@@harmoncrowe1612 I speak against the algorithm and it doesn’t like it very much.

Not alone. And this does not make fascism a good thing.

@@VladBunea I am saying Socialism must once again defeat fascism. None of this liberal attempting to "democratise" or institute "fairness" will stop fascism. Especially in the 21st century, capitalism's hold on the general psyche makes anything else unimaginable.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory It is very interesting to see how SDT links to limitariansm (the philosophy of having a maximum limit on wealth, say at $10 million). I'll look into it. Thank you!

@VladBunea I'm glad you find it promising, thanks for the reply 😊 my top recommended book is Free to Learn by Dr. Peter Gray- it demonstrates the childhood need for free play (the childhood expression of autonomy towards self determination) and how this differs from schooling. The latter was developed in authoritarian ways and has some features that could lead to fascism. "Democratic schools" is the commonly used term for educational groups forming around families/ kids that want to promote authentic self determination. This is basically my life's mission and I am building a nature- integrated community with my friends & family for this purpose. If you can see how this way of living leads to human thriving and discovery of truth and meaning, and is in fact spiritual for most people, then it will be quite easy to get people on board across vast political differences.

Have you seen this book about degrowth communism? www.cambridge.org/core/books/marx-in-the-anthropocene/D58765916F0CB624FCCBB61F50879376#

@ yep. I and many other orthodox Marxists disagree with Saito’s interpretation of Marx. “Degrowth communism” is fundamentally Malthusian and reactionary and isn’t in the interest of the working class. Imperialism is the system the ruling class uses to “degrow” or exploit and under develop the global south and the working class of the imperial core. I see Saito’s work as the newest round of revisionism that ultimately maintains imperialist power and benefits the ruling class, much as the Frankfurt school did in the past with sectarian distraction and gobbledygook. Communism should be a doctrine of wealth and abundance for all, and a worker’s state will always have to struggle to overcome the contradictions of the way our labor transforms nature.

I read all Saito's books in English and I disagree they are Malthusian and revisionist. If anything, his version of degrowth is fiercely anti-imperlist and pro-democratic. Monthly Review also supports degrowth, and many other Marxists I know.

@@VladBunea Yes, it is unfortunate MR has accpeted degrowth. It is Malthusian in practice, not in content. It is compatible with the capitalist environmentalist degrowth agenda. It reinforces the lie that socialism will be make everyone poor.

I am glad you enjoyed it, I think this is a vital topic to be talking about now more than ever.

There are many kinds of democracies. Electoral democracy has largely failed us. I advocate for the abolition of elections and the transition to sortition (legislature by lot).

@VladBunea as a traditionalist I see value in this, it is essentially a legislative jury

Indeed! I wrote about it here: vladbunea.substack.com/p/against-elections-fix-democracy-with

@VladBunea thanks for sharing. Your proposal is too artificial and has too many parts. The salaried jury concept is great, but unless you give that jury direct power, they will atrophy. Of course, like all political forces, democracy needs to be balanced. I would suggest a monarchical executive accountable to a supreme jury, and for this to be replicated at all levels of government.

I'm afraid models that include unelected representatives (such as monarchies) are profoundly anti-democratic. Some argue for a mix of elections and sortition. See the book Legislature by Lot.

If we don't change, humanity is doomed. If you can't see that you are delusional.

Anti-fascist rant, to be more specific.

Imagine focusing on substance, and not form like a child.

@tomislavpuklin1676 imagine the moron who cannot parse a two-word sentence.

@@VladBunea Promoting communism.

Citizen assemblies are part of the answer to the "how do we get there" question.

@@VladBunea Sure, but there are many parameters to sort out such as how they're constituted, terms of reference, powers etc. that would need to be agreed before they could even start functioning. Perhaps the most pressing problem we have right now as a collection of global societies is how much disagreement and social discord there is. Ironically much of that is down to social media imo.

Since 2010, over 250 citizens’ assemblies have taken place in the 38 nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) alone, with a large proportion of them focused on environmental themes. So, they are already happening. We just need more of them and make their decisions obligatory for governments. (See chapter 6 in History for Tomorrow by Roman Krznaric).

@@VladBunea It's encouraging to see such developments, but the hard part's going to be making their decisions binding on governments. We live in hope!

While I may be mistaken, the concept of "degrowth" is not about opposing all forms of growth, but about kicking the addiction to growth for growth's sake.

@@3dartxsi I hadn't considered that, that makes more sense. No one bothered explaining it as such, though.

@@aluisious frankly, we've all been so thoroughly conditioned to think of the current way of doing things as the ONLY way to do things, that any terminology that suggests anything more than the most incremental of changes to the system is met with a reflexively hostile reaction. "Defund the Police" is an excellent example. It really means "reduce police funding and divert those funds to more effective social programs in order to reduce crime" but because we've all been conditioned to see the current way of doing law enforcement in very rigid terms, most everyone thinks it means "nobody enforces the law ever again" even though there is no justification for such a belief.

@@aluisious Nate Hagens calls a broader idea around this "The Great Simplification" and I think it's an excellent descriptor. Check out the documentary, it's incredible.

I follow Nate Hagens. Unfortunately he rejects degrowth on the grounds that it would not be adopted voluntarily. But, his so called Great Simplification is actually a version of degrowth, but unplanned and by some sort of crisis or disaster. I still hope and think we can have a planned, orderly, fair, just degrowth via citizen assemblies.

It's a lot of words to summarize a reductive take on technology that boils down to being a Luddite.. Like, how in all that analysis can you unceremoniously end with a world philosophy as simplistic as 'all organisms utilize their technologies to increase their power' like that doesn't sound like a tween fiction novel. It's not really true with any scrutiny either, it's as easy to falsify as grabbing any example of any technology not being used for power or exploitation at any time There isn't some arbitrary rule demanding that any technology discovered must be used exploitatively, there are significantly more fitting and well suited explanations for why we see the things we do in history

@@jacobpadilla9256 BTW: I really don't mind too much being called a Luddite, but I'm not saying that I am. You leaped to that conclusion without really understanding that my concern is with ongoing tech "progress" and with many techs that we should actually not even have developed...See Bostrom's "Vulnerable World Hypothesis" and have you ever read Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle"? I guess I'm an "enoughist" on tech...OK to continue refining-improving some of our existing tech, but not OK to keep going down the path of "progress" and we'd be much better off to simply forget about and put a moratorium on a number of techs we now have. Another thing we need to understand is how we are already so trapped by our tech...Ronald Wright's "progress trap" concept. As it is now, with economic growth as our basic life-form prime directive, i.e. increasing our power as energy&material throughput per capita X population, we are trapped into continuing with tech "progress" and so that's why degrowth will necessarily involve ending tech "progress".

@@Avianthro I've heard of the concepts, is it genuinely necessary for a specific book to be read fully for the concept to have any grounding in reality? Like, I have plenty of history knowledge to work with, is it really not possible to communicate why they would believe this to be universal.. The premise that all living organisms have a prime directive to economic growth is laughably falsifiable unless you redefine terms so heavily that it's useless, I'm not sure how a book about it changes that. If that is a genuine postulate, it doesn't sound that credible. Our economic arrangements are not hard natural rules, they're the results of complicated interplays between many people and systems. The ways people organize change drastically in response to past situations. A fixation on growth or expansion with technology is not universally present in history or even in all humans today. Youve assigned universality to a concept that is fully optional. Social or economic conditions that feel difficult to change being deemed inevitable is hard to take seriously. Luddite isn't meant pejoratively here, but you not technically being one frankly isn't even true, I doubt most people who consider themselves luddites want every technology removed, it's all pick and choose. The ridiculous thing is that it is so not necessary to remove technology to make changes to our uses of them. Technology being demonized as a whole because of extremely irresponsible handling and inequitable distribution of gains is irresponsible in itself imo

@@jacobpadilla9256 Well, someday I hope you will do some more reading and thinking, and actually make an effort to digest what I have tried to pass along to you, but it seems you already have everything figured out on your own. Good luck!

@@jacobpadilla9256 Funny thing too is that you have simply proven my case that citizens assemblies would never reach universal agreement to abandon "progress". Thinking like yours always comes up saying that new technology can be controlled, used only for the good to benefit humanity, and then you leap to the conclusion that people who warn as I do are anti-technological Luddites, that we demonize technology as a whole. It should be clear to anyone who reads carefully, that's not what I wrote. Therefore, what's ridiculous and laughable is your total lack of rigor in interpreting my comments and in dismissively refraining from any deeper thought on these matters...""I've heard of the concepts." Well, that's impressive...LOL. You don't even seem to have taken the time to try to understand my comments let alone to really dive into this area of thought...Sad!

_"Democracy is a form of fascism."_ *Except Fascism was an ideology, which opposed Democracy.*

_"Capitalism exists because of democracy."_ *Well not exactly. As you already pointed out, democracy is a tyranny by the majority... and if the majority would want socialism for example, then Capitalism would go bye bye.*

My desire would be to see citizen assemblies get started immediately to work on these policies. However, I suspect a massive crisis (bigger than Covid) might have to happen first to force governments to accept these policies.

That's not the socialist way haha

Why is providing value linked to wealth? I provide value with my educational videos but I never expect to get rich from it.

@VladBunea it's pretty basic.... if I spend a year growing crops, while you sit around (doing nothing and expecting a hand out)..... people are going to want my crops more, they won't want the nothing you've produced.... therefore, what I've provided is of more value than the nothing you've provided.

Rubbiah is a healthy fruit from the jungles of Costa Rica, known to many socialists. Highly recommended!

@VladBunea rubbish*

Exactly. This video is a total load of socialist bullsh!t

@jaymarshall116 exactly. It costs a fortune to have employees, not just their wages, and we take all of the risk, not them.

@jaymarshall116 You are describing the typical capitalist firm. Can you take a moment to answer all 11 questions I posed in the video? Please also consider these questions: Do you have the consent from all your employees for how much you pay yourself? Can your employees vote on how much everyone should get paid, how is profit distributed, how much you produce, the prices of your products, the amount of time off? Can the employees hire and fire their managers? I question the proportional link between property and power (see here vladbunea.substack.com/p/the-3-fold-definition-of-capitalism) I think it is immoral for a business owner to have all the power in the company just because he/she owns all the shares. In fact the principle one share = one vote may be legal, but it is immoral. I suggest a system of one employee = one vote in the governance of companies. I also reject strongly the idea that a CEO helps more people than a nurse. A CEO is only one human, just like a nurse. A CEO's work would have ZERO results if it weren't for the many employees who did the actual work and executed his orders. A CEO is like a feudal king. His power cannot be taken away by people below him. It is important not to confuse power with merit, and power with hard work. Just because a CEO has more power it does not mean she/he works "harder" than a regular worker, doesn't mean she/he deserves to be compensated 10x, 100x, or 1000x more than the worker. A CEO and a business owner does NOT "provide more" to society than a simple worker. They just have more power, that's it. The employees provide, actually, by producing the stuff and services. I advocate for economic democracy, where power and rewards are fairly distributed, where everyone has the ability to consent to how the places where they work should be organized. Please also consider reading the books I mentioned and also Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns, and The Road To Freedom, Economics and the Good Society by Joseph E. Stiglitz which I will discuss in an upcoming video.

No I do not consult my employees how much I am allowed to pay myself, I get what's left over from the quality of the decisions I make. No, my employees can not vote on how much everyone can get paid, this would mean that they are equal partners in the business which they are not. They do not have a say in how the profit is distributed, if they did, it would mean that thier full time job would have to be in market analysis and business development which they are not trained for and thus the value of thier opinions would be limited. No, our customers dictate the price of our service, if we perform better we get better prices and the staff earn more bonuses. No, customers also dictate the amount of time off, customers will not pay me and thus I cannot pay our staff if the job is not done. The job needs to be coordinated between our business and the client, the client dictates. I work for my clients, my staff work for me. I would happily have my staff as active partners in my business if they also take an equal share in the risk. They did not have to sell thier homes for the seed money to start the business. Nor do they have the 100's of thousands of pounds of debt that I carry as the business owner. I just can't see how it's fair that I carry all the burden of 18 hour days for the first 5 years, the dis comfort of living in the unit for those years showering at the local recreation centre and eating microwave meals, then carry all the debt, while allowing people that are not specifically trained to make decision's in my business that if they turn out to be wrong, I loose everything, while they just move on to a new job. I do think that the capitalist monster has its issues, but what the books you have mentioned and the solutions in your video are not the answer. As I said previously, ethical Capitoism, rules under which companies can grow thrive and employ while showing due respect to the environment and those that share it. I take your point that I could not serve as many clients as I do without my staff. They in turn only have the option to serve because I have risked everything I own and still do to provide an infrastructure to facilitate this. The largest companies do the same. The head of British gas, goes to bed every night knowing that if he messes up, 40 million people in the UK have no power. That's alot of responsibility and trust me you don't want a minimum wage worker with that kind of responsibility. I don't know the guy but he deserves all he gets. Can I say this is a great conversation though and not one I can have with most socialists.

@@jaymarshall116 well said. All of this is something that victim mindset socialists will not be able to understand. Your risk provides opportunities for others and you deserve to look after yourself after all of your exhaustive efforts. Example: Why would a doctor study 7+ years if the janitor at the hospital earns the same straight away? They wouldn't.

What's your source for that number? I quoted mine.

Wait a bit longer. They'll come. Everybody is curious.

@@rickghaly Thank you! I will try! ⚡️

@@rickghaly what hex triplets would you recommend?

Pretty bad indeed. Some fool claimed 5M was "pretty much middle class at this point." Considering the Average American has a net worth of $200,000 and 5M is TWENTY times that, the comment is obviously disingenuous. At any rate 5M is so far above what an highly motivated American earns with average success, makes the idea people would loose incentive to better themselves is ridiculous. There was a lot of capitalist spam, you are quite right. Dark hegemonic forces are at work. And class traitors abound.

Yes.

@@mooseymoose if he re uploads to delete all the comments debunking this rubbish way of thinking, I'll just come back and comment it again. Yes share and help others on your own accord, but no forced socialism.

@@mattyb1624 debunking, lol!

The previous version had a sound issue. It is available here kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJKlkoR9ncioa5Y I did not delete it. Also, I never delete any comments. I welcome all criticism and in fact I cannot wait to receive it.

@@PoliticalEconomy101 socialist societies are inherently unjust. The only just society is a free-market capitalist society.

@@titobandito69 I know, right? There should be 400. (sarcasm alert)

I agree.