I think what I find most intellectually interesting in the items you have pulled from Matthew's essay (I have not yet gone to read it all, but I will), is his compulsion to list his bona-fides as a member of "the left". I would have taken his word for it if he had simply said he identified with the views mostly considered to be left of center. As political animals, we in the West have imposed so many litmus tests on political views. A "true" left, a "true" right. No wonder our discourse is such a royal mess.
I think listing bona fides is important. Clarifies who it is that is speaking. And, since there are many flavors of "Left," I think he leaves a good idea as to where he falls. In correspondence with one of my LOC friends, he complained that people on the right are imprecise about what they mean by "progressives." I responded that "Yes, and left-wingers think Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, George Bush, Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and Adolf Hitler are all 'right-wingers'—along with pro-life, low-tax, and strong-defense types. Political labels are imprecise. No surprise."
And yet, you've missed the point Robert. Listing bona fides is an attempt to disqualify and clarifies nothing, it does the opposite imo. Any conservative understands the meaningless reference to Reagan or small government is meant only to disqualify the inappropriate belief/opinion etc. Our personal reactions stand on their own without the need to clarify. Watching the doc. film of child survivors of the Holocaust clarifies. The official response of the German Republic clarifies. Understanding the Nuremberg Defense clarifies.
I think this is a fair point. I suppose the reason why I talked about some of them is that the default response of much of the really 'hard left' is to say, 'Oh, well, clearly you were never really a leftist then.' And I'm sure some would still say that anyway. But at least I've set that out there at the start, and then after the first paragraph I can just talk about what I want to talk about: a movement and ideology supposed to be about justice, equality, about opposing prejudice and racism, which has somehow allowed the most enormous blindspot of antisemitism right there in the centre..
I understand. , I belong to the group of people out there, left and right (and likely far more than you realize as we tend to be far less vocal), who understand that political views are not hard and fast across either end of the spectrum, that they can and sometimes do change over time, sometimes a little and occasionally a good bit. As Shrek noted, welcome to our club, we have jackets.
I think I agree Matthew. Does one need to mention their "Left or Right" world view when describing their reaction to visiting the site of a concentration camp? What the hell does it matter if you are a socialist or a libertarian? How did it affect your personal definition of morality to see how Japanese Americans were stripped of their rights and property and placed in the middle of nowhere? Was that right or wrong? Recently, anyone who describes themselves of the Left is a confident idiot, imo. I apologize since typing that it is harsh but the confidence of these Gaza-Hamas-Palestine protesters is what shocks me (temporarily. since the confidence is the point of the propaganda.)
Robert, thank you for this highlight, I deeply appreciate it in my soul – it's been a rough year or so for me and I appreciate this shoutout. I think I'm going to try and keep putting my thoughts to paper/keyboard going forwards. I've always believed it's possible to agree and disagree with people over all sorts of political divides.
The thing that I've often found somewhat strange is that, as a leftie who believes deeply and profoundly in economic justice for all, that everyone should have a good start in life, and even if they fall on hard times – even by bad choices – should be supported, and that those who dedicate their lives to work should have a stake in the business they work in and its success – that's never the stuff I actually get real pushback on. That's never really where the more profound or emotionally-invested disagreements emerge, in my experience (to be fair, I don't have that much at 27!)
I think there's more room for agreement among the left and right than sometimes appears. I think many on the right are giving up on the idea of radically free-market capitalism trampling everything important underfoot. And I think the left is increasingly coming to a realisation that social liberalism is undermining the conditions under which Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism is even able to sustain itself. One of the many elements I enjoyed in your recent article is the idea of the '20% ally' – I think all of us should bear this in mind.
Matthew, if you don't mind a somewhat tangential question, I'm curious about the details of what you mean by "those who dedicate their lives to work should have a stake in the business they work in and its success." I'm assuming this means something like that you think all business should have (perhaps by law) an option for their employees to be paid in cash, or in a mixture of cash and stock in the company, so that the employees become part-owners as well. Is this what you mean by "having a stake in the business?" If not, I hope you can explain where my assumption goes wrong.
The reason this phrase struck me is that I was just having a conversation with a physician friend of mine, and he was telling me that after decades of having his own practice (i.e. being the entire owner of the business) he was thinking of quitting that and just becoming a hospital employee. The reason is that as an owner, his welfare (and that of his family) rose and fell with the fortunes of the business, and it was extremely stressful to cope with the many and varied demands of running a business in addition to being a physician. He had to learn how to navigate insurance company policies and language, a forest of regulation around medical billing and procedures, and of course he had to hire office staff to do the office stuff of greeting people, making appointments, taking payments and whatnot -- which means he also had to become a master of employment law, and cope with a constantly varying legal environment for employers. He was just sick of it, wanted to only practice medicine, and leave the business and legal aspect to someone else -- hence his wish to give up his entire "stake" in the business and instead just be paid in cash.
What I'm getting at here is that being an owner is not always a better deal than being just a wage slave. Generally, when you have a stake in the business you can't just clock out when your shift is over, and you can't limit your responsibility to some well-defined role. You end up having to fill a lot of random roles that come up, and you are kind of always on-call for when the business needs you. Some people thrive in that environment, and are much happier owning and running business, or being part of start-ups (where stock ownership in lieu of salary is common). But other people hate it -- don't want the uncertainty, risk, and feeling of constantly being on call. They just want to collect a paycheck each Friday for work done since Monday, and not worry about what happens to the business overall. (And if the business goes under, they don't want to lose their capital, savings, house, credit rating -- they like that they can just stop collecting a paycheck but otherwise walk away unscathed and get another job.)
So my question is: when you say people "should* have a stake in the business -- do you mean they should be legally *required* to have a stake? All firms should be co-ops, so if the business succeeds everybody gets rich, and if the business goes down it demolishes everybodys retirement savings. Or are you saying all firms should be legally required to offer employees a *choice* of merely working for a wage or being paid in a mixture of cash and stock[1], and therefore also be an owner? Or....something else I haven't thought of?
I think I understand what you're driving out, the idea that someone who is part of a collective should have the chance to share in collective success, the way if you're part of a victorious Viking war band you get to share in the loot. But I'm trying to think of how this would work out, practically, in the modern world. And also what your thoughts are on the flip side of the principle, which is sharing in the woe if things go badly, the way if you're part of a Viking war band that loses you get killed along with the rest and lose everything.
Sorry if this isn't especially well-posed, if I need to clarify anything about what I'm asking, please let me know and I'll see if I can improve it.
----------------
[1] In practice this might be tricky beyond the small-business/start-up world, because big established companies are usually publically traded, they don't have any stock on hand to give out, so the business would have to either purchase its own stock on the open market to give to employees, or the company would have to continuously issue more and more stock, both on a regular schedule. If either of these was mandated by law it seems not unlikely financial traders could take advantage of that info to make money at the company's (and employees') expense.
I read Matthew’s document and was duly impressed by it, and left him an appreciative comment. (Maybe it should have been more elaborate. Not sure.)
I did not mention the intellectual and political differences between him and me—why would I have wanted to? They weren’t germane to the comment I was making.
How moving were the quotes from Matthew. Yes, the world has changed since October 7th, and we must be open to new allegiances, based on mutual allegiance to basic moral values.
His confession was nice, but a bit late (aren't they all?). Neither Wiesenthal nor anyone else could absolve him, so there was nothing to say except the truth which you don't tell a dying man whose conscience had just arrived on the scene.
The year 2024 is going to be THE watershed. I wish Matthew well, but I can see he has a lot to overcome.
cheers Matthew
To show my appreciation and offer some assistance on his journey I offer this from a very humble old man who was a pleasant part of my life.
A better set of date conventions: 10/7/2023 for Old US, or 10/7 for short.
7.10.23 for old EU, 7.10
2023-10-7 global world, 10-7.
Bad to use 7/10 contrary to US use.
The problem is judging people by their skin color/ sex/ identity, rather than by behavior. All who steal are theives. Excusing bad behavior because of identity is the root problem.
I think what I find most intellectually interesting in the items you have pulled from Matthew's essay (I have not yet gone to read it all, but I will), is his compulsion to list his bona-fides as a member of "the left". I would have taken his word for it if he had simply said he identified with the views mostly considered to be left of center. As political animals, we in the West have imposed so many litmus tests on political views. A "true" left, a "true" right. No wonder our discourse is such a royal mess.
I think listing bona fides is important. Clarifies who it is that is speaking. And, since there are many flavors of "Left," I think he leaves a good idea as to where he falls. In correspondence with one of my LOC friends, he complained that people on the right are imprecise about what they mean by "progressives." I responded that "Yes, and left-wingers think Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, George Bush, Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and Adolf Hitler are all 'right-wingers'—along with pro-life, low-tax, and strong-defense types. Political labels are imprecise. No surprise."
And yet, you've missed the point Robert. Listing bona fides is an attempt to disqualify and clarifies nothing, it does the opposite imo. Any conservative understands the meaningless reference to Reagan or small government is meant only to disqualify the inappropriate belief/opinion etc. Our personal reactions stand on their own without the need to clarify. Watching the doc. film of child survivors of the Holocaust clarifies. The official response of the German Republic clarifies. Understanding the Nuremberg Defense clarifies.
I’ll disagree, but thanks.
Our society needs more respectful disagreement.
Tho not always longer threads of more detail about it.
I think this is a fair point. I suppose the reason why I talked about some of them is that the default response of much of the really 'hard left' is to say, 'Oh, well, clearly you were never really a leftist then.' And I'm sure some would still say that anyway. But at least I've set that out there at the start, and then after the first paragraph I can just talk about what I want to talk about: a movement and ideology supposed to be about justice, equality, about opposing prejudice and racism, which has somehow allowed the most enormous blindspot of antisemitism right there in the centre..
I understand. , I belong to the group of people out there, left and right (and likely far more than you realize as we tend to be far less vocal), who understand that political views are not hard and fast across either end of the spectrum, that they can and sometimes do change over time, sometimes a little and occasionally a good bit. As Shrek noted, welcome to our club, we have jackets.
I admire your optimism that people on the hard left will read your fine essay in the first place.
Ha, fair point... I doubt they will. Doesn't mean I will give up my principles, though.
Of course not.
I think I agree Matthew. Does one need to mention their "Left or Right" world view when describing their reaction to visiting the site of a concentration camp? What the hell does it matter if you are a socialist or a libertarian? How did it affect your personal definition of morality to see how Japanese Americans were stripped of their rights and property and placed in the middle of nowhere? Was that right or wrong? Recently, anyone who describes themselves of the Left is a confident idiot, imo. I apologize since typing that it is harsh but the confidence of these Gaza-Hamas-Palestine protesters is what shocks me (temporarily. since the confidence is the point of the propaganda.)
Robert, thank you for this highlight, I deeply appreciate it in my soul – it's been a rough year or so for me and I appreciate this shoutout. I think I'm going to try and keep putting my thoughts to paper/keyboard going forwards. I've always believed it's possible to agree and disagree with people over all sorts of political divides.
The thing that I've often found somewhat strange is that, as a leftie who believes deeply and profoundly in economic justice for all, that everyone should have a good start in life, and even if they fall on hard times – even by bad choices – should be supported, and that those who dedicate their lives to work should have a stake in the business they work in and its success – that's never the stuff I actually get real pushback on. That's never really where the more profound or emotionally-invested disagreements emerge, in my experience (to be fair, I don't have that much at 27!)
I think there's more room for agreement among the left and right than sometimes appears. I think many on the right are giving up on the idea of radically free-market capitalism trampling everything important underfoot. And I think the left is increasingly coming to a realisation that social liberalism is undermining the conditions under which Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism is even able to sustain itself. One of the many elements I enjoyed in your recent article is the idea of the '20% ally' – I think all of us should bear this in mind.
Appreciate your letting me borrow your good work. I appreciate your other sentiments, too.
Matthew, if you don't mind a somewhat tangential question, I'm curious about the details of what you mean by "those who dedicate their lives to work should have a stake in the business they work in and its success." I'm assuming this means something like that you think all business should have (perhaps by law) an option for their employees to be paid in cash, or in a mixture of cash and stock in the company, so that the employees become part-owners as well. Is this what you mean by "having a stake in the business?" If not, I hope you can explain where my assumption goes wrong.
The reason this phrase struck me is that I was just having a conversation with a physician friend of mine, and he was telling me that after decades of having his own practice (i.e. being the entire owner of the business) he was thinking of quitting that and just becoming a hospital employee. The reason is that as an owner, his welfare (and that of his family) rose and fell with the fortunes of the business, and it was extremely stressful to cope with the many and varied demands of running a business in addition to being a physician. He had to learn how to navigate insurance company policies and language, a forest of regulation around medical billing and procedures, and of course he had to hire office staff to do the office stuff of greeting people, making appointments, taking payments and whatnot -- which means he also had to become a master of employment law, and cope with a constantly varying legal environment for employers. He was just sick of it, wanted to only practice medicine, and leave the business and legal aspect to someone else -- hence his wish to give up his entire "stake" in the business and instead just be paid in cash.
What I'm getting at here is that being an owner is not always a better deal than being just a wage slave. Generally, when you have a stake in the business you can't just clock out when your shift is over, and you can't limit your responsibility to some well-defined role. You end up having to fill a lot of random roles that come up, and you are kind of always on-call for when the business needs you. Some people thrive in that environment, and are much happier owning and running business, or being part of start-ups (where stock ownership in lieu of salary is common). But other people hate it -- don't want the uncertainty, risk, and feeling of constantly being on call. They just want to collect a paycheck each Friday for work done since Monday, and not worry about what happens to the business overall. (And if the business goes under, they don't want to lose their capital, savings, house, credit rating -- they like that they can just stop collecting a paycheck but otherwise walk away unscathed and get another job.)
So my question is: when you say people "should* have a stake in the business -- do you mean they should be legally *required* to have a stake? All firms should be co-ops, so if the business succeeds everybody gets rich, and if the business goes down it demolishes everybodys retirement savings. Or are you saying all firms should be legally required to offer employees a *choice* of merely working for a wage or being paid in a mixture of cash and stock[1], and therefore also be an owner? Or....something else I haven't thought of?
I think I understand what you're driving out, the idea that someone who is part of a collective should have the chance to share in collective success, the way if you're part of a victorious Viking war band you get to share in the loot. But I'm trying to think of how this would work out, practically, in the modern world. And also what your thoughts are on the flip side of the principle, which is sharing in the woe if things go badly, the way if you're part of a Viking war band that loses you get killed along with the rest and lose everything.
Sorry if this isn't especially well-posed, if I need to clarify anything about what I'm asking, please let me know and I'll see if I can improve it.
----------------
[1] In practice this might be tricky beyond the small-business/start-up world, because big established companies are usually publically traded, they don't have any stock on hand to give out, so the business would have to either purchase its own stock on the open market to give to employees, or the company would have to continuously issue more and more stock, both on a regular schedule. If either of these was mandated by law it seems not unlikely financial traders could take advantage of that info to make money at the company's (and employees') expense.
I read Matthew’s document and was duly impressed by it, and left him an appreciative comment. (Maybe it should have been more elaborate. Not sure.)
I did not mention the intellectual and political differences between him and me—why would I have wanted to? They weren’t germane to the comment I was making.
How moving were the quotes from Matthew. Yes, the world has changed since October 7th, and we must be open to new allegiances, based on mutual allegiance to basic moral values.
His confession was nice, but a bit late (aren't they all?). Neither Wiesenthal nor anyone else could absolve him, so there was nothing to say except the truth which you don't tell a dying man whose conscience had just arrived on the scene.
The year 2024 is going to be THE watershed. I wish Matthew well, but I can see he has a lot to overcome.
cheers Matthew
To show my appreciation and offer some assistance on his journey I offer this from a very humble old man who was a pleasant part of my life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62XMNCPyYG8
I sided with Wiesenthal on that matter. Lovely video.
A better set of date conventions: 10/7/2023 for Old US, or 10/7 for short.
7.10.23 for old EU, 7.10
2023-10-7 global world, 10-7.
Bad to use 7/10 contrary to US use.
The problem is judging people by their skin color/ sex/ identity, rather than by behavior. All who steal are theives. Excusing bad behavior because of identity is the root problem.