Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Conservatives Need a Safe Space From the Imaginary Threat of Woke Capitalism – Jacobin magazine

Last November, conservative commentator Ross Douthat penned a provocative column titled How the Right Became the Left and the Left Became the Right. One of the master keys to understanding our era, Douthat wrote in the opening paragraph, is seeing all the ways in which conservatives and progressives have traded attitudes and impulses.

The populist rights attitude toward American institutions has the flavor of the 1970s skeptical, pessimistic, paranoid while the mainstream, MSNBC-watching left has a strange new respect for the F.B.I. and C.I.A. The online right likes transgression for its own sake, while cultural progressivism dabbles in censorship and worries that the First Amendment goes too far. Trumpian conservatism flirts with postmodernism and channels Michel Foucault; its progressive rivals are institutionalist, moralistic, confident in official narratives and establishment credentials.

Despite some terminological imprecision Douthat often writes of the Left when he really means liberals the argument speaks to something real.

While liberals of the Bush era worried about mass surveillance and government overreach, todays liberal mainstream champions the sanctity of institutions and views the likes of courts, security agencies, and misinformation regulators as a bulwark against the Right. As Donald Trump insulted his way into the executive branch, liberals bludgeoned Bernie Sanders and his supporters with bad-faith social-justice critiques and made prudish appeals to consensus and decency. The Republican affect, by contrast, has increasingly drawn on themes of dissent and rebellion, with a politics of trolling and an aesthetic of 4chan-esque vulgarity supplanting the comparatively upright style once associated with figures like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.

Theres a certain elegance in seeing contemporary politics like this: censorious and oversensitive Brahmins sermonizing about institutional authority in one corner and a newly irreverent right pursuing a frenzied and paranoid style in the other. It isnt entirely wrong, but its not exactly right either. In its tidiness, such a narrative elides the important ways that the Right now engages in its own version of the very politics it claims to deplore. Conservatism, in this sense, has not so much traded places with liberalism as converged with some of its shallowest and most illiberal instincts.

Recently, conservatives launched a crusade against brewing company Anheuser-Busch in response to an innocuous advertising collaboration with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Breweries have reportedly been targeted with bomb threats, and one right-leaning company has seized upon the situation to launch a service called Woke Alerts that will warn consumers when companies cave to the woke mob. The episode is instructive for several reasons, among them that the campaign so obviously mirrors the very sensibility it purports to be resisting. In effect, the Rights go-to reaction to what it imagines are woke mobs is to create woke mobs of its own.

The incident is merely one example of a wider zeitgeist currently reflected in mass campaigns to get books with black or LGBTQ themes pulled from library shelves, draconian legislation to discipline academics who teach particular subjects, heavy-handed regulation of free expression in public-school classrooms, and sinister directives to state agencies targeting transgender children and their parents. Woke capitalism has, meanwhile, become conservatisms favorite bte noire, inspiring absurd freakouts about everything from Disneys ostensible promotion of socialism to Pride-themed Oreo packaging. The related concept of ESG (Environmental and Social Governance) is set to be the subject of congressional hearings that will, like Woke Alerts, target investors thought to be undermining profits in pursuit of a woke agenda.

Conservatives, in effect, have recognized the socially liberal bent of modern America and they absolutely hate it. The result is a politics increasingly indistinguishable from the most exaggerated right-wing caricature of censorious social-justice warrior liberalism.

Another irony of this posture is that it has seen conservatives embrace a key premise of the shallow social-justice ethos that now pervades the upper echelons of some large corporations. True, they may hate it when leviathans like Amazon and Nike issue statements in support of Black Lives Matter or partner with transgender TikTok stars. But, in lockstep with the marketing teams at these very companies, conservatives accept the corporate alignment with various social-justice causes as something genuine rather than a branding exercise. On this, they agree with an influential section of American liberals: woke capitalism exists.

Yet the whole idea of so-called woke capitalism is absurd on its face. Large profitable corporations are, by definition, driven by cold-market calculus, not the pursuit of social justice in anything but the hollowest sense. Insofar as some corporations bend toward social liberalism, its mostly because theres a greater market share to be found there on major issues like trans rights and abortion, conservatism is very much a minority proposition in todays America and because it can be an effective inoculant when their owners and bosses are caught union busting, running exploitative workplaces, or contributing to climate change. Its a cynical and often nakedly hypocritical branding exercise undertaken by people thinking about their bottom lines and little more. If the Right is wrong to attack woke capital, liberals are wrong to celebrate it.

Its one thing to find fault with the moralism that pervades some liberal milieus, or to roll ones eyes in the direction of Wall Street banks or entertainment conglomerates trying to cash in on social-justice branding. The fact remains, however, that it is not oversensitive liberals who are crusading against Bud Light, trying to get books banned en masse, or enforcing parochial ideas about gender and sexuality through state legislation. In the narcotic haze of the culture war, it is all too easy to overlook the extent to which Americas conservative minority has become a mirror image of the very thing it purports to deplore: a shrill and inflexible mass that not only mistakes consumption for politics but demands protection, at all times, from facts, people, and ideas that make it uncomfortable.

Go here to see the original:
Conservatives Need a Safe Space From the Imaginary Threat of Woke Capitalism - Jacobin magazine

Another liberal diversity lie: FCC Democrats won’t give these minorities a fair hearing – Fox News

Liberal leaders never miss an opportunity to declare their commitment to diversity.

From college admissions to collective bargaining and beyond, the mantra for most Democrats has been the more diversity the better.

But that only goes so far.

When the opportunity arose for the Democratic-led FCC to approve a merger of what would become the largest minority-owned local television group, it has failed tragically.

President Biden's FCC and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been instrumental in delaying bid by Korean American entrepreneur Soohyung (Soo) Kim to buy Tegna Broadcasting. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Over one year ago, Korean American entrepreneur Soohyung (Soo) Kim made an application at the FCC to buy Tegna Broadcasting in a deal worth $8.6 billion. Tegna is America's third-largest broadcast group, with over 64 television stations in 51 markets throughout the United States. Under Soo, Tegna would become the largest minority-owned broadcast station group in the country.

BIDEN'S FCC NOMINEE SUPPORTED BY GROUP THAT CALLED POLICE AGENTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY

Little did he know that despite the historical legacy of such an undertaking, not everyone would be cheering him on. In fact, Soo gravely underestimated the deep reservoir of bias, enmity and discrimination he would face as an Asian American entrepreneur that is until the liberal long-knives came out publicly against him.

Up to now, Soo's business career has been the stuff of American Dream novels. Born in South Korea. Immigrating to the United States at the age of 6. Learning English by watching "Sesame Street." Studying hard to gain admission to Princeton. Working his way up on Wall Street to become a successful investor, and ultimately founding his own hedge fund under the unassuming name, Standard General.

Self-styled "public interest groups," a few representatives of labor unions and lawmakers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren coalesced to oppose the application. (Stefani Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

Today, Soo Kim can claim major investment successes in retail, real estate, gaming and media. Even so, putting together significant debt and equity financing to take the publicly-traded Tegna private is no small feat for any entrepreneur minority or not.

With a solid plan to improve local news and faith in the fairness of the regulatory process, Mr. Kim believed the merger would be approved by the FCC within the customary 180-day window in which the agency acts.

But not so fast.

While Soo Kim is no stranger to opposition, and has had his fair share of contested deals, the Tegna merger marked the first time the entrepreneur had encountered the federal government's stonewall of silence.From the moment Standard General's plans were announced, a collection of self-styled "public interest groups" and a few representatives of labor unions coalesced to oppose the application.

Together they, along with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., prevailed upon the FCC to see things their way. According to the Wall Street Journal, Pelosi acted after receiving substantial campaign contributions from a Democratic donor who was interested in derailing the Standard General deal.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talks to the media at the U.S. Capitol, Oct. 25, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Things have been anything but normal since.

AMERICA'S TIKTOK CHALLENGE IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK

For the better part of a year, the Democratic-led FCC has successfully delayed an up or down decision on Mr. Kim's merger application. It has extended the period of review, made repeated requests for the same set of documents, and even refused to meet with the principals involved in the deal to discuss conditions or concerns.

In what could have been the coup de grace after a year of regulatory run-around, an FCC bureaucrat, acting under delegated authority from the FCC chairwoman, referred the merger to an internal administrative law judge for further review.What makes this last act of merger malfeasance so problematic is that the FCC knew Mr. Kim's financing commitment for the deal had been extended several times, but would come to a hard stop on May 22. Referring the merger application for a hearing normally takes up to a year and in most cases means the kiss of death for any deal.

The commission's patent disdain and disregard for commercial and financial realities in the industry it regulates is appalling.

When Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, learned of these shenanigans, they raised the red flag.In a joint letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, Cruz and Rodgers wrote the following:

"The Media Bureaus decision to send the transaction to an ALJ hearing violates Commission rules and precedents in several ways.

"First, to keep the Commission accountable to Congress and the public, a full Commission vote is required for certain matters, particularly those involving novel issues and/or significant legal or policy consequences. Designating a multi-billion-dollar transaction such as the Standard General-TEGNA transaction for an ALJ hearing is precisely the type of serious decision for which commissioners must take responsibility. The last time the FCC referred a major transaction to an ALJ, the decision was made at the Commission level, and the FCC should not have departed from that precedent.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers speaks during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 23, 2023. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

"Second, the Media Bureaus HDO relied on novel interpretations of the Commissions public interest standard and appeared to ignore if not contradict the Commissions precedent that an increase in retransmission consent rates, by itself does not constitute a public interest harm.

"Third, under Commission precedent, the Media Bureau should have provided the full Commission 48 hours notice before issuing the HDO on February 24, 2023. It did not."

Cruz and Rogers have not been the only ones to cite the FCC's departure from precedent and procedure. There is a long and impressive list of local legislators, civil rights leaders, acadamic scholars and trade associations that have written in support of the merger, including the American Enterprise Institute and American Consumer Institute.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

There has been a travesty committed by Democratic leaders in this Standard General-Tegna deal. While they have consistently given lip-service to media ownership diversity, their actions speak louder than words. In a completely private transaction that does not burden taxpayers, involve public funds or harm competition, liberals have shown an amazing amount of hubris and hypocrisy.

When it comes to media ownership and meaningful participation in America's economy it appears the FCC Democrats have built a rampart with the sign: "Minorities need not apply."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ADONIS HOFFMAN

Read more:
Another liberal diversity lie: FCC Democrats won't give these minorities a fair hearing - Fox News

Even as They Protest, Israeli Liberals Reject Solidarity With Palestinians – Truthout

Part of the SeriesStruggle and Solidarity: Writing Toward Palestinian Liberation

Why are liberal Israeli protesters working with Israeli police to rip down Palestinian flags whenever anti-occupation activists attempt to raise them in the context of the widespread anti-government protests in Israel?

Theres a structural reason why the occupation of Palestine is absent from the mainstream liberal agenda of the protests, says Israeli academic and left-wing activist Idan Landau: The leading figures and speakers in these protests are routinely members of the legal, economic and military elites, all of whom were and are intimately implicated in maintaining the occupation.

The anti-government protests, which will likely reignite this week in the lead-up to Israels 75th Independence Day, have been led by Israeli liberals upset with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus far right nationalist coalition and its attempt to curb the powers of Israels judiciary.

Israeli democracy, which has always excluded Palestinians under military occupation, has been in accelerated decline over the last couple of decades. Israels far right has grown to extremely worrisome levels, with todays government of Benjamin Netanyahu being nothing short of a band of religious and racist zealots; in fact, some of them have even openly supported pogroms against Palestinian people.

Indeed, as Israeli academic and left-wing activist Idan Landau stresses in this exclusive interview for Truthout, racism and extremism have spread to a wide range of the population, especially among the youth.

Biden promised Israel $3.8 billion in annual military aid to maintain the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.

Landau is a professor of linguistics at Ben-Gurion University and writes a political blog (in Hebrew) on Israeli affairs. He has been imprisoned on several occasions for his refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces reserves.

C.J. Polychroniou: Israel has been moving further and further to the right over the last couple of decades to the point that todays government is beyond extreme. It is indeed a government pushing a hard-right agenda unlike anything that Israel has seen before. How do you explain Israels far right shift, and especially the fact that the overwhelming majority of young Jewish Israelis identify as right-wing?

Idan Landau: A combination of factors, none of which is new, but all increasing in impact over the years. The major current shift is the sheer disregard to civilized rules of conduct; the liberal masks are falling off, like the ceremonial respect to the supreme court, or the ritualistic reference to the two-state solution. These were hollow rhetorical practices for a long while now, but up until the recent government, there were forces in the leadership (like Yair Lapid and even Naftali Bennett) who adhered to them. [Finance Minister and head of the Religious Zionism Party] Bezalel Smotrich and his kin simply dismiss such niceties, and the world, mostly exposed to Israeli politicians rather than to a deeper cross-section of the Israeli public, is shocked to learn of the deep-seated racism and rising populism within the larger Jewish population.

Public education in Israel has rapidly sunk into a nationalistic propaganda mire. Historical events and narratives inconsistent with official Zionist ideology have been gradually expunged from textbooks.

So, what are these factors? First, increasing religiosity, which in Israel translates to a particular xenophobic, all-the-world-is-against-us, Holocaust-driven self-righteous version of Judaism. One reason has to do with demographic trends: 35 percent of the Jews in Israel define themselves as religious; over a third of them (13.3 percent) are Orthodox Jews. This last group boasts the fastest growth in size in developed countries, 4 percent a year (due to their preference for larger families), and they alone are expected to comprise a third of the entire population of Israel by 2065. This shift is more dramatic in younger ages: By 2050, a third of the pupils in Israel will be educated in Orthodox schools. Polls repeatedly and consistently find that the most racist and nationalistic portion of the Jewish population is exactly those Orthodox Jews.

Second, public education in Israel has rapidly sunk into a nationalistic propaganda mire. Historical events and narratives inconsistent with official Zionist ideology have been gradually expunged from textbooks, often to absurd degrees. For example, Israeli pupils have no idea about the green line Israels only internationally recognized border because all the geographical maps approved for schools by the ministry of education have purposefully been purged of the green line. So they grow up without knowing of the distinction between Israel and the occupied territories, they know nothing about the fact that nearly 3 million Palestinians are subject to military law, nothing about land grabs (by the state or by settler outlaws), nothing about the fact that most of the military roadblocks are not placed on Israels border (the green line) but deep inside Palestinian territory, etc. Add to that the compulsory military service, which is the most effective agent of indoctrination in Israel, driving Jewish youth to see Palestinians as an undifferentiated mass of enemies, to be controlled, confined, checked, punished and subdued and the product you get by the end of this assembly line is a perfectly loyal devotee of Jewish superiority. With all that baggage they go to the ballot, and thats how you end up with extreme right-wing parties in power.

Of course, racism and political systems engage in a feedback loop. Not only does racism promote systems of injustice and inequality, but the need to maintain and expand these systems cultivates racism in its turn, because one must dehumanize ones victims in order to go on functioning within and in the service of such systems.

Like elsewhere, the Israeli left is not a unified movement. Is this the reason why the Israeli left is marginalized?

I dont think so. Even if you manage to pull together all the leftist forces in Israel (by which I dont mean anti-Netanyahu, but people truly committed to justice for Jews and Arabs), you will still end up with a negligible minority. All those human rights groups that have some international visibility BTselem, Breaking the Silence, etc. employ no more than 500 people altogether.

The left is inclined to periodic fits of self-flagellation, or finger-pointing toward internal elements declared guilty of its impotence. I find these practices a boring nuisance.

The sad truth is that the bedrock of the left the simple principles of justice, equality, freedom, the sacred value of human life are in themselves unpopular amongst Israelis. Unpopular in the sense that they are all deemed inferior to grander principles, deriving from the privileged rights of Jews in the land of Israel. Whatever the organizational faults of the fragments of the left are, they are overshadowed by the powerful opposition they all face from the Israeli consensus.

Without the cloak of a functioning, independent legal system that can investigate war criminals and put them on trial, Israeli military officials will be exposed to prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

This opposition operates in various ways. The public legitimacy of human rights organizations is gradually eroded by relentless campaigns of defamation, all of which originate in the government itself. So-called GONGOs (government-operated NGOs), such as Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor, are entirely dedicated to persecuting leftist activists, academics, artists, etc. Municipalities constantly bar their institutions from hosting events or lectures by political dissidents. The Israeli counterpart of Fox News, Channel 14, now ranks second in ratings. This is Netanyahus home base, an outlet that spews out naked propaganda and fake news every single day. Large chunks of the programming are aimed at demonizing human rights groups, Arab members of the Knesset, or generally, any critic of Israeli policies. A frequent sight these days (which was not so common a few years ago) is street gangs using Leftist! calls as an abominable insult, chasing and beating demonstrators that simply stand in solidarity with Palestinians.

In addition, mainstream liberal Israelis that dormant mass of people who just want to go on with their convenient lives with no disturbances would go out of their way to condemn the radical left, to dissociate themselves from any struggle that dares to include the Palestinian perspective, and would insist on fighting for democracy with no representatives of the most immediate victims of this democracy, namely Arabs (inside Israel or in the territories). I believe that it is this mainstream hostility toward the vision of the radical left that is chiefly responsible for its marginality; it becomes more and more difficult to just get these messages through, to win precious prime time on TV and even report daily atrocities occurring in the territories, let alone express nonconsensual views.

Of course, one has to remember permanent anomalies of the Israeli left, that go years back. A major one is the extreme weakness of labor unions, a reflection of a hyper-capitalist market based on short-term jobs. Unions normally provide the infrastructure necessary for long-term protests, but they are completely absent from major struggles for human rights in Israel, and in fact, the biggest union (the Histadrut) is dominated by the right-wing Likud party. That is, it sides with government.

Massive protests forced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to suspend his divisive judicial reform plan. Do you think his plan to undermine judicial independence by controlling the composition of the countrys Supreme Court is really finished?

Not at all. The upcoming weeks will be quite critical. Netanyahus coalition will not survive retraction of the reform; and his only chance of avoiding conviction (and jail) depends on keeping this coalition together and passing the reform. So its all or nothing for him. Meanwhile (and this is obviously not a coincidence), the borders are heating up with military clashes, invasions to Palestinian cities are intensified, terrorist attacks too. All this chaotic ecosystem, with a populace under a growing sense of insecurity and stress, surely plays in Netanyahus favor. Drastic changes in the regime are more easily implemented in such times, as we know very well from the historical record. I will not venture any guesses here, whether were stepping into a constitutional or a military crisis, but the game is far from over, in my opinion.

How do liberal and left groups relate to the occupation in their protests and opposition to the far right?

As I mentioned, the occupation is entirely absent from the mainstream liberal agenda of the protests. This is to be expected, given that the leading figures and speakers in these protests are routinely members of the legal, economic and military elites, all of whom were and are intimately implicated in maintaining the occupation. So most Israelis felt not the slightest dissonance to see in these demonstrations Moshe Yaalon, former chief of staff and defense minister, who was in charge of major war crimes during the invasion of Gaza [in] the summer of 2014, warn against the risks to democracy implied by the recent legal reform.

The occupation and the rights of Palestinians hardly make it to the front line in these developments. So even if the protest succeeds in toppling down Netanyahus coalition, the emerging political order in the aftermath is not likely to address these fundamental issues.

Notably, legal experts (including former judges of the supreme court) constantly focus on the pragmatic harm of the reform: Without the cloak of a functioning, independent legal system that can investigate war criminals and put them on trial, Israeli military officials will be exposed to prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In short, their plans to travel abroad are at risk. The issue of whether or not they are war criminals that should have been indicted in Israel is not even discussed. Other absurdities involve ex-Shabak officials (Shabak is the Israeli Security Agency, its domestic secret service), whose careers were founded on secrecy, extortion and sometimes torture, expressing concern over the anti-democratic nature of the reform. All of that takes place within the liberal camp in the protest, which is by far the dominant one.

So for the most part, the occupation does not concern the protest. Yet there is a consistent representation of anti-occupation groups within the protests, which I think is quite important. They insist on raising Palestinian flags, which is considered a provocation, so both liberal demonstrators and cops would often approach them and violently tear down the flags. Yet they raise them again and again, together with signs like There is no democracy with occupation, and these are gradually being tolerated; the liberals learn (its always a painful process for them) that the mere visibility of Palestinian people or symbols in the struggle for democracy is, perhaps, somehow relevant. The pragmatic pretext (You weaken the protest, you drive away potential supporters) was seen to be false. As it often happens, the radical left has to turn its efforts from calling for justice and equality to fighting for the legitimacy of expressing such calls in the public arena.

Some activists report that their spontaneous encounters with liberal demonstrators on the street, their solidarity against the police (whose violence does not distinguish radicals from liberals), do make the liberals rethink Zionist dogmas, understand what state violence looks like, and gradually broaden their concept of democracy to include non-Jews. That may be true, but its hard to tell what the long-term consequences will be. In point of fact, Israeli Arabs are almost entirely absent from these protests; being second-class citizens in their own country, they recognize well enough that this protest does not challenge the inherent ethnocratic nature of the Jewish state, but is rather an internal conflict between Jewish elites over the distribution of power amongst themselves.

By that I dont mean to underestimate the dramatic and even historic significance of such an unprecedented mass protest against a ruling government in Israel. I just want to point out that the occupation and the rights of Palestinians hardly make it to the front line in these developments. So even if the protest succeeds in toppling down Netanyahus coalition, the emerging political order in the aftermath is not likely to address these fundamental issues.

One argument that the left has not been able to communicate vividly enough, Im afraid, is that the legal reform has two prongs: One is to undermine the independence of the judicial branch; but no less important is the creeping annexation of area C in the occupied territories, as evidenced by the appointment of Smotrich a far right extremist who openly advocates the dispossession and transfer of Palestinians to be in charge of the COGAT, the administrative agency regulating the lives of all Palestinians under Israeli control. Smotrich plans, and has already started, to execute far-reaching changes in area C, which were previously hindered by appeals to the Supreme Court and by intricate legal proceedings, sometimes lasting years.

A politically biased supreme court, controlled by a right-wing coalition and incapable of overriding parliamentary bills in violation of international law, will no longer impede these very grave crimes (it never really prevented them, but the Israeli fascists are both greedy and impatient). To my mind, the reform is just as much about insulating prospective war crimes from internal judicial inspection as it is about saving Netanyahus political career. The big challenge of the left is to make the greater Israeli public see and understand these links (and others) in this unfolding regime change.

Is it possible to see what the future holds for Israel?

It is hard to make out details in the darkness, you know.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

As the world changes at an unprecedented pace, we need ethical, independent news more than ever before. We need journalists who can investigate, report, and analyze complex issues with honesty and integrity. We need journalists who can hold those in power accountable, shine a light on injustices, and give voice to the voiceless.

Truthout relies on reader donations to maintain this sanctuary for honest, justice-driven journalism. We have just 3 days left in our fundraiser and $32,000 still to raise we need all our friends to help us reach this goal. It takes less than 30 seconds to give, so if you value a free and independent press, please make a tax-deductible donation today!

Continued here:
Even as They Protest, Israeli Liberals Reject Solidarity With Palestinians - Truthout

Ayn Rand vs. ‘Liberals’ – New Ideal

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Ben Bayer and Elan Journo discuss Ayn Rands philosophic analysis and critique of liberals. They explain what makes Rands evaluation of liberalism different from that of conservatives, why she thought liberals began concealing their collectivist goals, and how todays liberals are different from (and worse than) those of Rands time.

Among the topics covered:

Recommended in this podcast are Journos Ayn Rands Devastating Critique of Liberals and Rands The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Our Age, The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus, The Wreckage of Consensus, Conservatism: An Obituary, and The Left: Old and New.

The podcast was recorded on April 19, 2023. Listen to the discussion below. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device onApple Podcasts,Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcastshere.

Podcast audio:

If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Do you have a comment or question?

I have a comment

I have a question

Excerpt from:
Ayn Rand vs. 'Liberals' - New Ideal

The Strange Death of the Liberal Individual by Yanis Varoufakis – Project Syndicate

Only a comprehensive reconfiguration of property rights over the increasingly cloud-based instruments of production, distribution, collaboration, and communication can rescue the foundational liberal idea of liberty as self-ownership. Reviving the liberal individual thus requires precisely what liberals detest: a revolution.

ATHENS My father was the epitome of the liberal individual, a splendid irony for a lifelong Marxist. To make a living, he had to lease his labor to the boss of a steel plant in Eleusis. But during every lunch break he wandered blissfully in the open-air backyard of the Archaeological Museum of Eleusis, where he luxuriated in the discovery of ancient steles full of clues that antiquitys technologists were more advanced than previously thought.

Following his return home, at just after 5 p.m. every day, and a late siesta, he would emerge ready to share in our family life and to write up his findings in academic articles and books. His life at the factory was, in short, neatly separated from his personal life.

It reflected a time when even leftists like us thought that, if nothing else, capitalism had granted us sovereignty over ourselves, albeit within limits. However hard one worked for the boss, one could at least fence off a portion of ones life and, within that fence, remain autonomous, self-determining, free. We knew that only the rich were truly free to choose, that the poor were mostly free to lose, and that the worst slavery was that of anyone who had learned to love their chains. Still, we appreciated the limited self-ownership we had.

Young people today have been denied even this small mercy. From the moment they take their first steps, they are taught implicitly to see themselves as a brand, yet one that will be judged according to its perceived authenticity. (And that includes potential employers: No one will offer me a job, a graduate told me once until I have discovered my true self.) Marketing an identity in todays online society is not optional. Curating their personal lives has become some of the most important work young people do.

Before posting any image, uploading any video, reviewing any movie, sharing any photograph or tweet, they must be mindful of whom their choice will please or alienate. They must somehow work out which of their potential true selves will be found most attractive, continually testing their opinions against their notion of what the average opinion among online opinion-makers might be. Because every experience can be captured and shared, they are continually consumed by the question of whether to do so. And even if no opportunity actually exists for sharing the experience, that opportunity can readily be imagined, and will be. Every choice, witnessed or otherwise, becomes an act in the careful construction of an identity.

One need not be a leftist to see that the right to a bit of time each day when one is not for sale has all but vanished. The irony is that the liberal individual was snuffed out neither by fascist brownshirts nor by Stalinist commissars. It was killed off when a new form of capital began to instruct youngsters to do that most liberal of things: be yourself. Of all the behavioral modifications that what I call cloud capital has engineered and monetized, this one is surely its overarching and crowning achievement.

Subscribe to PS Digital now to read all the latest insights from Yanis Varoufakis.

Digital subscribers enjoy access to every PS commentary, including those by Yanis Varoufakis, plus our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content, including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More.

For a limited time, save $15 with the code VAROUFAKIS15.

Subscribe Now

Possessive individualism was always detrimental to mental health. The techno-feudal society that cloud capital is fashioning made things infinitely worse when it demolished the fence that provided the liberal individual with a refuge from the labor market. Cloud capital has shattered the individual into fragments of data, an identity comprising choices expressed by clicks, which its algorithms are able to manipulate in ways no human mind can grasp. It has produced individuals who are not so much possessive as possessed, or rather persons incapable of self-possession. It has diminished our capacity to focus by co-opting our attention.

We have not become weak-willed. No, our focus has been hijacked by a new ruling class. And because the algorithms embedded in cloud capital are known to reinforce patriarchy, invidious stereotypes, and pre-existing oppression, the most vulnerable girls, the mentally ill, the marginalized, and the poor suffer the most.

If fascism taught us anything, it is our susceptibility to demonizing stereotypes and the ugly attraction (and potency) of emotions like righteousness, fear, envy, and loathing that they arouse in us. In our contemporary social reality, the cloud brings us face to face with the feared and loathed other. And because online violence seems bloodless and anodyne, we are more likely to respond to this other with taunting, demeaning language and bile. Bigotry is techno-feudalisms emotional compensation for the frustrations and anxieties we experience in relation to identity and focus.

Comment moderators and hate-speech regulation cant stop this brutalization because it is intrinsic to cloud capital, whose algorithms optimize for the cloud rents that flow more copiously toward Big Techs owners from hatred and discontent. Regulators cannot regulate artificial-intelligence-driven algorithms that even their authors cannot understand. For liberty to have a chance, cloud capital needs to be socialized.

My father believed that finding something timelessly beautiful to focus on, as he did while wondering among the relics of Greek antiquity, is our only defense from the demons circling our soul. I have tried to practice this over the years in my own way. But in the face of techno-feudalism, acting alone, isolated, as liberal individuals will not get us very far. Cutting ourselves off from the internet, switching off our phones, and using cash instead of plastic is no solution. Unless we band together, we will never civilize or socialize cloud capital and never reclaim our own minds from its grip.

And herein lies the greatest contradiction: Only a comprehensive reconfiguration of property rights over the increasingly cloud-based instruments of production, distribution, collaboration, and communication can rescue the foundational liberal idea of liberty as self-ownership will require. Reviving the liberal individual thus requires precisely what liberals detest: a new revolution.

Go here to see the original:
The Strange Death of the Liberal Individual by Yanis Varoufakis - Project Syndicate