Dangerous Minds w/ Charles Hugh Smith
Richard Metzger is the current Boing Boing guest blogger
And now for my promised video interview with Charles Hugh Smith, author of the new e-book, "Survival+."
Part 1: We discuss "Survival+" and the current economic crisis.
Part 2: We discuss why socialism in the USA is inevitable (and why this is a good thing), Karl Marx and more.
Part 3: More on socialism in America and Niall Ferguson calling for America to repudiate its debt in the pages of TIME magazine.
Part 4: Charles and I discuss Cory's BB post about squatters on his block and why it's important for culturally influential people to create feedback loops for humane and dignified solutions to the economic crisis.
Produced by Bradley Novicoff and Tara McGinley
I'd like to give a way huge, massive thank you to my longtime friend Jason Calacanis, the CEO of Mahalo and the hardest working person I have ever met in my entire life. He's a 5000 watt bulb, let me tell you people. It was Jason's kind offer of his brand new studio --it was actually more like a challenge than an offer, he dared me to do it!-- that allowed this to happen. The studio's newest toy, the fantastic Tri-caster, was still being set-up the day we recorded and we just winged it --next time I'll have a teleprompter!-- but I think it turned out pretty well and I'm happy to be able to give my good friend Charles Hugh Smith the kind of wide exposure that Boing Boing offers. I think it's important that people hear what he has to say. I'd also like to thank Jason Krute, Mahalo's studio manager, Tyler Crowley from Mahalo, Ryan Scott from Causecast and Kenny Chen, who edited the piece and who was such a big help in several ways. Thanks also to Charles' wife's cousin for the use of her Skype account and laptop!
the latest
latest episodes
Richard asks, "Why are you afraid of Marx?" That's a pretty easy question to answer. Take a look at China.
I guess it all depends on what level of tyranny you are prepared to deal with. Over 150 million people died last century as a result of the ideas of Marx and Ritter. Never forget Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.
Even ignoring the above, just think about this: we have all seen bureaucracy in action in this country. Do you really want to give that much power to such mechanisms of inefficiency?
"Socialism means equality of income or it means nothing... under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well." - George Bernard Shaw
I don't think that we can get the best economic advice from playwrights. There are dozens of basically socialist countries, and not a one of them has complete income inequality. I don't think that any of them force most government services on their citizenry (education excepted).
The United States doesn't force lodgings upon you, but cities often arrest people for the crime of not having anywhere to go. We don't pass out free clothing, but you can be arrested for wandering the streets naked. We don't require employment, but for the bulk of the unemployed, we make their situation as uncomfortable as possible. And we certainly imprison more than our share of people.
Honestly, the socialism Shaw describes sounds like it would be a step up.
part 3 link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qolR5_ezrDI
#1 Socialism is an economic philosophy, and one a lot of quite nice countries adopt, usually as a complement to capitalistic elements. The skandinavian countries are famous for it. Canada's free health care is rather socialist. The unions, which are a significant political power in the US when they can get their act together... very socialist.
Now, capitalism.. Slavery? That was utterly capitalist. The drug trade? Definitely capitalist, especially the Opium war. So-called 'conflict diamonds'? Definitely a product of capitalism. Fruit companies hiring mercs to wipe out civilian resistance in south america? Same. Sweatshops, child labour, the great depression? All capitalism. The Ludlow Massacre? Guess. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre]
Both philosophies have been linked to a lot of really bad crap over the years. Both have also done a fair amount of good.
---
Now, as far as China is concerned... A huge portion of their history is one corrupt despot or another (usually ending in rebellions). Blaming their current economic system is like blaming poor building codes for flood damage, when you live someplace that floods every year.
Why lookie here, a test comment.
Communism was just a big practical joke we played on China, Russia, Eastern Europe and a smattering of developing world countries to screw them over for most of the 20th century why we had the world's natural resources all to ourselves and not much industrial competition -- at least compared to now. Worked great for us. Sucked for them.
I think they are about to pay us back for that practical joke.
@Foofer
Certainly Socialism can be a dangerous political structure, however, your argument and the quote by Shaw seem to be rooted in the idea of state socialism. No doubt state socialism is very threatening but there are other forms of socialism, such as libertarian socialism i.e. decentralized organization based on direct democracy with incredibly limited government, if any, economic, civil, and social equality, non-hierarchal forms of organization. These are a much more effective and safe application of socialist principles.
There is this idea that, if people are in a bad shape, the government must step in and save them.
He talks about people whose skill sets will become obsolete as if skill sets are a static function. You are a plumber, and that is all you ever can be or ever will be. If people don't need plumbers, there is nothing you can possibly do, except to go on the dole.
He talks about community as being real self-defense, which is a very valid point. Then goes on to say that government must save everyone. Wait, what about communities? Can't groups of people, when left alone, generally save themselves? Aren't people industrious and resourceful? Don't government intervention generally destroy communities, either by slowly sapping the need for them or by drowning them in red tape?
Trust in community and trust in state socialism coming from an imperial captial thousands of miles away are mutually exclusive.
The "Market" will indeed put food in people's bellies immediately - the farmer's market.
"Free Market Captalism" is based on a freedom from violence. We do not have that in America, we instead have a system run by corporations and banks who impose violence on others through various means, primarly through their control of the state. Giving more power to corporations is not, of course, "free market capitalism" - but that is what the Republicans (and some Democrats) have been trying to pass off as free market economics for decades.
Later, Richard he goes on to ask "why people are afraid of marxism?" Well, because marxist philosophy influenced people who murdered tens of millions, robbed whole generations of their self-motivation, creative potential, and freedom, and gave an excuse for the worst sorts of tyrants and despots to claim they were acting for the benefit of all of humanity.
Compare to this statement: "Why are people so afraid of Nazism? It's just an idea, how can you be afraid of an idea?".
Am I the only one who finds those "sound effects" adorning the background of this love-fest distracting? They make me flashback on Eraserhead for one thing ... no idea why.
I really appreciate that you are speaking out about the need to provide expanded services to individuals experiencing financial devastation.
I wouldn't bring up Marx, though, because that's just not going to go anywhere, in this day and age.
If we are lucky, we will have some say about the new economic model that emerges from the ashes.
I really wish that we could "jumpstart the financial industry" by forcing our new tax-payer owned banks to loan money to non-profits that aim to provide basic support services. Isn't that a good idea?
Here's one...pay all the recent college graduates a small stipend to run the new community centers housed in empty office parks.
Well, Obama, if you're listening... you know where to find me! Chock full of these nuggets!
But seriously, Richard, good piece with good questions we should be asking.
Thank you Richard for the interview, it inspired me to not do the usual annual raise of 6% rent (it's something common at my country) to my renters of the house I own, and will let them and the city government know that I'm doing that. I don't expect my landlord (yes I'm renting my living space in another city) do that as well, but you gotta start somewhere I guess. I'm not rich nor have a lot of savings, but I'll manage, and if I can do it, it means a lot of ppl can do that as well, to 'save' in another way.
Well, because marxist philosophy influenced people who murdered tens of millions, robbed whole generations of their self-motivation, creative potential, and freedom, and gave an excuse for the worst sorts of tyrants and despots to claim they were acting for the benefit of all of humanity.
Compare to this statement: Well, because capitalist philosophy influenced people who murdered tens of millions, robbed whole generations of their jobs, homes, life-savings, health and freedom, and gave an excuse for the worst sorts of tyrants and despots to claim they were acting for the benefit of all of humanity.
I'm finding the background music during the interview to be terribly distracting.
#12
Except that's not true. Nothing in capitalism requires the renunciation of human nature, as Marxism does. Nothing in capitalism requires the use of force against someone else. In fact, the only precondition for capitalism is that nobody uses force to stop one party from voluntarily trading with another.
If someone is engaging in slave-trafficking, they are criminals, not valid economic actors.
#4
Ridiculous. It stops being "capitalist" when the person being enslaved is prevented from seeking a competitive market for his/her labor. To the extent that a system disempowers individual actors, it is not capitalist.
It would be great if all the trust-fund anarchists around here would learn a little about the things they argue against. It's pretty goofy to use your privately-owned 3-gigaFLOPS computer to argue against capitalism.
It would be great if all the trust-fund anarchists around here would learn a little about the things they argue against.
If you use the phrase 'trust fund' again to smear other commenters, I'll disemvowel your last three comments.
#15:
With due respect that seems a bit reactionary on your part. I took a look back through my last few comments just now, and as they were either courteous or at least not overtly disrespectful toward a fellow BB poster, I'd submit that any ex post facto disemvowelling would constitute abuse.
That makes me wonder if I've hit a raw nerve. Do you disagree with anything specific that I wrote? In all sincerity, if I'm factually off track you'd be doing me a favor by correcting me.
My intent wasn't to accuse DAEMON (#4) in particular of being a "trust-fund anarchist," and I apologize if it came across that way. I was criticizing a generally-evident archetype around here, and yes, I'll stand by that criticism, at the risk of disemvowellment or bannination or whatever the owners of the site see fit to do in responsee. Someone who has read only Marx is no more enlightened than someone who has read only Rand, yet there's an unmistakable bias toward the former sort of poster in these threads. Agree/disagree?
"generally-evident archetype around here," saying something don't make it so. Don't get sloppy with the slur trowel or those you splash will get annoyed.
Do you disagree with anything specific that I wrote?
Yes.
Nothing in capitalism requires the renunciation of human nature, as Marxism does.
Some of us think that capitalism is a violation of human nature. You're going to have to make some sort of rational argument that grasp and greed are intrinsic to human nature to support that opinion. You've presented an utterly subjective prejudice as fact.
If someone is engaging in slave-trafficking, they are criminals, not valid economic actors.
Slavery is a more-or-less objectively definable condition or set of conditions. Criminality is purely subjective because laws are ultimately arbitrary and subjective.
trust fund
You've hurled an insult to cover the insubstantiality of your claims. And if you think that I have a trust fund, please send me the passbook, because I'm getting desperate.
Shaw was teasing. He was a harmless Fabian socialist vegan.
"Nothing in capitalism requires the renunciation of human nature, as Marxism does."
I'll bet your definition of human nature makes some good reading. Wanna try?
A Shavian Fabian Vegan?
#18
I'm not a sociologist, so it'd be good to hear from someone who could phrase this correctly -- or refute it properly -- but: I'd argue that capitalism is a feature of human nature simply because it's what people do of their own free will if you don't use force to stop them. (Yes, yes, I know, the same can be said of raping and pillaging. That just reinforces my position that individual actions need to be judged on their merits.)
Free trade is a desirable thing to the extent that third parties are minimally harmed by allowing it to occur. To argue otherwise is to claim that we function at our best when "everything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden."
The Communists literally had to shoot people to stop them from trading freely amongst themselves. Conversely, capitalist societies -- at least the more progressive ones -- aren't overtly threatened by people advocating communal ownership and control of production, or even by those who voluntarily engage in such. The US took a step forward when the HUAC was disbanded, just as the USSR took a step forward with the advent of glasnost.
And yes, it would be a silly fallacy to assume that any society opposed to capitalism is necessarily communistic... but I think you'll find similar suppressive tendencies in other explicitly anticapitalistic societies. If you have to suppress other people by initiating force against them, it's a sign of a weak position. Agree/disagree?
Again, to be clear: I'm not accusing any specific poster of being the beneficiary of a trust fund. :) Not you, and not the person I was originally answering.
But I'd ask that you read other replies -- the ones that strike a sympathetic chord -- with the same critical eye that you've applied to mine. I think you'll find greater slurs than "trust-fund anarchist" being thrown about with impunity by posters whose point of view is closer to your own. (For the record, I don't advocate disemvowelling them either.)
#19:
See above. I don't claim any authority; that's just my take on it.
Maybe a vegan Fabian Shavian?
how come no one is complaining about the socialist military?
#23
Hey, I can only bitch about one institutional injustice at a time. I could fit the military-industrial complex in on Tuesday at 2:00 PDT, if that works for everyone...?
Antinous wrote: "Compare to this statement: Well, because capitalist philosophy influenced people who murdered tens of millions, robbed whole generations of their jobs, homes, life-savings, health and freedom, and gave an excuse for the worst sorts of tyrants and despots to claim they were acting for the benefit of all of humanity."
This statement misidentifies the basic nature of captalism. Capitalism is inherent in human nature: people make things, produce things, and trade them. When they see a fellow in need, they help them from their free will and basic goodness. This is the basic nature of "capitalism". To the extent that it murders, it is because capitalists take control of the government, which they use to murder, eliminate freedom, institute regulation and licensing schemes that prevent individuals from starting businesses, and to escape liability for harm they have caused. This is called "fascism."
On a side note:
This is an interesting article written in 1998 and published in the NYT:
http://media.trendsresearch.com/4399/Capitalism_OP_Ed_1998.pdf
When Long Term Capital Management failed in 1998, it was deemed "too big to fail" and bailed out. The author predicts that this assumption will cause other "too big to fail" firms to gamble recklessly, counting on a government bailout. It more or less accurately predicts everything that has happened in this crisis.
It is also worth considering the role of the Federal Reserve - same as in the 1920s, the Fed massively increased the money supply throughout the 2000s. The money supply increased more from 2000-2007 than from 1776-2000.
Despite what the media echo chamber might claim, there is a strong case to be made that this crisis was very much caused by government intervention on several levels.
Capitalism is inherent in human nature: people make things, produce things, and trade them. When they see a fellow in need, they help them from their free will and basic goodness. This is the basic nature of "capitalism".
Communism is inherent in human nature: people make things, produce things, and share them. When they see a fellow in need, they help them from their free will and basic goodness. This is the basic nature of "communism"
Seriously, any discussion about an economic system being inherent in human nature is utterly inane. The same thing has been said about subjugation of women, slavery and any number of other quaint and hopefully outmoded social diseases.
#26
Again, your word-substitution trick is a stretch well past the breaking point. In which system is it necessary to shoot people to discourage them from participating in any of several alternative systems? It really is that simple. Moral relativism only goes so far.
Do you, or do you not, believe that a just regime will forbid all economic activity which is not expressly permitted by law?
#25
Indeed, and it's worth emphasizing that what's going on in the US today, whether you agree with it or not, is not "capitalism" by any stretch of the imagination.
If you insist on allowing a force-wielding third party to distort risk, privatize gains, and socialize losses, that's fine as far as it goes, I guess... but you can't claim you're putting free-market ideology to the test, and you can't use the results of your little experiment to find it wanting.
Do you, or do you not, believe that a just regime will forbid all economic activity which is not expressly permitted by law?
The question is so steeped in subjectivity that it's unanswerable. Economic activity by women is forbidden by law in many countries. Is that just? Law is completely subjective and has all the moral authority of a high school popularity contest.
@ Antinous 28 - your point is taken, people do act differently in quite fundamental ways based on their upbringing and environment.
I would argue both that the natural exchange and trade of a farmer's market is much more in line with human nature than the speculation of a stock exchange, as well as that the mutual support and sharing of a community is much more natural than an enforced, centrally planned "sharing" being organized from thousands of miles away.
And this is the reason I feel that any arguments that "America should become socialist" are basically insane. America is simply too big. Socialization on a national level is too prone to corruption, inefficiency, etc.
If you help your neighbor, their is a human element - you look them in the eye, you make a human connection, you see what they need and see how you can best help them.
But nationalized socailism is basically an armed individual coming to your house (in the form of a letter from the tax department), demanding a certain amount of money from you, and then giving either cash or a homogenized commodity, without any real regard for what exactly it is they need.
The larger a socialism scheme is, the more inhuman it becomes, the more it robs the humanity from every actor along the line. If you want to organize an effort to round up contributions and volunteer hours in your community to help the down and out, I bless you. If you want to organize it on a national scale, basing it on the coercive force of men with guns..well, no good will come of it.
> Law is completely subjective and has all the moral authority of a high school popularity contest.
This is true. Law is inherently corruptible and weakens people's moral fiber, as lao tzu pointed out. That is why the best foundation for a moral law code is as simple as possible: The point of the law is to prevent people from harming other people. That's it. Shit, that's all that should have been written in the Constitution ;)
If you want to organize it on a national scale, basing it on the coercive force of men with guns
I'm a utopian communist. And I view communism as an economic system, not a political one. So, no armed enforcement from my camp. We'll either evolve to it or we won't, but if we do, it'll be in centuries, not decades.
Capitalism is inherent in human nature: people make things, produce things, and trade them. When they see a fellow in need, they help them from their free will and basic goodness. This is the basic nature of "capitalism".
No, What you're describing is commerce.
Capitalism is an ABSTRACTION of commerce allowing the accumulation of things you don;t actually have.
It's a derivative of commerce, if you will.
@31 Well, I fully support your worldview. In fact, I am having a child soon, and I am going to raise the child in a commune in either India or Central America, because I think that would be the best environment for a child to grow up in. And I also fully agree that the most important thing is for humans to continue evolution/spiritual development so that we may grow into a social order of peace, harmony, and freedom.
The thing is, living in a commune is a voluntary choice. You can enter because you want that lifestyle, and you can leave at any time. Because it is inherently peaceful and respects individual will, many people never leave.
Asking for any type of socialism from our current state and federal governmental systems - which are inherently violent, evil, and have been controlled by corporations for at least a hundred years - is an insane proposition.
My original point remains. If you want communism, organize it on a local level, and don't try to impose it on anyone.
FOOFER > If communism as stated on the manifesto was faithfully applied, none of USSR, China or any other authoritarian regime would have existed as dictatorships.
Marxism is the absolute opposite of oppression, take a look at his writings for the sake of knowledge and stop blaming the origin of communism for the mistakes and the greed of the dictatorships that took advantage of the name communism to identify their respective regimes.
Is Congo a democratic republic? China a people's republic? Israel a democracy?
USSR was ruled by a nomenklatura, something communism rejects as a ruling class... come on, you can read, right? or just you listen to some nut wings activists stuck in the McCarthy's days.
Please, read behind the words and look what's really happening, quoting George Bernard Shaw won't help...
Hey, I guess I'm writing this one to antinous, I don't think anyone else will read this as it's buried in the archives..but you will if you do indeed read every post :)
Just a small point..you said that capitalist philosophy (ie, free market philosophy) robbed people of their health. But how can we consider this to be true in America? What we have in America is so far from a free market in health care.
There are outrageously high barriers to entry for any medical practioners, a supression of free speech by the FDA, government incentives for allopathic health insurance, a cartel that works with the government to supress other systems, and has done for 100 years (since the AMA worked to put in place a certification system that only certified alopathic schools). In short, government has it's hands on every part of the health of Americans - from what we eat, to what information is permitted, to what medicines we are allowed. And in every way, it supports "mainstream" medicine. I think health care is an excellent example of where lack of a free market has caused great harm.