Glenn Greenwald on the Deep State, Capitalism, and Identity Politics
"One of the things that the left and right have in common is an awareness that our government has essentially been co-opted by corporate power," says the Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist.

Lawyer-turned-journalist Glenn Greenwald's work with whistleblower Edward Snowden to reveal illegal government surveillance won a Pulitzer Prize in 2014. That same year he helped launch The Intercept, but he abruptly resigned six years later after a disagreement over editorial policy. In July, Reason's Nick Gillespie spoke with Greenwald at FreedomFest 2022 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Q: You regularly inveigh against corporate media—including places you have worked, such as Salon and The Guardian. Have you changed or has the world changed?
A: I think it's mostly the latter. The main reason Edward Snowden has said that he was drawn to me wasn't so much because of my views about privacy and surveillance, although those aligned with his. But he saw that I looked at journalism in a radically different way than most of the media. I've always had a very prominent component of my work be media criticism. The views that I've always espoused are heard more on Fox than CNN and MSNBC, where they're not welcome.
Q: Fifteen years ago, Fox News was the national security network and CNN was the critic. What has changed that?
A: I think the primary impetus was the reliance on "Russiagate" as the principal theme of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Once you start positing that there's some evil foreign villain bent upon wreaking havoc inside the U.S. and that the political opponent domestically is aligned with that foreign power, that's a very jingoistic way of looking at the world. On top of which, Russiagate itself emanated from the bowels of the CIA, the bowels of the U.S. security state, which was feeding leaks to The Washington Post and The New York Times. Liberals began viewing those security state agencies, the hatred of which has been fundamental to left-wing politics for decades, as not just their allies, but as guardians of all that was good and decent in the world, and that began this radical transformation about these kinds of questions.
Q: What is the link between corporatism in America and the CIA or the deep state?
A: One of the things that the left and right have in common is an awareness that our government has essentially been co-opted by corporate power. The richer you are, the more powerful you are within the corporate world, the more power you exert in Washington, which isn't how a democracy should function. There is a union between state power on the one hand and corporate power on the other.
Q: Is it possible to have a capitalism that is not a crony capitalism?
A: I think one of the ways that people on the right and left can unite—I'm always looking for those opportunities—is by viewing whatever passes for capitalism in the United States as something that ought to be objected to, either because you're against capitalism in theory, as people on the left are, or because you want capitalism that's functioning and healthy and free of corruption, as people on the right do. But what we have is crony capitalism, which serves none of those interests.
Q: How can we make sense of the political shift we are experiencing in the U.S.?
A: The thing that makes no sense is that anybody would twice vote for Obama and then vote for Trump. How do you make sense of that if you see the world through conservatism versus liberalism? It makes perfect sense, though, if your driving ideology is not conservatism or liberalism, but contempt for the status quo and the ruling elites that safeguard it. Because that is what Obama channeled more than anything, right? "I'm an outsider. I have this funny name. I haven't been in Washington very long. I want to change the way Washington works." That's exactly the message Trump nestled within his work in his own different style.
This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. A video version is below.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Glenn Greenwald on Corporate Media and Identity Politics."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"our government has essentially been co-opted by corporate power"
Yes. And that's a good thing from a Koch / Reason libertarian POV.
#InDefenseOfBillionaires
Lord Haw-Haw beat everyone up today.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (db-012) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
Soros spent $708 million in one election year. He also spawned Staple Street Capital which owns Dominion Voting. The result? The Manchurian Candidate. Soaring crime. Open borders. Skyrocketing inflation. A recession. Election fraud. Uneducated kids. People who won't be able to buy a beer for six more years getting their sexual organs removed. In short, Stupidland. And every day another "Trump took some papers!" story. Hillary paid for Russiagate using her $2 billion fake charity and not one person went to jail. Utter corruption.
Oh, boy, here we go…
What about Dominion? You mention their name as if it is self-evidently damning.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election
Four congressional Democrats sent a letter to the owners of Dominion Voting Systems and cited several problems that “threaten the integrity of our elections,” including “vote switching.”
In a December 2019 letter to Dominion Voting Systems, which has been mired in controversy after a human error involving its machines in Antrim County, Michigan, resulted in incorrect counts, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Amy Klobuchar and congressman Mark Pocan warned about reports of machines “switching votes,” “undisclosed vulnerabilities,” and “improbable” results that “threaten the integrity of our elections.”
Dominion.
"These problems threaten the integrity of our elections."
Senators Elizabeth Warren (D), Amy Klobuchar (D) & Ron Wyden (D) issue a formal complaint in 2019 to Dominion Voting Systems.
Let me guess, you think I’m a Democrat (well, you don’t really, but that’s the game we play around here), so quoting Elizabeth Warren is supposed to be a gotcha against my belief system.
Elizabeth Warren has a terrible track record of being wrong about everything under the sun.
I’m by and by turning out to be further $19k or extra month-to-month from local through doing surprisingly sincere and clean task online from local. [rfv-05] I truly have gained expressly $20845 outrageous month from this local task. be a region of at this point this endeavor and start getting more money online through notice teaching:-
.
At the given webpage:>>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
What about some evidence that Dominion machines miscounted any votes in the 2020 election?
Trying to decide your rant, is “the Manchurian Candidate”, shorthand for the conspiracy theory that China is an investor in Staple Street Capital? Or?
China owns the Biden Crime Family, and has been in business with the Clinton and Obama Crime Families for years now. So Joe is the Manchurian Puppet. And Ron Klain might jus the the Peking Homonculus.
You think we have open borders or that the Biden administration has been pursuing open borders?
You think otherwise?
Reason was just writing the other day about the Biden administration’s continuation of the same policies as the Trump administration, despite any differences in rhetoric.
But that's just not true. Ended remain in Mexico. Stopped finding the building of a border wall. Decreased leadership and support for border enforcement. Encouraging illegal immigrants to come to the US. Supporting sanctuary cities. Decrease in border funding. Pursuing punishment of agents for political reasons rather than embracing reality. Failing to provide resources. Diverting enforcement personnel to maintenance duties.
Again man, when you have to lie so much to keep your positions, you may need to rethink your positions.
I’m not the one stretching the definition of what “open border” means.
Probably because you’re busy stretching a lot of other things. You are a democrat shill. Your pretense to the contrary is obvious bullshit.
How, then, do you account for the huge increase in border crossings? If Biden is just as good (or bad depending on your preferred flavor of propaganda) as Trump then what has changed? Is this just an attempt to reelect the life long demented old hack because he is "no worse" than the very, very bad orange man? He has all the gusto without any of the annoying humor?
There are quite a few Reason articles on the topic, but here’s an example:
https://reason.com/2022/01/20/one-year-into-his-presidency-joe-bidens-immigration-policy-hasnt-made-anyone-happy/
It isn’t open enough for Reason, or your pal, Pedo Jeffy.
What election fraud?
Who asked you faggot? Seriously, always a stupid lame boomer take with you. You claimed upthread Biden is essentially the same as Trump policy wise and Inquisitive Squirrel gave you numerous examples how they are not. Instead of addressing them and making a good argument you fall back to Nuh Uhh! as if that means anything. Between you and Joe the Retard, the Donna Brazile shit takes never end.
No, it's a troll that is not even close to as clever and provocative as it thinks. Best ignored or viewed like some reality show idiot.
Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee and should be treated as such.
“Uneducated kids”. Lockdowns happened primarily during the Trump administration. Not saying that is Trump’s fault, since school closing decisions were at the state and local level. But are you implying that Biden was responsible for school closures during the Trump administration?
Jesus, this is gaslighting galore.
Again, when most of you positions requiring lying and disengenous framing, it may be time to reassess your positions.
Can you give any details of how you think I was gaslighting or being disingenuous. Because your comment had no substance.
Only a tribal hack thinks Repubs we're supporters of lockdowns. My god, do you know how disengenous your arguments are or have you actually convinced yourself of your bullshit?
Re-read what I wrote. I never said anything about Republicans supporting lockdowns.
Democrats are responsible for a ridiculous amount of the school closures, seeing as how nearly every major city in the US is run by them and the teachers union has the party by the balls.
You know this, but you pretend it’s not reality. And that’s just one example.
How many children do you think recurve gender reassignment surgery in the United States every year?
Fuck off and die, you pathetic pile of lefty shit.
Come on, Mike is running down his gaslight checklist.
Each and every one of you regulars is getting absolutely trounced by Mike Laursen. I’ve seen no rebuttals to anything he’s brought up, only defensive posturing and ad hominem - ya know, the calling cards of believers who have no intention of debating in good faith?
Trump is a loser you fucks. Quit believing and start using your heads.
Thank you.
This is because every single thing he has mentioned HAS been rebutted. Multiple times. He then pretends that his questions and state,ears are new, and have never been addressed here. Now he’s fooled you into think he’s ‘trounced’ everyone.
All rebuttals have been made. Mike has embarrassed himself scores of times with his bullshit.
The end.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/05/viral-image/no-young-children-cannot-take-hormones-or-change-t/
Politifact is a leftist website. So they’re suspect.
Only a statistically insignificant number of people are murdered in the US, so why should we as a society care?
I love watching you constantly resort to disengenous arguments.
I was responding to this sweeping complaint about modern liberally-governed America: “People who won't be able to buy a beer for six more years getting their sexual organs removed.”
That implies that it is a common occurrence. I posted a link that shows it isn’t an occurrence at all.
Who is gaslighting here?
You. It’s your thing.
Inquisitive squirrel - why don’t you try responding to one of his claims you gutless lemming?
Hi Mike. White knighting yourself now?
We need more stories on Governor Abbott protecting Texas from uppity preggers chicks defying the Fugitive Slave Law. Surely National Socialist Review can save the Grabbers of Pussy from the Revenge of the Nineteenth Amendment and the horror of libertarian spoiler votes repealing asinine laws!
Science, the only thing worse than religious fundamentalist are anti-religious fundamentalist. Stop trying to help the bodily autonomy movement, Hank.
"The thing that makes no sense is that anybody would twice vote for Obama and then vote for Trump. How do you make sense of that if you see the world through conservatism versus liberalism? It makes perfect sense, though, if your driving ideology is not conservatism or liberalism, but contempt for the status quo and the ruling elites that safeguard it."
Or maybe lots of people are childish morons, and treat elections for president they way they treat elections for prom queen and American Idol. Perhaps these voters prefer candidates that seem exciting, or sexy, or even goofy--but no deeper than middle school thinking.
BTW, I also think that these idiots inflate the significance of the office of president as supreme leader, and enable the unholy expansion of executive power.
"Or maybe lots of people are childish morons, and treat elections for president they way they treat elections for prom queen and American Idol"
Nope. The indication is as Greenwald says- that the driving force between the election of Obama and Trump is that the Elites are driving this country into the ground. Both sides serve up their own prom kings and queens, but there is a reason they are consistently (at national and state levels) choosing leaders whose message is decidedly anti-establishment.
Now I can understand why you might be confused. You demonstrate exactly the same snobbish contempt for america as the elites trying to run it into the ground. So that leads you to believe that the problem is the Americans, not the elites- because that would require quite a bit of introspection on your part, and who really wants to do that?
It isn't that I disagree that people are making bad decisions about their leaders right now. Clearly we are getting the government we deserve. The problem is dismissing them as childish morons. People can be convinced and educated and it is exactly the cop-out, "You are all morons!" attitude that gives power to the elites in the first place.
Whether or not elites take advantage, the truth is that most people act like emotional idiots in the voting booth. That includes choosing the candidate with the best hair, to outright forgetting which candidate actually supports or rejects some core hot-button issue.
The best value for all people, from anywhere on any spectrum, is MYOB. And that is a skill where non-elites probably outscore their betters. IMO a core libertarian value, that again "regular" people more consistently embody, is rejection of a managed society, especially with a partisan agenda--and thus the importance of electing the right people. Let's have fewer elections for offices that mean less, and that most people can go back to not caring about.
ps. Claiming to be smarter about something is one thing; claiming a mandate for control based on being smarter is something else.
"Whether or not elites take advantage, the truth is that most people act like emotional idiots in the voting booth. "
No they don't. Try talking to some one of these days. The Trump Supporters I know don't support him because of his hair. They support him because, of the tiny number of presidential candidates available at any given time, they think he is the most likely to accomplish certain goals.
And this is where we get into problems. Because a lot of the goals people have aren't libertarian. They are things like reducing the number of immigrants in this country or forcing people to pay more for their consumption in order to protect american jobs.
And this transcends parties. Plenty of people think it is great that Colorado compels the speech of businesses (requiring them to publish their internal salary data). Others think the federal government and big tech should be censoring "misinformation" even if it means censoring free speech.
So these attitudes have to change, obviously. And I would start with changing the attitude in yourself that leads you to snobbishly call people childish idiots, rather than recognize what is actually driving their decisions. Because if a person actually believes that Elites are running this country into the ground, then behaving like someone who thinks they are childish idiots is the best way to signal yourself as one of those snobbish elites.
We've been looking for people to burn out the swamp since at least Ron Paul in 2008.
It is quite easy to understand why someone would vote for Obama and then vote for Trump once you understand how dishonest the media is and how many people believed them. Most people do not follow politics closely and believe most of the what the mainstream media says. If you fit that description, you thought Obama was a centrist who was going to end the divisiveness of the Bush years. All of the crazy radical things that Obama was and did was never reported by the major media and was only known to those who followed "right wing media".
The other thing that happened was that a whole lot of people realized they had been fooled in 2008 but also that there was very little difference between Mitt Romney and Obama in 2012. So, they just stayed home. This is why Obama is the only President in history to be re-elected with fewer votes than he got in his first election. In 2016, Trump offered something different and a lot of those people turned out to vote for Trump.
I will still argue that many of the Obama-Trump voters were chasing the shiny thing. Sure, campaign ads and media (as if these are different) encouraged them, but my cynical view is that for most people any real attraction was very superficial, perhaps with some words about principles as rationalization.
People voted for Trump because they rightly judged H. Clinton as a power mad criminal. People voted for Obama because McCain wanted to bomb Iran and people were tired of war.
And people voted for Biden because it was a mail-in election, and the Dems are better at ballot harvesting.
And people voted for Biden because he was not Trump, after Trump had just spent at least the last two years of his administration doing nothing but whining about all the injustices being done to Him. People were fatigued with waking up each morning wondering what the hell tantrum he would be up to today.
In point of fact, more natural people voted for Slick Willie's ex-wife than for Trump, who was elected by Counties of States. This is not to say the electoral college is bad, but rather to put the thing in perspective. After the footage of Televangelists slobbering all over Don of Orange and his appointment of Handmaid Trilby to the Suprema the honeymoon was as over as when George Holy War Bush began shrieking for the gas chamber for bootleggers or hippies. The Don lost the popular and electoral vote both.
More people voted for Her Inevitability than Obama in the 2008 primary, too. What's your point, you drug-addled moron?
There's always some of that operating, but if it were a dominant factor you could never get somebody like Biden elected president now. When he was 30 years younger, yes, but not now.
I think Greenwald's analysis is correct. So why didn't Trump get re-elected? He did attract more votes than the first time, but he had the defect of being incumbent. One term as president makes you an insider in many voters' eyes as much as a lifetime like Biden's.
That wasn’t Trump’s problem. His problem was that he had just spent at least the last two years of his administration that he was a moronic, petulant child doing nothing but whining. People were tired of waking up everyday and wondering what new shit he was stirring up.
And yet you TDS suffering morons can’t shut up about him two years later….
Broken people will rant about the same thing for the rest of their lives.
It *IS* their lives; they have nothing else.
In fairness, it was a combination of Trump whining incessantly and media and the left whining incessantly.
Given the way he was treated, Trump was entitled to whine. Not so the media and the left; pure TDS.
Wet Mop! We've got a Twitwit Trumpista sockpuppet with hurt feelings on aisle 12.
Hey, a TDS-addled pile of shit on aisle #6!
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Sorry Hank, I don’t understand crazy old man.
There it is. Showing us some ankle there. You hate Trump. You’re for the democrats, and their entire agenda. Period.
Biden won because they changed the rules before Election Day. High turnout favors the Dems, because they have the lowest information aware voters and less civic responsibility. Making the election vote by mail pretty much handed it to them. And they are much better at harvesting ballots.
Biden won because Trump was awful. It's why Biden is still beating Trump in the polls.
Stuff your TDS up your ass.
Nope.
The Jewish face of white, religious, totalitarian supremecy?
^?
I suspect he's pissed off that Soros didn't pay him to protest somewhere warm and sunny with good beer.
The bluish face of redneck, superstitious, Teatalitarian illiterEcy oughtta know.
Fuck off and die, shitpile.
I think Greenwald has fallen for a chicken/egg problem.
He sees this problem (and it is a problem) as being driven by corporations. No, the problem is driven by government.
The reason why the rich, why corporations devote so much resources to influencing the government is because we have a large powerful government that has the ability to essentially pick winners and losers in the economy.
If the government didn't have so much power the rich and corporations wouldn't spend so much resources on trying to influence the government.
^ This
It is noteworthy that back in the early 90s, Microsoft would brag about how apolitical they were- "The real work is done in THIS washington", they would exclaim.
Flash forward to the late 90s and years of Anti-Trust attacks on the company, and they have one of the largest lobbying presences in DC.
"...Flash forward to the late 90s and years of Anti-Trust attacks on the company, and they have one of the largest lobbying presences in DC..."
No claim of conspiracy, but this results in more jobs, both in gov't (SEC) and those closely associated with it (legal staffing).
Again, no conspiracy (they ain't that smart), but that bullshit anti-trust lawsuit probably added at least a thousand jobs to the bureaucracy.
Federal Reserve has an annual 2.6 billion dollar budget. It’s strange -all of those high salaried PhDs needed to figure the Fed funds rate.
In addition, the small town I live in has four high salaried (higher than teachers) urban planning jobs. Strange that a small town with all privately owned property needs four nouveauurbanist planners.
But at the same time there are firms which have relied on politics for a long time. The governments we (and the rest of the world) have were put in by somebody. There's always a mix in the population. And in the long run it doesn't matter whether their rule is established by overtly democratic means or seemingly autocratic ones, they'll do things the way some people wanted and others didn't, including many who wanted to be left alone. And in the polity as a whole it's impossible to identify a prime mover and distinguish them from active reactors.
Oh totally. Mises Institute has a great article contrasting the crony "Robber Barrons" of the early 20th century. And the key point was that there were plenty of companies out there that resisted government entanglements as a practical and moral imperative, while there were others that would not exist without graft.
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons
There will always be people going after the government for their handouts. Local governments and their eminent domain powers have often had strong, corrupt relationships with land developers.
But all these things exist on a spectrum. The larger a government gets, the higher demand for "Government Solutions" rather than "Market Solutions." And the freer a market gets, vice versa.
Someone over on Full Context once suggested John Galt was the Prime Mover.
Who?
If the government didn't have so much power the rich and corporations wouldn't spend so much resources on trying to influence the government.
Yes. And government is always going to be corrupted and turned to the advantage of the elites. The only question is how much of an advantage. The bigger the government, the bigger the advantage. Greenwald is a socialist and can't give up the idea that government can work for the general good if only "the right people are in charge".
It will probably never occur to him to promote less government as a solution for "wrong" government.
I’d say crony capitalism is a co-evolution of corporatism and government favors. So, Greenwald is right and you are right, but it’s not an either-or.
Yeah, that.
Corruption, in this context, being a two-way street.
"If the government didn't have so much power the rich and corporations wouldn't spend so much resources on trying to influence the government."
But the resources the rich and powerful devote to influencing the government is a small portion of the benefits they derive from it. Take the oil companies, for example. The money the government spends on the navy every year, to keep supply lines through the Persian gulf, is much greater than the money spend on campaign donations and lobbying. Much the same with high tech's and the entertainment industry's reliance on government to enforce intellectual property laws.
Why do you think this is a "But"?
Nobody spends 10 Million dollars lobbying to get a return of $5 Million. The reason the "Oil Lobby" goes after Washington is precisely because it will get them a multiple on their "investment".
The whole point is that as the government gets bigger, there are more opportunities for this type of investment. And the flip side of that is that if the government's scope and power were substantially reduced, it would make more sense for a corporation to invest elsewhere.
"And the flip side of that is that if the government's scope and power were substantially reduced,"
Note the passive voice*. In an oligarchy, those in the driver's seat, the rich and powerful, would presumably be doing this reducing. There is no incentive for them to change the status quo.
* active voice: dogs chased cats
passive voice: cats were chased (by dogs) -- the agent or underlying subject, the dogs in this case, is often omitted which can lead to muddled thinking.
"Note the passive voice*. In an oligarchy, those in the driver's seat, the rich and powerful, would presumably be doing this reducing. There is no incentive for them to change the status quo."
How about, "Americans voted in legislators on the explicit promise that they would extend the scope and power of government." Is that active enough for you?
I mean, Obama didn't secretly nationalize student loans or orchestrate the complete takeover of the banking and healthcare sectors behind closed doors. He did it with his entire party and half the nation cheering him on.
Last I checked, "Oligarchs" don't elect our leaders. And the people who do elect our leaders seem to lack interest in reducing the scope and power of government.
"Americans voted in legislators on the explicit promise that they would extend the scope and power of government."
The proper role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens.
That's pretty uncontroversial, at least among those who put stock in the constitution. Expanded rights mean expanded government. You claim the right to an abortion? More government. The right to a clean environment, safe cities, protection from foreign immigration? Still more government, and so on. I think the citizens, rich or poor, don't have much problem with this. It's almost an inevitability with bureaucracies and any other complex organization.
"Last I checked, "Oligarchs" don't elect our leaders."
You evidently didn't get around to checking the "Electoral College," a highly respectable institution of the rich and powerful responsible for electing our leaders designed to keep the rich and powerful rich and in power.
"You evidently didn't get around to checking the "Electoral College," a highly respectable institution of the rich and powerful responsible for electing our leaders designed to keep the rich and powerful rich and in power."
Flunked out of grammar school prior to grade 6 I seee.
"The proper role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens."
On that you and I agree. It's a pity about the other 150 MM voters, isn't it?
"Expanded rights mean expanded government."
That's hilariously wrong. Please show me to the Office of Abortion Protection.
The idea that you can justify every expansion of government as merely an expansion of rights is stupid even to the people who asked for the expansion in the first place.
"safe cities,"
Again, almost a farce of an argument. We are to believe that at some point in the 20th century, people discovered a "right" to safe cities- which necessitated massive increases in the police state. They never felt they needed "safety" from rights violations like murder or theft before that, of course. Those heartless founders had never even considered rights to life or liberty, right?
Here is another possibility, mtrueman- the citizenry actually doesn't agree with you and I that the sole purpose of government is to "protect rights".
"You evidently didn't get around to checking the "Electoral College,""
Oh, the group of electors who are elected by the people of their state? That electoral college? Or is there a super secret one where the electors actually vote for what a few "oligarchs" choose, and ignore the votes of their populous? Please, tell me about this secret cabal of Oligarch minions, Mtrueman. I am sure it won't make you look unhinged from reality. I promise.
Oh. and while you are at it, you can explain how these oligarch-selected electors also pass all the legislation in this country as opposed to the popularly elected representatives. That would be very interesting.
" Please, tell me about this secret cabal of Oligarch minions, Mtrueman."
Make a list of people who made out like bandits during the pandemic. The list will be oligarch heavy.
"We are to believe that at some point in the 20th century, people discovered a "right" to safe cities- which necessitated massive increases in the police state."
The more complex the society the more work it requires to govern it. That seems obvious, Also, less obvious, as the society becomes more complex, the public become increasingly demanding, intolerant of suffering and sacrifice, and sensitive to slights.
"you can explain how these oligarch-selected electors also pass all the legislation in this country as opposed to the popularly elected representatives. That would be very interesting."
Back to the obvious. They're much of a muchness. Lewis Carrol. There's interesting reading.
"Make a list of people who made out like bandits during the pandemic. The list will be oligarch heavy."
Ok, this is fun. You say oligarchs select our leaders with electors. I point out that the electors select their candidates based on the public vote, and ask to show me which electors selected different leaders than the public selected. Your response is to say "Well these oligarchs got pandemic cash!".
Perhaps you don't realize this, but you changed the subject. You have provided zero evidence that electors are selecting leaders that oligarchs demand, rather than the leaders they promised to select prior to the public electing them. Just a hint, but I think it will be difficult to do. We have pretty accurate historical records of which electors were selected by the public, and which leaders they ended up voting for. And, surprise, except for a handful of exceptions (that didn't change the outcome of votes), electors voted for the leader they promised the public they would vote for.
"The more complex the society the more work it requires to govern it. "
Oh, ok. So now we aren't talking about expanding rights, we are talking about "complexity". Here is a complexity: Everyone can see you changing your arguments faster than a chameleon crossing a Jackson Polock painting. You made some silly statements, just own up to it and move on.
"Back to the obvious. They're much of a muchness. Lewis Carrol. There's interesting reading."
This actually makes a lot of sense. Carrol made an art out of the genre, "Literary Nonsense". It explains your affinity to him. That said, I have to be honest- your nonsense isn't quite at the literary level yet. But props on you for aspiring to great things.
"You say oligarchs select our leaders with electors."
Our leaders are oligarchs. Oligarchy means rule by oligarchs, and the oligarchs are society's rich and powerful. The idea that there are one group of people, the oligarchs, and they choose our leaders from another group of people is wrong. They are the same - much of a muchness, to coin a phrase.
"their candidates based on the public vote"
The public get to vote between two rich and powerful candidates. Last time around it was a long time senator/corporate stooge and a billionaire president. And they probably both made out like bandits during the pandemic. These elections are little more than farcical punch and judy shows.
"Here is a complexity: Everyone can see you changing your arguments faster than a chameleon crossing a Jackson Polock painting."
Complexity refers to increasing numbers of nodes and connections in a network. Think of society as a vast network of people and institutions, and the interactions between them as the connections. Increasing the complexity of the society will require more effort to govern it. That means bigger government. It's not a difficult concept.
"This actually makes a lot of sense. Carrol made an art out of the genre, "Literary Nonsense".
Nonsense is sometimes better than sense when it comes to getting your point across, I agree. But in this case, I'm not trying on any fancy literary tropes. When I say the US is ruled by an oligarchy, I mean precisely that.
Right. The Affordable Healthcare Act was not a top-secret conspiracy, it was what Obama campaigned on. Voters knew about it, was constantly talked about. He massively expanded government bureaucracy and their ability to influence the medical industry, and pharmaceutical companies expanded their lobbying. We've seen what that has done the past two years.
So true. Your typical Congressman asks nowhere near as much for bribes as they could. Bribing politicians yields very high returns for small investment.
Exactly. Apple and Amazon and Microsoft and Facebook and Google would have been happy to just make billions and stay out of DC. But they all saw that Congress wanted to drag them there to testify, and make them spy on Americans, or to hand gigantic contracts to their competitors, so they all started paying for the best lobbyists and buying the most influential Congress crooks. Some even moved their HQ to Virginia. Amazon's CEO even bought the state paper, the Washington Post.
"But they all saw that Congress wanted to drag them there to testify, and make them spy on Americans"
Appearances in Congress are not a high price to pay to maintain oneself at the top of the heap. It's little more than a show in any case. And spying on Americans is their bread and butter. Their entire business model relies on it. The idea that the government forces them to do so is just as ludicrous as the one of Eric Rudolf being goaded into the Atlanta bombing by the FBI.
It’s not so much being dragged into hearings. With Microsoft, they started investing in lobbying after being hit with the Internet Explorer anti-trust suit, and realizing they had neglected paying tribute to Federal government.
"With Microsoft, they started investing in lobbying after being hit with the Internet Explorer anti-trust suit, and realizing they had neglected paying tribute to Federal government."
If you want to maintain your position at the top of the heap, you've got to play by rules. If I recall, the government was paying Microsoft several hundred dollars for each government computer with a MS Windows installed. A stupendous amount of money though it is entirely possible to download a Windows image and install it free, I've done so in the past. Microsoft eventually learned that backscratching must be mutual if the oligopoly is to run smoothly, is all.
By the way, I haven't used MS products for almost 20 years. I've recently learned the joys of Arch Linux (ArchLinuxARM) produced by a communist collective out of Vancouver Canada, I believe, after much tinkering with various OS on the Raspberry Pi. My install is even smoother and prettier than the recommended OS that Raspberry Pi provides. You need to do a lot of work on the command line though, editing config files, fstab, etc, all of which takes some time and effort to understand.
I’m primarily an Apple person myself, but I won’t claim Apple is superior or anything. I’m more of an Apple person by just happening to go down that path at work.
Apple makes some extremely stylish computers with a sound OS. I'm a minimalist though, and have used second or third hand computers running light weight OS for a long time. I'm really pleased with Arch though. It runs as much as 20 C cooler than the Raspberry Pi OS, nothing to sneeze at since the Pi is prone to overheating even with heat sinks attached. Arch's problem is that its much vaunted wiki is often little or no help which leads to a bewildering proliferation of other guides online, often vague, poorly written, incomplete or conflicting. Once you've done the base install, there is no one correct way to proceed, but thousands of incorrect ways. It takes a fair amount of dedication to get things as you want them.
That’s the weak link for a lot of open source software: no good documentation.
It’s a joy, though, when you find something open source that has good documentation and tutorials!
(Apple’s developer documentation is getting worse all the time. It just isn’t keeping up with new releases. Although the developer videos they release each WWDC are pretty good.)
I think there is some truth to this, but I think some companies simply discovered they have the power over people, like it, and want to use it to push their political goals.
And companies have an interest in making government powerful, just so they can reap the rewards
It is a constant feedback loop that plagued Industrial Age America, too.
Guy with money wants special favors that gov can give. Pays off the governor, some legislators, and a judge. Governors, legislators, and judges are in position to change policy or affect enforcement on limited salaries. The money is hard to say no to.
Just because you can’t spot what comes first does not mean they aren’t symbiotic.
Anti-trust is an imperfect means of attempting to check that symbiosis. I think GK Chesterton once said the problem with capitalism is there’s not enough capitalists… and it’s from government interference, at big business’ request, that puts barriers in front of competition that haves nothing to do with free market.
How do you increase capitalists? Remove barriers to entry. How do you protect the consumer? By regulating industries where competition doesn’t exist. How do you protect new competition against a big industry? Limit regulation to market share or gross revenue - higher it is, more regs you need to meet.
Of course, problem is, our government is already bought and paid for, so good luck with that.
Also, "corporatism" has little to do with what is meant in 21st century America by corporations. In fascist theory it refers to representatives of major parts of the corporate body of the nation, business groups, unions, agriculture, etc. The continued conflation of this with exclusively business corporations is manipulation of ignorance on the general public by Left-leaning "intellectuals".
Interesting interview. It is a pity that they are running it on a Sunday. Greenwald's reporting has been some of the most important reporting of the past decade, if you are concerned about civil liberties and the government.
"The thing that makes no sense is that anybody would twice vote for Obama and then vote for Trump....It makes perfect sense, though, if your driving ideology is not conservatism or liberalism, but contempt for the status quo and the ruling elites that safeguard it."
I really wish the Blue Cloistered Reason Editors would pay attention to this line...get it tatooed on their foreheads. Because every time I see Sullum tut-tutting Rand Paul for "overstating the science" on masks, or ENB wondering whether teachers can be trusted to conceal carry, it is so very clear that they don't understand the deep cancerous rot that comes from assuming that people who don't agree with you are merely stupid.
"I think one of the ways that people on the right and left can unite—I'm always looking for those opportunities—is by viewing whatever passes for capitalism in the United States as something that ought to be objected to, either because you're against capitalism in theory, as people on the left are, or because you want capitalism that's functioning and healthy and free of corruption, as people on the right do"
I understand what Greenwald is saying here, but I think this is a very serious mistake. I agree with Greenwald that the US is no longer a capitalist country. But that is why it is a terrible idea to let the left cast our current problems as a being a problem with capitalism in general.
Our banking and healthcare systems are almost completely untethered from market forces- that's about 40% of our economy alone. Another 35% of our economy is taken up by non-healthcare government spending. That means roughly 3/4 of our economy is no longer driven by free market forces. And even worse, the banking system is a cornerstone of all other markets, a crumbling foundational piece that is rotting the rest of our economy. Another 35% of our economy is taken up by non-healthcare government spending. That means roughly 3/4 of our economy is no longer driven by free market forces.
Any reforms to this system will require replacing it with something else. And if the Left can successfully recast this problem as "capitalism run amok" or the like, then the likely replacement will be even worse.
Convincing people that the current american system is bad is not enough. You need them to understand WHY it is bad. And that goes back to understanding that the problem really is the "Ruling Elites" - from the Clintons to the Romneys. And understanding that what they are selling us- this "Stakeholder Capitalism" bullshit, isn't capitalism at all.
Further: "Governments employ 20 percent or more of workers in nine states"
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/05/governments-employ-20-percent-of.html
Nationwide, the rate is just shy of 17%
And the feds own more than half the land in eight states.
^^^^^This. I assume most like high salaried, defined benefit jobs with no productivity or accountability
Any reforms to this system will require replacing it with something else. And if the Left can successfully recast this problem as "capitalism run amok" or the like, then the likely replacement will be even worse.
But... David Brooks even admitted he was wrong about Capitalism!
Clintons and Romneys. Interesting. What about the Kochs and big oil?
There is really just one political Koch left.
That's the trouble: We've been moving away from free enterprise and onto actual capitalism — rule by capital. Since I read Clarence Carson's explanation in The Freeman, I, like he, have been against capitalism and in favor of free enterprise. "Capitalism" is a word made up by Marxists to caricature free enterprise, and means rule by capital. Unfortunately that prediction has been coming true. As Carson pointed out, the USSR was a prime example of capitalism.
That’s why I won’t use the word “capitalism”.
Even Howells' "The Accumulation" is more apropos, less German and more of a Bryanist, Populist Chimerican neologism. Oligarchs and tycoons accumulate, whether under communism or a confused mixed economy. It's more a balance sheet expression than an ideological slur, even if it is both. Altrurianism helped graft the communist manifesto income tax onto the 1894 tariff bill, and wrecked the economy something fierce! That was an early demo of how looter spoiler vote clout worsens laws.
Ok, I'll bite. Under which definition of Capitalism does it mean "Rule by Capital"?
Like where in capitalism's theory is "Capital" ruling people?
Because otherwise, this just sounds like a clever slogan in a surreptitious attempt to re-brand capitalism.
To steel-man the argument, I think the idea is the wealthiest people end up running the institutions within the systems. Ie, the wealthiest people run the Soviet system. Or... the people running the Soviet system become the wealthiest people.
But none of that has anything to do with any definition of capitalism.
I understand people who want to rebrand capitalism, because capitalism has been under attack for decades by an intransigent marxist elite. If that is what Roberta is actually doing, I think it is a bad idea for reasons that I'd be happy to discuss- the jist of which being that you just toss over a hundred years of real, free-market capitalist theory and experience in the trash, which will present problems when you are trying to present the same theories again under a new name.
But what Roberta seems to be saying is that capitalism was actually something else. Not free enterprise, but something called "Rule of Capital". So we aren't just rebranding. No, we are saying that free-market capitalism was a mistake. It seems like it will be pretty counter-productive to say, "Hey, follow my 'Free Enterprise' theories that are remarkably similar to free market capitalism which marxists and I agree was evil and bad".
But none of that has anything to do with any definition of capitalism.
If you redefine capitalism as "rule by capital" it does. You know that's not what capitalism is, I know that's not what capitalism does, but when your entire philosophy is centered around power and "rule by" then that's how you come up with that definition of Capitalism.
Right, and that is why I asked Roberta to clarify.
People should under no circumstances shy away from defending capitalism as not only moral, but a force of moral good in and of itself. No one should be ashamed of allowing people being allowed to own capital- themselves, their labor, money and other property- and to solely decide how that capital will be put to use. That's not "Rule by capital" it is self rule over capital.
For decades, as people have been allowed to participate in freer markets, we have not only seen a miraculous (pragmatically good) growth in the prospects of the common man, but we have by definition see the world become more moral- where individuals can produce and own free of coercion.
To the extent that people- who have always rejected Capitalism or who claim to be capitalists as they seek un-capitalist means of coercion- have been able to erode these gains and break free markets, we must always assign blame to them, and them alone. We don't suddenly say "Well, capitalism was bad after all, because people who weren't capitalist did un-capitalist things." No, we explain why those things were not capitalist and move forward.
I’m sorry, I can’t get on board with that. I far prefer the aphorism that capitalism is the worst system out there except for all the rest.
Capitalism is not, in and of itself, a moral good. Greed is a moral evil and greed is the negative end of capitalism. Capitalism is a moral neutral.
Now I’m a conservative and not a libertarian, so I’m not going to be in agreement with you on this, but the systems of checks and balances aims to incentivize good choice being best choice for power players (government). Not that that’s working out so well. People who use their capital to exercise government to remove competition is the ugly side of capitalism (people doing what they want with their capital). That kind of thing needs a check on it.
I’m not going to say people need a check on how much wealth they can accumulate. But they absolutely should not be able to leverage government to disadvantage their competitors and other capitalists.
Reason has written on this concerning business licensing - once someone gets to the top of the ladder, they pull up the ladder.
Greed is not capitalism. Capitalism is letting the owners of capital decide what they will do with it.
Just think of this logically. Is Greed unique to capitalism? Do authoritarian dictators not have greed? Were Saddam Hussein or Hitler not greedy as they created fascist economies for their nations? How about the communist party members who received lavish dachas and other benefits in return for their perpetuation of Soviet Russia? Of course not. Greed affects what you DO with the means of production. It has nothing to do with who actually gets to make that decision.
Capitalism is silent on the propriety of greed- it only says that a certain person is allowed to control how a person's labor, money or other property will be deployed. If that person deploys it altruistically or greedily is outside the realm of capitalism.
It is exactly this attempt to conflate "people getting to control their property" with "greed" that I talk about when I say that people are ceding moral ground to capitalism's enemies.
"Not that that’s working out so well. People who use their capital to exercise government to remove competition is the ugly side of capitalism (people doing what they want with their capital). "
I am not sure what you mean here. When government "removes competition" that *isn't* capitalist. They didn't choose to remove their capital from the market, it was forced. That is like saying Fascism is the ugly side of Democracy.
Mind you, I am not denying that in a capitalist society, people might get the means to do un-capitalist things. But that isn't the ugly side of capitalism. It is a threat that is present in ANY society.
"they absolutely should not be able to leverage government to disadvantage their competitors and other capitalists."
Totally agree. And this is why I think it is so important to vehemently defend what capitalism is, and condemn what it isn't.
"Greed is not capitalism."
The growth imperative behind capitalism is where the greed comes in, ie baked in right at the start. Company A promises to do all it can to grow. Company B is content to stay as it is. Where are you going to put your investment? Any business bigger than a family concern will be under this imperative to grow.
The Jewish Christian Muslim traditions are pretty sour on usury, because of the commandment against coveting, and also a philosophical objection against 'making' money through the witchery of interest, which increases over time, rather than following gods laws that all things must wither and die over time.
Indeed that's what the Marxists did. Why are we using their word? Why are we pumping up their straw man?
None of that is to suggest that I agree that the Soviet System was "capitalist". In the end, you're dealing with a rhetorical sleight of hand designed to divert attention from the inherent failures of both socialism and Marxism.
I was following some rabbit holes a few weeks ago, namely one on Paulo Friere who is a fundamentally marxist rock star within American education circles. Anyhoo, sure enough, it didn't take long to find articles from other marxists referring to him as a "psuedo" Marxist, and they included Noam... Chomsky in that.
Ok, I'll bite. Under which definition of Capitalism does it mean "Rule by Capital"?
Pretty sure he's saying that's the Marxist definition, that the term was invented to demonize the free market.
Ultimately, regardless of the origin, the capital has no will of its own and in the given context is just shorthand for 'people doing things against *my* will' or 'people doing things *I* don't like'.
As Clarence Carson pointed out, if "capitalism" is formed similarly to other "-ism"s, that's what it should mean. Communism is rule by the commune. Collectivism is rule by the collective. Even the way "alcoholism" tends to get used, it's a kind of rule of someone's life by alcohol.
I think it's the other way around in at least some ways. Since government gets to pick winners and losers in markets 'if they feel like it', they wield the power of corporations to essentially do their bidding under the threat of 'sure is a nice business you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.'
Remember, the government is the one with the guns and anti-trust laws etc. not corporations.
Don't take this to mean I think corporations are blameless in all this, but at the same time they aren't the ultimate villain the far left is looking for.
"Remember, the government is the one with the guns and anti-trust laws etc. not corporations."
Follow the money. These government guns are used to persecute people like these Michigan crackpots, not our corporations. Not terribly reliable sources inform us that George Soros spent $708 million on funding election campaigns. Let me know when the government gets around to persecuting him.
Reason continues to flirt with white supremacy, I see.
yeah, another article lauding an alt-right extremist. (Who used to be considered a principled liberal, and hasn't shifted much.)
Mainstream media fact check guide:
Crazy talk conspiracy theory stuff: Deep State, Democrat election tampering, Hunder Biden influence peddling, FBI out to get Trump, etc.
Not crazy talk conspiracy theory stuff: insurrection, Trump is a Russian asset, Dossier Gate, Russian meddling in te 2016 election, etc.
So what? There is plenty of non mainstream media available to any who want to access it.
As long as there's an underground newsletter, censorship by government is totally cool!
That’s quite an exaggeration of the actual situation. The biomass of liberally biased media is bigger, but conservatively biased media is big and healthy.
The whole "freedom via espionage" group from Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, and so forth, has been thoroughly discredited at this point, haven't they? These people were all absorbed as Russian assets. They can't make coherent journalism now because they claim to be warriors for a free press but, either because of expediency or loyalty, don't even mention Russia's almost comically tyrannical control of information.
It turns out that there still is no freer press than in the United States. You can tell by all the horseshit that passes itself off as journalism. And no country whose national security secrets have been so thoroughly exposed, whether by Snowden and Greenwald or Trump himself.
All of these people have been undermining American national security while ignoring the abuses of other states and even doing propaganda for them. How many times does Greenwald have to appear on FOX News for it to sink in? It's not that these people are secretly working for Russia. It's that they're not being secret about it, and may even be too dumb to know they're doing it.
"The whole "freedom via espionage" group from Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, and so forth, has been thoroughly discredited at this point, haven't they?"
No.
"These people were all absorbed as Russian assets. "
No they weren't. Or do you have proof of this?
"It turns out that there still is no freer press than in the United States"
Notice the absurdity of what Tony is arguing here. Snowden, Assange, and Greenwald have exposed that the United States is instituting massive invasions of privacy; That Democrat Party Leaders were colluding with their sympathizers in the media to rig the primaries against their own party members; that the federal government is working with allies to circumvent prohibitions against spying on our own citizens; that the FBI and Obama Administration used LIES funded and peddled by the Clinton Campaign to justify spying on their political opponents.
But Tony, shouting at the voices in his head, demands that we acknowledge that we have a free press. Um...ok.
"All of these people have been undermining American national security while ignoring the abuses of other states and even doing propaganda for them. "
This is a cute rhetorical trick from Tony. As long as he can find someone worse to criticize, it is wrong to criticize the US. Let's remember that next time he pops in to criticize anything going on in the US.
I do have to say that it *IS* hilarious to see partisan Democrat talking heads adopt exactly the same talking points as McCarthy and Ashcroft. He isn't even being secret about it, and may even be too dumb to know he is doing it.
I love that you included some of the pro-Bernie lies in your rehash of the exact propaganda I was referring to. Make no mistake, I understand that Bernie was weaponized too. There's a simple common thread among all the Russian dupes: they found the stupidest people they could find.
Trump stole top secret US intel and put it in his nightstand. He still won't acknowledge losing in 2020, in plain day, fomenting rebellion and spreading dangerous lies that literally threaten to undermine the United States system of government.
It is extraordinarily curious that you're nitpicking old Democratic primaries while ignoring all of that, isn't it?
This stupid sumbitch is still stuck in 2016! Fucking ignorant pile of shit.
"Make no mistake, I understand that Bernie was weaponized too. "
Riiiight, Tony. It is "weaponizing" to, you know, uncover democrats conspiring against Bernie.
Now, most reasonable americans would think that weaponizing a person would be paying them to adopt certain viewpoints or make certain statements. But, no Tony has set us straight. "Weaponizing" Bernie is someone (not Bernie) exposing the lies and deceit used by Hillary Clinton and her allies in the party leadership to exclude Bernie from the nomination.
And, get this, if you actually believe the truth- that Clinton stooges were rigging the primaries against Bernie- you are a "Russian Dupe".
"It is extraordinarily curious that you're nitpicking old Democratic primaries while ignoring all of that, isn't it?"
I didn't ignore anything. But you made several false statements, and everyone notices no matter how much you try to change the subject. In fact, these journalists are not "absorbed russian assets", despite your evidence-free assertions. In fact, they have not "been discredited".
But please, Tony. Dodge a little more. I'm sure it at least makes YOU feel better about this dismal performance from you (and that is me trying to lower the baseline to your levels).
You know we can read the actual emails right?
Greenwald is the gold star of journalism. If only we had more of him.
It's a mistake to elide between capitalism and capitalists. Successful capitalists do not want a free market - they might face competition, and bribing politicians can be an investment with a very high ROI.
It is said that Apple had made a point of not having lobbyists because they didn't need them. Eventually some lobbyist said to Apple, look, if you don't start paying lobbyists and making campaign contributions, we're going to start drafting legislation that will specifically affect you. It's a protection racket, in other words.
Trump was without doubt right to say that the swamp needed draining. All he did, of course, was replace some existing swamp monsters with his own swamp monsters and otherwise he did nothing.
More accurately, Trump failed at installing his own monsters.
Trump has the problem that it is hard to be loyal to him because he tends to throw associates under the bus and then badmouth them publicly. After a while, nobody of any competence or quality wanted anything to do with him or his administration.
Mike has the problem that it is hard to read any word he says without having a record of what he has said in the past. One day he declares Rolling Stone has discovered stupid conservatives overloading hospitals because they OD'd on Ivermectin. The next day, he declares that he'd never believe anything that Rolling Stone has to say outside of musical entertainment.
https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/?comments=true#comment-9091773
Indeed, Mike has the problem that it is hard to see him as anything but a disingenuous twat. If you are confused by his constant dissembling and gaslighting, just understand a simple point: He actually isn't here to converse. He is here to stir up shit. His entire modus operandi is to post whatever is most convenient to descend a thread into shit flinging, even if it directly contradicts what he said a day, or even a few hours ago.
Here is him in a thread declaring in one moment that there was never a promise to eradicate COVID via vaccination, and then a few hours later saying that the plan was always to deal with COVID through vaccination, except for anti-vaxers ruining it for the rest of us. Two mutually exclusive statements in a single thread.
https://reason.com/2022/02/02/can-the-medical-innovations-used-to-fight-covid-19-finally-defeat-hiv/?comments=true#comment-9336124
"It's a mistake to elide between capitalism and capitalists. Successful capitalists do not want a free market -"
Just one question from the peasant class, oh mighty SRG. How can one be a "Capitalist" if one does not practice "Capitalism".
I mean, if I saw someone claiming to be a "Vegan" while consuming meat, I probably would say they aren't practicing veganism, and would say that in fact, they are not vegans.
Just one question from the peasant class, oh mighty SRG. How can one be a "Capitalist" if one does not practice "Capitalism".
Good attitude lol and a reasonable question
They practice capitalism on the way up. Once their enterprise has succeeded, it's different. Then they will try to pull up the ladder behind them.
"They practice capitalism on the way up. Once their enterprise has succeeded, it's different. Then they will try to pull up the ladder behind them."
Cite missing, lefty shit.
Greenwald is not a deep thinker. But I've been a fan ever since he bitch-slapped a caudillo condesc-servative live. Will Smith could learn a thing or three...
You're a fucking ignorant pile of shit.
Q: Is it possible to have a capitalism that is not a crony capitalism?
Not until leftard propaganda like "crony capitalism" is correctly identified as National Socialism (i.e. crony socialism).. It's amazing how retarded-propaganda spreads in sheeple minds. It never was 'capitalism' that was crony.. It's always been 'socialism'.
Not until leftard propaganda like "crony capitalism" is correctly identified as National Socialism (i.e. crony socialism).. It's amazing how retarded-propaganda spreads in sheeple minds. It never was 'capitalism' that was crony.. It's always been 'socialism'.
What a load of drivel. Crony capitalism is simply government expenditures and regulations being heavily tilted towards cronies in the private sector. Only if the government takes over - not merely kicks back to - a large proportion of the private sector does it begin to approach socialism.
"What a load of drivel. Crony capitalism is simply government expenditures and regulations being heavily tilted towards cronies in the private sector. Only if the government takes over - not merely kicks back to - a large proportion of the private sector does it begin to approach socialism."
What a pile of shit. This is a lefty shit un-schooled in history. Please read Pipes or even (the lefty) Figes on the Bolshi revolution before you put your foot in your mouth again, lefty shit.
Not my fault you don't know the definition of socialism.
Though I understand from your posts that merely to know the definition makes one a lefty in your raddled and syphilitic brain.
definition per stanford.edu....
In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which, at a minimum, is turned into : The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control (Government-Political Class).
Wikipedia...
Capitalism -- is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price system, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.
Wikipedia
Crony -- is an economic system in which businesses thrive **not** as a result of **free enterprise**, but rather as a return on money amassed through collusion between a business class and the political class.
Now Mr. Denialism.....
Which part of Crony fits Capitalism??? By definition it is exactly **NOT** capitalism...
Which part of Socialism isn't Democrats very platform/foundation?
Oh let me guess... No-one gets it because leftards aren't socialists even if their entire agenda is socialist.. They just want to make a better society???? Nazi history in the making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
In an interview with Democracy Now!, journalist Glenn Greenwald discusses the deep state, capitalism, and identity politics. He argues that the deep state is a bigger problem than President Donald Trump and that capitalism is the root cause of many social ills. Greenwald also criticizes identity politics, saying that it divides people and prevents them from uniting to fight against the system.
What a clown. No wonder he likes getting on Fox.
"Q: Fifteen years ago, Fox News was the national security network and CNN was the critic. What has changed that?
A: I think the primary impetus was the reliance on "Russiagate" as the principal theme of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Once you start positing that there's some evil foreign villain bent upon wreaking havoc inside the U.S. and that the political opponent domestically is aligned with that foreign power, that's a very jingoistic way of looking at the world. On top of which, Russiagate itself emanated from the bowels of the CIA, the bowels of the U.S. security state, which was feeding leaks to The Washington Post and The New York Times."
Here you go Doofus. Here's from the Senate Intel Comm Report of 2020 which had a GOP majpority at that time. Note that it calls out Assange - one of this jerk's heroes for being a Putin stooge.
"The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the hack-andleak campaign targeting the DNC, DCCC, and the Clinton Campaign. Moscow's intent was to damage the Clinton Campaign and tarnish what it expected might be a Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and generally undermine the U.S. democratic process. The Committee's findings are based on a variety of information, including raw intelligence reporting. ...
,,,In addition to publishing the stolen documents, the Russian personas used social engineering to seed information with specific individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. The GRU also relied on U.S. social media platforms and media attention for its influence operations. -WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian campaign and knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort. The Committee found significant indications that Julian Assan e and WikiLeaks have benefited from Russian government support
While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to aid Trump's electoral prospects. To do so, the Trump Campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks. (U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks through Roger Stone. In spring 2016, prior to Assange's public announcements, Stone advised the Campaign that WikiLeaks would be releasing materials harmful to Clinton. Following the July 22 DNC release, Trump and the Campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016. Trump and other senior Campaign officials specifically directed Stone to obtain information about upcoming document releases relating to Clinton and report back. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign officials on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone's information suggested more releases would be forthcoming.
Some of the individuals the GRU targeted for outreach with the Gucci fer 2.0 persona were closely associated with the Trump Campaign, such as long-time Trump advisor Roger Stone.1249 On August 5, 2016, Stone penned an opinion piece asserting that Guccifer 2.0, not the Russians, had hacked the DNC, and repeating the false claims made by the GRU on the Guccifer 2.0 website and Twitter account.12
In addition to disseminating hacked materials through its own personas, the GRU gave information to WikiLeaks as part of a joint effort to secure wider distribution of stolen DNC documents and John Podesta emails. WikiLeaks opted to release those materials, first on July 22 and later on an ongoing basis between October 7 and the election. WikiLeaks also actively solicited and then released the documents for maximum effect, despite mounting evidence that they had been stolen by Russian government hackers. Notably, this was not the first instance that WikiLeaks had taken actions for the purpose of harming U.S. interests. Nor is it the only instance of contact between the Russian government and WikiLeaks, which have a history of parallel and sometimes coordinated actions in attacking U.S. institutions.
The Russian government has pursued a relationship with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks that includes formal partnerships with state-owned media platforms, government assistance for WikiLeaks associates and sources, and information sharing. This relationship has existed since at least 2012 and reflects an alignment between the Russian government and WikiLeaks in seeking to undermine U.S. institutions and security. (U) RT (formerly Russia Today) has provided both beneficial coverage ofWikiLeaks and a formal, compensated media platform for Assange. RT first signed a contract with Assange
(U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were coordinating the release of hacked pNC, DCCC, and Podesta documents, Trump and senior Campaign officials sought information relating to "missing" Hillary Clinton emails as part of the Campaign's opposition research and press strategies. Beginning in April or May 2016, Roger Stone repeatedly cc;mveyed to Trump and senior Campaign staff that WikiLeaks would be releasing information damaging to Clinton. After the July 22 WikiLeaks release, Trump and senior Campaign officials believed Stone had access to non-public information about WikiLeaks' s ability and intent to release emails harmful to Clinton. (U) Thereafter, Trump directed Campaign officials to stay in touch with Roger Stone about future WikiLeaks activities regarding Clinton-related emails. Manafort in tum tasked Stone to contact Julian Assange, and Stone endeavored to reach Assange through several intermediaries. Stone reported back to senior Campaign officials and· associates, and to Trump directly, and provided advance informatio~ about another expected release relating to John Podesta, which he said would be damaging to Clinton. After WikiLeaks published the Podesta emails on October 7, Trump and the Campaign believed Stone had again acquired accurate, nonpublic information. The Committee could not reliably trace the provision of non-public information from WikiLeaks to Stone, and as a result. could not evaluate the full scope of Stone's non-public knowledge of WikiLeaks's activities. (U) The Trump Campaign strategically monitored and promoted the WikiLeaks releases of John Podesta's emails from October 7 until the· election.• The Campaign tried to cast doubton the October 7 joint DHS/ODNT assessment formally attributing the activity to Russia, and was indifferent to the significance of acquiring, promoting, or disseminating materials from a Russian intelligence services hack-and-leak campaign.....
...At approximately 4:32 p.m. on October 7-approximately 32 minutes after the release of the Access Hollywood tape-WikiLeaks released 2,050 emails that the GRU had stolen from John Podesta, repeatedly announcing the leak on Twitter and linking to a searchable archive of the documents.1677
Corsi said that after the October 7 WikiLeaks release, he and Stone agreed that they deserve.d credit and that."Trump should reward us."1682 However, Corsi said that Stone was concerned about having advance information about the Podesta release, and that Stone recruited . Corsi to make sure no one knew Stone had advance knowledge of that information. After the October 7 release, Corsi claimed that Stone directed him to delete emails relating to the Podesta information.1683 As outlined in his indictment and presented at trial, in subsequent congressional testim~ny to the HPSCI, Stone hid his communications with Corsi about WikiLeaks, and instead identified Credico as his intermediary; he also concealed communications he made directing both Corsi and Credico to obtain advance information about future WikiLeaks releases; and he made misleading and false statements about his communications with the Trump Campaign and individuals associated with the Campaign.1684 Following this testimony, Corsi said that Stone directed him to "stick to the plan"; Stone also threatened Credico to prevent him from testifying · to HPSCI and contradicting Stone's story.....
Trump, in written responses to the SCO, stated: "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks. with individuals associated with my campaign."1624 Trump further claimed that he had "no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016 and November 8, 2016."1625 Despite Trump's recollection, the Committee ass~sses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions. ...
...Despite the contemporaneous statement by the U.S. Government warning of Russian responsibility for the hacking and leaking of the DNC, DCCC, and Clinton Campaign documents and emails, the Trump Campaign considered the release of these materials to be its "October surprise."1691 ....
...While the Campaign was using the WikiLeaks documents, Trump cast doubt on the assessment that Russian government hackers were responsible for the hack-and-leak campaign. ..."
There's much more.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report
To fix crony capitalism you amend the constitution to only allow for laissez-faire capitalism. Then the government can't give out favors to special interests and logroll.
Humorously it already is... Treasonous Nazi's(National Socialists) don't seem to think the U.S. Constitution (The people's law over their government) applies to them. Maintaining their Nazi-Regime is far more important than some old people's law over their government.
There isn't a single enumerated power that gave the 'feds' authority to STEAL and pass special interest favors anywhere. They are breaking the SUPREME LAW of the land and have been doing it for a long time.
You ask him what Alex Jones’ ass tastes like?