Podcasts about Hayek

Air Date 5/27/2025 Slippery slope arguments persist because good ideas taken to extremes become bad ones. Eugenics exemplifies this—often starting with good intentions. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Full Show Notes BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! KEY POINTS KP 1: The movement that inspired the Holocaust - Alexandra Minna Stern and Natalie Lira - TED-Ed - Air Date 3-10-22 KP 2: MAHA's Soft Eugenics - Conspirituality - Air Date 3-8-25 KP 3: It Must Be Eugenics - I Must Be BUG'N - Air Date 4-24-25 KP 4: Hayek's bastards w/ Quinn Slobodian - Politics Theory Other - Air Date 3-30-25 KP 5: Even More News: Grok's Meltdown, Donald Trump's Rampant Corruption, and Ms. Rachel w/ Mehdi Hasan - Some More News - Air Date 5-16-25 KP 6: Undercover inside a ‘scientific racism' network - Today in Focus - Air Date 10-25-24 (00:49:40) NOTE FROM THE EDITOR On the likely future of gene editing ethics DEEPER DIVES (01:02:09) SECTION A: HISTORICAL CONTEXT (01:44:19) SECTION B: RFK JR. ON AUTISM (01:59:39) SECTION C: TECH BROS (02:46:44) SECTION D: PRONATALISM (03:05:05) SECTION E: MAGA SHOW IMAGE CREDITS Description: Composite image depicting HHS Secretary RFK Jr. at a microphone in the center of an overlay of repeating, identical “people” icons. A handful of icons are different, bright neon colors and have a red X in a box over them. Credits: Composite design by A. Hoffman. Elements from Pixabay. Photo credit: “Robert F. Kennedy Jr.” by Gage Skidmore, Flickr | CC BY-SA 2.0 | Changes: Cropped, background color change, and added overlay   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow BotL: Bluesky | Mastodon | Threads | X Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

Send us a textWhat happens when we stop seeing politics and markets as separate spheres and start recognizing their deep entanglement? Mikayla Novak, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, challenges conventional economic thinking in favor of Dick Wager's "entangled political economy."Drawing from her fascinating career path through Australia's Treasury, free market think tanks, and her pursuit of multiple courses of study, Novak offers unique insights into institutional economics and political networks. Her background bridges disciplines in ways that embody Hayek's wisdom that "you can't be a good economist by just being an economist."We consider Boettke's distinction between "mainstream" economics—with its equilibrium models and market failure diagnoses—and the "mainline" tradition that views economies as dynamic processes shaped by institutions. This conversation reveals how Richard Wagner's entangled political economy theory helps understand policy failures. When government and markets form complex networks rather than separate spheres, simplistic reform attempts like "just cut spending" are disastrously unsuccessful.The discussion vividly illustrates why transaction costs matter deeply for institutional analysis. We examine how political networks form with elites enjoying low-cost access while ordinary citizens remain at the periphery. This structural understanding helps explain why some inefficient policies persist despite their obvious flaws—they benefit the well-connected core of our political-economic system.Mikayla Novak's page linkRichard Wagner: Entangled Political Economy Research NetworkBuchanan's Liberal TheoryPolitics as a Peculiar BusinessPrevious TAITC Episodes of Relevance:Randall Holcombe and Political CapitalismDonald Boudreaux on Law and LegislationLate Bloomers book, by Rich KarlgaardMunger on tariffs and costsIf you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

China's Ministry of State Security has infiltrated and is conducting espionage at all levels of Stanford University. By law, all Chinese nationals are required to report back to the Chinese Communist Party on their research and daily activities when asked. Sometimes this spying is voluntary and conducted by those who wish to see America fall behind in the global tech race. Other times, Chinese nationals are coerced into spying on their school, friends, and teachers through transnational repression. How can universities and Congress work together to prevent Chinese espionage? And how is the Chinese government buying influence in American universities and American society writ large? Elsa Johnson is the managing editor of the Stanford Review and a sophomore studying international relations and East Asian studies.Garret Molloy is a staff writer and the business manager of the Stanford Review. He is a sophomore studying Hayek, economic history, and libertarian thought.Read the transcript here. Subscribe to our Substack here. Read Elsa and Garret's reporting here.

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Featuring Quinn Slobodian on his book Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right. MAGA and its far-right populist siblings around the world aren't just a backlash to neoliberalism. The far-right has also long been animated by extremist mutant neoliberal, anarcho-capitalist, and paleo-libertarian strains that in the 1980s and '90s built a new New Fusionist politics of capitalist extremism — a politics that promoted IQ as the measure of individual and racial value; hard borders for humans with free trade for capital; and gold as the only true currency. Support The Dig at patreon.com/TheDig Register for the Socialism Conference at socialismconference.org Register for “Our Collective Is the Prize” at comrades.education before May 31 The Dig goes deep into politics everywhere, from labor struggles and political economy to imperialism and immigration. Hosted by Daniel Denvir.

First Emma and Sam check in on the latest on Israel and it's ongoing siege on Gaza. Netanyahu says that he's going to allow in some food aid, but it seems to be mostly a fig leaf to shield Israel from widening criticism over the starving children and looming famine in Gaza as the IDF begins it's new, horrifying phase of their genocidal campaign. Senator Chris Van Hollen is one of a very short list of U.S. lawmakers willing to call it out. After that, Sam and Emma talk to historian Quinn Slobodian about his new book "Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ and the Capitalism of the Far Right." Check it out here: https://www.zonebooks.org/books/160-hayek-s-bastards-race-gold-iq-and-the-capitalism-of-the-far-right And check out Quinn's previous books as well: Crackup Capitalism: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250753892/crackupcapitalism/ Market Civilizations: Neoliberals East and South: https://www.zonebooks.org/books/144-market-civilizations-neoliberals-east-and-south In the Fun Half, Jim Clyburn (D-SC) thinks that he STILL thinks that Biden could have served out a second term as president, which he said just hours before Biden's cancer diagnosis was made public. A remarkable position, though perhaps a defensive one for an 84 year old who's still serving in Congress. After that, Sam breaks the news that a court has effectively ended the pause on the Trump administration's move to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants. George Washington University's student graduation speaker Cecilia Culver is brave enough to say she's ashamed that her tuition money is going to funding the genocide in Gaza, despite what similar graduation speakers have faced after making similar statements during graduation speeches. Actor Zach Woods shares a satirical take on NYU withholding the diploma of their graduation speaker after he denounced his university's complicity in Israel's war crimes. Tim Pool doesn't think non-citizens should have free speech while they're in the United States, and he goes to great logical lengths to justify that position. And finally, Sam, Emma and Matt are joined by Majority Report Chief Middle School Correspondent for the latest on what 12-year-olds are up to these days. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Cozy Earth: Get up to 40% off at CozyEarth.com with code MAJORITYREPORT at checkout Fast Growing Trees: Get 15% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/majority Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/

Featuring Quinn Slobodian on his book Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right. MAGA and its far-right populist siblings around the world aren't just a backlash to neoliberalism. The far-right has also long been animated by extremist mutant neoliberal anarcho-capitalist and paleo-libertarian strains that in the 1980s and 90s built a new New Fusionist politics of capitalist extremism—a politics that promoted IQ as the measure of individual and racial value; hard borders for humans with free trade for capital; and gold as the only true currency. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Register for the Socialism Conference at Socialismconference.org Register for "Our Collective Is the Prize" at Comrades.education before May 31

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast Professor of International History at Boston University & author of Globalists: The End of Empire & the Birth of Neoliberalism Quinn Slobodian joins Bad Faith to discuss his latest book Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, & the Capitalism of the Far Right. Slobodian explains the way that neoliberalism hijacks democracy to prioritize capital interests over the substantive rights of the public, the dissonance between the tech community's anarcho-capitalism and the populist wing of the Republican party, and how race science plays a role in uniting these disparate factions.  Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

In this episode, we examine Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, a chilling warning about how societies drift into tyranny—not through force, but through the seductive promise of central planning. Written in the shadow of fascism and communism, Hayek's argument is more relevant than ever: when the state takes control of the economy, it inevitably takes control of our lives. What begins as progress can end in oppression. This is the road to serfdom.

This week, Ellen and Alona are joined by Canadian historian Quinn Slobodian.The rise of the populist right is often framed as a backlash against neoliberalism—a revolt by those “left behind” by globalisation. But in his new book Hayek's Bastards, Quinn argues the opposite: that movements like Maga are not a reaction to neoliberalism, but its latest iteration.Tracing the intellectual lineage of today's far right, he characterises it as a “new fusionism” between three ideological pillars: racialised beliefs in genetically hardwired human nature, hard money, and hard borders.Quinn answers: who are “Hayek's bastards”? Are the right better at engaging with ideas than the left? And what does Trump really believe?Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right is available here.Prospect podcasts are also available on our YouTube channel (@prospect_magazine) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Labour panic and freak out over Runcorn and the Locals, is Starmer drawing the wrong conclusions from the votes? Is “Reform are right, don't vote for them” the best they can do? Or should they pick more fights with the Right? Plus, what if this newfangled populism isn't so new after all? We talk to Quinn Slobodian, author of Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right, about why the shape-shifting Right are so hard to lay a glove on. And in the Extra Bit: Does VE Day hit differently now Europe is full of fascists, enthusiastically supported by the US President? ESCAPE ROUTES • Ros recommends Les Années (The Years) by Annie Earnaux.  • Matt recommends With Nails by Richard E. Grant. • Dorian recommends Thunderbolts, in cinemas now. • Back us on Patreon for ad-free listening, bonus materials and more.  Written and presented by Dorian Lynskey with Ros Taylor and Matt Green. Audio production by Robin Leeburn. Theme music by Cornershop. Produced by Chris Jones. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. www.podmasters.co.uk   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Listen on:Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i Watch on: https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featuredChris takes aim at Donald Trump's recent analogy comparing America to a “super luxury department store” — and unpacks why it's not only economically absurd, but rooted in a dangerous, quasi-socialist mindset. From tariffs to nationalism, Markowski dismantles the myth that government can—or should—set “fair prices” in a capitalist system. With references to Lenin, Mussolini, and Hayek, this episode is a no-holds-barred indictment of central planning disguised as conservative policy. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

Hayek sýndi okkur fram á að upplýsingar í samfélaginu eru alltaf dreifðar – enginn einstaklingur eða stofnun býr yfir allri þeirri þekkingu sem þarf til að taka réttar ákvarðanir í efnahagsmálum. Þekkingin sem einstaklingar búa yfir er oft takmörkuð, brotakennd og jafnvel mótsagnakennd, en samanlagt er þessi dreifða þekking undirstaða skynsamlegra ákvarðana í gegnum frjálst samspil markaðarins. Markaðurinn virkar sem upplýsingakerfi - tryggir flæði upplýsinga. Verð á vöru og þjónustu er uppspretta upplýsinga um skort, eftirspurn og framboð án þess að nokkur hafi heildaryfirsýn. Smásagan Ég blýanturinn eða "I, Pencil", eftir Leonard E. Read, er einföld en áhrifamikil lýsing á undirstöðum frjáls markaðar og mátt dreifðrar þekkingar. Smásagan kom út árið 1958 og af blýanti og útskýrt hið flókna samspil margra án þess að hver og einn hafi heildarskilning eða yfirsýn yfir það sem þarf til að framleiða jafn einfaldan hlut eins og blýant. Ferlið er þó svo flókið að enginn býr yfir nægjanlegri þekkingu, hæfileikum eða aðföngum til að búa til jafn einfaldan og hversdagslegan hlut. Saga blýantsins kennir okkur að virða ósýnilegan en nauðsynlegan vef samstarfs sem hefur gert samfélögum að sækja fra. Ég hvet ykkur til að horfa á nokkurra mínútna myndband sem byggir á smásögunni. Slóðin er hér: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

Aunque aseguraba que París era la ciudad donde había sido feliz, el escritor peruano Mario Vargas Llosa, fallecido el 13 de abril pasado, vivió buena parte de su vida en Londres, ciudad donde escribió 'Conversación en La Catedral', uno de sus obras maestras. Recorrido por el Londres íntimo de Vargas Llosa con un reportaje de Luisa Pulido, corresponsal de RFI en Reino Unido. "Conversación en La Catedral" es el único libro que Mario Vargas Llosa "salvaría del fuego", según dijo en alguna ocasión el Nobel de Literatura peruano. Esa novela fue escrita en la entonces Biblioteca Británica, en Londres, en los años 60. Fue la misma biblioteca donde, en medio de miles de libros, se sentaron Marx y Lenin.Hoy ese lugar se ha convertido en una sala de lectura del Museo Británico, imponente edificio cilíndrico, color mármol, de casi 43 metros de diámetro y ubicado a pocos pasos de la entrada del museo. Ahí entrevistamos al profesor Stephen Hart, especialista en literatura Latinoamericana en la University College London (UCL), sobre ese periodo en la vida del autor peruano."Cuando Vargas Llosa venía aquí para estudiar, creo que se sentía como un miembro más de la comunidad de los escritores más importantes de la historia, entre otros, Marx. Sentía la importancia de la escritura y la literatura, pero también de la ciencia, pues aquí también venían los científicos", dice Hart.'Conversación en La Catedral', obra perfectaStephen Hart, quien fue alumno de Vargas Llosa en los años 70 en la Universidad de Cambridge, es un gran admirador de "Conversación en La Catedral"."Lo más importante en esa novela es la exploración técnica, el sentido de la técnica que desarrolla en ella Vargas Llosa. Es una obra perfecta. La manera en que utiliza la técnica de los vasos comunicantes, la idea que uno tiene un espacio por aquí y luego otro espacio, otro tiempo, y hay luego una fusión de todo ello", apunta.  Mario Vargas Llosa llegó en 1967 a Londres, procedente de París, para ser profesor de literatura en dos universidades. Medio siglo después, una foto de Vargas Llosa maduro, canoso y serio, adorna una de las enormes ventanas del centro de idiomas del King's College. Ahí se resalta, con orgullo, que el escritor y político, laureado con el Nobel de Literatura en 2010, fue profesor de esa universidad entre 1967 y 1970.El escritor Enrique Zattara relata esos primeros años del Nobel en Londres."Vargas Llosa estaba viviendo en París desde hacía unos años gracias a una beca. Ahí había viajado con la mujer. Ahí tuvo su primer hijo. Pero aparentemente su situación legal no le permitía quedarse. Entonces comenzó a buscar otras alternativas", explica Zattara.Para el autor peruano fue claro desde joven que “se iba a preocupar toda su vida por trabajar de algo que tuviera que ver con la escritura, que su trabajo iba a ser escritor”, explica Zattara y precisa: “Era muy ambicioso, en el buen sentido”, apunta Zattara."El Nobel obtiene un contrato en Saint Mary's College, al oeste de Londres. Ahí se instala con su mujer y su primer hijo, en un barrio relativamente popular cuya población es mayoritariamente de origen irlandés. Luego, al año siguiente, pasa a ser profesor de Siglo de Oro en el Departamento de Idiomas en el Kingrs College, en el centro de la ciudad", recuerda también el escritor Enrique Zattara.Vida austera"A los 31 años, su vida era muy sencilla", cuenta también Zattara. "Él mismo contaba que su vida era muy austera. Cuando no trabajaba, se iba a la Biblioteca Nacional, que en ese momento estaba en el Museo Británico. Iba a leer los fines de semana. Como pagarle a una niñera por ocuparse de los niños salía muy caro, lo que hacía era salir una vez al teatro por semana con Patricia [su mujer]", cuenta Zattara.  Esa vida también estuvo marcada por la academia, el periodismo y la familia. Transcurría en el hoy exclusivo sector de Earl's Court, en el oeste de Londres. Las cartas que recibía de sus amigos y compadres escritores del "Boom Latinoamericano", fueron enviadas a la calle Philbeach, número 7, código postal SW5. Era una mansión blanca con puertas negras. No se tienen más detalles.La magia de LondresLo que sí es indudable para el director del Instituto Cervantes en Londres, Víctor Ugarte, es que "la constante oferta cultural de Londres para un creador como Vargas Llosa, o para cualquier persona amante de la cultura, es increíble. Pocas ciudades en el mundo pueden competir con esa oferta tan enorme, tanto pública, como los grandes museos, como privada, las pequeñas galerías".Aunque Londres no se destaca en su obra, la ciudad sí fue importante para Vargas Llosa intelectualmente y de crecimiento como escritor, estima Ugarte.Ir a teatro, correr en el parque"Claro, le gustaba mucho ir a conciertos, asistir a conferencias, visitar museos, pero también practicar deporte, por ejemplo, correr en el parque. Estaba en un ambiente no latino, con lo cual podía concentrarse en su trabajo de una forma más, digamos, individual. Eso, según dice, le ayudó mucho para su creatividad. Vargas Llosa tenía un proceso muy disciplinado. Se levantaba temprano, escribía por la mañana para que no le molestaran los ruidos", relata Ugarte.Carlos Fuentes y su familia vivieron en la misma zona casi 20 años después. La amistad entre el escritor mexicano y el escritor peruano fue siempre entrañable. La periodista Silvia Lemus, viuda de Carlos Fuentes, se confió sobre esta amistad a RFI."Mario era muy, muy terrenal, pero también muy estimulante, no solo en la literatura, sino también, como usted sabe, en la política", dice.  Enrique Zattara, que hace caminatas que recorren los lugares frecuentados por escritores como Vargas Llosa, afirma que Earls Cour fue un barrio que fascinó al peruano."El Earls Court de Vargas Llosa no es como el barrio de ahora. El que él conoció era un barrio, digamos, ‘jiposo', [de ‘hippie', figura contestataria de los setenta], lleno de gente rara. A él le gustaba mucho todo eso. Incluso hay una parte de una novela suya que transcurre en Londres, Travesuras de la niña mala. El personaje vive en un apartamento que es, realmente, donde él vivía. Vargas Llosa cuenta muchas cosas del barrio que aún hoy se pueden ver", dice Zattara.Londres fue una experiencia formativa en la vida y carrera literaria del autor, nos explica el escritor peruano, Gunter Silva. "Era la época del apogeo de la contracultura, los hippies, las protestas estudiantiles, la juventud rebelde, la libertad sexual, el rechazo a toda forma de autoridad, las drogas psicodélicas, el rock and roll, las minifaldas. Londres era pura efervescencia. La ciudad tenía algo de carnaval libertario sin necesidad de censura ni comisarios", dice Silva.Evolución política hacia la derechaEn ese momento Vargas Llosa vive una evolución política. Según sus palabras, ahí "dejó de ser socialista para convertirse en liberal y gran admirador de Margaret Thatcher", la Dama de Hierro, la primera mujer primera ministra, famosa por sus políticas de recortes y transformación económica en la década de los 80.Él mismo quiso convertirse en presidente del Perú y lanzó su candidatura en 1990. Si bien pasó a la segunda vuelta, fue derrotado por Alberto Fujimori.Gunter Silva recuerda que por esos años el Nobel afianzó su visión política."En Londres, Mario Vargas Llosa leyó por primera vez a Popper, a Hayek. Esas ideas sobre la sociedad abierta, el individuo como centro, la protección de las libertades individuales, el rechazo al totalitarismo, influyeron profundamente en su visión política. Londres fue, en ese sentido, más que un lugar físico, fue una ciudad mental, un laboratorio moral", sostiene Silva.De socialista a admirador de ThatcherNo solo Popper y Hayek lo inspiraron. El profesor Stephen Hart estima que Margaret Thatcher también fue una fuente de inspiración política para el escritor. Inclusive recurriría a ella para su campaña a la presidencia."Sabemos que era un gran admirador de Margaret Thatcher porque le escribió una carta. Yo he visto esta carta. Esta carta fue vendida por [la casa de subastas] Sotherby's. En ella Vargas Llosa habla de su admiración por Thatcher. También expresa su apoyo a la democracia popular en todo el mundo, el rechazo de las nacionalizaciones, así como el énfasis en las privatizaciones", apunta Hart.Ahora bien, ¿el Nobel peruano llegó a extrañar Londres?"Me dijo que sí, que la extrañaba; extrañaba ese orden con alma que tenía Londres", responde su compatriota y escritor Gunter Silva, quien le planteó la pregunta hace varios años."Extrañaba lo estimulante que podía ser la ciudad. Me habló de los tés con scones, de los tandooris, de la cantidad de obras de teatro que se exhibían cada noche. Pero también me confesó que donde verdaderamente había sido feliz era en París".

Inspírate, crea nuevos proyectos y expande tu conocimiento en http://www.newmedia.ufm.edu Organizado por: Centro Henry Hazlitt https://chh.ufm.edu/ Facebook @UFM.CHH Una producción de UFM Studios http://newmedia.ufm.edu

Tech billionaires' paradoxical political support of TrumpNick Cohen and Quinn Slobodian,@zeithistoriker, the Canadian author and academic, discuss the paradoxical behaviour of American libertarians, particularly tech billionaires, who have been supporting Donald Trump despite his policies contradicting their beliefs in free trade, limited state interference, and unrestricted business operations. Quinn, a professor of international history at Boston University, introduced his book "Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right," which explores the roots of the modern radical right and helps understand why these individuals seem to make little sense.Neoliberalism's Shift From Globalism to AuthoritarianismQuinn discusses the origins of neoliberal thought and libertarianism in the aftermath of the Habsburg Empire's collapse. He highlighted the Universalist project of Friedrich Hayek, Wilhelm Rupka, and Ludwig von Mises to rebuild the world economy. Quinn also explains how the consensus of globalism started to unravel in the 1990s, leading to a shift in libertarian Universalism towards human differences and acceptance of authoritarian partnerships. He uses the figure of Peter Thiel to illustrate this transformation.Silicon Valley's Libertarian escapism and governmentQuinn discusses the convergence of Silicon Valley escapism and libertarianism, highlighting the story of California and its influence on libertarianism. He also touched on the role of the government in supporting the tech industry, particularly in the development of the Internet. Nick agrees with Quinn's points and added that the hippie movement also sought to reduce the power of the state over the individual.Ultra-rich influence on American societyQuinn and Nick discuss the influence of the ultra-rich on American society. Quinn argued that the ultra-rich have abandoned the need to buy legitimacy, which is a warning sign. Nick suggests that the ultra-rich are not as concerned with America as they should be, and that they are more sanguine about Trump's actions. Quinn also mentioned that the ultra-rich are constantly seeking security and are leaning into the dynamics of capitalist competition. Nick concludes that the ultra-rich are willing to use any means to defeat their perceived enemies, including burning down American cultural institutions.Read all about it!Nick Cohen's @NichCohen4 latest Substack column Writing from London on politics and culture from the UK and beyond.Quinn Slobodian is a Canadian author & historian specialising in modern Germany and international history. He is currently Professor of International History at Boston University. His latest book is Hayek's bastards: The Neoliberal roots of the Populist Right. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

La W conversó con Munther al-Hayek, portavoz de Fatah en Gaza, el partido que lidera la Autoridad Nacional Palestina y que gobierna Cisjordania, facción rival de Hamás.

Quinn Slobodian, author of Hayek's Bastards, talks about the IQ- and race-obsessed goldbugs of second generation neoliberalism. Behind the News, hosted by Doug Henwood, covers the worlds of economics and politics and their complex interactions, from the local to the global. Find the archive online: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/radio.html

Few Americans have been as explicit in their warnings about Donald Trump than the St. Louis based writer Sarah Kendzior. Her latest book, The Last American Road Trip, is a memoir chronicling Kendzior's journey down Route 66 to show her children America before it is destroyed. Borrowing from her research of post Soviet Central Asia, Kendzior argues that Trump is establishing a kleptocratic “mafia state” designed to fleece the country of its valuables. This is the third time that Kendzior has been on the show and I have to admit I've always been slightly skeptical of her apocalyptic take on Trump. But given the damage that the new administration is inflicting on America, I have to admit that many of Kendzior's warnings now appear to be uncannily prescient. As she warns, it's Springtime in America. And things are about to get much much hotter. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* Kendzior views Trump's administration as a "mafia state" or kleptocracy focused on stripping America for parts rather than traditional fascism, comparing it to post-Soviet oligarchic systems she studied as an academic.* She believes American institutions have failed to prevent authoritarianism, criticizing both the Biden administration and other institutional leaders for not taking sufficient preventative action during Trump's first term.* Despite her bleak analysis, Kendzior finds hope in ordinary Americans and their capacity for mutual care and resistance, even as she sees formal leadership failing.* Kendzior's new book The Last American Road Trip follows her journey to show her children America before potential collapse, using Route 66 as a lens to examine American decay and resilience.* As an independent voice, she describes being targeted through both publishing obstacles and personal threats, yet remains committed to staying in her community and documenting what's happening. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, it is April the 18th, 2025, a Friday. I'm thrilled today that we have one of my favorite guests back on the show. I call her the Cassandra of St. Louis, Sarah Kendzior. Many of you know her from her first book, which was a huge success. All her books have done very well. The View from Flyover Country. She was warning us about Trump and Trumpism and MAGA. She was first on our show in 2020. Talking about media in the age of Trump. She had another book out then, Hiding in Plain Sight, The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America. Then in 2022, she came back on the show to talk about how a culture of conspiracy is keeping America simultaneously complacent and paranoid that the book was called or is called, They Knew. Another big success. And now Sarah has a new book out. It's called The Last American Road Trip. It's a beautifully written book, a kind of memoir, but a political one, of course, which one would expect from Sarah Kendzior. And I'm thrilled, as I said, that the Cassandra of St. Louis is joining us from St. Louis. Sarah, congratulations on the new book.Sarah Kendzior: Oh, thank you. And thank you for having me back on.Andrew Keen: Well, it's an honor. So these four books, how does the last American road trip in terms of the narrative of your previous three hits, how does it fit in? Why did you write it?Sarah Kendzior: Well, this book kind of pivots off the epilog of hiding in plain sight. And that was a book about political corruption in the United States and the rise of Trump. But in the epilogue, I describe how I was trying as a mom to show my kids America in the case that it ended due to both political turmoil and corruption and also climate change. I wanted them to see things themselves. So I was driving them around the country to national parks, historic sites, et cetera. And so many people responded so passionately to that little section, especially parents really struggling on how to raise children in this America that I ended up writing a book that covers 2016 to 2024 and my attempts to show my children everything I could in the time that we had. And as this happens, my children went from relatively young kids to teenagers, my daughter's almost an adult. And so it kind of captures America during this time period. It's also just a travelog, a road trip book, a memoir. It's a lot of things at once.Andrew Keen: Yeah, got great review from Ms. magazine comparing you with the great road writers, Kerouac, of course, and Steinbeck, but Kerouak and Steinback, certainly Kerouack was very much of a solitary male. Is there a female quality to this book? As you say, it's a book as much about your kids and the promise of America as it is about yourself.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I think there is in that, you know, I have a section actually about the doomed female road trip where it's, you know, Thelma and Louise or Janet Bates and Psycho or even songs about, you know, being on the road and on the run that are written by women, you know, like Merle Haggard's I'm a Lonesome Fugitive, had to be sung by men to convey that quality. And there aren't a lot of, you know, mom on the Road with her husband and kids kind of books. That said, I think of it as a family book, a parenting book. I certainly think men would like it just as much as women would, and people without kids would like just as people with kids, although it does seem to strike a special resonance with families struggling with a lot of the same issues that I do.Andrew Keen: It's all about the allure of historic Route 66. I've been on that. Anyone who's driven across the country has you. You explain that it's a compilation of four long trips across Route 66 in 1998, 2007, 2017, and 2023. That's almost 40 years, Sarah. Sorry, 30. Getting away my age there, Andrew. My math isn't very good. I mean, how has Route 66 and of course, America changed in that period? I know that's a rather leading question.Sarah Kendzior: No, I mean, I devote quite a lot of the book to Route 66 in part because I live on it, you know, goes right through St. Louis. So, I see it just every day. I'll be casually grocery shopping and then be informed I'm on historic Route 66 all of a sudden. But you know it's a road that is, you once was the great kind of romanticized road of escape and travel. It was decommissioned notably by Ronald Reagan after the creation of the interstate. And now it's just a series of rural roads, frontage roads, roads that end abruptly, roads that have gone into ruin, roads that are in some really beautiful places in terms of the landscape. So it really is this conglomeration of all of America, you know of the decay and the destruction and the abandonment in particular, but also people's, their own memories, their own artistic works, you know roadside shrines and creations that are often, you know pretty off beat. That they've put to show this is what I think of our country. These are my values. This is what, I think, is important. So it's a very interesting journey to take. It's often one I'm kind of inadvertently on just because of where I live and the direction I go. We'll mirror it. So I kept passing these sites again and again. I didn't set out to write this book. Obviously, when I first drove it when I was 19, I didn't know that this was our future. But looking back, especially at technological change, at how we travel, at how trust each other, at all of these things that have happened to this country since this time, it's really something. And that road will bring back all of those memories of what was lost and what remains to be lost. And of course it's hitting its 100th anniversary next year, so I'm guessing there'll be a lot of reminiscing about Route 66.Andrew Keen: Book about memories, you write about that, eventually even your memory will just or this experience of this trip will just be a memory. What does that suggest about contextualizing the current moment in American history? It's too easy to overdramatize it or perhaps it's hard not to over dramatize it given what's happening. I want to talk about a little bit about that your take on America on April the 18th, 2025. But how does that make sense of a memorial when you know that even your memories will become memories?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean it's hard to talk frankly about what's happening in America now without it sounding over dramatic or hyperbolic, which I think is why so many people were reluctant to believe me over my last decade of warnings that the current crises and catastrophes that we're experiencing are coming, are possible, and need to be actively stopped. I don't think they were inevitable, but they needed to be stopped by people in charge who refused to do it. And so, my reaction to this as a writer, but just as a human being is to write everything down, is to keep an ongoing record, not only of what I witness now, but of what know of our history, of what my own values are, of what place in the world is. And back in 2016, I encouraged everyone to do this because I knew that over the next decade, people would be told to accept things that they would normally never accept, to believe things that they would normally, never believe. And if you write down where you stand, you always have that point of reference to look back towards. It doesn't have to be for publication. It doesn't have to for the outside world. It can just be for yourself. And so I think that that's important. But right now, I think everyone has a role to play in battling what is an authoritarian kleptocracy and preventing it from hurting people. And I think people should lean into what they do best. And what I do best is write and research and document. So that's what I meant. Continue to do, particularly as history itself is under assault by this government.Andrew Keen: One of the things that strikes me about you, Sarah, is that you have an unusual background. You got a PhD in Soviet studies, late Soviet studies.Sarah Kendzior: Anthropology, yeah, but that was nice.Andrew Keen: But your dissertation was on the Uzbek opposition in exile. I wonder whether that experience of studying the late Soviet Union and its disintegration equipped you in some ways better than a lot of domestic American political analysts and writers for what's happening in America today. We've done a number of shows with people like Pete Weiner, who I'm sure you know his work from the Atlantic of New York Times. About learning from East European resistance writers, brave people like Milan Kundra, of course, Vaclav Havel, Solzhenitsyn. Do you think your earlier history of studying the Soviet Union helped you prepare, at least mentally, intellectually, for what's happening in the United States?Sarah Kendzior: Oh, absolutely. I think it was essential, because there are all sorts of different types of authoritarianism. And the type that Trump and his backers have always pursued was that of a mafia state, you know, of a kleptocracy. And Uzbekistan is the country that I knew the most. And actually, you what I wrote my dissertation about, this is between 2006, and 2012, was the fact that after a massacre of civilians... A lot of Uzbekistan's journalists, activists, political figures, opposition figures, et cetera, went into exile and then they immediately started writing blogs. And so for the very first time, they had freedom of speech. They had never had it in Uzbekistan. And they start revealing the whole secret history of Uzbekistan and everything going on and trying to work with each other, try to sort of have some impact on the political process in Uzbekistan. And they lost. What happened was the dictator died, Islam Karimov died, in 2016, and was replaced by another dictator who's not quite as severe. But watching the losing side and also watching people persevere and hold on to themselves and continue working despite that loss, I think, was very influential. Because you could look at Václav Havel or Lech Walesa or, you know, other sort of. People who won, you know, from Eastern Europe, from the revolutions of 1989 and so forth. And it's inspiring that sometimes I think it's really important to look at the people who did not succeed, but kept going anyway. You know, they didn't surrender themselves. They didn't their morality and they didn't abandon their fellow man. And I think that that's important. And also just to sort of get at the heart of your question, yes, you the structure of it, oligarchs who shake down countries, strip them and sell them for parts. Mine them for resources. That model, especially of what happened to Russia, actually, in particular in the 1990s of these oligarch wars, is what I see as the future of the United States right now. That is what they're trying to emulate.Andrew Keen: That we did a show with Steve Hansen and Jeff Kopstein, both political scientists, on what they see. They co-wrote a book on patrimonialism. This is the model they see there. They're both Max Weber scholars, so they borrow from that historic sociological analysis. And Kopstein was on the show with John Rausch as well, talking about this patrimonials. And so you, do you share the Kopstein-Hansen-Rausch analysis. Roush wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this too, which did very well. But this isn't conventional fascism or communism. It's a kind of 21st century version of patrimonialism.Sarah Kendzior: It's definitely not traditional fascism and one of the main reasons for that is a fascist has loyalty to the state. They seek to embody the state, they seek to expand the state recently Trump has been doing this more traditional route somewhat things like wanting to buy Greenland. But I think a lot of what he's doing is in reaction to climate change and also by the way I don't think Trump is the mastermind or originator. Of any of these geopolitical designs. You know, he has a team, we know about some of them with the Heritage Foundation Project 2025. We know he has foreign advisors. And again, you know, Trump is a corporate raider. That is how he led his business life. He's a mafia associate who wants to strip things down and sell them for parts. And that's what they wanna do with the United States. And that, yes, there are fascist tactics. There are fascists rhetoric. You know there are a lot of things that this country will, unfortunately, and has. In common, you know, with, say, Nazi Germany, although it's also notable that of course Nazi Germany borrowed from a lot of the tactics of Jim Crow, slavery, genocide of Native Americans. You know, this has always been a back and forth and America always has had some form of selective autocracy. But yeah, I think the folks who try to make this direct line and make it seem like the 20th century is just simply being revived, I've always felt like they were off because. There's no interest for these plutocrats in the United States even existing as a sovereign body. Like it truly doesn't matter to them if all of our institutions, even something as benign as the Postal Service, collapse. That's actually beneficial for them because then they can privatize, they can mine resources, they can make money for themselves. And I really worry that their goal is partition, you know, is to take this country. And to split it into smaller pieces that are easier to control. And that's one of the reasons I wrote this book, that I wrote The Last American Road Trip because I don't want people to fall for traps about generalizations or stereotypes about different regions of this country. I want them to see it as a whole and that our struggles are interconnected and we have a better chance of winning if we stand by each other.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and your book, in particular, The View from Flyover Country was so important because it wasn't written from San Francisco or Los Angeles or D.C. Or New York. It was written from St. Louis. So in a way, Sarah, you're presenting Trump as the ultimate Hayekian b*****d. There's a new book out by Quinn Slobodian called Hayek's B******s, which connects. Trumpianism and mago with Neoliberalism you don't see a break. We've done a lot of shows on the rise and fall of neoliberalism. You don't say a break between Hayek and TrumpSarah Kendzior: I think that in terms of neoliberalism, I think it's a continuation of it. And people who think that our crises began with Trump becoming the president in 2017, entering office, are deluded because the pathway to Trump even being able to run for president given that he was first investigated by the Department of Justice in 1973 and then was linked to a number of criminal enterprises for decades after. You know, that he was able to get in that position, you know that already showed that we had collapsed in certain respects. And so I think that these are tied together. You know, this has a lot to do with greed, with a, you know a disregard for sovereignty, a disregard human rights. For all of this Trump has always served much better as a demagogue, a front man, a figurehead. I do think, you he's a lot smarter. Than many of his opponents give him credit for. He is very good at doing what he needs to do and knowing what he need to know and nothing more. The rest he gives to the bureaucrats, to the lawyers, et cetera. But he fills this persona, and I do wonder what will happen when he is gone because they've tried very hard to find a successor and it's always failed, like DeSantis or Nikki Haley or whoever. And I kind of wonder if one of the reasons things are moving so, so fast now is they're trying to get a lot of things in under the wire while he's still alive, because I don't think that there's any individual who people have the loyalty to. His cult is not that big. It's a relatively small segment of the country, but it is very intense and very loyal to him. I don't think that loyalty is transferable.Andrew Keen: Is there anything, you know, I presented you as the Cassandra from St. Louis, you've seen the future probably clearer than most other people. Certainly when I first came across your work, I wasn't particularly convinced. I'm much more convinced now. You were right. I was wrong. Is there, anything about Trump too, that surprised you? I mean, any of the, the cruelty? Open corruption, the anger, the hostility, the attempt to destroy anything of any value in America, the fact that they seem to take such great pleasure in destroying this country's most valuable thing.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, it's extremely sad and no, he doesn't surprise me at all. He's been the same guy since I was a little kid. You know, he was a plot line on children's television shows in the 1980s where as a child, I was supposed to know that the name Trump was synonymous with corruption, with being a tax cheat, with being a liar, you know, these were just sort of cultural codes that I was expected to know. What surprised me more is that no one stopped him because this threat was incredibly obvious. And that so many people in power have joined in, and I'm assuming they're joining in because they would rather be on the side with all that power than be a target of that power, but that they feel apparently no sense of loss, no sense grief for things like the loss of national parks, public education, the postal service, things that most folks like, social security for your elderly parents. Most Americans... Want these things. And most Americans, regardless of political party, don't want to see our country torn apart in this fashion. And so I'm not surprised by Trump. I'm surprised at the extent of his enablers at the complicity of the press and of the FBI and other institutions. And, you know, it's also been very jarring to watch how open they are this time around, you know, things like Elon Musk and his operation taking out. Classified information. The thing is, is I'm pretty sure Trump did all that. I mean, we know Trump did this in his first term, you know, and they would emphasize things like this box of physical written documents in Mar-a-Lago illegally taken. But, you know my mind always just went to, well, what did they do digitally? Because that seems much easier and much more obvious. What did they with all of these state secrets that they had access to for four years? What kind of leverage would that give them? And I think now they're just kind of, they're not bothering to hide anything anymore. I think they set the stage and now, you know, we're in the midst of the most horrible play, the most terrible performance ever. And it's, you can be still crushing at times.Andrew Keen: And of course, the real question is whether we're in the last act. Your book, The Last American Road Trip, was written, mostly written, what, in 2024 from?Sarah Kendzior: 2023.Andrew Keen: 2023. So, I mean, here's, I don't know if you can answer this, Sarah, but you know as much about middle America and middle Americans as anyone. You're on the road, you talk to everyone, you have a huge following, both on the left and the right in some ways. Some of your books now, you told me before we went live, some of your previous books, like Hiding in Plain Sight, suddenly become a big hit amongst conservative Americans. What does Trump or the MAGA people around him, what do they have to do to lose the support of ordinary Americans? As you say, they're destroying the essential infrastructure, medical, educational, the roads, the railways, everything is being destroyed, carted off almost like Stalin carted of half of the Soviet Union back into Asia during the Second World War. What does he have to do to lose the support of Middle America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, I don't think middle America, you know, by which like a giant swath of the country that's, that's just ideological, diverse, demographically diverse supports him. I mean some do certainly. He's got some hardcore acolytes. I think most people are disillusioned with the entire political system. They are deeply frustrated by Trump. They were deeply frustrated. By Biden, they're struggling to pay bills. They're struggling. To hold on to basic human rights. And they're mad that their leverage is gone. People voted in record numbers in 2020. They protested in record number throughout Trump's first term. They've made their concerns known for a very long time and there are just very few officials really listening or responding. And I think that initially when Trump reentered the picture, it caused folks to just check out mentally because it was too overwhelming. I think it's why voter turnout was lower because the Democrats, when they won, didn't make good on their promises. It's a very simple thing. If you follow through with your campaign platform that was popular, then you're going to retain those voters. If you don't, you may lose them, especially when you're up against a very effective demagogue who has a way with rhetoric. And so we're just in such a bad place, such a painful place. I don't think people will look to politicians to solve their problems and with very good reason. I'm hoping that there are more of a sense of community support, more of sense that we're all in this together, especially as financially things begin to fall apart. Trump said openly in 2014 that he intended to crash the American economy. He said this on a Fox News clip that I found in 2016. Because it was being reprinted all over Russian-language media. They loved this clip because it also praised Putin and so forth. And I was astounded by it. I was like, why in the world isn't this all over every TV station, every radio station? He's laying out the whole plan, and now he's following that plan. And so I'm very concerned about that. And I just hope people in times like this, traditionally, this opens the door to fascism. People become extremely afraid. And in their fear they want a scapegoat, they are full of rage, they take it out on each other. That is the worst possible move right now from both a moral or a strategic view. People need to protect each other, to respect each other as fully human, to recognize almost everyone here, except for a little tiny group of corrupt billionaires, is a victim in this scenario, and so I don't see a big difference between, you know, myself and... Wherever I go. I was in Tulsa yesterday, I was in San Francisco last week. We're all in this together and I see a lot of heartache wherever I go. And so if people can lend each other support, that is the best way to get through this.Andrew Keen: Are you suggesting then that he is the Manchurian candidate? Why did he say that in 2014?Sarah Kendzior: Well, it was interesting. He was on Fox during the Sochi Olympics, and he was talking about how he speaks with Putin every day, their pals, and that Putin is going to produce a really big win for us, and we're all going to be very happy about it. And then he went on to say that the crashing of the economy and riots throughout America is what will make America great again. And this is in February 2014. Fox has deleted the clip, You know, other people have copies. So it is, it's also in my book hiding in plain sight, the transcript of that. I'm not sure, like a Manchurian candidate almost feels, you know like the person would have to be blackmailed or coerced or brainwashed somehow to participate. I think Trump is a true volunteer and his loyalty isn't to Russia per se. You know, his loyalty is to his bank accounts, like his loyalty is to power. And one thing he's been after his whole life was immunity from prosecution because he has been involved or adjacent to such an enormous number of crimes. And then when the Supreme Court granted him that, he got what he wanted and he's not afraid of breaking the law in any way. He's doing what all autocrats do, which is rewrite the law so that he is no longer breaking it. And he has a team of lawyers who help him in that agenda. So I feel like on one sense, he's very. All-American. It's kind of a sad thing that as he destroys America, he's doing it in a very American way. He plays a lot of great American music at his rallies. He has a vernacular that I can relate to that and understand it while detesting everything he's doing and all of his horrific policies. But what they want to turn us into though, I think is something that all Americans just won't. Recognized. And we've had the slipping away of a kind of unified American culture for a while, I think because we've lost our pop culture, which is really where a lot of people would bond, you know, movies, music, all of it became split into streaming services, you know. All of it became bifurcated. People stopped seeing each other as much face to face, you know, during COVID and then that became kind of a permanent thing. We're very fragmented and that hurts us badly. And all we've kind of got left is I guess sports and then politics. So people take all the effort that they used to put into devouring American pop culture or American civic life and they put it into this kind of politics that the media presents as if it's a game, like initially a horse race during the election and now like, ooh, will the evil dictator win? It's like, this is our lives. Like we have a lot on the line. So I wish they would do, they would take their job more seriously too. Of course, they're up paywalled and on streaming sites, so who's watching anyway, but still it is a problem.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting you talk about this death wish, you mentioned Thelma and Louise earlier, one of the great movies, American road movies, maybe in an odd way, the final scene of the Trump movie will be similar to the, you seem to be suggesting to, I'm not gonna give away the end of Thelmer and Louise to anyone who's watching who hasn't seen it, you do need to see it, similar ending to that movie. What about, you've talked about resistance, Sarah, a one of. The most influential, I guess, resistors to Trump and Trumpism. You put up an X earlier this month about the duty of journalism to resist, the duty to thinkers to resist. Some people are leaving, guys like Tim Snyder, his wife, Marcy Shaw, Jason Stanley, another expert on fascism. You've made it clear that you're staying. What's your take on people like Snyder who are leaving this country?Sarah Kendzior: Well, from what I know, he made a statement saying he had decided to move to Canada before Trump was put in office. Jason Stanley, on the other hand, explicitly said he's moving there because Trump is in office, and my first thought when I heard about all of them was, well, what about their students? Like, what about all these students who are being targeted by ICE, who are being deported? What about their TAs? What about everyone who's in a more vulnerable position. You know, when you have a position of power and influence, you could potentially do a lot of good in helping people. You know I respect everyone's decision to live wherever they want. Like it's not my business. But I do think that if you have that kind of chance to do something powerful for the community around you, especially the most vulnerable people in it who at this time are green card holders, people here on visas, we're watching this horrific crackdown at all these universities. My natural inclination would be to stay and take a stand and not abandon them. And I guess, you know, people, they do things in different ways or they may have their own personal concerns and, you know that's fine. I just know, you know I'm not leaving, you know, like I've got elderly parents and in-laws. I've got relatives who need me. I have a lot of people who depend on me and they depend on me in St. Louis and in Missouri. Because there aren't that many journalists in St. Louis. I think there could be, there are a lot of great writers in St Louis, you know, who have given a chance, given a platform, you could really show you what it's actually like here instead of all these stereotypes. But we're always, always marginalized. Like even I'm marginalized and I think I'm, you know, probably the most well-known in terms of being a political commentator. And so I feel like it's important to stand my ground but also You know, I love this, this state in the city and I love my community and I can't fathom, you know, leaving people in the lurch at a time like this. When I'm doing better, I'm on more solid ground despite being a target of various, you know organizations and individuals. I'm at a more solid down than somebody who's a, you know a black American or an immigrant or impoverished. Like I feel like it is my job to stand up for you know, folks here and let everyone know, you know what's going on and be somebody who they can come to and feel like that's safe.Andrew Keen: You describe yourself, Sarah, as a target. Your books have done very well. Most of them have been bestsellers. I'm sure the last American road trip will do very well, you're just off.Sarah Kendzior: It is the bestseller as of yesterday. It is your bestseller, congratulations. Yeah, our USA Today bestsellers, so yeah.Andrew Keen: Excellent. So that's good news. You've been on the road, you've had hundreds of people show up. I know you wrote about signing 600 books at Left Bank Books, which is remarkable. Most writers would cut off both hands for that. How are you being targeted? You noted that some of your books are being taken off the shelves. Are they being banned or discouraged?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, basically, what's been happening is kind of akin to what you see with universities. I just think it's not as well publicized or publicized at all, where there's not some sort of, you know, like the places will give in to what they think this administration wants before they are outright told to do it. So yes, there is an attempt to remove hiding in plain sight from circulation in 2024 to, you know, make the paperback, which at the time was ranked on Amazon. At number 2,000. It was extremely popular because this is the week that the Supreme Court gave Trump immunity. I was on vacation when I found out it was being pulled out of circulation. And I was in rural New Mexico and I had to get to a place with Wi-Fi to try to fight back for my book, which was a bestseller, a recent publication. It was very strange to me and I won that fight. They put it back, but a lot of people had tried to order it at that time and didn't get it. And a lot of people try to get my other books and they just can't get them. You know, so the publisher always has a warehouse issue or a shipping problem and you know, this kind of comes up or you know people notice, they've noticed this since 2020, you know I don't get reviewed in the normal kind of place as a person that has best selling books one after another would get reviewed. You know, that kind of thing is more of a pain. I always was able to circumvent it before through social media. But since Musk took over Twitter and because of the way algorithms work, it's more and more difficult for me to manage all of the publicity and PR and whatnot on my own. And so, you know, I'm grateful that you're having me on your show. I'm also grateful that, you Know, Flatiron did give me a book tour. That's helped tremendously. But there's that. And then there's also just the constant. Death threats and threats of you know other things you know things happening to people I love and it's been scary and I get used to it and that I expect it but you know you never could really get used to people constantly telling you that they're gonna kill you you know.Andrew Keen: When you get death threats, do you go to the authorities, have they responded?Sarah Kendzior: No, there's no point. I mean, I have before and it was completely pointless. And, you know, I'll just mostly just go to people I know who I trust to see if they can check in on things. I have to be very vague here who are not in the government or in the police or anything like that. I don't think anyone would protect me. I really just don't think anyone could help. You know, one thing is, you know, yes, I'm a prominent critic of Trump and his administration, but I was also a prominent critic of. The DOJ and Merrick Garland for not doing anything about all of these threats and also a critic of Biden and the Democrats for not impeaching quickly, for not being more proactive, for not acting with greater urgency. So I'm targeted by kind of everyone except for people who don't have any power, which is a strange situation to be in because I love my readers and I think that they're wonderful and I'm incredibly grateful for them because my books largely spread through word of mouth. It is scary for me, just as like a mom in Missouri without a lot of resources to be targeted by all of these kind of high profile, wealthy, powerful people. But all I have is my voice and my writing. And so I just do what I can. And that's just the way the cards have been dealt for me and it is what it is, so.Andrew Keen: Later historians write about this period in 50 or 100 years time. How do you think you mentioned the Biden administration, you were critical of them. We haven't talked about Kamala Harris's failed presidential term, which I wasn't particularly impressed with. How much moral responsibility do you think that Biden and Harris should be accused of for Trump too?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, I'd be delighted if we have historians in the future. Well, I will be, even if I don't.Andrew Keen: Well, there will be, even if, I don't know, in America, there'll be somewhere.Sarah Kendzior: I is where it'll be some sort of AI creation that just, you know, belches out, make America great again, like, you know, like in The Shining or something, just over and over and over again. But assuming we have real historians that actually assess the situation, I think they are going to be tremendously critical of the Biden administration. I think it may in fact go down as one of the worst of all time. And he will be seen as a Neville Chamberlain-like figure who had the opportunity to stop or slow A number of autocratic practices and either chose to look the other way or to enable them. Because the thing is, in 2016, people were very doubtful that America could become an autocratic state. They hadn't seen this before. A lot of this was new to them. From 2016 through 2021, we saw all that Trump was capable of, and he committed a large multitude of crimes,RetryClaude hit the max length for a message and has paused its response. You can write Continue to keep the chat going.AKplease continueEditHere's the continuation of the transcript:Sarah Kendzior: ...and those crimes, not just him, but his cohort were never held accountable. And what they did during the Biden years was plan all of their next moves. Like you don't suddenly have a gulag for Americans in El Salvador, like just off the top of your head. You know, all of this takes planning. We knew about a lot of the plans, you know, the Democrats campaigned about combating Project 2025. And my question to them was, well, what what if you lose? How are you going to combat it then? You know what, if he gets back, what are you gonna do? They would be so offended. They're like, how dare you, you question us. How dare you question, you know, our plans? They're, like, well, I don't, you don't have a plan. Like, that's my question is what is the plan? And they didn't. And they could have spent those four years creating a bulwark against a lot of the most horrific policies that we're seeing now. Instead, they're kind of reacting on the fly if they're even reacting at all. And meanwhile, people are being targeted, deported, detained. They're suffering tremendously. And they're very, very scared. I think it's very scary to have a total dearth of leadership from where the, not just the opposition, but just people with basic respect for the constitution, our civil rights, etc., are supposed to be.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Project 2025, we've got David Graham on the show next week, who's written a book about Project 2025. Is there anything positive to report, Sarah? I mean, some people are encouraged by the behavior, at least on Friday, the 18th of April, who knows what will happen over the weekend or next week. Behavior of Harvard, some law firms are aggressively defending their rights. Should we be encouraged by the universities, law firms, even some corporate leaders are beginning to mutter under their breath about Trump and Trumpism?Sarah Kendzior: And it depends whether they actually have that power in wielded or whether they're just sort of trying to tamper down public dissent. I'm skeptical of these universities and law firms because I think they should have had a plan long ago because I was very obvious that all of this was going to happen and I feel so terribly for all of the students there that were abandoned by these administrations, especially places like Columbia. That gave in right away. What does hearten me though, you know, and I, as you said, I'd been on this tour, like I was all over the West coast. I've been all over, the Midwest and the South is, Americans, Americans do understand what's happening. There's always this like this culture in media of like, how do we break it to Americans? Like, yeah, well, we know, we know out here in Missouri that this is very bad. And I think that people have genuine concern for each other. I think they still have compassion for each other. I think there's a culture of cruelty that's promoted online and it's incentivized. You know, you can make money that way. You could get clicks that that way, whatever, but in real life, I think people feel vulnerable. They feel afraid, but I've seen so much kindness. I've been so much concern and determination from people who don't have very much, and maybe that's, you know, why people don't know about it. These are just ordinary folks. And so I have great faith in American people to combat this. And what I don't have faith in is our institutions. And I hope that these sort of in between places, places like universities who do a lot of good on one hand, but also can kind of act as like hedge funds. On the other hand, I hope they move fully to the side of good and that they purge themselves of these corrupt elements that have been within them for a long time, the more greedy. Aspects of their existence. I hope they see themselves as places that uphold civic life and history and provide intellectual resistance and shelter for students in the storm. They could be a really powerful force if they choose to be. It's never too late to change. I guess that's the message I want to bring home. Even if I'm very critical of these places, it's never to late for them to change and to do the right thing.Andrew Keen: Well, finally, Sarah, a lot of people are going to be watching this on my Substack page. Your Substack Page, your newsletter, They Knew, I think has last count, 52,000 subscribers. Is this the new model for independent writers, journalist thinkers like yourself? I'm not sure of those 52,00, how many of them are paid. You noted that your book has disappeared co-isindecially sometimes. So maybe some publishers are being intimidated. Is the future for independent thinkers, platforms like Substack, where independent authors like yourself can establish direct intellectual and commercial relations with their readers and followers?Sarah Kendzior: It's certainly the present. I mean, this is the only place or other newsletter outlets, I suppose, that I could go. And I purposefully divorced myself from all institutions except for my publisher because I knew that this kind of corruption would inhibit me from being able to say the truth. This is why I dropped out of academia, I dropped out of regular journalism. I have isolated myself to some degree on purpose. And I also just like being in control of this and having direct access to my readers. However, what does concern me is, you know, Twitter used to also be a place where I had direct access to people I could get my message out. I could circumvent a lot of the traditional modes of communication. Now I'm essentially shadow banned on there, along with a lot of people. And you know Musk has basically banned substack links because of his feud with Matt Taibbi. You know, that led to, if you drop a substack link in there, it just gets kind of submerged and people don't see it. So, you know, I think about Twitter and how positive I was about that, maybe like 12, 13 years ago, and I wonder how I feel about Substack and what will happen to it going forward, because clearly, you Know, Trump's camp realizes the utility of these platforms, like they know that a lot of people who are prominent anti authoritarian voices are using them to get the word out when they are when they lose their own platform at, like, say, the Washington Post or MSNBC or... Whatever network is corrupted or bullied. And so eventually, I think they'll come for it. And, you know, so stack has problems on its own anyway. So I am worried. I make up backups of everything. I encourage people to consume analog content and to print things out if they like them in this time. So get my book on that note, brand new analog content for you. A nice digital.Andrew Keen: Yeah, don't buy it digitally. I assume it's available on Kindle, but you're probably not too keen or even on Amazon and Bezos. Finally, Sarah, this is Friday. Fridays are supposed to be cheerful days, the days before the weekend. Is there anything to be cheerful about on April The 18th 2025 in America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, yeah, there's things to be cheerful about, you know, pre spring, nice weather. I'm worried about this weekend. I'll just get this out real quick. You know, this is basically militia Christmas. You know, This is the anniversary of Waco, the Oklahoma City bombings, Columbine. It's Hitler's birthday. This is a time when traditionally American militia groups become in other words,Andrew Keen: Springtime in America.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, springtime for Hitler. You know, and so I'm worried about this weekend. I'm worry that if there are anti-Trump protests that they'll be infiltrated by people trying to stoke the very riots that Trump said he wanted in order to, quote, make America great again and have everything collapse. So everyone, please be very, very careful this weekend heading out and just be aware of the. Of these dates and the importance of these days far predates Trump to, you know, militia groups and other violent extremist groups.Andrew Keen: Well, on that cheerful note, I asked you for a positive note. You've ruined everyone's weekend, probably in a healthy way. You are the Cassandra from St. Louis. Appreciate your bravery and honesty in standing up to Trump and Trumpism, MAGA America. Congratulations on the new book. As you say, it's available in analog form. You can buy it. Take it home, protect it, dig a hole in your garden and protect it from the secret police. Congratulations on the new book. As I said to you before we went live, it's a beautifully written book. I mean, you're noted as a polemicist, but I thought this book is your best written book, the other books were well written, but this is particularly well written. Very personal. So congratulations on that. And Sarah will have to get you back on the show. I'm not sure how much worse things can get in America, but no doubt they will and no doubt you will write about it. So keep well, keep safe and keep doing your brave work. Thank you so much.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, you too. Thank you so much for your kind words and for having me on again. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this explosive episode of Soar Financially, Dr. Judy Shelton—former economic advisor to President Trump and Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute—joins us to deliver a sharp critique of the Federal Reserve and propose bold reforms that could reshape the global financial system.We unpack the true role of the Fed, gold-backed bonds, currency manipulation, Bretton Woods 2.0, and how to restore monetary integrity in America.-Why is the Fed too powerful?- Could gold-backed 50-year bonds anchor the dollar?- And is the U.S. actually “cheating” in global markets?#Gold #federalreserve #goldstandard ------------

Quinn Slobodian, author of Hayek's Bastards, talks about the IQ- and race-obsessed goldbugs of second generation neoliberalism The post Hayek's bastards: the second, cruder generation of neoliberals appeared first on KPFA.

RE-BROADCAST: The Tragedy of King Lear by William Shakespeare w/Libby Unger---Welcome & Introduction - 0:01:35CEOs Building Stronger Companies with Common Touch LeadershipLessons from Shakespeare's King Lear for Modern LeadersNever Forget Your Roots: Lessons in Humility and Servant LeadershipChallenge Assumptions Cultivate Servant LeadershipBuild What Good Looks LikeLeadership Lessons from the Great BooksThe Importance of Truth TellersLessons from the Decline of EmpiresMorality and Leadership from King LearTaking Ruthless InventorySelf-Awareness Can Transform Your LeadershipRhetoric, Positions, and Principles Seek Truth, Act LocallyFalse Promises in Leadership Don't DeliverThe Power and EliteInsights into an Insular Leadership StructureSaying "No" Staying on the Path with King Lear by William Shakespeare---Listen to Libby Unger on Episode #42 - The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek w/Libby Unger ---> https://share.transistor.fm/s/512f183cLibby Unger on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/libbyunger/Libby Unger Email Contact - libby@lumineaula.comLibby Unger's Website - http://lumineaula.com/---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!---Check out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvVbIU_bSEflwYpd9lWXuA/.Leadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTlbx. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Author Quinn Slobodian returns to “This Is Hell!” to talk about his new book, “Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ and the Capitalism of the Far Right”, published by Zone Books. Check out Quinn's book here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9781890951917?srsltid=AfmBOopa361sL5mow9Y4zSXDsHQXyvTQBZ0YZASHJvW-UyhbliOMShxt Keep TiH! free and completely listener supported by subscribing to our weekly bonus Patreon podcast or visiting thisishell.com/pages/support

We are joined by yet another TMK favorite, Quinn Slobodian, who is author of Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right. We discuss Quinn's analysis of “new fusionism” or a mutant strain of neoliberalism that crystallized in the 1990s, which sought to ground and defend neoliberal policies through their own bastardization of biological sciences — cognitive, behavioral, evolutionary, genetic, and so on. They then used scientism to justify and propagate political ideas and economic models based on hardwired human nature and hierarchical differences between races, cultures, and intelligence. The fringes of the 1990s have now become the mainstream of the 2020s. ••• Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right | Quinn Slobodian https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9781890951917/hayeks-bastards Standing Plugs: ••• Order Jathan's new book: https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520398078/the-mechanic-and-the-luddite ••• Subscribe to Ed's substack: https://substack.com/@thetechbubble ••• Subscribe to TMK on patreon for premium episodes: https://www.patreon.com/thismachinekills Hosted by Jathan Sadowski (bsky.app/profile/jathansadowski.com) and Edward Ongweso Jr. (www.x.com/bigblackjacobin). Production / Music by Jereme Brown (bsky.app/profile/jebr.bsky.social)

Quinn Slobodian returns to answer questions sent in by listeners in response to our recent episode on Quinn's new book, Hayek's Bastards: The neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right. If you'd like to get access to this and all other episode of PTO Extra! please consider becoming a £5 supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/poltheoryother

Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson er prófessor emeritus í stjórnmálafræði og hefur sérhæft sig í frjálshyggju. Hann þekkir til í Silicon Valley, hefur hitt Peter Thiel og einnig marga helstu hugsuði frjálshyggjunnar. Hann hefur rætt við Thatcher og Hayek og Milton Friedman. Fáir þekkja hægristefnuna jafn vel og hafa barist jafn mikið fyrir sjónarmiðum frjálshyggjunnar hér á landi, í ræðu og riti. Við ræðum Trump-stjórnina, ólíkar stefnur innan bandaríska hægrisins, muninn á frjálshyggju og liberalisma (sem er víst það sama) og Kísildalinn.

Quinn Slobodian returns to PTO to talk about his new book 'Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right'. Whilst politicians and thinkers of the new right are typically characterised as fierce opponents of neoliberalism, Quinn explains how the emergence of the populist right developed through a split within the neoliberal movement itself. We talked about the intellectual development of the new right, why their neoliberal heritage is often ignored, and how their racism and obsession with borders - though often seen as merely irrational and atavistic - contains its own form of economic rationality.

durée : 00:58:34 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli - En quoi Friedrich Hayek et John Rawls, deux philosophes politiques majeurs du XXe siècle, s'opposent-ils sur la question de la justice sociale ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Thierry Aimar Enseignant-chercheur en sciences économiques à l'Université de Lorraine et à Sciences Po Paris ; Valérie Charolles Économiste et philosophe, chercheuse associée au Laboratoire d' Anthropologie Critique Interdisciplinaire (EHESS/CNRS); Patrick Savidan Professeur au département de droit public et de science politique à l'Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas

In his perpetual quest to mildly trigger his Straussian pals, Josh invites fellow Millennial and Burkean conservative Greg Collins on to discuss how Leo Strauss misconstrued Edmund Burke's political views and lasting impact.  Also discussed are Burke's complex views on natural rights, manners, reform, revolution, social contract theory, classical liberalism, and Rousseau.  Fair warning, dear listener, this one gets nerdy in a hurry!   About Greg Collins From The Kirk Center Dr. Gregory Collins is one of the most celebrated Burke scholars of the rising generation. He is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Program on Ethics, Politics, and Economics at Yale University. He recently received the Buckley Institute's 2024 Lux and Veritas Faculty Prize. His first book, Commerce and Manners in Edmund Burke's Political Economy, examined Edmund Burke's understanding of the connection between markets and morals. Greg has also published articles on Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Frederick Douglass, Eric Voegelin, Leo Strauss, and Britain's East India Company. His additional writings and book reviews can be found in Modern Age, Law & Liberty, National Affairs, National Review, and University Bookman.  You can follow Greg on Twitter @GregCollins111   About the Russell Kirk Center's School of Conservative Studies As is noted in the episode, Josh met Greg during a recent virtual course on Burke. In the month of February, the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal hosted two of the nation's foremost Burke scholars, Ian Crowe and Gregory Collins, as they taught a special class on Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. This was a pilot course offered in anticipation of the official launch of the Russell Kirk Center's School of Conservative Studies in the Fall of 2025. For information about the School and future courses, sign up for the Center's e-letter and print newsletter, Permanent Things. https://kirkcenter.org/permanent-things/  

It's a special (and emotional) edition of Coffee House Shots this Saturday because it is the last with Kate Andrews on this side of the Atlantic. She joins our editor Michael Gove and political correspondent James Heale for a debate on ideology. Kate – a liberal, in the classical British sense – explains exactly why she is not a Conservative and the various tenets that distinguish liberalism from conservatism, whilst Michael makes the case for being a 'pessimistic' conservative.  So, what makes a liberal? What makes a conservative? And was Hayek right in saying that while there isn't much to choose between these two political creeds, ultimately, they need each other.  Produced by Cindy Yu and Oscar Edmondson. Kate Andrews' suggested reading on liberalism: F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom  Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations Deirdre McCloskey: Why Liberalism Works

It's a special (and emotional) edition of Coffee House Shots this Saturday because it is the last with Kate Andrews on this side of the Atlantic. She joins our editor Michael Gove and political correspondent James Heale for a debate on ideology. Kate – a liberal, in the classical British sense – explains exactly why she is not a Conservative and the various tenets that distinguish liberalism from conservatism, whilst Michael makes the case for being a 'pessimistic' conservative. So, what makes a liberal? What makes a conservative? And was Hayek right in saying that while there isn't much to choose between these two political creeds, ultimately, they need each other. Produced by Cindy Yu and Oscar Edmondson. Kate Andrews' suggested reading on liberalism: F. A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom  Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations Deirdre McCloskey: Why Liberalism Works

Send us a textJo Jensen is the founder of MovieGoer and she's currently the SVP of Digital and Entertainment Strategy at Touchdown Strategies, a PR firm. and is an Aspen Institute Civil Society Fellow. Since all fellows have ventures over there, she's currently writing a book called America Has a Girlfriend Problem.Today, we talk about the anxiety of my generation and how to unplug, attempting to grow comfortable with discomfort. We talk about how things have changed and how we can become more active, willing to take leaps that will either succeed or teach us fundamentally important lessons. We also talk about her work with growing audiences and relationships. The first step is always caring about others and seeing their potential. Then we move on to talk about America's Girlfriend Problem, addressing the issues which disproportionately affect single women in America today. Kristi Kendall on Human Action and Inspiring Through Ideas, a Great Antidote podcast.Anna Claire Flowers on F.A. Hayek and Social Structures, a Great Antidote podcast. Kerianne Lawson on Equal Economic Freedoms, a Great Antidote podcast.Nicholas Snow, A Gentlemanly Experiment in the "Loose, Vague, and Indeterminate," at Speaking of Smith.Edward J. Timmons, Occupational Licensing, in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.Support the showNever miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

In this lively new history, Brian Doherty provides a concise, thorough account of the intellectual roots of the American libertarian movement, with helpful summaries of key figures, institutions, and events. Modern Libertarianism effortlessly combines historical insights and intellectual profiles of important figures—including Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and Barry Goldwater—and key institutions such as the Foundation of Economic Education and the Mont Pelerin Society.A superb introduction for the newcomer, yet rich and varied enough for those steeped in the libertarian tradition, Modern Libertarianism is a tribute to those who advocated for the cause of political liberty in America in the 20th century. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss Communism's transformation into a popular political position in the United States. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Cultural Marxism focuses on Marx’s social critiques rather than his economic theories. Cultural Marxists claim that social structures cause the systemic oppression of minority groups. Their critiques center on race, sex, and gender, rather than economic class. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Marx’s economic theories returned to prominence and have combined with the cultural Marxist theories to animate many American political and cultural movements.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss Communism's transformation into a popular political position in the United States. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Cultural Marxism focuses on Marx’s social critiques rather than his economic theories. Cultural Marxists claim that social structures cause the systemic oppression of minority groups. Their critiques center on race, sex, and gender, rather than economic class. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Marx’s economic theories returned to prominence and have combined with the cultural Marxist theories to animate many American political and cultural movements.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In recent years, Bitcoin has undergone a major culture shift which promotes stagnation, complacency & simping to politicians over maximizing the utility of the money. Eric Voskuil & John Carvalho join the show to remind everyone what the mission really is. State of Bitcoin - [00:01:17] Bitcoin Maximalism - [00:01:32] Bitcoin as a Ponzi Scheme - [00:02:27] Transaction Fees - [00:04:57] History of Bitcoin Tokens (Omni, Counterparty, Mastercoin) Definition of Tokens - [00:08:01] Custodial Problems with Tokens - [00:09:12] Bitcoin and Fiat Money - [00:11:09] Why Bitcoiners Talk About Money - [00:15:49] Stateless Money - [00:17:44] Austrian Economics and Bitcoin - [00:21:01] Monetary Inflation vs. Price Inflation - [00:26:01] Cantillon Effect - [00:29:00] Dollar Inflation and Gold - [00:33:59] Misunderstandings in the Bitcoin Community - [00:41:42] Bitcoin Semantics - [00:43:21] Bitcoin Divisibility - [01:00:13] Bitcoin Deflation - [01:03:41] Maxi Price and One Coin Assumption - [01:07:43] Competition Between Monies - [01:13:42] Scaling Bitcoin - [01:22:41] Bitcoin for the Unbanked - [01:26:14] Maximizing Throughput - [01:36:11] Right to Fork - [01:45:45] Running Old Bitcoin Versions - [01:51:35] Bitcoin as Money vs. Credit - [01:56:26] Settlement in Bitcoin - [02:07:45] Peer-to-Peer Credit Systems - [02:14:47] Fractional Reserve Banking - [02:26:32] Bitkit Wallet and Spending vs. Saving - [02:36:13] Block size increases and Bitcoin adoption - [03:00:00] Scaling Bitcoin and transaction validation - [03:01:00] Bitcoin overflowing into Litecoin and quantum resistance - [03:02:00] Pruning historical data and exchange price - [03:03:00] Lightning system complexity and Bitcoin's value proposition - [03:05:00] Bitcoin as an investment and speculation - [03:07:00] Optimizing Bitcoin throughput and developer motivations - [03:09:00] Scaling Bitcoin and speculation - [03:11:00] Shitcoins, scams, and Bitcoin's security model - [03:13:00] Litecoin's extension blocks and Mimblewimble - [03:15:00] Bitcoin's security and the legitimacy of altcoins - [03:17:00] Shitcoins and Bitcoin's essential aspects - [03:19:00] Majority hash power censorship and attacks - [03:21:00] Bitcoin speculation and market dynamics - [03:23:00] Michael Saylor's Bitcoin strategy and MicroStrategy's history - [03:26:00] Saylor's Bitcoin investment and market manipulation - [03:29:00] Saylor's stock sales and Bitcoin's future - [03:31:00] Blockstream's accomplishments and the Chia project - [03:33:00] Blockstream's influence and SegWit - [03:35:00] Adam Back's influence and Blockstream's hype - [03:37:00] Bitcoin Core's power and the need for competition - [03:39:00] Initial block download performance and Bitcoin Core's architecture - [03:41:00] UTXO store and Bitcoin Core's performance - [03:43:00] Parallelism in Bitcoin Core and assumed UTXO - [03:45:00] Initial block download time and Bitcoin Core's scalability - [03:47:00] Monoculture in Bitcoin development and IBD performance - [03:49:00] UTXO cache and shutdown time - [03:51:00] Trust assumptions in Bitcoin Core and UTXO commitments - [03:53:00] Bitcoin Core's halting problem and theoretical download limits - [03:55:00] Sponsorships: Sideshift, LayerTwo Labs, Ciurea - [03:57:00] Drivechains and ZK rollups - [04:02:00] ZK rollups and liquidity on Ethereum - [04:04:00] Drivechains and altcoins - [04:06:00] Scaling Bitcoin and cultural taboos - [04:08:00] Engineer-driven change and Monero's approach - [04:10:00] Confidential transactionsL Zano & DarkFi - [04:12:00] Fungibility and Bitcoin's metadata - [04:14:00] Privacy, metadata, and state surveillance - [04:16:00] Privacy, taint, and Bitcoin mixing - [04:18:00] Bitcoin mixing and plausible deniability - [04:20:00] Mining and company registration - [04:22:00] Block reward and hash power - [04:24:00] Privacy and mixing - [04:26:00] Privacy in the Bitcoin whitepaper and zero-knowledge proofs - [04:28:00] Dark Wallet and John Dillon - [04:30:00] Dark Wallet and Li Bitcoin - [04:32:00] Amir Taaki's projects and software development - [04:34:00] Dark Wallet funding and developer costs - [04:36:00] Libbitcoin's code size and developer salaries - [04:38:00] John Dillon and Greg Maxwell - [04:40:00] Opportunistic encryption and BIPs 151/152 - [04:42:00] Dandelion and privacy - [04:44:00] BIP 37 and Bloom filters - [04:46:00] Consensus cleanup and the Time Warp bug - [04:48:00] Merkle tree malleability and 64-byte transactions - [04:50:00] 64-byte transactions and SPV wallets - [04:52:00] Coinbase transactions and malleability - [04:54:00] Invalid block hashes and DoS vectors - [04:56:00] Core bug and ban list overflow - [04:58:00] Storing hashes of invalid blocks - [05:00:00] DoS vectors and invalid blocks - [05:02:00] Malleated Merkle trees and 64-byte transactions - [05:04:00] 64-byte transactions and Merkle tree malleability - [05:06:00] Null points and malleated blocks - [05:08:00] Redundant checks and the inflation soft fork - [05:10:00] Op code separator and code complexity - [05:12:00] Transaction order in a block - [05:14:00] Forward references in blocks - [05:16:00] Coinbase transaction rules - [05:18:00] Time Warp bug and Litecoin support - [05:20:00] Quadratic op roll bug - [05:22:00] Stack implementation and op roll - [05:24:00] Templatized stack and op roll optimization - [05:26:00] Non-standard transactions and direct submission to miners - [05:28:00] Mempool policy and DoS - [05:30:00] Monoculture and competing implementations - [05:32:00] Consensus cleanup and Berkeley DB - [05:34:00] Code vs. consensus - [05:36:00] Bitcoin Knots and Luke-jr - [05:38:00] 300 kilobyte node and Luke-jr's views - [05:40:00] Bitcoin Knots and performance - [05:42:00] Bitcoin Knots and censorship - [05:44:00] Censorship and miner incentives - [05:46:00] Censorship and hash power - [05:48:00] Soft forks and censorship - [05:50:00] Ordinals and covenants - [05:52:00] RBF and zero-confirmation transactions - [05:54:00] Double spending and merchant risk - [05:56:00] First-seen mempool policy and RBF - [05:58:00] Low-value transactions and RBF - [06:00:00] Computational cost of actions - [06:00:15] Building infrastructure and system disruption - [06:00:20] Threat actors and economic disruption - [06:00:26] Double spending detection and system control - [06:00:29] Safety and manageability of zero comp transactions - [06:00:41] Security of zero comp transactions - [06:00:51] RBF (Replace-by-fee) and its relevance - [06:01:06] Bitcoin's mempool and transaction handling - [06:01:25] Mempool overflow and resource management - [06:02:08] Transaction storage and mining - [06:02:45] Miners' incentives and fee maximization - [06:03:07] Mempool policy and DOS protection - [06:03:41] Transaction validation and block context - [06:04:11] Fee limits and DOS protection - [06:05:13] Transaction sets, graph processing, and fee maximization - [06:06:24] Mining empty blocks and hash rate - [06:07:34] Replace-by-fee (RBF) and its purpose - [06:08:07] Infrastructure and RBF - [06:09:14] Transaction pool and conflict resolution - [06:09:44] Disk space, fees, and DOS protection - [06:11:06] Fee rates and DOS protection - [06:12:22] Opt-in RBF and mempool full RBF - [06:13:45] Intent flagging in transactions - [06:14:45] Miners obeying user intent and system value - [06:17:06] Socialized gain and individual expense - [06:18:17] Service reliability and profitability - [06:19:06] First-seen mempool policy - [06:19:37] Mempool policy and implementation - [06:20:06] User perspective on transaction priority - [06:21:14] Mempool conflicts and double spending - [06:22:10] CPFP (Child Pays for Parent) - [06:22:24] Mempool management and fee rates - [06:24:30] Mempool complexity and Peter Wuille's work - [06:25:54] Memory and disk resource management - [06:27:37] First-seen policy and miner profitability - [06:29:25] Miners' preference for first-seen - [06:30:04] Computational cost and fee optimization - [06:31:10] Security, Cypherpunk mentality, and the state - [06:35:25] Bitcoin's security model and censorship resistance - [06:41:02] State censorship and fee increases - [06:43:00] State's incentive to censor - [06:46:15] Lightning Network and regulation - [06:48:41] NGU (Number Go Up) and deference to the state - [06:51:10] Reasons for discussing Bitcoin's security model - [06:53:25] Bitcoin's potential subversion and resilience - [06:55:50] Lightning Network subsidies and scaling - [06:57:36] Mining protocols and security - [07:02:02] Braidpool and centralized mining - [07:04:44] Compact blocks and latency reduction - [07:07:23] Orphan rates and mining centralization - [07:08:16] Privacy and threat environments - [07:08:40] Social graphs, reputation, and identity - [07:10:23] Social scalability and Bitcoin - [07:12:36] Individual empowerment and anonymity - [07:16:48] Trust in society and the role of the state - [07:18:01] Payment methods and trust - [07:20:15] Credit reporting agencies and regulation - [07:22:17] Hardware wallets and self-custody - [07:23:46] Security vulnerabilities in Ledger - [07:27:14] Disclosure of secrets on Ledger devices - [07:36:27] Compromised machines and hardware wallets - [07:42:00] Methods for transferring signed transactions - [07:48:25] Threat scenarios and hardware wallet security - [07:50:47] Hardware wallet usage and personal comfort - [07:56:40] Coldcard wallets and user experience - [08:02:23] Security issues in the VX project - [08:03:25] Seed generation and hardware randomness - [08:12:05] Mastering Bitcoin and random number generation - [08:17:41]

Quinn Slobodian joins us to discuss his new book, Hayek's Bastards (subtitle subtitle) - which traces the syncretic relationship of scientific racism, techno-solutionism, and the quest to destroy the cathedral to Neoliberalism's crisis of mission in the 1990s. Check out HAYEK'S BASTARDS here! Get access to more Trashfuture episodes each week on our Patreon! *MILO ALERT* Check out Milo's UK Tour here: https://miloedwards.co.uk/live-shows Trashfuture are: Riley (@raaleh), Milo (@Milo_Edwards), Hussein (@HKesvani), Nate (@inthesedeserts), and November (@postoctobrist)

Why is reforming capitalism so essential? In the latest issue of Liberties Quarterly, Tim Wu argues that unregulated capitalism not only leads to economic monopolies, but also drives populist anger and authoritarian politics. In “The Real Road to Serfdom”, Wu advocates for "decentralized capitalism" with distributed economic power, citing examples from Scandinavia and East Asia. Drawing from his experience in the Biden administration's antitrust efforts, he emphasizes the importance of preventing industry concentration. Wu expresses concern about big tech's growing political influence and argues that challenging monopolies is critical for fostering innovation and maintaining economic progress in the United States.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our interview with Tim Wu:* Historical Parallels: Wu sees concerning parallels between our current era and the 1930s, characterized by concentrated economic power, fragile economic conditions, and the rise of populist leaders. He suggests we're in a period where leaders are moving beyond winning elections to attempting to alter constitutional frameworks.* The Monopoly-Autocracy Connection: Wu argues there's a dangerous cycle where monopolies create economic inequality, which generates populist anger, which then enables authoritarian leaders to rise to power. He cites Hugo Chavez as a pioneer of this modern autocratic model that leaders like Trump have followed.* Decentralized Capitalism: Wu advocates for an economic system with multiple centers of distributed economic power, rather than just a few giant companies accumulating wealth. He points to Denmark, Taiwan, and post-WWII East Asia as successful examples of more balanced economic structures.* Antitrust Legacy: Wu believes the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement efforts have created lasting changes in legal standards and public consciousness that won't be easily reversed. He emphasizes that challenging monopolies is crucial for maintaining innovation and preventing industry stagnation.* Big Tech and Power: Wu expresses concern about big tech companies' growing political influence, comparing it to historical examples like AT&T and IBM. He's particularly worried about AI potentially reinforcing existing power structures rather than democratizing opportunities.Complete Transcript: Tim Wu on The Real Road to SerfdomAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We live in very strange times. That's no exaggeration. Yesterday, we had Nick Bryant on the show, the author of The Forever War. He was the BBC's man in Washington, DC for a long time. In our conversation, Nick suggested that we're living in really historic times, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, perhaps even the beginnings of the Second World War.My guest today, like Nick, is a deep thinker. Tim Wu will be very well known to you for many things, including his book, The Attention Merchants. He was involved in the Biden White House, teaches law at Columbia University, and much more. He has a new book coming out later in the year on November 4th, The Age of Extraction. He has a very interesting essay in this issue of Liberties, the quarterly magazine of ideas, called "The Real Road to Serfdom."Tim had a couple of interesting tweets in the last couple of days, one comparing the behavior of President Trump to Germany's 1933 enabling act. And when it comes to Ukraine, Tim wrote, "How does the GOP feel about their president's evident plan to forfeit the Cold War?" Tim Wu is joining us from his home in the village of Manhattan. Tim, welcome. Before we get to your excellent essay in Liberties, how would you historicize what we're living through at the moment?Tim Wu: I think the 1930s are not the wrong way to look at it. Prior to that period, you had this extraordinary concentration of economic power in a very fragile environment. A lot of countries had experienced an enormous crash and you had the rise of populist leaders, with Mussolini being the pioneer of the model. This has been going on for at least 5 or 6 years now. We're in that middle period where it's moving away from people just winning elections to trying to really alter the constitution of their country. So I think the mid-30s is probably about right.Andrew Keen: You were involved in the Biden administration. You were one of the major thinkers when it came to antitrust. Have you been surprised with what's happened since Biden left office? The speed, the radicalness of this Trump administration?Tim Wu: Yes, because I expected something more like the first Trump administration, which was more of a show with a lot of flash but poor execution. This time around, the execution is also poor but more effective. I didn't fully expect that Elon Musk would actually be a government official at this point and that he'd have this sort of vandalism project going on. The fact they won all of the houses of Congress was part of the problem and has made the effort go faster.Andrew Keen: You talk about Musk. We've done many shows on Musk's role in all this and the seeming arrival of Silicon Valley or a certain version of Silicon Valley in Washington, DC. You're familiar with both worlds, the world of big tech and Silicon Valley and Washington. Is that your historical reading that these two worlds are coming together in this second Trump administration?Tim Wu: It's very natural for economic power to start to seek political power. It follows from the basic view of monopoly as a creature that wants to defend itself, and the second observation that the most effective means of self-defense is control of government. If you follow that very simple logic, it stands to reason that the most powerful economic entities would try to gain control of government.I want to talk about the next five years. The tech industry is following the lead of Palantir and Peter Thiel, who were pioneers in thinking that instead of trying to avoid government, they should try to control it. I think that is the obvious move over the next four years.Andrew Keen: I've been reading your excellent essay in Liberties, "The Real Road to Serfdom." When did you write it? It seems particularly pertinent this week, although of course you didn't write it knowing exactly what was going to be happening with Musk and Washington DC and Trump and Ukraine.Tim Wu: I wrote it about two years ago when I got out of the White House. The themes are trying to get at eternal issues about the dangers of economic power and concentrated economic power and its unaccountability. If it made predictions that are starting to come true, I don't know if that's good or bad.Andrew Keen: "The Real Road to Serfdom" is, of course, a reference to the Hayek book "The Road to Serfdom." Did you consciously use that title with reference to Hayek, or was that a Liberties decision?Tim Wu: That was my decision. At that point, and I may still write this, I was thinking of writing a book just called "The Real Road to Serfdom." I am both fascinated and a fan of Hayek in certain ways. I think he nailed certain things exactly right but makes big errors at the same time.To his credit, Hayek was very critical of monopoly and very critical of the role of the state in reinforcing monopoly. But he had an almost naivete about what powerful, unaccountable private economic entities would do with their power. That's essentially my criticism.Andrew Keen: In 2018, you wrote a book, "The Curse of Bigness." And in a way, this is an essay against bigness, but it's written—please correct me if I'm wrong—I read it as a critique of the left, suggesting that there were times in the essay, if you're reading it blind, you could have been reading Hayek in its critique of Marx and centralization and Lenin and Stalin and the Ukrainian famines. Is the message in the book, Tim—is your audience a progressive audience? Are you saying that it's a mistake to rely on bigness, so to speak, the state as a redistributive platform?Tim Wu: Not entirely. I'm very critical of communist planned economies, and that's part of it. But it's mainly a critique of libertarian faith in private economic power or sort of the blindness to the dangers of it.My basic thesis in "The Real Road to Serfdom" is that free market economies will tend to monopolize. Once monopoly power is achieved, it tends to set off a strong desire to extract as much wealth from the rest of the economy as it can, creating something closer to a feudal-type economy with an underclass. That tends to create a huge amount of resentment and populist anger, and democracies have to respond to that anger.The libertarian answer of saying that's fine, this problem will go away, is a terrible answer. History suggests that what happens instead is if democracy doesn't do anything, the state takes over, usually on the back of a populist strongman. It could be a communist, could be fascist, could be just a random authoritarian like in South America.I guess I'd say it's a critique of both the right and the left—the right for being blind to the dangers of concentrated economic power, and the left, especially the communist left, for idolizing the takeover of vital functions by a giant state, which has a track record as bad, if not worse, than purely private power.Andrew Keen: You bring up Hugo Chavez in the essay, the now departed Venezuelan strongman. You're obviously no great fan of his, but you do seem to suggest that Chavez, like so many other authoritarians, built his popularity on the truth of people's suffering. Is that fair?Tim Wu: That is very fair. In the 90s, when Chavez first came to power through popular election, everyone was mystified and thought he was some throwback to the dictators of the 60s and 70s. But he turned out to be a pioneer of our future, of the new form of autocrat, who appealed to the unfairness of the economy post-globalization.Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán, and certainly Donald Trump, are direct descendants of Hugo Chavez in their approach. They follow the same playbook, appealing to the same kind of pain and suffering, promising to act for the people as opposed to the elites, the foreigners, and the immigrants. Chavez is also a cautionary lesson. He started in a way which the population liked—he lowered gas prices, gave away money, nationalized industry. He was very popular. But then like most autocrats, he eventually turned the money to himself and destroyed his own country.Andrew Keen: Why are autocrats like Chavez and perhaps Trump so much better at capturing that anger than Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?Tim Wu: People who are outside the system like Chavez are able to tap into resentment and anger in a way which is less diluted by their direct information environment and their colleagues. Anyone who hangs around Washington, DC for a long time becomes more muted and careful. They lose credibility.That said, the fact that populist strongmen take over countries in distress suggests we need to avoid that level of economic distress in the first place and protect the middle class. Happy, contented middle-class countries don't tend to see the rise of authoritarian dictators. There isn't some Danish version of Hugo Chavez in the running right now.Andrew Keen: You bring up Denmark. Denmark always comes up in these kinds of conversations. What's admirable about your essay is you mostly don't fall into the Denmark trap of simply saying, "Why don't we all become like Denmark?" But at the same time, you acknowledge that the Danish model is attractive, suggesting we've misunderstood it or treated it superficially. What can and can't we learn from the Danish model?Tim Wu: American liberals often misunderstand the lesson of Scandinavia and other countries that have strong, prosperous middle classes like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. In Scandinavia's case, the go-to explanation is that it's just the liberals' favorite set of policies—high taxation, strong social support systems. But I think the structure of those economies is much more important.They have what Jacob Hacker calls very strong "pre-distribution." They've avoided just having a small set of monopolists who make all the money and then hopefully hand it out to other people. It goes back to their land reform in the early 19th century, where they set up a very different kind of economy with a broad distribution of productive assets.If I'm trying to promote a philosophy in this book, it's for people who are fed up with the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and think it leads to autocracy, but who are also no fans of communism or socialism. Just saying "let people pile up money and we'll tax it later" is not going to work. What you need is an economy structured with multiple centers of distributed economic power.Andrew Keen: The term that seems to summarize that in the essay is "architecture of parity." It's a bit clunky, but is that the best way to sum up your thinking?Tim Wu: I'm working on the terminology. Architecture of equality, parity, decentralized capitalism, distribution—these are all terms trying to capture it. It's more of a 19th century form of Christian or Catholic economics. People are grasping for the right word for an economic system that doesn't rely on just a few giant companies taking money from everybody and hopefully redistributing it. That model is broken and has a dangerous tendency to lead to toxicity. We need a better capitalism. An alternative title for this piece could have been "Saving Capitalism from Itself."Andrew Keen: Your name is most associated with tech and your critique of big tech. Does this get beyond big tech? Are there other sectors of the economy you're interested in fixing and reforming?Tim Wu: Absolutely. Silicon Valley is the most obvious and easiest entry point to talk about concentrated economic power. You can see the dependence on a small number of platforms that have earnings and profits far beyond what anyone imagined possible. But we're talking about an economy-wide, almost global set of problems.Some industries are worse. The meat processing industry in the United States is horrendously concentrated—it takes all the money from farmers, charges us too much for meat, and keeps it for itself. There are many industries where people are looking for something to understand or believe in that's different than socialism but different than this libertarian capitalism that ends up bankrupting people. Tech is the easiest way to talk about it, but not the be-all and end-all of my interest.Andrew Keen: Are there other examples where we're beginning to see decentralized capitalism? The essay was very strong on the critique, but I found fewer examples of decentralized capitalism in practice outside maybe Denmark in the 2020s.Tim Wu: East Asia post-World War II is a strong example of success. While no economy is purely small businesses, although Taiwan comes close, if you look at the East Asian story after World War II, one of the big features was an effort to reform land, give land to peasants, and create a landowning class to replace the feudal system. They had huge entrepreneurism, especially in Korea and Taiwan, less in Japan. This built a strong and prosperous middle and upper middle class.Japan has gone through hard times—they let their companies get too big and they stagnated. But Korea and Taiwan have gone from being third world economies to Taiwan now being wealthier per capita than Japan. The United States is another strong example, vacillating between being very big and very small. Even at its biggest, it still has a strong entrepreneurial culture and sectors with many small entities. Germany is another good example. There's no perfect version, but what I'm saying is that the model of monopolized economies and just having a few winners and hoping that anybody else can get tax payments is really a losing proposition.Andrew Keen: You were on Chris Hayes recently talking about antitrust. You're one of America's leading thinkers on antitrust and were brought into the Biden administration on the antitrust front. Is antitrust then the heart of the matter? Is this really the key to decentralizing capitalism?Tim Wu: I think it's a big tool, one of the tools of managing the economy. It works by preventing industries from merging their way into monopoly and keeps a careful eye on structure. In the same way that no one would say interest rates are the be-all and end-all of monetary policy, when we're talking about structural policy, having antitrust law actively preventing overconcentration is important.In the White House itself, we spent a lot of time trying to get other agencies to prevent their sectors, whether healthcare or transportation, from becoming overly monopolized and extractive. You can have many parts of the government involved—the antitrust agencies are key, but they're not the only solution.Andrew Keen: You wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic about Biden's antitrust initiatives. You said the outgoing president's legacy of revived antitrust enforcement won't be easy to undo. Trump is very good at breaking things. Why is it going to be hard to undo? Lina Khan's gone—the woman who seems to unite all of Silicon Valley in their dislike of her. What did Biden do to protect antitrust legislation?Tim Wu: The legal patterns have changed and the cases are ongoing. But I think more important is a change of consciousness and ideology and change in popular support. I don't think there is great support for letting big tech do whatever they want without oversight. There are people who believe in that and some of them have influence in this administration, but there's been a real change in consciousness.I note that the Federal Trade Commission has already announced that it's going to stick with the Biden administration's merger rules, and my strong sense is the Department of Justice will do the same. There are certain things that Trump did that we stuck with in the Biden administration because they were popular—the most obvious being the turn toward China. Going back to the Bush era approach of never bothering any monopolies, I just don't think there's an appetite for it.Andrew Keen: Why is Lina Khan so unpopular in Silicon Valley?Tim Wu: It's interesting. I'm not usually one to attribute things to sexism, but the Justice Department brought more cases against big tech than she did. Jonathan Kanter, who ran antitrust at Justice, won the case against Google. His firm was trying to break up Google. They may still do it, but somehow Lina Khan became the face of it. I think because she's young and a woman—I don't know why Jonathan Kanter didn't become the symbol in the same way.Andrew Keen: You bring up the AT&T and IBM cases in the US tech narrative in the essay, suggesting that we can learn a great deal from them. What can we learn from those cases?Tim Wu: The United States from the 70s through the 2010s was an extraordinarily innovative place and did amazing things in the tech industry. An important part of that was challenging the big IBM and AT&T monopolies. AT&T was broken into eight pieces. IBM was forced to begin selling its software separately and opened up the software markets to what became a new software industry.AT&T earlier had been forced to license the transistor, which opened up the semiconductor industry and to some degree the computing industry, and had to stay out of computing. The government intervened pretty forcefully—a form of industrial policy to weaken its tech monopolies. The lesson is that we need to do the same thing right now.Some people will ask about China, but I think the United States has always done best when it constantly challenges established power and creates room for entrepreneurs to take their shot. I want very much for the new AI companies to challenge the main tech platforms and see what comes of that, as opposed to becoming a stagnant industry. Everyone says nothing can become stagnant, but the aerospace industry was pretty quick-moving in the 60s, and now you have Boeing and Airbus sitting there. It's very easy for a tech industry to stagnate, and attacking monopolists is the best way to prevent that.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Google earlier. You had an interesting op-ed in The New York Times last year about what we should do about Google. My wife is head of litigation at Google, so I'm not entirely disinterested. I also have a career as a critic of Google. If Kent Walker was here, he would acknowledge some of the things he was saying. But he would say Google still innovates—Google hasn't become Boeing. It's innovating in AI, in self-driving cars, it's shifting search. Would he be entirely wrong?Tim Wu: No, he wouldn't be entirely wrong. In the same way that IBM kept going, AT&T kept going. What you want in tech industries is a fair fight. The problem with Google isn't that they're investing in AI or trying to build self-driving cars—that's great. The problem is that they were paying over $20 billion a year to Apple for a promise not to compete in search. Through control of the browsers and many other things, they were trying to make sure they could never be dislodged.My view of the economics is monopolists need to always be a little insecure. They need to be in a position where they can be challenged. That happens—there are companies who, like AT&T in the 70s or 60s, felt they were immune. It took the government to make space. I think it's very important for there to be opportunities to challenge the big guys and try to seize the pie.Andrew Keen: I'm curious where you are on Section 230. Google won their Supreme Court case when it came to Section 230. In this sense, I'm guessing you view Google as being on the side of the good guys.Tim Wu: Section 230 is interesting. In the early days of the Internet, it was an important infant industry protection. It was an insulation that was vital to get those little companies at the time to give them an opportunity to grow and build business models, because if you're being sued by billions of people, you can't really do too much.Section 230 was originally designed to protect people like AOL, who ran user forums and had millions of people discussing—kind of like Reddit. I think as Google and companies like Facebook became active in promoting materials and became more like media companies, the case for an absolutist Section 230 became a lot weaker. The law didn't really change but the companies did.Andrew Keen: You wrote the essay "The Real Road to Serfdom" a couple of years ago. You also talked earlier about AI. There's not a lot of AI in this, but 50% of all the investment in technology over the last year was in AI, and most of that has gone into these huge platforms—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini. Is AI now the central theater, both in the Road to Serfdom and in liberating ourselves from big tech?Tim Wu: Two years ago when I was writing this, I was determined not to say anything that would look stupid about AI later. There's a lot more on what I think about AI in my new book coming in November.I see AI as a classic potential successor technology. It obviously is the most significant successor to the web and the mass Internet of 20 years ago in terms of having potential to displace things like search and change the way people do various forms of productivity. How technology plays out depends a lot on the economic structure. If you think about a technology like the cotton gin, it didn't automatically lead to broad flourishing, but reinforced plantation slavery.What I hope happens with AI is that it sets off more competition and destabilization for some of the tech platforms as opposed to reinforcing their advantage and locking them in forever. I don't know if we know what's going to happen right now. I think it's extremely important that OpenAI stays separate from the existing tech companies, because if this just becomes the same players absorbing technology, that sounds a lot like the darker chapters in US tech history.Andrew Keen: And what about the power of AI to liberate ourselves from our brain power as the next industrial revolution? When I was reading the essay, I thought it would be a very good model, both as a warning and in terms of offering potential for us to create this new architecture of parity. Because the technology in itself, in theory at least, is one of parity—one of democratizing brainpower.Tim Wu: Yes, I agree it has extraordinary potential. Things can go in two directions. The Industrial Revolution is one example where you had more of a top-down centralization of the means of production that was very bad for many people initially, though there were longer-term gains.I would hope AI would be something more like the PC revolution in the 80s and 90s, which did augment individual humanity as opposed to collective enterprise. It allowed people to do things like start their own travel agency or accounting firm with just a computer. I am interested and bullish on the potential of AI to empower smaller units, but I'm concerned it will be used to reinforce existing economic structures. The jury's out—the future will tell us. Just hoping it's going to make humanity better is not going to be the best answer.Andrew Keen: When you were writing this essay, Web3 was still in vogue then—the idea of blockchain and crypto decentralizing the economy. But I didn't see any references to Web3 and the role of technology in democratizing capitalism in terms of the architecture of corporations. Are you skeptical of the Web3 ideology?Tim Wu: The essay had its limits since I was also talking about 18th century Denmark. I have a lot more on blockchain and Web3 in the book. The challenge with crypto and Bitcoin is that it both over-promises and delivers something. I've been very interested in crypto and blockchain for a long time. The challenge it's had is constantly promising to decentralize great systems and failing, then people stealing billions of dollars and ending up in prison.It has a dubious track record, but it does have this core potential for a certain class of people to earn money. I'm always in favor of anything that is an alternative means of earning money. There are people who made money on it. I just think it's failed to execute on its promises. Blockchain in particular has failed to be a real challenge to web technologies.Andrew Keen: As you say, Hayek inspired the book and in some sense this is intellectual. The father of decentralization in ideological terms was E.F. Schumacher. I don't think you reference him, but do you think there has been much thinking since Schumacher on the value of smallness and decentralized architectures? What do people like yourself add to what Schumacher missed in his critique of bigness?Tim Wu: Schumacher is a good example. Rawls is actually under-recognized as being interested in these things. I see myself as writing in the tradition of those figures and trying to pursue a political economy that values a more balanced economy and small production.Hopefully what I add is a level of institutional experience and practicality that was missing. Rawls is slightly unfair because he's a philosopher, but his model doesn't include firms—it's just individuals. So it's all about balancing between poor people and rich people when obviously economic power is also held by corporations.I'm trying to create more flesh on the bones of the "small is beautiful" philosophy and political economy that is less starry-eyed and more realistic. I'm putting forward the point that you're not sacrificing growth and you're taking less political risk with a more balanced economy. There's an adulation of bigness in our time—exciting big companies are glamorous. But long-term prosperity does better when you have more centers, a more balanced system. I'm not an ultra-centralist suggesting we should live in mud huts, but I do think the worship of monopoly is very similar to the worship of autocracy and is dangerous.Andrew Keen: Much to discuss. Tim Wu, thank you so much. The author of "The Real Road to Serfdom," fascinating essay in this month's issue of Liberties. I know "The Age of Extraction" will be coming out on November 10th.Tim Wu: In England and US at the same time.Andrew Keen: We'll get you back on the show. Fascinating conversation, Tim. Thank you so much.Hailed as the “architect” of the Biden administration's competition and antitrust policies, Tim Wu writes and teaches about private power and related topics. First known for coining the term “net neutrality” in 2002, in recent years Wu has been a leader in the revitalization of American antitrust and has taken a particular focus on the growing power of the big tech platforms. In 2021, he was appointed to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. A professor at Columbia Law School since 2006, Wu has also held posts in public service. He was enforcement counsel in the New York Attorney General's Office, worked on competition policy for the National Economic Council during the Barack Obama administration, and worked in antitrust enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, Wu was a Democratic primary candidate for lieutenant governor of New York. In his most recent book, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (2018), he argues that corporate and industrial concentration can lead to the rise of populism, nationalism, and extremist politicians. His previous books include The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads (2016), The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (2010), and Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (2006), which he co-authored with Jack Goldsmith. Wu was a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and also has written for Slate, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. He once explained the concept of net neutrality to late-night host Stephen Colbert while he rode a rollercoaster. He has been named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal; has made Politico's list of 50 most influential figures in American politics (more than once); and has been included in the Scientific American 50 of policy leadership. Wu is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as a law clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the strange and deadly history of Communism outside of the Soviet Union. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Stalin spread communism throughout the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe and Asia. Tito’s Yugoslavia seemed to be a successful example of communism until his death. Mao was a faithful Marxist-Leninist. However, the contemporary Chinese Communist Party has adopted many capitalist policies to support their communist principles. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the strange and deadly history of Communism outside of the Soviet Union. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Stalin spread communism throughout the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe and Asia. Tito’s Yugoslavia seemed to be a successful example of communism until his death. Mao was a faithful Marxist-Leninist. However, the contemporary Chinese Communist Party has adopted many capitalist policies to support their communist principles. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For more than a century, some economists have insisted that central planning can outperform markets. Economists like Mises, Hayek, and Friedman disagreed. Who won this debate? Is it over? Does AI change how we should think about the power of planning? Listen as economist Peter Boettke of George Mason University discusses what is known as the "socialist calculation debate" with EconTalk's Russ Roberts.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the deeply personal and precinct writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Solzhenitsyn captured the brutal degradation of the human spirit inherent in communism. Mises and Hayek demonstrated the flaws in its economic principles. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the deeply personal and precinct writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Solzhenitsyn captured the brutal degradation of the human spirit inherent in communism. Mises and Hayek demonstrated the flaws in its economic principles. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the unique evil of Joseph Stalin. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Stalin was a committed Marxist-Leninist. He revealed the extreme brutality inherent to Marxism. Stalin manipulated western nations into entering World War Two and emerged as the only clear victor. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the unique evil of Joseph Stalin. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Stalin was a committed Marxist-Leninist. He revealed the extreme brutality inherent to Marxism. Stalin manipulated western nations into entering World War Two and emerged as the only clear victor. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fifty years ago today, December 11, 1974, F.A. Hayek gave his Nobel Lecture in Sweden. The conflict between what the public expects science to achieve in satisfaction of popular hopes, and what is really in its power, is a serious matter.Original article: The Pretense of Knowledge

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the forces that lead to the rise of the Soviet Union before introducing the lesson. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Tsarist Russia was prospering and growing, but Nicholas II was weak-willed. He allowed himself to be badgered into entering World War I and into abdicating his reign after the February Revolution. The weak provisional government was easily overthrown by the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution despite the Bolsheviks’ lack of popular support. Lenin was a thorough Marxist who introduced extreme and brutal reforms. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the forces that lead to the rise of the Soviet Union before introducing the lesson. In “Marxism, Socialism, and Communism,” professors of history, politics, and economics look at Marx’s life and writings, the misery and brutality in the Soviet Union, the atrocities of communist China, and the proliferation of Cultural Marxism in America. They explore how many ideas animating American politics today are rooted in Marxism, and yet how they differ from Marx’s thought. By taking Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School seriously, we can see the injustice and evil inherent in all strands of Marxism. We also better understand the critiques of communism made by Mises, Hayek, and Solzhenitsyn. We are, therefore, better equipped to defeat it. Tsarist Russia was prospering and growing, but Nicholas II was weak-willed. He allowed himself to be badgered into entering World War I and into abdicating his reign after the February Revolution. The weak provisional government was easily overthrown by the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution despite the Bolsheviks’ lack of popular support. Lenin was a thorough Marxist who introduced extreme and brutal reforms. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the full discussion, please join us on Patreon at - https://www.patreon.com/posts/dr-thaer-ahmad-119538590 Palestinian-American Dr Thaer Ahmad and Canadian Dr. Ben Thomson, both of whom have worked in Gaza, speak out against Israel's kidnapping and likely torture of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya. Thaer talks about his conversation with Dr. Hussam and the kidnapping of his own uncle. Ben talks about being suspended over speaking out on Gaza and shares stories of other tortured doctors. Then political scientist Ron Hira and historian Quinn Slobodian talk about the MAGA Civil War, Elon Musk, Donald Trump and H1B visas. UPDATE: Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya's mother has tragically passed from a heart attack. Dr. Thaer Ahmad, MD, is a board certified emergency medicine physician and a board member of the Palestinian American Medical Association. He has traveled to Gaza on several medical missions and recently spent three weeks volunteering at El Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis. Since returning, he has spoken out about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the need for humanitarian aid and services to reach the people. He is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the global health director for his emergency department. Dr. Ben Thomson is a renowned public health expert, nephrologist and general internal medicine doctor, an award-winning educator, a board member of the Muslim Advisory Council of Canada and the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations, and a global humanitarian physician. Dr. Thomson's efforts have markedly improved healthcare in Indigenous communities in Ontario and globally in places including Uganda, and in Gaza through initiatives like the Keys of Health Fellowship and EmpowerGaza. Dr. Thomson envisions a world where resilient, compassionate healthcare is accessible to all communities globally. Ron Hira, an Economic Policy Institute research associate, is an associate professor in the department of political science at Howard University. His book, Outsourcing America, was one of the first to examine the economic and policy implications of the offshoring of high-skilled jobs. It was a finalist for the Benjamin Franklin awards in the best business book category. Hira has testified before Congress on offshoring and high-skilled immigration. He is frequently interviewed by the media about his work, which intersects STEM labor markets, immigration, globalization, and competitiveness policy. He is a licensed professional engineer. Quinn Slobodian is professor of international history at the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University. His books, which have been translated into ten languages, include, most recently, Crack-Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World without Democracy. Forthcoming is Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ and the Capitalism of the Far Right. He has been an associate fellow at Chatham House and held residential fellowships at Harvard and FU Berlin. He co-directs the History and Political Economy Project and is on the board of editors of the American Historical Review. In 2024, Prospect UK named him one of the World's 25 Top Thinkers. ***Please support The Katie Halper Show *** For bonus content, exclusive interviews, to support independent media & to help make this program possible, please join us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Get your Katie Halper Show Merch here! https://katiehalper.myspreadshop.com/all Follow Katie on Twitter: @kthalps

Megyn Kelly discusses the bombshell reporting showing FEMA directed its employees to skip over helping houses that had Trump signs, how high up the directive may have gone, the shocking numbers we're seeing Kamala's campaign spent on the Oprah town hall, the millions that went to paying celebrities, and more. Then U.S. Senator Rick Scott of Florida joins to talk about his push to become the next Senate Majority Leader, the intra-GOP fight happening between the "establishment" and "MAGA" wings, if he thinks the public campaign will help or hurt him, what he thinks of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the criticism he's received from the right about his work in 2022 and about "red flag" laws, how he'll handle what Trump wants from recess appointments, and more. Then Ashley Hayek, Executive Director of America First Works, joins to discuss how her group ran their ground game efforts, the key counties and demographics they targeted, how Kamala was never really leading the female vote like the media said she would, the way they used authentic messaging to reach new audiences, why Kamala's ground game was a massive failure, why Tim Walz's "stolen valor" actually moved votes, whether people turns out for Trump or were turned off by Kamala, and more.Scott- https://rickscott.com/Hayek- https://americafirstworks.com/Tax Network USA: https://TNUSA.com/MEGYNGround News: Use the link https://groundnews.com/megyn to get 50% off the Vantage subscription to see through mainstream media narratives.Home Title Lock: https://www.hometitlelock.com/megynkellyFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow