They Finally Admitted Socialism And Capitalism Can't Coexist — We Had To React

Summary

Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu – Episode Summary

Episode Title: They Finally Admitted Socialism And Capitalism Can't Coexist — We Had To React
Date: August 4, 2026
Host: Tom Bilyeu
Featured Guest: Drew (socialist commentator)
Theme: A rigorous debate over whether socialism and capitalism can meaningfully coexist, dissecting the philosophical, economic, and historical roots of both, and responding to the recent admission by a leading socialist that their vision is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism.

---

Episode Overview

In this episode of Impact Theory, Tom Bilyeu dives deep into the tension between socialism and capitalism, sparked by the public admission from a well-known socialist that, in the long run, the two are fundamentally irreconcilable. Tom examines the debate through several lenses: economic philosophy, historical precedent, and practical considerations, with a focus on whether the promises of socialism hold up under scrutiny and if current left-wing political movements understand the mechanisms sustaining prosperity in modern societies.

Tom reacts to statements from Drew—a thoughtful socialist voice—contrasting normative, academic perspectives on market economies with the practical realities of business and wealth creation. The discussion ranges from welfare systems, unions, and "Nordic socialism," to AI’s transformative impact and the roots of revolution and resentment on the far left.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Philosophy Divide: Academic vs. Practical Economics

• Academic vs. Practical Experience ([03:24]):

  • Tom underscores the gap between philosophical understandings of economics and the lessons learned from actually running a business:

    “This is a guy who has an academic understanding of economics. He does not have an understanding of economics from inside the belly of the machine of prosperity that understands how A leads to B leads to C leads to D.” — Tom [03:24]

• Root of Resentment in Leftism ([03:24]-[05:41]):

  • Tom believes that resentment and overproduction of elites, rather than actual material deprivation, fuel modern leftist movements.

2. Historical Context and the Default State of Humanity

• Poverty as Default, Wealth as Miracle ([06:55]):

  • Tom stresses that poverty is humanity’s baseline and that wealth requires exceptional and delicate systems:

    “Poverty does not need an explanation. The thing that needs an explanation is wealth.” — Tom [06:55]

• Marx, Lenin, and Revolutionary Resentment ([08:41]):

  • Tom critiques leftist frustration that "the workers don’t rise up," referencing how even Lenin resorted to force against workers.

3. Socialist Policy Ambitions vs. Democratic Party Mainstream

• What is Actually on the Socialist Agenda? ([11:05]-[12:39]):

  • Drew claims that American socialists are more liberal than many suppose, emphasizing pluralism and democracy.
  • Tom counters, accusing mainstream DSA leaders of openly calling for drastic, anti-democratic changes (abolishing the Senate, open borders, etc.):

    “…they have just unabashedly said that they're here for socialism. Some of them will say out loud that they're here for communism…” — Tom [11:49]

• Bill of Rights and Socialism ([12:54]-[13:46]):

  • Tom is skeptical that constitutional freedoms would survive a transition to true socialism:

    “The Bill of Rights won’t survive socialism… you either go the way of the Nordic countries and really aren’t socialist at all… Or you start killing. Those are your two options…” — Tom [12:56]

4. The Nordic Model – Persistent Misconceptions

• Misreading the Nordic States ([14:36]):
  • Tom dismantles the myth of “the rich paying for everything” in Scandinavian countries. Instead, he points out their heavy, broad-based tax burden:

    “The Nordic states tax everyone to death… It is super broad based…” — Tom [14:36]

5. Selective Nationalization and Public Goods

• When Should Government Own Things? ([18:54]-[22:12]):
  • Tom acknowledges rare cases for public provision (infrastructure, public education, non-profit-driven domains).

    “Where do we all benefit from this? And if we give it to private industry, is it going to make it better? Or is there something where there's not a real business model there?” — Tom [20:15]

  • Stresses that government monopolies should be rare and approached with suspicion.

6. Worker Control and Corporate Structure

• Democratic Socialism Beyond Capitalism ([22:13]-[25:12]):
  • Drew lays out a vision of worker-controlled firms.
  • Tom counters that sustained innovation requires decisive leadership and a tension between employee autonomy and executive vision:

    “So now you're going to get people that contribute in different ways... They all start infighting. And what do you need to keep that infighting from happening? Get ready, everybody. You need a leader. That’s right.” — Tom [25:12]

7. Housing Policy, Supply, and Rent Control

• Public Housing vs. Entrepreneurial Supply ([28:44]-[32:13]):
  • Drew advocates for public housing operations and selective rent stabilization.
  • Tom brands such rent controls as a proven recipe for slumlords and economic decay.

    “…once you put rent stabilization in… that property loses value and will become slum lord run immediately…” — Tom [32:13]

8. Unions and “Weaponizing” Labor

• How Unions Reshape Markets ([41:09]-[44:26]):
  • Drew champions strong unions and sector-wide bargaining as engines for higher wages and productivity, even at the cost of small businesses.
  • Tom calls this “outlandish,” arguing forced unionization leads to less competition, more monopolies, and fewer opportunities for workers:

    “He literally just said the quiet part out loud. We are going to kill off a bunch of these companies by using unions as a weapon. It’s so crazy.” — Tom [42:17]

9. The Compatibility Question: Socialism vs. Capitalism

• The Big Admission ([45:02]):
  • Drew: “No, we’re anti capitalist. We want a world beyond capitalism… to govern in the short term as social democrats we need profitable firms. But in the long term, I don’t hide my desire that I think the economy should be socialized…”
  • Tom stresses the historical dangers of socialism as a transition state that, per Lenin, is meant to lead inexorably to communism:

    “That was the last thing I wanted to make sure that we hear. ... this is somebody who wants to see the means of production seized.” — Tom [45:38]

10. AI, Abundance, and Utopian Possibilities

• AI as Economic Game-Changer? ([34:53]-[38:38]):
  • Drew: Focus on regulating AI and ensuring surplus is channeled back via investment and jobs, not just payouts to shareholders.
  • Tom: Skeptical government can direct innovation without breaking dynamic competition.
• Could AI Enable “True” Socialism? ([53:11]-[55:59]):
  • Tom says, even in an age of abundance, people will create new forms of scarcity, competition, and status conflict:

    “We will invent scarcity, and people will bring that shit back, and it will end up looking like money… and we fight.” — Tom [53:18, 54:36]

11. The Far Left, Revolutionary Energy & America's Future

• DSA, Youth, and Civil Strife ([57:07]-[60:48]):
  • Tom paints two scenarios: ideas and honest debate can diffuse the DSA’s revolutionary fervor, or, unchecked resentment spirals into actual civil conflict:

    “The DSA is resentment created by overproduced elites…. the alternative is that... resentment will eventually spill over and you will have revolution and that will be led by the DSA... and you end up in just naked civil war…” — Tom [57:12]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Academic Socialists:

  “They will put forward with enthusiasm in their heart the world’s most terrible ideas with no understanding of why they are terrible.” — Tom [03:24]

• On the Default State of Humanity:

  “Poverty does not need an explanation. The thing that needs an explanation is wealth.” — Tom [06:55]

• On Scandinavian “Socialism”:

  “Anytime somebody invokes the Nordic States, just remember... they tax everyone to death. ...These guys paint a picture like, ‘hey, over in the Nordic countries they figured out a way to get the rich to pay for everything.’ That isn’t the case at all.” — Tom [14:36]

• On Unions Weaponized Against Companies:

  “He literally just said the quiet part out loud. We are going to kill off a bunch of these companies by using unions as a weapon. It’s so crazy.” — Tom [42:17]

• On the Socialist Endgame:

  “No, we’re anti capitalist. We want a world beyond capitalism.” — Drew [45:02]
  “That is finally him admitting what’s really going on: this is somebody who wants to see the means of production seized.” — Tom [45:38]

• On AI and Cooperation:

  “If we get to a point where… you have all the riches you could ever want... that would be incredible. It’s not my prediction. My prediction is we hit an age of abundance and... we will invent scarcity, and people will bring that shit back, and it will end up looking like money.” — Tom [53:18, 54:36]

• On the DSA and America's Political Future:

  “The DSA is resentment created by overproduced elites…. we use ideas to solve for that so people don’t get sucked into that. The alternative is... you end up in just naked civil war…” — Tom [57:12]

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [00:59] — Introduction: Economic philosophy as political warfare; the rise of the DSA
• [03:24] — The gap between academic and real-world economics
• [06:55] — Poverty vs. prosperity: what actually needs explanation
• [08:41] — Why revolutions are hard to spark in modern America
• [12:54] — Will the Bill of Rights survive socialism?
• [14:36] — The reality of Scandinavian models
• [20:15] — When does it make sense for government to run industries?
• [22:13] — Does “democratic socialism” mean abolishing capitalism?
• [28:44] — Housing policy: public housing vs. supply-side solutions
• [41:09] — The role and risk of weaponized unions
• [45:02] — Admission: “No, we’re anti capitalist…”
• [53:18] — Could AI create a “post-scarcity” age?
• [57:12] — DSA’s future: debate or revolution?

---

Conclusion

This episode of Impact Theory is an uncompromising examination of the true intentions and practical realities behind America’s renewed socialist discourse. Tom Bilyeu calls for clear thinking, direct analysis, and historical honesty as the US navigates resurgent far-left movements.

The key message: Western prosperity was built through careful, decentralized innovation and freedom; calls for top-down, enforced redistribution carry enormous, historically-demonstrated risks of eroding both prosperity and liberty. Social democracy and regulated capitalism may coexist, but true “democratic socialism” ultimately seeks—not denies—a world beyond capitalism.

---

For listeners seeking clarity on an often murky debate, Tom’s blend of personal experience, philosophical rigor, and pragmatic skepticism delivers a bracing and thought-provoking analysis.

Transcript

[Tomb]

Queen Carvania stood haloed by the morning sun. An army hung on her every word. My champions, I have sold my chariot on Carvana. Twas a lovely suv, an inexplicably queenly offer.

[Progressive Commercial Insurance Announcer]

They're even coming to the castle to collect it.

[Tomb]

Tonight we feast. An offer you can feast on. Sell your car today on Carvana.

[Interviewer]

Pick up.

[Progressive Commercial Insurance Announcer]

Fees may apply. As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like with progressive Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 [e-mail] progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Discounts not available in all states or situations.

[Tomb]

One of the most important things that any of us are going to be thinking about in this time is what is going to be the economic philosophy that we get behind. Once we understand that economics becomes warfare in the political realm, then we understand we have to wrap our minds around what is the philosophy that's driving this stuff right now, the energy and the Democratic Party is the Democratic Socialists of America. And, and it is entirely a Marxist communist philosophy. And it's very easy, and I will do this many, many, many, many, many times in the future because we must combat these terrible ideas with good ideas. But it's very easy to take the ridiculous among them who just say the quiet part out loud and dismantle it. But I actually came across a guy who is very measured, has a far more reasonable stance, but his philosophy that drives his decision making will break the engine of prosperity in an extremely knowable way. And so I'm going to go through, I will concede the things that I think he gets right, and I will say all the things that I think he gets wrong, why he's getting them wrong, what they will need to be in order to get this right so that you guys aren't living your life at the level of bumper stickers. You can get in, build this model of cause and effect, know where you fall on the spectrum and that we

[Drew]

can all get sharper income levels of certain people that are voting for candidates of the left. I think they could rightly point out that, okay, these people in a comparative, you know, standpoint, are not necessarily the most, most oppressed. In many cases they're earning raises at higher than the level of inflation, but they still feel like they're being squeezed. And what I would point to is the cost of a few headline goods like housing. Beyond that, what I would say is that a lot of people have been drawn to ideas of the left for purely normative reasons. I did not come from a particularly affluent background or anything like that, but I was drawn to the ideas of the left when I was in high school, when I had a part time job at a key foods grocery store. But I was politicized. Not by my experience of being exploited and the key flu proletarianized. I was not that cause in fact, I was so ineffective at my job, I'm almost positive I was producing no surplus labor. But. But I was politicized. In the library books, reading books by people like Irving Howe, by Michael Harrington.

[Tomb]

This is the very thing I need people to understand. This is a guy who has an academic understanding of economics. He does not have an understanding of economics from inside the belly of the machine of prosperity that understands how A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Because he has a purely philosophical understanding of the economy. He's going to articulate ideas that are so obviously stupid, but he actually doesn't see it. And that's the thing that I think is really fascinating about this guy. I think if you peer inside this guy's soul, you actually don't see a lot of the resentment that drives a lot of the people in this movement. I don't think leftism can be understood. The far left may be very clear Leninist, Marxist beliefs. I don't think they can be understood without understanding resentment. I don't think that this guy is actually driven by resentment, which you'll see in what we're going to play. He's conflicted. He knows that his principles lead him to something that make him uncomfortable. And if you're watching, you're gonna see him be visually uncomfortable because it's like, yeah, fuck, like it actually does lead me there. But I'm a little bit. And you'll hear him explain for himself. But this is where when you're hearing somebody spout economic ideas, you have to figure out if they actually understand the economy because they've engaged in it in some very meaningful way that has yielded a positive outcome. The easiest is to run a business, ideally a small business, ideally a small business where they only get paid if the business itself is profitable and it's profitable based on the things that they do. Because when you are that person and your house is literally on the line and if you make bad decisions, you lose your house, that creates, at least it created in me the sense of Like I am not interested in whether I'm right or wrong. I am only interested in the right idea. And if the right idea comes from somebody else and they challenge all of my most challenging cherish beliefs, that's fine. I will adjust my beliefs to get closer to what is true so that I can actually grow this company and make sure I don't lose my house because that is going to be very traumatic for my wife if nobody else. When you encounter people that only understand it philosophically, they will put forward with enthusiasm in their heart the world's most terrible ideas with no understanding of why they are terrible.

[Interviewer]

Don't know was a key socialist intellectual mid century 50s and 60s America, not a kind of communist vanguard trying to bring about violent revolution. Right.

[Tomb]

Basically what he's trying to say is this isn't one of the bad socialists, this is one of the good socialists. The problem is because of the mechanisms of socialism. Socialism is by design, and I'll talk more about this later, it is by design meant to lead you to communism. So anybody that says socialism, it's by design meant to get you to communism. Again, I will explain why that is actively true, knowably true, but for now just trust that's true. So from that perspective, socialism is always going to break the engine of prosperity.

[Drew]

Always to the left of social democracy, people who just wanted to make capitalism a little bit more humane, but also to you could say the right of a certain Leninism. So actually defining to the right of Joseph Stalin, of course, as we should all aspire to be. But I think that the gap between what I thought society could be given its abundant riches.

[Tomb]

What society could be given its abundant riches. This is part of the thing that drives me absolutely crazy. Remember, the default state of humanity for hundreds of thousands of years is poverty, grinding poverty. Poverty does not need an explanation. The thing that needs an explanation is wealth. The thing that will happen by accident, nobody has to think about it, is starvation, death and poverty. The thing that requires hyper coordination, absolutely brilliant ideas, innovation, all kinds of very careful governmental structures and regulatory bodies that are extremely light, light, light, light, light. Touch is success is riches. So when somebody looks at that and acts as if the riches are the thing that requires no explanation, that's where the madness begins. And it literally, this is the guy who just looks at it, grew up in it, sees it and just like well that's how the world is. It's not how the world is. The world is grinding poverty, death and misery by default a layer of people

[Drew]

who both feel economic security day to day or feel frustrations, but are primarily driven by these sorts of normative, egalitarian, philosophical, philosophical, utopian ideas. And I don't see a huge contradiction there. I just think we should be aware of the fact that we still don't have the deep level of rootedness that other redistributionist movements in the past have had, like, let's say, the New Deal coalition in the US from the 30s to the 70s. And as long as we're aware that our goal is to get deeper roots fundamentally by all layers of the working class, then I think we're moving in the right direction.

[Tomb]

Okay, let me translate that. Hey, you know, what I'm discovering is the same thing that Marx ended up discovering, the same thing that Lenin discovered is that the workers don't rise up. In fact, Lenin had to kill a bunch of workers because they were rising up against his dumb ass. So the fact is that the world becomes more prosperous as people get more freedom, not less, as they're able to create the companies that are going to generate the prosperity. And keep in mind that Marks was writing before the llc. I might get into that more later, but that really was a time where you had to be rich to start a company. We don't live in that world anymore. So when what he's saying is deeper roots, he's like, we need people to really want this. We have to show people how bad their life is. And they're having a hard time, even now with a broken economy, they're having a hard time convincing people that their life really sucks. Because they're still, at least here in America. They have AC. They have public schools. They have. Remember, 47% of America's budget goes to social programs. 47%, man. So the half of the population only pays 3% of the taxes. Almost half of people pay no taxes whatsoever. It is crazy. So in the face of that, it's very hard to get people to rise up in a way that will put their freedom at risk. Because life isn't that bad. And so the idea of getting people so animated about things being so bad that you have to go in and spark a revolution through bloodshed, tear everything down becomes very difficult. And that's why it's very scary to me that the way that you've gotten so much energy in the movement is through race and trying to get people to hate billionaires, to play the class card. Because when they look around and their life really isn't that bad, the only thing they can do is stir up resentment to. And this is why it's always born of the overproduction of elites. You get people who the vision they have for their life is so different than the reality because they've been over educated and they're underemployed, at least by their own estimation. And you have to trade on that resentment to get these quote unquote deeper roots.

[Interviewer]

Want then in practice, like as you know, you've referenced housing and Medicare for all and so on. But what is the, you know, if there were a socialist Contract with America, God help you, right? What would it say? What would be the five points? And how would those be different from what Amy Klobuchar or you know, a sort of conventional democratic politician would be inclined to support?

[Drew]

Well, for one thing, and I mean this, this earnestly, as far as I can tell, American socialists are way more liberal than they themselves think and that they truly do believe in pluralism and multiparty democracy in certain places the state should not go.

[Tomb]

So I don't know if he's being disingenuous or he's just not paying attention. If you look at the co chair of the dsa, which is what he is speaking to here, he calls it out by name earlier in this. I think they mentioned it at the beginning of the clip here, but they are talking specifically about the DSA and they have just unabashedly said that they're here for socialism. Some of them will say out loud that they're here for communism, that they want to get rid of the Senate, they want a fundamental change to the judiciary, they want to get rid of borders, they want immigrants to be able to come in. I mean on and on and on. It's absolutely wild. So this guy is out of his mind to make that statement that one is just either again just completely a lie or he is blind to his own party.

[Drew]

There's been a sort of reconciliation of liberalism and socialism.

[Interviewer]

So you're saying that if there's a socialist contract with America, it does not promise collectivization in a one party state.

[Drew]

I think that if there we believe in a Bill of Rights, socialism.

[Interviewer]

Okay, so what is it?

[Tomb]

Okay, here's the bad news. The Bill of Rights won't survive socialism. This is the part that everybody leaves out as every socialist leader has found. You either go the way of the Nordic countries and you just charge everybody broad tax and create massive freedoms, lower corporate tax than we have in the US and you then do broad based social programs and really aren't socialist at all. You just have a gigantic social safety net. But you have not seized the means of production. That's not your shtick. Or you start killing. Those are your two options because people will push back.

[Drew]

Idiot set of demands that you could call us attempting to bring about doses of socialism within capitalism. So this comes at the realm of decommodification of certain goods, providing them as social rights instead of them being dependent on your ability to pay.

[Tomb]

Another reminder to everybody, the reason that we can't have socialism, the reason we can't have communism is because all of us expect to get paid for our work. The second people will work for free. Then you can have this. But nobody does and, and they never address that problem. So they are talking about, and he'll even acknowledge this later, what they're talking about is we do need some of you guys to go work and be successful so we can tax you and give free shit to other people. It's so wild how blind they are. And they go on these interviews where the guy agrees with them so he's not pushing him, he's not asking the real questions of. So sorry, how exactly does that work?

[Drew]

America is partially decommodified. If you're elderly, if you're very poor, if you're a child, you're going to have a guaranteed access to health care. We want to see that extended. Same thing with things like Social Security and certain other benefits. So an expansion of the welfare state, not unlike Norway.

[Tomb]

Anytime somebody invokes the Nordic States, just remember the Nordic States are not at all what they call them out to be. The Nordic states tax everyone to death. Everyone is paying a massive amount of tax. It is super broad based and you'll also get VAT taxes. So not only is your income being taxed to death but then when you go to buy something you get a value add tax. So everything that you buy is more expensive. And so people pay an inordinate amount of their money in tax no matter how poor they are. So yeah, these guys paint a picture like hey, over in the Nordic countries they figured out a way to get the rich to pay for everything. That isn't the case at all. We're hitting pause for a moment but there's plenty more ahead so don't go anywhere. Lets talk about timing. It's August, the slow part of the summer right now you have time. In a month you won't fall hits, your calendar is going to fill up fast and everything that you meant to handle over the summer gets buried like the drawer of faded stretched out teas. The stuff you keep meaning to replace but Don't. The time to handle it is now, while it's still easy. That's where Quince comes in. Fewer pieces, better prices, everyday staples, premium materials built to outlast all the cheap stuff. Quince uses ethical factories with no middlemen. You pay for the product, not the logo. Upgrade your everyday. Download the Quints app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.comimpact pod to get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK as well. Quince is spelled Q u I n c e.com impactpod we'll get back to the show in just a second, but first let's talk about the future of online shopping. It's happening live. A real person in real time, showing what they've got and closing sales on camera. Traditional retail is now scrambling to catch up. While mart operators are already in. It's all happening on Whatnot. Whatnot is the largest live shopping marketplace in the country. Buyers spend more than an hour a day in the app and they keep coming back because they almost never pay full price. Sellers on whatnot move 10 times more product than other major marketplaces. The number of sellers making over a million dollars a year has doubled. I've watched what's happening and this really is the future. Beauty, collectibles, electronics, luxury, fashion, even cookies. If you have something to sell, being early matter, search whatnot. That's w h a t n o t in the app store. Download it and you can start selling right away. Let's talk about the email that's coming to get you. Scams don't look like scams anymore. They are wild. They look like package notifications or banking alerts. The message is usually from a name you recognize and then one click is all it takes. And the people who fall for these aren't careless or dumb. They're just busy or distracted. It's happened to me. I hate that. That's tr. We see something urgent and we react. That's where surfshark comes in. Their email scam checker runs on AI built to catch exactly these kind of tricks. It reads the sender, the links, the tactics and tells you if something's off before you click, it's the pause you don't always give yourself. Go to surfshark.com tomb or use code tomb for four extra months. That's extra s u r f s H-A-R-K.com tomb go to surfshark.com tomb right now and use code tomb for 4 extra months. Thanks for Sticking around. Let's get right back into the action.

[Drew]

Even within capitalism in the here and now, there's sectors of the economy that I would like to see greater state control of. You know, in the old language of the left, we would call it the commanding heights of the economy. But even things like rail and things like that. I think there are benefits to selective nationalization, particularly of natural monopolies.

[Tomb]

Anything where you need it, but there is no way to make money off of it. Yes, I get why we would want there to be a national presence. So there are going to be some things that, that will fall into. But if we can agree that monopolies are terrible and we never want to people running corporations to have a monopoly, why on God's green earth would we want the government to have a monopoly? Remember corporations, at least you've got. They have to survive. They have to stay in business so the market is going to check them. If they're being stupid when it's the government and they have infinite taxpayer dollars that they can throw at it, they can be super retarded and have absolutely no consequence. Why would we want there to be a monopoly there? You should want the government to have as few monopolies as possible. You should be looking at things going God I hope we don't need the government to intervene on this thing like take roads and shit like that. Yes, you want let the government pay for roads. That's phenomenal. You're going to have to deal with. They're probably going to be less efficient than they would otherwise be. But hey, at least we're going to get our roads. Everybody can use them. But God damn like wanting the rail to be run by the government so that we can have monopoly. That's. That's bad mojo.

[Guest]

Is there any other thing you can think of that the government would be better suited to take over? I know you said roads, but is there any industry that you can think of or something like that? The government should.

[Tomb]

I will give it to you at the level of philosophy as I have not spent time building out a list. But if you look at the X prize, the xprize tries to find those things where there's no financial incentive to do it well or where looking at the financial incentive it will create abuses. So prison system, great example that it has deranged putting it in private control. Education. There should be a public option. It may not be the only option or at a minimum there should be public dollars put towards people to use in private institutions. But you don't want to be like, oh, sorry, your parents can't afford your education. Sorry, kid, you definitely do not. Like, that's just think of the intelligence in your country as a natural resource, for fuck's sake. And so that's one where I just do not understand people's mentality is like, I, I want to make sure the fucking poorest kid in America gets a gangster education. And as long as that kid shows that they're really fucking sharp. Keep going, keep going, kid. I'm going to keep paying. If you're a bonehead, you're going to eject out into something, sorry, that. That's just. You got to be fucking Chinese about it and just say, you got to earn your spot on that one. But that would be another one. It's going to be things like that. Where do we all benefit from this? And if we give it to private industry, is it going to make it better? Or is there something where there's not a real business model there? Right, Prisons. That's a weird business model because now you're going to do weird shit. In the same way that like video games start becoming predatory towards, like kids with microtransactions, prison system becomes predatory towards their very captive population. And so it's just proven it's not a good scenario. So if you take that principle and then look for other things that would fall into that category, great. But man, you should be super paranoid about it because humans, Humans become the problem.

[Guest]

Yeah, got you.

[Drew]

That vision right there of socialism within capitalism could be true of a lot of social democrats. So the question is always now, why would you go about calling yourself a democratic socialist? And for me, I call myself a democratic socialist because I actually believe in a socialism beyond capitalism. I actually do believe in economy built on the idea that workers should control their workplaces and on this sort of more radical vision of a society without capitalism, even if it still has a motor needed for investment and for efficiency gains and growth and so on.

[Tomb]

All right, that's absurd. So this is somebody that leads with philosophy, who's never tried to run a company. What you realize very quickly is the very reason that companies work is because you have a king that is going to make decisions and they're just going to decide and that's it. And that's the thing that we're doing. But because you can leave at a moment's notice and take your talents elsewhere, that king has a desperate desire to make sure that everybody in the company is actually bought into the vision that they're moving in the right direction. That's like 10x true in a small company becomes less true as the company gets bigger, because people want. People that are attracted to a big company are either there because they want to become part of the executive team, and so they pay an exorbitant amount of money to attract the best and the brightest, or they want a place to prioritize security and safety over impact, over having autonomy. And so it's a trade, and people can make that trade. But there are so many different companies. And when the economy is thriving, the companies are all competing for that talent. Japan, that's one of the things I worry about with them. They just promise people a job for life. And so people don't have the impulse to compete with each other. People aren't moving from company to company, and so you lose that dynamism. So I know that my employees have a gun to my head as I have a gun to theirs. I can fire them at any moment, but they can fire me at any moment. And there is a lot more of them than they are of me. And so I think a lot about my employees and getting them bought in on the vision and where we're going. And so that dynamic of these two opposing forces holding each other in that dynamic tension, as with all good things, it's like, that's what you want. This guy's saying, oh, the employee should be able to control their workspace. Are you fucking high? So now you're going to get people that contribute in different ways. And so what's going to happen? The high contributors either revert to the mean and they lower their productivity down to the median, or you get people that are, like, bitter and resentful that you've got this guy that's not contributing in the way that they are, and they all start infighting. And what do you need to keep that infighting from happening? Get ready, everybody. You need a leader. That's right. And so you need somebody who's like, okay, we're going to do my things my way.

[Guest]

Now.

[Tomb]

When you earn that trust, then everybody moves in that direction, and the owner of the company should earn that trust. When you don't have that trust, then people should be free to leave. But if you're looking for the employees to just magically align themselves with each other, pick a direction for the company and move with intelligent direction, you're really in for trouble. You're going to get a horse. What do they say? A camel is a horse by committee. That's what you're going to end up with. You're just watering it down because innovation requires people to take these incredible leaps of faith that will often be wrong. And they've got to be. I mean, think about Uber man. Like just all it required. Travis's particular personality, his cantankerousness, his willingness to fight the local governments, all of that shit. You're never going to get that when everybody can just pull in a different direction. It's nonsensical.

[Interviewer]

That vision is not going to be the vision of the National Democratic Party in 2028, presumably right there, but there is going to be a vision of the National Democratic Party in 2028. And if the faction that we're talking about here, and I think we can say it includes everyone from people who envision a world beyond capitalism to people who are just sort of fellow travelers who want the Democratic Party to move to the left. If that group wins, so then the party becomes definitively pro Medicare for all, definitively pro various other expansions of the welfare state. What else?

[Drew]

I think that's a great immediate program to win over people. If you can't convince people to have a American National Health Service or a single payer system like they have in other industrial country, there's no way you're gonna convince a majority of people that every cook can govern and everyone should turn on their workplace. I think that would be a great and good enough place to start. You have to listen to people and listen to what their demands are. I'll give you one quick example. You know, Dan Osborne running as an independent in Nebraska for Senate, One of his key demands is the right to repair. The idea that, you know, if you have your John Deere tractor, you should be able to open that tractor up and do basic maintenance without voiding your warranty and not having to send it to some special service.

[Tomb]

So that one's crazy to me. The right to repair I like. So people being able to go, it's yours, do whatever you want. If you want to turn your combine into, you know, something that fucking gives kids a Ferris wheel ride, go for it. But you're going to void your warranty because I don't know what you're going to do to it. So if you go in and do something fucking stupid, I'm not going to pay to fix it. You're on your own at that point. So yeah, I don't.

[Drew]

That argument is just dumb socialist in America, who's against that demand. But that's also not a demand that would naturally, you know, come to us, you know, living, living where we're living in Queens and Brooklyn and whatever. You know, I don't have a patch of grass in front of my apartment, much less room for a riding mower. But that comes out of, you know, being in a certain environment, talking to people, hearing their concerns. And I think a lot of the program of any party, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, needs to come from dialogue with constituents and people you want to win over.

[Interviewer]

Okay, but so those, those people in Queens though, who you mentioned, they're concerned about housing. Right. What is the leftward view of what housing policy should be from, for, for the Democrats going forward?

[Drew]

I think everyone can see across the political spectrum that there's a huge problem with housing construction in the U.S. so Xoran's policies, for example, in New York is very heavily built around upzoning and making it easier for, for developers to build.

[Tomb]

Zoran Mamdani is making owning property in New York less appetizing. We're already seeing, we saw Sergey Brin bounce out of New York real estate. We've seen Ken Griffin hit the pause button on his New York real estate. Momdani's administration is being sued by local bodega owners. I think property managers are also, if they haven't launched a suit, are rumored to be working on a suit. It's just like that. That argument is dumb. If you're making owning the property difficult, you are going to get less of it. That's just plain and simple. So now the question becomes what ends up happening if you upzone, does it, do you actually attract the people that you need to attract, or are you creating something where this is all going to be government owned housing, which has never gone well because you're not running it like a business. And so now it needs taxpayer dollars. So now they tend towards being in disrepair in the exact way that they complain about slumlords running things. So if you really want to solve the housing problem, this is a nimbyism problem. This is everybody saying, okay, yeah, it's a good idea, but just not in my backyard. So you've got to get to a zoning place where the entrepreneurs realize, oh cool, I can build a business, I can make it make money. And so my business is property. And so I'm going to build and build and build and build. If you let people build now, you're going to see that this is a supply and demand problem. And as there's more supply, the cost will come down. It's so. This one's so bonehead simple. The problem is we've been Telling people for God knows how many decades that the only asset you have to worry about is your house. Your house is always going to go up in value. And if we start telling people that your house isn't going to go up in value, it may not even keep up with inflation. Now you're going to have people who own properties starting to panic. And it'll be interesting to see if millennials switch their script as their boomer parents die and leave them property. And are they now like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I want this property to go up in value. We'll see. But that's a problem you actually have to solve for.

[Drew]

But beyond that, I think on the left, we point to successful examples around the world of public housing being done right. We think at least part of the construction needed needs to be public housing. We also need to maintain, expand existing units. I think that's the room for the state to step up and do more, more things. But I think these solutions, for example, that I'm mentioning are largely, first and foremost on the supply side. Then beyond that, we do believe in certain stabilizations and other other things.

[Interviewer]

But stabilization, meaning rent control or meaning

[Drew]

destroy rent control can and destroy the

[Tomb]

property, destroy the value. Yep.

[Drew]

Which can be designed well, I mean, could also be designed poorly. But you could imagine, for example, telling landlords, we're going to clear the way. We're going to allow you to create this big housing development. We're going to fight against the interests of local homeowners and you build your big piece of housing. But after 30 years, after you have a reasonable return on investment, that unit is going to have some degree of rent stabilization.

[Tomb]

This guy seems really sweet, but he's actually retarded. So again, this is somebody who's never had to run anything ever in his life. So what he's telling you there is, oh, you got a return on your money. And now we're going to make the building untenable and make it impossible for you to keep up with. Because, remember, inflation happens. And so once you put rent stabilization in, it doesn't matter when you put the rent stabilization in once it's in place, unless it far exceeds the rate of inflation. And so the business owner can actually still run a business. You're going to be in a position where that property loses value and will become slum lord run immediately after the fact that you've got the cost to upkeep the building escalating faster than they're able to raise the rents. That is the fundamental mechanism that breaks and why you don't want to do it and why, when this has been done even in New York, it has been absolutely catastrophic.

[Drew]

A perfectly common sense, economically coherent vision for housing.

[Tomb]

It is not economically coherent.

[Drew]

There's lots of talk on the left and in the Democratic party about the debate over abundance. But fundamentally, any form of social democracy is grow, give. There needs to be a motor for economic investment. There needs to be profitability in order to have something to redistribute.

[Tomb]

So he's talking about grow, give versus redistribute. The question is, why do you have to redistribute? Why don't people just give? Because it is not in our nature. In our nature, we give to our loved ones, friends, family, maybe the church, and that's about it. And so it doesn't scale. You cannot have society at our scale where you're expecting people to just give in. The right amounts to the right people. It does not work like that. Which is exactly why you expect everybody to, hey, go do your thing. Capitalism was like, oh, it's a realization that people are going to be selfish. But if we create limitations so that the only way for them to get rich is to do good things for other people, awesome. They will serve their selfish interests. But it also feels awesome to build something that people want. I'm literally speaking from experience. And so now you create something, people want it, you get wealthy doing it. It is awesome. It is a tremendous feeling. And capitalism has been able to capitalize on that. You don't get grow, give. What you get is grow, redistribute. Because you realize you have to do it by force. And when you start doing things by force, top down, you break the system. This is the part that they refuse

[Drew]

to talk about, would say is an important part of a socialist agenda is making sure that there are strong unions and workplaces that can advocate for higher wages even before the state gets involved with redistribution.

[Interviewer]

What about AI? Bernie has, you know, taken some pretty strong stances, I would say, has sort of staked out a position as the Democratic politician most open to both kind of doomer narratives about AI and, but also most enthused about sort of the prospect of strong government intervention. What is the socialist position on the AI industry right now?

[Drew]

I think there's a host of different socialist positions. I lean more on the side of just seeing it as any other. Technology companies are going to invest in new technologies, the economy is going to change. We're going to need to adapt and figure out how to regulate it. Obviously, any changes that we do any regulation we need to do need to make sense in an international context too. Doesn't make sense to tank certain US Companies if there's going to be other companies creating the same disruption that are coming from other parts of the world.

[Tomb]

That's at least sensible. I've got to give them there. It doesn't make sense to break the companies in the US trying to stop this if we know that this is still going to happen somewhere else.

[Drew]

That makes sense where there's legitimate debates. I think the idea, which has been touted by figures as varied as Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon of the US Government owning a stake in major AI companies, it makes, makes perfect sense. It's absolutely moronic. But fundamentally we have to respond to a dynamic economy in which there's always going to be new technologies, there's always going to be new wants and needs and new goods and services, and we need regulation that's able to be flexible and adapt with changes.

[Tomb]

All right, it's a bit word salady, but he's at least being intellectually honest. It is going to happen. And so we're going to have to. There's no point in breaking it and stopping it from happening here. We're always going to be contending with new technology and so we're gonna have to find a way to embrace it. Yep.

[Interviewer]

Don't see AI as, let's say, a, you know, once in a century opportunity.

[Tomb]

Boy, do I want to ask him. Okay, so pause. You don't see AI as a once in a century opportunity for socialism. What do you mean by that? God, I want to know what he means by that. Because socialists need control. AI offers massive amounts of control. That's option one. Option two is the far more optimistic view, which is, well, once we have an age of abundance, then we can actually start distributing this stuff in the

[Interviewer]

sense where you've just described a pretty expensive list of things that socialists want to do. Right. So there's, I feel like there's an imaginable future where socialism gets invested in the idea that there's going to be this AI surplus that can then be redistributed to create the, you know, the, the social democracy or the socialist democracy of, of our dreams. What, what do you think about that conceit?

[Drew]

So I do think there's going to be productivity gains. I think our goal has to be to make sure that companies that are seeing increases in profit because of these gains are forced to invest in expanding production and invest in the economy and not just cut Bigger checks and bigger dividends to shareholders and obviously still have some sort of economic effect, but is way more diffuse than those companies just expanding production.

[Interviewer]

But what is that? What does that, what does that. So let, let's just say we're talking about OpenAI or anthropic or something, right? And suddenly they're making insane profits, lots of new billionaires and so on. And you're Bernie Sanders or you're, you know, a socialist president who's not Bernie Sanders. In the future, what does it mean for them to invest in the economy, first of all?

[Drew]

Well, I'm, I'm fairly confident could be wrong that OpenAI Anthropic will never be making huge amounts of profit, but I think their technology will enable other companies to make huge amounts of profits. What we want on the left is not just to increase your corporate tax, but we also want you to make sure that you are finding other avenues in the economy to take that surplus from and to invest in more, more jobs and meeting more needs. My only fear with the direction of the economy here is, is that more and more companies are just going to cut checks to, to, to, to, to shareholders and we're not going to have the sort of massive growth we had in the mid century from new technologies,

[Tomb]

but the growth in the mid century that was riding on the back of new technologies. But you didn't have the government forcing people to find ways to invest to do this, that or the other. By having a capitalist society that takes care of itself, people are trying to get ahead. They're pursuing their selfish interest within the shell of doing something awesome for society and for the people that want to buy that product. And it all happens. So it's when these guys try to get this authoritarian top down control, that's where I start being re remembered that as sweet as this guy seems like he is, he still wants to have control. And he later is going to admit, actually I'm anti capitalist. And so yeah, this is how when you think that you're smarter than all of the collective wisdom of a bunch of decentralized attempts at something, the vast majority of which will fail, a very small number will succeed. I am reminded of the fact that I believe it's 94% of all companies failed to do $10 million or more in revenue. And so this is a guy that's like, okay, even though 94% of all companies failed to do this, I know what you should be doing so well that I'm going to now put pressure on the few people have actually managed to survive and shown that they know how to run a company. That's where this gets deranging is the

[Interviewer]

political policy mechanism that gets that company to, you know, invest in six new factories in Wisconsin instead of, instead of doing shareholder capitalism.

[Drew]

One mechanism is actually stronger unions. I know this sounds counterintuitive, but stronger unions and forms of sectoral and centralized bargaining. So basically saying to companies, now you have to, across the board, your competitors have to deal with the same wage floor too. Now you have to deal with demands of paying AutoWorkers an extra 5, 10, $15 an hour. What that will do in reality is it'll take the weakest companies in the field. It'll probably make them collapse. It would allow the companies in the middle of the field to kind of survive and continue to find ways to innovate the level of labor techniques and labor saving technology. And it would enable the companies at the top of the sectors, the benchmarks, producers to be able to have some excess profits that they could then, you know, invest to maintain their, their, their market share. That's just a classic example from social democracy of something that seems like it would tank the economy. Stronger unions actually being used to push the economy towards more productivity and more technology.

[Tomb]

That, that is the most outlandish thing that he has said this entire time. This is so fucking ridiculous. So this is why my instinct with the unions is that the problem becomes they become like a government. They want to exist, they want to make themselves bigger and they become the problem unto themselves. And this is a guy literally saying we're going to use unions as a weapon against the companies. We're going to cause the smaller companies to go out of business. We're going to force the middle companies to be sort of on this bubble where maybe they exist, maybe they don't. And then we're trying to create market force dynamics essentially. So I'm going to go in, 94% of companies fail anyway. I'm going to try to increase that number by killing off the small companies who may have the better idea, the more brilliant thing. They may speak to workers that want to work at a small company. No, I'm going to reduce the total options available to workers so that I can create this pressure that I think is somehow going to make these companies better. That is so absurd. He literally just said the quiet part out loud. We are going to kill off a bunch of these companies by using unions as a weapon. It's so crazy. These guys think that markets can be manipulated easily and you can just get the outcome that you want. And this is exactly how they break the engine of prosperity over and over and over. Running companies is ferociously difficult. And when you think, you know, oh we're fine killing off the little guys, that's going to be fine, you don't realize that then power entrenches and the few companies that are left, it starts looking like another monopoly. Like are we in a better position because the social media companies have been decided and they're just getting bigger and bigger and bigger. I don't think anybody's going to say yeah, that's a great idea. And he's saying he wants to use wage pressure via the unions to create that across the board. So fucking crazy man. It's so crazy.

[Interviewer]

Stronger market pressures.

[Drew]

Exactly. It's still, I think part of the logic behind even crude measures like the minimum wage part of that logic lets not just sweat out labor, let's figure out a way to make companies more

[Tomb]

productive by putting them under artificial stress.

[Drew]

Yeah, brilliant of mechanisms. I'm just using those as examples that aren't just regulatory by the way, really fast.

[Tomb]

Keep in mind all the workers at those companies that you supposedly love and are trying to help, they just all lost their jobs.

[Drew]

Great work redistribution them also for smart common sense regulations. And of course obviously for redistribution, socialism needs a tax base for a welfare state.

[Interviewer]

But just pulling back, I feel like we've danced around this a little bit. So let me just ask it directly. Is democratic socialism compatible with capitalism in the long term?

[Drew]

No, we're anti capitalist. We want a world beyond capitalism. But in the short term, while we're within a capitalist economy, of course we need firms that are profitable, that are providing employment, that are providing taxation. So I think to govern in the short term as social democrats we need profitable firms. But in the long term, I don't hide my desire that I think the economy should be socialized. Even if I think in this socialized economy there needs to be a role for markets and also a role for worker controlled firms to be able to meet people's needs and provide new goods and services.

[Tomb]

That was the last thing I wanted to make sure that we hear. Okay, that is finally him admitting what's really going on is this is somebody who wants to see the means of production seized. Now he can tell that oh shit, we do need it now we need something to redistribute. The question is his only hope is to say well no really what I'm looking for is the Chinese model and it's an entirely market based economy with Wild amounts of inequality that by the person who measures this, I think the best, at least in the research that I could find, the person who people respect, his methodology for measuring China says they have greater household wealth inequality than we have in the US So no matter how you shake it or bake it, whether it's a little bit worse than ours, same as ours, a little bit better, it certainly doesn't not exist. So China has a very unequal society. China is the one with nets to catch workers from jumping while they're trying to commit suicide. Okay, so the people that we're trying to emulate, not exactly the utopia that we were promised. But the reality is that the thing that China is doing is they understand you absolutely need a ferocious amount of competition, that you're going to let these companies, you're going to decide where, what industries we want to see flourish and then within that you let them compete like absolute mad. So and inequality be damned. We're going to let our billionaires exist. We're just not going to let them push back against the government. And so these guys like there, there's like this hand wavy thing that happens where it's like, yeah, I know that for me to have something to redistribute that we need capitalism now. However, there'll be this magic thing that happens in the future and we suddenly won't realize. We'll suddenly realize we don't need that. This is where I have to take time to define. So Marx writes this whole thing trying to get people onto communism. Marx does not ever talk about socialism. Marx talks about communism. Okay, Now Lenin goes, Marx is a g. I'm going to go do this. We're going to overthrow the government, which was a terrible government by the way in Russia. So I get why people were mad. They overthrow the government. And Lenin goes, okay, we've like started killing our way to get where we want to go and we've now got control. Some of the pesky workers were trying to rise up. Don't worry, we killed them. And so we're going to give them this movement whether they want it or not. Am I right? And so he builds out his socialist utopia through bloodshed of course, as people are always want to do. And now he's looking at all of this going, oh, this is not yielding the thing that we want. We want to get all the way to communism. But we've sort of like inserted ourselves. We're running things, we're sort of breaking things, we're killing people. I need a name for this. What is this thing? Because we haven't gotten all the way to the thing we really want, which is from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That's where we're going. That's what Marx told us all about. That's where we really want to be. But we're at this sort of middle ground. What are we going to call it? And he called it socialism. And then he was asked, what's the point of socialism? And he said, to get to communism. So all this hand wavy shit. Remember, when we get to communism, all we do is kill. All we do is kill as far as the eye can see. We put the secret police in place, which Lenin did, known as the Cheka. We do famines, which Lenin did. We do famines, which Mao did. Which fucking. What is with this guy's name? Stalin. We did with Stalin, Pol Pot. We just kill, kill, kill, kill, kill. We starve people to death. That's what we do. That's how we keep this going. Because we've broken the engine of prosperity. But they never make that leap. So what are you saying? If you're saying that you want China, then we've got to contend with. Do you really want someone to tell you what to do? Or is this really just you saying you want to be part of the Politburo, telling everybody else what to do? What happens when you're doing the wrong thing? Right. So right now, China's economy is in trouble. You don't get to vote Xi out. Xi's doing purges like crazy, which, by the way, was invented by Lenin. So for all the people that make out like Stalin was a bad guy, but Lenin was great, that's fucking A historic. I don't know what they're talking about. And so you have to put these draconian measures in place specifically because it does not line up with human nature. Humans want control, humans want autonomy. They want to be able to run their own lives. They want a certain amount of freedom. I'm not saying everybody wants an American democratic solution. They most certainly do not. However, people want to say, I've got an idea. This is the idea. I want to give it a shot. And they want to be able to do that. And these guys don't understand that that very impulse, when put in the right regulatory framework, gives you the greatest, most wealthy nation the world has ever seen. But instead of asking, what were the mechanisms by which we got here? People just go, we are here. And so let's redistribute this with no sense of what we might break. And so the reason I wanted to show this guy is I really think he's not, like, driven exclusively by the resentment that I think drives a lot of people on the far left. I think he actually got uncomfortable as he has to confront that. Yes, ultimately they're not compatible. And I know I just spent like 40 minutes talking, talking about all these basically capitalist enterprises and how much abundance that's created. And before I think this clip earlier in the interview, though, he's talking about, my family came here. I love it. America's been so welcoming. It's this incredible place. I think it's the best place on earth, all of that. And now I want to fuck it up. That is the crazy shit is these people only have the ability to have the social systems because we've built something so extraordinary. And everybody that goes to our actual socialism, not social democracy. Okay, I wish they'd used any other word. Nordic States, that's a very different thing. That is not socialism. Socialism, as these guys want it, is to seize the means of production on our way to, at best, China, at worst, full blown communism. And that's where all of this stuff gets crazy.

[Guest]

Drew, how do we solve the problem that capital, capital, capitalism doesn't like losing, so it tries to capture the system.

[Tomb]

Well, that's human nature. So you have to protect yourself against that at all costs. Whether you're talking about the government running away and becoming the sinister regime which Mao is a great stand in. Stalin, Lenin, all great stand ins for, oh, government realized they could seize power. So you're going to have to protect yourself from that. Whether it is a CEO who will use child labor, work them 16 hours a day, six days a week, and only gives them Sunday off because if he doesn't, they start getting sick. Yeah, you got to protect yourself from that. And we have historically done a good job by having a left and a right political party. Checks and balances all throughout our structure as a government. This is why so many places started doing sort of loose imitation of what the US was doing, because it is so effective at generating prosperity and wealth. This is exactly why I'm not a libertarian or somebody who's interested in anarchy. You just end up creating a vacuum where the strongest person will rule because you know that you can hurt other people. And so they do and they hurt people. And the vast majority of people fall in line when you hurt them.

[Guest]

What do you think about the emboldened AI and the vast amount of companies building it that would make socialism possible?

[Interviewer]

So that'd be dope.

[Tomb]

Look, if we get to a point where it is legitimately, I don't have to worry about you. You don't have to worry about me because you have all the riches you could ever want. I have all the riches I could ever want. That would be incredible. It's not my prediction. My prediction is we hit an age of abundance and everybody goes, oh, I can't prove that I'm better than you. By the way, that'll check out a huge number of people. Let's say 60% of people go, oh, I don't care. I've got everything I want. I'm good. I'm over here. Just leave me alone. But 40% are going to be like, well, I like where your house is. I. I don't just want the same house. I want that house. And so then they'll go, so how do we decide? Why do you get it? And I'm like, well, I put my house here first. Oh, so just because you did it first means you get it forever? No, that man, like, I want that exact view. I want that spot, and nothing else will do. We need another way. And you will invent scarcity, and people will bring that shit back, and it will end up looking like money. How do I know? Because we've run this experiment already, and this is what we do, is we find a way to say we're all different and we all have different abilities. And so I need some scarce things so I can get the thing that a lot of people want and only a few people can have. Geography becomes the easiest because they're, as I say, they're not making any more Manhattan.

[Guest]

So it's like, well, you said we've done this before. Like, what do you mean we've done?

[Tomb]

Human history is the answer to, we're trying to survive and we're not all equal. How do we address it? Real estate is finite. What do we do about it? And we fight.

[Guest]

Have you read Marx? Some people are saying, you haven't read Marx.

[Tomb]

They are correct. And it'll be. I will obviously eventually have to put that to bed, just like I'm gonna have to read the Quran. So, yeah, I've read enough analysis that I'm happy to take the Pepsi Challenge with anybody from a just understanding standpoint. But they'll be able to say, well, buddy, you said this. And I'll be like, I don't know the context. And when he said that. So I can only point to history and say, well, this is how it played out. But it does create a weakness in my ability to pound the table. So, yes, it is true. I have not, not read Das Capital or any of his other works. That's not true. I read like a chapter, but I haven't read enough.

[Guest]

So, yeah, and then a lot of times when we talk about Age of Abundance and things like that, there's this idea of like the scarcity mindset is there when it comes to socialism, capitalism, a lot of times we always get into the conversation of once we convert to this system, people are just going to do money grabs, power grabs, everybody's going to die. Is there a transition where we can do it that makes the pie big enough that everybody's good? And what's that thing that we need to kind of flip that switch?

[Tomb]

It's a scary moment, man. I don't know. So the human tendency is to use the latest weapon to get control over people that don't have the weapon. And it's a pretty rare moment like World War II, where you nuke the shit out of people and then rebuild them. So I worry that the US and China will use the race to artificial superintelligence to reposition whoever wins as the global hegemon. So that feels like the honest answer to how this is going to play out. But do I hold out hope that we can get to a point where the Age of Abundance is true and wonderful and it won't be only good, but will it be overwhelmingly good? That's certainly my hope.

[Guest]

This seems like a mindset ideology that we keep pushing against in different ways every couple decades, historically. I feel like we had this conversation a couple years ago and then we came back up. DSA is now winning elections. They're starting to get more airtime in the conversation in national media. What is your prediction on what happens with our. With America and the dsa, like our culture?

[Tomb]

So is the DSA going to get more powerful, get elected, get more.

[Guest]

What's your prediction you think is going to happen for.

[Tomb]

Oh, God. This is where my reasoning is now motivated. And that is a super dangerous place to be. So my reasoning goes like this. I so don't want it to happen that I almost can't allow myself to paint that scenario. So give me the out and I'll paint two scenarios. Scenario number one is myself and a gazillion other people get on the microphone and talk about the mechanisms of prosperity, what we need to change. Acknowledge that the system is broken now. Acknowledge that people are struggling. That's real. Talk about what very specifically needs to Change in order to get the train back on the tracks, get people focused on what candidates are likely to get us there. Call out the bullshit, all of that give people enough nuance that they can actually make contact with reality. And we deflate the enthusiasm around the DSA because the DSA is resentment created by overproduced elites.

[Guest]

So cool.

[Tomb]

We use ideas to solve for that so people don't get sucked into that. The alternative is that because the resentment is there and a bunch of dumbasses on the right just keep fighting for as long as the top of the case, fine, what the problem is. And so then they just keep making it worse and worse and worse. And then that resentment will eventually spill over and you will have revolution and that will be led by the DSA. And then you end up in just naked civil war where you've got the DSA going head to head with basically the well armed right and it neither side is going to go quietly. So those are really your two options. And the left actually wants bloodshed. So let me be very careful. The far left Leninist Marxists admire the bloody revolution that was waged in other countries and long for that outcome. Now whether they are like this is going to be fun to pass through the bloody part or whether they only young dumb ones are saying that only time will tell. But there is actual revolutionary energy and revolution means killing other people to get what you want. There is actual revolutionary murderous energy on the extreme fringe of the left. The DSA is going to be a spectrum. This guy, the not the guy you can see on the screen, but the guy that's been talking, I don't think he has a murderous bone in his body. He does not strike me that way at all. This seems like a person you can have a very reasonable conversation with. You could debate the ideas. He seems like he's perfectly capable of doing that. Now, whether he's been captured by his own audience or his own sound bites, that I don't know. But truly when you look in his eyes does not strike me as the murderous type. I think he will be very surprised that that's how these things tend to play out. But there are people in the party who are at the extreme fringe that really do have that bloodlust. You see it in antifa, you see it in some, especially some of the people that are more youthful. So there's the Y dsa. I don't know if it stands for youth or young or whatever, but anyway, I assume it's one of the two because they're all super young. And when you hear them talk, it's direct action, meaning go pick it. Maybe throw a rock or two on up to bloody revolution is what's needed.

[Guest]

Yeah, somebody said that the Communist Manifesto is way too short for you not to have read it, so that's on your reading list.

[Tomb]

Nonetheless, I have not read it, but yeah, it will get read every day

[Progressive Commercial Insurance Announcer]

as a small business owner feels like solving a puzzle. One moment you're cruising along and the next there's a shipping snag that has you scrambling. But here's a surprise you will like with Progressive Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So go ahead, surprise yourself. Get a quote in as little as 8 [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates discounts not available in all states

[Tomb]

or situations let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When your routine breaks, everything tends to break and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop 8 ounces of water and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods. Everything that used to require six seven different supplements and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscript. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus K2 and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.comimpact to claim this offer.