Paul Buitink talks to former Greek Minister of Finance (2015) and author of several books like ‘Technofeudalism, What Killed Capitalism’ about the risks of modern technofeudalism in which cloud capitalists extract rents from the public and distort public discourse. He says we need to tax big tech to the hilt since privatizing wouldn’t work. Also he proposes how cities should create their own tech alternatives.
The gentlemen also talk about the euro, why Bulgaria shouldn’t join and Greece should exit. The Netherlands should perhaps try to reform it or join a union with other hard currency countries. Yanis would like to federalize the EU but realizes it’s maybe time to dismantle it. Also he laments Europe’s military Keynesianism and thinks it’s not wise to spend all that money on defense. The EU has taken the wrong turn and each path since 2014 when it comes to the war in Ukraine Yanis believes.
So instead of fixing it, they should dismantle it?
That’s basically like saying “hey, the car broke down, let’s just slit our throat”
Yes, for someone of his calibre and political field, Yanis has increasingly spewed the occasional shit take for about 2 years now…but this is the worst he’s got. I just hope we don’t see him get chummy with the usual RT crew one day…he’s already platformed vatnik cheerleader Jeff Sachs, that’s another major red flag about his judgement.
Yanis would like to federalize the EU but realizes it’s maybe time to dismantle it.
What a strange non-sequitur.
Not really, it’s just logical conclusion of believing in a project but then watching it fail repeatedly, and finally questioning whether it’s worth saving. His actual proposal is for a deeper democratic federalism, but he doesn’t think that will fly, because he’s disappointed.
Not really, it’s just logical conclusion of believing in a project but then watching it fail repeatedly, and finally questioning whether it’s worth saving. His actual proposal is for a deeper democratic federalism, but he doesn’t think that will fly, because he’s disappointed.
Ok, there’s a big disconnect here. I’ll try to convey what I’m seeing when I read that sentence:
“Here’s this complex and unique alliance structure, a transnational proto-pseudo-state, brought into being over the course of generations of humans, not only to keep the most wartorn region on a planet full of quarrelsome monkeys at peace - a task at which, through its multiple iterations, it has excelled at for almost 80 years - but also to slowly put its constituent nations into a mindset of cooperation instead of competition.
… anyway, let’s apply some completely different arbitrary success criteria, determine this arguably staggering and most unlikely achievement of the human race a failure and suggest to tear it down, what could go wrong?”So much this. I hate how slow or even backwards the EU is on some topics, but people forget so easily the crazy amount of good things it brought us as well, simply because they are considered normal now.
I’m strongly in favor of some deep reforms (and even think it’s one of the most important things to get on now), but I am definitely not in favor of just dismantling the EU.
Yanis is an even better Russian ambassador if he appears with Jeff Sachs.
Btw, Russia’s budget deficit is up fivefold in May, much higher than expected.
The reason for the financial turmoil: the war in Ukraine.
Since 2023, the [Russian] Finance Ministry has front-loaded military expenditures early in the year, with spending returning to normal mid-year before another jump in November-December. Analysts had expected the budget to move into surplus starting in May, but that didn’t happen.
Should we dismantle the Russian Federation now? Russia’s military Keynesianism doesn’t seem to work. It’s not wise to spend all that money on military. The Kremlin has taken the wrong turn and each path since 2014 when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
What does Yanis say?
I think this is completely besides the point and wild whataboutism.
Varoufakis doesn’t repeat Russian talking points in any way, although the interviewer has a clear bias. If Varoufakis was a Russian citizen, you can be certain that he would have argued against the war to the point of going to a Gulag.
Here is my take on his many interviews: He explains his view from his perspective as a European, which is completely valid. The problem is, that he always sees everything mostly in monetary terms. He doesn’t concentrate on the value of peace that the EU brought or widespread human rights that were also propagated to other non-members because of conformity of businesses within the Union. Financially, many members could benefit from having there own monetary and trade policies, speaking purely about economic success. The benefit of going to the neighbour country for shopping and not thinking about tariffs, currency and such, is neglected.
Regarding Ukraine he says that we should have marched from the start if we really oppose Russias imperialism and not just deliver "a few " weapons here and there. But that the populace needs to be on board and that there is a nuclear threat is, again, not mentioned.
Altogether I think the man has very valid points, like the problem of big tech destroying the economic basis that the EU was founded on, and his insights about the 2008 financial crisis are invaluable, but he really focusses on money too much.
He laments Europe’s military Keynesianism and thinks it’s not wise to spend all that money on defense.
Maybe Yanis could also get an invitation to live in Oleksandr Usyk’s house for a while?. Just to see whether he changes his mind.
Btw, this ‘military Keynesiasm’ - the economic policy stating that war and military spending is the basis for economic growth - is something that has been propagated and implemented by Russia, including by the economist Andrey Belousov, Russia’s current defence minister. Is Russia’s budget well-balanced according to Yanis?
Your comment is a bit incoherent. Its first part seems to imply it’s a needed thing that we should do, the second that it is a dangerous thing that we should avoid. Which is it?
I think Yanis is a hypocrite. No military spending is fine as long as all parties play by the rule of law and accept universal human rights. This is not the case. Yanis is addressing the wrong party here.
I guess this answers your question.
No it doesn’t actually. His argument starts at about 29:50 of the video. As far as I can tell, he argues that military Keynesianism (the idea of using military spending to drive economic growth) works in the US because it has a federal government and a unified military-industrial complex that redistributes contracts to stimulate weaker regions. Varoufakis criticizes this model as morally corrosive, saying it requires endless wars to justify continued production and spending. This is not a new criticism, that’s just Truman. Next he says that Europe, lacking a federal structure or unified military-political command structure, cannot even replicate this system in any coherent or democratic way. He sees recent EU defense initiatives as a hollow imitation that is just political theater making the analogy with the “Green Deal”, which was basically abandoned despite big promises. Basically, he says that military Keynesianism, like the Green Deal are both “smoke and mirrors”, that don’t offer neither real growth nor genuine security.
That’s it. That’s the argument. What is hypocritical about that?
Elsewhere in the interview, he makes the argument that the EU should either go towards some kind of democratic federalism (in which case, one could assume that there would exist the framework for controlling the military-industrial complex) or just call it quits, because the current model is just not viable. That’s coherent with his view of military Keynesianism above.
His thinking on Ukraine is pragmatic and calling us on our own hypocrisy. He criticizes Western hypocrisy for arming Ukraine without committing troops and condemns attempts to mimic the U.S. military-industrial model, which he sees as both unethical and structurally impossible for Europe. That’s where his Hitler line comes in, that if Western leaders truly believed Putin was a danger like Hitler, they would actually fully commit, instead of the tragedy we currently have. And that’s a valid argument, right? If we truly believe that Russia is a real and present danger, enough pussyfooting, enough half-measures, go big or go home. Federalize, arm, fight. If not, what the fuck are we doing?
he is correct that dragging our feet on Ukraine has been a tragic, cynical mistake.
however, on the EU, you don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. the EU is the greatest political triumph of the post-WW2 era for peace and solidarity on the continent. continue to reform it. we are more vulnerable separated.
I actually absolutely agree with you. I think Varoufakis is playing the gadfly role here, the kinds of provocative questions he poses are challenges to do better.
Maybe he needs to focus on building his green left movement into something that can win elections against the far right instead of this federalize or die bullshit.
military Keynesianism (the idea of using military spending to drive economic growth) …
He sees recent EU defense initiatives as a hollow imitation [of that]The implication being that military spending in Europe is rising as an economic measure and not as a defensive measure against an openly aggressive military power in the east is completely baseless.
What does he say about Russia’s ‘military Keynesianism’?
