I don’t ordinarily like to send out emails that don’t have a lot of solid content in them, but I’ll make an exception to tell you that I have returned to the New York Times today with a piece arguing that American socialists need to stop whining about how the system is against us and do the long, slow work of convincing regular people that our agenda is right for them and for the country.
What Freddie did was — by his own admission — a truly awful thing that he subsequently took responsibility for, and nevertheless suffered significant negative personal and professional consequences. The people who already disliked Freddie for his “bad” or “wrong” opinions (i.e., logically consistent and morally correct even when rhetorically inconvenient) took the opportunity to use the misdeed as an excuse to “cancel” him. Those disingenuous and self-serving critics don’t care about penitence or grace or reformation... they simply want to win trivial, petty and insular rhetorical battles in elite media. As Freddie says, this shit is all just junior high school.
Ideas like these need to flow until we come up with a list that sticks.
However, it seems to me that just strengthening our judicial and legislative actions related to anti-trust / anti-monopoly, we should punch down the corporatists and give back health to the small business economy.
Indeed. We have laws and regulations. We rarely enforce them. There are certainly areas where we need more, but I'd like to see us even use the tools we already have.
If you download Brave browser, open a private tab, and then search by the article by name, you should be able to see it sans paywall? That’s what I do anyway. Today it opened on my phone.
> My start-to-finish commentary on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything will start with a post tonight, in the Book Club section
I've been seeing references to this book all over the place, and have been thinking about getting a copy. Now I can't wait to see if your commentary will quash or intensify my interest in the book.
Wow Freddie, you got the NYTimes to let you publish that Leftist ideas aren't politically popular? What a slice of #captainobvious . What tipped you off? We have been played - a commercially viable, but utterly beneath you, column........congrats
Congrats! Love to see the Times include more diverse perspectives, I think the competition from Substack has essentially forced their hand, but nonetheless good to see. I would also love to see the meltdowns happening on the company slack over the last few months.
Thought so! My eldest was born in February 2008, and I was pretty sure I remembered reading some of your posts at the office where I worked at that time.
Not to be weird, but I’m so pleased you’ve been part of my reading life for so long. I know the Internet isn’t real yada yada but there’s certainly a historical precedent for epistolary friendships, particularly ones based on ideas, and that’s how I feel about FdB.
I agree with many of the author's contentions. Though if the Buffalo election is indicative of anything, it's that you can't openly *identify* as fully socialist and win. A wiser strategy might be to appeal to the electorate to accomplish (what might be thought of as) *socialist goals*.
For example, single payer HC is the linchpin, open-the-door issue. No country that's had it has ever gone back. And it's better to call it "Medicare For All" instead of 'socialized health insurance'. But aside from that, Bernie went too far, too fast. The move to Social Democracy is going to have to be an issue-by-issue ground war, imo.
The young people Mr. deBoer was talking about likely don't grasp the enveloping presence of capitalist realism in their elders. Despite the collapses in '08 and '20, having to prop up the economy with infusions of government cash and bailouts, or the Gamestop stock fiasco where the brokerages changed the (buying) rules midstream, to protect large institutional investors, people still have trouble pointing at american capitalism and calling it the rigged game it is.
Congratulations! I was so happy to see the article this morning.
Your writing and this space are such a gift, and the idea that we should be deprived of it because of past events is offensive to me. I don’t want to live in a world where one fuckup=canceled forever, regardless of the context or what the person does next.
Also, it’s amusing to see the NYT style mixed in with your voice (“Mrs. Clinton”). I tried to guess what had been edited or negotiated—no idea if I’m right though.
I needed to hear the argument of that NYT piece by a writer like you, not a guy like Yglesisas. Thanks.
I do think as far away as 'socialism' is, that in some ways it isn't. I suspect there is a good reason why after all the messaging is said and done, the system flinches and lifts the floor of society even an inch. I suspect the reason is they know that if not managed correctly, that inch could lead to a mile. It's why Democrats aren't allowed to run on any policy that acts in that capacity. I doubt the Child Tax Credits will be leveraged significantly come campaign season.
So while the road may seem long, if somehow an inch is gotten, and made messaged on correctly, the road could shorten dramatically.
More accurately, I am informed by our planet's richest lode of pedants - Reddit - that it's a logical fallacy.
On a completely unrelated note: ever notice how people who deny the existence of the slippery slope are waiting to push you off the top of one?
All this is to say you're absolutely right, by the way. Call it a wedge, call it an inch to a mile, call it a slippery slope: it is much easier to make incremental gains than it is a one-and-done fait accompli. (Both are hard, but one verges on the impossible.)
The thing is I can imagine pretty clearly how the first inch would lead to more. If people get breathing room they'll have more time to assess and participate in elections, or the general discourse. If people have reserves they are more enabled to strike and protest. Etc.
I love the idea that because Freddie came back from the proverbial grave, it somehow proves "cancel culture isn't real" when it *does* prove it is. What Freddie's shift in fortunes proves is that the larger culture has soured on the notion of ruining someone's livelihood forever over online transgressions, and that maybe, a perpetually vindictive society howling in perpetual outrage over shit is not really the kind of society we want after all.
Cancel culture is real, alright, it's just not as omniscient or omnipotent as it seems to think it is.
Congratulations! And to my surprise it's not paywalled.
_star cut as I tab out to read it and then tab back_
Perfectly put. The main epistemological problem that socialists - and libertarians, and right-wing populists, and Georgists, and anyone else on our island of unelectable misfit toys - face is precisely what you say: "they used dirty tricks to beat us, therefore we only lost because of dirty tricks." No, they pulled dirty tricks pour encourager les autres and because they could. Life isn't fair. Get back in the saddle. Inspirational quote goes here.
And I wonder if your diagnosis isn't more optimistic in the long run. Okay, it sucks to say "maybe we're not as popular as we thought." But what's the alternative? The alternative is that socialism (or right-wing populism, or social credit theory, or feudalism) is already popular but the leviathan of the Democratic party is so powerful, so all-consuming, that even after their loss in 2016, they'll be neoliberal forever. Isn't it brighter an outlook to say - "we have made limited gains, but we're just getting started because we have the vast field of the US public still to reap"? We have undecided voters from coast to coast, we have people who don't know what our message is, we are on step two of a very, very long journey. It just seems that, as well as being right, this is a message of possibility and hope, rather than inevitable defeat. So why people are so resistant to it, I don't know.
What Freddie did was — by his own admission — a truly awful thing that he subsequently took responsibility for, and nevertheless suffered significant negative personal and professional consequences. The people who already disliked Freddie for his “bad” or “wrong” opinions (i.e., logically consistent and morally correct even when rhetorically inconvenient) took the opportunity to use the misdeed as an excuse to “cancel” him. Those disingenuous and self-serving critics don’t care about penitence or grace or reformation... they simply want to win trivial, petty and insular rhetorical battles in elite media. As Freddie says, this shit is all just junior high school.
Ideas like these need to flow until we come up with a list that sticks.
However, it seems to me that just strengthening our judicial and legislative actions related to anti-trust / anti-monopoly, we should punch down the corporatists and give back health to the small business economy.
Indeed. We have laws and regulations. We rarely enforce them. There are certainly areas where we need more, but I'd like to see us even use the tools we already have.
Good news (for you and for US)!
Glad for you, but it is paywalled and I dropped my NYT sub to pay for you & a few others on Substack so I hope you eventually post the content.
If you download Brave browser, open a private tab, and then search by the article by name, you should be able to see it sans paywall? That’s what I do anyway. Today it opened on my phone.
Agreed. I don't read the shitrag NYT but I'd gladly read the article if he posted it here.
Feather in the cap. Freddie rocks!
> My start-to-finish commentary on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything will start with a post tonight, in the Book Club section
I've been seeing references to this book all over the place, and have been thinking about getting a copy. Now I can't wait to see if your commentary will quash or intensify my interest in the book.
Wow Freddie, you got the NYTimes to let you publish that Leftist ideas aren't politically popular? What a slice of #captainobvious . What tipped you off? We have been played - a commercially viable, but utterly beneath you, column........congrats
Congrats! Love to see the Times include more diverse perspectives, I think the competition from Substack has essentially forced their hand, but nonetheless good to see. I would also love to see the meltdowns happening on the company slack over the last few months.
Wow, cool. What year did you start blogging? Because I feel like I’ve been following your work for like 12 years at least.
2008
Thought so! My eldest was born in February 2008, and I was pretty sure I remembered reading some of your posts at the office where I worked at that time.
Not to be weird, but I’m so pleased you’ve been part of my reading life for so long. I know the Internet isn’t real yada yada but there’s certainly a historical precedent for epistolary friendships, particularly ones based on ideas, and that’s how I feel about FdB.
I agree with many of the author's contentions. Though if the Buffalo election is indicative of anything, it's that you can't openly *identify* as fully socialist and win. A wiser strategy might be to appeal to the electorate to accomplish (what might be thought of as) *socialist goals*.
For example, single payer HC is the linchpin, open-the-door issue. No country that's had it has ever gone back. And it's better to call it "Medicare For All" instead of 'socialized health insurance'. But aside from that, Bernie went too far, too fast. The move to Social Democracy is going to have to be an issue-by-issue ground war, imo.
The young people Mr. deBoer was talking about likely don't grasp the enveloping presence of capitalist realism in their elders. Despite the collapses in '08 and '20, having to prop up the economy with infusions of government cash and bailouts, or the Gamestop stock fiasco where the brokerages changed the (buying) rules midstream, to protect large institutional investors, people still have trouble pointing at american capitalism and calling it the rigged game it is.
Congratulations! I was so happy to see the article this morning.
Your writing and this space are such a gift, and the idea that we should be deprived of it because of past events is offensive to me. I don’t want to live in a world where one fuckup=canceled forever, regardless of the context or what the person does next.
Also, it’s amusing to see the NYT style mixed in with your voice (“Mrs. Clinton”). I tried to guess what had been edited or negotiated—no idea if I’m right though.
"Also, it’s amusing to see the NYT style mixed in with your voice (“Mrs. Clinton”)."
This makes me chuckle. For some reason, I find it hilarious when they refer to Lebron as "Mr. James"
Congrats! Saw the "Fredrik" and wondered if that was you (obviously, I missed out on the Twitter storms - woe is me, NOT!). Shall go read it now.
Great to see you in the NYT. Let the Twitter angst begin . . .
I needed to hear the argument of that NYT piece by a writer like you, not a guy like Yglesisas. Thanks.
I do think as far away as 'socialism' is, that in some ways it isn't. I suspect there is a good reason why after all the messaging is said and done, the system flinches and lifts the floor of society even an inch. I suspect the reason is they know that if not managed correctly, that inch could lead to a mile. It's why Democrats aren't allowed to run on any policy that acts in that capacity. I doubt the Child Tax Credits will be leveraged significantly come campaign season.
So while the road may seem long, if somehow an inch is gotten, and made messaged on correctly, the road could shorten dramatically.
I'm reliably informed that the slippery slope isn't real. :-)
Dang. I had all my last chips of hope in that basket. Mind sharing your source?
More accurately, I am informed by our planet's richest lode of pedants - Reddit - that it's a logical fallacy.
On a completely unrelated note: ever notice how people who deny the existence of the slippery slope are waiting to push you off the top of one?
All this is to say you're absolutely right, by the way. Call it a wedge, call it an inch to a mile, call it a slippery slope: it is much easier to make incremental gains than it is a one-and-done fait accompli. (Both are hard, but one verges on the impossible.)
The thing is I can imagine pretty clearly how the first inch would lead to more. If people get breathing room they'll have more time to assess and participate in elections, or the general discourse. If people have reserves they are more enabled to strike and protest. Etc.
I hate the "penalty flag" style of argumentation. You did an ad-hominem, you did a slipper slope, correlation doesn't equal causation, etc etc.
Fact of the matter is, sometimes there is a slippery slope. Sometimes there isn't. You have to provide actual evidence for your position.
Yep! And this is why Reddit is where discourse goes to die.
No doubt. I have a lot of pity for regular reddit users.
I love the idea that because Freddie came back from the proverbial grave, it somehow proves "cancel culture isn't real" when it *does* prove it is. What Freddie's shift in fortunes proves is that the larger culture has soured on the notion of ruining someone's livelihood forever over online transgressions, and that maybe, a perpetually vindictive society howling in perpetual outrage over shit is not really the kind of society we want after all.
Cancel culture is real, alright, it's just not as omniscient or omnipotent as it seems to think it is.
Congratulations! And to my surprise it's not paywalled.
_star cut as I tab out to read it and then tab back_
Perfectly put. The main epistemological problem that socialists - and libertarians, and right-wing populists, and Georgists, and anyone else on our island of unelectable misfit toys - face is precisely what you say: "they used dirty tricks to beat us, therefore we only lost because of dirty tricks." No, they pulled dirty tricks pour encourager les autres and because they could. Life isn't fair. Get back in the saddle. Inspirational quote goes here.
And I wonder if your diagnosis isn't more optimistic in the long run. Okay, it sucks to say "maybe we're not as popular as we thought." But what's the alternative? The alternative is that socialism (or right-wing populism, or social credit theory, or feudalism) is already popular but the leviathan of the Democratic party is so powerful, so all-consuming, that even after their loss in 2016, they'll be neoliberal forever. Isn't it brighter an outlook to say - "we have made limited gains, but we're just getting started because we have the vast field of the US public still to reap"? We have undecided voters from coast to coast, we have people who don't know what our message is, we are on step two of a very, very long journey. It just seems that, as well as being right, this is a message of possibility and hope, rather than inevitable defeat. So why people are so resistant to it, I don't know.