Mr. Duddridge is a remarkably fair and astute interviewer. Of the available 50 minutes, Mr. Mackler was speaking for about 40 of them. During the first half hour Mr. Duddridge lobbed straightforward, softball questions toward him, letting his guest say his piece. Only in the last 20 minutes or so were the questions a little bit probing. Even then, Mr. Duddridge rarely interrupted, and apart from insisting on answers to his questions, he never argued back.
Mr. Baker describes the podcast as follows (emphasis mine):
Duddridge, an extreme example of a pro-capitalist, free-trade, “economic nationalist,” an advocate of no government interference in any aspect of human endeavor, and a Trump supporter who believes that the current president exemplifies these qualities, nevertheless features on his podcasts dissident Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarian Party members, with whom he jousts to present his ideas, all essentially in defense of “free market” capitalism as opposed to the “socialism” that he sees ever encroaching on “freedom” in present day America. Mackler’s debate with Duddridge, edited by Duddridge to highlight his own views and undercut Mackler’s, is nevertheless noteworthy not because it is likely to reach a broad audience but rather because it provided a limited opportunity for a socialist to express some fundamental revolutionary propositions.If there was any editing it must have been very minor. There really is no way Mr. Mackler can claim he's been misrepresented. I think Mr. Baker's statement is an admission that his candidate didn't perform very well. I doubt this interview will be featured on the campaign circuit.
Mr. Mackler is very much prone to exaggeration. He opens by claiming that Socialist Action (SA) has "thousands" of members. He does not disabuse his host's impression that he'll be campaigning in all 50 states. Unfortunately he was never asked about ballot status, but if he had been I'm not sure he would have admitted that SA likely won't be on the ballot in even a single state.
SA's actual membership is likely around a hundred people. And I'll remind my readers that during Mr. Mackler's 2016 run his sole campaign activity was a five-day tour through Southern New England.
Mr. Mackler makes two central points:
- That capitalism inevitably leads to mass impoverishment and environmental disaster.
- That the only solution is an independent labor movement, completely separate from the Democratic Party, which he views as a bourgeois organization.
There is, of course, no evidence of mass impoverishment since the dawn of the industrial revolution and the birth of capitalism. From then until now the standard of living of nearly every human being on earth has done nothing but get better. Mr. Mackler never claims otherwise.
Instead, he complains about extreme wealth inequality. His exaggerations get more and more outlandish as the interview wears on, but I'm pretty sure near the end he asserted that only six people own half the wealth in the entire world! Mr. Mackler's claim is absurd, but many Leftists make the same sort of argument. Andrew Gavin Marshall, for example, in an article entitled World's Top Billionaires suggests that in the United States, "...the top 1 percent own more than 36 percent of the national wealth and more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent." He arrives at those numbers only by taking a very narrow, cherry-picked definition of wealth. (See my post here.)
Do six people own 50% of all real estate in the United States? And do the same six people receive 50% of all disbursed social security benefits in the United States? Do only six people purchase 50% of all cars sold in the United States? Of course not. Yet those examples represent wealth that is not captured either by Mr. Marshall's legitimate statistics, or by Mr. Mackler's ridiculous assertions.
Wealth is much more widely spread than our socialist friends admit.
Mr. Duddridge pressed his guest on two issues. The first was the simple question: Has socialism ever been successful anywhere in the world?
It's a perfectly straightforward, predictable question, yet Mr. Mackler seemed totally flustered. His initial answer was to recite all the revolutions that had happened in the past: the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Russian Revolution, etc. Of course, Mr. Duddridge agreed--there have been lots of revolutions. That wasn't the question.
When backed into a corner, Mr. Mackler cited two examples of supposedly successful socialism: Russia from 1917 to 1923, and Cuba. If only those evil imperialists hadn't intervened, then surely those two countries would be much better off than anyplace else.
If only? Aren't socialists supposed to account for the possibility of "imperialist aggression" and defeat it? What's the point of socialism if it can't even withstand poorly enforced sanctions? Is that a record that will inspire people to try it again?
Yet those were the only two examples of socialism that Mr. Mackler claimed to be proud of. It's a pathetic list. Later in the program he noted that, despite accomplishing a successful revolution in 1949, China is today a capitalist country. Unmentioned was the slaughter of 50 million people by the socialist government before Deng Xiao Ping finally called quits on the experiment. Mr. Duddridge, lacking either time or energy, didn't chase that rabbit to the ground--Mr. Mackler got away with one.
The second issue upon which Mr. Mackler's bluff was called was climate change. SA states categorically that climate change is a cataclysmic threat to human civilization, and depending on what part of Mr. Mackler's interview you listen to, we have only 10-12 years to fix it. How building a labor party independent from the Democrats is going to resolve this problem within the narrow timeframe is a topic our guest never addressed.
Mr. Duddridge cited mainstream scientific expertise, which says that absent the Paris Climate Accords, climate change becomes irreversible after 2100. With the Paris Accords (assuming they're fully implemented), disaster day doesn't strike until 2106. In other words, the Accords buy us at most six years.
The conclusion is that climate change is irreversible. Nothing we do today will materially change the outcome. So how, Mr. Duddridge asked our socialist friend, is curtailing fossil fuel use of any consequence? The die is already cast.
Mr. Mackler--he who wants to put us on a massively impoverishing course of fossil fuel elimination--briefly argued against defeatism, and then reasserted his claim that his proposals will make a difference.
"What's your evidence?" demanded the host. And this is the funny part--Mr. Mackler had no prepared answer to that very obvious question. He--the purveyor of imminent, end-of-the-world cataclysm--couldn't provide even a single anecdote in support of his proposition. Paraphrasing from memory: there's the guy from Stanford--Jacobson. And then I can't remember his name, the guy from NASA. (I think he means James Hansen.)
That's it! On the basis of two names we're supposed to put the whole fossil fuel industry out of business, hugely increase the price of transport, electricity, and industrial products, and impoverish millions of Americans with Mr. Mackler's harebrained schemes.
The man is stunningly ignorant. And completely unprepared for this or any other interview. Surely if you believe in imminent cataclysm you'll have better evidence at your fingertips than this.
What happened to those Trotskyist presidential candidates of yore? Fred Halsted argued William F. Buckley to a draw. Silver-tongued Peter Camejo could draw a crowd of hundreds. Even Linda Jenness actually inspired her followers.
But Jeff Mackler? Socialist Action needs to fire him as a presidential candidate. The man is a disgrace.
Further Reading:
Do six people own 50% of all real estate in the United States? And do the same six people receive 50% of all disbursed social security benefits in the United States? Do only six people purchase 50% of all cars sold in the United States? Of course not. Yet those examples represent wealth that is not captured either by Mr. Marshall's legitimate statistics, or by Mr. Mackler's ridiculous assertions.
Wealth is much more widely spread than our socialist friends admit.
Mr. Duddridge pressed his guest on two issues. The first was the simple question: Has socialism ever been successful anywhere in the world?
It's a perfectly straightforward, predictable question, yet Mr. Mackler seemed totally flustered. His initial answer was to recite all the revolutions that had happened in the past: the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Russian Revolution, etc. Of course, Mr. Duddridge agreed--there have been lots of revolutions. That wasn't the question.
When backed into a corner, Mr. Mackler cited two examples of supposedly successful socialism: Russia from 1917 to 1923, and Cuba. If only those evil imperialists hadn't intervened, then surely those two countries would be much better off than anyplace else.
If only? Aren't socialists supposed to account for the possibility of "imperialist aggression" and defeat it? What's the point of socialism if it can't even withstand poorly enforced sanctions? Is that a record that will inspire people to try it again?
Yet those were the only two examples of socialism that Mr. Mackler claimed to be proud of. It's a pathetic list. Later in the program he noted that, despite accomplishing a successful revolution in 1949, China is today a capitalist country. Unmentioned was the slaughter of 50 million people by the socialist government before Deng Xiao Ping finally called quits on the experiment. Mr. Duddridge, lacking either time or energy, didn't chase that rabbit to the ground--Mr. Mackler got away with one.
The second issue upon which Mr. Mackler's bluff was called was climate change. SA states categorically that climate change is a cataclysmic threat to human civilization, and depending on what part of Mr. Mackler's interview you listen to, we have only 10-12 years to fix it. How building a labor party independent from the Democrats is going to resolve this problem within the narrow timeframe is a topic our guest never addressed.
Mr. Duddridge cited mainstream scientific expertise, which says that absent the Paris Climate Accords, climate change becomes irreversible after 2100. With the Paris Accords (assuming they're fully implemented), disaster day doesn't strike until 2106. In other words, the Accords buy us at most six years.
The conclusion is that climate change is irreversible. Nothing we do today will materially change the outcome. So how, Mr. Duddridge asked our socialist friend, is curtailing fossil fuel use of any consequence? The die is already cast.
Mr. Mackler--he who wants to put us on a massively impoverishing course of fossil fuel elimination--briefly argued against defeatism, and then reasserted his claim that his proposals will make a difference.
"What's your evidence?" demanded the host. And this is the funny part--Mr. Mackler had no prepared answer to that very obvious question. He--the purveyor of imminent, end-of-the-world cataclysm--couldn't provide even a single anecdote in support of his proposition. Paraphrasing from memory: there's the guy from Stanford--Jacobson. And then I can't remember his name, the guy from NASA. (I think he means James Hansen.)
That's it! On the basis of two names we're supposed to put the whole fossil fuel industry out of business, hugely increase the price of transport, electricity, and industrial products, and impoverish millions of Americans with Mr. Mackler's harebrained schemes.
The man is stunningly ignorant. And completely unprepared for this or any other interview. Surely if you believe in imminent cataclysm you'll have better evidence at your fingertips than this.
What happened to those Trotskyist presidential candidates of yore? Fred Halsted argued William F. Buckley to a draw. Silver-tongued Peter Camejo could draw a crowd of hundreds. Even Linda Jenness actually inspired her followers.
But Jeff Mackler? Socialist Action needs to fire him as a presidential candidate. The man is a disgrace.
Further Reading:
- Boring Jeff Mackler Runs for President Again
- Old White Man Runs for President
- Jeff Mackler Goes Full (Groucho) Marxist
No comments:
Post a Comment