Days of Revolt: The Making of Global Capitalism

In this episode of teleSUR's Days of Revolt, host Chris Hedges sits down with author and professor Leo Panitch to discuss how global imperialism and capitalism are upheld by economic and cultural forces, and debate the roles of ignorance, myth, and malevolence in the perpetuation of systems of inequality.
Watch more on teleSUR www.telesurtv.net/english/inde...

[@jackmansfield4453]

Tripple fucking A. All this socialism talk around the world is making me feel extremely happy inside.

[@valhala56]

+Jack Mansfield The Right will have none of it.

[@jackmansfield4453]

valhala56 There are more of us than there is of them.

[@valhala56]

+Jack Mansfield I don't know where you are, but in the USA the working class has been lied to and poisined by Right Wing talk Radio and TV shows. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'reilly, Savage...I talk to working class all the time and the Proletariat has been sold a bill of goods by the right and they bought it all. The Proletariat hates the left, I see it all the time on KZbin with perjoratives like "Libtard". The American working class has been programmed to believe that Progressives are on the level of child molestors and Atheists.

[@jackmansfield4453]

valhala56 I am in the UK. We didn't get the intense Mccarthyism that you guys got (or the Bernaysing). The demonization of the left was never as pervasive (although they are giving it a hell of a go now with Corbyn). Traditional media is on its last legs, there is an increasing number of ways to bypass the propaganda and the next generation are a promising indication that the right wing poison is not as effective as it used to be. If it isn't prime-minister Corbyn or president Sanders, we will get there soon. The torch has been lit.

[@valhala56]

+Jack Mansfield I am actually quite shocked that Sanders is doing well so far, But there is zero chance our Oliogharchs will ever allow a Socialist president. No chance. He must know that. I am glad that you seem postive, but here in the US Liberalism is dead.

[@Bartnick81]

Finally some real discussion and not only confirming each other viewpoints, more like this please!

[@craigrobb8197]

it's like pragmatism vs. ideology. brilliant debate on both sides

[@RuleofFive]

I happy to see Chris Hedges with this segment. I've enjoyed hearing him interviewed in the past and look forward to future episodes.

[@itsolivier]

Chris Keep it up your opening eyes across the world mate, kudos on a great book, please make another one this time with more revolutions information of the Haitian revolution and how it spawned revolutions across latin america and ended slavery as we know it.

[@brucemarmy8500]

Thanks for the interview with Mr. Bourgeoisie. Too comfy in Canada, hey?

[@GabrielCastellarTV]

Great, great discussion. Learned so much,

[@hoggham7882]

Panitch: "it depends how cynical you think they are, and I think it varies depending on the administration in question and indeed the different personnel inside each administration" The motives of any specific administration or the particular personnel within them are largely irrelevant. If there isn't opportunity to advance the agenda of power and profit the initiatives of any administration will either be thwarted or subverted by the larger system. The system has been carefully crafted and finely honed over centuries to ensure that it almost exclusively serves the interests of power and wealth.

[@sollardsurman7293]

This is an open exchange between the left and the right (notice their physical positions as well) But there is gold in there with nationalizing the banks.

[@devourerofbabies]

+Len Williams Panitch is a socialist...

[@galaxyguy9873]

+devourerofbabies most people should be. he is still right wing.

[@devourerofbabies]

galaxyguy987 In what way is Panitch right wing?

[@NEMO-NEMO]

If socialism is not to anyone’s taste, then we will need to fight to get democracy back on the rails. It will require bloodshed.

[@galaxyguy9873]

I have just learned that I as well as most people don't know enough about politics to even say whether they are left wing or right wing.

[@mickeyrat3369]

Love Hedges. Dude "gets it"

[@haze42082]

This was so awesome.

[@xbluebells]

Yes we are all embedded in the current system and therefore dependent on it. The radicalization that is required to turn over a new leaf is more than we can conceive but does not stop us from our responsibility to do so.

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

great discussion

[@pjamesbda]

Leo is pejorative in his reference to the working poor and the subjugation by finance and it's integral and almost holistic relationship to capitalism. He is not about any "revolt" as far as I can see.

[@NEMO-NEMO]

pjamesbda he lives in Canada. He can afford to watch by the sidelines. He looks smug but he knows full well that since everyone is complicit in the system, it will take hunger and death by hunger to move us to make any move.

[@overseachininadoll]

We are all corrupt because we living in it.

[@kharyrobertson3579]

States are just ideas that we socially agree to validate, there is no other way to use them other than ideologically, in my opinion.

[@terenceharvey4365]

Does any one else think this guy is a shill for the 'powers that be' ?

[@paulrevere47]

+Terence Harvey gives one an entirely new view of just how objective Hedges really is...Panich is TOTALLY a shill for TPTB.

[@jackmansfield4453]

+Terence Harvey Nope, he takes a nuanced, if slightly more cynical view than Hedges. But he is advocating public ownership of the banks, which is something the "powers that be" would _never_ suggest.

[@paulrevere47]

+Jack Mansfield with statements like at around 20:00 that capitalism is doing fine? This guy is a spinner extraordinaire...

[@jackmansfield4453]

Christopher Lunn I am not sure.. but I think some people can hold slightly right wing opinions and not be born from satan's anus. Don't quote me though.

[@terenceharvey4365]

+Jack Mansfield He 'says' he's been advocating turning the principal investment banks into public utilities for a long time (which would come as a bit of shock to the fraudsters at Goldmans and JP whose appalling behaviour he shrugs off, with a smile, and commiserates that they had to hand over 10% of their fraudulent gains in fines...poor things...) but then points out, fearlessly smirking, that it would take socialism to effect that change. This is not a nuanced, slightly cynical view; it's a supine, propagandist and illusory, perhaps deluded, perspective on the indestructability of 21stC financialisation. He may not have emanated from satan's anus but he certainly sucks his dick.

[@infoillness4222]

Panitch did not bat an eyelid when the Hedges mentioned the human cost in terms of blood. Seems unfeeling.

[@TM-qz8mg]

Very wealthy individuals or large businesses/corporations have to be the ones commanding the capitalist system, and those that carry on their required work in the system are, indeed, trapped into a now widely spread money system. Why should rich people be taking it all, and then even more after the crashes? If capitalism is going to be kept through out the world, then how can that be legally and justly regulated? maybe by setting a top to wealth per person, and a fixed value general currency. Each state should have the option of having a 2d internal currency to manage their priorities, which is kind of like it now is. But the phony manipulations is what is causing havoc world wide in the 'imaginary markets' and the production driven markets. And by extension to real people. That ends up being a 'convenient social cruelty', because it devastates the most vulnerable people and a great proportion of population. Have you ever looked around you and noticed how people are in a constant fight for actually no real reason? that seems to somehow by an 'eco' of what capitalism is all about, competition and competitiveness is the imagined 'selector', even if it is against the wrong people, places, or issues. So, yeah, US population have been 'milked' greatly, maybe in the name of duty and honor. Today we can see that It really doesn't matter much if a state has a democratic, socialist or communist organization because they are all linked via the world wide economic system, so if this is adjusted to meet the current needs of the world population and nations, it will solve many current and pressing problems. And the best state organization will become clear. Just start society from scratch with a new and economic system applicable to the present conditions. But people's debt, in several aspects, also needs a bail out, be cancelled, if one system is to be kept. Or divide the systems officially in two.

[@christinejones3198]

either end poverty or democracy resource based society will work......

[@TM-qz8mg]

Yeah, a resource based economy will clear extreme material problems, but then you still have the problem of 'gluttony' in basic material things, and in power and decision making. And the last could become a real problem in a resource-based society only, because the top class has its culture and traditions and with their power could crush most of everything. That's why I think if you have a real two currency system and nations/regions can freely decide on their state system, and the laws are optimized without loopholes, people are more likely to survive. Anything can become the hard currency needed to make easy the transactions, including pay for work and productions. People just don't trust capitalism anymore because they are 'gluttons' with a big advantage.

[@NEMO-NEMO]

T M this will require bloodshed.

[@benbascheable]

Chris just doesn’t get what Leo was saying

[@galaxyguy9873]

i think that it's its funny that stupid people would be calling Leo Panitch liberal where im from.

[@TheUnspokenAlias]

1/ "The American Empire is most powerful [...] where the American multinational corporations are a social force inside those countries." Since these corporations are used to resorting to elaborate fiscal schemes through which they can evade local taxes, often with the desperate agreement of the governments concerned, they owe their power only to how many people they're employing. Since fiscal havens are promised a great future (They're actually 'partie intégrante' of the capitalist system.), the left ought therefore to concentrate its efforts on thinking ahead of and preparing for the end of employment, and to redefine labor. Yet, what do we see ? In every country where an unconditional basic income is proposed, it's precisely the so-called left that's most reluctant to it, because, despite throwing away most parts of its Marxist ideology, it's afraid of openly questioning the century-old dogma (and myth, for the past forty years) of full employment. Hedges and Panitch both agree socialism is the solution to square Friedmanism (which, by the way, is a double square...), but no new socialism is possible without the end of mass employment. You can call it "the fourth way"... 2/ "They screw it up often, as Iraq shows." Now, here's a question I've been asking myself a lot lately : according to common sense, Iraq was/is indeed a failure of epic proportions. But is to the Empire also ? I mean, if the idea was to once more redraw the maps of the Middle East by creating a powder keg that would also prove very useful in increasing control of the people domestically, if the idea was to increase the rivalry between the Shiites and the Sunnis (ending up financing both, as the US usually does), if the idea was to boost the one segment of the economy that's thriving in any circumstance (namely weapons sales) as well as to force new oil deals (as in Libya), was it really such a failure ? The question merely seeks to underline the difference in perception that might exist between classes... 3/ "The average citizen, for a long period, was able to thrive on financial markets." If I understand this correctly, it implies credit from private loaners went directly to public infrastructure (roads, schools, health care system, etc.) for the past decades. It's to be considered as a given, but it's never demonstrated. Unfortunately, new studies have been emerging - at least in some European countries - which show that, contrary to popular belief and aside from the latest bank bailout (and from political incompetence and/or corruption in general), the unusually high interest rates of the seventies as well as the banks' loan privileges (Hedges briefly mentions the 0 % rate applicable to them, and to them alone...) had a huge impact on those countries' public debts. A lot more information about this can be obtained here : cadtm.org/English 4/ "Had [radicals] gotten their way and let Wall Street collapse instead of being bailed out by the TARP program, which, of course, was designed to save the banks, who would have suffered most ? [...] We need to recognize the extent to which we are all embedded in [the system]." So, basically, let's just acknowledge there's no escape, and make the best of the worst... On a more serious note, what Panitch is saying here is that said bailout came not as a more or less subtle injunction to the governments that ultimately opted for it, but as a moral imperative, in name of the common good. Can that argument be extended to the leniency manifested by the same governments (or their successors) to the same banks, and to their managers individually, on all kinds of levels ? Is it because "we are all embedded in the system" that Geitner and so many other "liberals" openly rejected another Glass-Steagall ? If a new act of this nature had miraculously been adopted, "who would have suffered most ?" Is it rational for Panitch to advocate for socialism while claiming the post-2008 decisions weren't so bad after all ? Another commentator wrote : this is a debate between the left and the right. At first, i thought he was a little silly, but actually he's right, in that Panitch is really an old social-democrat (aka a member of the new soft right). 5/ I can't understand why neither of them made a single mention of TPP / TTIP. Here they are discussing the old new world order, but eluding the very piece of the puzzle meant to consecrate it worldwide, THE one thing all Western capitalist elites have been striving for since the fall of the Berlin wall. It's funny, because, to corporate news networks, history is always a non-item : it might remind the people they're part of a continuum and give them bad ideas. Here, on the contrary, there is no such taboo, but if history (NAFTA, and its consequences, for instance) is not used to alert about even bigger mistakes about to be made (from a common sense perspective), what can be its purpose ? Why didn't they elaborate on the Libor scandal and the revolving doors between public offices and private corporations ? I understand Chile is one of the negotiators of the TPP, and also party to TeleSUR (the end-producer of the show), but that can't be the reason, can it ? I have no doubt an upcoming show will be entirely dedicated to the matter... 6/ This show looks less morbid when it's filmed outdoors. Then again, the Empire is morbid, isn't it ?...

[@staatsfeindlich9939]

Just wait a New York minute! The American revolution was an anti-imperial revolution?! Now I really love Chris Hedges and admire his guest, but that's the biggest pile of horseshit I've ever heard on a TRNN program. Sorry, interview over! And a rare thumbs down vote.

[@cory35hogan]

+staatsfeindlich They were against Imperialism. England ruled the waters and the worlds port tariffs.

[@staatsfeindlich9939]

+Karma Inevitable The American Revolution was a Bourgeois revolution, a struggle between two sets of the same elite ruling class for the title deed to the continent. Immediately after the fighting, the Proclamation of 1763 was voided and settlers poured across the Appalachians into Indian territory. Washington, Madison, Adams, etc. made clear their imperialist ambitions by using expansion as a defensive strategy. Washington actually referred to the new nation as an empire. Yes, England ruled the waves and the US couldn't immediately claim Cuba, hence the Monroe Doctrine.

[@seroccoprime2774]

+staatsfeindlich The World Socialist Website, itself a Marxist site, agrees with Chris Hedges, for what it's worth. They are ardent critics of imperialism and capitalism, and they feel the Revolution was not bourgeois anymore than the Russian Revolution was bourgeois. They nonetheless felt the Civil War was more revolutionary as a whole.

[@staatsfeindlich9939]

Anthony Serocco It can be argued that the Soviet Union was a Bourgeois creation. The new ruling elite formed the membership in the Politburo and after the demise of the USSR assumed the new "leadership" role. But it is absolutely clear why the American Revolution was fought. It was not to throw off the shackles of imperialism but to change it's direction in North America. That's if you believe the "founding fathers" in their own words. The Civil War was equally a capitalist-imperialist endeavor. Chris Hedges should know better, but he probably doesn't want to be hauled into another HUAC hearing.

[@devourerofbabies]

+staatsfeindlich If you had bothered to continue listening, you would have heard them make the point that the revolution was highly schizophrenic. They were anti-imperialists in ideology, but carried out imperialism in practice.