I think this is actually where one of the first sort of problems of the book comes up, though,

which is that, well, the fascists are antagonistic and we are merely agonistic, where we say,

if our goal is an egalitarian politics, our goal is the extension of democracy out of the sort of formal

political sphere into the economic sphere, and their goal is the extension of democracy out of the sort of formal political sphere into the

economic sphere. And their goal is absolute rule from luxurious space stations over a patchwork of

ethnic bantusans from which they, you know, occasionally take blood. Then aren't we still

compromising them by allowing them any space or power at all? That is, at what point does Bezos give up, A, his

wealth and influence voluntarily? When we say voluntarily, I don't mean giving it to charity or whatever.

I mean deciding to obey a law requiring him to do so. And B, at what point does his refusal to do

so cause regrettable antagonism? And moreover, at what point do we admit that the

conditions of the Amazon warehouses are genuinely antagonistic to us as a class? When we see the

Tories sort of killing 120,000 people through, well, notaries, Lib Dems and the Labor Right,

killing 120,000 people through austerity, at what point do we see that

as antagonism? And by sort of mere agonism, I say mere agonism, are we sort of shooting ourselves

in the foot? But, you know, I again, I can't pretend I know the answer to this question,

but it is something that sort of was in the back of my mind while reading this whole thing.

Because this is the problem and the fundamental contradiction of democratic socialism. At some way, at some point, sort of electorally driven, democratic socialism requires the consent of the elites not to merely be diminished in their wealth and influence, but to stop being elites entirely.

And I question whether or not this is possible.

And therefore, we will be stuck in a rotation of improve and worsen as the elites sort of loosen and tighten their grip as we get sort of new deals and then welfare reform.

As we get sort of like a glass stegle and then Dodd-Frank and sort of rolls back of protections.

And rather than having their sort of metaphorical hands removed, not literal.

I mean, liberal political ontology, in ontology, again, if you don't know,

...