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. I am sure that neither the piece’s argument nor my presence in the pages of the NYT will cause any angst on Twitter.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.