I will say Varoufakis is at least listenable. I cannot listen to Zizek for more than a minute because he's really self important, and the guy really needs a tissue to blow his nose with.
My personal favorite is Chomsky though. Not politically, just that I like listening to him. I know he's slow foe a lot of people but idk I'm fine with it
"So, just as the Soviet Union generated one kind of feudalism in the name of socialism and human emancipation, today, Silicon Valley is generating another kind of feudalism — technofeudalism, I have called it — in the name of capitalism and free markets."
Alright this logic has clearly gone off the deepend.
I think is issue is a market first analysis of society. And some if this stuff is critique of the Gotha Programme level stuff. I.e, he describes Amazon as a feudal fief because they control the market place through which other Bourgeois producers sell their products. This really bugs me because in his book he has this really long and winding explanation to why he calls technofeudalism feudalism and not capitalism. He goes on and on about "oh well if you would have looked at society in the 1800s then you would've called it "market feudalism" instead if capitalism." But he's literally the one doing that. I mean, from Marx himself, "In England, the capitalist class is usually not even the owner of the land on which his factory stands." I get it's not a 1-1 example but I feel like it's apt. What's even more apt is a quick explanation of how marxist economic analysis actually works by an economist with more than two braincells, Cheng Enfu.
"these ownership forms, under the definite and distinct conditions of Chinese society, are not necessarily the same as their formally identical equivalents in Western society, in exactly the same way that land ownership in 18th-century England, though formally the same as that prevailing in the French ancien régime of the same date, had already assumed capitalist characteristics far removed from those swept away in the revolution of 1789." [Edit: -Cheng Enfu, the creation of value by living labor]
So I really don't understand how Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. Have "technofeudal" characteristics, outside of just focusing on rent. Which was already a big part of society. I mean, why not call banks a "money rent." If I can extend it, banks don't provide a service or good, they simply rent out money for a fee. Considering that basically every big company has needed to get loans and pay a money rent, presumably we have been living in Banker-feudalism forever.
I'm 2/3rds of the way through the book rn. Maybe he answers more questions, and I'll make a post if he becomes more coherent, but I think it's telling that he has talked more about Adam Smith's vision rather than Marx's.
I think the ACP targets people who want to... feel better about themselves, for lack of a better description. This isn't some denunciation, but just an observation.
There's a psychological thing I've started to notice, that humans wish to abdicate themselves of responsibility wherever possible. I'm unsure if this is a result of capitalism or just a general psychological quirk, but it is where a lot of failures to act and failures to think come from.
When I converted, I was a very Patriotic social democrat. Like full on Harry Truman doctrine and "speak softly and carry a big stick" level. I even made a post on r/asksocialists asking how to reconcile my patriotism with my [newfound] socialism. I did get a lot of good answers [and a few bad ones], but the thing I discovered about myself is that I was trying to get away from critically examining things. I definitely still do this in certain areas [even when I try not to] so I'm not judging anyone. My point is that I was acting out of discomfort.
I think people following the ACP most likely have some combination of beliefs or emotional reasons that make them suseptible.
1.A wish to keep the heros they used to have.
This was mine, and while I still have heros and people I idolize [although not to the same degree and definitely try to not let it influence my actual decision making], they aren't the Washingtons and Bismarks and such that I used to have.
3.A wish to be different
4.Communist autophobia
[This one I haven't confirmed personally, but I think part of it might be that they have always been told "communists are soy woke people who hate people for being white and just want to write yaoi in their commune all day" by the internet and such. But since they can't deny that the economic aspect of Marxism is right, they inherit this phobia into their own worldview in order to feel better about going against themselves.]
5."Reactionary" philosophy
[What I mean by this is not reactionary in the political sense. Not that they aren't also often reactionary, but that pat-socs look at the soviet union and such similar to how Maoists look at pre 76 China. They simply wish for a 1-1 return to the past, and that every policy Stalin and the CPSU had at the time is the exact same policy we should have now. It's a reaction to the present, rather than an analysis of it].
So I think when looking at ways to stem the ACP's influence, we should start here. There are the issues with petite bourgeois membership and such, but specifically the people we should be trying to reach probably already have the material conditions necessary to want to be a communist [besides those who are just edgy and wanna be nazbols cause they saw it in a hoi4 mod or something]
I think, materially speaking, the key things would be
1.Dont let the ACP lead or present their qualifications unchallenged. The ACP does like presenting their mutual aid stuff, so counter by actually investigating their mutual aid [not in person, that's not necessary i dont think.] and seeing if what they say is true, or helpful. If they're lying, spread the word. If they're not lying, then we should lead where applicable. Obviously parties shouldn't do this uncritically [probably better to stay at home and actually work on things rather than have your leaders gallivanting around the world], but communists don't tail, and leading has, historically, had the best results for hopes of victory.
2.This is cliche, but getting organized. The ACP does mostly operate through the internet, and that's a problem, but they shouldn't be able to do real, lasting damage through it. So organizing those most likely to join the ACP will help nip off their bud. Additionally, actually showing material action puts your ideology on the same playing feild in terms of concrete actions, which then leaves ideology.
3.Educate. I know this is also cliche, but being accommodating, helpful and educating people will help nip the ideological buds. Additionally, helping people think critically will [hopefully] help them not follow a guy who says gamers should be sent to prison and homeless people are the ruling class of America.
Online, the best way is to curate the space and have disipline, as with any revisionism.
Right now I am more worried about social democrats like Mamdani than I am the ACP. But the playbook is, IMO, the same. Educate, organize, criticize, and offer an alternative.
Please feel free to ask for more clarification, I would write more in depth but I am short on time right now. I hope this was at least somewhat helpful for your question, I know its not a perfect one.
Mmm, I don't know.
The general definition of the word I'm attempting to use is just "thing everyone accepts as true despite it not being proved in the setting" or "thing accepted as true without analysis."
For example, a left-com channel I had the unfortunate experience watching [redrose media] did this too. He took a very long time essentially drowning you in quotes from Lenin and Marx and such, but then at the end denounced AES states and "stalinism." But in a very handwavy fashion. "Vietnam has Mcdonalds," "China is focussed on getting rich," or whatever. The video never stopped to explain anything, just that its, apparently, so obviously true that it didn't need explaining, despite the fact that there verily is an explanation needed.
We can agree on the Venezuala issue while still vehemently arguing against him and the ACP. The issue is not Americans as a whole [currently], but those who are class conscious. The ACP represents similar threats that Mamdami and the social democrats to, just in a different form. That being that they will take class consciousness and drain it, and leave those who need leaders either leaderless and dissolutioned or mindless, unconcious thralls who regurgite the "logic" of the revisionists
It's completely anti-historical materialist. It ignores the material and historical reasoning behind policy and engages in idealism, saying that x or y ideology is "authoritarian." It also inherently implies that there is a moral/ideological problem with authority. If I can repeat a sentiment from my namesake, there must be a tyranny of the revolution to preserve it.
I'd argue that bubbles are specific events causing a bust cycle [panic of 1819, crash of 1929, etc] of large proportions. Bust cycles are natural, but bubbles and depression/great recessions usually only happen once in a while
Gee I wonder if the post in the community titled "memes" is possibly a joke
I wasn't saying it had to be, just that it's not as strong as major powers like China and [to my knowledge] not as all encompassing or experienced as the KPA or Russian armed forces
The thing is that Venezuala has a functional and modern military. It's not the best fighting force in the world, but it's not Iraq or Syria. Plus the recent activation of people's militias and it's certainly not going to go well. Along with the ammunition shortage from supplying Israel and Ukraine
I guess they'll just try to occupy the coast and go from there? Or maybe they thought they'd just intimidate Maduro into doing something and now they're essentially playing a game of chicken against a wall. Idk
Luckily I haven't actually seen one in a while. Mostly Maoists and Leftcoms nowadays, and they're at least...somewhat coherent sometimes
I'll educate myself soon. Been a bit busy but that textbook Luna Oi translated should help
That's an issue I have too. Algorithms don't just spawn out of nowhere. It's takes both education and, yknow, labor to actually design and code these Algorithms. That's also not mentioning the IT infrastructure that is maintained, which itself needs resources usually mined by the global south.
And Algorithms also exist outside of computers, at least what we call Algorithms do. Sure there's not computer code, but there's psychological and social Algorithms. For example, how Casinos and box stores are constructed to make people lose track of time. How slot machines and such have this and that odds of paying out to entice people while still making a profit. Sure it's maybe more prominent nowadays but it's not mystical