> You know, you know how communism was supposed to be this nirvana where a central authority would collect all the information and dictate all operations for the good of the people?
Was it? Really? Doesn't sound like a commune to me. Sounds more like Walmart[0]. Marx did not specify a particular planning strategy; in fact, his co-author Engels said that "the time of... small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past."
Peter Kropotkin envisions a decentralized, federated economy of communes. Murray Bookchin advocates for decentralized, directly democratic municipalities that federate and coordinate economic decisions from the bottom up. Rosa Luxemburg--co-founder of the Communist Party of Germany who famously warned "socialism or barbarism"--consistently critiqued centralism, asserting, eg "the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee."
"The essence of socialist society," Luxemburg declares in her 1918 What Does the Spartacus League Want?[1], "consists in the fact that the great laboring mass ceases to be a dominated mass, but rather, makes the entire political and economic life its own life and gives that life a conscious, free, and autonomous direction."
Whether or not that sounds particularly pleasant or effective, it's clearly not a proposal for central-planning.
TBH I don't know where that meme came from, it's something they used to harp on in Yugoslav schools before the breakup. But as a concept it certainly exists and I will beg your forgiveness for mixing it up with the history of socialism ideas salad. The point still doesn't change, can central planning finally succeed with smart enough technology such as new crop of AI seems to be? With fewer greedy/corrupt humans in the loop?
Instead of massive, centralized corporations, consider the highly successful family firms in Emilia-Romagna[0], as a model. These businesses have thrived for generations in a highly competitive global market not through rigid corporate chains of command, but through decentralized networks of mutuality, adaptability, and a highly skilled and committed workforce.
Even massive capitalist firms like Goldman Sachs or Exxon-Mobil essentially operate "communistically" internally to get anything done, ie when someone needs a wrench, a coworker hands it to them without asking what they get in return.
> The net of law is spread so wide, \ No sinner from its sweep may hide. \ Its meshes are so fine and strong, \ They take in every child of wrong. \ O wondrous web of mystery! \ Big fish alone escape from thee!
Some contributed more than others but few of us are entirely innocent since we keep using the products in question and do our part in supporting their business models. We also have failed to change the laws to prevent all of this.
Even if you don't have much power individually, as a society we could stop this any time.
I think it is so funny, albeit frustrating, that prevalent attitudes--both liberal and conservative--consistently lay the blame on the consumer side, and not on the production side.
"Their hands are tied!" I have heard so many moderates assert. "The customers demanded it!"
Yes, fair, maybe it doesn't. But I think several factors do work in favour of the smaller organization in terms of it being a smaller target, having the operation based more on local relationships and trust networks, and being accountable for an overall smaller budget— it's harder to ignore 10k in bribes of if it's only half a million or so per year coming in from the west.
Anyway as I say it's not everything but I thought it seemed relevant to the GP post talking about NGOs and charity efficiency.
Did you forget that Elon literally bought out an entire major international social media platform and fundamentally re-oriented its algorithmic editorial policy? He did a lot more than "ask". He literally took the thing over and personally dictated censorship.
Open air illegal drug use, retail theft and illegal encampments are not their own root cause, and "keeping these repeat criminals in prisons longer" will only worsen the socioeconomic conditions which compel others to engage in this activities.
They called me a schizo in two separate comments and the only thing I did in my original post, was point out that his name was Altman which could be interpreted as alternate man. I never claimed that it was the etymological root of his name - the folks making the replies got upset for whatever reason and inferred that.
Pointing things out that I find interesting to potential readers of my comment, doesn't necessarily muddle my argument. If I had said that alternate man was the origin of his last name, you or the other commenters might have a valid point, but I never did that.
If someone is going to make broad assumptions about me and resort to infantile name calling in an attempt to demean me, I have no problem making broad assumptions about them in turn.
Going forward, I'll consider using the term "apophenic", instead of "schizoid", but my point remains the same—you are burying the lede, re: very real, dangerous ideologies of Yarvin et al. with unserious associations like "alternate man", and even the bizarre, esoteric epithet "Luciferian."
Luciferian is not an esoteric epithet. The UN is and was advised by Alice Bailey and the Lucis trust she created, which used to be called the Lucifer trust. You're simply displaying your ignorance and on top of it, acting like a complete asshole, because of your fragile ego and worldview. That's par for the course on this website though.
If the UN is actively being advised by self-described Luciferians / theosophists, do you think it's impossible that there are other Luciferians in powerful positions around the world? It's definitely possible and not only is it possible, it's the truth, whether you want to admit it or not. Clearly you don't read what these people write, or know the history and associations of the people you talk about. You're a know-it-all that knows nothing.
Was it? Really? Doesn't sound like a commune to me. Sounds more like Walmart[0]. Marx did not specify a particular planning strategy; in fact, his co-author Engels said that "the time of... small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past."
Peter Kropotkin envisions a decentralized, federated economy of communes. Murray Bookchin advocates for decentralized, directly democratic municipalities that federate and coordinate economic decisions from the bottom up. Rosa Luxemburg--co-founder of the Communist Party of Germany who famously warned "socialism or barbarism"--consistently critiqued centralism, asserting, eg "the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee."
"The essence of socialist society," Luxemburg declares in her 1918 What Does the Spartacus League Want?[1], "consists in the fact that the great laboring mass ceases to be a dominated mass, but rather, makes the entire political and economic life its own life and gives that life a conscious, free, and autonomous direction."
Whether or not that sounds particularly pleasant or effective, it's clearly not a proposal for central-planning.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Republic_of_Wal... 1. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm
reply