I spoke with @LaulPatricia about Marxism:
One is: What’s remarkable is that Marxism has been tried. Now, of course, defenders of Marxism say it hasn’t really been tried anywhere, but certainly the people who implemented it claimed they were implementing Marxism.
And this is a massive experiment—a global experiment—with a very clear outcome. Namely, the Soviet Union was a disaster. The imposition of communism on Eastern Europe was a disaster. The imposition of communism in Venezuela was a disaster. The imposition of communism in Maoist China was a disaster. Disaster in terms of both poverty and oppression and genocide and stupid wars. So the world has told us what happens under communism, and it’s a sign of how out of touch intellectuals can be that there are still people who defend it despite the entire world giving a very clear-cut answer.
One more is: would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? Would you rather live in the old East Germany or West Germany? We have an experimental group and a matched control group in terms of culture, language, and geography, and the answer is crystal clear. So this is a sign of, I think, the pathology of intellectual life—that Marxism can persist.
The other is, you did call attention to one of the appeals of Marxism, though, and more generally of heavy, strong influence of government guided by intellectuals, which is that there are certain kinds of reforms that you can state as principles. You can articulate them verbally as propositions—like equality, human rights, democracy—but there’s other kinds of progress that take place in massive distributed networks of millions of people, none of whom implements some policy. But collectively, there is an order, an organization that’s beneficial.
So that can happen organically through, for example, the development of a language. No one designed the English language. It’s just hundreds of millions of English speakers. They coin new words. They forget old words. They try to make themselves clear. And we get the English language and the other 5,000 languages spoken on earth.
Likewise, a market economy is something where knowledge is distributed. You don’t have a central planner deciding how many shoes of size 8 will be needed in a particular city, but rather information is conveyed by prices, which are adjusted according to supply and demand. And you’ve got a distributed network of exchange of information that can result in an emergent benefit.
Now, intellectuals tend to hate that. They like rules of language—of correct grammar. They like top-down economic planning. They like cultural change that satisfies particular ideals described by intellectuals. And so rival sources of organization, like commerce, like culture��traditional culture—tend to be downplayed by intellectuals.
And this can be magnified by the fact that many dictatorships give a privileged role to intellectuals, which may be why, over the course of the 20th century, and probably continuing to the present, there has not been a dictator that has not had fans among intellectuals—including the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, but also the communist dictators: Mao and Castro, even Stalin in his day. And every other dictator has had, actually, often fawning praise from Western intellectuals.
I am bewildered, and not very impressed, by the visceral, naked, irrational hatred spat out by some defenders of Jason Arday. If a Cambridge professor is accused of being an unqualified charlatan, the accusation might be racially motivated. On the other hand it might not, depending on the evidence. The correct question to ask is not, ”What is the colour of his skin” but “Is it in fact true that he is an unqualified charlatan?” Please examine the evidence before leaping to the assumption of racism.
As for the idea that journalists “piled in on him” and “hounded him to his death”, most attacks were against Cambridge University. Jason himself was widely regarded as an unfortunate victim of foolish promotion way beyond his ability to cope. In appointing him to a professorship for which he was manifestly unqualified – in ludicrously describing him as “the best in the world” – certain senior members of the university showed a level of patronising condescension towards black people that could fairly be described as racism, while at the same time making him tragically vulnerable to such attacks as came his way.
David Remnick's interview with @demsocialists co-chair Megan Romer reveals that the only requirement now in politics is to repeat slogans. Knowledge is optional.
From the new episode of The Fifth Column, out now.
When Dire Straits took the stage at Live Aid in '85, most fans had no idea why Sting joined them, but when he started singing the opening lyrics to "Money For Nothing", they realized it was his voice on the radio hit which widely went unnoticed til then 🔥 Goosebumps when Mark Knopfler finally plays that guitar riff and the crowd takes over for the drums.
Sam Harris has triggered the hell out of Hamas supporters online by simply explaining a basic fact:
The Muslim terrorists who initiated a war against Israel on October 7 are facing the consequences of that war, not a genocide.
They invaded Israel shouting “Allah Akbar”, raped, murdered and burned over 1,000 Jews as Islamic acts of worship, and kidnapped hundreds more into Gaza.
They filmed their own atrocities with pride. They chose holy war, aka Jihad. Israel chose to fight back and destroy the enemy that attacked it.
That is not genocide.
That is war.
The people screaming “genocide” are the same ones who celebrated October 7 and still demand more Jewish blood.
They started the slaughter and now cry victim when Israel refuses to let them finish the job.
Sam Harris is doing what the media and politicians refuse to do: telling the truth without apology.
Do you agree with him? Yes/No?
Blue cities are out of control, promising more, spending more, delivering less and pushing off fiscal problems to some future day.
Democrats in city halls should stop governing as if the goal is to announce new entitlements, and instead make government work.
My take:
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.