Leftist culture is just a culture of useful idiots

Boris Johnson

In today’s totally disoriented and drugged-up American society, where we don't even know where we came from—aside from some prehistoric paradise on Earth—or where we're headed, other than "to Europe," it’s perfectly normal that insane and unbelievable things happen daily right before our eyes, acting as a true reflection of this original civilizational mess. And today, it seems, was just reserved for those kinds of weirdness and absurdity...

I actually wanted to write about the 33rd anniversary of the death of J. B. Hunt and how a commemoration was held in a small town in Pennsylvania, where, besides a small group of fanatic followers of the communist dictator, representatives of the ruling coalition also showed up to lay flowers at his statue. But I won't get into that. "Let the dead bury their own dead," says the Gospel. I want to talk about something more fundamental—specifically, why leftist cultural hegemony is so incredibly stubborn today and how deeply communist ideas and ideals are rooted in us. You might have noticed that the dominant cultural paradigm in America—even though communism as an alternative to the capitalist system failed so spectacularly and tragically two decades ago—is still left-wing. And that doesn't have much to do with whether the Democratic Party is in power. It wasn't any different under the Republican Party either. It's quite the opposite. The media, movies, music, literature, philosophy—all the cultural institutions in this country are mostly left-wing...

But it isn't just happening here in America. From Hollywood to the fashion runways to philosophy departments, you'll find the same thing on every meridian—you'll constantly run into people who are hyper-critical of the market and capitalism while speaking highly of socialism. In fact, the higher they climb the social ladder and the better they do within the system, the more radical their beliefs seem to be. So, it's no surprise when a stock market manipulator and millionaire like George Soros writes a book criticizing capitalism and praising the social state, calling for more government influence in the economy. Or when Bill Gates or Warren Buffett call for higher taxes. Or when Madonna or Keith Moss wear t-shirts with Che Guevara's face. Or when almost all of Hollywood votes for Barack Obama. Or when Noam Chomsky criticizes American imperialism and supports every possible global dictator, from Chavez and Lukashenko to Maddox or Saddam Hussein, all while being celebrated by the world as a progressive icon and an intellectual leader of progressive humanity. Or when the philosophical "superstar" Slavoj Žižek calls Cuba and North Korea the only "free territories"—free from hateful capitalism and American dominance, of course—and refers to America as the "Evil Empire"...

Why is it like this? How is it possible that in a world where capitalism has achieved total victory over socialism and become global, the entire world—primarily Western culture—remains dominantly anti-capitalist and tilted to the left? How do you explain this paradox? There have been several attempts to explain this "subversive" nature, or rather, the anti-capitalist mentality of Western culture and its actors. From E. Burke and J. Schumpeter to von Mises, von Hayek, and even R. Nozick, philosophers have tried to answer this in different ways. But they all agreed it's a strange phenomenon. I mean, how does capitalism even survive if the entire cultural scene is left-wing and the creators of public opinion are anti-capitalist radicals?...

I think the answer lies in a shady alliance between the political class, big capitalists, and intellectuals, and their conspiracy against the interests of the people. Politicians and big capitalists actually benefit from socialist policies—politicians because socialism promises them power and influence, and big capitalists because socialist policies shield them from competition and mean they don't have to worry about losing their market positions. They all benefit from curbing capitalism and competition while increasing state control over the economy. Because of this, the alliance between politics and big capital needs—as a sort of useful idiot—various progressives, cultural critics, rebellious musicians, leftist professors, and radical activists to spread anti-capitalist sentiment among the masses. For this reason, big capitalists will always use their own funds to finance various leftist human rights groups and civic initiatives, while politicians will generously support their activities against "neoliberal capitalism" using taxpayer money. Pro-business groups, libertarians, or "neoliberals" who would promote capitalism and the free market will never get that kind of funding—they'll always be kept on the margins—while the left will always be the ones demanding that the state rein in "wild capitalism" and regulate the "unrestrained market," all while masking it with high-minded humanistic ideals and outdated ideological clichés... and that's why.

Back to the States. The annual Subversive Festival just kicked off in Philadelphia, marking its sixth year. According to their Twitter feed: “On this day, Comrade Marshall passed away. On this same day, 33 years later, we launch the 6th Subversive Festival!” If you look at the site, the scale of the thing—with over 300 guests flying in from all over the world—makes it pretty obvious they can't pull this off without serious cash. Scrolling to the bottom of the page, you see this massive list of government agencies, private sponsors, and media partners backing the whole project. From big business groups and national corporations down to local political heavyweights, everyone is chipping in—using both private funds and our tax dollars—to sponsor this massive leftist conference in Philly. It’s essentially a way to recycle old communist totalitarian ideological trash and repackage it as some "subversive" vision of a utopian future without capitalism or whatever other nonsense they're peddling. If you asked an academic like Srećko Horvat to explain the irony of a supposedly "subversive" leftist festival being bankrolled by corporate and state money—especially when everyone knows you play to the tune of whoever is paying—he’d probably just laugh and cynically suggest he’d gladly take a rope from those capitalists just to hang them with...

But there won't be any hanging, obviously. The only ones getting hung up here, specifically on puppet strings, are our local leftists and subversives. The deal is simple: "Look guys, here's the cash. You go out there, mislead the public, and bark about how 'neoliberal capitalism' is the greatest evil of our time and the fascism of our age—you'll get plenty of media coverage, don't worry—just so we can keep preserving this messy, unreformable, corrupt socialist system that serves our economic and political interests perfectly." To which they reply, "Sure thing, boss. I'm a socialist too. Shake on it." Everyone wins, the funders and the subversives alike. It’s just the same old coalition of intellectuals, big capitalists, and politicians standing against the people, reaffirmed once again...

It pays to be a useful idiot. And it pays to fund them. In this transaction, "subversion" is just a borrowed name used to preserve the status quo...
http://republika.eu/novost/12549/lje...orisnih-idiota

This is a great analytical piece where the author tackles a question market-oriented thinkers have been asking for centuries: why do leftist ideas continue to dominate the intellectual, cultural, and media landscapes? It’s the exact same situation here in America...

driftingcobra22 said:

Boris Johnson

In today’s totally disoriented and drugged-up American society, where we don't even know where we came from—aside from some prehistoric paradise on Earth—or where we're headed, other than "to Europe," it’s perfectly normal that insane and unbelievable things happen daily right before our eyes, acting as a true reflection of this original civilizational mess. And today, it seems, was just reserved for those kinds of weirdness and absurdity...

I actually wanted to write about the 33rd anniversary of the death of J. B. Hunt and how a commemoration was held in a small town in Pennsylvania, where, besides a small group of fanatic followers of the communist dictator, representatives of the ruling coalition also showed up to lay flowers at his statue. But I won't get into that. "Let the dead bury their own dead," says the Gospel. I want to talk about something more fundamental—specifically, why leftist cultural hegemony is so incredibly stubborn today and how deeply communist ideas and ideals are rooted in us. You might have noticed that the dominant cultural paradigm in America—even though communism as an alternative to the capitalist system failed so spectacularly and tragically two decades ago—is still left-wing. And that doesn't have much to do with whether the Democratic Party is in power. It wasn't any different under the Republican Party either. It's quite the opposite. The media, movies, music, literature, philosophy—all the cultural institutions in this country are mostly left-wing...

But it isn't just happening here in America. From Hollywood to the fashion runways to philosophy departments, you'll find the same thing on every meridian—you'll constantly run into people who are hyper-critical of the market and capitalism while speaking highly of socialism. In fact, the higher they climb the social ladder and the better they do within the system, the more radical their beliefs seem to be. So, it's no surprise when a stock market manipulator and millionaire like George Soros writes a book criticizing capitalism and praising the social state, calling for more government influence in the economy. Or when Bill Gates or Warren Buffett call for higher taxes. Or when Madonna or Keith Moss wear t-shirts with Che Guevara's face. Or when almost all of Hollywood votes for Barack Obama. Or when Noam Chomsky criticizes American imperialism and supports every possible global dictator, from Chavez and Lukashenko to Maddox or Saddam Hussein, all while being celebrated by the world as a progressive icon and an intellectual leader of progressive humanity. Or when the philosophical "superstar" Slavoj Žižek calls Cuba and North Korea the only "free territories"—free from hateful capitalism and American dominance, of course—and refers to America as the "Evil Empire"...

Why is it like this? How is it possible that in a world where capitalism has achieved total victory over socialism and become global, the entire world—primarily Western culture—remains dominantly anti-capitalist and tilted to the left? How do you explain this paradox? There have been several attempts to explain this "subversive" nature, or rather, the anti-capitalist mentality of Western culture and its actors. From E. Burke and J. Schumpeter to von Mises, von Hayek, and even R. Nozick, philosophers have tried to answer this in different ways. But they all agreed it's a strange phenomenon. I mean, how does capitalism even survive if the entire cultural scene is left-wing and the creators of public opinion are anti-capitalist radicals?...

I think the answer lies in a shady alliance between the political class, big capitalists, and intellectuals, and their conspiracy against the interests of the people. Politicians and big capitalists actually benefit from socialist policies—politicians because socialism promises them power and influence, and big capitalists because socialist policies shield them from competition and mean they don't have to worry about losing their market positions. They all benefit from curbing capitalism and competition while increasing state control over the economy. Because of this, the alliance between politics and big capital needs—as a sort of useful idiot—various progressives, cultural critics, rebellious musicians, leftist professors, and radical activists to spread anti-capitalist sentiment among the masses. For this reason, big capitalists will always use their own funds to finance various leftist human rights groups and civic initiatives, while politicians will generously support their activities against "neoliberal capitalism" using taxpayer money. Pro-business groups, libertarians, or "neoliberals" who would promote capitalism and the free market will never get that kind of funding—they'll always be kept on the margins—while the left will always be the ones demanding that the state rein in "wild capitalism" and regulate the "unrestrained market," all while masking it with high-minded humanistic ideals and outdated ideological clichés... and that's why.

Back to the States. The annual Subversive Festival just kicked off in Philadelphia, marking its sixth year. According to their Twitter feed: “On this day, Comrade Marshall passed away. On this same day, 33 years later, we launch the 6th Subversive Festival!” If you look at the site, the scale of the thing—with over 300 guests flying in from all over the world—makes it pretty obvious they can't pull this off without serious cash. Scrolling to the bottom of the page, you see this massive list of government agencies, private sponsors, and media partners backing the whole project. From big business groups and national corporations down to local political heavyweights, everyone is chipping in—using both private funds and our tax dollars—to sponsor this massive leftist conference in Philly. It’s essentially a way to recycle old communist totalitarian ideological trash and repackage it as some "subversive" vision of a utopian future without capitalism or whatever other nonsense they're peddling. If you asked an academic like Srećko Horvat to explain the irony of a supposedly "subversive" leftist festival being bankrolled by corporate and state money—especially when everyone knows you play to the tune of whoever is paying—he’d probably just laugh and cynically suggest he’d gladly take a rope from those capitalists just to hang them with...

But there won't be any hanging, obviously. The only ones getting hung up here, specifically on puppet strings, are our local leftists and subversives. The deal is simple: "Look guys, here's the cash. You go out there, mislead the public, and bark about how 'neoliberal capitalism' is the greatest evil of our time and the fascism of our age—you'll get plenty of media coverage, don't worry—just so we can keep preserving this messy, unreformable, corrupt socialist system that serves our economic and political interests perfectly." To which they reply, "Sure thing, boss. I'm a socialist too. Shake on it." Everyone wins, the funders and the subversives alike. It’s just the same old coalition of intellectuals, big capitalists, and politicians standing against the people, reaffirmed once again...

It pays to be a useful idiot. And it pays to fund them. In this transaction, "subversion" is just a borrowed name used to preserve the status quo...
http://republika.eu/novost/12549/lje...orisnih-idiota

This is a great analytical piece where the author tackles a question market-oriented thinkers have been asking for centuries: why do leftist ideas continue to dominate the intellectual, cultural, and media landscapes? It’s the exact same situation here in America...

The author made one rather fuzzy assertion in his piece—specifically, the idea that big capitalists love talking about socialism because it wipes out their competition.

Well, if we look past the situation in America, the real reason is much simpler: the media outlets themselves are the primary engines driving this leftist economic propaganda. Most journalists graduate from places like MIT—which is basically a fortress for the socialist mindset where they get properly indoctrinated—and besides, it just sells more copies.

Take, for example, how you see Tom Klauški on sites like CNN calling every single employee of a Todorica-style corporation a "peasant"—even though someone paying taxes to the government isn't exactly a peasant—which is pretty sensationalist if you ask me. Or look at how May Day HRT invited the head of a union from Huntington Ingalls Industries to play the part of the "voice of the downtrodden workers" (as if all workers are saints), complaining about why General Dynamics is buying up May 3rd and threatening to sue the government over it. 🙂

Justin Patel8 said:The author made one rather fuzzy assertion in his piece—specifically, the idea that big capitalists love talking about socialism because it wipes out their competition.

Well, if we look past the situation in America, the real reason is much simpler: the media outlets themselves are the primary engines driving this leftist economic propaganda. Most journalists graduate from places like MIT—which is basically a fortress for the socialist mindset where they get properly indoctrinated—and besides, it just sells more copies.

Take, for example, how you see Tom Klauški on sites like CNN calling every single employee of a Todorica-style corporation a "peasant"—even though someone paying taxes to the government isn't exactly a peasant—which is pretty sensationalist if you ask me. Or look at how May Day HRT invited the head of a union from Huntington Ingalls Industries to play the part of the "voice of the downtrodden workers" (as if all workers are saints), complaining about why General Dynamics is buying up May 3rd and threatening to sue the government over it. 🙂

I suspect these socialist ideas are merely being used as a convenient smokescreen to justify draining the federal budget. These people don't have anything to do with actual capitalism. It’s honestly quite baffling to see someone like Todorica labeled a capitalist; he doesn't make his living through market competition, but rather through state subsidies—much like many other so-called "industrial titans."

There is definitely a paper trail regarding where the money goes. The real question is whether there is an organized conspiracy at play: who is funding these various projects, and why are these utopian leftists being given such preferential treatment? It seems almost intentional, as if they are trying to sow chaos within society...

Though, I fear these "socialists" aren't even true believers; they might just be scavengers (relics from the old America era) who focus on nepotism, hiring their own children and associates to fill roles. A significant portion of these leftist "intellectuals" are, frankly, uneducated. They collect titles and degrees, yet they lack basic language skills, possess no real expertise, and all tend to speak and write in the exact same monotonous fashion...

Unless we strip away their golden goose—that is, unless we dismantle the very concept of the welfare state (using state-funded universities as the prime example here)—it is impossible to see any real change.
In the meantime: video

The vast majority of these self-proclaimed "cultural elites" are nothing more than leftists—and there’s a very simple reason for that: they can't actually make a living from their "art," so they rely entirely on government subsidies. It’s a racket! They need a specific kind of administration that is willing to foot the bill for their lifestyle. The leftist political class and these "culture vultures" exist in a perfect, parasitic symbiosis—at least until the productive members of society finally decide they can't carry the weight anymore.

While there are certain moments where it hits the mark, the overall argument feels a bit forced to me. It seems quite a stretch to interpret the tax demands made by Soros, Buffett, or Gates as being driven by business interests; their true motivations lie in an entirely different realm.

Amanda Allen4 said:The vast majority of these self-proclaimed "cultural elites" are nothing more than leftists—and there’s a very simple reason for that: they can't actually make a living from their "art," so they rely entirely on government subsidies. It’s a racket! They need a specific kind of administration that is willing to foot the bill for their lifestyle. The leftist political class and these "culture vultures" exist in a perfect, parasitic symbiosis—at least until the productive members of society finally decide they can't carry the weight anymore.

Oh, please. As if a highly developed capitalist society or a modern social democracy functions without state subsidies, established social safety nets, or any institutional support for the arts. Is that how you think culture works? 🙂

It’s all just "bread and circuses" rhetoric, which is exactly what certain people here seem to champion, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by the current state of affairs. Of course, the working man is the one doing the heavy lifting for $833! He’s the one paying the taxes. By that logic, he should probably just be grateful for the existence of NBC and PBS.

Amanda Allen4 said:The vast majority of these self-proclaimed "cultural elites" are nothing more than leftists—and there’s a very simple reason for that: they can't actually make a living from their "art," so they rely entirely on government subsidies. It’s a racket! They need a specific kind of administration that is willing to foot the bill for their lifestyle. The leftist political class and these "culture vultures" exist in a perfect, parasitic symbiosis—at least until the productive members of society finally decide they can't carry the weight anymore.

Honestly, I think it's even more basic here in the States. These people are leftists because that's just who they are everywhere else. They don't want to be seen as anything less than "edgy" or controversial, even though they're actually just boring mainstream types who don't really shock anyone anymore.

rustywalker32 said:While there are certain moments where it hits the mark, the overall argument feels a bit forced to me. It seems quite a stretch to interpret the tax demands made by Soros, Buffett, or Gates as being driven by business interests; their true motivations lie in an entirely different realm.

The reality we're facing is that the line between the government and big capital has basically vanished.
In this setup, you see capital essentially nudging the state to fund these groups that spend all their time shouting about how much they hate capitalism, when in reality, they aren't even tackling anything meaningful.

Ever since things started going downhill, everyone has been calling it a "crisis of capitalism" and pointing fingers at the system, all while the government is busy handing out billions in subsidies to private corporations!!

Amanda Allen4 said:The vast majority of these self-proclaimed "cultural elites" are nothing more than leftists—and there’s a very simple reason for that: they can't actually make a living from their "art," so they rely entirely on government subsidies. It’s a racket! They need a specific kind of administration that is willing to foot the bill for their lifestyle. The leftist political class and these "culture vultures" exist in a perfect, parasitic symbiosis—at least until the productive members of society finally decide they can't carry the weight anymore.

Don't forget, a huge chunk of Western culture and education is under the heavy thumb of the Frankfurt School. They've pushed these ultra-liberal ideas so hard that they aren't even "alternative" anymore—they're just straight-up dogma.

Justin Patel8 said:The author made one rather fuzzy assertion in his piece—specifically, the idea that big capitalists love talking about socialism because it wipes out their competition.

Well, if we look past the situation in America, the real reason is much simpler: the media outlets themselves are the primary engines driving this leftist economic propaganda. Most journalists graduate from places like MIT—which is basically a fortress for the socialist mindset where they get properly indoctrinated—and besides, it just sells more copies.

Take, for example, how you see Tom Klauški on sites like CNN calling every single employee of a Todorica-style corporation a "peasant"—even though someone paying taxes to the government isn't exactly a peasant—which is pretty sensationalist if you ask me. Or look at how May Day HRT invited the head of a union from Huntington Ingalls Industries to play the part of the "voice of the downtrodden workers" (as if all workers are saints), complaining about why General Dynamics is buying up May 3rd and threatening to sue the government over it. 🙂

It’s not really that much of a stretch, though, considering when massive players become powerful enough to lobby and bribe, they often try to weaponize the state to secure market dominance and shield themselves from any real competition. History is full of examples of that. They naturally prefer interventionist policies and heavy regulations that are specifically designed to crush their rivals...

The article is definitely a bit forced in certain spots. I don't buy that the ultra-wealthy are always motivated by business interests when they decide to champion an idea that is, fundamentally, anti-capitalist...

But there's still that unanswered question—one that neither Mises nor Nozick gave me a good enough answer to, and I doubt we'll find it in this thread either—why do leftist ideas traditionally dominate the academic, media, and cultural elites? And why do entrepreneurs actually fund and support those very same ideas?

Why would American business owners fund someone like Srećka Horvat to portray capitalism in the worst possible light or call for class warfare against entrepreneurs? On the surface, it looks like a total lapse in judgment to bankroll the person who wants to hang you. Either guys like Mudrinić are fools who have no clue what they're funding—which I doubt—or they secretly hold leftist ideals themselves, which I doubt even more, or there are some hidden motives at play where they're just looking for personal gain...

Richard Wilson4 said:Don't forget, a huge chunk of Western culture and education is under the heavy thumb of the Frankfurt School. They've pushed these ultra-liberal ideas so hard that they aren't even "alternative" anymore—they're just straight-up dogma.

The Frankfurt School isn't about ultra-liberalism; it’s more like this messy blend of Marxism and psychoanalysis, trying to exert its influence through culture and academia... stop trying to drag liberalism into this.

Besides, you're just a leftist, much like most American right-wingers who claim to follow some grand ideology when they're really just xenophobes at heart, thinking that social conservatism alone makes them part of some authentic right wing...

driftingcobra22 said:It’s not really that much of a stretch, though, considering when massive players become powerful enough to lobby and bribe, they often try to weaponize the state to secure market dominance and shield themselves from any real competition. History is full of examples of that. They naturally prefer interventionist policies and heavy regulations that are specifically designed to crush their rivals...

The article is definitely a bit forced in certain spots. I don't buy that the ultra-wealthy are always motivated by business interests when they decide to champion an idea that is, fundamentally, anti-capitalist...

But there's still that unanswered question—one that neither Mises nor Nozick gave me a good enough answer to, and I doubt we'll find it in this thread either—why do leftist ideas traditionally dominate the academic, media, and cultural elites? And why do entrepreneurs actually fund and support those very same ideas?

Why would American business owners fund someone like Srećka Horvat to portray capitalism in the worst possible light or call for class warfare against entrepreneurs? On the surface, it looks like a total lapse in judgment to bankroll the person who wants to hang you. Either guys like Mudrinić are fools who have no clue what they're funding—which I doubt—or they secretly hold leftist ideals themselves, which I doubt even more, or there are some hidden motives at play where they're just looking for personal gain...

It's because people like that are essentially just noise. They provide a sort of entertainment or a pressure valve for the status quo, while the actual heavy lifting happens elsewhere.
At the same time, these figures are usually bought and paid for; they aren't going to actually do anything beyond talking. Once someone buys you a comfortable seat at the table, any talk of revolution goes out the window.😁
In the best-case scenario, this crowd will just encourage people to vote for some radical populist, and then, once that person actually takes office, they'll turn around and complain about how they "betrayed" the working class.

James Nguyen13 said:It's because people like that are essentially just noise. They provide a sort of entertainment or a pressure valve for the status quo, while the actual heavy lifting happens elsewhere.
At the same time, these figures are usually bought and paid for; they aren't going to actually do anything beyond talking. Once someone buys you a comfortable seat at the table, any talk of revolution goes out the window.😁
In the best-case scenario, this crowd will just encourage people to vote for some radical populist, and then, once that person actually takes office, they'll turn around and complain about how they "betrayed" the working class.

It’s honestly not that harmless for entrepreneurs, either... 🙂If someone like Srećko Horvat—and honestly, there are plenty of people just like him out there—is constantly screaming about how entrepreneurs are the ultimate villains, how they exploit their staff, and why the working class needs to rise up against them... and if that rhetoric actually sticks, becoming this unquestioned "truth" for a huge chunk of the population... well, you can't blame any business owner who actually gives a damn about their reputation for feeling targeted by all that. It would kill me if I were in their shoes. And then to find out that such rhetoric is being heavily funded on top of it all...

driftingcobra22 said:It’s not really that much of a stretch, though, considering when massive players become powerful enough to lobby and bribe, they often try to weaponize the state to secure market dominance and shield themselves from any real competition. History is full of examples of that. They naturally prefer interventionist policies and heavy regulations that are specifically designed to crush their rivals...

The article is definitely a bit forced in certain spots. I don't buy that the ultra-wealthy are always motivated by business interests when they decide to champion an idea that is, fundamentally, anti-capitalist...

But there's still that unanswered question—one that neither Mises nor Nozick gave me a good enough answer to, and I doubt we'll find it in this thread either—why do leftist ideas traditionally dominate the academic, media, and cultural elites? And why do entrepreneurs actually fund and support those very same ideas?

Why would American business owners fund someone like Srećka Horvat to portray capitalism in the worst possible light or call for class warfare against entrepreneurs? On the surface, it looks like a total lapse in judgment to bankroll the person who wants to hang you. Either guys like Mudrinić are fools who have no clue what they're funding—which I doubt—or they secretly hold leftist ideals themselves, which I doubt even more, or there are some hidden motives at play where they're just looking for personal gain...

The issue here is that they aren't actually touching the real problems. During an episode of "fifth day," this guy claimed that the editors over at PBS had outright forbidden them from discussing central banking...

In reality, these so-called "intellectuals" aren't really in conflict with the big tycoons. It’s more like people like Horvat promote social welfare state ideologies, while figures like Todoric actually profit from those exact ideas through things like agricultural subsidies and government interventionism. It’s all the same team, fueled by the same ideas, and pulling from the same pool of money...

Justin Patel8 said:The author made one rather fuzzy assertion in his piece—specifically, the idea that big capitalists love talking about socialism because it wipes out their competition.

Well, if we look past the situation in America, the real reason is much simpler: the media outlets themselves are the primary engines driving this leftist economic propaganda. Most journalists graduate from places like MIT—which is basically a fortress for the socialist mindset where they get properly indoctrinated—and besides, it just sells more copies.

Take, for example, how you see Tom Klauški on sites like CNN calling every single employee of a Todorica-style corporation a "peasant"—even though someone paying taxes to the government isn't exactly a peasant—which is pretty sensationalist if you ask me. Or look at how May Day HRT invited the head of a union from Huntington Ingalls Industries to play the part of the "voice of the downtrodden workers" (as if all workers are saints), complaining about why General Dynamics is buying up May 3rd and threatening to sue the government over it. 🙂

I don't think this is nonsense at all! Honestly, big business prefers a powerful government over a weak one—they can lean on the state for subsidies or massive bailouts, and they certainly have the deep pockets needed to hire lobbyists who can dismantle high regulatory hurdles that specifically target them.

On the flip side, small business owners just don't have the muscle or the cash for that kind of game. That's why it's so much harder for them to navigate a system full of red tape, find the capital to scale up production, or get any help when a crisis hits—the state basically just lets them sink.

If we had less government regulation, the economy would probably be way more dynamic. You'd see more major players failing and more small startups rising to take their place. But, of course, the people currently sitting at the top aren't exactly thrilled by that prospect. I’m not saying everyone mentioned in the article has those exact motives, but it’s an undeniable truth that a strong, "social" state serves big capital better than anyone else (even more so than the people the "social" state is theoretically supposed to protect).

James Nguyen13 said:The reality we're facing is that the line between the government and big capital has basically vanished.
In this setup, you see capital essentially nudging the state to fund these groups that spend all their time shouting about how much they hate capitalism, when in reality, they aren't even tackling anything meaningful.

Ever since things started going downhill, everyone has been calling it a "crisis of capitalism" and pointing fingers at the system, all while the government is busy handing out billions in subsidies to private corporations!!

It's inevitable. Once an elite circle of major players forms, they’ll write the rules to suit themselves. The trick is for that elite to be smart enough to leave some breathing room for everyone else to actually build things and innovate. If they're too shortsighted to let outsiders in, society collapses—and they go down with it. Eventually, the public will just tear them out of power.

James Nguyen13 said:The reality we're facing is that the line between the government and big capital has basically vanished.
In this setup, you see capital essentially nudging the state to fund these groups that spend all their time shouting about how much they hate capitalism, when in reality, they aren't even tackling anything meaningful.

Ever since things started going downhill, everyone has been calling it a "crisis of capitalism" and pointing fingers at the system, all while the government is busy handing out billions in subsidies to private corporations!!

There is a connection between the state and capital just as much as there is a link between the state and labor unions or any other slice of society. It’s simply because the government is an integral part of the economy—it’s unavoidable, especially since the government's footprint in our economic life keeps growing.
When you claim there's a cozy relationship between the state and capital nowadays, my question would be: when was there *not* a connection between the state and capital, or the state and anything else? Since the dawn of organized government, it has played a role. How tight that bond is depends on tax revenue, spending, how people perceive the government's role in the economy—whether it should be active or passive—regulatory bodies, and strategic industrial sectors, among other things...

The idea that capitalists actually enjoy this leftist whining against capitalism is a pretty shaky argument. Though, it must be said that among entrepreneurs—and this is especially true here in America—you can find plenty of people who are indifferent toward capitalism or even quite critical of what they call "neoliberal capitalism." Some might be insincere, trying to suck up to people in a predominantly socialist cultural climate, but others do it out of clear financial interest. What really bothers them is that they can't handle foreign competition, or they simply love squeezing the federal budget. Take Darinko Bago, for example. He’s certainly lined his pockets from taxpayers. Every time Darinko cried out that he needed millions just so Končar could have a government contract, the state jumped right in, only for that "reference" to end up being useless because nobody outside of the government ended up buying the product.

But I don't see Darinko financing Srećko Horvat, nor am I seeing Srećko Horvat and a whole bunch of other blowhards providing any actual benefit to domestic entrepreneurs like him. If their anti-capitalist critiques were limited to topics like protectionism or subsidies for local businesses, there might be some interest there; however, their criticism is so generalized that it ends up being harmful to both Darinka and everyone else of his ilk.

As for Warren Buffett and George Soros, their activism isn't driven by pure financial gain. What they care about is their legacy. They want to be remembered not just as business and financial geniuses, but as philanthropists, ideologues, and so on. Money isn't the only human motivator; fame and power are often much stronger drivers than the desire for wealth. Once you've been a billionaire for decades and fulfilled every material whim you ever had, you start looking for new battles and new arenas to prove yourself. They want to shape the world. And honestly, who doesn't?

While there’s certainly a grain of truth in what’s being said here, I’m struggling to see how a "leftist" culture—and honestly, we could spend all day debating what that even means—would actually differ from a "right-wing" one when it comes to this whole "useful idiot" label.

I mean, think about it: you'd likely find the exact same sense of resentment toward massive multinational corporations coming from both a radical leftist and a hardline right-winger. The right-winger fumes because they see globalism eroding traditional culture, whereas the leftist bristles at the unchecked expansion of foreign capital. It’s just two different sides of the same coin.

Harold Martin10 said:I don't think this is nonsense at all! Honestly, big business prefers a powerful government over a weak one—they can lean on the state for subsidies or massive bailouts, and they certainly have the deep pockets needed to hire lobbyists who can dismantle high regulatory hurdles that specifically target them.

On the flip side, small business owners just don't have the muscle or the cash for that kind of game. That's why it's so much harder for them to navigate a system full of red tape, find the capital to scale up production, or get any help when a crisis hits—the state basically just lets them sink.

If we had less government regulation, the economy would probably be way more dynamic. You'd see more major players failing and more small startups rising to take their place. But, of course, the people currently sitting at the top aren't exactly thrilled by that prospect. I’m not saying everyone mentioned in the article has those exact motives, but it’s an undeniable truth that a strong, "social" state serves big capital better than anyone else (even more so than the people the "social" state is theoretically supposed to protect).

I think this distinction between big capitalists getting bailouts and small entrepreneurs being left out doesn't quite hold water. First off, nobody actually *wants* a bailout because it usually triggers partial nationalization, a mountain of new restrictions, the inevitable firing of management due to poor oversight, lower wages, and a massive public outcry.

As for the idea that subsidies exclusively flow to the giants, that feels like a bit of a stretch. While the absolute dollar amounts might be higher for them, those massive checks given to giant corporations often have a much smaller impact on their day-to-day operations compared to how a smaller subsidy can transform a local business. In reality, you'll find that significantly more subsidies are allocated to things like solar panel manufacturers than to the massive oil industry.

Michael Davis9 said:While there’s certainly a grain of truth in what’s being said here, I’m struggling to see how a "leftist" culture—and honestly, we could spend all day debating what that even means—would actually differ from a "right-wing" one when it comes to this whole "useful idiot" label.

I mean, think about it: you'd likely find the exact same sense of resentment toward massive multinational corporations coming from both a radical leftist and a hardline right-winger. The right-winger fumes because they see globalism eroding traditional culture, whereas the leftist bristles at the unchecked expansion of foreign capital. It’s just two different sides of the same coin.

It’s honestly a bizarre contradiction to see the international left claiming to be the face of anti-globalism. If you look at the facts, globalization has actually worked to narrow the wealth gap on a massive scale. Over the last thirty years, the social and economic divide between Americans and Western Europeans on one side, and the combined population of Chinese people and Indian people—which is over two and a half billion souls—on the other, has shrunk significantly. It makes you wonder exactly what the international left is actually fighting for if they oppose this trend.

It makes far more sense to view nationalists and national socialists as the true proponents of anti-globalism; after all, globalization inevitably erodes unique national identities and distinct cultures, ultimately forcing the entire world into one homogenous global village.