The False Hope Industry (Ft. Benjamin Studebaker)

[@1DimeRadio]

Get access to The Backroom by becoming a Patron: ⁠⁠www.patreon.com/OneDime⁠⁠

[@airnspace4814]

Holy shit is it nice to hear someone else say that certain online ML types obsession with "revisionism" is more like a religious belief

[@alexzhang3870]

Those people are worshipping something, inventing a new religion.. Marx and Lenin could not have imagined shit like consumer of a product adding value to the product, so of course their theory needs to be adjusted accordingly😅 need to be dialectical

[@hotcakesism]

​@@alexzhang3870consumer of a product adding value to the product? What do you mean by that? Just started watching the video so idk if you're referring to a particular exchange in this interview.

[@alexzhang3870]

@@hotcakesism nah this video didn’t talk about it I am just pointing out that with how big tech company operates now, they can gather your data to improve their app( the product I’m referring to), so the role of consumer and producer of a product overlaps. I am not a Marxist myself but I have read Capital, Marx didn’t seem to talk about it

[@canal_changeling]

@@alexzhang3870 Volume II talks about the importance of bookkeeping, and how money of account (represented symbolically before it's made and often based on projections) plays a greater and greater role as capitalist enterprise increases in scale. I think you can argue that Marx would classify labor like market research and customer care as *expenses* that are *deducted* from the value produced in the sectors he called "productive."

[@canal_changeling]

I believe that gathering that data for and through software is better understood as a *cost of circulation* than an instance of productive labor in itself. It is a necessary condition for valorization without itself being valorization.

[@soymoder]

Two parties is a stable equilibrium, the bare minimum to maintain the appearance of democracy, with immense institutional power to prevent opposition.

[@DaveE99]

Ranked choice voting

[@HahaDamn]

Yeah that’s totally how it works everywhere……just look at the UKs last election

[@HahaDamn]

The reality is the capitalist parties represent different capitalists, in different countries these entities dominate government and policy. Argentina it’s the exporting agricultural and manufacturing sector which is why you see high inflation policies that benefit those interests, but this conflicts with financial capital, particularly foreign financial capital, and how we end up with Milei

[@jackmeixell1179]

Read up on Mitch McConnells political career if you believe that horse shit

[@badbadgilead2552]

The way is shut.... it was made by those who are dead..

[@lotoreo]

..and the dead keep it

[@andrewblair370]

this dude is SCHEMING i like it

[@Fr3nchfrii]

Really appreciate the dialogue

[@1DimeRadio]

Thank you!

[@falsificationism]

I especially appreciated Studebaker's analysis of a culture in this one. The college education issue has been, by far, the most prominent issue in my life. I grew up in a rural area with an uneducated family. I was told that my only way to success would be through education by parents who, with high school educations, purchased a home and raised two kids in their late 20s! I'm in my 40s with graduate degrees, no home, no kids, college debt, and nothing saved for retirement.

[@DaveE99]

Look up multi-polar traps. Also what’s the degree in?

[@falsificationism]

@@DaveE99 Neuroscience

[@DaveE99]

@@falsificationism I was bio

[@falsificationism]

@@DaveE99 Lots of overlap in our curricula, I'm sure! I was diligent about choosing an area of study in high demand (the BLS publishes a ton of data on this), so I decided against a PhD in philosophy lol. Guess I should have got an MBA.

[@DaveE99]

@@falsificationism I know what you mean. It’s so odd thinking about what to go do next cuz it’s like everything has some degree of propoganda in it or sort of philosophy that’s at least very unintegrated. Like buisness and the concept of multi-polar traps and the need for yellow box thinking is foreign to most companies. You may like Daniel schmactenberger he does talks on systems thinking and existential risk. I’m def liking this talk as it’sa very different angle to look at the system from a good systems thinking kinda way. I’ve gone beyond just bio to studying Brain a decent nervous system polyvagal attatchment personality and big 5 etc authoritarian etc and beyond and eventually got kinda “wtf” and learned a good amount of regenerative agriculture permaculture stuff. Something he said made me reflect almost on the existential risk of not being kind to the the person who either didn’t have the capacities or resources or time to be able to do the thinking that could have made me feel safe. Like it’s so odd makeing sense of how things like free trade and capitalism flows etc actually impact the family relationships. It’s odd to see that. And plus this is a good talk as on one hand a system non justified would get triggered by like an authoritarian parent and just not see the situation but the history behind it and the projected future and it’s like ugh!! 😣. This is a decent systems thinking perspective and I even was thinking so often people are like “I just want to go out in the forest and run away” and yet we never go “hey I could boost self sufficiency by creating learning and doing communities of practice and where we develop some of these capacities together” Almost like we need a self sufficiency system with a badge system you can earn online and if labor truly is mobile , make it something people could move around and jump in as a lot of that stuff is exhausting same as it is when your just going to the store, because there is no community and like minded angle to it. No polyvagal regulation that comes with it.

[@Emanon...]

It's "Snowpiercer" or "The Matrix" Even the revolutionary elements are created by the true rulers (ie owners) to give us the illusion of opposition and choice.

[@canal_changeling]

"Nothing wrong with being a class traitor; it's fun!" 😄

[@Simo-hw1pl]

Been a subscriber for quite a long time now. Sorry, haven't watched that much of your content but goddamn this was some next level insights to the matters at hand! Thank you! Will be here more often from now on. Kudos from Finland.

[@amicableanarchy7946]

Interesting point about the ease of stoping/restarting/moving modern factories diminishing traditional union/worker power. I’ve often seen tech hype videos about small scale fabrication or that the cost of precision machining has come down significantly recently, not thinking that in a twisted way it affects worker power. The recent increase in access and ease of use would then make me think workers themselves need start from the ground up and build alternatives to use as leverage instead.

[@howmanybeansmakefive]

Very interesting, would love to hear your discussion on political theology and faith. (And also any observations about UK democracy/political horizons).

[@mattgilbert7347]

We'd need a Matt Christman-type contribution for that one

[@Nahsorry]

Capital is internationally mobile but most assets aren’t. Taxing income is futile but nations can and should tax assets that are being utilized by elites for investment. If they want to avoid taxes they’ll need to sell those assets to people who chose to stay.

[@1DimeRadio]

The capital that is least mobile is real estate. So the problem in theory that socialists could address first is the housing crisis.

[@Nahsorry]

@@1DimeRadioHousing is the most urgent for sure. Totally immoral to see housing as an investment. But also power generation/transmission, water, sanitation, motorways, public transport, 5g infrastructure, farmland etc etc. The rich really don’t want to hold cash/bonds (especially during periods of low interest). Nation states have far more power to tax accumulated wealth than conventional wisdom suggests.

[@Antman8823]

Starting at 20:07 is the most clear articulation of our current electoral situation that I’ve heard. One interesting thing I’ve noticed is that this academic discourse trickles down through social media and reinforces some of these silos. Based on how the algorithms work would-be elites can be totally shielded from the thoughts and concerns of most normal people.

[@parthdeshpande3940]

Wow, I had no idea oil was propped up against coal for its capital mobility.

[@1DimeRadio]

A good book on this subject is “Carbon Democracy” by Timothy Mitchell if you are interested

[@SPGHTTFRT]

Thanks for this! I’m looking forward to the political theology discussion

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

I think the whole idea that the establishment can go on scaring people with either “Fascism” or “Communism” for all eternity doesn’t hold water. Older people are very afraid of “radical” or “authoritarian” ideologies, but the same doesn’t seem to be the case at all with young people. And I don’t think that will change as they get older.

[@AndreyKva]

But young people are afraid that their enemies are more radical than they really are. Young Democrats really are afraid that the Republicans are fascists.

[@nikolademitri731]

My bros and I do compare our balloons to see who’s is bigger, and we’re not elitists with bull horns, so maybe don’t judge? All really definitely funny stuff aside, this was an awesome conversation that I’ve been waiting for. Just based on the places I’ve seen Benjamin over the last several months, I kinda figured he’d end up here too, and I’m glad he did. Definitely have that theological talk at some point too!

[@nathangriffing77]

The difference in Mexico is that there are still lots of small farms whereas in the other countries you mention farming is done by large land holders.

[@tormunnvii3317]

Power is never taken, only granted.

[@kussemeinkont]

unless you have a gun, and control the military, and the police, and the economy, and schools, and the media, etc etc etc

[@jeffisfine]

Like most of your guests, I agree with some things and disagree with others. I agree that we need to consider as many different strategies as is reasonable, implement some to the extent any leftist group is organized enough to do so, and learn from the successes of failures of those attempts. It seems like, due to the instant gratification, echo chamber effect of social media and how difficult it can be to get any sort of large-scale leftist political activity going in the States, we haven't engaged in this trial-and-error process anywhere near enough in recent memory. Hopefully we can get to a point where we can attempt more strategies, so we cannot just be perpetually stuck in the pointless cycle of coming up with strategies and people just knee-jerk agreeing or disagreeing with it based on little to no real experience applying theory. That said, we as socialists do have a body of experience and theory to pull from that shouldn't be ignored. While each each spacetime point is going to have its own set of material conditions, none of those conditions will be wholly exceptional. This is why I wince when people appear to be aggressively anti-anti-revisionist. I don't pay that much attention to online spaces, particularly Twitter, so I'm sure there are so-called anti-revisionists who are just policing everything with no real understanding of the scope and purpose of anti-revisionism. But there are core principles of Marxism that either completely collapse the historical and dialectical framework if removed or are universally settled positions based on experience and theoretical argumentation. And when these principles are violated, it should be perfectly acceptable to point that out with the caveat that you don't have to automatically assume someone's a fed because they are got a principle wrong. To synthesize these two positions, it's long past due to put some of the myriad of strategies that various people on the left have come up with so we can see what works and doesn't work in our particular material conditions. However, failing at trying things out can have real consequences that can set the movement back. Additionally, and I think more importantly, revolutionary moments don't come up all the time and they can't be manufactured from whole cloth, so we don't have infinite time to try out infinite strategies, and we don't want to be trying strategies that have already been shown to fail in the past or that so fundamentally violate Marxist principles we shouldn't expect them to work without a very compelling reason. Sometimes it seems like some strategies are concocted and implemented purely from a supposed pragmatic basis (following material conditions) instead of a balance of principles and material considerations.

[@1DimeRadio]

I think marxism is very useful, most of all the dialectical approach to the analysis of material conditions the reality of class conflict and power, but Marxism mustn’t be followed like a religion. One must ask, “Is Y or X Marxist Principle True” and “why is Y or X Marxist principle GOOD?” before assuming it must be followed or not.

[@jeffisfine]

@1DimeRadio Absolutely. I guess I just don't know what not asking those questions looks like. I'm admittedly not as familiar with socialist circles as yourself. I was in an unrelated movement that also had a subsection that was regularly accused of following the words of the founder like a religion, and I never understood that critique either. Perhaps it's because I'm attracted to thinking and acting within an adaptable methodology as opposed to eclecticism, but the critiques in both cases usually strike me as coming from people who had a more limited view of the methodologies scope or wanted to add to or modify the methodology for eclectic reasons that seemed haphazard to me.

[@iantroesoyer1864]

@38:15. I think that economic consensus could be land value taxation. A wealth tax that can't be offshored. Disincentivizes wasteful sprawl. Helps businesses and renters. Only hurts people who make money by speculating on land.

[@mattgilbert7347]

John Gray said that one of the major problems with contemporary Liberalism is "they cannot conceive of anything worse than Tyranny. There are many things worse than Tyranny"

[@1DimeRadio]

In what essay or book does he say this?

[@mattgilbert7347]

@@1DimeRadio I am restating (quite accurately, I'd wager) a line he stated during a number of interviews he did during his most recent book your. I believe he said it while in conversation with Novarra Media (British liberal-leftists) and "Politics JOE" (I don't know their ideological allegiances, probably basic liberals) Even though this was quoted from memory, I am pretty confident that I quoted it accurately.

[@lutherdean6922]

Thanks for sharing this. Incredible analysis!

[@user-wl2xl5hm7k]

*1 of 2. This is how you should always vote:* We must fully criticize and _always vote_ *against* (& less authoritarian than) both the Republican *and* Democratic Parties- including *Kamala Harris,* AOC, all of the squad, Bernie Sanders, Edward Markey, Mark Pocan, the justice democrats, & all other democrats. Vote in every single election- at all levels. And also _endorse or anti-endorse,_ in all elections you can, for outside your voting jurisdiction. For _all_ public positions. And this same strategy applies against the same one or more party-monopolies in _all_ countries worldwide. Real progressives will never be Democratic Members or Democratic loyalists. Never vote for _any_ Republican member or loyalist either. If no candidates for a position fit that bill: -Where _write-ins_ are permissible, always write-in an anti-authoritarian person; -Where write-ins aren’t permissible, always vote uncommitted or leave the ballot blank. This will continuously reduce the power of _all_ authoritarian parties in the party monopolies: Until our task is complete. Repeat strategy for all new authoritarian parties that emerge. *2 of 2. This is how you should always vote:* We must fully criticize and _always vote_ *against* (& less authoritarian than) both the Democratic *and* Republican Parties- including *Trump,* Vivek Ramaswamy, Rand Paul (He’s _no_ Ron Paul), Thomas Massie, Warren Davidson, Ron Johnson, and all other Republicans. Vote in every single election- at all levels. And also _endorse or anti-endorse,_ in all elections you can, for outside your voting jurisdiction. For _all_ public positions. And this same strategy applies against the same one or more party-monopolies in _all_ countries worldwide. Real libertarians will never be Republicans or Republican loyalists. Never vote for _any_ Democratic member or loyalist either. If no candidates for a position fit that bill: -Where _write-ins_ are permissible, always write-in an anti-authoritarian person; -Where write-ins aren’t permissible, always vote uncommitted or leave the ballot blank. This will continuously reduce the power of _all_ authoritarian parties in the party monopolies: Until our task is complete. Repeat strategy for all new authoritarian parties that emerge.

[@eemoogee160]

Why repeat in two parts?

[@user-wl2xl5hm7k]

@@eemoogee160 Read both and you’ll know

[@addammadd]

@@eemoogee160I believe their position is that they wrote this in such a way as you could post one or the other in a left or right leaning forum

[@matten_zero]

22:00 BINGO! I went to Cal Berkeley, made good money in pharma, and was STILL unable to go beyond living check to check, forget ever owning a home in that area. Most of my colleagues would never want to admit that their degree is nothing more than status symbol. These people aren't any smarter than the many intelligent, hardworking, non-degree holding individuals. In some cases a degree to me screams as an anti-signal, esp if you go into debt for it. We are all working class, esp the #learntocode crowd who will pretend that tech is the way out, when the whole goal of tech is to automate away human labor

[@ShithéadOConnor]

I think you missed the news on Zucc - he started doing MMA and loves Trump now.

[@gilianrampart8514]

Yeah right!

[@iantroesoyer1864]

The system we live in is an aristocracy. Left, right, and center, we all must appeal to the aristocrats/oligarchs to achieve anything meaningful politically. That is not democracy. The promise of discussing the nature of democracy further, especially in the context of ancient Athenian democracy (sortition?), is very tempting to me. I feel lured to the back room. ;)

[@gengar1187]

Fukkin excellent

[@desmondbrown5508]

I am 100% amenable to this idea of operating indiscriminately in both parties (as they really don't matter and are a tool anyways). But I can't shake the thought that the only reason neoliberals managed to utilize both parties was because they had default capital and monetary power already (a sort of universal power in our current economic mode). They started from a position of power mostly separate from the party system anyways. The "left" or socialists have no such universal mechanisms of power currently and so I'm skeptical that we'd be able to achieve much through the same strategy as neoliberals. We also have to keep in mind that most people, left or right, don't actually like neoliberalism either. I think that's why we have the divide between classical liberal free markets and totalitarianist-style fascism and some shades in between in the first place right now. So in that way, I almost feel like we'd have to have some way to pool capital away from neoliberal institutions in a way that they couldn't just outright call in police (or other state forces against it) "justifiably". A way that "looks fair" to the mass populace somehow. But this is all just me shooting shit out of my head. In reality, despite my skepticism, I'd rather try what's being suggested here than the ineffective attempts we've had up to this point. I frankly don't care HOW we achieve power, so long as we are honest about what we're doing it for and consistent on the pro-working class policies we espouse. The tools, means, etc. we take to achieve that power, I'm almost indifferent to. EDIT: I did notice later in the video you guys do mention approaching the challenge of funding, which is a good part of that power dynamic I'm concerned about, so kudos there.

[@EdwardAppleby-xk1yq]

The problem is power itself.

[@greg0879]

I'd love to read this book. Unfortunately, it's selling for $130 - $200. The way truly is shut.

[@canal_changeling]

I rented the e-book for far less than that.

[@1DimeRadio]

You can get it on kindle for pretty cheap

[@joeyrufo]

What are we doing talking about electoralism!? 👀👀👀

[@samquattrociocchi4427]

This is a super interesting discussion with great insights, but there are some counterpoints that I think are worth pointing out. Conflating deep blue seats with gerrymandered districts strikes me as a bit unfair. Lots of these seats are just organic communities which are urban and therefore heavily democratic leaning. Calling them gerrymandered implies that they're not representative of a real community. I think that's unfair. But, far more importantly, these "squad members" do quite well with the working class (and I'm not talking about students) in their districts. When they lose, it's often because th eir primary challengers win through the more affluent constituents in their districts. Cities and urban areas do have giant populations of working-class people. In fact, cities by their very nature function off the backs of tons of these workers. It is not fair to paint the rural/urban divide on the left as a simple divide between workers and educated people. It's a divide between different varieties of the working class. A working-class person in a city isn't any less a worker than one in rural America. Lots of the problems Benjamin pointed out are very real. He's very insightful and I got a lot out of this discussion. But, specifically fetishizing the rural working class is a bad idea imo. It gets extra complicated when you have to delineate between the same income in different places. Workers in cities may earn a comparable amount as the petite bourgeoise in more rural places. But the worker in the city lives a working-class lifestyle while the rural petite bourgeoise person lives in relative luxury compared to those around them. The former votes for Democrats overwhelmingly and makes up a lot of the "squad"'s support in their districts while the latter is Trump's most enthusiastic support base. The urban/rural divide *is* a real and problematic obstacle to creating a mass movement which can win the kind of system we're talking about. Benjamin is absolutely correct on that and has a lot of fascinating things to say about it and the role our system plays in perpetuating that. Obviously the victories in deep blue territory doesn't translate to winning in rural America. But, I think the point can be made without acting like blue district socialist electeds don't represent a lot of class-conscious working people. Especially since a lot of these social and cultural divides are real, non-trivial, and have real consequences. Which vulnerable minority should simply get comfortable joining hands with people who don't want them to exist or have rights? It's a very hard question and it's not just pettiness or intolerance of different views. The culture war has teeth because there's some legitimate and consequential conflict in it. It's not just a vague threat. It's actual laws being passed across the country. Just some thoughts I wanted to put out there. Fantastic discussion as always!

[@lentoperoavanzo4007]

Theoretically there are still large unions with the leverage to hold the economy hostage. Educator unions in particular. We saw during COVID what effect school shutdowns have on the economy.

[@kussemeinkont]

explain how school shutdowns affected the economy, some issue with the oversupply of pencils maybe?

[@lentoperoavanzo4007]

@@kussemeinkont The politicians pushing reopening schools before vaccinations rolled out literally used the economy as justification. When schools shut down, many parents are forced to call out of work to stay home with their kids, leading to runaway labor shortages in multiple industries and sectors of the economy. A nationwide teacher strike would bring the entire economy to an immediate halt.

[@jeba6549]

I heard that you debated JJ McCullough on the HST podcast and they said that they aren't sure whether to release the episode or not since it "made someone look bad and got heated". If you don't mind answering could you say what happened with that incase it doesnt get released. Also good episode and even though I disagree with a lot of stuff Benjamin says its always good to hear other perspectives on strategy and tbf some of his points like the one about decentralization and the balloon metaphor were good.

[@1DimeRadio]

JJ got a little heated when defending Biden. We still have respect for each other though. Jreg told me the episode will still go up next week. Where did you get word about that?

[@jeba6549]

@@1DimeRadio They briefly mentioned it on their newest episode with Noah Samsen. They also said that they might post it as long as they "disclaim it was filmed before XYZ happened" so considering the Biden thing that makes sense.

[@1DimeRadio]

Oh what timestamp fid they mention that? And yeah, JJ was basically defending Biden super hard, insisting that Biden didn’t have serious cognitive problems, and of course all that aged super poorly lol

[@jeba6549]

@@1DimeRadioYeah that propably aged horribly and they talk about it at around an hour and 37 min in

[@Freyaaq]

Finally someone talking on this matter from the ground up. I understand why most ppl feel capitalism is here to stay, our only hope is it’s own destruction.

[@TheDomVerde]

How can we say one side is better than the other and at the same time deny value systems altogether by rejecting exoteric religious dogma? Any statement that condemns or supports a position is driven by beliefs...and is akin to a religion.

[@MrJfergs]

I think this guy has a point but he's just delivering black pills with no solutions lol

[@Theorychad99]

He propose a few strategies in this podcast if you were paying attention

[@nikolademitri731]

Did you listen all the way through? I mean, sh!t is dark, so maybe being dark grey pilled, at least in terms of the short to medium term isn’t crazy or bad? What makes it wrong to be so in the longterm is if we’re doing everything we can in the short to medium term, if we have strategies that make sense, then we can get out of that place, and actually start radically changing society. That task is almost unimaginably terrifying to me. It requires taking real risk, and it requires sacrifice, and some people literally will give the greatest sacrifice possible, but if we aren’t serious about the material and sociocultural situations as they exist, we honestly should be black pilled. (Contingency matters too, but you need to be active while hoping for opportunities to burst forth.) Point being, I don’t actually think Benjamin is being black pilled at all in this analysis of how things actually are atm. It’s all depressing, but he’s honest, and does offer solutions/strategies. They’re scary. They involve serious risk. The question is do they make sense, and can we use them effectively.. Sorry for the rant. Hopefully I said something useful. ✌️🙏✊

[@GlompingPenguins]

I think it’s because he’s working in an electoral and reformist paradigm, which yes we can use tactics of reform to our advantage, but revolution is the ultimate goal, for better and worse. It’s not gonna be nice or pretty most likely but it’s what we need to prepare for

[@addammadd]

@@GlompingPenguins150 years of preparing for revolution proves it to be a successful strategy!

[@nikolademitri731]

@@addammadd eh, just as acting like reform can do nothing, and only revolution should be thought of as our strategy is a bad take. Both reforms AND revolutions have occurred, and both have failed to bring socialism, and end capitalism. Both have also made life better for the working class, and average human being, in different times and places. Both should be taken very seriously, depending on the material and social conditions at any given time and place.

[@virtue_signal_]

The obstacle is the waY

[@raygaub9861]

Try running as soley a representative and set an example instead of running as a partisan or party loyalist of some type. It is up to we the people to choose and allow for real democratic representation or continue the partisan charades. Whatever my district thinks as a majority on various issues should be how my representative votes, not what I think or a party thinks.

[@johnnyecoman9121]

Just read Thames Water in the UK is nearly bankrupt and they owe a massive amount of money to a Canadian institution that could put international financial institutions at risk. Meanwhile there is a big hoo Haa about far right riots but the real issues are ignored. So I think Ben has a point.

[@airnspace4814]

I think Ben's analysis of the problem is on point, but I disagree with the conclusion. While I don't support running in the democratic party, Republicans also seem so obsessed with culture war that I don't think there's a way to run under them without throwing immigrant, transgender, and womans' rights under the bus. Also using a threat of a war with China seems like an extremely risky strategy. Frankly, I'm growing more to believe that the only way for the working class to win the bourgeois electoral system is for us to build our own institutions and not play the game in the first place.

[@1DimeRadio]

I empathize with this sentiment, and a few years ago I held the same position. However, you are missing the crucial part of Studebaker point, which is that the Democrats and Reunification are hardly unified “parties” at all, compared to parties in a parliamentary system. They are more akin to clubs rather than tightly organized parties. Olicharchs often run “spoiler candidates” (Like Manchin and Liberman, who aren’t the slightest bit leftwing in any sense) within the democratic party to disrupt the ability of the Democrats ability to implement policies that could interfere with business interests (see Second Thought’s recent video on that). The neoliberals ultimately achieved full hegemony when they took over the democrats after taking over the republicans a decade prior. This happened in England too, with neoliberals taking over the Labor party, and this in some ways is more difficult to do in a parliamentary system where there is the pressure of party loyalty. However, if the party leadership is seized by a particular political faction in these systems, then it is easier for them to purge their ranks in their favour in a way that the Democrats can’t really due. This is not to say that socialists can simply replicate this exact strategy, but that it is indeed possible to run candidates within both parties for the congress and senate which would make it easier to actually pass legislation or block bad legislation. Winning the presidency alone guarantees nothing. And limiting oneself to the democratic party is highly limiting. If socialists can’t gain influence within either of the parties, then how can they expect to have the power to stage a revolution and establish hegemony after “seizing the state” (which is more unrealistic than the hypersrrategic electoral strategy proposed below). I don’t think we have the answers, and Studebaker dosent claim to have them either, but his proposal of the paraparty is definitely worth taking seriously given it considers the unique characteristics of the American political system. While I absolutely agree with the need to build independent institutions within civil society, it would be foolish to abandon electoral politics entirely as this is a crucial arena for gaining public attention and winning the support of the masses. Even Lenin (in “Left Wing Communism: An Infantile disorder” ) argues for participation in elections for a party to gradually establish legitimacy before it can consider taking power. Not only that, but in a highly sophisticated modern police state that still has a degree of perceived “democratic” legitimacy, starting off with an openly communist party that explicitly has armed revolution as its goal is a very foolish strategy that is a recipe for an FBI honeypot or deportation (which is a real threat if the party takes money from foreign countries), and quite simply most regular people won’t trust it. People won’t support explicitly revolutionary parties unless the system has lost most of its legitimacy and if they economically have not much to lose. Even in many revolutionary cases of the past, the party that took power did not openly call itself communist until after it took power (like Cuba for instance) or did so under the pretext of national liberation (Vietnam, China) and civil war. Rarely ever have explicit communist parties taken power through revolution and when they have (Bolcheviks) it was in an extremely rare circumstance. And not only that, but this was during a time before communism was connected to an “autocratic” style of regime that most people in living in western liberal states don’t desire to trade places with. Tldr: its easy to dismiss electoralism entirely and opt for an openly “revolutionary” communist strategy, but this is really a kind of delusional nihilism that masks itself as radical, in order to cope with the left’s powerlessness. Everyone needs a wake up call. Not just reformists repeating the same failed electoral strategy, but also so-called “revolutionary” communists, if they are serious and not just using it as a pretext to role-play with their friends.

[@airnspace4814]

Just starting by saying I don't believe in larping and walking around pushing a line of violent revolutionary action or whatever. I just think that right now we need to build up independent civic social organizations. My idealized scenario at this point is more building up independent working-class civil-social organizations autonomous from and subsuming the state (but also like you ofc I don't think I have all the answers either and no one honest is confident in how their hypothetical strategy they lean to would work). Even if I am inclined to think that it's impossible as a communist to effectively run within either, let alone both parties, I think that some sort of strong independent civic-social organization would be needed before doing that. Now, even if the Democrat and Republican parties are structured more like clubs rather than most European parliamentary political parties, these clubs still have rules and norms that need to be followed before politicians face discipline or are kicked out. To even reach a congressional position, let alone party leadership, you need to follow these rules and norms. This won't change unless there's a leadership crisis that causes everyone within the club to question the leadership. We've seen what that means in the Democratic party with what happened to Bernie Sanders and the Squad, especially since the escalation of the genocide in Gaza following Oct. 7th. To do that within the Republican party would mean following in doing some heinous things for the rights of queer people and immigrants. Kinda curious if you've ever heard of the Independent Labor Club that Sean KB and AP Andy of the Antifada have helped start.

[@buglepong]

everybody gets told about the monopoly boogeyman, but the real threat is the cartel.

[@christopherstorey1125]

Good stuff thanks

[@ethandarcy5940]

I feel like Studebaker has a very particular message that I'm missing, perhaps because he doesn't want me to consciously get it. Any ideas?

[@ethandarcy5940]

Ah, primaries are less democratic than rule by a B.o.D. because they cost money. So a party that doesn't let their members vote is more democratic. Is that the main point?

[@junxu4438]

This political theory might explain some of the problems of the eurozone, but a bit misleading for US politics. US government can change the flow of capital, such as rewrite the tax code, fund programs, set interest rates.

[@alittlewasted3869]

The office jockeys middle management types had better realize they ARE labor now. The heads of these companies would fire hundreds of executive workers before they would get rid of their favorite janitor or their housekeeper. Doctors, lawyers, and politicians are tradesmen to these folks.

[@redactedmane]

Wtf am i watching 😅😅😅😅

[@Ricky-Spanish]

Interesting idea having a political "organization" that runs candidates in both major parties. My issue with that is, I feel like the only way you could do that is basically what the maga communists try to do, and to me, at a certain point you have to recognize that culture does matter to a certain extent. Capitalists have their own personal preferences in the culture war and will support the corresponding parties, but capital, abstractly does not care, which gives it flexibility and the ability to cater to changing cultural norms. The problem with that for the 'left', we'll call it the 'revolutionary' or 'post-capitalist' left, is that it's kind of explicitly humanist and to varying degrees seeks more human control over our lives and not one that's algorithmically defined in the way that capitalism is. This is all to say that certain culture issues fundamentally will never fly with the left, and I think it's a mistake sometimes to over-equivicate liberals and conservatives, though there's certainly more overlap there. I don't think there's any getting around the fact that if the left has any meaning to it, it'll always side with liberals over the right on culture, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. Of course the problem is then you alienate a large portion (though not the majority technically) of the working class. There has to be some way of maintaining and even advancing the progressive cultural values as part of any left project without the chiding, lecturing, amd condescending attitudes of the PMC types, as well as a recognition that supporting LGBTQ+ rights and so forth don't make you virtuous in any way and shaming others for not properly supporting those values or not following certain PC etiquette isn't the least bit helpful.

[@addammadd]

9:15 scott, seeing like a state

[@turloughkelly3829]

Jesus Christ, will you people get over the language thing, you sound like Doug Lain and Chris Cutrone here. YOU'RE the ones not talking about material issues because you want to obsess over culture war gossip. This stuff isn't the biggest obstacle, it's just the kind of shit people are reduced to when they're spinning their wheels in the absence of class struggle.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora-v8k]

Very based.

[@moumouzel]

True capital is also bound to place. Flow of money =/= flow of capital. Flow of property rights is what's mobile, and its enforcement is in the end a purely political matter.

[@canal_changeling]

"You can say that everything other than a very orthodox, old fashioned, 19th-century approach is very right wing and bad. All it will do is mean that you waste your life doing nothing, and accomplishing nothing for anybody." (around the 1:05:42 mark)

[@frankfochtman4800]

Great conversation! Around 24:00: isn’t the failure of progressive candidates that beat status quo incumbents not using their platform to advocate for those progressive policies that would directly benefit the worker/noncollege graduate voter and thus grow the base? Another point about the overall Left: don’t we need to get people to do physical activism and not just online activism? I think Covid stunted a time when the country had some activist momentum.

[@metalsalsa]

Damn went to buy this but its so expensive because its some kind of textbook!

[@IshtarNike]

I clicked for the Lord of the Rings reference. 😅

[@nomschompsky79]

what LOTR reference?

[@iantroesoyer1864]

@53:25. Bros perhaps underestimating the importance of coffee to the US economy. Haha.

[@scientificsolace]

where did bernie say that “its unrealistic for parents to stay home in a competitive global economy”? i can only seem to find him supporting family leave paid vacation and sick days

[@ivecaughtfire7431]

2 things I dont think are helpful here 1) Religion being something people criticize, dont trust, dont respect, see with contempt etc is not really due to not understanding or seeing the value or whatever in it. Its that religiosity is largely superfluous & often a kind of self-perpetuating indulgence of an individuals personal proclivities or sensibilities. Anything religion as an institution, cultural item, and adoption can achieve is almost every time easily accomplished by other means. Religion is in many cases a less effective vehicle for enrichment, community, support systems etc than the alternatives. Especially considering in order to get the most out of it you gotta do the intellectualizing and educating that brings you into contact with the broader spectrum of ideologies, philosophies, history, etc. You can skip the potential for harm religion creates and just jump to the next wrung on the ladder so to speak. 2) Anti revisionism is important in Marxism as how else is it to be defined, communicated, developed, defended as a movement/platform from its opposition, and comprehensively understood by people encountering and trying to learn it? If alterations of key axioms & premises in Marxism are just accepted then Marxism is no longer Marxism, its a different framework all together. Theres a difference between someone policing discourse & silencing dissent vs wanting to preserve the ideological, political and historical integrity/cohesion of Marxism as a system of beliefs/analysis/policies/historical context/etc. Revisionism IS A BAD THING if you are a Marxist b.c it dillutes, obfuscates, misconstrues, and arbitrarily makes intangible *what Marxism really is*.

[@one-sidedrationalization1091]

I think Lutheran doctrine contradicts your view on religion, considering German Idealism did evolve from it. Also, when Max Weber was writing about the Protestant Work Ethic his focus was on Reformed theology rather than the Lutheran doctrine of vocation. I think it’s interesting that there is a lot of general interest in the Nordic model without the consideration that possibly Lutheranism played a crucial role in its creation.

[@ivecaughtfire7431]

@@one-sidedrationalization1091 I was speaking in response to the guests conception of religion being disregarded when in reality there's is value within it and a religious framework. I was saying people make a individual choice to not perpetuate its excesses by just disengaging with it. I didn't really touch on any if it's merit or idealisms merits at all, that was beyond the scope. I just did an apology for that position as I felt the guest made a slightly reductive point.

[@ivecaughtfire7431]

@@one-sidedrationalization1091 b.c you have to realize the popular conception of religion as culture + institution is totally divorced from theology which is functionally a separate phenomenon when put into the socio-cultural space of modern society.

[@one-sidedrationalization1091]

@@ivecaughtfire7431 I think I am just confused, because as an individual, I did not choose to become a Lutheran- it was the social order that I was born into. When I was disengaged with it, I was not conscious that I was still perpetuating its excesses, which I only came to realize when I reached a point in my development where I recognized myself in the Lutheran church and my failure to free myself completely from it. In the context of the US, I understand that my position is not popular, because I am not a Southern Baptist who espouses individual liberty, i.e. individual choice.

[@greg4629]

it's simple. the problem is the ideological principle at the core of the nation. everywhere else stems from that. and you change that principle but defeating the nation that holds it. in war.

[@tylerwatrouse8602]

Texnholyze theme song damn

[@nomschompsky79]

I went to purchase the book, it's $126 hardcover and $139 paperback! Why is it so expensive?

[@dntthe88]

Demand is probably higher than supply and these independent sellers are taking advantage of that

[@dntthe88]

I feel like the US is doomed to split into multiple smaller nations like ever other empire throughout history and honestly for the rest if the world thats probably a good thing. I wouldnt advocate any kind of accelerationism though

[@dntthe88]

I think focusing on local matters and organization is a far better solution than anything else when it comes to protecting people

[@littlesigh]

Dude your background images of two old farts is totally distracting. Otherwise thanks for posting the interview.

[@marcchrys]

Why is his book soooo expensive? Rather ironic ..a book analyzing how capitalism stifles true democracy is too expensive for most ordinary people to buy 😊

[@Amazology]

So what are you saying fellas ? Grab the pitchforks and storm the gates or what ?

[@HasnaaAlaa]

Can't the US government in theory (if it wasn't controlled by capital owners) say to the capitalist class if you leave the US to hire cheap labor elsewhere then you're not allowed to sell to the US market hence stopping capital mobility? Same for Europe? The way china already does

[@1DimeRadio]

It can but it would be tricky because that would require a huge change in property law, which itself, if advertised to early before the law is implemented, could give capital time to go elsewhere. China is able to avoid capital flight because it does not have a bourgeois liberal state, despite capitalism being the dominant mode of production there. They don’t have enshrined property rights. The party-state has supreme authority

[@aussieboy4090]

@@1DimeRadio Hey 1Dime you guys didn't discuss how the Nordic model is dealing with capital flight.

[@shtefanru]

It's an irony to hear alledgly "real strategy" that really isn't other thing than science fiction... And it's not a marxisr strategy in any way. Ben is very good on a descrptive level, but on the strategical is just videogame/abstract.. The mobility of capital isn't the root problem, that is Pikkety

[@nico_mezare]

The proposals here are very weird

[@GeorgeCastanza-r9s]

that a LOTR reference?

[@satyasyasatyasya5746]

good god I literally can't focus on anything other than how handsome and gorgeous and 1Fine, 1Dime is. like, i can't handle it xD how is this man real?!

[@24mojoe]

Funny when you learn from the questions more than from the answers!!! The guest is full of hot air! Fruit of Pseudoeduation!

[@stephenwallace8782]

He's a genius. Earnest and genuine too.

[@shtefanru]

Wrong motives - good outcomes is the invisible hand, is bourgeois society

[@shtefanru]

Ben seemingly doesn't understand that what works for capitalist politics (neoliberals) doesnt work for independent working class politics.. and running politicians in both parties and then engeenering crises is just fantasy

[@matten_zero]

1:08:00 yes Me Robot is excellent jumping off point

[@Experimental-Unit]

Just need to jump from class traitor acceptance to unseating your ideology of class. Probably involves rethinking what production is

[@Experimental-Unit]

Also way too much taking the law seriously, maybe work on some smug tone

[@Experimental-Unit]

Re deception you will get credit for bringing it up with respect to yourselves. You are yourselves examples of people playing at principle, so why should we trust you etc. radical transparency practices may be called for

[@Experimental-Unit]

Must see someone rel to MoP not just as okay gig worker whatever, that's vulgar materialism because they're also productive in social life, relations of production preferences. Don't forget Marx refers to the gender (gschlecht) of workers. So yeah Read Baudrillard get gud etc.

[@Experimental-Unit]

Also re fascism it will also matter a lot what your gender politics are. And as for race, your position then must be that no one has race ie no one is white or black etc

[@Experimental-Unit]

also balloon analogy is super bad because you can see things from a "high level" no matter where you are. In all cases what matters is seeing various logical orders. Everything you don't understand because of your own practical realities is other people's practical realities and their implications for your projects

[@Amazology]

By the way...where is President Joe right now ?

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

Benjamin Studebaker is a great thinker. I think his geopolitical analysis is weak, but that’s a feature he shares with most Western leftists.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

can say no political government to God for global confederation

[@Nausea-n6n]

Shout out to the progressive grift.

[@ttrihe10]

US is Coke vs Pepsi :)

[@Unearth122]

His strategy is compelling. But I can't help draw this similarity between the nazi party who did have a left and right wing (wings) who wanted to control capital flows in different ways. I'm not supper read on the "left" strasser platform but I'd imagine it was similar in tone. So you know I don't think you need a knee jerk reaction to the idea of being pragmatic and flexible but that is a danger. You got you're "controls" in terms of integration and a war economy when the dust settled and the right wing purged the "left"

[@Bestmann3n]

Like I wrote in the other comment, he doesn't actually advocate for or believe in this strategy. There's a section on it in the book and the conclusion is that it wouldn't work.

[@draunt7]

This guy is just arguing to capitulate on the culture war to make gains for a continuously dwindling working class as the lost culture war eliminates various sectors of the multiracial working class until its an exclusively white working class that perpetuates christian nationalism. This guy is gonna end up forming Nazi's, and he sounds like the MAGA communists. Which I guess is a way to power, if that's your goal. Form the National Socialist USSA and build conditions that would nominally get the Whites educated enough to relinquish white supremacy... tho that completely ignores the historical materialist analysis of the economic development of the US creating the culture we are confronting today. Does he think we can change the economy without confronting the cultural differences which enabled the economic conditions in the first place? I thought dialectics worth both ways, not just the belief that economics determines culture.

[@Theorychad99]

How does debating culture ware issues like transgender bathrooms and canceling comedians for not having the politically correct take help the left?

[@draunt7]

@@Theorychad99 Centering either of those issues as if they are the emphasis of the Left is already capitulation to the right wing framing on using those marginalized groups as scapegoats. Additionally, failing to debate the right of individuals to use the bathroom of their gender expression is an exposure of your own failure to understand how civil rights extends to trans people. Defending trans people from the dehumanization of bad jokes is also basic decency, and cancellation is definitionally something done by the subscribers/supporters of an artistic creator. All of this should be easy to understand if you are also maintaining yourself up to date on modern science, as a good communist ought to be doing to ensure they are reflecting the best scientific knowledge available. You would have supported vaudeville and Jim Crow laws with consistent application of your logic.

[@JCT1926]

@@Theorychad99 Studebaker's solution would just contribute to a cultural stasis if anything since he would be playing both sides against each other.

[@ympx]

The truth is Haz and colleagues are already on their way to start something while others in the back are just criticizing endlessly and have no will.

[@Bestmann3n]

@@JCT1926 He doesn't posit it as a solution. It's a hypothetical counter argument to his thesis (that the way is shut, that we're stuck). It's much clearer in the book, but even here in the interview he actually explained why it wouldn't work. His "solution" is that there is no solution and that this is something to despair over, and that maybe this despair will lead to new creative thinking.

[@5minuterevolutionary493]

Access to health care and employment for trans people is not a minor distraction for trans people. I mean, what the hell guys? Yeah, liberal power adapts. So we adapt also. And I don't care as much about "taking down" whatever you consider the power base, as i do about staying alive and keeping my friends alive with me. Gosh so sorry we have to believe in ****ing something in order to do that, and also have to actually deal with all of this, because we don't have your money, your credentials, your connections. So yeah, go hang out in your office and write notes for training grad students to give the eff up? What is wrong with you?

[@AaZee-pj5zl]

But yours is the other side of the same coin. You, too, engage in social policing when you moralize against lecturing, or student mannerisms/language. Either way, the end effect is the same; to divide the Class from itself, from it’s Own. The social content of form is not, by itself, political. Politics is independent of social form. Hence, the task at hand is not to reach the masses with their own message, or to go deeper into the masses, to raise or change their consciousness, etc. The task is representation and effective political organization of the already present, and organized, class. Not to have a ‘successful movement’ (or moment), or to pressure one group into doing or adopting anything at all (platformism). The aim cannot be ‘the masses,’ but an independent political organ of the organized mass Class as it exists today. So, our problem is NOT ‘the numbers,’ or persons being pushed out by students, or their language. The main political problem we face is that the ‘left’ has no independent class politics, as it has no representative political organization, and has forgotten it even needed one in the first place, or how to even create one, what it would be, etc. So the problems we face are, in fact, profoundly intellectual, not ones of ‘bad movement culture,’ and would take the effort of independent intellectual leadership to actually address. The task the left has forgotten for almost a hundred years now is not effective recruitment, not sectarian mass movements, but Class leadership. The class strategy is not a matter of tailing either, or both, of the parties; its effectively the same tactic and outcome. It’s beyond me, for example, how anyone can be talking about effectiveness in winning elections when the Class doesn’t even have an independent political organ yet, much less one which is accountable to the international association of the Class as a whole, in anyway. The program of ‘socialism’ that has failed workers, time and time again, is substituting class association for the State. The class association should be gaining power, building hegemony, from the state. In that process, the Class becomes independent from the state, and things like ‘tax-revenue,’ careerism, and funding are made irrelevant by the Classes own self-same action. That’s the ‘useful economic action’ socialist intellectuals SHOULD be engaging in; rather than merely APPEARING useful with tasks and busy-work that is ultimately doomed to failure or eventual liquidation. Rural life is not oppressed by intellectualism, academics or culture. Its oppression is Political; its oppression is a direct consequence of the nature and action of the State, which our task is to supersede not by populism or demagoguery, but the hegemony of the class Organ. Capital would have no where to fly to; We are it’s main constituting Party. The left’s problem today is that it’s intellectuals consistently refuse to have even an iota of accountability or responsibility to it’s own enlightenment heritage and founding political traditions (revisionism). There’s nothing to wait for; not a crisis, not a successful electoral campaign, not anything. Our conditions, the same conditions, have long been ripe for political hegemony that we only consistently refuse to seize because of an ‘inopportune timing’.. That’s all that ‘the left’ (socialist intellectuals) produces for itself anymore, really, excuses, abdications, and consistent campaigns of mis-leadership for the actual, living Class… The ‘ideal’ outcome for the USSR wouldn’t have been if the ‘first world’ joined the ‘second world,’ but rather if the International Class association had taken hegemony in both; but this was made impossible by revisionist and Stalinist counterrevolution in the liquidation of the Communist and Socialist Internationals into endless Popular-fronts, worldwide. We have to do this, because... ‘if you don’t influence other parties, outside forces will influence your party’.. Or, you could fight for a leadership that has intellectual integrity.. And that’s not dogmatism; it’s just being conscious of reality, and openly consistent in an analysis that is not based in demagoguery (betraying the Class by revising it’s consciousness in a Popular, or populist, front). Its true that Unions aren’t politically capable, but the solution is not an ‘oligarchy’ but an independent Class party elected by and accountable to the organized rank and file of the Class. But it is true that class politics must grow to be independent of Union elected ‘leaders,’ who have no capacity to be tasked with politics in addition to the economic roles they are elected to fill. Politics is also not the simple outcome of chaos, riots, shut-downs or disruption (negative utility). Any Bourgeois could preform or enable such a ceremony for the downtrodden; they have more than enough capacity to make such sacrifices. The core of the matter is the question of organized agency and hegemony; of Whom, actually, preforms and enables such a demonstration (it isn’t merely a section of the economy, a type of worker, but an affect of political hegemony in society as a whole). Thus we return directly to the previously mentioned problems.. Monetary donations or influence also aren’t the problem popular mis-leaders continuously make them out to be. The point is to abolish the law of value, yes, but that means that political action must be conducted within the social domain of that law; the point of independence isn’t to escape it, but to have Class politics that is independent of Parties based purely in bourgeois society. ‘Follow the money’ has much less practical coherence then ‘follow the intellectual traditions,’ or better yet, follow whom is elected to represent whom, and in what context, for what tasks, by whose agency, etc.

[@shtefanru]

Too metaphorical analysis

[@greg4629]

you have a better chance making your country. full secession everywhere all at once

[@Goofy8907]

This is so obnoxious You are waiting for Jesus to save you This is not how anything has moved ever It moves by material conditions changing And if you want change then you organize in ways that creates power, not sit around and wait for something You are the same thing that you criticise An idealist liberal

[@1DimeRadio]

Did you even listen to the podcast lmao. Nobody here is saying to wait for some material condition. If anything, we discuss more nuaunced electoral strategies

[@shushunk00]

What do you want aoc and the squad to do ? market themselves towards voters from middle american states How do u want them to market themselves to those voters(who are conservative from different states) Also it's not like the squad acts like twitter teenager leftist or lib lefts who acts in "cancellation" ,or asking the content creators,media producers to be friendly to diversity 😢 The squad are way too busy doing on the ground work in their own districts ,don't mistake themselves with some anarchist on twitter. Just to make sure ,i know they are socdems who have no pov of dialectical materialism.

[@KP-uc1ez]

Idk, AOC slick acts exactly like a Twitter lib when she's on Twitter.... so. But I'm not sure what "ground work" they've done in their districts.. I mean, the whole criticism leveled here was that their districts are not working class, and they're focused on non-threatening issues (non-threatening to the status quo) I won't be back, Leave a polemic for the onlookers!

[@Pravduhh]

Nobody expects them to do anything. Thats the point. Some of AOC's most notable "on the ground" work as of late include voting to break the rail strike while covering it up and voting to fund the iron dome. I would only like her to stop presenting as a leftist, but thats an expectation more unrealistic then her actually keeping left wing positions in a way that is more than just nominally.

[@matten_zero]

22:20 the Cathedral

[@matten_zero]

This is what Andrew Yang's Forward Party is basically about

[@cyber-commie4447]

1:03:35 This reminds me of Alexander Parvus, the guy who funded hardline communist articles (like Iskra) to counter Kautsky and Bernstein. He even secured funding for assisting Russian revolutionaries to travel to Tsarist Russia in the midst of WW1 in the hope that after the revolution, Russia would cease its war efforts and would end up un-intentionally assisting the victory for Kaiser's Germany. LENIN THE TRAIN PART 1,2 are awesome movies focussing on this. ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Parvus )