Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • My name is Peter Joseph and the following is a critique of the Bernie Sanders

  • March 19th Town Hall with Michael Moore, Elizabeth Warren and others

  • from the standpoint of a structuralist.

  • Structuralism simply means you're accounting for larger order contexts

  • when addressing a given situation.

  • The point being that much of what was discussed

  • in the context of root causes and solutions was rather disappointing to me

  • as the true origins of the problem of socioeconomic inequality

  • and loss of democracy was not really addressed at all.

  • Naturally if you do not understand the root problem

  • you cannot create viable solutions to problems or symptoms.

  • And it's frustrating to see how this representative group of influencers

  • still don't seem to have the awareness or perhaps the courage

  • to go after the market economy and its incentive psychology

  • and procedural dynamics.

  • When I say incentive psychology I'm referring to the individualistic,

  • effectively antisocial incentives generated through competition,

  • seeking short-term profits

  • generally at the expense of long-term sustainability

  • not to mention humane ethics.

  • An obvious example is that when a person works to invent something,

  • they do it first and foremost to sell, to make money.

  • The incentive is to make money, not advance society.

  • While some argue this relationship - this proxy relationship -

  • has been fruitful, which of course it has on one level,

  • it has also simultaneously been unnecessarily destructive,

  • especially when other economic alternatives that remove this proxy incentive system

  • could be applied to human society.

  • Also, things do not get done in our society because

  • they have no profit possibility,

  • which is extremely depressing and one of the main core reasons

  • so many problems go unresolved today,

  • from the resolution of ecological decline

  • to the prevalence of poverty and homelessness.

  • Similarly, when I say procedural dynamics

  • I'm referring to the game of market trade and how it orients human rationality.

  • In the same way a person plays a sport,

  • orienting behavior around the structure of the game itself,

  • there's a near automatic pattern of response

  • happening throughout human society

  • working to game itself in effect

  • for each individual or group's advantage.

  • For example, a universal constraint inherent to this market game

  • is the need for cost efficiency.

  • Cost efficiency simply means people are trying to save money on input

  • while maximizing gain upon the final sale of course.

  • And what has this led to? Well, slavery for one.

  • Whether abject slavery,

  • or the millions of slaves that exist in the world today

  • getting paid virtually no money or so little that it doesn't even matter,

  • in various degrees of coercion

  • driven by poverty and vulnerability.

  • And keep in mind - and I think it's an important distinction -

  • that what we call capitalism or a capitalist society,

  • isn't really capitalist by any absolute definition

  • because there's no such thing as a purely capitalist society nor could there ever be

  • in terms of the free-market foundation.

  • It's more accurate to say that it is capitalistic:

  • a qualitative property.

  • And this capitalistic tendency

  • was birthed by the Neolithic Revolution 12,000 years ago

  • molding and evolving society and culture ever since.

  • It's a specific structural framework that we've been inside of.

  • And if you're not familiar with that I can point you to my book

  • 'The New Human Rights Movement' which details it

  • along with other issues related to socioeconomic inequality.

  • But suffice it to say, it's very important to understand that there's a

  • long term geographical determinism that has set

  • the characteristics of our society in motion.

  • That said, and put another way,

  • countless people are pulling levers on a giant machine,

  • engaging the market economy's gaming

  • through cost efficiency and so on,

  • not realizing that the long term result

  • includes human exploitation and abuse

  • along with a loss of earthly sustainability.

  • It's built into the collectively-operating mechanism.

  • without the need for individual malicious intent

  • on the part of any single individual.

  • Cost efficiency is often confused with the idea

  • of technical or natural efficiency and design.

  • The truth is cost efficiency is deeply destructive

  • because it doesn't actually employ any kind of true science.

  • Systems science would define true efficiency

  • in the design and production of a given good.

  • True efficiency is about doing things correctly from a scientific perspective in other words,

  • and cost efficiency is simply about doing things in order to maximize income

  • and reduce loss in the process of production and sale.

  • This again leads to enormous earthly waste and perpetual human abuse

  • as empirical and formal evidence shows.

  • And when you put these two things together -

  • incentive psychology and procedural dynamics of capitalism -

  • you begin to understand why any attempt to push back against the outcomes,

  • the inevitabilities of this system that we see consistently,

  • will either be short-lived or they will fail.

  • It will also happen, again regardless of the moral aptitude of the society,

  • because this isn't some trivial matter in decision-making.

  • This is about survival:

  • individual self-interest coupled with familial or group self-interest,

  • coupled with an expansive materialist culture now derived from our need to

  • keep consuming and having growth and GDP and creating jobs and so on,

  • will forever condemn any hope of improvement

  • in the context of socioeconomic inequality or class war

  • without large-scale structural economic change,

  • which effectively voids what we consider to be

  • the purest form that we've ever known of market economics.

  • In other words if you want to change the behavior of people and how we relate to each other

  • you have to change the framework they are operating in.

  • That said, let's begin with the basic opening by Sanders stating their cause.

  • [B. Sanders] But tonight's discussion is not just an analysis of our problems.

  • We're going to talk about solutions,

  • about where we go from here,

  • and how we create an economic and political system

  • which represents the needs of all Americans

  • and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.

  • Elizabeth, what's going on in America?

  • [E. Warren] Okay.

  • So I want to start this where

  • we're picking up where Bernie left off and that is

  • look at all the data right now about inequality in America,

  • inequality in wealth, inequality in income.

  • But I want to reframe this a little bit.

  • I see this as inequality in opportunity

  • and that that is one of the most corrosive parts

  • about what's happening and what's gone wrong over a generation.

  • [PJ] The synergy of influences that limit human potential,

  • individual by individual, is vast

  • and the idea of equality and opportunity

  • or equal access to potentials of society

  • become increasingly dubious, tenuous and confused

  • when the entire society is actually premised

  • in something that moves against any type of balance or equality.

  • In other words, the foundation of the society we have today

  • is premised in scarcity, competition,

  • and the game of seeking income to support future interests

  • and hence greed and so on.

  • You can't have equal opportunity in a society

  • that for example makes money out of debt,

  • selling that money like any other good.

  • You can't have equal opportunity

  • when there is an actual boom and bust cycle that periodically

  • wipes out the lower- and middle-class potentials.

  • And the list goes on, and it's a little bit disappointing

  • and even though I agree with Warren's gesture,

  • that no one brings up the other forces that limit human potential and public health.

  • And I think the general gravitation of the Democratic socialists and others of this mindset

  • is also that you can kind of regulate it in hard rigid laws

  • that will preserve some degree of equal access,

  • even though the entire society is premised on unequal access

  • as a driver of industry and innovation, by the way.

  • And once someone does even attempt to create such legislation like FDR did decades ago,

  • you'll notice that the general pressure

  • is always to dismantle such programs in the name of free markets

  • and the problem here effectively is consistency.

  • You cannot have contradictory social patterns and expect both of them to preserve themselves.

  • And while we do see, as I'll talk about moreso later in the video,

  • differences between the United States and say the Scandinavian countries

  • and other social democracies, in terms of how they "collar" capitalism,

  • the United States itself exists in a completely different level of the sickness.

  • That even if you regulate in free education, free health care,

  • free medical leave, free extended vacations, all these other things common of

  • the pop culture socialism as we know it today,

  • it would just be a matter of time before a new constituency

  • would come in and remove those safety nets

  • in favor of larger order capitalist rationalization.

  • So I hope all of that makes sense because equal opportunity,

  • to define that and make it real and make it applicable,

  • requires far more than what these folks are proposing.

  • - So for me, what this generational shift is about

  • is a shift in this fundamental question about who this government works for

  • and who it creates opportunities for.

  • [PJ] You can't pose the question of who the government works for

  • without understanding what gives birth to the structure of government to begin with.

  • Governments are fundamentally premised economically.

  • That may seem odd since we're led to believe

  • government is the starting point of our society in action.

  • But if you examine the nature of governments since the Neolithic Revolution

  • you will see that they are first and foremost concerned with economic behavior.

  • Feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism

  • and even socialism and communism as they have existed,

  • have had institutions of governance that organize around those economic foundations

  • explaining their differences.

  • This only makes sense since the economy is what produces survival.

  • And as a related aside,

  • I'd like to point out that this understanding that economics

  • is the root of survival has led to some deeply superficial perspectives

  • that further misunderstand the nature of government,

  • such as with modern Libertarians.

  • They see a false duality between markets and government

  • and as the argument goes, government is a problem

  • as it restricts the so-called free market

  • and hence if we reduce government power or regulation,

  • as was notably done by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations,

  • you will open up markets and wealth will spread, more people will be supportive and so on.

  • Obviously it didn't work out that way nor would it ever work out that way.

  • And my point here is to not debate the libertarian perspective directly

  • but to show the pervasiveness of this false duality,

  • or confusion which is even present in the Sanders panel.

  • The truth is government and business are inseparable

  • because you have to have regulation

  • of the individualistic and self-interest-driven anarchy

  • that defines market behavior.

  • The invisible hand may exist to some degree

  • but that degree is so limited,

  • far too limited to be universally workable.

  • Markets simply are not a viable system when it comes to accounting

  • for human sustainability or social stabilization.

  • It's old and out-of-date.

  • If government did magically vanish,

  • the negative externalities produced by market behavior

  • would pretty much destroy the planet overnight, gesturaly speaking.

  • So regulation becomes critical to collaring this primitive economic model

  • that simply can't take into account what is required.

  • That stated, overall government has two roles:

  • the democratic or regulatory rule,

  • where the general population sees problems and tries

  • to vote in regulations to solve those problems,

  • while the other role is to facilitate business

  • and work to preserve national business in a competitive global context

  • along with encouraging and assisting the expression

  • of the most successful in business.

  • Now this second rule explains why there is a natural gravitation in America

  • for high-level corporate power to create legislation

  • and in effect control government.

  • More succinctly government is a regulator on one side

  • and government is a tool for groupistic business power

  • and economic advantage on the other.

  • Even more, since market economics guarantees inequality and class hierarchy

  • due to its very structure,

  • money and power become intertwined

  • and suddenly you have perpetual class antagonism

  • and competitive threat.

  • And within that climate of antagonism and threat

  • the power elite naturally become fearful,

  • then generating feedback loops of lower-class disregard, oppression and so on,

  • weakening them like a country weakens another country's infrastructure in war.

  • All of this is systemic and should be expected

  • given the nature of the economic structure that serves as the foundation

  • of government behavior.

  • Now, that stated, coming back to that structure,

  • remember government, even though it makes money out of nothing through its central banks,

  • still wishes to limit inflation, so they tax.

  • Taxation is important income for government.

  • Likewise a thriving economy also allows government to maintain its geopolitical dominance.

  • This occurs through economic power emerging in the form of

  • colonialistic and globalistic trade agreements for example,

  • and the United States being the empire that it is,

  • while also housing the vast majority

  • of the most powerful transnational corporations on the planet,

  • we can better understand why the sickness of political preference

  • in support of the wealthy class is so much stronger in the US