I think radlib journalism about the 2008 crash could be a gateway to disillusioned stock market bettors

Matt Taibbi - Griftopia

Robert Scheer - The Great American Stickup

also these:

Naomi Klein - Shock doctrine

Michael Hudson - Killing the Host

I started watching Spycraft thinking it would be mostly about the CRAFT part, and it's not completely uninteresting

but at one point they started talking about Snowden - they mentioned his name, it was like 5 seconds - and immediately after that they started talking about CHINA BAD, social credit, 1984

Someone who was in a coma for the past 20 years watched this would think that Snowdens whistleblowing was about China somehow

It was a rough translation, he literally said "NO ONE would innovate without patents! Would you spend money on research without hoping to get money out of it?"

It was literal ancap screed, but the che profile pic threw me off

It is very rare that I write comments on youtube, but under a vaccine video I decided to comment that they should abolish the patents for the vaccines, so it would be much-much easier to produce and distribute

AND a dude with a Che Guevara profile pic replied to me that no company would innovate without patents and profits

WUT :che-poggers:

Comrades, listen to the Yeltsin episodes of The War Nerd podcast, they are excellent.

To understand the western libs love affair with Navalny, you need to understand what Yeltsin did. Shitlibs want a sober Yeltsin (= Navalny)... and the drinking was the least of the problems with Yeltsin.

Citations needed had a pretty good episode about this stuff

I will grant them a couple of things

Sinek IS a marketing guru, considering he was very successful at selling this bullshit

Apple is brilliant at marketing, considering they managed to position themselves as leading innovators even though 3 core technologies of the smartphone are state inventions (Internet, GPS, touchscreen)

For reasons I'm not gonna get into, I tried to watch a few TED Talks by renowned marketing gurus... and... by gawd how can people believe in this crock of shit?

He starts out by comparing MLK to Apple, which is already deeply disrespectful, and then he says shit like this:

The WHY of Apple is not "to make a profit". That's just the result. Their WHY is challenging the status quo

at this point I ragequit , either he's a complete idiot or a cynical liar... it's incredible really

I know I'm preaching to the choir here

Someone should tell him about Hilde Benjamin

Edit: oof just checked Hilde's English wikipedia page:

presided over a series of show trials against those identified as political undesirables, such as Johann Burianek and Wolfgang Kaiser

Is it really show trial when they were actual reactionary/ex-nazi CIA-backed insurgents?

It's anticommunist in its origins, but

Total resistance

and

Victory Has a Thousand Fathers: Sources of Success in Counterinsurgency

The Green Book (IRA)

Imagine Trump shelling the capitol like Yeltsin in '93
(except the protestors then were on the side of the parliament, but Yeltsin was backed by the US)

It's actually a good reminder that being educated in radical matters is horseshit in itself without some kind of praxis (cue Kamala's dad and Buttigieg Sr...)

I'm sure they have a doodle on a napkin somewhere

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate

It seems to me you are a purist when it comes to communism

I am talking about actually existing socialism, and a socialism that could possibly exist in this century

We won't have a money-less society unless the whole world goes communist, and we won't have a money-less society unless we have a stateless society - and that's not gonna happen overnight

Therefore we must have a transitionary stage - this could be short in an historical sense, but still could last a lifetime

In the scenario I propose (and I don't think I'm original) there would be Dictatorship of the Proletariat, there would be no patents, and no individuals controlling large companies, no private ownership of land - even this would be completely unrecognizable compared to today's economy

So my main point is that we cannot possibly abandon money and markets during the first decades (or maybe centuries?) of a newly formed socialist country. And in that case in a few sectors, something that's kinda like market socialism is preferable to central planning, because it could eliminate the problems in OPs post

Imagine that India or South Africa goes communist next week. They invite you as an economic adviser, then you say to them that they "need to abandon money for labor tokens ASAP ".

But what does ASAP means in this case? Days? Months? Years? Decades? Until then what?

Surely you wouldn't say Fidel, Mao and Uncle Ho should have read more Paul Cockshott on account they haven't abandoned money altogether?

But maybe I'm missing something, I probably should reread some stuff, so I will go do that. We must stamp out revisionism even in ourselves haha

And Paul Cockshott looks interesting (Cybersyn is cool)

I'm out of coffee

:deng-cowboy:

It's only for some sectors, like manufacturing household appliances or deodorants or selling shoes etc. And the why is in the OP 1 to 8

But hey if you can explain to me plainly why it's not preferable to have decentralised union-led firms in these sectors as opposed to complete central planning I would be thankful.

Edit: now I see your post

You might not be wrong, but I think that's science fiction territory

Hell, even my post is sci-fi

I just think my scenario is more likely to come to be in my lifetime

I don't think we will have a money-less labor token society in this century

I think you are right, and maybe this is just a misunderstanding.

If we'd have workplace democracy and no IPs (everything is open source), this would be such a fundamental change compared to what we have now, we might not recognize it as a "market".

TBH honest I only used "market socialism" because I thought it would save time... but maybe I was mistaken

that was the joke i was trying to make

except i didn't say everything should be coops competing on the markets

democratic centralism and five year plans for the commanding heights of the economy - no markets (especially no financial markets)

independent union controlled economy (with no patents and copyrights whatsoever) for other less strategic sectors

The point I was trying to make, maybe poorly, is that we absolutely need strict central planning for some sectors, while other sectors would probably benefit from having independent decentralised unions.

This may be useful as a transition step towards socialism

so we agree :)

This all just shooting shit sadly, for the next decade the best we can do is to fight the rising fascism in the west

You cannot step in the same river twice. This is the age of the internet. A planned economy would look completely different.

I think the best route is a MIXED economy.

A mix between central planning and market socialism.

Centrally designed five year plans for strategic sectors like energy, infrastructure, banking, and housing. "Syndicalist" co-ops for other sectors.

And let's face it: reactionaries are controlling the anti-elitist narrative again

"behind every fascism, there is a failed revolution"