Turchin’s cliodynamics offers a chillingly precise diagnosis of our current unrest, proving that societal collapse is often just a numbers game of too many aspirants for too few seats. It is a masterclass in historical patterns that makes our modern political chaos feel both inevitable and mathematically predictable.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Exclusive Interview! Kshama Sawant CLAPS BACK After Breaking Points Snub!
Added:Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. N.
Hey, hey, hey.
Heyoo.
Ooh.
Hey, hey, hey.
Uh ah ah ah ah hey.
Hey, perfect.
This is Russell Dobular filling in for Jimmy Door who is literally on his own odyssey on a boat. Hopefully won't fall for those sirens. We have an amazing guest today. Somebody I've wanted to speak to for a very long time. It's very rare. A few times in your life, you read a book that you know is going to be part of how you understand the world after you've read it. And that has definitely been the case for me with the book end times, elites, counter elites, and the path of political disintegration by Peter Turchin. Uh, Peter Turchin is a Russian-American complexity scientist and a founding figure of cleo dynamics, an interdisciplinary field that uses mathematical modeling and historical data to analyze societal dynamics. Born in the Soviet Union, he immigrated to the United States at age 20 and earned a PhD in zoology from Duke University, leveraging his background in theoretical biology to study long-term social processes. He currently serves as a project leader at the Complexity Science Hub Vienna, a research associate at the University of Oxford, and an ameritus professor at the University of Connecticut. Please welcome Professor Peter Turchin.
>> Hello, Professor. How are you?
>> I'm good, thank you.
>> It was amazing to speak to you.
After I read your book, I started referencing it all the time. probably uh my audience got a little sick of it but uh some of them went out and read your book and a lot of them were already fans. Uh so to so to give people who might be watching an idea of your work um in 2010 you wrote an article predicting that beginning around 2020 the US would face increasing social and political instability. You did this by applying the system of historical analysis you call cleo dynamics. Uh for people who are not familiar with it, what is cleodnamics and how did that allow you to make that prediction?
>> Well, first let me explain the name.
Cleo is the muse of history in Greek mythology and dynamics is the study of change. So cleynamics is simply to study the historical dynamics. how nations grow in decline, how populations increase and collapse perhaps how religions spread or wither. So these all are dynamical things that we would like to understand. We want to understand the causes of them and that's what godnamics is about. Now gonamics is not history.
History is a wonderful discipline. I have all respect for historians uh who train very hard to uh to collect the data. But uh historians have not been doing such a good job explaining why things happen in history and every different historian has their own ideas.
And so for example for the collapse of the Roman Empire you have about 240 uh theories. Right now in science uh obviously you do want to advance theories but then you want to to um decide which of the theories actually fit the reality better and we do it by testing them empirically with data and that's what theodynamics does. The first step is to translate verbal theories into mathematical models because you cannot do dynamics simply by naked human brain. All right. Then we extract predictions from rival theories and then we collect huge amounts of data to in order to test them. So that is the process in a nutshell.
>> Okay. Uh now an obvious comparison and I've seen you talk about the fact that you love uh science fiction. Uh did psycho history and the foundation series give you the idea or is that parallel development? Interestingly enough, I read a foundation uh 50 years ago actually. But I but I decided to to start uh cleamics completely unrelatedly and only later I realized that there is a connection also. There are many uh big differences between psycho history as Azimov explains it and cleodnamics.
So for example we don't we know that we cannot predict very accurately far in the future unlike what uh Harry Seldon was able to do. That's because uh the dynamical systems are often in the chaotic regime, right? And so the butterfly effect rules which means that uh you can predict just like weather.
You can predict maybe a week or 10 days ahead but after that it's unpredictable.
So that's you don't try to predict the future in with cleo dynamics.
>> Okay. But you did kind of predict the future in terms of your article in 2010.
Now in end times you you present the theory I think that underlies that that uh the elite class when it's overproduced starts to create social tension. Uh so can you explain that a little bit?
>> Yeah. First of all let me let me say a few words about uh predictions. There are different types of predictions. The useless ones what I call prophecies right? you don't know where it's coming from, right? And you don't know whether it's going to be true or not. Um, you know, until it happens and usually it's not. Right? Now, scientific prediction is different. How do you know uh whether floon theory or the molecular theory of heat actually uh is closer to the truth?
Well, we extract predictions from them and test negative data. So, that's where scientific prediction comes from. And this was the spirit in which I published my prediction. I said okay we've been working on this body of theory for maybe 20 years at by that point. And the theory actually says that United States is on the path to crisis. So um let us let me stick my neck out make this prediction publish it and then we'll see what happens. And I did not expect uh for this prediction to happen uh exactly as predicted. And of course I had no idea about individuals. I I didn't know about Donald Trump at that point and things like that. So the point was to see how the actual future will depart from prediction so that we can um you can adjust the theory accordingly. Uh, interesting enough the the future actually well now the past did not depart very far from this prediction.
>> Now what patterns of history were you basing that prediction on? What did what what did you see what social forces did you see in the United States that matched the data you had amassed of previous societies and the patterns that they followed?
>> Yes, indeed. uh when I started working in cloud dynamics I actually did not want to go into the present and future because it's a politically uh you know difficult territory it's a minefield actually so uh initially I wanted to study only societies that have uh raised and fall fallen apart in the past right but every time I would give a talk about the Roman Empire about medieval France England, people would ask me, okay, where are we? So, I decid I eventually broke down in early in the early 2000s and I applied the methodology suitably adjusted obviously for how the societies have changed uh during the industrial revolution and post-industrial uh period. Surprisingly, not that much in things that matter. All right. So we can talk about the specific uh forces that lead to um to outbreaks of uh violence and internal war. They are actually very common for pretty much all societies, all complex societies organized as states that first appeared about 5,000 years ago. They all go through this regular if not completely predictable periods of first nice periods, integrative uh periods when uh they keep internal peace and order. Although at the time they may be fighting very intense external wars. Remember that this is a very important distinction.
But then eventually at some point some kind of end times um uh show up and so um the societies in the past could go through uh nice good periods for maybe 100 years plus minus and then they would always get into end times. And it turns out that our society is not immune. Our modern uh democratic um uh societies are not immune from the same forces.
Okay. Now in end times you say that the elite class basically during the great depression made a social contract to take a lesser share of the wealth in exchange for social stability. And then in the 70s they began to claw back at the institutions that had created a broad-based prosperity creating what you call the wealth pump. Can you explain that?
>> Yes. Well, first of all, let's go back a 100 years ago. Why did the ruling class um in fact made this implicit uh bargain? Well, because they were really really scared. United States was in a pre-revolutionary situation. We see this in the data. huge outbreak of all kinds of political violence. And so it eventually dawned on people, especially FDR and and his crew that we either reform capitalism ourselves or we will be overthrown by a revolution. They're really worried about re uh communist revolution. And of course also another bad example was the Nazi Germany at the time. So they um um um essentially shut down the wealth pump. So what is the wealth pump? The wealth well the wealth um uh pump uh refers to uh the how the fruits of economic growth are distributed in the society. What we would like to see is that as the economy grows it lifts up all the bolts. So the wealthy do well and the workers do well in proportionate terms. However, if this balance is disturbed, right, if the elites start getting more than their share of the economy, that will have a number of negative consequences which eventually come around and bite the elites uh uh but uh not immediately maybe in uh 20, 30 or 40 years. So what happened was that during the uh especially especially the new deal era but starting in the in the progressive era um the American elites uh allowed workers to organize so gave them power to uh to argue their case right they um um uh did a lot of reforms that increased the well-being of people social security health and and and many other types of things and so they balanced system and the system worked extremely well for about two generations until 1970s. All right. And that's the system actually brought unprecedented prosperity in human history to people. United States was uh a very uh affluent country where affluence was broadly shared. Now at after one or two generations people forgot about that fear they had and so uh they started um you know uh re rejiggering economy in their own way people I mean people with power in its all right and so um they uh thought that the system would continue working well even if they start getting more share a bit more more and more and that's how they turned the wealth up. So they in particular after 1980 the uh power of workers to organize and uh push their case has been greatly um u diminished and there were many other other uh you know mechanisms. It was a complex mechanism moving the jobs overseas where the uh labor is cheaper.
Um increasing massive immigration from overseas uh and taking the power of workers to organize. All those contributed together to the share of economic growth going to the workers started to decline in fact.
>> Okay. Okay. So now this leads to a condition that you call popular emisceration where the population in general is destitute and uh in a state of desperation.
But you've argued that that's not enough to really cause a revolutionary condition. That when the they're emiserated but the elites are content, the elites will crush any attempt to overthrow the system. So you say the secret sauce, and this is I think a phrase that you coined that now everyone is repeating is elite over production.
That that's really the thing that tips things over to the edge into a revolutionary condition. Uh can you explain that and how we see that currently in the United States?
>> Yes. Well, as in all theories, you have to analyze a society. And we analyze society by representing it as consisting of three compartments. The majority of the population, the the working the working working class so to speak or the common uh people, the a small proportion of people with power elites and the state organization. So all three are important players and they and dynamics result from those three compartments interacting with each other. Now, as you said, if the elites are unified and the state is strong, then popular imiseration can lead to hopeless uh and maybe even bloody rebellions. Just so think like what tire rebellion in England or Jaci in France which were they were all easily suppressed and this is not different today. If just uh people start um you know um rising up, we've got the state uh in its huge power. Just look at all those uh armored cops, the equivalent of the uh armored knights of the 14th century. So um so any kinds of such unorganized popular outbreaks of violence will be fairly easily suppressed. Now uh this is where elites come from because elites are the key people who who actually uh direct that power in a variety of ways including uh uh military power but more importantly today economic power, ideological power and also organizational or um uh political power. Now uh in the past it was it was only when the elites started to be driven by this um uh differences and started to create different um uh parties that uh increasingly used violence against each other. That's when the things start to unravel and also um usually by that by this point because of of a variety of factors I'm happy to go into the state becomes quite weakened.
It typically loses its fiscal health and also legitimacy. So that's when the uh the violence inter elite violence uh uh escalates that there is no um there is no other ways not no other breaks to keep the situation under control.
So, I I've I've seen you argue that what winds up happening when you pump all this wealth up to the top is basically it's a civil war between elites, between different wings of the elite class for a shrinking number of positions. Do you think that's a condition that we're in now in the United States? In fact, this condition we have been um uh in by 2010 for sure and is getting only worse. So, uh just um just to amplify a little bit on uh the last point, keep in mind that it's not the poor people who are um leaders of revolutions and so on so forth. It's the members of elites. We call them counter elites. So examples would include Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro who came from a very wealthy both of them came from wealthy and privileged backgrounds and also today we see counter elites like u Zoran Mdani for example he's certainly not a scan of the working class so so that's that's uh this is a rule as you look through all the leaders of different rebellions and 99% of them were counter elites. Now why do we have suddenly the big question is that why do we have many counter elites massive numbers of counter elites uh appear during this precrisis periods which actually um result in crisis. This is again uh the second consequence of the wealth bump. The first one is imiseration.
But the second one, think about it.
Elites are doing great. And the for the first uh 10, 20, 30, 40 years, they're doing great. But as they're doing great, their numbers increase, right? So um we have well in the past elites would have more children and and uh and set them up as nobility. Today it's upward social mobility which is much more important.
also in the 19th century America because when uh the business people uh could play their workers less, they would get more, right? So many of them would many of the uh very active um you know former workers would actually set up shops and then uh bootstrap themselves into the millionaire class. And so we see this um uh in the most recent um uh history.
Most of the wealthy class today are people like CEOs of 500 fortune um uh companies who um as a result of not paying the workers uh holding down the worker uh wages have uh increased their own wealth and you know and they um end up in golden parachutes and as such. So as a result of that we are fortunate to have good numbers since the um uh we measure um wealth pump by what I call relative wage. It's the uh typical wage divided by GDP per capita. It started to decline in late 60s and 1970s.
And between 1980 and u uh today we have uh the numbers of um multi-millionaires in such as deca millionaires people with who with wealth of $10 million in inflation adjusted money right over the past 40 some years the number of those uh people increased 10fold right so the population has grown by like 40% but we have 10 times as many uh deca millionaires And you have and as you travel up the wealth um distribution the effect becomes even stronger. Again in inflation adjusted dollars we have 20 times as many billionaires today as we had 40 years ago. All right. So um that's what production is. Now on one hand uh this is not bad for people who become wealthy but um for the society this has some downsides specifically let's take the political arena right let's talk about the u political leaders such as president of course the senators uh u house uh representatives and so on down to the state uh legislation uh legislators and so on so forth. Now it it's a matter of fact that not every wealthy person desires to have a political office but certain proportion of them do and today we have 10 times as many such people as uh 40 years ago. So it is not surprising that we have people like Donald Trump and uh and many others. All right. Now, uh because uh the supply of political positions is fixed, only one president, only 100 senators, but now you have 10 times as many wealthy candidates vying for this for these positions. In the book, I compare this process to a game of musical chairs, except that uh you you don't remove chairs. You you keep the same number of chairs, but you get you add players. You start with 11 players for 10 chairs and then you now you have 100 players for the same 10 chairs. So you can imagine if you try to play this game uh you will not get to the point uh where you have 100 players because it will be uh fist fight free for all and the same thing works in the uh as a result of elite over production.
So in this, you know, theoretical battle between Democrats and Republicans, is this simply a battle among elites for uh to to got to have the uh power of government in the society? Is this just two wings of the elites fighting each other?
>> Well, that's is a bit more complicated than that. First of all, after the New Deal, the Republicans and Democrats were not that different. In fact, um there is some political scientists have scored uh how they vote and you but in 1950 the distribution of Republicans and Democrats was completely over overlapped. All right? And then over the next 40 uh 50 years they um uh these distributions departed. And for a while the main source of tension was uh between republics republicans and democrats. But if you go back to like 1850s the decade just before the civil war that we had uh two party system at that point it completely broke down.
There was like 20 different parties you know each party was fragmenting. So this is what we see today because Trump and MAGA movement it is not traditional Republicans at all. All right. They are counter elites. They are insurgents within the Republican party. And now we see Democratic Socialists who have been under Bernie uh they've been very ineffectual but now they are breaking up the Democratic party. So we have now at least four probably more different types of factions of elites who are vying with each other. So this is very typical.
This fragmentation of power of of elite um rather elites is a very typical precursor to uh to um social breakdown and political violence outbreaks.
>> All right. The rise of DSA, that's kind of perfect going into my next question.
It seems to confirm your theory. So, it was a recent op-ed in the Times about DSA called a workingclass party without many workers. And it it went to the most recent DSA survey of its own members, which is probably, to be fair, a little different. It was in 2021. These numbers would probably not be quite so stark now, but would continue, I think, to trend in the same direction. So 4% of the members had bluecollar jobs of the DSA, 80% had a college degree, 35% had an advanced degree. Both those numbers are double the general population. Uh 58% have professional class jobs with the rest being students unemployed or disabled. At that time, 85% were white.
I've seen more recent numbers saying it's around 68, but still obviously uh pretty pretty dominant block. Um, do elite class children throughout history only take up liberty, fraternity, equality when these forces start to affect them and then they take on the causes of the poor and the emisserated because they need them as cannon fodder to fight their their war to regain the privileges that they've lost or are in fear of losing. Is this the pattern in history that you've seen?
>> Well, uh when do you think was the first populist party?
2200 years ago. Uh it was the popularis they were called in Rome in Rome. So brother Graos Gaos and Tibelius they were the leaders. They were uh they came from the top of the Roman aristocracy. All right. And they were the ones who were trying to bring it down. And same thing I was talking about uh recently before u when we look at the revolutionary uh leaders they come from the uh from the elites they uh they're part and parcel of that but let's now talk about a little bit education because I want to bring uh education in in a minute now in um our types of societies there are two routes to power we talked about the power the wealth route to power right but the more common is education right So if you don't have wealth and you want to become president, what do you do? Well, first you go to college. All right? And back in the 1950s, uh uh going to college was a sure route to get from the uh working class essentially. You you would uh almost certainly get into 10 uh 15 uh upper percent of um of income and wealth, right? But now almost twothirds of people uh in United States uh twothirds of high school graduates go to college.
So the college is really worthless. So you you go to some kind of get advanced training. If you want to go into politics, you go to the law school. All right. Interest interestingly enough, this is a very I mentioned Delenian and Caster both lawyers.
>> All right. Maximilliano Resispierre was also a lawyer. Gandhi was a lawyer. uh and uh uh Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer.
It's uh uh it's a very recurring uh pattern. Now um in this country about um five years ago we overproduced lawyers.
There were three times as many law school graduates as jobs for them. Now half of those jobs are gone and maybe more because of AI. So we are hugely overproducing uh uh people with low degrees and these are people who go through pretty demanding training.
They're smart, they are um they are uh driven uh they are well networked and so they are the most dangerous class from the point of view of state stability.
All right. So um educational route now is very important. And now uh here I would like to um recently Nate Silver right who is probably familiar to all of us. I think two or three days ago he published another uh study where he looked at who is actually supporting democratic socialist. I don't know if you saw that. Turns out it's heavily people with advanced degrees who are who are um in the 30 to 60,000 um you know uh category by uh by income which is not not a lot. All right. So so and he actually he apparently read my book because he said that this fits very well what Peter Turin calls uh you know elite of reproduction. So this is um precisely the pattern that we should expect and so you should not be surprised when we see it.
>> Um now how would you applying these principles because I'm assuming you don't uh see civil war as uh desirable?
>> Absolutely not.
>> What recommendation would you give to governments going forward? what policies would you advise for them to avoid that outcome which based on what you've studied seems to be where we're going.
>> Well, um as you mentioned at the beginning in the introduction, I uh lead a project um in Vienna Institute of Social Complexity, social complexity hub. So this is we have been fortunate to secure some funding from Austrian science foundation. So this is precisely the question that we are working very hard to uh to answer but I can tell you some of our preliminary results. The first of all we have constructed a fairly uh large database of how of societies that go into crisis and then emerge from that. Uh currently we have about 200 such uh cases. All right. So even before uh you know doing the formal analysis and uh doing many more things that we are planning to do what I can say is that in the majority of cases um uh the these societies uh uh the crisis turns out to be a bloody crisis prolonged civil war revolution where people's uh heads get cut off and all kinds of nastiness right but in about 10 15% of cases the societies managed to navigate those shows in a reasonably bloodless way. And so we've been looking this so I was talking about FDR. This is actually one of our uh case studies and there are several ones like the chartist movement in um uh British Empire during the 1830s mid- 19th century. Um the reform period in Russia in 1860s which postponed revolution by 50 years and so on and so forth. All right. So uh what um what seems to be the secret sauce right um that helps it um it's essentially uh the critical thing is the wealth pump. You have to shut down the wealth pump. Now keep in mind that uh this is actually a very painful thing to do for the elites. The wealth pump which was shut down um uh during the New Deal resulted in the numbers of millionaires declining twofold over the next um uh uh you know 20 30 40 years. Of course the great depression helped but it was not just that the great depression it was because the wealth bumps start in fact wealth bump was operating a little bit in reversers were doing better than uh the economy. So you need to rebalance this um and uh and turn off the wealth pump. How we do it? Every society does it. We'll have to do it in different ways. We cannot just use the same thing as the new deal because our society is different. But we have to get u those uh typical wages back to grow together with uh GDP per capita with with the worker productivity essentially.
>> Okay. Um now they say there's nothing new under the sun but a lot of people seem to feel that AI is something new under the sun that every every other every other technological innovation uh assumed the need for human labor just in different forms and in different areas.
A lot of people are seeing AI as a as a singularity as as an event that in which all bets are off. Uh all predictions based on past patterns go out the window in a world where AI can take everybody's job or a good portion of the population.
Uh what are your thoughts about that?
Well, um yes, uh this is the uh bleak scenario that I am, uh very worried about. It's not just AI taking the jobs.
Uh we'll have to push this uh very negative scenario a bit further. So, what will happen if uh if the 90% of the population are jobless, they'll be extremely miserated. Also, AI has now come for the elites, >> the lawyers, the law degree holders.
they are out of job and they are a great organizers.
So if we allow this to happen, what will happen next is that you'll have a real revolution. However, if you push this scenario further, so if people uh multi uh you know trillionaires now uh actually uh figure out how to make um robots, robot soldiers, now that's where things get really bleak.
So because uh if they just u manufacture millions of uh robotic soldiers then the rest of us will have no chance uh whatsoever.
So um fortunately even though AI is already taking some jobs actually the story is not yet u uh you know it's not over yet because uh the AI is also creating jobs. All right. But it's very important that we as a society uh control how um how um we use AI so that a small pro small uh proportion of u uh of uh selfish elites doesn't just um grab all its all all of its fruits to itself. There was a recent um letter by a bunch of economists who uh did they did not propose any solutions but they actually suggested that we really should start thinking about those solutions. So think about the worst scenario is uh is AIdriven robotic arbies that is uh that will be uh in science fiction which I love to read there are uh uh bleak futures of this kind and uh let's not let's not go that road.
>> Okay. Now there are other you know models of government. uh you actually came from one the USSR.
Would you apply these principles to the collapse of the USSR? Do you do you see that as a result of an overp production of elites?
>> Yes. Interestingly enough um that uh the um the pressure from over production of elites coupled uh now explosive u explosive u combination is when we have uh counter elites and huge masses emiserated masses who provide the raw power and the third period when the state starts breaking down. Right? So this is uh the scenario which happened over and over again hundreds of times in history and uh we are uh we are in the beginning stages of a similar dynamic.
All right. So um the um okay remind me your question. Sorry I got so >> uh how how would you would you say there was an overp production of elites and this pattern USSR and the collapse of the USSR?
>> Absolutely. So the point I was going to is that in fact the uh specific arrangements democracy autocracy um aristocracy uh and so on they are not as important as uh whether the elites are unified and are not fighting amongst themselves. All right. So uh look at China for example. China is actually I don't know if you've been to China. I've been to China many times. I I I've been very recently. I came back in a in uh May.
>> Yeah, I was I was there uh three times over the past two years and the first time I was there uh in 2004. It's amazing uh how the country has changed and it is also it's also well-governed countries. Uh you know the uh you know we are told um uh by uh our media that there is no freedom there. Um and uh it's and it is actually it's not a democracy. It's a true u you know autocracy. However, this autocracy managed to deliver a really uh incredible increases in well-being to huge numbers of people and they are also keeping the elite production uh down.
You've seen for example reports that some of the Chinese billionaires like Ma what's his first name? Jack Ma.
>> Jackmar. That's right. Jackmar. He disappeared from the public view. All right. Then he appeared chased and he's not doing any kinds of uh so there's no a Donald Trump uh is impossible uh in a uh situation uh like it is right now in China. So you may like or dislike their their government but it is keeping social stability and uh delivering a huge increases in uh well uh being for the you know very broadly based u uh uh people. Now I don't argue that we should have autocracy in the United States. I I think I I I agree that democracy is a better way of uh governing countries.
However, uh what we have in United States, as I argue uh in one of my chapters of my book, we don't have a democracy anymore. It's butoaucracy, the rule by wealth. So, what we need to do, we don't need to, we don't want to copy China. Obviously, what we want to do, we want to reform our democracy that it really delivers for the uh common people as it did from uh 1930 to 1970s.
I think I think the question at this point for a lot of people and certainly going to China left me with a lot of questions about what systems are best for the greatest number of people and as you point out because they have a a centralized authority like that they're able to control the expansion of elites and it seems like within our system it's inevitable that elites and this was the argument as I'm sure you'll know very well that came from Lenon and uh and and the USSR Bolsheviks that eventually the capital will buy your politicians and your courts and then you're not going to have a democracy. How do you how do you avoid that? Because in a lot of ways you look at China and their system seems to avoid that. And consequently when I us westerners grew up on these terminator scenarios of technology out of control of being a threat. Whenever I tried to make those jokes with Chinese people, they seem to just completely not get it because they just don't expect the government to set the technology loose on them >> because they look around at where there was a fishing village >> and here's Chongqing now.
>> That's right.
>> So, they see technology as something that will only be used to benefit them.
They're much more comfortable with it.
Are they right? Is that system removing your personal uh personal uh inclinations is that better for the majority of people a system like that?
>> Well, first of all, I want um vehemently correct your misunderstanding. The Chinese system is just that China uh has worked just as any other uh past societies and there was cycles of integrative and disintegrative periods except those cycles were brought not by capitalists but by overproducing the Mandarin class. We have recently published an article on theQing crisis dynasty. This is uh the Taipin rebellion of 1860s uh was actually the bloodiest civil war on earth and all the leaders of the all the top leaders of the typings they were all failed uh candidates for imperial um examinations.
China at that point was producing too many elit aspirants and uh and the number of jobs for them was fixed and so at some point um the numbers of elit aspirants were 10 times larger than the jobs for them and they were and they started organizing um and they u brought the dynasty uh nearly to the point of extinction in 1860s and then to the point of extinction in 19s. So um and the same thing in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union it was not capitalists who brought down USSR. It was um overro over production of u credentialed class specifically. Interestingly enough USSR overproduced technical intelligencia.
All right. So these are people with u degrees in um uh in um uh uh I'm blinking out you know uh engineering engineers basically all right if if you if you were to go to the you know during the uprising led by Boris Yiten if you were to go and see who was there uh 75% of them were engineers actually or people of technical intelligency.
So the now so the point is this um at at one at one theoretical level all state level societies are similar because they all have to have elites people with power and they all break down when you have too many uh aspirants for those elite positions and that is the same today as in Roman Empire. So we have we have uh you know a space age technology but uh we are still using pretty much uh the same methods of governance as uh as uh you know Romans for example. Remember Roman Roman was a republic. It was not an autocracy. All right. So um so u the the key is in um in this balance uh between uh the uh uh positions and uh and aspirants. Now I think that uh in a democracy we can solve it uh because first of all uh in two steps. First of all by shutting down the wealth pump we will decrease the push factor that makes people go into higher education. Believe me, I taught at a state university for 30 years.
>> 95% of my students did not what knowledge. They just wanted to have a piece of paper with which they would compete for jobs. Which is why you appreciate the the remaining 5% so much.
But um so uh so that would be shutting down the wealth pump will greatly diminish the push because people will have decent jobs without getting those credentials. And secondly, um we uh we will need to uh to do something more creative. U we'll need to bring the dream back uh in. So you know people you may like or dislike uh Ellen Musk but he dreams big and uh having a space exploration of the uh solar uh of the planetary system would divert energies of many uh ambitious young people and many other uh not not the only one. So it would have to be my hope basically is I don't have a um cut cut and dried recipe for you but uh understanding the forces which is what we do uh will help us to uh to engineer uh responses that will harness these uh forces you know take all those uh bright energetic young people and give them uh something positive to do rather than fight for power.
Um, well, you mentioned Elon Musk. I went to uh in Chicago, I think it's called the Museum of Industry >> and or Industry and Science. I can't remember exactly. It's pretty popular there. Um, and you go through the space program section and something that really struck me is you see all of these NASA developed rockets and then as you get into modern times, it's Elon Musk. It's it's SpaceX. They have satellites from that. And you can see at that point how the center of gravity in society moves from collective effort and a sense of uh of uh a society accomplishing this together to oligarchs like Elon Musk being the ones who in very rand fashion bring the lights of Prometheus, right?
Um, isn't that part of what you have to address to shut down the wealth pump?
Don't you have to have to pull that power back to the people?
>> Well, actually, Elon Musk did not create everything with his two own hands. Um uh what has shifted is that uh private enterprises uh are doing more than the government government uh did like NASA which is what happens uh frequently in uh history as initially technology uh is harnessed by the government because only government can have such a long-term view. All right. But eventually it goes to uh the private enterprises. Now how many uh thousands of people work for Musk? Why uh why are we forgetting them?
I mean they are extremely important. All right. So I mean Musk is uh genius.
There's I don't think that anybody can argue against it. All right. But he uh is um he uh his genius is in organizing and having vision. Um 99.999% of the work gets done by actual other people. And now of course um uh but the the real um yes the real danger where I agree with you is that amongst the u uh Silicon Valley uh billionaires uh the ideas of rand are extremely popular.
It's uh probably natural if you make if you become a very exceptional person right um it is human to think that you have accomplish accomplished it all on your own right luck had nothing to do with it you know being in a country United States with with which has a rule of law where the government actually funded mask very substantially >> right yeah well it's easy to forget that no it was me I have have accomplished it all. So that that type of hubris um is uh natural to expect and it is our job to bring them down to earth a little bit and not to uh allow them uh to you know to do destructive things.
>> Okay. Uh professor Turin it has been amazing to speak with you. really your book is one of those seinal works that I think a lot of people it's become part of their toolkit and uh I definitely see people without necessarily even crediting you using a lot of your phrases and ideas. I'm definitely one of them but I do try to give credit. Where can people find you?
>> Um well first of all thank you and I enjoy this conversation. Um my people uh sorry uh people can find me on my substack. It's called uh varyurchin.substack.com and I um and I post there at least once a week and sometimes uh more frequently.
So if you want to keep up with that then uh sign up and also sign up as a paid um uh subscriber because all the money I pledged that all the money that I earn on the on the SAP stack they go to support uh researchers in my team. So I I >> I'm not going to get I I'm >> So you're not taking advantage of the wealth pump.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm very well set up myself.
Uh and I'm get I'm tired of getting uh our grant proposals turned down by uh you know by small-minded people if I'm allowed to say that. And so and um and so this is a kind of mass uh mass crowding. If you like um the research I I do then um then subscribe to my SAPS deck.
>> All right, Professor Peter Church and thank you very much for joining us.
>> Enjoyed it.
>> All right, so sign up to uh the professor Substack. That was amazing to uh to speak to somebody whose work has had a great influence on how I understand what's happening in our world today. And it's had uh it's had that impact on a lot of people. All right, we are going to go to a break and we're going to come back with Shamas Sawant who's been in the news just a little bit today.
>> If you're struggling with cravings, bloating, or stubborn weight gain, your gut health could be playing a bigger role than you think. A damaged microbiome can affect everything from inflammation and digestion to cravings and weight gain. And with today's processed foods and environmental toxins, a lot of people's digestive health is taking a hit. Which is why taking care of your gut health may be more important now than ever before.
That's where a fermented food called kimchi can make a real difference.
Kimchi is naturally rich in over 900 probiotic strains that help support gut bacteria. Because when your gut bacteria are properly supported, your body is better able to process food efficiently, regulate cravings, support digestion, and maintain a healthier metabolism overall. Studies even show that eating kimchi can reduce your body fat by 31.8%.
But supporting your gut microbiome takes consistency, and most people aren't eating kimchi every day because of the taste, smell, or the hassle that comes with it. That's why that's why I don't eat it. But I do take guess what? Kimchi 1. That's why Brightitecore created Kimchi 1. Delivering the benefits of fermented kimchi in a convenient capsule form to help restore your gut's natural balance every day. Because when your body is functioning properly from the inside out, everything else becomes easier. Today, you can get an exclusive offer by clicking the link below for 25% off your entire order. Or for an even better deal, call my friends at Brightcore for up to 50% off your order or free shipping. Call them now at 888253418.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat.
This is Russell Dobby. Fabul for Jimmy Dory. You know, it bothered me the whole last interview. Let me move over. There we go. I like to be centered. It's It's my uh leftover directing training. All right. This is Russell Dobler filling in for Jimmy Door.
We have as our next guest Shama Sant.
She's a socialist economist who served on the Seattle City Council from 2014 to 2024, becoming the first socialist elected to the body since 1877.
She is a prominent advocate for progressive labor policies, notably leading the movement that established Seattle's $15 minimum wage. After leaving the Socialist Alternative Party to found revolutionary workers, she launched an independent campaign for the US House of Representatives in Washington's 9inth district in 2025.
Please welcome our friend Shamba Sant.
How are you Shama?
>> I'm good. Thanks so much for having me.
>> How have you been?
>> Good. The last 12 days or so of the campaign.
>> It sounds like it.
You said you sound like I sounded a few days ago. I was in bed sick because we got all that Canadian wildfire.
>> Oh my god.
>> It was I was like I was like choking.
You could hear mom Donnie in interviews.
He was like he sounded like Batman. He was like, "Yeah, we're gonna we're going to look for Netanyahu." Like everybody was was dying down here.
>> That's terrible.
>> All right. So, you've been making a making a lot of news just by coincidence. We already had you scheduled and uh you happen to be causing a lot of trouble this week like you do. Uh all right, so Crystal Ball, she had a very contentious interview with your opponent, Adam Smith. We will show uh some clips of that and get your reaction, but first I want to talk about something that was missing from the interview. Uh you you here's here is a little bit of a statement you put out on X Crystal Ball. You just had genocidal arch Zionist Adam Smith on your show. I appreciate that Smith was clearly squirming at several points in the interview over his despicable record and close ties to Apac. However, the question still needs to be asked. How does it serve the cause of Palestinian liberation for you to platform Adam Smith and to not even mention that there is an anti-war socialist challenger to him and that too someone running the strongest challenge to Smith in his 29-year career and who has won four Seattle city council elections as an independent candidate. We are just two weeks away from the August 4th primary election and ballots have been mailed out already. I wanted to include that for anyone who's an eligible voter.
Ballots have already been mailed out and the primary date is August 4th. Um, okay. So, why do you think Crystal would challenge him so forcefully on his positions, which she did?
um and never mention that there's an alternative with positions that much more closely track her own.
>> Yeah, I mean that's a good question and just to say the development since then and I'm sure you're going to talk about this but uh just to say something sort of pre and that is that uh Crystal Ball is has agreed to have me on our show and I'm going to be on it on Monday. So that's a >> Okay. All right. Great.
>> But but you know, but it came out of Yeah. I mean, I I I'm it's it it's um it's not clear had would that have happened uh if without the public pressure. I mean, there's enormous enormous numbers of people who were supporting our campaign and they don't all live in this district. You know, these are people on the left, people who want to see a fight back in Congress and who who don't necessarily agree with me on every single position, but they do understand that I have had historic impact in Seattle because I use my office fundamentally differently than all the the progressives who have gotten elected and they want to see that fight back in Congress and say there was an uproar, absolute uproar. You saw that on XX was just erupting with the uh the people hundreds upon hundreds of people who said how can you how can you not feature Shamasawad and also just the main question that I asked is how is it that you're not mentioning that this guy is running you know that there is an anti-war socialist running against him and um yeah I mean I you know I I don't want to be a mind readader I I do want to acknowledge as you said correctly Russell that Gristol did a really fantastic job challenging Adam Smith and making him squirm and just simply simply not letting him off the hook. Uh and at the same time, I think there's this idea that that uh tough interviews or or giving tough questions to these Zionists and wararm mongers is that that that's the that's the that's as far as we want to go.
Ultimately, we just want to push them to the left. That is actually a very I'm not ascribing it to anybody on Breaking Points. you know, they can speak for themselves, but I'm just saying that in general, usually this type of silencing comes from that standpoint. And I think that is problematic because I'll tell you one thing. Did Adam Smith enjoy the experience of being grilled? Absolutely not. That guy is so arrogant and he's so used to being softalled everywhere because he, you know, he he is one of the main stays of the establishment and CNN, NBC, they're all part of the capitalist apparatus. And so uh he gets uh you know he's had a red carpet welcome everywhere he goes and then you know he asked to go on the on breaking points which itself by the way is an indication of how extremely nervous he is of our campaign because he doesn't want to go and talk to crystal ball and get grilled by her you know and and and he he's he he had the personal experience of how she is going to do that and and I appreciate her doing that but the but but I also want to say just from a sober assessment standoint point that, you know, did Adam Smith like the experience? No. But is simply grilling him in interviews going to dislodge the Zionist agenda? No, absolutely not.
You've got to defeat these people.
You've got to actually bring them concrete challenge. And so I think that by not even mentioning that he has a credible challenger, that sort of, you know, gives you the idea that, yeah, I hate this guy. I mean, everybody who watched an interview were like, oh my god, this guy, I can't watch it without feeling angry. You know, those are the kinds of you saw on X. But then what are you left at the end of the day? At the end of the day, you're left with a feeling that I hate this guy with every fiber of my being, but what can I do?
He's going to win the re-election.
Instead of saying, "Oh my god, this person, this anti-war socialist who has won all her elections on the city council is running against this guy. Her campaign is incredibly popular on the ground, and there's an actual shot here.
let's make let's, you know, let's really uh build that potential by having her on. You know, that should be the approach of people on the left. And I'm I'm glad they're having me on. But my point is that that is the approach we need rather than what Ryan Grim said, which is that well, you know, she she she has no chance of winning, so I'm not going to platform her.
>> Well, well, you know, you know what? Let me let me let me pull that up.
So, this is what Ryan Grim said. I told her campaign to show me some polling or any evidence at all, anything showing that she wasn't going to get blown out by 50 points. She has raised like 400,000, I'm told, and you can do a poll for a few thousand. the refusal to do what all other candidates do to demonstrate that their campaign is remotely serious. And apparently that's not true in congressional races that they contract polling. Uh is unusual, but I don't want to be responsible for people sending hard-earned money to a campaign that loses by 50 points or just show some polling that shows she can make the top two plausibly. I'm not asking for much. Now, to your point of how overwhelming the pressure was on them, our friend Nick Cruz responded, "Okay, why did you guys interview Zoran and many of these other progressive Democrats when they were down big in the beginning? Zoran at one point was only polling 1%. Why interview any underdog ever based on this logic? A journalist's job is not to be a gatekeeper, but to inform people on what options they have.
And another response also in that direction. You covered Maryanne Williamson, Dean Phillips, and Sakat, and they all lost by damn near 50 points. Shamas Saw's local name recognition, multiple wins in city council, fundraising, and track record should be enough to make her serious.
And then Ryan starts to climb down here, but he also claimed that nobody reached out for an interview, but once he saw that uh that you had gotten the endorsement from the stranger, he said, "Well, that's something." And I guess finally they went with that. Uh so what what do you how do you respond to that argument that because you haven't shown any polling uh they don't have to interview you?
Well, for my first thought is that when I saw that, my first thought was that and everybody on on the campaign team actually was saying the same thing is that, you know, we canvas the district.
You know, we are a very serious campaign. I don't know what world ran Grim lives in, but you know, we are a very serious campaign. We have talked to tens of thousands of people in the district and we have raised nearly $700,000.
Can you believe it, Russell? We have >> That's amazing.
It's amazing by >> an an independent campaign. That's almost unheard of.
>> Yes, exactly. It's an independent campaign. It's an openly socialist campaign and we are only taking money from working people, you know, compared to Adam Smith who's obviously being bankrolled by the war profitering executives and the Zionist lobby and so on and so forth. Uh his median donation is $1,000. Our median donation is $25. I mean, it's a night and day difference.
And we have raised nearly $700,000 at this point. It's an incredible campaign and we have talked to tens of thousands of people in the district and not one person has asked us do you have polling? You know what working people ask about? They ask about what are your demands and are and the first thing they want to know many of them not all of them but many of them is she a democrat?
If she's a democrat I'm not interested.
You know that's the response we're getting from young people.
>> Wow. Young people want independent politics and there is a lot of excitement around our campaign for three reasons Russell. One is that I'm not a Democrat and it's the demands we're running on very powerful demand you know ending all military aid to Israel for a permanent arms embargo to Israel on Israel sorry and free healthcare for all funded by taxing the rich so on and so forth and I you know we can get into the demands in a bit and the third reason is my track record. People are the most excited when they recognize that this is not another careerist cam candidate who's going to sell us out. This is a person who has a 10y year track record on the city council. I have shown that it is possible to win elections and not sell out. And that after winning elections, you can actually win elections. I mean win victories for the working class. We won the nation's highest minimum wage. You mentioned this. That wage is now 20.
>> Well, and that was the first, wasn't it?
>> Yeah. Yeah, that was the first I mean my first campaign in 2013, I ran it on the, you know, the flagship demand of ours was the $15 minimum wage. We won that victory less than six months after I took office in 2014. But one of the pitch battles that we won during that fight, Russell, as you know, is inflation increases. And that's why the wage today is $21.30 an hour. And so just to in answer to this polling question, no. Yes. I mean, yes, Ryan is right that the polling, you know, conducting a poll is cheaper now than it used to be. Like, you know, 8 $10,000 you could conduct a poll. But no, we're not going to spend those $10,000 on polling. We're going to spend those $10,000 on canvasing a,000 people more.
You know, 10,000 people more. That is what gets us the votes. And we are going to insist on doing that. We never had polling. We never did a poll ever in all our election campaigns that we won. We never did a poll. Well, and why do you think uh to their point uh that they did interview Maryanne Williamson? When did Maryanne Williamson ever have any shot? Like, you could make much more of a case for somebody who was in the Seattle uh city council for 10 years, who won the nation's first $15 an hour minimum wage, uh is a serious threat and a serious candidate. than you ever could have made for Maryanne Williamson. So why would they interview her by that logic? Like why not you? Why are you ruled out? Because clearly they've interviewed a lot of longshot candidates, but they were all running as Democrats. Is it just because you're not running as a Democrat? Do you think they would interview you if you ran as a Democrat?
Uh, I don't know because you know that that brings up an interesting question because if I was running as a Democrat, but I still did the the kind of fight back I have done that I don't think that they would have. I mean, I don't I don't want to speak for everyone on Breaking Points, but I certainly don't think that Ryan Grim would have wanted that because of, you know, just no from what I know about his politics. Now, like I've said before, I have nothing I have no personal animosity towards anyone. So if they want to say that well that's not their position then they're free to say that but from my observation I don't I don't what I think the biggest uh disagreement that many of them have including many DSA leaders is that I have always used my office to fight for the working class and fighting for the working class does mean that you also fight against the gatekeepers and that is the whole that's where all the uh personal character assassination against me is wrapped up you know that she's not nice she doesn't uh she doesn't build coalitions. I mean, Ryan Grim says, "I don't know how to build coalitions." Or something to the effect in that same tweet. He says that and my first thought to that was, "But dude, look at look at the coalitions we're building in the sense that you you you refused to have me on and you made excuses for not to have to not have me on and the internet erupted in opposition to you in favor of featuring our campaign in support of me." That is how we build coalitions.
It's not through trying to curry favor with powerful people which is the approach of many of the DSA leaders which I which is the strategic difference I have with them. I support the demands they run on but I don't support the approach that they use which ends up not winning the demands that they promise uh many of them anyway. Uh, and so but but to say that I don't know how to build coalitions or I'm isolated, that is so absurdly untrue because how could I possibly have won election after election? How could I possibly have won the nation's highest minimum wage, the Amazon tax, all these renters rights that are incomparable to any other city?
How could we possibly have won any of that without having quote unquote coalitions? I don't use the word coalition because it often implies trying to wheel and deal with some people at the top. We build rank and fileled movements and that's our coalition if you know if you if you if you will uh we what we do is build mass movements and obviously I'm not trying to characterize what happened yesterday on X as a mass movement but I'm saying that it was it was a mass of people saying we don't accept this type of gatekeeping. you know, uh, if you're going to feature Adam Smith, who is an art Zionist, then you should feature his opponent, but at the very least, shouldn't you mention that he has a viable opponent?
And and I also wanted to say just say that >> go ahead.
>> We don't we don't we don't guarantee, you know, we are not I'm not guaranteeing victory. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that we have to be sober. We have an uphill challenge here. August 4th is the primary election. There's a Republican running in the race who openly declared that he is running to take votes away from me and there's another Democrat who's effectively doing that. So, we know it's an uphill task. But how does it make any logical sense to say something to the effect of, well, she's not viable, so I'm going to make sure she remains unviable. If you agree, that's why polit political principles have to be at the center. If you agree with our campaign, if you agree with our demands, if you agree that Adam Smith is an absolutely horrific Democrat who's for 29 years been a wararmonger and has funded the genocide and that you need you that we need to defeat him, then why wouldn't you feature our campaign? Help our campaign. Help us win the votes.
>> All right. Since since you mentioned DSA, I'm going to jump ahead a little.
We'll get back to my Adam Smith video.
All right. So, you you've been very critical of DSA and uh Zoran Mandani. Uh here's something you put out in February. I'm a little insulted. I didn't hear from you. You were in New York. Although, actually, I was in Asia, so I can't be insulted.
>> Yes, that's right.
>> You were at Starbar in Bushwick. Uh >> oh, I I was I was remotely there. I actually didn't go there in person.
>> Oh, you are in Oh, well, there you go.
Double not insulted. The AOCification of Mandani has taken place at lightning speed from promising to reappoint brutal archionist police commissioner Jessica Tish months before his election and endorsing millionaire strike breaker Kathy Hokll for governor to turning his back on key campaign promises like taxing the rich and expanding rental assistance. There is only one way to break with this endless cycle of disappointment and betrayals from so-called progressive and socialist Democrats. Breaking with both bloodstained parties of war and genocide. Now, as somebody who lives in New York, I'll say my view on this kind of thing, I can't imagine ever getting involved in a campaign for a Democrat ever again. Um, but if there's a vote in my city between Zora Mandani and Netanyahu's lawyer, which was Andrew Cuomo, sure, I'm going to go in and vote for Mom Donni. Uh, he has been, and a lot of people who are very skeptical have said this, better than a lot of us expected. He did do the rent freeze. He got the uh pie to tear tax. I saw one commentator, I think he went on uh I think it was on Bree's show who said about the Tish thing, well, you know, probably the reason that he did this, and this isn't a justification, but it's probably the reason he I I think it probably is the reason. Uh he doesn't want to fire Tish and then if crime goes up, he takes the blame and he would rather have her there than not there in a keep your enemies closer kind of thing. Now, this is very rough and tumble politics. You got to be nice to Hokll because she controls the state budget. Uh Donald Trump is famously vindictive. You were very critical of him going to uh meet with him. You say you should instead be organizing a protest. We know that Trump is the kind of guy who will just cut your federal aid. He doesn't really care very much about the laws or nicities. Um, is a lot of what you've criticized Mam Donnie for some of the realities of office and do you credit any of what he's done as being good for workers like a rent freeze? I mean, I live in Harlem.
There are a lot of people around here for whom that makes the difference between groceries and not groceries. So, so what are your thoughts about that?
Yeah, I mean just first of all absolutely I support the rent freeze and you know we we my my fellow revolutionary socialists and I we have a completely non sectarian approach meaning and and I want to define sectarianism because it's widely misunderstood. Sectarianism doesn't mean that you have a critique of some other people on the left. That's not what what sectarianism mean. That's how I am called a sectarian but that's not what sectarianism means. It's my obligation to speak truthfully about what I think should be done. If I am wrong, then people can say I'm wrong and they disagree with me. You know that anybody's free to disagree with me any at any point. But I'm simply explaining what I think is my best understanding of what history shows or what strategy is the best. But we are completely non sectarian, meaning we always keep the interests of the working class at the center. And if something is good for the working class then we are absolutely going to uh push for it and also you know um lord it as something positive even if it was somebody with whom we have some disagreements you know so absolutely I always supported rent freeze I mean I you know I my whole record on the city council in Seattle has been that as I said we we have won unparalleled renters's rights I mean absolutely unparalleled and so of course I support the rentree and uh I've also said throughout his even While I was I had critiques, I I've said multiple times, many times uh during his campaign and since then that if there were that I supported all the demands he ran on and that if there were there was a movement to win a $30 an hour minimum wage in New York, I would personally come and help that movement because if New York City's working class was to win $30 an hour, that would be a gigantic gigantic victory. you know, we we it would be a phenomenal thing for the working class as a whole nationally and even internationally just because of New York City's significance as the you know, the sort of the seat of capital so to say and also the place where a big section of the working class lives and so uh you know so I have you know I have no uh division from anybody in DSA in terms of fighting for those demands because I agree with all those demands. uh we do have significant differences on strategy and that shows up every which way. I mean, I don't agree with endorsing arch zionist Jessica Tish, and I don't I don't disagree with what you were saying, Russell, that, you know, it's it's not straightforward at all. You know, if you run for mayor, and I wouldn't run for mayor because, you know, I don't want to be managing or governing the capitalist system. That's that's also a fundamental difference.
It's a it's a fundamental difference between uh someone who is, you know, who wants to reform capitalism uh and somebody who's who's a revolutionary.
clearly but also has not coincidentally has a huge track record of winning reforms as we do. But the point is we are not run we are not doing this in order to reform capitalism. We're doing this in order to build the movement to to build the revolutionary movements.
And so that is a fundamental difference.
And so so in in a sense it's almost like well you know if you're going to run for mayor then you're you're probably going to end up making those deals. But I fundamentally don't agree with that. But even there I would say that there if if if uh Mamani wanted to build mass movements around these issues he could have and that's also a big difference in strategy which also I think which flows from the fundamental theoretical differences also. It's not it's not disconnected from that. And so rather than reappoint Jessica Tish, what I would have done, you know, hypothetically speaking, I would never have done for mayor, but hypothetically speaking, that we should we should actually have a real uh public discussion, you know, mass discussions about what is what does police accountability look like and that we have to push for elected civilian oversight of the police with full powers for hiring, firing policies and procedures and through that we should select the leadership. Now would that create absolutely enormous upheaval in the city? Of course it would. But that is the kind of upheaval you want or at least I want because I'm not looking to govern the capital state. My my job is to disrupt politics as usual. Another question about Hokll. uh Hokll, you know, he endorsed Hokll in the middle of the nurses strike when she was ex issuing repeated executive orders to make it easy and legal for the hospital bosses to hire scabs to undermine the strike. You don't do that. I I'm sorry.
My opinion as a socialist, you don't do that. You don't break strikes and you don't endorse strike breakers. It's it's as simple as that. And so uh so my question is like if there is no line that you're willing to cross then what is what is the difference then it's just a slippery slope you know it'll be one thing after another and so I think we have to uh reframe the whole debate and so when you say well he needs to be nice to Hokll that stems from this idea that well the way we are going to get anything is by making sure that the people who are at the top our people who who are elected at the top keep cordial your relations with other people at the top. Well, I just don't subscribe to that frame framing in the first place. I don't subscribe to that in the first place. I think you need uh a real fight back against people like Hokul and the way you do that is obviously you don't want to be isolated but the way you do that is by building mass pressure along with you. I mean just to quote one one thing uh as a counter to you know to provide a counter framing is uh this guy who was the main corporate landlord lobbyist when I was on the city council.
He retired around the same time that I left city hall and he publicly stated that you know they that he and the other corporate lobbyist landlord lobbyists would talk to the Democrats in the privacy of their offices. all the discussions would go well and then they would come on to the dis in chambers and then everything would go south you know in in his words and he said uh that that was because of his quote was Sawan's army so he what he noted and correctly so sometimes your political enemies give you the best compliments you know he he noted correctly that all the promises that the democrats made to the corporate landlords which you know think about how shitty that is you know these democrats are making the corporate landlord lobbyists. But then when they come to the dis and they are confronted with an organized mass of working people, they are forced to give in because at that moment they themselves, the politicians themselves who each and every one of them is a careerist. They are faced with a political price tag for their own careers. like at that moment if they voted against they would pay a price for that because they have been exposed by my office building this movement. So that's a fundamentally different framing of how you win victories. And my contention from reading from my read of history and also from my experience in city hall is that you can win far far more magnitude of victories, bigger magnitude of victories, orders of magnitude higher victories if you use this type of fighting approach rather than uh the more you know like let's be friends with everyone at the top approach. And so yeah, specifically on rent freeze. Yeah, of course I support rent freeze, but let's be real. Three rent freezes were passed under Bill Delasio, you know. So >> well, two of them during CO though.
>> Yes. And and that's actually a very important point because the working class won real concessions during COVID.
You know why? Because there was an absolute mood of revolt at that time.
People were so angry because, you know, everyone was in crisis. And suddenly there was a realization that wait a second it's not the billionaires who are essential to the to society it's me my me grocery worker me the emergency room nurse me the you know the other workers like you know the workers were essential and so there was an actual mood of revolt at that time and so even the Trump administration they were forced to uh give you know the stimulus checks and so on so my point is that it's under those pressures that the the that the establishment is forced to give those victories uh concessions but we also have to look at what else is possible.
So do I welcome the rent freeze?
Absolutely. But I refuse to accept that because the rent freeze was won that what Mandani is doing is or you know overall that strategy is something that we should subscribe to because the truth is that a at the same time that the rent freeze has been won rents are going up for the vast majority of the the homes rental homes you know because rent freeze applies to about a million apartments or so you know so that's a fraction stabilized all right but you also sorry just at the same time there's a New New York City public housing authority devastation of housing that's happening on a massive scale.
>> You're talking about the public housing where they're >> Yes. Nicha Nicha housing.
>> What is that8 billion deficit on repairs? Yeah, >> it's hu but but what they are doing is privatizing and then de demol demolishing basically it's going to be gone. That's the history of privatizing public housing. But and it didn't it's not something Mandani started. But my point is that if you use the approach I use, then you would absolutely fight against all of that rather than limiting yourself to these small things.
>> All right. So now you do say that the responsibilities of an executive are different and it seems like and I don't want to put words in your mouth you feel that being in Congress is more complimentary with your basic orientation as an activist and an agitator than being a mayor which is an executive position would be. I also I want to ask you this kind of second part of the question before we move off this get to the Adam Smith interview. Um, I have been arguing to people and you tell me if you feel that I'm wrong.
Whether you like it or don't like it in the minds of the public who are not a even aware of the internal conversations that happen among different shades of leftists about economic theory and approach. In the minds of the public, Mandani is the most visible avatar of the ideas of the left in existence.
And if you are a more radical leftist, shouldn't you want him to succeed in order to be able to approach a public that has a more positive attitude towards leftism so that they'll be open to your agenda? Whereas if he goes down, isn't that going to make it even harder for people who have further left ideas?
Isn't that going to make it much easier for the reactionaries to go as they're salivating to do? See, see, I mean, especially being from New York, every mayoral election, they bring up Fierce City. It's going to be 1977 if you elect this person. They're dying to be able to do that with Mandani so nobody like him ever gets in office again. So, what are your thoughts about that?
>> Yeah, that's an important question. We strongly oppose the Wall Street types and the right-wing attacks on Mamani and as you said, they surely will come during during the re-election time and all of that. Um, in fact, that would be very very contrary to what the Democrats did when I was facing a recall attempt against me in 2021 by Trump supporting billionaire landlords. Not a single Democrat, not a single Democrat supported me. Not a single one. Not a single one. And I see a lot of the media asking me if I support this, but nobody has asked them. Why didn't you support it? Isn't Isn't Wasn't it your You claim to be anti-Trump. Wasn't it important regardless of your differences with Saw to stand against the recall? Even say openly, I disagree with everything she says, but you know what? I disagree with this Trumpy attack on her because if they can attack her, they'll come after us, too. And so I, you know, as a matter of principle, I oppose it. Not a single one. And yet we defeated that recall attempt because we organized workingclass people. And so as far as working-class people's consciousness is concerned, yes, we we again this is a non sectarian approach. We don't want Mamani to fail, you know. So this idea that somehow because you know we want him to fail because then it'll make our point. That's that is a very sectarian approach. We have a non sectarian approach. We want and and things to succeed. But I don't even put it in terms of I want him or any specific person to succeed because I'm not interested in anybody's career. I'm interested in what the working class can win. So to for the working class, it would be bad if the if these attempts failed. We want to win >> universal childcare in New York. We want to win $30 an hour. Like I said, you know, and I say as I said, I will personally come and help that movement.
So uh we have the exact opposite position as some sometimes we are sometimes is alleged about us. Uh at the same time because we care about the working class it is also our task as Marxists to point out that this strategy ultimately is not going to uh help the working class and that we should have a class struggle-based fighting strategy.
That is my job too and I would be betraying the interest of the working class if I didn't say those things. And sure are there sometimes things that I say that some working people don't like because at that moment they don't understand it. Yes, that is that is the unfortunate my unfortunate duty. You know look you don't become a Marxist revolutionary if you want to run a popularity contest. You don't you you have to take you know it is hard. uh but you explain it uh with respect and with friendliness and people will understand.
I'll give you I mean I have a ton of concrete examples because you know I've been activist for 18 years and I was on the city council for 10 years but I'll give you one example. uh in 2013, you know, I was elected in November. Just a few days after that, a massive historic sellout happened in Washington state, which was nearly $9 billion of corporate tax giveaway to the Boeing executives.
And it was like a like a you know um uh insult upon injury like thing. They already did that. And then on top of that, they demanded that the unions give up pensions for the workers. I mean, it was such a horrendous attack. It was like a full frontal stabbing of the union movement. And at that time though, you know, obviously nobody stood on the side of the workers and keep in mind it was a Democratic governor and a democratic dominated legislation that carried out this highway robbery. And I spoke at that rally. I had just won my first election. I said that uh that if if the if if there is no way out of this you know what is extortion then really it brings up the question of taking Boeing into democratic public ownership you know like big corporations and at that time many working people were angry at me since then so many have come up to me and said well you know I I know we're a long way off from taking the companies into democratic public ownership but I'm starting to see the logic of it I'm see to the bottom of this So that's going to happen all the time when you say some things and then people may may not agree but at the same time I can also tell you a lot of people who are supporting us also support Mamani and they understand we have some differences in strategy but they like me understand that all of this is showing that the working class of America is refusing to accept anymore the status quo. I mean, there's an huge anger against the cost of living crisis, against the forever wars, the imperialist wars, against the genocide in Gaza. In fact, the victories of the DSA candidates in the primaries in New York City and in Colorado, they are a huge repudiation of the Zionist agenda and of the billionaire class.
Absolutely, we welcome that. But that doesn't mean that we don't ask questions about, okay, what are they going to do with it? You know, it both of those go together. All right, so let's get to the Zionist agenda. All right, so Crystal, right at the top of this interview with your opponent, Adam Smith, iron, the ironically named Adam Smith, I got to stay with you as his opponent. Uh right at the top she asked him about the NDAA that would effectively merge the US and Israeli military which he originally co-sponsored and now he's saying he won't support. Uh so let's let's take a look at a little bit of that.
>> The concern is that it would make the Israeli US military relationship more entrenched in a way that lacks any sort of democratic accountability.
>> Yeah. No, I don't agree with that at all. I mean, we're talking about >> what are your concerns then?
>> Oh, so two different questions here. My concern is I don't support the Netanyahu government and I certainly don't support what Ben Gir and Smoke are doing. And that's been I think the real challenge for me is Israel has a right to exist.
Israel is threatened um profoundly by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. So, how do we help them defend themselves? Well, at the same time, they've got a government that's frankly out of control, particularly in the West Bank. You know, I associate myself with Rahm Emanuel's speech in Tel Aviv last week where he said Netanyahu has decided that he is going to be able to defeat all of his adversaries. Um, so whether you're talking Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Iran, it's perpetual war all the time. And then with Smootrich and Ben Gavir, you've got people who really do want to drive all of the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank and they're in the government. Okay. So the basic idea of the program when it was first presented to me like I said it's co-development programs and like missile defense something we could definitely learn from uh Israel on um and it it's a program you can decide whether or not do code development programs and by the way if we decide in Congress that we don't like that program we can vote it down it's not outside of the democratic process.
All right. So, Shama, what do you have to say to his contention that this does not is not designed to merge the American and Israeli military? Nothing to see here. Doesn't take it out of the democratic process.
um basically separating as many of these uh bornagain anti-Zionists uh do uh support Israel while blaming some bad apples for all the problems.
It's Ben Gavir, it's Motridge, it's Netanyahu, it's not actually Israel. And do you think there's any way he would be taking these positions if you were not in this race?
>> Absolutely not. Absolutely not. It is entirely the reason he's taking he's taking these positions. It's not even that there is generally in the air, which is true nationally, that the the American working class, the majority of it has turned against Israel. That's true. But he wouldn't care about that unless he was facing an existential threat in his own career. Like it is not an academic question for Adam Smith. By the way, can I say it's it's so ironic also that his name is Adam Smith and I am uh I'm an economist and I'm a Marxist. So it's like it's >> if it were in a novel, you would say it's too on the nose.
>> Exactly. You you're totally right.
That's that's exactly how I would say it. Um so yeah, I mean this is this is absolutely posturing and you know you you saw from the vote of the NDA uh earlier this afternoon. It it it really is proof that the the Democratic Party like the Republican party represents the war profitering billionaire class. You know, as I've said, they're both the two most powerful parties of global capitalism. And as such, they are adept at playing the rotating villain game, or really, it should be rotating good guy game in the sense that Adam Smith needs to win his reelection, and he's facing a serious threat from our campaign. So he needs to try to launder his reputation by voting no on this one thing or voting yes on that other amendment, the 3.3 billion, you know, >> amendment.
>> Yes, exactly.
>> But look at the look at the look at the political theater here, Russell, because they knew that amendment wouldn't pass.
They knew the NDA was going to pass, and so they all act like they're just incidentally voting yes or no, but it's entirely orchestrated. And for the Zionist lobby, it is important for them that Adam Smith gets reelected, it's less important for them as long as the NDAA passes and and for the war profiters, as long as the NDAA passes, which is what they care about, they can sacrifice one vote here and one vote there, as long as they have enough votes to pass it, if that helps them launder the reputations of those specific politicians whose careers are under threat. That is what's going on here.
And that is actually, you know, that's very important that you you brought this up because it shows you the power of this type of fighting politics because just our campaign being in the primary election is so threatening to them.
Imagine what it would do if we were to get into the November election and >> on top of that if we were able to win.
And I say that uh with due caution in the sense that we you know it's an uphill uphill uphill task and right now you know just our first challenge is even getting to the general to the general election and we only the top two vote getters can go go into the November election. But my point is that this is evidence the fact that he voted no on the bill that he sponsored that >> All right, hang on. It gets better. it gets better because then she asks him about whether he would still vote for the NDAA with the provision in it. So this is just a short clip.
>> What I wanted to know is if you would use that position when it comes to conference which is when the this is for our audience. I know obviously you know this when the Senate version is merged with the House version any difference or reconcile.
>> I will advocate for the removal of that provision >> and if it's not removed will you refuse to sign off on the conference report?
Um, I don't know that I would go that far. It depends on what else is in the bill. I mean, look, the bill itself has the massive problem that it's it's continuing to fund the war in Iran, which is an utter disaster. So, I am probably not going to vote well, almost certainly not going to vote for the bill as it comes off the House floor now, just in and of itself, regardless of that particular section. Just because of that one section, I don't know that I would vote against the entire bill.
>> Okay. So, yeah, I'll vote against it before I vote for it. Is isn't that what he's doing?
>> Yes. I exactly the thing is he I think what's possible I mean in the in the show he said well I'll still vote for the NDA even with that provision in it.
Uh and and by the way just let's remind people again that's his own bill. Um but I it's possible that he he is more nervous now than he was before. I mean, I would say that the fact that he reached out to Crystal Ball to go on the show itself shows that he's nervous because why on earth would he ever want to go to a show that is uh that he is so far to the right of he has no need to he doesn't appear on anything even in fact he was not even appearing on corporate media so much now right now he's feeling really scared so you know everybody is featuring him CNN NBC every he's everywhere you go and people tell me people in the district tell me. I've never seen Adam Smith on the news until now. Like he must be really scared because he keeps going everywhere to speak and but but I think what might have happened and kudos to Crystal Ball for this is that I think he has recognized that he has gotten enormous flak for this interview. This is like I didn't see even a remotely positive comment anywhere out there. It's like people are like dude you just exposed yourself you know you're you're such a horrible guy. And I think that his maybe somebody somebody with some heads on their shoulders in the establishment decided look you got to vote no on this because otherwise it's you'll you know you'll never live it down. uh but I think the main thing we have to uh we have to share with working-class people here is don't fall for these these you know these uh performative gestures because he is still Apex's darling and you know that he is going to go back to his genocidal ways and he's not even not gone back he's still in his genocidal ways because let's keep in mind he has he this was his own bill and he um in just in June June, by the way, he took more than $51,000 in campaign donations from from Apac and Norpack, both notoriously pro- genocide, proccupation packs. And so it's never stopped. So this idea that somehow >> Yeah. And he tried he tried to duck that by saying, you know, I have some friends who give money to other people and then they give it to me and I don't know where it comes from.
>> Yeah. And then he but he but he did tellingly he actually said I would still take because still asked him would you still would you take in the future and he said I would. I mean so he's so nakedly uh a Zionist wararmonger. And also did you notice earlier in the episode he uh she asked him do you have any regrets? And he says I have no regrets. This guy voted for genocide. He voted for the war on Iraq and he has no regrets. He has no regrets. This is the guy >> she was bringing she was bringing that up in the context of this recent article in uh the New Yorker where the Biden people are having regrets. All right, so here's one clip of the back and forth that they had about uh Israel and its right to exist. One of a few sections where they talked about that.
at the peak of the, you know, the the Gaza onslaught, you had a a complete siege. You had entire neighborhoods that were leveled. They created the largest population of child amputees. Do you have any regrets about your votes during that time period?
>> I I don't because everyone forgets about October 7th. Everyone forgets about what Hamas and Hezbollah and Ron have done and their desire is to wipe out the state of Israel and all the Jews living there. Is that not I mean that's in Hamas's charter and Hamas is still extent they're still doing that. I don't like the way Israel decided to defend themselves but the solution being proposed is >> and and and this is the consequence of what you're saying is sorry you know we had this idea back in 1948 we were going to give you a state uh and that way you could protect yourself against all these attacks didn't work out so go back to Europe go wherever this just isn't going to work anymore. I think the question and I don't think you understand how difficult that is to just go >> yeah I guess that's fine because >> I think the question let me and this is not you know this is my perspective but I think this is also what the Democratic party base in particular and most of the country view at this point is why should our tax dollars given all the things in the world and all the things in our country >> why should be that's why I voted for you know spent in much more effective ways why should that going to prop up an ethnostate that is an apartheid state and I I wonder if you agree with that characterization that has been committing if you don't want to say genocide certainly war crimes with that tax money.
>> That's fine. Yeah. Look, no, I that's why I voted for the Massie amendment. I I I don't think we should be be sending that money over there. But look, I have concerns about Hamas, about Hezbollah that that people don't seem to share. um you know let's say that this plays out the way you describe and okay there is no Jewish ethnostate and and the consequence of that is there is no Jewish state um basically you have the Palestinians as they could would now be governing that area and that means Hamas would be governing that area do you have any problem with that do you have any problem with Hamas suddenly becoming a much more powerful entity and having the country you know from the river to the sea if you will now be a Hamasrun state on the Mediterranean. Are you okay with that?
>> First of all, I'm not convinced that that would be the reality. Second of all, how would it not be?
>> I don't know how you can get away from how illiberal it is to not support equal rights for people regardless of if they're Jewish, Arab, Muslim, totally with you. Look, and then the other piece is doesn't support equal rights either.
>> Okay, where where to where to begin with that clip? Okay. So, so he concedes that it's an ethnostate seemingly while justifying its continued existence by it seems like his points were well, how do you just tell them to go home now that they're there? Right? That seems to be the first part of his argument. How it you can't just tell them to go. Well, why can't you? They stole somebody else's home. which at another point she brings up, he doesn't doesn't really refute it when she talks about the right of return. He he laments what it would become, which he says there by definition would be an illiberal Hamasun state that doesn't have equal rights anyway. So why would you want that? So we have to continue to have this supremacist ethnostate there because Hamas. Well, however you want in whatever order you want. And just on just on that, by the way, he literally rejected the idea of Palestinians right to return. I mean, it's not surprising to me in any way whatsoever, but it's absolutely horrible. It's a horrible position to have. But but to be clear, uh, you know, Crystal Ball clarified that, you know, she's not, we're not talking about Israelis being asked to leave. We are asking about can we have a state that does not have a party. That's the question here, right? and he refused to answer that by conflating everything into saying well either we're going to have uh this the state that is that he refuses to acknowledge is an aparttheite state or we're going to have this horrific this imaginary horrific state apparently run by amas I mean all of this is you know what he does Russell these are all debating tricks like he refuses to answer the actual question then he creates a straw man and then he attacks that straw man like you know so and she pointed that out many times like so you're taking one extreme position and then you're brushing everything on the left, all positions with that and then you're saying, "Well, I reject that so that's why everything you're saying is wrong." That's a debating trick and we should reject that. Uh and and it's he what he said is uh actually he exposed himself as what he is, which is a a pro- capitalist, pro-billionaire, pro-war prophet, Zionist because all of this is connected to each other. I mean the formation of the Israeli state itself was a project of American and British capitalism and it it the role it plays is as a as some like a garrison state which is keeping working-class rebellion in check in that region and the deep deep oppression of the Palestinian people the brutality that they have faced including this genocide but not only the genocide the ongoing brutal settlements the forcible taking away of the land, the bulldozing of the homes, just the absolute uh just carnage and brutality and inhumanity of it. All of this is is is necessary for the I mean for the capitalist state that is what they're doing in order to protect their interests in a geopolitically extremely crucial region. And so we have to be clear very clear that that this aparted state absolutely does not have the right to exist and needs to be spashed. The state as it exists today which is an apartate state which is doing the bidding of the capitalist interests and carrying out utterly brutal occupation of the Palestinian people. That state needs to be smashed.
The Israeli ruling class needs to be overthrown and we need a revolution for all of this. And absolutely the Palestinian right to return has to be guaranteed you know in in that there there shouldn't be any questions raised about that and so this in my view is a reasonable position it's a humane position it's a reasonable position and most people who you know may who may not be tuned into every detail of the politics of the region if you present it in this way don't you think that we should eliminate aparate don't you think we should eliminate ethnic cleansing don't you think if I tell you these settlements are brutal don't You think that's horrible like how would you would you accept somebody taking away your home and your land at gunpoint which is literally literally what's happening and you know Jasper Natali Nathaniel the you know the journalist has shown so much footage recently which is incredible to I mean it's very very it's gut-wrenching to watch but people need to watch it to understand the reality of what it means to be Palestinian in that region and so this position of ours is the reasonable and humane and the only possible position that's acceptable. But if you listen to people like Adam Smith speak, he portrays us, those of us who are fighting for that vision, as extremists.
He has called us left-wing fascists. And he demands that we be arrested, you know, we meaning anti-war activists. And he speaks in such reasonable even tones like, "Oh, well, this is just reasonable, you know, like, oh, what about what Hamas did on October 7th?"
And as Jeremy Scale pointed out to Roana, well, you cannot talk about October 7th unless you talk about October 6th and October 5th and all the time before that all the way going back to the formation of the state of Israel and the first Nagba in 1948. You cannot talk about any of those dates unless you talk about as I said literally the formation of the state of Israel. And so the keeping the state of Israel as it is an ethnic cleansing apartheid state is very much wrapped up in the project of global capitalism itself and that's why we will need militant movements both in the region in fact it will need to include the Egyptian working class moving into struggle as well and we will need militant movements in the US of course because uh you know the it that state exists at the behest of capitalism and specifically US capitalism. and the war profiteeers because if you follow the money who's profiting from everything that's happening in the region, it's the it's all of the same billionaires and multi-millionaires who have shares in Black Rockck and Vanguard and so on, which are the whatever the funds on Wall Street that own all the other companies as well, all the way from Loheed Martin to Rolls-Royce, all of the companies that are involved in this genocide. And so that's why we will need massive working-class movements. We will need strike actions. And I would say that is why our campaign is so crucial for those of us who are fighting for Palestinian liberation. It's not the be all and end all. But truly, truthfully, Russell, if we can win this election, it would be the election of the first ever revolutionary socialist in the US Congress, it will be a political earthquake because of the way we are insisting on using our elected office. It will be uh a little bit it will provide a little bit of the parting of the waters in order to uh build movements because right now the anti-war movement, the labor movement, all of it is in a log jam because of a whole host of gatekeepers including the business unionist leaders. I mean just to give you one example, all these unions, they've passed resolutions against the genocide because the rank and file is demanding it. But then what are those union leaders doing?
>> They are endorsing Adam Smith, the leadership of the Washington State Labor Council. the Washington Education Association, the IFPTTE, which is the parent union of the Boeing engineers, uh, and, uh, uh, the state, the the largest public sector union in this state, Washington Federation of State employees. The leaders of all these unions have endorsed Adam Smith. You know who just donated to Adam Smith? Fay Gunther, the president of UFCW 3000.
This is the largest union in our state.
50,000 members. They have uh grocery workers, home care workers and so on. So many of the grocery workers make so little they live in their cars and this person is donate is donating to Adam Smith. This is the state of affairs of left leadership. That is why the campaign like ours is so crucial.
>> All right. So Sha quickly because I know you got to go. I don't want Katie yelling at me. Jimmy has a very diverse ideological audience. Ideologically diverse. Now, listening to what you just said, and I I'm sure you, as I do, hear a lot of different voices from all over the ideological spectrum and your activism.
So much of what you're talking about, globalism and corporations, keeping down the working class, is something that everybody seems to agree on, right? What would your pitch be to voters who consider themselves conservative, maybe Republican, maybe MAGA? Why should they vote for you over Adam Smith or the Republican?
>> It I don't care whom you voted for. I don't care if we disagree on other things. If you agree with me that the the the the United States as as we live in right now as our life, ordinary people's lives is and you want to do something about it. You want to fight an end to the trillion dollars that's spent every year on war and instead have it spent on education, health care, and uh housing for all of us, regardless of what your political ideologies are. If we if you want a a a a nation where we have free healthcare for all, where we tax the billionaires and multi-millionaires, if you want to fight to shut down the data centers and fight against the mass layoffs, if you want to fight for a better life for yourselves and your communities, then you need to join our campaign because we are the only candidate in this race and perhaps this entire midterm election who has a long track record of standing with the working class and always being able to unite the working class regardless of other ideological differences and that above all is going to be crucial if we are going to change anything in this nation >> and that is why we say Shamba is ride or die. All right Shamba, how can people support you? Where can they find you?
>> Please go to shamasawan.org my firstnamel last name.org and please donate. Please volunteer. Even if you're not in the Seattle area, you know, in this district, Congressional District 9, you can phone bank for us. Look, between now and August 4th, we have to get out the vote. That is the mantra. Get out the vote. We need to be one of the top two vote getters. Let's be sober. This is a hard task because we have the entire establishment against us. The corporate media has invisibleized us.
So, we need a campaign on the ground so you can help us if you can phone bank.
That's one less phone banking shift that somebody in Seattle has to do so that they can go out door knocking or tableabling inside in the district. And if you're in the district, you've got no excuse. You've got to sign up for a canvasing shift because that is how we win campaigns when you get involved.
>> All right, Shama, thank you very much.
Best of luck. Rooting for you. Looking forward to your appearance on Monday. I will be watching. Thank you, Shamba.
>> Thanks. Take care of yourself. Bye-bye.
>> Take care.
All right. Thank you very much to Shama Sawan and uh hopefully she will finish in the top two in that jungle primary and face off against that ghoul that you just saw a little bit of there. Uh okay, we are going to go and rumble. We're going to the Rumble side of town. We will be reading the super chats over there right at the top.
Heat. Heat. N.
Related Videos
4:12
Political Science
COP27- Jagan Chapagain, Secretary General of the IFRC
AfDBGroup
104 views•2022-11-10
5:08
Political Science
The ABC spends a day on the campaign trail with WA Opposition leader Shane Love | ABC News
abcnewsaustralia
2K views•2025-02-24
10:10
Political Science
S. Jaishankar Says India Facing Challenges of Terrorism Amid Rising Security Concerns
newsxlive
678 views•2025-05-09
1:00:00
Political Science
Mayor addresses decrease in violent crime in 2024
WMAR2news
237 views•2025-01-07
1:45:09
Political Science
Strengthening Human Rights Through Youth Engagement
NationalEndowmentforDemocracy
306 views•2019-12-10
0:56
Political Science
Jeremy Corbyn speaking at event organised by the independent group of Bradford
Overseastimesnews
286 views•2026-04-22
23:06
Political Science
LIVE: Trump to Non-Citizens, "Register in 30 Days or Get Deported" | Firstpost America | N18G
Firstpost
3K views•2025-04-14
25:16
Political Science
Day 809 - Saudi prince tells ToI Israel needs to start being 'normal'
TimesofIsrael
4K views•2025-12-23
Trending
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23
7:38
Blockchain & Crypto
Bitcoin Social Interest: Dozens of us Left
benjaminjcowen
12K views•2026-07-23
1:19:25
Biology
LIVE NOW! Cellular Structure and Functions | Complete Cell Biology Lecture | Anatomy & Physiology
MukhtarAliyu-t7m
387 views•2026-07-23