TALKING POLITICS

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We talk about socialism in America: where it comes from, what it means, why it's so associated with Bernie Sanders and whether it can actually reach the White House. What's the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy? How would the workers gain control of businesses like Facebook and Amazon? Who are the workers these days anyway? Plus, we ask what a Sanders vs Trump contest would actually be like. With Adom Getachew, from the University of Chicago, and Gary Gerstle.

Talking Points:

In the U.S. context, is there a meaningful difference between democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and social democrats like Elizabeth Warren?

• Warren is more focused on politics: reforming the Senate, imposing taxes on corporations, etc.
• Sanders sees socialism as a revolution, but his actual aims are fairly modest: strengthen labor, etc.
• Warren wants to break up Amazon; Sanders wants to empower the workers to take on Amazon themselves.
• One key difference is that Sanders comes out of a grass-roots, movement-type politics. Warren does not, and she’s explicitly denied a commitment to socialism.

Can you have socialism without a labor movement? What takes its place?

• In 1935, 35% of American workers belonged to a union. Today it’s only 11%.
• There have been a number of strikes during the Trump presidency, such as the teachers strike.
• We need to reimagine who the working class. It’s not the industrial working class anymore. It’s the service sector, and these are historically unorganized labor forces.
• Today it’s the precariat, not the proletariat.
• How does a labor movement speak to a radically altered working population?

For many young people, the Occupy movement was a moment of political awakening.

• The establishment seemed unable to deal with the crisis, and this opened up a new sense of political possibility.
• For many young Americans, who have grown up in the absence of a real Left, Sanders represents an authentic commitment to a different kind of politics.
• There may be some problems for Sanders. For example, his reluctance to support reparations opened him up to criticism about a blindness to racial justice.
• A socialist in the U.S. has never become a major party nominee. The historical role of socialism in the U.S. has been disruptive, pressuring centrist candidates to move left. Can Sanders break that mold?
• The American political project is designed to be slow. To have big change, you need a mass movement outside of politics too.

Mentioned in this Episode:

• Adom’s new book, Worldmaking after Empire
• Isaac Chotiner interviews the editor of the Jacobin on American socialism

Further Learning:

• Alissa Quart on the “precariat”
• More on the history of American socialism
• The Talking Politics Guide to… the U.S. Constitution
• Green New Deal?

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here:

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are the UK's looming European elections making a mockery of democracy, or is this how democracy is meant to work? Would cancelling them at the last minute make the situation worse? We talk about trust in politics, the threat to the two main parties, and the knock-on effects for the rest of Europe. Plus we discuss what can meaningfully happen before the end of October, and whether the events of the last few weeks have done permanent damage to the Tory brand. With Helen Thompson, Catherine Barnard and Chris Bickerton.

Talking Points:

Local elections and the European parliamentary elections are the closest that UK voters have been to getting a say on what’s going on—even if they may not actually have any consequences.

• Are they good or bad for democracy?
• People’s faith in democracy overall is declining.

Because of Brexit, and the upcoming elections, the fracturing in British party politics is greater than ever before—what does this mean for British politics?

• We overestimate how often we’ve had a two-party system. It’s actually rare (1832-1870 and 1945-1970)
• You need a stable UK to have two party dynamics.
• Brexit has shaken up the parties in fundamental ways.
• Whether or not Britain leaves the EU, the next Conservative leader will likely be a leaver.

With this Parliament, if it does come down to no deal or revoke article 50, what will it do?

• This partially depends on the EU’s position.
• There is still the problem of sequencing when it comes to leaving the EU.
• The UK has become a geopolitical issue for the EU in a way that it wasn’t before. This is why Merkel and Macron are fighting.

Mentioned in this Episode:

• Sir John Holmes’ statement on uncertainty around European elections
• The Pew polling on people’s faith in democracy

Further Learning:

• On the 2019 European elections

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We talk to Paul Mason about his new book Clear Bright Future - a radical defence of the human being in the age of digital transformation and a call to political action. The book covers a lot of ground and so do we: Trump and Nietzsche, machine learning and network effects, climate change and neoliberalism, secular humanism and Christian Enlightenment. But no Brexit! A conversation about the biggest political choices we face and the deep philosophical questions that lie behind them. With Helen Thompson.

Talking Points:

How do we demystify technology?

• In his first book on mechanics, Galileo described machines as things that harness the forces of nature.
• Likewise, Adam Smith emphasized that labour produces value, not machines.
• Modern science often likens reality to a computer; but we’ve created them, not the other way around.

AI has the potential to fundamentally transform industrial societies.

• Civil society needs to have a say in how this technology evolves.
• How do we introduce ethical questions earlier in the process, instead of building first and asking questions later?

Information has never been more abundant, yet we feel relatively helpless because we have so little control over network effects and the information environment.

• Information wants to be free, but everywhere it is in chains.
• Information technology has not created the fourth industrial revolution; it has created social relations of production that are designed to suppress the fourth industrial revolution.

Is there still space in our political discourse for difficult choices? Are we willing to lose things we value if we want things to be better?

• Paul thinks that civil society needs to refocus on moral philosophy.
• Paul takes Nietzsche to task and argues that there is a biological basis for universal human rights.

Paul is critical of the effect of neoliberal practice on the human self.

• He argues that in America, the problem, as Arendt put it, is an alliance of the elite and the mob over “access to history.”
• The thing to fight for is not just the truth but the possibility of truth.

According to Paul, the left needs to harness the power of the state.

• He calls himself a “radical social democrat.”
• He thinks that the left’s failure to project a holistic answer and theory of reality has left the right possessing all of the momentum.

Mentioned in this Episode:

• Paul’s new book, coming out in May 2019
• Red Star by Alexander Bogdanov
• TP with Yuval Noah Harari

Further Learning:

• David’s review of Paul’s earlier book, PostCapitalism
• Green New Deal?
• Google, Deepmind, and ethical dilemmas
• The Talking Politics Guide to… Machine Learning

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David gives the third in his series of talks about the future of democracy. This one uses an idea from cosmology to work out where we might be in the story of democracy: are we at the beginning, in the middle or near the end? It all depends when and where we think the story starts. From Stonehenge to Les Miserables, from ancient Athens to Facebook, a simple idea turns out to have some surprising applications, and some important lessons for contemporary politics.

Talking Points:

The Copernican Principle is based on the idea that we are not the center of the universe.

• Because we are not inherently special, most of the time, we encounter things without a natural life expectancy somewhere in the random middle.
• If something has been going on for years, it will likely keep going for years. If something has been going on for weeks, it will likely keep going for weeks.

What does this mean for democracy? It depends on which story you think we’re in.

• The long story is about 2,500 years old, going back to the principles articulated in ancient Athens. This is the idea that humans are equal in political terms and no one is uniquely capable of rule.
• The middle story is about 250 years old. This is the story of representative democracy. Democracies exist to protect against misrule and are based on a division of labor between professional politicians and everyone else.
• The short story is at most 100 years old (and in many places, shorter). This is the story of mass enfranchisement, mass communications, and administrative democracy.

It’s unlikely that all of these stories will end at the same time, but it also seems fairly likely that there are people alive now who will see at least the short story end.

• In Eastern Europe, the short story is only 30 years old.
• The second story is also under pressure. People are getting tired of the safeguards, and the division of labor appears increasingly unsustainable.
• The old story, however, still stands. These may be the ideals that are better suited to tackle the current challenges.

David on Democracy:

• Democracy for Young People
• How Democracy Ends

Further Learning:

• Martin Rees and the Talking Politics guide to … Existential Risk
• The Talking Politics Guide to … Deliberative Democracy
• TP talks to David Wallace Wells about The Uninhabitable Earth

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We try to draw some wider lessons from the nightmare that the Brexit process has now become. What have we learned about the relationship between parliament and the executive? Is there any way that the Article 50 process could have worked? And what conclusions will other countries reach about how hard it is to leave the EU? Plus we talk about the recent report from the Hansard Society indicating that the British public is more open than ever to the idea of a 'strong leader'. With Helen Thompson and Kenneth Armstrong.

Talking Points:

The Cooper Act has been rushed through both houses—but has it really changed anything?

• Very little in this act actually constrains the government.
• No deal isn’t off the table.
• Even if it didn’t change much in substantive terms, in constitutional terms, Parliament may have set something in motion.

The relationship between the executive and the legislature is under fire in a lot of places.

• Executive power tends to be more unrestrained on the international stage.
• Treaties take important issues out of the realm of national politics. Legislatures only get to say yes or no.
• The EU raises a lot of these issues because it is a treaty-based union.

By all objective measures the May government should be on its last legs right now.

• But the Fixed-term Parliaments Act means there’s no real mechanism for getting rid of the government.
• Could the May government just stagger on?
• A lot of MP’s don’t want a general election.
• Even if the Labour leadership does, the parliamentary Labour party doesn’t.
• At every turn, Parliament seems to be trying to escape responsibility for its own actions.

What is the lesson others should take from all of this?

• Is the problem Ireland?
• Or is the problem the UK parliamentary system, and coalition governance?
• ... Or is it just really hard to leave the EU?

A new report from the Hansard Society shows that a lot of people in Britain seem to have a taste for authoritarianism.

• What people really want is a politician who can cut through politics.
• There may be a substitution effect between process and personality. When process breaks down, people want a charismatic leader.

Mentioned in this Episode:

• About that Hansard Society report
• The FT on Macron’s De Gaulle Moment

Further Learning:

• Kenneth’s Brexit Time blog
• May rolls the dice
• On the Fixed-term Parliaments Act

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David and Helen talk through the latest twist in the Brexit tale: Theresa May's offer to work with Labour to get some version of Brexit over the line. Can the two parties ever agree on what that version is? Could any agreement be made to stick? And if they can't agree, what happens next? Plus we talk about whether May's offer to stand down is still in effect and we ask what all this might mean for the ERG, the DUP, the SNP and the EU.

Talking Points:

On Tuesday night, Theresa May changed strategies: instead of courting Brexiteers and the DUP to get her withdrawal agreement through, she’s seeking Labour Party support.

• But she can’t form an understanding with Corbyn about the future while also promising to step down as PM if the withdrawal agreement is passed.
• Labour fears run deep: Since the late 80s, parts of the party have seen the EU as a constraint on the ultra-right wing side of the Conservative Party.

There are only two ways the Parliament can stop no deal: pass the withdrawal agreement or revoke Article 50.

• The EU could still refuse another extension.
• Whatever the calculations Macron or Merkel might make, the European Parliament elections are a short-term contingency, and Brexit has the potential to cause chaos.
• The EU keep saying that they want clarity about what the UK is going to do—but British domestic politics cannot provide that right now.

The only way an agreement with Labour will work is if they believe that May’s government will continue through the end of the year. Is that possible?

• What about the Labour leadership? When Corbyn seems to move toward accepting Brexit, he gets pulled back.
• In the last general election, the most irreconcilable remainers voted for a Labour party that was committed to voting to leave the EU instead of the party that represented their views (the Lib Dems). A lot of difficulties followed from this.

What about the DUP?

• They’re more worried about betrayal at the hands of the Conservatives than a Corbyn government.
• Arlene Foster has admitted that the Union comes before Brexit.
• There is no constitutional or institutional channel for English nationalism.
• If Brexit is thwarted because of Northern Ireland, there will probably be some kind of backlash.

The basic fact of British political life is that there is no transmission mechanism from the legislative to the executive of an expression of will.

• Parliament wants to say they have no confidence in the government to conduct these negotiations, but they aren’t willing to bring the government down.
• Could the constitution assert itself? Could the government fall?
• The easiest way out might be if the EU denies an extension, leading to a binary choice between the withdrawal agreement and no deal.

Mentioned in this Episode:

• Richard Drax’s statement on the withdrawal agreement
• On EU pessimism and transmission mechanisms

Further Learning:

• Adam Tooze on Europe
• The last time we talked Brexit
• ...and the time before that

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here:

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As parliament finally gets the chance to indicate its Brexit preferences - if it has any - we discuss the real choices now facing MPs and government. What is the sequence of events that would actually prevent a no-deal Brexit? Can the Withdrawal Agreement be separated from the Political Declaration? And if it can, will MPs eventually have to vote for it? Plus we ask how long we can avoid another general election and we discuss whether Theresa May's survival to this point tells us more about her resilience or about the dysfunctionality of British politics. With Helen Thompson, Chris Bickerton, and Catherine Barnard, Professor of EU Law.

Talking Points:

What is the relationship between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration?

• The political declaration is about the future; the withdrawal agreement is about wrapping up the past.
• Article 50, which is the basis for the withdrawal agreement, does not allow discussions about the future.
• Anything about the future is done under separate legal provisions.

The only feasible options now are no deal, May’s deal, or revoke article 50.

• Are we underrating the possibility of no deal? How does parliament prevent it if it can’t do anything else.
• Both sides seem to be sticking to the same strategy, which is to put their party first.
• The only thing parliament can do unilaterally is revoke Article 50—everything else depends on the EU. This is the nuclear option.

There are divisions within the EU over Brexit: Merkel doesn’t want a disruptive Brexit; Macron doesn’t want Britain in the EU.

• A disorderly Brexit poses economic risks for Europe.
• It’s hard to predict what the EU would do about another request for an extension.

Any form of compromise doesn’t work: it’s either too little for remainers or too much for leavers.

• The middle ground, which may be economically sensible, doesn’t work politically.

Have we learned something about the office of the prime minister in all of this?

• It’s really hard to throw people out of office.
• Becoming prime minister now—the risk is enormous that your legacy would almost immediately be one of dramatic failure.
• If the withdrawal agreement passes, people will want the job. But now?
• The underestimated explanation of Theresa May’s resilience is the fixed-term parliament act. This is a fundamentally different constitutional arrangement.

Mentioned in this Episode:

• Catherine Barnard on “Question Time”

Further Learning:

• The Fate of Theresa May
• Adam Tooze on Europe
• More on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act
• Catherine Barnard’s podcast

And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.