a traditional strike here (esp. a mass generalized one) would be very disruptive/divisive for the public. So, an alternative include workers action to keep services running while switching to non-profit operations. This will do so much to “open the eyes of the American people how we can change today’s climate to a better future for ourselves and our future generations.�
...Ex. imagine if the healthcare industry coordinated a protest where nurses/doctors kept providing their services while bypassing Big Insurance, with the solidarity of other related service industries (suppliers/distribution/maintenance)? Big Insurance is a key client of parasitic Wall Street Democrats, which other countries with much more effective healthcare outcomes have better success in suppressing.
[…] certain strikes are actually better examples of direct action than others. His favorite example is a strike by transit workers in Melbourne during the 1980s in which, rather than walking off their jobs, bus drivers and train conductors stayed on, but stopped collecting fares—effectively making mass transportation free until the action was over. Imagine, he suggests, what would happen if, for just one day, workers in every branch of industry and service trade did the same. This alone could be a major step in showing how a capitalist economy could be transformed into an economy of freedom. [Direct Action: An Ethnography]



message 17: by John (new) - rated it 4 stars

John Kevin, if you are really serious about seeing Bernie’s ideas implemented into law, you need to forget about third parties, except as a place to develop new ideas and strategies. Unless some the Democratic Party self destructs even worse than the GOP, the best path for progressives is to make the party MORE progressive, and more populist in the Bernie, not Trump, way. The Dem party can be taken over, IF PROGRESSIVES will get more active in the party, and if progressives will avoid negating themselves by returning to the third party fringe.


message 18: by John (new) - rated it 4 stars

John Sorry about the typos above. Since it’s impossible to edit comments for clarity, just squint when a sentence doesn’t quite make sense. Alas I can’t delete my comment or edit it, so you’ll just have to imagine the 2nd draft clean up. The point of my entire comment is “just say no� Kevin to third parties, Kevin. We have a Democratic Party that we can repurpose, just as Bernie has tried to do since 2016. Otherwise we have to start from scratch building a party and persuading people to join.

You can remake a party. Trump proved that. So let’s fix the Dem party.


Kevin @John:

RE: “if you are really serious about seeing Bernie’s ideas implemented into law, you need to forget about third parties […] the best path for progressives is to make the party MORE progressive�

--Your political theatre focus on third party vs. Democratic Party is actually not my priority for securing social change, so you don’t need to worry that I’m putting all my eggs in the third party basket.
--The decision certainly affects US politician running for presidency, but social progress has rarely been driven by US politicians. “Bernie’s ideas� are watered-down center-left ideas for politicians in other welfare states, and even more tepid by the standards of leftist movements. He is a great communicator in the context of the US’s backwardness; that’s his role.
--These ideas have long existed. History is not made by politicians innovating ideas or picking the right ones. We need to consider the material conditions, the various class forces/incentives and bargaining powers.
--The last progressive policies driven by US politicians were the FDR-era New Deals/Glass-Steagall Act (“driven� because Democrat “New Dealers� contributed greatly to pass these in the political theatre), but even these were emergency measures responding to competing forces outside the Democratic Party:
i) while global capitalism was mired in the endless Great Depression, the USSR was going through rapid industrialization
ii) a million Americans voted for Socialists/Communists in 1932 despite being the home of the Red Scare; populist Huey Long was running on guaranteed annual income (FDR said he wanted to “steal Long’s thunder�), etc. The militant communist party were much more influential than their actual voting numbers, because politics is much more than just a vote.
…Even these Democrat policy successes (i.e. New Deals) were often short-lived; what really enabled the welfare state compromise/“middle class� consumerism was:
i) the most destructive war in human history (WWII) which revolutionized US production/finance while its global competitors destroyed each other
ii) returning soldiers who were mass-organized from military service
iii) women and minorities who were allowed to gain experiences in more respected work during the war
--Later struggles for civil rights (backed by black churches), anti-war, environmental regulation, expand the welfare state, etc., these were all driven by social movements and organizations/labour unions/non-Democrat parties, with Democrats taking a back seat if not being direct opposition.
--So, I would prioritize building labour/social movement militancy to mobilize their latent social bargaining power, and if some Democrats somehow go against their class interests (Wall Street lobbyists, professional managerial class) then that’s a bonus.

RE: The Dem party can be taken over, IF PROGRESSIVES will get more active in the party, and if progressives will avoid negating themselves by returning to the third party fringe.

--That sounds great. I’m sure if progressives just get “really serious� and “get more active� in Wall Street and the US army, they can take over those too.

RE: “We have a Democratic Party that we can repurpose […] You can remake a party. Trump proved that. So let’s fix the Dem party.�

--Once again, where is the historical materialist analysis? If labour/social movements had historically focused on taking over the Democratic Party, all their energies would have disappeared into the political theatre black hole, playing a game rigged by lobbyists and anti-participatory lawfare, and they would have little energy left to threaten outside the political theatre to force change.
--The Republican Party is built to serve its lobbyists. Trump did not change this. All Trump did is shuffle the deck and use more vulgar cultural methods. Trump is not a threat to the lobbyists. The Democratic Party has similar lobbyists, in particular Wall Street. What’s the plan to severe this relationship internally?


Hansen Lillemark Hi Kevin, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review(s) and am wondering about what your opinion is for what this movement can realistically do to enact change within the US political system? I have heard some (overly)hopeful reactions to the 2024 election results saying that a second Trump term will leave room for a real reformer / FDR-like character to come in to power and have a powerful mandate for institutional change, on the level of getting rid of Citizens United, giving power back to the Unions, tackling the healthcare issue, etc. Essentially, actually fighting back against the 'establishment' laid out in this book. How can the lessons about Capitalism from the past two centuries actually translate to tenable change in America? Any Democratic party 2028 candidate hopefuls I can think of are not quite ideal for this type of change... what do you think?


message 21: by Kevin (last edited Dec 03, 2024 07:32PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kevin Hansen wrote: "Hi Kevin, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review(s) and am wondering about what your opinion is for what this movement can realistically do to enact change within the US political system? I have ..."

Cheers Hansen, great topics to unpack:

RE: �(overly) hopeful reactions�:
--This is indeed a very risky hope given the reactionary spillover effects. I always think of Varoufakis using the analogy of British leftists thinking Thatcher’s win would re-invigorate the Labour Party. Instead, you have Thatcher’s legacy where she can boast that her biggest victory was the Labour Party’s Tony Blair (i.e. Thatcher shifted the mainstream spectrum).
--In the US, Bush Jr. generated a liberal-left resistance coalition, but we saw how that soon evaporated with Obama’s continuation of Wall Street liberalism.

RE: “lessons about Capitalism�:
--If we take a materialist step back from these surface figures and consider the structures:
i) what material conditions do we anticipate?
...i.e. escalating crises from Finance captialism's rent-seeking (cost of living, lack of productive investments), climate/ecological crises, scapegoating of immigrants, also reflected on the international scale (New Cold War escalations, lack of investments), etc.
ii) what organized threats do the working/poor class pose in all these situations?
...I recently summarized financial payment strikes targeting Finance capitalism in the comment section of this review: The Overstory
iii) what contradictions/factions are there within the ruling classes?
...Speaking of FDR, US capitalism during the 1930s featured a dominant Industrial capitalist class, so FDR could secure enough elite backing for subsidizing Industrial capitalism via subsidizing industrial workers (ex. public housing, though it contributed to segregation), physical infrastructure (public works, highways), etc.
...Importantly, these reforms required direct confrontations with the Finance capitalist class (rent-seeking raising the cost of production). This is a generality, so I’d be curious to see detailed research on the FDR coalition like Class and Power in the New Deal: Corporate Moderates, Southern Democrats, and the Liberal-Labor Coalition
--So, I’m less concerned about individual Democrat Party candidates, and more focused on analyzing how outside movements can credibly threaten contradictions within the Democrat Party to force change. Are there sufficient US Industrial capitalists remaining to divide? What other divisions may be vulnerable? What is the political economy of the military (if wars escalate)/police?
…If you’re focusing on how progressive politics can appeal to the US public in post-Trump US, I actually don’t think this is a major issue. The US public poll/vote favorably for progressive policies, especially when they are detached from party politics (I find Hasan Piker’s video coverage of this useful). This is also why Trump, a skilled con artist, co-ops progressive (esp. progressive economic populism) talking points, sounding more progressive than corporate Democrats. Progressive economic populism wins the public, even the US public.
...Thus, my focus is how progressive economic populism can survive sabotage from the US political theatre (i.e. the Democratic Party, since the Republic Party is totally unhinged at this point), and then how it can survive capitalist economic sabotage (capital strikes etc.). This relies on credible outside threats and inside coalitions.


Hansen Lillemark Thanks for the reply! Interesting example about the Labour party and Tony Blair. I haven't read Varoufakis but I'd wonder in what types of conditions this principle could be applicable or not applicable to the US, are there other indicators to look at to see when or why a leader in power creates a real shift in the voter sentiment? And good point about the popularity about economic populism, I suppose the main issue is then communicating with the masses what the correct type of economic populism is. I guess putting on the McDonalds hat and the construction worker vest is the most successful technique so far...

Any opinions on whether you think there is a major recession coming (within the next 6 months)? I personally think so and that will kick off more of a deep look from the public into this degradation of 'material conditions' caused by these factors mentioned. I also see the tech/non-tech split as a major one between the ruling economic class today. Many of these companies may be more detached from the bottom line of whether consumers are doing well compared to industrials, traditional consumer, finance to an extent, and also may be more focused on rollout of major efficiency projects relating to automation and AI. Especially with JD Vance having strong connections to many Peter Thiel et al. in Silicon Valley, perhaps there will be a contradiction/faction there, though if I were to wager the results won't be so good for the people compared to something like subsidization of public infrastructure...


Kevin Hansen wrote: "Thanks for the reply! Interesting example about the Labour party and Tony Blair. I haven't read Varoufakis but I'd wonder in what types of conditions this principle could be applicable or not appli..."

RE: Thatcher:
--This example is just a surface-level counter to the Left-accelerationist hope that it takes a crisis to galvanize the Left. While there are certainly historical examples (esp. WWI/WWII) suggesting this (where a crisis hollows out the status quo Center and leaves a vacuum for Left/Right), the examples of Thatcher/Trump give the Right a head start.
--“applicable or not applicable�: I’d start with the materialist question: how can the Left force themselves to fill the vacuum? Say the British Left had full hindsight of Thatcher (or, more accurately, class war via Finance capitalism); what could they have done differently in terms of:
i) threats: other than their national industrial strikes
ii) coalitions: other than reliance on the welfare state compromise

RE: economic populism:
--For sure, you can directly target the workplace (service sector, construction as you mention). But what I really mean is the entire Bernie platform is so damn popular (i.e. targeting Finance capitalism’s rent-seeking on cost of living) and becomes easy to communicate when you just tie it to every-day concerns: medical debts, housing prices, education debts, lack of investment in long-term/unionized/community-oriented jobs, lack of investment in public transportation, perpetual wars, etc.
…The only reason this may seem difficult is because the entire circus of US politics exists to suppress this winning formula. So, once again, I’m not concerned with winning the public, I’m concerned with (i) political theatre sabotage (where inside coalitions are needed) and then (ii) capitalist sabotage (inside coalitions/outside threats needed).

RE: recession:
--I mean, the Republican Party at this point is so off the rails, all the enlightened elites can do is try to stall. Even without them, Finance capitalism is spiraling since there’s rampant speculation instead of long-term investments in Green transition.
--“deep look from the public�: despite my optimism above, I still think this needs to be guided, since the US public is very contradictory and can indeed be misguided towards reactionary scapegoating. For example, they poll well for both giving migrants amnesty as well as deportation; it depends on how you frame the situation. My optimism that that Left populism is the winning framing, but that does not mean I think there is a viable Left populism movement currently strong enough to counter Trump Right.
--How tech fits into this is an interesting topic, Varoufakis also recently wrote on this from a materialist perspective: Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism


Hansen Lillemark Re: Thatcher and Economic populism: The thought experiment of ruling with foresight is quite interesting, but even in that case it may be hard to actually figure out a course of action that fully avoids that. So much is up to chance and influenced by other global events, and also of course up to the whims of the system and who won the balance in congress. Especially, at the amount of power and 'mandate' when they ruled, how much could they have really done? E.g. Biden can only warn so much and get so much legislation passed, and I'm sure he knew the dangers of Trump.
I once met an American environmentalist in SF who was a big fan of China and the way they accelerate certain agendas, namely EVs, Solar, etc. Some of the issue with why real change can't happen in America is due to the inherent mistrust and bureaucratic process of it all, which is only getting worse of course. I'm personally quite interested to see whether Elon actually does anything in his new department, somehow it seems that he has more popular trust than anyone who could have been elected... I worry that more and more radical solutions will be favored due to the frustration with daily life for the average person.

I partially disagree with the notion that the public is absolutely ready to be convinced of these things by a liberal candidate who embodies these ideals and will get those things done. I think some sort of perfect storm (personable, savvy candidate that can work from outside the system) will be necessary. For now we can all just hope for that future.


Kevin Hansen wrote: "Re: Thatcher and Economic populism: The thought experiment of ruling with foresight is quite interesting, but even in that case it may be hard to actually figure out a course of action that fully a..."

RE: Mandate:
--For sure, there are always uncertainties and many levels of interactions including global; the thought experiment is not meant to blame, it’s just trying to learn from history and broaden our conception of alternatives.
--With “British Left had full hindsight of Thatcher�, I was mostly speaking about the labour movement, culminating in the 1984-85 miners strike. I was questioning the labour movement’s foresight for their tactics/bargaining power, as they relied on the industrial strike. This assumed industrial profits remained the artery of capitalist power, and relied on relatively-strong industrial worker bargaining power from post-WWII industrial boom/full employment policy (which austerity could derail, as demonstrated after WWI: The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism)
--Regarding Biden/Democrats/their mandate which is predominantly set by their financial backers (who, as a class, also finance Republicans), they would rather risk Trump than Left populism. So, I’m also skeptical that a liberal candidate will be able to present economic populism to the public, not without tremendous outside pressures (ex. FDR).

RE: Bureaucracy:
--The US economy is based on short-term profit-making (post-WWII’s industrial profits saturated the market in the 1960s, squeezing profits), which requires commodification of abstractions (i.e. speculative financial instruments). This requires so much private “bureaucracy� in the form of Wall Street/Finance Insurance Real Estate (FIRE) sectors/WTO intellectual patent monopolies, etc. The public “bureaucracy� is just there to subsidize/clean up the mess.
…This is very “efficient� for short-term profit-making (rent-seeking, if we are specific). Housing/healthcare/education/utilities/communications, these sectors in the US are all succeeding in short-term profits. That’s the mandate. It’s only “inefficient� for the working class receiving social needs.
…Elon, like Trump, is a product of this. Sure, Elon has some industrial capitalist ventures in his portfolio (indeed, shifting towards military industrial complex), but he is driven by profits/monopolization, and his preference for slashing public “bureaucracy� just means more private “bureaucracy� given the underlying mandate is unchanged.
…Speaking of China: China has so much planning on every level, from central (which the West obsesses over), to regional/local (where so much actually takes place). The difference is the mandate/bargaining power for long-term development/stability.


back to top