Thank you Chris...much appreciated. And I am grateful that in the era of digital media this conversation will not be destroyed and available to the masses.
+Ikallicrates Loyalists to either party or political philosophy must take certain "truths" on faith. The Rs must have a Reagan that was small government. He was no such thing as his record clearly shows, but the "truth" must be so they can stand on his record. There are very good histories of the New Deal and its cronyism and its complete failure to accomplish what FDR claimed it would.
It is *not* either barbarism or socialism. Socialism is as ruthless as Capitalism. We have to abandon enlightenment thinking with its magic invisible hand and laissez faire and all that garbage, and primarily seek, not equality, but minimum living standards. The "just wage" (ie, one with which a man can support a family), leaves the capitalist with most of the profits, but also leaves the worker his personal dignity with freedom and independence to raise a family on his own property. We can't criticize the rich for their wealth when all we want to do is rob them of it. (aside from that - fabulous interview)
What you describe there is not freedom or independence. Yes it may provide the dignified living standard as you suggest but you can't correlate freedom and dignity. It seems like you believe that a 'just wage' is the ultimate aspiration, when it should be the absolute minimum that should be accepted. Living a life on the just wage, raising a family and paying for the property, all while the capitalist reap the profits sounds more like slavery just a glossy, more palatable version. Remember the Truman show, his life was perfectly dignified, but was he free??
You talk of robbing the rich of their wealth, but is that so wrong? Should so few be allowed to have such unfathomable stores of wealth, so much that it'd practically be impossible to spend it, when so many have so little basic necessities??? Why is it so completely out of the question to redistribute wealth to the poor, but it's perfectly acceptable that half the worlds population live on less than $2 per day??? I simply cannot understand!
John Mclaughlin I don't base my worldview on a fictional movie. Pay a man a living wage - a wage by which he can support a family - and it will never get better.
John Mclaughlin - Yes - they can have all they want - once everyone else is paid justly - which is a family wage. We're not on a mission to eradicate envy - just making sure the worker gets amply compensated.
+bammbamm12 Haha! I mentioned the Truman show to help me convey my view on your 'freedom through a living wage' notion, not as a suggestion that you should live your life according to Truman. The fact that it's a work of fiction has no bearing on its relevance.
Terribly important. This interview should be force-fed to the US public once a week. Well made by two brave and brilliant journalists.
Excellent interview. I look forward to seeing more of these Important informative discussions on this show. Peace
Thank you Chris...much appreciated. And I am grateful that in the era of digital media this conversation will not be destroyed and available to the masses.
Keep it on, Abby!
Thank you Chris
This is crash course and so sad. Thanks to Abby and Chris
April 10-2021, both of you guys always kick ass, thanks.
What an amazing source of important information that no one is reporting about…. Thank you for your bravery 💫
HEY PRODUCERS! THAT CONSTANT ARTIFICIAL "STATIC" IS DISTRACTING AND NOT NECCESSARY. GREAT CONTENT, JUST ENOUGH WITH THE FLICKERING ALREADY.
Can anyone tell me if this video is constantly "flickering" between shots? I can't tell if it is meant to be there or if my gpu is too hot...
essential info please consider captioning
The man is choosing his words so carefully
:)
Hedges' blind spot for the non profit industrial complex is creepy.
I guess both Abby Martin and Chris Hedges do not know Professor Antony Sutton of Stanford Institute from the way they speak about FDR.
Why don't they care about life?
Nice interview. Too bad he has a blind spot on the New Deal.
+Ikallicrates Loyalists to either party or political philosophy must take certain "truths" on faith. The Rs must have a Reagan that was small government. He was no such thing as his record clearly shows, but the "truth" must be so they can stand on his record. There are very good histories of the New Deal and its cronyism and its complete failure to accomplish what FDR claimed it would.
+Ikallicrates :-) exactly.
It is *not* either barbarism or socialism. Socialism is as ruthless as Capitalism. We have to abandon enlightenment thinking with its magic invisible hand and laissez faire and all that garbage, and primarily seek, not equality, but minimum living standards. The "just wage" (ie, one with which a man can support a family), leaves the capitalist with most of the profits, but also leaves the worker his personal dignity with freedom and independence to raise a family on his own property. We can't criticize the rich for their wealth when all we want to do is rob them of it. (aside from that - fabulous interview)
What you describe there is not freedom or independence. Yes it may provide the dignified living standard as you suggest but you can't correlate freedom and dignity. It seems like you believe that a 'just wage' is the ultimate aspiration, when it should be the absolute minimum that should be accepted. Living a life on the just wage, raising a family and paying for the property, all while the capitalist reap the profits sounds more like slavery just a glossy, more palatable version. Remember the Truman show, his life was perfectly dignified, but was he free??
You talk of robbing the rich of their wealth, but is that so wrong? Should so few be allowed to have such unfathomable stores of wealth, so much that it'd practically be impossible to spend it, when so many have so little basic necessities??? Why is it so completely out of the question to redistribute wealth to the poor, but it's perfectly acceptable that half the worlds population live on less than $2 per day??? I simply cannot understand!
John Mclaughlin
I don't base my worldview on a fictional movie. Pay a man a living wage - a wage by which he can support a family - and it will never get better.
John Mclaughlin
- Yes - they can have all they want - once everyone else is paid justly - which is a family wage. We're not on a mission to eradicate envy - just making sure the worker gets amply compensated.
+bammbamm12
Haha! I mentioned the Truman show to help me convey my view on your 'freedom through a living wage' notion, not as a suggestion that you should live your life according to Truman. The fact that it's a work of fiction has no bearing on its relevance.