Well, yes and no. If you're a passive investor saving for the long term, your wealth is a few accounting entries in some banking and brokerage computers. Your few transactions do little to set prices; instead, active traders are setting the prices for you.
This might not be dead but it doesn't seem very lively, either. Retirement savings isn't directly doing anyone any harm but it's basically ineffectual until you spend it. It's not dead but it's... sleeping?
Businesses do need credit, which means spending now and paying it back later. Patient capital can wait for long-term plans to pay off. But it doesn't seem like there is any lack of financial capital whatsoever, and even if there were, the Fed can make more. (This argument cuts both ways. The government could just spend the money.)
Patience doesn't harm anyone, but it's no virtue either when people are suffering. It's just... waiting. Doing nothing.
The managers of these funds are doing things (in a fairly abstract and hands-off way), but as a moderately rich person saving for retirement, picking between reasonably diversified funds, you probably aren't. Unless you're doing something unusual, you shouldn't think your investments are important. They are very easily replaced. Nobody will notice when you sell. In the aggregate, if someone else doesn't buy them and it becomes necessary, the Fed will do it.
The funds' managers aren't doing the hiring either. Companies do that. As the owner of tiny slices of hundreds of companies, your connection to the hiring managers of the world is extremely tenuous.
"You are owed a safe, comfortable, fulfilling life. You don’t deserve it." So true and so well said. Reminds me Chesterton's "charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice. It is the undeserving who require it". But Chesterton's error is assuming a deserving/undeserving divide that does not (or should not anyway) exist.
Such jealousy. I am not in the writing world so all this infighting by thought makers has been fascinating to me and has caused me to reflect on who I actually trust to go to the trouble of reading their thinking. JeAlousy, peer pressure, group think, bullying, tattling, sabotaging, it indeed seems like a playground.
My suspicion is that organizations/industries that lack clear agreed upon standards tend to devolve into this. I’ve never worked in the non profit or media sectors - I work in a profit generating business and do things like create dashboards that compile and present data to other people. You can judge it - either it is accurate and helpful or it’s not. People can evaluate my work without having to delve into motivations and endless arguments about its value. Sometimes it does get criticized but they’re criticizing my work, and not me. There is also zero pressure to get on social media and praise (or slag) my peers’ work. Sure there are office politics everywhere, and some office cultures are definitely better than others, but from Freddie’s descriptions in this and other posts it sounds like the profit-making world is often times a lot less toxic.
"The basic point of being a leftist is precisely to argue that financial security, material comfort, and the potential for human flourishing are not deserved at all."
I think the insight here is that "leftists" are not basing their perspective on this bedrock concept. Instead, somewhere in their schooling they are attracted to tangential issues that are often identified as "leftist" and join the tribe without ever picking up on the fundamentals. Their worldview seems incoherent... because they have never bothered to connect the dots.
Maybe this is why we get violent idpol devoid of any class consciousness.
It's very funny to me that Substack is basically Tiny Letter but with some venture capital behind it. Everyone calm down. Also funny to me that the Times may now get into the emailed newsletter game! Yikes.
I don't think the idea of substack being a bubble is that far fetched. Hopefully it's not true but I can easily see it being the case. They just received 65 million dollars in funding at a 650 million dollar company valuation. That could put an increasing pressure on the company to not just make a profit but to greatly increase profits. We've seen a lot of profitable companies gutted over the last decade because VC people weren't interested in small to decent but reliable profits.
Question: Where does the idea that people are owed a safe, comfortable, fulfilling life come from if you are an atheist? (Not a knock on atheists, just trying to understand. It's something I've always been fascinated by).
Also, how have you determined this is even possible to provide? Maybe it is, I'm just not sure how someone can come to the conclusion it's possible to provide, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
Well there’s a whole field of philosophy dedicated to ethics that has nothing to do with religion. There are various viewpoints from humanism, utilitarianism and rational philosophy that would support this idea. It’s like the analogy he makes about slavery; you don’t have to believe in God to be opposed to slavery.
Right, but my question, which I never seem to get a clear answer on, is where does it come from or even matter. If you believe in straight-up darwinian evolution - or an adjacent concept - we're ultimately a mass of random chance derived from uppity chemicals. Who cares if this random mass of uppity chemicals has good or bad things happen, and how can you determine what "good" or "bad" even are.
This isn't to say that people who are atheists aren't moral - sometimes even more so than religious people - it's simply that I don't understand the foundation of belief. It's not that people who have no belief in God or an afterlife don't have morals and a desire for care for people, it's that I haven't found anything - thought I'd be welcome to read articles or books if you can list them - that explain why they think it matters. (And clearly the majority of atheists do.)
The closest I've come is arguments that moral thinking and altruism are good for society, but to my mind, that just circles back to the issue of where does "good" come from.
The problem with this answer is that there are a lot of communities that still exist and arguably thrive without things like goodwill benevolence and altruism. See many of the places in the middle east, africa and, some would argue, north korea. You can argue that more advanced populations, eg places where those desirable factors are in play are doing better, but the fact that they societies that manage without them do exist shows that they aren't as selected for as many who believe in this worldview argue. But that you for responding with your view of this.
Empathy. We know that other people can suffer. We've all suffered ourselves at one time or another, and you can observe other people's suffering regardless of whether any gods or goddesses exist. So it is reasonable to make it a goal to reduce human suffering as much as possible.
Yup. Was gonna say Empathy as well. Also a purely rational argument can be made. In other words, the Darwinian example you give above, is kind of like a Hobbesian view of the world, right? Short, brutish and nasty. So people organized themselves into societies and created laws to protect themselves from a Darwinian world. One could make the rational argument that a society where everyone is cared for, doesn't go hungry, etc, is less likely to revolt and cause turmoil and therefore, rationally, is best for everyone. (I think this is what Freddie is referencing when he says that Marxist economics are expressly amoral though I'm not 100% sure since it was given as an aside.)
Okay, solid reasoning / answer. I have some issues with the details in many cases, but it helps me understand where others are coming from. I'd still be interested in how we determined that we can provide all that reasoning and empathetic people of all stripes would like for people, but that's a big ask / conversation.
This is closely related to the problem of moral realism and it is a longstanding one in philosophy. Many volumes have been written about it. There is a good primer here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
The article, as well as many written here, cries out for focusing on three concepts: the envy toward leverage(why some people make more than others), the value of a soul , and the real monetary inflation rate.
Envy of Leverage: FdB discusses with great lucidity that more subscribers means more money for everyone in the revenue chain. But then he concludes there's a relevant range for this; because, well, he's just as envious of Bezos as other writers are of him. One presumes you-deserve-what-you-produce ends at several times what he himself makes. It include anyone operating above some level of income - like perhaps Oncologists making $750,000/year while poisoning to death the majority of their patients. But the 'leverage', defined as a little movement causes a big result, of an Oncologist's decisions is why the big bucks. Bezos transformed the entire goods purchase paradigm, and did it over 20 years, and affected the entire country - not to mention making life livable for the population sequestered over the last year in virtual concentration camps made up by their own extreme and unwarranted fears. The motto appears to be not "If you're going to be a ninny you deserve what you get.", but "If they can't spend it over their lifetime, then government should take it away from them." There is also the assumption Bezos disappears as cash taken out of the economy - well, 1/2 of it did..in divorce [joke] - when in fact it goes somewhere to get lent out to governments and people who can presumably use it for a productive purpose. The effect on the money supply is NOT negative. If it is invested well there is actually a multiplier effect.
2.) The value of a soul. Every soul may be thought by God to be equal, or for a non-believer, by themselves as a god. However, the economic value of souls is not equal. Making the distinction between 'deserves' and 'should be provided' is a distinction without a difference. It's the same thing except the 'provided' part is taken under threat of force from someone else. Judging by the result of giving people stuff taken by force is, and this is important, the money given is cursed. People given things ride the productivity toboggan downhill. How many past Nobel prize winners lived within 500 miles of the equator? There most of the food you need grows or climbs in trees. This is why redistribution inevitably fails not only in it's goals but in it's unintended consequences.
3.) The real inflation rate: is right now and has been for the last 10 years running at 10% per year. (See shadowstats.com, which calculates it the same way it was done in 1980. Last month's government CPI numbers included items that were admitted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be 50% estimates.) This means the $100,000 salary buys what 50,000 bought 4.5 years ago, and what $25,000 bought 9 years ago. This has resulted in the almost total destruction of the middle class. 40 years ago a blue-collar mill worker could support a family of 6, with only himself working. Now? It isn't just the journalism business that is sinking; almost every income paying business in the country is going down the tubes. And redistribution, already happening big-time, is the root cause.
hoo boy. A lot to unpack here. Appreciate you weighing in here from the politically conservative side.
1) I don't detect envy at all in Freddie's post. I really don't think he envies the money Bezos has made. He uses the Bezos example to show that accumulated wealth of that magnitude negatively affects the rest of society. Now apparently you disagree giving a kind of trickle down argument if I understand correctly. (Bezos supplies jobs, etc.) While I believe in Capitalism, I think exploitation of labor is clearly one of the downsides; I don't begrudge him his money but I do think labor should be adequately compensated.
2) Nobel Prize Winners and the Equator. I got scolded previously on this substack for using the term, "meritocracy" in a favorable way. (Apparently it can only be used ironically/negatively these days. :)). So to clarify: I believe in merit leading to financial reward (ex: Freddie, Substack) . But, there are two important caveats. a) It's not an even playing field. There are all kinds of privilege that play into success; and b) we should live in a country that supports its most vulnerable -- people shouldn't have to go hungry, lack basic healthcare, etc. (Most of us on the left would say this should be a given, a fundamental principle of a just society.)
3) Real inflation rate. Yes - there is a loss of the middle class. But I don't think redistribution is the cause. I would argue the opposite. The standard of living has shot up. Childcare, healthcare has gotten more expensive. Wages have not kept up. It's harder to live a middle class, comfortable life. Redistribution seems like a solution, not the cause.
10% per year inflation (which is an absurd claim, but never mind) does NOT mean that 25K nine years ago equals 100K today; it's 59K. Learn math before you quote alleged math facts.
And the main reason a blue collar worker could support a family was STRONG UNIONS.
Everyone who's going to get a pay raise next year of 10% after taxes and SS/Medicare withholding raise your hands. How about last year? The year before? The year after next? Remember, the 10% increase is in expenses paid in after tax dollars.
I'm sure the number of people rooting for you to succeed is far greater than the number of people rooting for you to fail. And chin up Freddie, any minor world that falls apart comes together again :-)
Freddie, I would really appreciate a deep dive on Marxism. You always bring up Marxist concepts in posts like this one where the main point of the post is something else, but you reference your Marxist ideas almost as an afterthought. You think everyone deserves a certain amount of material comfort, labor is inherently alienating, etc. But you never really explain details or what your ideal society would look like.
For instance, everyone deserves housing, ok. But what if someone in your Marxist utopia is given a free house and then destroys it? Should they just be given a new house? Or is there some point where we say, no, you've had enough free houses, you now have to be homeless for a while. So some people, in a sense, really don't "deserve" housing.
Or another Marxist concept you frequently reference is that people deserve material comfort regardless of how much they work. So clearly at least some percentage of society can never work and be supported by the rest of society. But what if too many people simply decide to not work, despite having the ability to do so? There's got to be some tipping point there. Is it then ok under Marxism to force people to work for material comfort? Unfortunately we don't have free food just laying around everywhere, there is still always going to be some amount of work required by at least some of the population to grow food.
I am pretty sure that I am a Marxist like you are, but I just can't wrap my brain around how a real Marxist society would look in the real world without betraying any principles. If anyone has the writing chops to explain this kind of stuff, it's you.
I often see prof. people on community lists asking for recommendations for inexpensive this or that (electrician, plumber, yard work). They are usually self-described Marxists. Work gets paid what it's worth or you go w/o.
I'd also appreciate a primer on Marxism from Freddie's perspective. I'm not instinctively a lefty, but I want to understand Marxism better. My efforts to engage with modern discussions of the topic are frustrated by: 1) the smug condescension and presumption of moral superiority of many lefty writers (perhaps they're justified...but it's not argued in a way that I can readily assess), 2) jargon, 3) I clearly don't share all of their their moral assumptions, or their assumptions about what works in practice. I suspect Freddie can cut through a lot of this, and at least make a clear case. If an accessible introduction already exists (addressing points above), perhaps Freddie could do a short post recommending some books/articles on the topic.
It's a bit odd to hear these pro-market arguments from a Marxist, but sure, I'm nodding along. I look forward to reading the stuff you have planned about Marxism.
I'm wondering, though, if the distinction between "deserves" language and "rights" language is all that great? They are both on the "ought" side of the is-ought distinction. Also, we can point to specific examples to show how extreme inequality can get.
I'm wondering if there's a word for something that's not really a strawman argument (because I believe that nearly all bad takes exist somewhere) but is also not really a live argument for me, because I haven't read anyone making these bad arguments. Maybe it would be better to debate with people whose arguments you respect?
A fun one in the same vein of bizarre Substack criticisms I ran across today: someone saying that Substack seems uniquely bad because the desire for subscriptions will cause writers to prefer particular opinions. Seemed entirely serious, as far as I could tell.
Separately: the people who go after Liz Bruenig so incessantly have always been uniquely deranged.
Well, yes and no. If you're a passive investor saving for the long term, your wealth is a few accounting entries in some banking and brokerage computers. Your few transactions do little to set prices; instead, active traders are setting the prices for you.
This might not be dead but it doesn't seem very lively, either. Retirement savings isn't directly doing anyone any harm but it's basically ineffectual until you spend it. It's not dead but it's... sleeping?
Businesses do need credit, which means spending now and paying it back later. Patient capital can wait for long-term plans to pay off. But it doesn't seem like there is any lack of financial capital whatsoever, and even if there were, the Fed can make more. (This argument cuts both ways. The government could just spend the money.)
Patience doesn't harm anyone, but it's no virtue either when people are suffering. It's just... waiting. Doing nothing.
The managers of these funds are doing things (in a fairly abstract and hands-off way), but as a moderately rich person saving for retirement, picking between reasonably diversified funds, you probably aren't. Unless you're doing something unusual, you shouldn't think your investments are important. They are very easily replaced. Nobody will notice when you sell. In the aggregate, if someone else doesn't buy them and it becomes necessary, the Fed will do it.
The funds' managers aren't doing the hiring either. Companies do that. As the owner of tiny slices of hundreds of companies, your connection to the hiring managers of the world is extremely tenuous.
I love that you just write about what you want. It's why I pay for the extra post however often. It's worth it.
"You are owed a safe, comfortable, fulfilling life. You don’t deserve it." So true and so well said. Reminds me Chesterton's "charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice. It is the undeserving who require it". But Chesterton's error is assuming a deserving/undeserving divide that does not (or should not anyway) exist.
Such jealousy. I am not in the writing world so all this infighting by thought makers has been fascinating to me and has caused me to reflect on who I actually trust to go to the trouble of reading their thinking. JeAlousy, peer pressure, group think, bullying, tattling, sabotaging, it indeed seems like a playground.
Reminds me of the old adage about academia: the politics in academia are so vicious bc the stakes are so low.
My suspicion is that organizations/industries that lack clear agreed upon standards tend to devolve into this. I’ve never worked in the non profit or media sectors - I work in a profit generating business and do things like create dashboards that compile and present data to other people. You can judge it - either it is accurate and helpful or it’s not. People can evaluate my work without having to delve into motivations and endless arguments about its value. Sometimes it does get criticized but they’re criticizing my work, and not me. There is also zero pressure to get on social media and praise (or slag) my peers’ work. Sure there are office politics everywhere, and some office cultures are definitely better than others, but from Freddie’s descriptions in this and other posts it sounds like the profit-making world is often times a lot less toxic.
"The basic point of being a leftist is precisely to argue that financial security, material comfort, and the potential for human flourishing are not deserved at all."
I think the insight here is that "leftists" are not basing their perspective on this bedrock concept. Instead, somewhere in their schooling they are attracted to tangential issues that are often identified as "leftist" and join the tribe without ever picking up on the fundamentals. Their worldview seems incoherent... because they have never bothered to connect the dots.
Maybe this is why we get violent idpol devoid of any class consciousness.
It's very funny to me that Substack is basically Tiny Letter but with some venture capital behind it. Everyone calm down. Also funny to me that the Times may now get into the emailed newsletter game! Yikes.
I don't think the idea of substack being a bubble is that far fetched. Hopefully it's not true but I can easily see it being the case. They just received 65 million dollars in funding at a 650 million dollar company valuation. That could put an increasing pressure on the company to not just make a profit but to greatly increase profits. We've seen a lot of profitable companies gutted over the last decade because VC people weren't interested in small to decent but reliable profits.
Columns like this are why you inhabit a very small circle of Marxists I admire...
Question: Where does the idea that people are owed a safe, comfortable, fulfilling life come from if you are an atheist? (Not a knock on atheists, just trying to understand. It's something I've always been fascinated by).
Also, how have you determined this is even possible to provide? Maybe it is, I'm just not sure how someone can come to the conclusion it's possible to provide, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
Well there’s a whole field of philosophy dedicated to ethics that has nothing to do with religion. There are various viewpoints from humanism, utilitarianism and rational philosophy that would support this idea. It’s like the analogy he makes about slavery; you don’t have to believe in God to be opposed to slavery.
Right, but my question, which I never seem to get a clear answer on, is where does it come from or even matter. If you believe in straight-up darwinian evolution - or an adjacent concept - we're ultimately a mass of random chance derived from uppity chemicals. Who cares if this random mass of uppity chemicals has good or bad things happen, and how can you determine what "good" or "bad" even are.
This isn't to say that people who are atheists aren't moral - sometimes even more so than religious people - it's simply that I don't understand the foundation of belief. It's not that people who have no belief in God or an afterlife don't have morals and a desire for care for people, it's that I haven't found anything - thought I'd be welcome to read articles or books if you can list them - that explain why they think it matters. (And clearly the majority of atheists do.)
The closest I've come is arguments that moral thinking and altruism are good for society, but to my mind, that just circles back to the issue of where does "good" come from.
The problem with this answer is that there are a lot of communities that still exist and arguably thrive without things like goodwill benevolence and altruism. See many of the places in the middle east, africa and, some would argue, north korea. You can argue that more advanced populations, eg places where those desirable factors are in play are doing better, but the fact that they societies that manage without them do exist shows that they aren't as selected for as many who believe in this worldview argue. But that you for responding with your view of this.
Empathy. We know that other people can suffer. We've all suffered ourselves at one time or another, and you can observe other people's suffering regardless of whether any gods or goddesses exist. So it is reasonable to make it a goal to reduce human suffering as much as possible.
Yup. Was gonna say Empathy as well. Also a purely rational argument can be made. In other words, the Darwinian example you give above, is kind of like a Hobbesian view of the world, right? Short, brutish and nasty. So people organized themselves into societies and created laws to protect themselves from a Darwinian world. One could make the rational argument that a society where everyone is cared for, doesn't go hungry, etc, is less likely to revolt and cause turmoil and therefore, rationally, is best for everyone. (I think this is what Freddie is referencing when he says that Marxist economics are expressly amoral though I'm not 100% sure since it was given as an aside.)
Okay, solid reasoning / answer. I have some issues with the details in many cases, but it helps me understand where others are coming from. I'd still be interested in how we determined that we can provide all that reasoning and empathetic people of all stripes would like for people, but that's a big ask / conversation.
This is closely related to the problem of moral realism and it is a longstanding one in philosophy. Many volumes have been written about it. There is a good primer here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
See also the one on constructivism which is maybe more pertinent to your specific question: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constructivism-metaethics/
The issue with the New York Times competing against substack is one of reader trust and the Times's own speech parameters.
Will those Times newsletter writer feel as free to write what they think as writers at substack?
They are famously allergic to their writers arguing with each other....
The article, as well as many written here, cries out for focusing on three concepts: the envy toward leverage(why some people make more than others), the value of a soul , and the real monetary inflation rate.
Envy of Leverage: FdB discusses with great lucidity that more subscribers means more money for everyone in the revenue chain. But then he concludes there's a relevant range for this; because, well, he's just as envious of Bezos as other writers are of him. One presumes you-deserve-what-you-produce ends at several times what he himself makes. It include anyone operating above some level of income - like perhaps Oncologists making $750,000/year while poisoning to death the majority of their patients. But the 'leverage', defined as a little movement causes a big result, of an Oncologist's decisions is why the big bucks. Bezos transformed the entire goods purchase paradigm, and did it over 20 years, and affected the entire country - not to mention making life livable for the population sequestered over the last year in virtual concentration camps made up by their own extreme and unwarranted fears. The motto appears to be not "If you're going to be a ninny you deserve what you get.", but "If they can't spend it over their lifetime, then government should take it away from them." There is also the assumption Bezos disappears as cash taken out of the economy - well, 1/2 of it did..in divorce [joke] - when in fact it goes somewhere to get lent out to governments and people who can presumably use it for a productive purpose. The effect on the money supply is NOT negative. If it is invested well there is actually a multiplier effect.
2.) The value of a soul. Every soul may be thought by God to be equal, or for a non-believer, by themselves as a god. However, the economic value of souls is not equal. Making the distinction between 'deserves' and 'should be provided' is a distinction without a difference. It's the same thing except the 'provided' part is taken under threat of force from someone else. Judging by the result of giving people stuff taken by force is, and this is important, the money given is cursed. People given things ride the productivity toboggan downhill. How many past Nobel prize winners lived within 500 miles of the equator? There most of the food you need grows or climbs in trees. This is why redistribution inevitably fails not only in it's goals but in it's unintended consequences.
3.) The real inflation rate: is right now and has been for the last 10 years running at 10% per year. (See shadowstats.com, which calculates it the same way it was done in 1980. Last month's government CPI numbers included items that were admitted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be 50% estimates.) This means the $100,000 salary buys what 50,000 bought 4.5 years ago, and what $25,000 bought 9 years ago. This has resulted in the almost total destruction of the middle class. 40 years ago a blue-collar mill worker could support a family of 6, with only himself working. Now? It isn't just the journalism business that is sinking; almost every income paying business in the country is going down the tubes. And redistribution, already happening big-time, is the root cause.
hoo boy. A lot to unpack here. Appreciate you weighing in here from the politically conservative side.
1) I don't detect envy at all in Freddie's post. I really don't think he envies the money Bezos has made. He uses the Bezos example to show that accumulated wealth of that magnitude negatively affects the rest of society. Now apparently you disagree giving a kind of trickle down argument if I understand correctly. (Bezos supplies jobs, etc.) While I believe in Capitalism, I think exploitation of labor is clearly one of the downsides; I don't begrudge him his money but I do think labor should be adequately compensated.
2) Nobel Prize Winners and the Equator. I got scolded previously on this substack for using the term, "meritocracy" in a favorable way. (Apparently it can only be used ironically/negatively these days. :)). So to clarify: I believe in merit leading to financial reward (ex: Freddie, Substack) . But, there are two important caveats. a) It's not an even playing field. There are all kinds of privilege that play into success; and b) we should live in a country that supports its most vulnerable -- people shouldn't have to go hungry, lack basic healthcare, etc. (Most of us on the left would say this should be a given, a fundamental principle of a just society.)
3) Real inflation rate. Yes - there is a loss of the middle class. But I don't think redistribution is the cause. I would argue the opposite. The standard of living has shot up. Childcare, healthcare has gotten more expensive. Wages have not kept up. It's harder to live a middle class, comfortable life. Redistribution seems like a solution, not the cause.
10% per year inflation (which is an absurd claim, but never mind) does NOT mean that 25K nine years ago equals 100K today; it's 59K. Learn math before you quote alleged math facts.
And the main reason a blue collar worker could support a family was STRONG UNIONS.
100/1.10=90.9. Now do that to the result 8 more times. You might want to look at the calculations on Shadowstats before commenting on the rate. :)
From 90,909.09, do that 8 more times you get 42,409 not 25,000. 25,000 at 10% for 10 years = 58,948.69.
Everyone who's going to get a pay raise next year of 10% after taxes and SS/Medicare withholding raise your hands. How about last year? The year before? The year after next? Remember, the 10% increase is in expenses paid in after tax dollars.
I don’t think the Mets make anyone’s life easier.
I'm sure the number of people rooting for you to succeed is far greater than the number of people rooting for you to fail. And chin up Freddie, any minor world that falls apart comes together again :-)
Love the Steely Dan reference
Freddie, I would really appreciate a deep dive on Marxism. You always bring up Marxist concepts in posts like this one where the main point of the post is something else, but you reference your Marxist ideas almost as an afterthought. You think everyone deserves a certain amount of material comfort, labor is inherently alienating, etc. But you never really explain details or what your ideal society would look like.
For instance, everyone deserves housing, ok. But what if someone in your Marxist utopia is given a free house and then destroys it? Should they just be given a new house? Or is there some point where we say, no, you've had enough free houses, you now have to be homeless for a while. So some people, in a sense, really don't "deserve" housing.
Or another Marxist concept you frequently reference is that people deserve material comfort regardless of how much they work. So clearly at least some percentage of society can never work and be supported by the rest of society. But what if too many people simply decide to not work, despite having the ability to do so? There's got to be some tipping point there. Is it then ok under Marxism to force people to work for material comfort? Unfortunately we don't have free food just laying around everywhere, there is still always going to be some amount of work required by at least some of the population to grow food.
I am pretty sure that I am a Marxist like you are, but I just can't wrap my brain around how a real Marxist society would look in the real world without betraying any principles. If anyone has the writing chops to explain this kind of stuff, it's you.
I often see prof. people on community lists asking for recommendations for inexpensive this or that (electrician, plumber, yard work). They are usually self-described Marxists. Work gets paid what it's worth or you go w/o.
I'd also appreciate a primer on Marxism from Freddie's perspective. I'm not instinctively a lefty, but I want to understand Marxism better. My efforts to engage with modern discussions of the topic are frustrated by: 1) the smug condescension and presumption of moral superiority of many lefty writers (perhaps they're justified...but it's not argued in a way that I can readily assess), 2) jargon, 3) I clearly don't share all of their their moral assumptions, or their assumptions about what works in practice. I suspect Freddie can cut through a lot of this, and at least make a clear case. If an accessible introduction already exists (addressing points above), perhaps Freddie could do a short post recommending some books/articles on the topic.
It's a bit odd to hear these pro-market arguments from a Marxist, but sure, I'm nodding along. I look forward to reading the stuff you have planned about Marxism.
I'm wondering, though, if the distinction between "deserves" language and "rights" language is all that great? They are both on the "ought" side of the is-ought distinction. Also, we can point to specific examples to show how extreme inequality can get.
I'm wondering if there's a word for something that's not really a strawman argument (because I believe that nearly all bad takes exist somewhere) but is also not really a live argument for me, because I haven't read anyone making these bad arguments. Maybe it would be better to debate with people whose arguments you respect?
A fun one in the same vein of bizarre Substack criticisms I ran across today: someone saying that Substack seems uniquely bad because the desire for subscriptions will cause writers to prefer particular opinions. Seemed entirely serious, as far as I could tell.
Separately: the people who go after Liz Bruenig so incessantly have always been uniquely deranged.