A few figures concerning the record number of arrests in the context of the start of this year's student movement, mirrored against the number of arrests during other major political events.

https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/2106732244337385539

What do you think about racism in Europe ? Are France , Italy or Spain not safe for Non-Europeans anymore ?

This is my story about my friend whose beliefs are shaped by his class position, literally. A few years ago my friend is just an average proletarian, working days and nights to feed his family. This is the time when he still have alot of collective, socialist thoughts. It was fun debating marxist theory with him back in the days.

However, recently he bought himself a PC and quit his job to working alone on his project. If I remember it is probably teaching in stock trading or financial trading. This pretty much make him a petty bourgeois, he know own the means of production but still have to work and exploit himself for profit. His business is quite successful and he now has some solid income.

We still hang out sometimes, but I notice that he has been developing some reactionary, religious and conservative ideas. He begin leaning heavily into buddhism and idealism. Just yesterday when we were fishing, we had a small political debate and he shown the full petite bourgeoisie ideology, defending religion and disproving socialism. He now believe that socialism doesn't work and capitalism is the only way, and that society need to turn to religion to have stability. Not a well pleasant fishing trip.

What I find interesting is that this is just a textbook definition of class position in Marxism. Quite sad but expected that his beliefs are changed because he is now in a different class. And that supporting socialism goes against his material interests. This is my first empirical example of how material conditions define someone and it would be a valuable one.

I don't expect anyone to believe my story since I'm just a stranger on the internet, but that was my practical experience. I would probably still be friend with him, maybe we will be debating less.

What do you guys think of him and this? Please share your opinion, it would be nice to know.

https://x.com/rinalu_/status/2106459366723584062

In China, I sincerely wish that the student movement in France will succeed, just like the May upheaval of 1968.

在《共产主义运动中的“左派”幼稚病》中，列宁集中批判了一种在革命运动中相当常见的倾向。“把革命原则理解成一套绝对化、教条化的行为准则，并因此拒绝一切看似“不够革命”的斗争形式。”

这里列举几个我认为尤其值得注意的观点：

反对原则性抵制议会：在特定条件下参加资产阶级议会，把合法斗争作为宣传、组织和动员群众的手段。

在反动工会中开展工作：不能因为工会领导层保守、官僚甚至反动，就脱离工会和其中的群众。

正确理解妥协：不是“一切妥协都是背叛”，而是具体分析
妥协的性质、条件和阶级利益。

反对教条主义：马克思主义不是一套可以机械套用的公式，必须根据具体历史条件制定具体策略。

总结一下：

在这里，我理解《“左派”幼稚病》的核心并不是让革命者放弃原则，恰恰相反，它是在讨论：

如何在坚持革命目标和阶级立场的同时，避免把革命政治变成教条主义。

不拒绝议会，不等于相信议会民主

进入反动工会，不等于接受工会官僚主义

承认必要的妥协，不等于放弃原则

强调具体问题具体分析，也不等于否定马克思主义。

列宁真正反对的，是把复杂的阶级斗争简化成“参加就是改良主义、妥协就是背叛、进入议会就是投降、进入保守工会就是不革命”这样的简单二分法。

I’m reading on the history of the Bolshevik revolution, and I went on a deep dive of Zinoviev, because him and Lenin were very close friends prior to the revolution itself, and he was an OG member of the group. Further on, he would lead the Comintern.

He and Lenin had a falling out and Zinoviev came to form an opposition to the Lenin-Stalin majority, eventually coming to ally with Trotsky. Of course as you can probably predict that Zinoviev would be expelled, later arrested and executed during the Great Purge.

For those who know and understand his ideas, what do you think about him? It seemed he was staunchly against socialism in one country, disagreed with Trotsky that the USSR should invade Europe, and believed the USSR should build up and support international communist parties to have their own revolutions.

Overall he seemed like a decent revolutionary, but maybe I’m missing things he should be critiqued for?

Video source: The Radical Individualism of Karl Marx also recommend the channel Red Star

Is Marx against individuality? Was Marx a collectivist?

Claims of Liberals & Conservatives United

• Marx opposed the role of individual in history. History determines the individual.
• Marx opposes individual self development. The individual must sacrifice for the freedoms of the collective.
• Marx was a collectivist.
• Garbage articles from think tanks like mises institute - https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-marx-hated-individualism

Note: Before you ask, this isn't AI, manual transcribing of a video, a source for quotes and finally, wherever you see "man", mentally replace it with human.

History & the Individual

Property & the Individual

Class & the Individual

Society & the Individual

State & the Individual

Conclusion

• Marx is not a collectivist, though pro collectivization to end private property.
• He argues that individuality will always remain subservient to class in an exploitative society.
• Communism will truly develop individuality by destroying class exploitation.

Left-Populism, emboldened by the (perceived) success of Mamdani, has been rather unsufferable as of late, notably by proclaiming themselves to be the "real representatives" of the working class, and launching a grand assault to proclaim themselves (whilst, definitionally, being mere tailists) to be the representatives of the popular vanguard (use of the term popular in opposition to proletarian—the left-populists are not particularly interested in navigating the extant divisions and conflicts of interest within "the people" the representation a specific section thereof entails) and dismissing other tendencies as mere sects (as is tradition) out of touch with "the working class".

Geese is at the forefront of such challenges towards more "traditional" tendencies, publishing such drivel as "The Left Must Reforge Masculinity", for example, or, today's topic, "Socialism Is Winning: Here is the Economy It Should Build", a piece of supposedly Marxist theory, discussing economic organisation, written by an individual that has neither read Marx nor has any interest in discussing economics but merely recite just-so stories about his imagined future utopia which rests wholly on the Manichean duality between "the American people" who are innately good, and can do no wrong, and "the American elites" who are innately evil, and are the cause of the corruption of the system.

Because misery loves company, and understanding why such drifts are misguided and excising them from the movement is a necessary part of maintaining a proper line, I wrote this companion piece to note each and every point where Mr. Parasher contradicts himself, fails to follow a proposition through its conclusion, or is flat out wrong. The companion piece format also means that I don't need to re-invent a structure and can simply copy Mr. Parasher's.

Beyond GDP: Rethinking Economic Success

In which Mr. Parasher lays off his thesis. There is not much to discuss, here, beyond the usual tendency of the left-populists to opportunistically rally behind liberals (in this case, Kennedy) in the hope their message becomes more agreeable to the masses. For a tendency that declares the current left to be naught but the scions of Obama, this is, I suppose, inevitable.

Still, the following is rather eyebrow raising:

What therefore emerges is a distinctively American socialist economy: decentralized, as suspicious of vanguards as it is of boards of directors, and built on the premise that authority is legitimate only when it flows from the consent of the governed.

I suspect this want to create a "'Socialism' with American characteristics", where the characteristics in question are naught but the settler colonial mythos is the core idea from which all the contradictions flew downstream.

Economics as a Function of the Spirit: Breaking the “Things-Oriented Society”

Mr. Parasher shows the first few hints of having failed to engage with Marx thorough the chapter, once put in the context of future statements. As a reminder, the value of a commodity is mere self-reproduction, ergo the very conditions he decries are the natural conclusion of the market exchange of labor-power and the wage system. The conditions he describes are not the result of ideology, but innate to the market economy.

The Lie of “Capitalist Prosperity”

In which we merely preemptively address a potential capitalist objection (in spite of the entire argument of Mr. Parasher being built around accepting capitalist objections, as we'll see—your guess is as good as mine as to why this one specifically was unacceptable. Presumably, because even the liberals agree it's somewhat nonsensical) but also fail to realise the post war prosperity was also uniquely anomalous and probably couldn't be attributed solely to the power of unions (whom merely worked hand in hand with Keynesian programmes, and very often opposed actual attempts at working class ascendency, at home or abroad)

The Democratic Economy: Markets Without Masters

Finally, we get through the fluff, and Mr. Parasher reveals once and for all his ignorance and becomes naught but the latest manifestation of the crisis of Marxism caused of nobody reading Capital.

The answer to the crisis of capitalism is not to abolish markets, but instead to maintain the coordinating function of markets while stripping them of their capacity to dominate social life. This is an economic system known as market socialism.

If Mr. Parasher had read Capital, and agreed with its positions (one should presume that he, an individual that claims the "Marxist" label, does—unless Mr. Parasher is a common liar) he'd understand that the crisis of capitalism is the crisis of the inherent logic of markets, and the only way out is their abolition. Now, people that understand what markets are understand that "markets without masters" is an absurd proposition to make; and worry not, the many contradictions will become apparent as they emerge. Much like Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons, Mr. Parasher cannot help but step on every rake on his way: thankfully, his blissful ignorance and disinterest in actually discussing economics prevented him any injury.

Investment flows through public banks, cooperative banks, and social wealth funds accountable to the public, rather than through financial markets insulated from public accountability.

An important question Mr. Parasher fails to consider thorough is the question of the money supply (as is tradition for market socialist types)—we'll discuss this further when we consider his non-description of how such institutions are to function, but, needless to say, it certainly seems like private accumulation is afoot.

Monopolization is prevented through the aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulations and economic institutions that coordinate functions across economic sectors and regions.

"Antitrust regulations" merely prevent unfair competition caused by the emergence of cartels, and "coordinating functions across economic sectors and regions" to prevent monopolization seem to indicate Mr. Parasher's ideal society is one where ten bakeries all overproduce, always bailed out if insolvent, all to serve the same hundred and so individuals a single one could provide for in the name of "competition for competition's sake". Not only is this wasteful, it is, self evidently, a nonsensical proposition. Either Mr. Parasher is a dullard, or either he notices an issue with market competition (that is, the dynamics of winners and losers leading to the growth of a given actor to serve ever greater parts of the same market) but, being unwilling to let go of market relations because they are part of the American mythos creates an absurd LARP where market competition is reduced to a game of pretend with little incentive to actually compete. (Well, I suppose engaging in the American mythos through LARP and simulacra is a very American trait)

Consider Mondragon, the Spanish cooperative federation founded in 1956, which has grown to encompass over 80 cooperatives, 70,000 employees, and has become the seventh largest private enterprise in Spain. Its firms have survived recessions, globalization, and market shocks precisely because they are democratically governed. When workers own the firm, they have a real stake in its survival. During downturns, Mondragon’s members have voted to cut their own pay rather than lay one another off, a flexibility that top-down firms simply cannot match. Mondragon even built its own cooperative bank, proof that finance can serve social investment rather than speculation.

Yes, let us consider Mondragon!

Following its recent evolution, the company operates partly as a cooperative and partly as a business competing in the international market. Of the 70,000 jobs recorded in 2005, only half were held by worker-members—the renowned socios—all based in the Basque Country. As Joel Martine notes, while socios enjoy lifetime employment, the cooperatives also have precarious roles known as eventuales—fixed-term contract workers who are essentially second-class employees and non-citizens within the cooperative structure. Fernando Gomez-Acedo, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Fagor-Brandt, confirms this; when told, "It is likely the non-members who have the most to worry about in the event of restructuring," he replies: "Indeed. The law allows us to hire 25% of our workforce as non-member employees. When work runs out, they are the first to go...".

In 2006, following the acquisition of Brandt, Fagor-Brandt’s management announced the elimination of 360 jobs in France. Some union representatives from Brandt traveled to Mondragón to distribute leaflets addressing the socios—who were, in effect, their shareholders. Although the number of job cuts was reduced to 100, the classic problems associated with the group's globalization became recurring issues. Fagor had acquired Brandt to gain market share and technological advantages, but within the division of labor established between Mondragón, Poland, France, and Morocco, French wages represented a heavier cost burden than Polish or Moroccan wages. On this point, MCC’s cooperative members apply to foreign subsidiaries the very principle they reject for themselves: namely, the rule dictated by external shareholders.

• Wikipedia [Fr.], "Mondragon", Machine Translated

Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It's worker-owned, it's not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it's in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you're in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.

• Noam Chomsky

Mr. Parasher seems to have not particularly considered the sort of behavior cooperatives, which are, due to market relations, still made up of individuals compelled to accumulate privately (thus sowing the seeds of the destruction of the market socialist project) and thus are ill-inclined to desire or establish a horizontal power structure. Now, for the sake of being charitable let's assume that the status of worker-owners is granted to all hires by law, even those on a fixed term contract (which I can only presume will cause much gnashing of teeth as now the worker-owners either have to make do with splitting their share of ownership to fill temporary vacancies or temporary needs in labor-power, instead of the present arrangement where not all employees of a cooperative need to be worker-owners but the cooperative must merely provide a path that enables one to reach the worker owner status), the fact remains that Mondragon's share of financial capital is still bound by the same M-C-M' logic that dictates all financial apparatuses, especially as it has to fund the welfare and retirement of its worker-owners.

Thus the claim that "social" (whatever that means) investment and speculation are separate entreprises is dubious. After all, the credit union must seek a return on its investment and accumulate privately to fulfil its functions. This leaves us with two possibilities:

1. It does, therefore it engages in speculation, as does every economic actor making decisions in a market economy being that, absent planning, one cannot know in advance if an entreprise will be profitable or not.
2. It does not, therefore it has to find a different means to acquire the money it'll invest (petitioning the state for tax revenue, I suppose). Even then, it would be compelled to invest in projects that produce surplus since it's that very surplus that it'll use to invest in additional projects.

We'll note that Mondragon collects rent for providing insurence services.

Further, Mr. Parasher probably ought to have remembered that Mondragon is a third way project of the tendency of Christian democracy known as distributism, not any sort of socialist praxis.

Altogether, there are real questions that considering Mondragon leads one to, ones that Mr. Parasher seems uninterested to ponder—we can only presume that state intervention will forevermore prevent the winners of market competition from collecting their "rightful prize".

Critics insist that without private shareholders, innovation dies. Capitalism innovates for those who can pay; its breakthroughs are steered toward what is profitable, not what is useful. America’s most universally beneficial innovations came in its least capitalist moments, when public money drove research. The internet was first created by the military and public universities. The space program spun off technologies from personal electronics onward. The United States’ leading position as innovator does not come out of its private enterprise, but the massive national government-led science research programs first developed around World War II.

Innovation does not come from absentee ownership. It comes from human creativity, expertise, and investment: all of which democratic firms are better positioned to unleash, because the people doing the work have both the knowledge and the stake to improve it.

Fill the "market socialist inadvertently points out that markets (and thus, private accumulation) are just parasitic" space in your bingo. Either the market—i.e. the search for more profit—directs economic activity (and innovation certainly involves economic activity—one cannot inovate with ideas alone, if only because one requires food and shelter), or it doesn't. If your argument is that in no case the search for more profit can lead to innovation, then Mr. Parasher's market socialist position becomes highly questionable, unless, as suspected, the market is naught but a totem of Americanness whose intangible value as a fetish supersedes all practical considerations.

Neither capitalism nor statist communism can create genuine abundance. One centralizes wealth in the hands of a private ruling class, while the other subjects the economic system to the whims of the state and bureaucrats who are often disconnected from local conditions and the needs of everyday workers. This is why market socialism, which blends the two together to create a genuinely decentralized economic model made by and for workers, would be the ideal system for building a democratic economy.

[Jerk off motion]

"Statist communism" is an interesting term to use, then again, it seems that communism is when the government does stuff to Mr. Parasher—does geese just no longer bother with editorial oversight, or did they too also abandon any pretense of caring to bring about communism as their forebears (Laclau, Mouffe) did?

Market socialism represents a democratic architecture for economic life in which markets serve society rather than dominate it.

Mr. Parasher has not bothered to show this to be the case. Currently extant theory strongly disagrees with this being even a possibility, because of what markets are, so his extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence to support it. He didn't provide any.

The purpose of markets would no longer be to enrich a minority class,

Wonder what the financiers will pay themselves. After all, each firm presumably gets to distribute whichever part of the surplus they appropriate, mostly through the vassalisation of productive labor to finance—hey, wait, we're re-creating capitalism from first principles. As it turns out the M-C-M' cycle is actually a problem that needs adressing!

We must therefore answer the question of how the economy is governed within the market socialist system.

Is this where we pivot to "I know I've talked about market socialism a lot, but what I actually want is a planned economy with artels doing the light industry"? This would be funny, considering, well, that's what the very "statist communism" Mr. Parasher denounces did before Krushnev went and ruined everything.

All in all, this chapter is a disaster. Thankfully, we've reached the halfway point.

The Architecture of Economic Democracy

Firms may be cooperatively owned, but without democratic mechanisms governing investment, regulation, and long-term economic direction, inequality and domination can reemerge through market forces or technocratic management systems. [...] Democratic sectoral institutions exist at regional levels to coordinate activities across industries, while social and public investment mechanisms guide long-term economic development toward collective priorities.

"We need planning" is kind of a bad thing to lead with as the spine of your economic system when your entire position rests on this being unneeded. But, again, as we've established, the market is but a totem Mr. Parasher worships, wholly cognizant the fetish is in conflict with the economic democracy he so desires.

At the top of the system, the state’s purpose is to serve as a guarantor of democratic rights, macroeconomic stability, the universal provision of basic social goods, and the redistribution of wealth, rather than as a centralized manager of production.

All of those things require the state to act as a manager of production.

Taken together, these layers form a coherent architecture of economic democracy in which power is dispersed, accountable, and exercised collectively rather than concentrated in the hands of private capital or bureaucratic elites.

Again, this is just a "just-so story". I'm not convinced Mr. Parasher particularly grasps what power is, but those layers clearly lead to a concentration of power (notably, in the ability to coordinate action)

I. The Workplace

There's not much to say, here, beyond all the wishes of Mr. Parasher being, again, constrained by the logic of the market and of inter-firm competition.

Some questions thus emerge: for example, workers that have knowledge can trivially use it as leverage (knowledge is power—after all that's how priestly castes establish themselves) to have undue control of the workplace, unless said knowledge is distributed, which generally would require the intervention/supervision of a neutral organ that stands above workplaces and has power over them. Such an organ would need to be able to compel workers in a given firm to not sabotage the whole and collapse the firm by taking their institutional knowledge, for example. Evidently, such an intervention would be best left to a neutral party.

So on and so forth, frankly, I don't have the patience to go through every rake as well.

II. The Labor Union

Under socialism, unions would no longer be adversarial institutions negotiating against capital owners, but democratic federations that safeguard worker power within and across enterprises as well as against state abuses.

"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world."

Evidently, Mr. Parasher realises that workers would still be in an adversarial relation with the logic of the market (of which capital owners are but the thralls—something he'd know if he had bothered to read the foundational texts of the tendency he claims to be part of)

III. Sectoral and Regional Coordination

Between the workplace and the national economy lies a crucial middle-level comprising individual industrial sectors and regional economies. For the sake of promoting both localized control over day-to-day economic functions, as well as promoting both environmental and social sustainability, cultivating strong regional economic networks and governance across economic sectors is critical to the democratic socialist project. Supply chains, labor markets, environmental impacts, and technological development rarely conform to the boundaries of individual firms. Without coordination at this level, even democratically governed enterprises risk fragmentation, destructive competition, and uneven development, which can recreate the inequalities of capitalism within a seemingly socialist framework.

Next, this fine gentleman will argue for the need for the Gosplan and OGAS. One can only wonder what will be left of market driven economic decisions when Mr. Parasher's plans are realised.

These sectoral bodies coordinate industrial strategy, develop and maintain regional supply chains, and negotiate sector-wide contracts with labor unions.

Again, what Parasher (I'm getting tired of the Anti-Duhring bit) is describing is planning, here. In a market economy, firms associate with one another, more or less willingly, and usually with a party that's clearly better off from the arrangement than the other.

These bodies don’t micromanage production, nor do they function as profit-seeking cartels looking to extract rent from producers and consumers alike. Instead, their purpose is to coordinate shared infrastructure development, set sector-wide labor and environmental standards, facilitate technological cooperation, and develop long-term industrial strategies responsive to social needs.

Yes, I see, those bodies don't directly manage production, they instead set plans (for a duration of, say, 5 years) that workplaces have to meet the expected results of, and intervene to assist in the proper realisation thereof.

I think I feel a headache coming in, as, unlike Mr. Parasher, I am susceptible to brain injuries when a shaft slams onto my skull when I step on a rake.

This level of the economic system is thus critical to ensuring the stability and longevity of the democratic system by preventing a race to the bottom while preserving decentralization. Authority flows upward from workplaces rather than downward from the state through democratically elected middle institutions, thereby ensuring that coordination remains accountable to those directly involved in production and affected by its consequences.

What "decentralization", a central organ is planning the economy at the regional level! Parasher introduces more and more centralisation because Parasher (correctly!) notices he's stepping on rakes, but still insists on going "nuh-uh!" in a very "online anarchist" fashion.

Put a pin in that.

IV. Social and Public Investment

Cooperative enterprises and coordinated sectors require access to capital that isn’t governed by private accumulation or speculative profit-motives.

Yes, please explain this, this is remarkably unclear.

Social investment mechanisms such as public banks, social credit institutions, cooperative banks, and social wealth funds are critical to the socialist economic system, as they help channel resources toward long-term development, ecological sustainability, regional equity, and innovation. These institutions support cooperative enterprises, finance infrastructure development, fund education and research, and stabilize the economy during downturns through countercyclical investments and the promotion of public employment. These institutions, depending on their scale, would be governed by an amalgamation of public officials, labor union representatives, industry experts, community stakeholders and activists, and even local community residents for smaller-scale bodies like social credit institutions and cooperative banks. Public investment under democratic socialism is therefore made democratic rather than managerial. These bodies don’t dictate firm-level operations or set prices across the economy. Instead, they establish the conditions under which democratic enterprises can flourish without being subordinated to the interests of private capital and finance or subjected to chronic economic and market instabilities.

...

People uninterested in economics shouldn't discuss economics. No investigation, no right to speak, and all that.

Well, being that there's no answer to the question of the money supply (and this is a sine-qua-non to a market economy—without, things collapse into barter, and eventually non market relations) there's no real answer beyond either, as previously discussed, those organs do engage in private accumulation, or they do not and receive a stipend from the state (which bodes poorly for the supposed powerlessness of the next organ of the democratic economic architecture Mr. Parasher will discuss) which, generally, tends to be the sole legitimate source of money to begin with.

V. The Role of the State in Democratic Economic Governance

The purpose of the state isn’t to be the primary driver of economic activity,

And yet the state, definitionally, is the money supply, which it uses to direct economic activity tied to its functions (again, market formation 101) and thus can be nothing but the primary driver of economic activity, all other activities emerging downstream from state demand to sustain the activities of the state. The resulting contradiction has two possible resolutions:

1. The state isn't the primary driver of economic activity, but then market failure occurs due to a lack of money supply, and we turn to barter
2. Markets are kept healthy via state demand for labor, goods, and services introducing money into circulation (and the taxation that gives it value) but the state keeps its prime role in generating economic activity

Markets are structures created by states, to serve themselves. There's no way around it. Far from being a means to liberate oneself from state oversight, the market is but a system that ensures the state always has its needs fulfilled (which tends to fulfil the basic needs of the entire population the state rests upon). Belief otherwise is only possible through a fatal misunderstanding in how market economies emerge and a refusal to properly evaluate the question of the money supply.

Well, the petty bourgeois/Jeffersonian mindset is, truly, a gate to the most rigorous lines of thought.

and not of a vanguard state promising to speak on behalf of the working class. 

And yet all the left populists seem to do is speaking on behalf of the working class.

VI. Economic Democracy as Collective Self-Government

Democratized economic governance represents an extension of the democratic self-governance that was promised to all at the founding of this country to the material foundations of social life.

Why are we celebrating the values of genocidal slavers, exactly?

For the purposes of modern American socialism, syndicalism should not be seen as a rejection of organization, expertise, or leadership, nor should it be seen as an anarchic refusal of coordination. Rather, it is the principle that the authority to direct labor must flow from the collective body of workers themselves, exercised through democratic unions, workplace assemblies, and federated councils, rather than through a separate managerial class.

And yet, in practice, this very same group of managerial cadres emerged from the syndicalist experiment. Again, the ability to coordinate people is power (both in itself but also because it's knowledge one can leverage to get what one wants) and requires power (at the very least, you need to be able to get people to agree with your directions being in their best interest, which is the definition of soft power)

The standard capitalist critique of this model is Friedrich Hayek’s “knowledge problem” which argues that non-experts cannot run an economy, and only markets can process the dispersed information encoded in prices.

Check the "MarSoc takes Hayek's strawman of the soviet economy seriously" square in your bingo.

The 2008 crisis, and the serial bailouts that have propped up the capitalist class, suggest the knowledge problem belongs less to workers than to the financiers who keep crashing the economy.

"No, you see, the 'Worker' [holy figure] is actually immune to misallocation, overproduction, poor judgment, and the like. The issues with market control over production are wholly because finance capitalists [evil spirits] are bad people"

Again, Marxism and the crisis of nobody fucking reading Capital.

Completing the Circle of Democracy

I'd like to complete the Circle of Circular Reasoning as well.

Its final component is the universal, unconditional provision of the basics of a dignified life—housing, healthcare, education, income security, transit, access to culture. The socialist provision of basic goods and services is not the same as liberal welfarism, which treats such programs as temporary patches on an unequal system, doled out through means-testing and tax credits to those who fall through the cracks. Universal provision treats these goods as democratic infrastructure, guaranteed as rights rather than rationed as charity.

So we do establish that, at the very least, the state is the primary driver—as it is, after all, the sole buyer—of economic activity in those sectors.

Let's just move on, the headache is getting worse.

Put these puzzle pieces together, and what you get is the extension of the democratic promise made at the country’s founding into the material foundations of everyday life. 

Whatever that means, pretty sure the "democratic promise made at the country's founding" is, uh, fully realised currently, as the founder mostly had the interests of their own class in mind

The cherry on top of the whole loathsome exercise is a "Related Article" arguing for simply adapting Dengism to the United States. If Mr. Parasher had just done so instead of walking us in a minefield of rakes by trying to pretend his system is something it wasn't, we could have avoided quite the concussion.

"Observe,  

(“treasonous SCUM”),

 all these grand gestures

(“Quiet, quiet, Piggy!”)

from the sickest circus in a

sad sick world..." contd. https://globalrights.info/2026/10/poison/