All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 29, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
27:55
The Right Wing Scapegoat
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, it's funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food.
That's a good thing.
In other countries, people don't line up for food.
The rich get the food, and the poor starve to death.
When I was in San Francisco, I did an interview with journalist Tim Pool, and we were talking about how the left can never acknowledge its own faults, and because it can't acknowledge its faults, it can never really improve.
And I used the example of David Pachman calling Stalin right-wing.
The left's idea that it, and it's a religious concept, that it can scapegoat.
I mean, the point of escape goat is that you put the sins of the community on the goat, sent it out to the desert, the community will remain pure.
That is the left, right now.
They think that they can just say that's right-wing.
I mean, I was watching a David Pacman video where he was talking about socialism, and broadly it was correct.
He was actually surprisingly accurate on point with it, until he declared that Stalin was right-wing.
And, yeah, exactly.
And that was the point at which he was, that's the scapegoat.
That's, oh no, no, no.
Anything bad is on the right.
Everything good is on the left.
And that's the way it is.
And it's like, okay, I mean, if you take that approach to anything, then that makes your opponents entirely bad and you entirely good.
And so what's the reason that you don't just go to war with these people?
David took exception to this on Twitter, and Tim Poole said that it was from his video called Debunked, Socialism Has Never Worked.
And David responded with this.
Maybe someone will fact-check, would like to respond but can't find the footage.
He said it was here with a link to the video.
So I used my phone to find the clip.
And this is the clip I was told.
Marxism advocates a revolution wherein a society's means of production are taken by force rather than by reform or negotiation or slower forms of transition.
The means of production will then be controlled by a proletarian state, which in theory will lead to an egalitarian, stateless society that governs itself without coercive institutions.
Really important point here.
This is not what the Soviet Union or its quote communist successors achieved or were working toward, despite their pretenses.
Bolshevism, Maoism, and the like are inherently right-wing, totalitarian perversions of Marxism.
So with pictures of socialist dictators like Stalin, Castro and Mao on the screen, David Pacman said that the socialism that manifested during the 20th century was a right-wing totalitarian perversion.
I think it is a perfectly acceptable way to paraphrase David by stating that he thinks Stalin was right-wing.
That does indeed appear to be the message he was putting across.
David then replied to Tim saying, no, I'm not hearing the quote that Sargon has twice attributed to me now, once to you and once on a live stream when he asked about being on with me.
And then someone replied, it's not a direct quote, but it's easy to understand why he would have gotten that from this.
Possibly because you called it right-wing socialism with a picture of Stalin on the screen, David.
And he said, using quotes I never said to criticize is pretty lame.
Tim answered this by saying, well, he was paraphrasing you.
Once again, David decides to get stuck on semantics and pretend that he wasn't trying to say that Stalin and Bolshevism or Mao and Maoism were right-wing perversions, as he was clearly making out.
And the thing is, that's not even the only time in that video in which he said that totalitarian versions of socialism were right-wing.
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez claimed to be democratic socialist, but it was and still is, by the way, just another right-wing, oppressive, authoritarian type of socialism.
That's right.
Now, according to David Pacman, even Venezuela's socialist governments are right-wing.
And that isn't even the end of it.
To the extent that socialism has been tried, where ideas and tendencies of democratic, egalitarian, left-wing socialism have been woven into political and economic life and haven't been nullified by right-wing phenomena like totalitarianism, police states, and oligarchy, the results have been good.
And there we get down to the real meat of the issue.
He thinks that totalitarianism is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon.
And I think it's quite clear that he's doing this in order to try and preserve the moral purity of the left by suggesting that the left cannot be capable of totalitarianism.
But the thing is, I know that David knows that's not true because he actually did a video on the authoritarian left.
And in this video, he uses Stalin as his example of an authoritarian leftist.
There have been far too many good examples throughout history and today of what this sort of left-wing authoritarianism can lead to if left unchecked.
During the Cold War, many American leftists turned a blind eye to countless human rights abuses around the world simply because they were performed by ostensibly left-wing socialist governments.
This includes genocide in Cambodia, any number of Chinese abuses of power, poverty and attacks on civil liberties in Cuba, a list of crimes against humanity in the Soviet Union.
Throughout the 20th century, leftists in capitalist countries all over the world were apologists for governments like these because of their pretense of being socialist egalitarian states.
Not only did left-wing authoritarianism grow to overwhelming and destructive degrees in these places, leftists in the West pretended or were under false impressions that these crises were benign because of identity politics, loyalty to labels like socialism, and often other fanatical desire to denounce the West and capitalism.
It's a baffling turnaround because that video that I took that clip from was actually a really good video and David honestly addresses the problem of left-wing authoritarianism.
And I don't want you to think that I'm saying that there is no such thing as right-wing authoritarianism.
Both political wings have their authoritarian tendencies.
And he even goes further by accurately identifying that left-wing authoritarianism is emotionally driven through the defense of certain labels, in this case, socialism.
American left-wing authoritarianism, on the other hand, is more rooted in emotion, absolutism, and the resulting narrow tunnel vision used in defending and promoting their causes, even if it means ignoring certain realities and progressive principles.
The only thing that gives power to this new alt-right movement, which entails cultural libertarianism and a lot of anti-social justice warrior sentiment, is the left momentum with these habits that we're talking about.
People who are otherwise very left-leaning on many or most issues are feeling sort of obligated to call themselves conservatives or at minimum moderates because they don't want to identify with this aggression and ideological Puritanism that is often manifesting on the left.
Again, I really have to stress how good a video that was because he is accurately describing me and I know a large number of people who are watching this.
This is why we tend to use the label classical liberal, even though really we are social liberals, because we want to differentiate ourselves away from the Marxists on the left, because we are not.
We come from a different intellectual tradition, one concerned with liberty rather than equality.
At least an equality of outcome.
But still wants basic minimum levels in society that we can afford.
And David identifies correctly that in America there is a right-wing version of identitarianism based around Christianity.
It's the right job to tell people how to think, how to speak and behave, to act like martyrs constantly victimized by their opponents.
It's the job of people like right-wing radio hosts who have long played their audiences' fears by reinforcing victim narratives and the idea that everyone is out to get them and that they should just completely shut out anybody who disagrees with them.
Authoritarian leftists are often relying less on facts and controversies to inform their rhetoric and instead falling back on this otherization of anyone who opposes them, this mentality of you're either for us or against us.
That is not what progressivism represents.
Again, I can't stress enough just how correct David is when he says this, which is why it was so disappointing to watch him try and defend socialism by simply declaring any authoritarian elements in it to be right-wing perversions.
They aren't.
The left is equally as capable of being authoritarian as the right for the exact same reasons as David himself has pointed out.
Since we're here, let's get into David's definition of socialism, because I think that he is using this term far too broadly.
Defined by a textbook, socialism is the collective ownership of a society's means of production.
Means of production could be non-human resources used to produce things of economic value like real estate or farmland, natural resources, equipment, buildings, infrastructure, roads, and collective ownership of these things, meaning workers or the public own them.
Socialism is an extremely broad umbrella term to describe a wide range of political, social, and economic systems, movements, and ideas.
This is quite an accurate definition of socialism and the one that I would personally consider to be the correct definition of socialism.
It is about the collective ownership of the means of production, contrasted and in opposition to the private ownership of the means of production.
Which is why a socialist will say, well, Venezuela isn't real socialism.
And in my opinion, that's where it should stop.
But for some reason, David wants to expand this, to muddy the waters and try and include things that are quite contrary to this in the same definition.
Some define socialism as a system by which social equality can be achieved.
In this broader way of thinking about it, socialism could mean any kind of socialistic philosophies or attitudes or tendencies, or a system that combines orthodox socialist practices with other constructs like capitalism.
For instance, you could say that some Scandinavian countries are socialistic by modern standards, not because they have a system where the government or workers own everything, but because they have a system where there's a relatively greater amount of intervention by democratic government to protect socialistic ideals like egalitarianism, civil rights, equal education, environmentalism, and the prevention of abuse by actors in the free market.
And naturally, David is talking about Scandinavia.
Look at Scandinavian countries today, or even countries like France, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand, which share some of the same characteristics.
No matter what lens you look at these systems through, they are the best game in town.
And again, these are capitalist societies, but they borrow from socialism.
And this is where we firmly disagree, because I do not believe that socialist countries can also be capitalist countries.
If you have a country that has social programs but a free market, and this market is maintained by the government's protection of private property, that is not socialism.
This is why the Danish Prime Minister rebuked Bernie Sanders for claiming that Denmark was a socialist country.
He says, I would like to make one thing clear.
Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy.
Denmark is a market economy.
The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state, which provides a high level of security for its citizens.
But he notes that it's a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.
And I really think that we should stop muddying the waters by claiming that a wealthy capitalist society that can afford social programs is socialist, because it is not.
It does not even have socialistic tendencies, because socialistic tendencies are for the government to own the private property of the citizenry.
These are capitalist societies, and they're definitely not realizations of socialism as defined in a political science glossary.
But these are manifestations of socialistic inclinations, especially when compared to what goes on in many other developed countries.
I totally disagree.
I do not agree that these are manifestations of socialist inclinations, any more than the Roman grain doll was a manifestation of a socialistic tendency.
These are useful things to have in society to improve the minimum quality of life for the people at the bottom of society, to prevent them from agitating for a complete revolution against an otherwise successful system.
Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've found so far.
Democratic socialism and social democracy differ from anarchism, obviously because there is a state.
They differ from Marxism because they're frequently thought of as systems that are achieved through reform as opposed to revolution, or they're thought of as vehicles for reform to something else, and they also don't carry many of the other characteristics of Marxism.
Democratic socialism and social democracy are often considered more centrist than Marxism or anarchism, and according to many, are even compatible with capitalism or at least some elements of capitalism.
I also don't approve of the conflation of democratic socialism and social democracy.
Democratic socialism is a process by which the means of production can be monopolized by the state.
Social democracy is, in effect, the Nordic model, a capitalist society with an expanded welfare state.
Again, they might seem like there is some crossover, but the journey on which they are on is in completely opposite directions.
It's interesting that he says this.
Implying that Obama is himself a socialist.
Now, it should go without saying that Obama is not a socialist, but this actually has to be explained to some people.
By David's own expanded and all-encompassing definition of socialism, Barack Obama is indeed a socialist, at least of some stripe.
This is why I think we need to be specific and deliberately delineate between systems which are capitalist and wish to remain capitalist and systems which do not protect the private ownership of the means of production or at least are working towards full state ownership of the means of production.
And this is really important because David's theory really breaks down when you drill down into the philosophy underpinning it.
At first the word was used not to describe any one political system, but as an abstraction, a philosophy that societies could or should operate to serve the collective, as opposed to just thinking about the individual.
Just thinking about the individual.
Now, I am a Lockean liberal.
I believe that the state exists to protect my private property rights, with my private property rights beginning with me as my own private property.
What David has just said here is the polar opposite of this.
What David has suggested could accurately be described as statism, where the individual's rights are subjugated to the collective as represented in the state.
These are not mutually compatible.
They are, in fact, mutually exclusive.
So when David goes on to say this.
Socialism doesn't necessarily mean Marxism or communism, and it doesn't have to mean abandoning things like individual rights.
You can see why things are getting awfully muddled up, because it really does mean abandoning individual rights.
You can't protect an individual's right to private property while the state is monopolizing all of the private property and preventing individuals from owning any of it by subjugating them to the collective.
Put simply, David, you are not a socialist.
You are a social liberal.
You think a free market is a good idea.
You do not want to see authoritarian leftism manifesting in the West.
And you say as much in this video.
You need to stop trying to expand the definition of the word socialism because it doesn't fit with what you are trying to make it cover.
And in your attempt to do this, you have declared Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others to be right-wingers, when they are clearly not.
They are clearly manifestations of left-wing statist socialism, and you need to call them exactly what they are.
Conversely, the Nordic model, the Scandinavian countries, are not socialist countries.
They are capitalist countries that are wealthy enough and, frankly, homogeneous enough to be able to afford an expanded welfare state.
And yes, that would be a lovely dream if you lived in a homogeneous Scandinavian country, but I'm afraid you don't.
In many of its manifestations, socialism just means allowing government to more efficiently do what we already called upon it to do.
Protect people's rights, protect people from abuses of the free market, and provide social safety nets.
And neither I nor any other reasonable person want to achieve those things through the power of one authoritarian person or small group of people.
And I really do appreciate that you are genuine in what you're saying here.
But unfortunately, I think you are indulging in fantastical thinking.
Let's just look towards Venezuela for the example of how, say, democratic socialism becomes tyranny.
To try and achieve the socialist ideal of the mass ownership of the means of production, the collective ownership, always ends in tyranny because you necessarily have to violate people's rights to do it.
And in the process, that means you're oppressing people and they will try and fight back.
That forces the government to become tyrannical.
It forces the leader to become a dictator.
It is not stable.
Conversely, the Western democratic capitalist model does not produce dictators.
So please, please, David, for the love of God, it's important that you think about this clearly and realize that you are not a socialist.
It might actually be worth looking into this further, David, because I think Peekoff is right when he says the distinction comes from the Platonic and Aristotelian schools of thought on governance.
You even mentioned something like this yourself.
And many say that Plato's Republic first articulated the notion of a socialist state, a state that aims to solve social problems by government action through higher taxes and redistribution of resources.
I'm afraid that's really not a very accurate representation of Plato's Republic.
Plato's Republic is a totalitarian dystopia, which is what state socialism always becomes.
And I know that you're about to say, well, what about the other forms of socialism, the anarcho-communist forms found in, for example, the Spanish Civil War and whatnot?
And I would, in response to that, say, where are they now?
They've all been conquered because they are not strong states in a world of strong states.
We must still be able to defend ourselves, David.
The problem with socialism is, as Hayek said, there is a fatal conceit to socialism, that we are capable of controlling the economic activity of millions of people without it becoming an oppressive nightmare.
Free market economies work.
They've worked for a long time.
They are proven.
They have a track record of producing wealth and avoiding dictatorships.
Socialist economies have the opposite track record.
Let's keep that in mind.
Since I'm doing a kind of round-robin of David Pacman videos, let's also address his video called The Myth of the Violent Left.
If conservative news were your only source for information, you might be thinking that conservatives and America as a whole are under siege by gangs of deranged, violent, bloodthirsty left-wingers teeming with hatred, hell-bent on destruction, and being cheered on by the Democratic Party and the liberal media.
I agree with David in that the raw numbers in the United States are definitely overstated by media coverage.
However, we did recently see the largest black bloc in history, around 8,000 to 9,000 people, in Germany for the G20 protests.
I don't know about you, David, but I think that is absolutely terrifying, and I don't see the right wing doing that.
And you yourself know that there is tremendous danger from left-wing radicalism.
The Kathy Griffin beheading incident, Antifa protests, the rendition of Caesar with a Trump character, and much more seriously, the recent shooting of Republican Congressman Steve Scales at a Republican baseball team practice are all being held up as evidence by right-wing pundits of violence, hatred, and extremism being rampant on the left, and that liberal ideology poses a grave danger to the country.
I don't know about the country, but they certainly pose a threat to the individuals being attacked.
But more importantly, you said liberal ideology.
David, they reject liberalism entirely.
These are revolutionary communists, socialists, and anarchists.
These are nothing to do with liberalism.
These are what happen when you embrace collectivism, when you say there is no legitimacy to the state, and you are providing cover for them, as the left-wing media has also done.
You have to stop downplaying this.
This encourages them to continue.
The right-wing pundits that we both so despise are not wrong to point out that there is a danger coming from the far left.
It's right in front of your eyes, and we need to stop downplaying it in the same way they don't downplay Dylan Roof.
They disavow him, they condemn him.
And we need to do the same with the radical communists and socialists.
We can't start calling ourselves socialists because we are not them.
They are not liberals.
They reject liberalism in its entirety, and so we must reject what they believe in its entirety.
Unless, of course, David, you actually want to live in a communist state, which I'm sure you don't.
Let's be clear.
The threat of violence from people on the left should be of concern and monitored closely, particularly after the shooting of Steve Scalise.
But there's been a torrent of hysterical coverage night after night from Fox News and other right-wing outlets that is vastly overblown, sensationalized, toxic, and horribly hypocritical.
And it ignores the disproportionately high amount of right-wing violence that we've seen for many years.
And unfortunately, it's been pervading the narrative among the right.
America is not the world, David, but these ideologies are international.
I do not agree with you that the right wing in America is causing more violence than the left around the world or even in the United States, to be honest.
But let's assume that that's true.
The numbers are irrelevant.
It's the reaction that matters.
We need to be able to say no under no uncertain terms.
We need to absolutely make sure that the radical left know we are not on their side.
In the same way that the alt-right don't think Fox News are on their side.
Although there may be some legitimate reason to be concerned about rhetoric on the left.
There absolutely is.
These people are openly seditious.
The only reason they haven't torn down your country is because they lack the power to do so, not because they lack the will.
Please stop defending these people.
The possibility of mentally unstable people who may take the idea of the resistance too far, both hateful rhetoric and acts of political violence, are disproportionately a problem on the right.
Only because you have defined the problem as people who are mentally unstable.
Unfortunately, the socialists on the left that are causing all of the problems are not mentally unstable, they are radical ideologues.
They're not insane, they know precisely what they're doing.
You need to stop supporting it.
▲
Export Selection