I'm about as far left as you can be, as a syndicalist anarchist, and I definitely perceived a bit of what you described. But I'm not super worried about it because he didn't say "the left", but rather a specific lefty position.
But also, the left isn't uniform on housing policy. Some folks want anti trust and limited capital ownership. Some folks want to de commodify housing. Some folks want all housing to be government built and owned. The left is a very diverse place (and the joke is no one hates leftists more than other leftists).
The people the article quoted as "left" like Stoller are really not left, and the whole anti-left felt more like a unnecessary strawman label and definite turn off for me reading it. I would characterize Stoller as an independent anti-monopolist - not really on the right or left spectrum at all politically. Unless the right is now pro-monopoly.
He’s specifically talking about Zephyr Teachout. Her work is specifically in anti-monopoly stuff.
I'm confused, that name does not seem to occur in the article. Are you talking about some other context
Zephyr Teachout wrote an early article critiquing Abundance, the book by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. She appeared on Ezra's podcast and (IMHO) did not appear to have thought very deeply about the problem of housing affordability; instead defaulting to "monopoly in housing construction" as the problem. Stoller and Musharbash are re-iterating the position that had been staked out by Zephyr Teachout in March.
> Let’s assume that reforming rules on setbacks, parking, single-family zoning, and local input would achieve what they desire (the evidence is not straightforward; cities that have these reforms have lower costs, but they are rising at the same rate as in other cities). It would still seem relatively small-bore as a novel solution: Half of the 10 biggest cities in America—many in Texas—already have a zoning and procedural regime fairly close to what Klein and Thompson want. Are they simply arguing that Dems embracing Texas zoning approaches would transform national politics? That can’t be it.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-amb...
Much of the criticism of Abundance from prominent pundits on The Left (including Teachout and Nathan Robinson) has been along the lines of "the actual problem is corporate monopoly" rather than zoning. (Or maybe: "zoning is an easy problem to fix and a distraction from the real problem of corporate monopoly".)
Yes, Teachout is one of the most prominent anti-monopoly advocates (along with Tim Wu). She wrote one of the first critical reviews of Abundance. She was then invited onto Klein's show to discuss the topic candidly with critics. Her positions are not "her's" but of a large section of the left who wants to blame the housing crisis on corporations rather than on cartel-like supply effects pushed by homeowner groups.
Her review: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-amb...
Discussion with Teachout: https://youtu.be/Ib1wzwbL7Is
Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?
Presumably because anti monopoly right is much less common? Or because the anti monopoly right is concerned with different aspects of monopoly?
If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.
> If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.
So consider several perspectives:
a. The government should be in charge of, or at least heavily involved in, planning and organizing most resources in a country.
b. The market is a good way of solving most problems, and it works best if you just leave it alone, enforcing only very minimal rules (like property ownership, contracts, and such).
c. The market can be a good way of solving many problems, if it's regulated so that it has the properties you want.
Now consider other questions: Should abortion or pornography be legal / easily available? Should we invest in a large military? Should the government actively support "diversity" programs? Should gay marriage be allowed? How should the government relate to transgender people?
There are LOTS of people who believe in c as a principle, but have very non-"lefty" opinions on the other questions. Loads of people who consider themselves "on the right" think that everyone "on the left" actually believes a, not c; and loads of people who consider themselves "on the left" think that everyone "on the right" actually believes b, not c.
My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims.
>My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right"
If so he has sorely missed the mark. I pretty heavily associate the phrasing "the $X left" with disengenuous right wing pundits. Knowing nothing else about the author, seeing that pop up repeatedly doesn't merely suggest that he's on the "right", but that he's writing the piece with a politically motivated axe to grind.
> My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims.
This is a tad naive I think. "antitrust left" is also to useful term to use to signal to the billionaire class of Democratic party that you are not their enemy. If the author actually agreed with many of the antitrust group's positions and housing policy was one of the few exceptions they disagreed on, they would shy away from using the term. The only reason you would use that term is because you want to bring disrepute to their entire platform.
These abundance folks appear to be the only hope the billionaire Democrats have after having sunk so low as to direct their media assets to support Cuomo and to pour bucketloads money into the coffers of the corrupt disgraced governor in order prevent those "wacky socialists" to gain any more traction.
Since the authors are arguing for removing a lot of current housing regulation, I have a hard time seeing how "the billionaire class of the Democratic Party" would consider them their enemy -- unless, of course they're mistaken for people in class b.
>Since the authors are arguing for removing a lot of current housing regulation
Human beings like to know if the person they're reading is on their side before they take the time to read a long ass article to make sure they are in fact on their side, especially if they're billionaires and think they don't have the time to read long ass articles about housing policy unless they think it's going to an extremely useful to them beforehand. That's the whole point of giving that signal literally in the intro paragraph.
Tbh classification that makes most sense is wealth level.
Ultra rich and very rich and rich and upper middle class and ..
Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions and view of an ideal society will also diverge significantly?
---
Also, it should be noted that we lack sufficiently concise but specific terms to use instead, and because alternative terms that are used are relative, and open to interpretation.
e.g.:
Many political commentators currently use the term "populist" to describe someone who's somewhat divergent from the capitalist political mainstream (and in US terms, I'd include the current Democrat establishment and traditional non-MAGA Republicans in this group). But when the term is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
> Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions...?
Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different? I mean, naturally some "left anti-monopolist" people might be in favor of governments taking over industries, but presumably that's not what most of the people in question are advocating at the moment.
> But when the term [populist] is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues: they're saying "We're going to achieve X", when in fact X is simply not possible given the current state of play (or perhaps, not possible without significant negative consequences, like erosion of human rights or setting up an economic or ecological disaster further down the road).
Boris Johnson's promise to conservatives that they'd be able to "make a deal" which allowed them to trade freely with Europe while not accepting immigrants from Europe was just a fantasy. A lot of populist "progressive" politicians make similar kinds of promises.
> I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues...
...which itself is nosensical as a generic label, without considering policies individually.
Virtually all politicians say things to help them get elected which are somewhere on a spectrum from 'a vision for the future that is unlikely to be delivered' to 'outright lie'. Of course, on the one hand, we want leaders with a positive vision for the future, which means speaking about possibilities which aren't yet realised, but when even leaders as sensible/stodgy as Starmer/Reeves are doing it ("it's all about growth"... then deliver virtually no policies to meaningfully drive growth) you can see where the growing mistrust of politicians comes from.
I'd characterise "populist" more as "willing to challenge the status quo" - where the status quo in this case is boring centerist politics that rarely/never delivers exciting or meaningful change, is more or less (depending on the country) in the pocket of big business and donors, and which has overseen a progressive worsening of financial inequality and funadamental justice over decades. Which is why the establishment are threatened and use "populist" as an insult, while "populists" are growing their support, be they on the left or right - because people are crying out for something different, even if it comes with potential downsides.
>Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different?
Regulating monopolies out of existence vs deregulating them out of existence.
Both approaches have obvious situations they fail in that their peddlers are careful to frame the discussion to avoid.
Right anti-monopolistic policy: tariffs
Left anti-monopolistic policy: destroy Musk via the press/court system.
It can just be an empirical question, right?