← The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:01]
Scott Galloway
Support for ProPG comes from HubSpot. HubSpot is taking on the fundamental myth in business software that you need dozens of different tools to succeed. You don't. You only need one that actually works. With HubSpot's powerful AI solution, Breeze, built right into their customer platform, you have everything you need all in one place. Breeze Copilot acts like a digital wingman that keeps you two steps ahead, while Breeze agents take entire work streams off your plate. That's not AI vaporware, that's leverage. We're talking about real roi, cutting sales cycles in half, resolving service tickets fasters, and working less hours every week. To make it all happen, go to HubSpot.comai to get started today. Support for the show comes from Adobe Express. These days there are a million different ways to reach your customers, but that can also mean a million different pieces of content. It can be overwhelming. Adobe Express can help with templates, brand kits and generative AI that's safe for business. Your team can create its own content and will will always be polished and professional. When everyone can create content themselves, it's easier to get on brand content out in the world faster. Go from cookie cutter to class of its own. Switch to the quick and easy app to create on brand content Adobe Express. Learn more@adobe.com Express Business True story I have used Adobe Express and I was shocked how easy it is to use and produce content. As marketing channels have multiplied, the demand for content has skyrocketed. But everyone can make content that's on.
- [01:42]
Timothy Snyder
Brand and stands out. With Adobe Express, you don't have to be a designer to generate images, rewrite text and create effects. That's the beauty of generative AI that's commercially safe. Teams all across your business will be psyched to collaborate and create amazing presentations, videos, social posts, flyers and more. Meet Adobe Express the quick and easy the app to create on brand content.
- [02:04]
Scott Galloway
Learn more@adobe.com Express Business Episode 348348 is a country code belonging to Hungary. In 1948, NASCAR was founded. I broke up with my last girlfriend because she refused to go to nascar only to Formula one. I can't be with a racist. Oh, it's getting desperate around here. Go, go, go. Yes, that's right. We're keeping it clean here. Prop to you. We've decided that at this point in my life I need to. I need to tone down the profanity. There's no reason for unnecessary vulgarity. It's really inappropriate. It diminishes my credibility and A lot of our listeners love our, love our content but get offended by some of the off color jokes. Anyways, I hope you're well. I'm at home and my son's about to head to school where he's very excited about the Catholic Church's new archaeology class that all he's been saying is a bunch of old bones. He's back, ladies and gentlemen. By the way, unsubscribe now if you don't like profanity and vulgarity and I will send you a full refund. That's my favorite. When people say they're unsubscribing, they're just, they've had enough. They're unsubscribe. Take my eyes but don't unsubscribe. Anyways, back to me. I am in New York. Super excited. I come to New York. I love it here. I have a place here that is essentially looks like it's been decorated by a northern European architect who has severe depression and is worried about slipping and falling and cutting himself. There's almost nothing in my place and I love it. It is so fucking gangster. I do a self care day when I'm here. I get everything done. So this was my Friday. I went into Dr. Robert Anelick who is the dermatologist for the stars and overcharges me. He overcharges me. He's a lovely guy, super lovely guy. Hard not to like. And he literally molests me financially. And I go in there because I'm very struck on looking 59 and 7/8 again. And I had something called a fractal laser where basically it burns off the exterior layer of your subdermis. Remember there's seven layers of skin. I can name one. Anyways, he burns off one of them, maybe two of them. I don't know the way I felt three. And you look. I look like that character from the Mandalorian with like beet red skin. Skeletor with a bad sunburn. It was frightening. My face was on fuego. And then I headed up to this guy I absolutely love, Dr. Eric Lindor. I'm going to set this guy up. This guy's got to be the most eligible man in all of Manhattan. He's like handsome. He's the orthopedic something for the rangers. He looks like his late 30s, early 40s. He was, he's from South Dakota. He just couldn't be like nicer. And he takes a six inch needle. Well first a very nice man who's a technician comes in and draws blood from me. And then they spin it. It's called prp. And then they take your platelets, which I guess have some sort of restorative effect, and they create inflammation wherever they're injected. And that inflammation is actually quite healing. I did not know that. Anyway, so I've had problems with my shoulders. I've been injury free my whole life. And I was doing some cleans and CrossFit and all of a sudden both shoulders hurt like hell. It's weird. They started talking to each other. Hey, I'm hurting. Well, I'll hurt too. But anyways, back to my concierge medical services and my PRP shots. This is the problem with the wealthy. And that is we all complain under our breath about the digression into fascism and kleptocracy and what is probably best described as a kakistocracy, where we have village idiots running the government. As opposed to this is a crime family now, it's 100% a mob family, creating incentives where if you say anything bad or critical, he goes after you, weaponizes the doj, sues you, whatever. What the fuck are we thinking? This is part of the problem. The Republicans in Congress are corrupt, or at least cultists willing to turn a blind eye to corruption because they're so scared of this guy. But even worse in my mind, even worse, or almost as worse, is all these fucking Democrats who claim to be paid patriots who are neutered and weak. Yeah. Jesus Christ. Have you ever met a more neutered, feckless, ineffective group of people in your life? And here's the thing, the sad thing, he'd be reelected today. He'd be reelected today. Why? Because Americans would rather have an autocrat and a kleptocrat than a weak neutered party. So back to why it's so dangerous to have Democrats who are wealthy or this wealthy. And it all comes back to income inequality. Those of us who are blessed and fortunate and worked hard and aggregated some wealth because we were born at the right time or the right place or with the right skin color or the right outdoor plumbing. I have all of those things. And by the way, I'm not humble. I'm a fucking monster. But with all of these skills, I wouldn't have been able to attain this type of economic security in any other nation. So you'd think that people would have some fidelity to those values. Rule of law, consistency, civil rights, opportunities for family planning. I wouldn't be here if there wasn't family planning in this country. If me and my mom had lived in deepest, darkest Mississippi, my mom wouldn't have been able to abort a pregnancy when I was 17 and she was 47. And I would have had to go to fucking work. I wouldn't have gone to ucla, wouldn't have gone to business school, wouldn't have started firms, wouldn't have taken a company public. I wouldn't be here right now complaining about PRP shots that cost $1,500 jabbed into my shoulders. All of the things that got us here are being eroded slowly but surely. The great trade agreements, because of consistency and rule of law, are literally going out the fucking window. And the 1% of Democrats who claim to give a shit and scream into TikTok and complain at dinner parties or talk to each other at Shay Margaux at Fauxquets about how terrible things are aren't really doing that much. Are you really doing anything? Are you really reaching out to your congressperson? Are you really? Are you creating content? Are you about to get involved in the congressional life? Are you really doing anything? No. Why? Because we're getting richer. And guess what? We don't need the government. We have our own rights. Anyone comes from me, I can lawyer up like no tomorrow. Anyone in my life gets pregnant or has an unwanted pregnancy, I can figure it out. Why? Cuz I have money. If they start rounding up Jews again, which I don't think is unthinkable at this point, I love how everyone's like, oh, it couldn't happen in America. Well, it's kind of happening right now. We're rounding up people. We are literally rounding up people with the wrong tattoo. We have sent US citizens to foreign concentration camps. What's the definition of a concentration camp? A place that is outside your nation where laws do not protect. This is where you send people, where the laws domestically cannot justify the incarceration of them. That is the definition of a concentration camp. And that's what these prisons in El Salvador are. And now they're talking about sending people to Libya. Oh, that sounds very American. We're going to deny habeas corpus and due process and find people in America and send them to some hellscape in Libya. But you don't need to worry if you're rich. Why? Because we have our own laws. We're protected by the law, but we're not bound by it. We have our own medical. I can go to Atria. I don't need to worry about Medicare or Medicaid or them cutting it to pay for tax Cuts. No, I don't need to worry about that because I have my own medical care. I don't need to worry about schools. I don't need to worry about them gutting the Department of Education because I have enough money for my own kids schools. And this is the problem with income inequality is there are too many people who carry too much power who no longer have a vested interest in the success of America. It is really income. Almost every problem in the United States can be reverse engineered to income inequality. This is creating two societies where the one society that has all the power is in a unwritten unspoken conspiracy with the Trump administration, despite their political views that they're gonna be just fine to shut the fuck up and not put up any real resistance. So, yeah, is it bad that we have a Republican Party that is acquiescing to a fascist, a kleptocrat and a Kakastocrisat? I don't know what the word would bad. What's worse is the Democrats aren't doing a fucking thing. All right, so what else are we going to do out here? We got to get into today's episode. I want to mention that the first two episodes of the Lost Boys dropped today in its own feed. The Lost Boys is a new limited series I'm co hosting with Anthony Scaramucci about all the struggles young men are facing in America. I did this because Anthony, it was actually Anthony's vision. And I wanted to figure out a way to work with Anthony. I really like him. I think he's smart, well read, good person, and courageous. And this in episode one, we speak with my Yoda, literally, probably the person I parrot most in my life and who kind of. I had sort of an awakening around a calling. I thought Richard Reeves started talking about. He was at Brookings and he started talking about the struggles of young men. And I was just so kind of overwhelmed and fascinated by the data. And I could feel it and I could sense it. And I thought, okay, this is finally time where I can actually maybe, I don't know, do some good other than highlighting some of the wonderful dick jokes out there, which is important. Which is important. And Richard has been my Yoda around this stuff. Anyways, in our first episode, we speak with Richard about the data behind the crisis. And in episode two, we explore why no one's talking about it. Search for the Lost Boys wherever you get your podcasts. Again, the Lost Boys. Or check out the link in the show notes. Okay, moving on. In today's episode, we speak with Timothy Snyder A leading historian on authoritarianism, Ukraine and Eastern Europe, he's also the author of various books, including On Freedom and On Tyranny. Two decades at Yale, he's now joining the University of Toronto's Monk School of Global Affairs. We discuss with Timothy the threats to American democracy, echoes of 1930s fascism, and what still gives him hope. With that, here's our conversation with Timothy Snyder. Tim, where does this podcast find you?
- [11:58]
Timothy Snyder
I'm in Toronto.
- [12:00]
Scott Galloway
We were excited to have you on the pod because your book on tyranny is a 20 point guide to Dictator Proofing Yourself, which you published shortly after Trump was elected the first time around, and it's a New York Times bestseller again. Can you point to one or two moments in history that most mimic where we are now and who reminds you most of Trump and what it tells us about where things might be headed?
- [12:25]
Timothy Snyder
I want to start the answer by saying that it's important to think about history as something that opens us up rather than closes us down. The danger of thinking about history in terms of analogy or repeating or even rhyming, as Mark Twain said, is that then puts you out of the story. And the whole point of history is that humans are in the story. There isn't any overwhelming objective factor which means things have to go in a certain direction. That said, as I think about it, we're in a kind of second globalization. And the moment is much like the 1890s to the 1920s in that suddenly the globe is united, people are overwhelmed, there are new communication technologies, there are certain kinds of fears about demographics, about things changing too quickly, about not being in touch with your children and so on. And those anxieties can be used by certain kinds of politicians who managed to combine a view of the future with nostalgia for the past. So in general, I think it's 1890s to 1920s is pretty similar. As far as Trump, I don't think there is actually a perfect analog. I mean, in my view, he's a fascist, but he's a different sort of fascist in that I think he cares. In an odd way, he cares much less about the community than the first round of fascists did. And unlike the first round of fascists, he's actually very concerned about personal wealth, which what everyone wants to say about was generally not their case. So I don't think there's a perfect analogy for him. But it helps a lot to know the history of the 1920s and 1930s at this point, I'd say.
- [13:58]
Scott Galloway
And in a recent Substack post you wrote that the current administration, open quote, invites a terror attack, close quote. That's a bold statement. What did you mean by that?
- [14:09]
Timothy Snyder
I mean, I don't think it is actually. I think the opposite thesis would be very bold. Like the idea that the administration is doing what it can to prevent a terror attack is absolutely grotesque. Right. And so one way to consider the thesis is to consider the antithesis. And like we would all like to think that we have a government which is doing the normal things to prevent abnormal catastrophes. And I'm afraid that's just obviously not the case. When you put Cash Patel in charge of the FBI, when you put Tulsi Gabbard in charge of intelligence, when you put Pete Hegseth in charge of defense, when you fire the head of the NSA for no reason except that Laura Loomer told you to do so, when you demoralize the ranks of all the security agencies, when you fire the mid level people under dubious pretexts. These are all things that make it much easier to attack the United States. And I think you just have to be, you have to be looking away pretty determinedly not to notice it. So that's what I mean when I say they're inviting a terror attack. There is ambient danger all of the time. And what they're choosing to do is to ignore the actual danger. This is the second part. And to focus their eyes and ours on invented things, right? So suddenly like Tesl is a center of terrorism or El Salvador and guys in Maryland are the focus of terrorism. And when you create big lies around stuff like that, when you focus the energy on stuff like that, it actually turns the head of the media, it turns the head of your own institutions in such a way that you're much more vulnerable to the real threats that are out there.
- [15:35]
Scott Galloway
Do you think that also the reduction in soft power, whether it's canceling US aid or just generally kind of declaring war, it feels like on everyone all at once that that also increases the likelihood that maybe not even of a terrorist attack, but somebod decides to say they're so distracted, maybe I'll invade Taiwan or I'll start setting off more missiles over the coast of Japan from North Korea. I mean, if this sounds like a comment, phrases a question, it is. So let me just say the comment. I would argue that we're. Every world leader is thinking, if this is a time to divide it in a distracted America, it would be now.
- [16:12]
Timothy Snyder
Yeah, no, I want to affirm both the major and the minor thesis in that comment. And I'm Happy to treat your comments as questions. I mean, the minor thesis is that when, when we make enemies unnecessarily, we are encouraging terrorism. So it's not just that we're putting our defenses down, which we're clearly doing. It's also that we're inviting the offense, which we're also clearly doing. I mean, one can't be precise about what combination of motives is going to spark people, but we have a combination now of Trump giving permission, Trump and the people around him giving permission to at least right wing domestic terrorists because he is pardoning them. Right. And creating an atmosphere which normalizes their behavior. Many of their views are now held inside the White House. But he's also randomly alienating almost everybody at the same time around the world and the people. He isn't alienating. Like the Russians aren't going to stop operations inside the United States just because he's trying to be friends with them. Right. So it's a cocktail of all the worst things at the same time. And then to pick up your major thesis, yeah, this is also true at the level of contempt temporary of conventional national security. What the Trump people are doing is draining American power out of the system. Because the international system, our power in the national system depended upon, among other things, relationships, trust, alliances, reliability, treaties. We're breaking all of those things, thereby draining our own power out of the system. But everybody else's power remains. Everybody else is now more relatively powerful with respect to us. And so of course, they can now afford to think about interventions and adventures which they wouldn't have been able to think about before. I agree completely.
- [17:53]
Scott Galloway
If the risk profile has gone up for the US and we sort of have high blood pressure or incredibly high cholesterol, meaning we're more prone to some sort of exogenous event or opportunistic infection, who do you think one is there? Or are there winners and who are they from America's distraction and what feels like own goal?
- [18:14]
Timothy Snyder
Yeah, wonderful question. The most obvious winner, of course, is Vladimir Putin. In Russia, the Russians started a war that they couldn't win without American assistance. And then for the last year or so in 2024, they made it very plain that their game plan, such as it was, was to keep the war going in the hope and expectation that Donald Trump would return to power. And now that Donald Trump is in power, he's conceded on behalf of the Ukrainians, so to speak, pretty much every major issue, territory, NATO, Russia's legitimacy in the international system, trade with Russia. He's conceded all of These things without asking for any concession from Russia, and meanwhile pressured the Ukrainians to take a much worse deal that even the military facts on the ground would dictate that they should take. And in general, Trump and the people around him treat Russia as though it were a great power, a superpower, a power on the scale of the world, which it really isn't unless you make it so. And the Russians are, of course, eating this up, and they're extremely happy about it. So there's that one set of winner would be Russia, but I would say that Russia overlaps with another set of winners, which is transnational oligarchs in general. You can think of Putin as the leader of Russia, but you can also think of him as part of a clan of transnational oligarchs, which would include South Africans who are very important in the United States, such as Peter Thiel or Elon Musk or David Sacks, that Putin is kind of in that tribe that. That Trump wants to join. Like, Trump really wants to be a rich transnational oligarch. He's just never quite made it. And now with, like, two chances of being president, United States, he can finally make it into that club. But in general, those folks are doing a lot better. The people who will, the people who want not just American state power, not really to work or to apply to them, but want state power around the world generally not to work or not to apply to them. Those people in general are definitely winners out of this. And a third set of winners would seem to be, at first glance, the people that we call, I think, wrongly, populists or, you know, far right people, far right extremists, quasi fascists or fascists, they would seem to be the winner because Vance and Trump are explicitly on their side. But that said, so long as they're democratic elections, the fact that Vance and Trump are on your side is probably not going to help you. It's going to hurt you again. So long as there are democratic elections.
- [20:36]
Scott Galloway
I feel as if Democrats were just such wimps. We're afraid to call this fascism when every key component or definition of fascism perfectly fits, in my view, what is going on right now. Demonization of immigrants, refusal to condemn political violence, extreme nationalism. It's literally. It feels like this is the definition of fascism. And yet on the left, we're afraid to use these words for fear. Like, we have this need to empathize and take the higher ground. Can you point to a point in history or best practices around when a democracy moves towards some sort of authoritarianism? Or oligarchy or fascism? What can you point to and what lessons can we take from who's been most effective and what are the components of that pushback? When a country has flirted with fascism and then has been pulled back from the brink, what are the components of pulling back or pushing back?
- [21:31]
Timothy Snyder
Let me break that question down into two parts, because I think there are two things that work together that help us to answer it. So the question why aren't we allowed to say fascism? I think is directly related to the answer. So as you say, it's patently obvious that there has been a return of fascism around the world for quite some time. I started writing about it more than 10 years ago using the word and then, as you quite rightly say, but that. And one can agree or disagree about how big it is and just who exactly is in it. But I think it's palpably grotesque to deny that there has been a world return of fascism, and that didn't begin yesterday. And so then, as you say, if we are confronted with all these empirical signs of fascism, and again, one can disagree about exactly what fascism is, but the signs, no matter whose definition you take, are overwhelming. It doesn't matter whose definition you take, the signs are overwhelming. They're there. And so why do we not accept that? And I think that has to do with the second part, right? Because if you accept that it's fascism, then you have to organize, and you have to organize with people that you might not necessarily like. Denying that it's fascism is a purely academic pursuit, right? If you deny it's fascism, what you can do is you can sit at your office and you can edit the volume about how it's not fascism. That's just about my colleagues. But more broadly speaking, if you deny its fascism, then you can imagine, okay, the normal pathways of politics are going to work. Somehow things are to self correct. The moment you accept that it's fascism, you have to organize, you have to take action, you have to organize, and you have to organize with people who agree with you and people who don't completely agree with you. And this is part of the answer now to the question, because the way that you beat fascism is with coalitions. The way that you beat fascism is that you get to a majority by including people who don't agree about everything, a clear majority. And it has to be a clear majority because they're ruthless and also they may control aspects of the state. So the way that you pull back is that you get a coalition, right? This is Poland in 2023, for example, the way that you pull back is you get a coalition which can win an election, but this goes to the Democrats. I take the point about the Democrats, but it's very important for us who are not activists in the Democratic Party to, to remember that we can't do we have to not make the same mistake that they're mistaken that they're making. Like the fact that they are inactive or they don't use a word is not an excuse for us to be inactive and not use the word. We have to create all possible bridges, pageantry opportunities for those of them who want to want to make a move. So the more civil society activism there is, the more protesting there is, the more chance there is that you pull the establishment party or important elements of it in your direction. So they have a role to play, but the only way for them to play that role is for them to be drawn by things that other people are in fact organizing. The town halls are a good example of this. It was great that many that several Democrats go out to these town halls, but they didn't organize those things themselves. Right? That had to come from that had to come from somewhere else.
- [24:32]
Scott Galloway
We'll be right back after a quick break. Support for this podcast and the following message is brought to you by E Trade from Morgan Stanley. With E Trade you can dive into the market with easy to use tools, zero dollar commissions and a wide range of investments. And now there's even more to love. You can get access to industry leading research and insights from Morgan Stanley to help guide your decision. Open an account and get up to $1,000 or more with a qualifying deposit. Get started today@etrade.com terms and other fees apply. Investing Involves Risks Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC Member SIPIC E Trade is a business of Morgan Stanley. Support for this show comes from Adobe Express. With social media, email and a growing variety of online ads, there are more touch points than ever between your business and its customers. Adobe Express is here to make sure your smallest touchpoint is as polished, impactful and on brand as the biggest. The brand kits in Express make following design rules a breeze. Templates for flyers, banners, emails, social posts and more have all the professional quality Adobe is known for. And generative AI that's safe for business gives everyone the ability to make images, rewrite texts and produce effects. Using simple text prompts. You can create campaigns, resize ads with a click, and even translate content automatically. Work that used to take weeks now takes minutes or even seconds. Adobe Express also makes collaboration, approval and sharing easier so any team can become a well oiled content machine. And if you're leading your team, you can monitor it all from your admin console. That means you have one centralized place where you can ensure that every asset is right and that everyone is synced. Go from fragmented to business friendly Switch to the quick and easy app to create on brand content. Adobe Express. Learn more@adobe.com Express True story. I've actually used Adobe Express and I was genuinely impressed with how easy it is to create professional content that you can immediately push out. This episode is brought to you by.
- [26:38]
Timothy Snyder
Disney's Lilo and Stitch only in theaters this Memorial Day. A reimagining of Disney's animated class classic, Lilo and Stitch is the wildly funny and touching story of a lonely Hawaiian.
- [26:51]
Scott Galloway
Girl, Lilo, and the fugitive alien Stitch.
- [26:55]
Timothy Snyder
Who helps to mend her broken family.
- [26:57]
Scott Galloway
Lilo and Stitch crashes into theaters May 23rd. Rated PG.
- [27:02]
Timothy Snyder
Get tickets now.
- [27:09]
Scott Galloway
So if I'm being an alarmist or paranoid, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. And I want you to tell me if I'm wrong. But I look at 1920s Germany, thriving gay community, appreciation for academics, the arts, a progressive culture, welcomed immigrants, an economic shock, a move towards fascism, and then something that really struck me. There was a 10 second TikTok where a guy just said remember that Auschwitz was in Poland? And I look at what's going on here and when you start rounding up people it takes on a different complexion. But I would argue we're one economic shock away in the US from accelerating what we already I would term as rounding up people for the wrong tattoo and shipping them off to another country such that we don't have to hold to the same standards of due process or humanity. One Am I being an alarmist believing that we're actually not, as far as people would like to think, from a really, really ugly situation? And does this have echoes of different situations? Do you see another nation at this point in history and where, you know, that helps kind of draw or fill in the blanks around where this is going?
- [28:22]
Timothy Snyder
Let me zoom way back out and then let me zoom in. So the comparison to Germany in the first third of the 20th century can be very helpful in the following way. The 20th century, as your question already suggests, could have been Germany's century. There was an awful lot working in their favor. There was a very rich and heterogeneous civil society. There were the best scientists and engineers probably in the world, active before the early 30s in Germany. There was. There was a flawed but nevertheless, plausible parliamentary system. There was an economy which pound for pound was overtaking everybody else's, right? So the United States was going to be a big deal in the 20th century. But there's a. There's a way in which the 20th century could have belonged to Germany, and they did. The one thing, in my view, the one thing which could have prevented that, which was have someone who was the most extreme version of an extreme party come to power with the connivance of business elites and with the misunderstanding or willful misunderstanding of conservatives, that somehow he could be controlled. That was the one thing. And they did it. And so when you look at the U.S. in the 21st century, one way to look at this is the 21st century probably should belong to the U.S. there are all sorts of positive things. There's the technology, the civil society, the universities, et cetera, et cetera. But there is one thing we can do to prevent that from happening, and we seem to be doing that one thing. Okay, now let me zoom in. So the thing about Auschwitz in Poland, it's important I have to contest that formulation, because there wasn't a Poland at the time. By the time that Auschwitz was established on the territory of what had been a Polish army base at Owiecim, Poland had been destroyed. But this helps to make the point just in a slightly more subtle way, which is important. The killing of Jews in Germany didn't happen in Germany. It happened in zones which the Germans decided were stateless, in zones where the law didn't apply. And so that could be a concentration camp. The definition of a concentration camp is a lawless zone. But it could also be a broad swath of territory to the east, where the Germans said, we've destroyed the state. Whether it's Poland or the Soviet Union, we've destroyed the state. And so the rules don't apply. That, for me is the dangerous thing. Right? Not exactly another country, although that's important. But the idea of statelessness, the notion that what we're going to do is we're going to decide that certain people are beyond the protection of the state in general. Once you do that, then it becomes much easier to ship them away and it becomes much easier to kill them.
- [31:12]
Scott Galloway
That's chilling. You had mentioned something about. I forgot the word you used. The cooperation between Hitler and the industrial base, or corporations or corporate leadership. And I don't think enough people know the history around the alliance between. I think it was loosely. Corporations asked Hillary, if you crush the trade unions, we'll support you. And then it just ran away from them. And I see real parallels here now, and that is, I'm not exaggerating. I've probably talked to a dozen Fortune 500 CEOs who are just so angry and upset and think what Trump is doing is so wrong, and not a goddamn one of them has spoken out because they think short term my obligation is to shareholders, and the easiest thing to do is bend a knee, send a million dollars to the inauguration committee and not speak out. And this feels eerily similar to the same type of enablement or loose cooperation or conspiracy between corporate leaders in Germany. Any thoughts on whether there are parallels there?
- [32:14]
Timothy Snyder
That's such an interesting question, and I feel like just pivoting a little bit. Scott. This is really a moment when it would help if Americans listened to other people. So it's all well and good, and I'm glad to do it. For us to be sitting here and talking about historical parallels, but there are actually lots of German businessmen and women today and German foundations who act on the basis of what they think they Learned in the 1930s. And so, I mean, maybe I'm wrong in something like this has already happened, but there's probably much to be said for some kind of summit precisely among American and German CEOs to talk about the question that you've just asked, because there are plenty of people now in Germany who are running corporations extremely well, but who have these kinds of lessons on their mind all the time. And that's also, for me, a broader lesson, if you'll just forgive me, to extend the pivot. It's a broader lesson about resistance in the U.S. now in general, there are a lot of folks from Ukraine or Poland, successful cases, or even people from, from mixed cases like Slovenia or Hungary, who have experience that is really relevant to this moment. And I feel like we don't do enough to reach out to them and to get that relevant experience. We tend to be trapped in our own exceptionalism and say, okay, something's happened. It's never happened to anybody before. What could we possibly learn? And then we spend that moment obsessing about ourselves, and then we move on to the next moment. Yeah, but getting, getting back to your question, there, there were sort of two stages to this. The first is that you think it's okay because he's against the labor unions. And that really was the problem the first time around, that German businesses were against. I mean, this is a little bit stronger, but they were against democracy because they thought in democracy the labor unions were too strong. And so that's not exactly the case now, but it's something that CEOs should be thinking about. Am I being drawn towards something? Because I think these are the ones who are harder on the trade unions than the other ones. And then the second move, which you also already see, is the solicitation of specific companies on the premise that they can make money under this regime in a way they couldn't have made it before. Like Auschwitz, to use something you mentioned earlier. German companies are brought to Auschwitz on the principle that, look, there's going to be cheap controlled labor, there's access to water, you know, we can do chemical manufacturing here. This is a good site, it's going to be profitable. And of course, there's also money to be made by rounding up American migrants. There's money to be made by creating a surveillance state. And so particular companies are being recruited into that. So, yeah, there's. I mean, capitalism doesn't push, obviously, one way or another, right? Like, it's wrong to think that capitalism automatically generates fascism. It's certainly also wrong to think that capitalism automatically generates democracy. The people who are in charge of companies are historical actors. And we know not just from the history of Germany, but from the history of coups and counter coups in general, that how the leaders of industry react matters a great deal to how things turn out.
- [35:17]
Scott Galloway
So we've been talking a lot about Trump. Any historical reference or analogies explaining or comparing similar situations to what's going on with Elon Musk, wealthiest man in the world, the seizure of what I would argue is power, that's not constitutional at the approval of the president. And just, I haven't seen anything like this in my lifetime. What historical references can you ground Elon Musk in, if any?
- [35:53]
Timothy Snyder
Number one, it's fine. We've been talking about the 20s and the 30s, and the Marxist analysis of fascism back then was that it had to do with the wealthiest of people, which it wasn't true. I mean, as we've talked about, certainly, certainly capitalists played a role in the rise of Hitler to power. And then certain capitalists profited in certain ways which are worth remembering from Nazi rule. But it wasn't actually the oligarchs of the world, right? There was no overall plan of global capitalism to bring people like Hitler to power a hundred years later. There is, that's, that's the ironic thing, like, a hundred years later, we do have people like Elon Musk who do have huge amounts of global power and who are quite literally trying to bring fascists to power around the world. And maybe it's, you know, maybe it's for reasons of ideology, maybe it's for reasons of convenience because they don't like state power and state, because state power can regulate their companies. But we actually now do have a thing which was, I think, talked about 100 years ago but not real and now is real but not talked about, which is, you know, not that all oligarchs are fascists. I mean, there are oligarchs all over the place politically. But we do have fascist oligarchs and we have fascists promoting oligarchs. We have oligarchs who are promoting fascism. So that's not exactly historical precedent. It's more like historical irony that we have the thing now. I gave a lecture a couple of weeks ago in New York at the public library about, about paganism, which was, you know, a little bit bold on my part, but it, and a little bit, a little bit humorous because I think we need humor. But I think the kind of politics we're talking about where people worship a leader, that's fascist, right? Like the way that people worship Elon Musk is fascist. But the way that Musk and Trump and so on operate by giving out gifts, the sort of everyday corruption or if you want to put it in anthropologically neutral way, a gift giving culture where politics is reduced to there's a chieftain at the center and the chieftain has the authority to give gifts and expects gifts in return. I think there's a reason why that's not familiar historically or, you know, personally to you or to me. And that's because that's essentially a, a pre Christian or a pre state way of doing things. They're chieftains. They come and go. Their power depends upon charisma plus the ability to give gifts. I think that's where we are and it's an almost pre historical way of doing politics, which is why history flails a little bit when you try to find historical analogies for it.
- [38:20]
Scott Galloway
We'll be right back.
- [38:26]
Timothy Snyder
This episode is brought to you by Factor. Optimize your nutrition this year with Factor America's number one ready to eat meal service. Factor's fresh, never frozen meals are dietitian approved. Ready to eat. In just two minutes, choose from 40 weekly options across eight dietary preferences like Calorie Smart, Protein plus and Keto Eat Smarter at FactorMeals.com Listen50 and use code Listen50 for 50% off plus free shipping on your first box. FactorMeals.com Listen50 Code Listen50 T's and C's apply. In most ways, Google and Apple are ruthless competitors. But then a high powered Apple executive gets up on the stand at the trial that might break up Google and argues that actually Google's fine and the best thing you can do is leave it alone. Why? Because Google being left alone means means $20 billion a year for Apple. On the Verdcast this week, we talk all about what's going on at the Google trial, plus the latest from the efforts to break up meta, what's going on with Netflix and lots more. All that on the Vergecast. Wherever you get podcasts.
- [39:40]
Scott Galloway
We're back with more from Timothy Snyder. So something I've just been unable to wrap my head around. And rather than just attacking them for these actions or these gestures, Steve Bannon and Elon Musk, in my view, purposely gave Nazi salutes. And I'm trying to wrap my head around what are the objectives there? Is it just to show a certain level of macho and thumbing your finger in the face of convention? Is it an attempt to rally a group of people around a fascist ideology? Curious what ran through your head when once, not once, but twice, a person who's a senior advisor to the president, the wealthiest man in the world, gave what looked like to me Nazi salutes? When you saw that, what ran through your head?
- [40:31]
Timothy Snyder
I'm going to start in a place that I think is more interesting than my head. Not long after that, I was in Berlin and I was talking to.
- [40:42]
Scott Galloway
A.
- [40:42]
Timothy Snyder
Very courageous and consistent left wing organizer friend. We're at a bar, they're having a drink and he said, I think he's right. He said, you know, eventually they always do it like they have to do it. And I knew what he meant. He meant Musk and the Hitler that salute. So I want to take a step sort of below your question about what they're thinking or what the calculations are. I think maybe something more fundamental than that, which is that they like to do, makes them feel like they are who they are when, when they do it. My friend's point was that there's something in their, the shape of their lives which eventually leads them to give that salute. And I think we shouldn't discount that and think about it just in terms of the signal they're sending or where it goes politically or what it means to, you know, people like me. I think that that's a big part of it, that like that performing with your body in a way which is unambiguous, which is not rejecting reason, which is calling forth a similar Salute from other people. And since we know the history is also referring to. Right. The very heart of fascism the last time around, I think that the sheer pleasure of doing that is probably close to a complete explanation. I think the secondary thing would be the normalization of it, that you're trying to break all the taboos. And of course, when you do it, you then you know, this is the 21st century part. You do it, then you deny it, you say it was just a joke, you say it never happened, whatever. It was a wave. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. You just. But, but, but what you're, what you're after though is you're change. You're trying to change normality. Right. You're trying to turn every taboo into a joke. And you know, the taboos around liberalism, rule of law, democracy are, are built on notions of human decency, protection of the private sphere, respect, truth and so on. And so you're trying to turn those taboos into a joke. I think that the secondary bit.
- [42:40]
Scott Galloway
So you were at Yale and you moved to Toronto. Why, why have you moved to Canada?
- [42:48]
Timothy Snyder
I mean, there's a. There's a baseball team that plays downtown. I'm. I'm theoretically a French speaker and they speak French here, at least in this, in this country. I was there. Like their, the major considerations had to do with, you know, family things which I'm not particularly keen to talk about. Out.
- [43:08]
Scott Galloway
So lifestyle. It's a lifestyle move, not ideological. We don't need to read any.
- [43:12]
Timothy Snyder
No, no. I mean, if any. No. I mean there's this weird timing thing now where I'm kind of caught in historical conjuncture and feel a little helpless about that. But I had already moved to Toronto. I had been, I've been recruited for three years, actually more like 10.
- [43:25]
Scott Galloway
Enough said. No one needs an excuse to move to Toronto. It's a wonderful city. I moved to London and it's been great. And it, it's neither here nor there in terms of politics. And I think that's what you're saying. Is that accurate? Yeah.
- [43:35]
Timothy Snyder
No. I'm sorry if I sound defensive, but it's like, yeah, I moved here for reasons with time of life essentially. And now that I am here, I'm going to continue to do what I can. I tend to think that people like a lot, if I have anything views to say, it has to do with experiences outside the United States. But I'm going to make really sure that I also spend a lot of time inside the United States. Things have not turned out the way that I hoped they would turn out. But now that they have turned out this way, now I have to stay engaged, so I will.
- [44:04]
Scott Galloway
So it almost feels sort of inconsequential or somewhat trivial compared to the things we've been talking about. But these tariffs and sort of declaring war on everyone all at once, and I can tell how old I'm getting. I'm totally fascinated with World War II and I'd like to. I've said everything against the context of World War II and I think of Hitler's big mistake was essentially declaring war on everyone all at once, specifically declaring war on Russia when he didn't need to. Help me understand if we can understand these tariffs and an individual and what analogies or what historical context there is for this sort of economic multi front declaration of war against everyone all at once.
- [44:46]
Timothy Snyder
Well, before we get to that, I just want to say something much more boring, which is that whatever the motive of tariffs are, they do have an objective effect. And that objective effect we're not actually really feeling yet. In the United States, the knockoff effects on supply chains are just now starting to take hold and they will be felt more and more severely in coming weeks and months. So whatever Trump thinks he's doing, one lesson of the 1920s and 1930s, of course, is that if you wreck the economy by way of tariffs, you're setting the stage for more radical things to happen. So as far as attacking everybody all at once, my take is that they think that the way power works is by way of these kind of one off demonstrations of masculine barking where you do, like you, you bluster, like you take, you know, you stick out your chest and you bluster and you use lots of big words and stuff and then the notion is that the other person makes concessions and you're better off in the end. And I think they think that's how American businesses will react to tariffs because everybody will look for a carve out. And in looking for a carve out, going back to your earlier question, they will then be, you know, less likely to speak up against the regime. And they think that other countries will do the same thing, that other countries are by definition weaker than the US and so therefore they have to immediately react. I think that's the theory. I think it's a dumb theory, of course, because you end up minimizing US Power because no one takes you seriously, including they don't take you seriously. Also, when you propose a remedy, right, you're never trusted again in the same way. But it's also a dumb theory because it just overestimates the scale of US Power. And this gives me occasion to say something I wanted to say and forgot. In response to your earlier question, question I mentioned when you asked who does this benefit? I mentioned Russia and I mentioned oligarchs. But the big winner, the big long term winner is obviously China. Because what we have done is we've said to the world, hey, look, China is a more reliable trade partner than we are, right? So we've bailed Russia out in the short term in Ukraine and we've bailed China out in the long term on.
- [47:00]
Scott Galloway
The scale of the world world recognizing none of us have a crystal ball, are you comfortable making any sort of predictions as to what you think the likely scenarios are in America over the next two, three years?
- [47:16]
Timothy Snyder
There's so many variables, there's so many things bouncing up against one another. It's like if you think about different historical moments, there are moments where more things are possible than usual. So after the First World War, what I'd like to think of as the bandwidth of possibility was just much broader. Right. Things like Lenin and things like Hitler were possible then and they wouldn't have been possible at other times because you'd have this globalization with its hopes and then with its collapse around a major war. And now we're in this other globalization which is also facing its collapse. The war isn't as major. The Russo Ukrainian war is a horribly great, is a horribly huge war, but it's not on the scale of the Great War, but it's also facing this collapse in the person of somebody like Trump. And so there's just things are possible now that weren't possible before. I worry a great deal about an exogenous shock like the terror attack that we were talking about earlier and what that would set off. And I think we have to kind of internalize that possibility because we have to recognize that in the scenarios we're talking about, about, it's almost, I mean, you can't be certain about anything historically, but as certain as you can be that Trump Vance Musk would treat such an exogenous event as a reason to try to finish off the Republic completely. I another thing I worry about is that because the Trump people overestimate the power of bluster and the power of the United States federal government in general, because they don't really understand that institutions, institutions don't work just on the basis of like charisma and giving orders that they're going to get us to a situation where federal institutions are going to break down or that federal institutions and state, the institutions of the 50 states are going to be in irreconcilable clashes. I worry about that a great deal. I think that's a scenario that has been understated, that institutions of the federal government will just stop working and that states will then begin to wonder what we're getting out of all of this and that there will be some kind of crisis within our own federal system. System that's, that's, I guess, the sec. A second scenario that I worry about in addition, in addition to like the obvious thing that we've been talking about the whole time, which is Trump Musk, that media seeking to somehow get around the rule of law. And, you know, these and the things are married to each other. You can get around the rule of law. You know, you can, you can change the nature of the federal government, but what you can't do is then predictably know what's going to come next. And it isn't all internationally or nationally going to be in your favor. You can slam the door on democracy and you can, you know, you can break everything inside the house of democracy, but then when you walk out into that brave new world that you're created, it's not like the weather is always going to be beautiful and in your favor.
- [49:55]
Scott Galloway
So I apologize for jumping around, but you're one of the leading historians on Ukraine and I'd be remiss not to ask, before you go the optimist looking at the glass half empty, is this an opportunity that sort of Uncle Sam is not only inconsistent but crazy and can no longer be depended upon? And is this an opportunity for Europe to actually become a union? $19 trillion collective economy versus 2 trillion in Russia and provide Ukraine with the support such that they can continue to push back on Russia? Or am I being naive?
- [50:25]
Timothy Snyder
That's the one rational hope. And if you know, regardless of whether there's a ceasefire or whether there's a quote unquote peace deal, I really hate the way that the noun deal is now being attached to everything as though deal making is the highest human achievement. But regardless of whether on paper there's some kind of accord, the threat of Russia and the possibility or the reality of Russia making war on Ukraine or other European countries is going to be very real and imminent into the indefinite future, at least until Putin loses power, which means that Europe, Europe has to respond in some way if it wishes to exist, because the attack on Ukraine was also an attack on the broader principles of the existence of the European Union, namely that there is a post imperial way of doing politics, that one can share sovereignty rather than violate sovereignty, that you can have bureaucrat, boring, ritualistic, bureaucratic, iterative relationships as opposed to martial, military, destructive relationships and so on. And the Russians are very explicit about this. The whole Russian. The Russian doctrine of foreign policy is that the EU is an artificial creation which has no right to exist because in fact the only thing that matters are empires and a multipolar world and so on. So if they want to exist, they have to step up. With respect to Ukraine, I would add to that that I think the EU only exists by enlarging. That has to be part of its process as well. And I realize it's complicated inside various countries and so on, but a European Union which had Great Britain and Ukraine as members would be an even larger, more secure and more interestingly internally diverse economic unit than the current European Union.
- [52:10]
Scott Galloway
So we only have it for a couple more minutes. You've been very generous with your time. Just a kind of a lightning round here. What are the biggest risks we're not paying attention to? And what are you most optim optimistic about?
- [52:20]
Timothy Snyder
I'm optimistic about American protests. I'm optimistic about people who haven't protested before who are protesting now. I'm optimistic about, or hopeful is a better word about elected representatives who are actually talking about the way the world actually is. I'm hopeful about Europe. I think a set of European leaders, Macron, Starmer, Merz in Poland, Donatusk. That's. I mean, I don't agree with all of them about everything, of course, but I think as a set of European leaders that's a pretty good quartet and a better one than one has had for quite a long time, at least on the kinds of issues that we've been talking about European security and durability. I'm hopeful because of the kinds of categorical or conceptual conversations that we've been having, because I really believe that you can't organize and resist without conceptual work. And it's hopeful to me that the people who I know who are organizers are getting maybe closer to the people who I know who are conceptualizers and that the organizers are conceptualizing and some of the conceptualizing or organizing that all gives me some hope.
- [53:33]
Scott Galloway
You're obviously hugely successful. You have what appears to be just a great job and have carved out a really nice piece of the world for yourself. What advice would you give? Give to your 25 year old self and more generally, advice to young men who want to someday be, you know, be Be Timothy Snider and have a really cool job.
- [53:53]
Timothy Snyder
I mean, that's a funny question because the only, I mean, the only, like I did gig work for six years after, after I got my doctorate, I stayed on, I stayed on the market the entire time. And I only got a job at Yale basically because of luck. I mean, I may have had some qualifications for, for it, but the job was only available because of luck. And so I find it hard to like, say, oh, I have some kind of like, path that other people can follow in general. You know, I, I learned to do.
- [54:20]
Scott Galloway
A bunch of resilience, perseverance. Sounds like you hung in there.
- [54:24]
Timothy Snyder
Maybe. I think, I mean, I think having different things that you're pretty good at and not just one thing that you're very good at, if you're going to be an academic, be, be international in, in some way because that allows you to. I mean, I couldn't have been able to do the things I did even before I had a job without being international in some way. And I think being willing, like if you're going to be an academic, think always about what else you could do besides having a tenure track job in universities. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I always had female bosses. I think that's, you know, I'm not sure if that's a piece of advice, but it's been kind of helpful along the way. I mean, getting along with different sort of folks. Folks and. But yeah, advice. I don't know, man. I feel like I've been really lucky and times were tough when I was on the job market and they're a lot tougher now for all kinds of different reasons. I don't think people should get PhDs unless they really, really love what they're doing because you have to take a lot of time to do it and then once you do it, you have to love what you're doing enough to try to be aware that you might have to do it somewhere else besides the academy. So anyway, you caught me off guard with. And that's the best I could do.
- [55:39]
Scott Galloway
Timothy Snyder is a leading historian of authoritarianism, Ukraine and Eastern Europe. He's the author of various books including On Freedom, On Tyranny, the Road to Unfreedom and Bloodlands. After over two decades at Yale, he joined the University of Toronto's Monk School of Global affairs, who joins us from the great city of Toronto. I could do this for three hours. Really appreciate your time and an open invitation. Although I'm inviting myself, I want to come to Toronto I want to do a mini I, I Love Canada tour and I would love to interview you on stage somewhere. I think your, I think your, your work has never been more relevant. I really appreciate your time, Professor.
- [56:14]
Timothy Snyder
I would, I'd love to see in person. So when you're in Canada, you just drop a line and we'll do that 100%.
- [56:18]
Scott Galloway
Thanks again. Algebra of happiness. We just had Mother's Day. I'm a six year old man who hasn't gotten over the death of his mother. I miss her a great deal. I can't talk about her without getting emotional. It was me and my mom against the world. My dad left and my mom raised me on her own on a secretary's salary. It's not a sob story. We actually had a nice life because back then I think America kind of loved unremarkable people. People. We used to take vacations. We lived in a decent place. You know, I lived actually we had the worst house in a nice neighborhood. And it was pretty obvious to me early on that we didn't have as much money, but that was fine. I actually think that one of the reasons I have a lot of money now is because I had less money than my friends back then. But look, missing your mom, you know, it's something that I've leaned into and I hope that my boys miss me as much as I miss my mom. And something I, I'm one of the things I'm really proud of. I was, I'm a good dad. I'd like to think, you know, I'm very proud of professional success. I don't know. Also a lot of things I'm not proud of, but something I did really well. I spent a lot of time with my mom the last 10 years of her life. But I started finally registering some success in my 30s. And I used to share a lot of that success with my mom. Not only giving her stuff or trying to buy nice things for her or make sure she was comfortable. But I used to call my mom after every success. You know, I did well on a test in graduate school or I got, I was interested in a woman and you know, got her number, went out, had a nice date, or I did well at work or you know, something good happened to me and I used to just call my mom that moment and tell her that it had happened. And you know, moms love like your mom and I guess to a certain extent your dad are the only people who ever, you'll ever meet who want you to be more successful than them. And they just get so much reward out of nice things happening. And I didn't figure that out till I was a little bit older, but I would absolutely make sure that my mom could share in my success. I was really good at spending a lot of time with my mom and just finding reasons to call her. I spoke to my mom almost every day, and it's something I look back on and I just treasure because up until that point in my life, life, I just wasn't a very kind person. I didn't share a lot with a lot of people. I didn't go out of my way to make people feel good. I didn't donate money. I wasn't concerned with the world. I basically saw most people as a kind of a vehicle for a transaction such that I could be more awesome and more wealthy. I wasn't a mean person, but I think kindness is a practice, and the more you practice it, the easier it comes to you and it starts becoming second nature nature. And I started with my mom. I was kind and loving and spent a ton of time with her. So a long winded way of saying the gap between thinking about your mom or something good happening to you and reaching out to your mom and telling her about it, just eliminate that gap. Your mom is never too busy to hear from you. And she might say, I need to call you back. But what does your mom want to tell her friends? Well, what is the biggest source of pride? Is it that you're a doctor or that. Or that you've married someone nice or they have great grandkids? That's all great. But more than anything, what moms want to brag about to their friends is that you choose them, that you call them all the time. That anytime something happens to you, you reach out to them. And I think it's especially important for sons because we're not like best friends with our mothers. It's not like that I love you, I hate you kind of dynamic sometimes that mothers and daughters have where they're each other's best friends. You're just their son. And that is, you know, the nicest thing I've ever done for anybody was every day giving a lot of me to my mom. Anyway, try and make every day a little bit of Mother's Day. This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez. Our intern is Dan Shalon. Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the property pod from the Vox Media podcast Network. We will catch you on Saturday for no Mercy, no Malice as read by George Hahn. And please, please follow our profit markets pod wherever you get your pods for new episodes every Monday and Thursday.