Hasan's Capitalist Realism & The People's Republic of Walmart
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2023
- Reviewing Second Thought's half-baked thoughts on Socialist Utopias, Capitalist Realism and other Lefty Lingo that we don't really think he fully comprehends
Patreon: / lonerbox
Paypal: paypal.me/lonerbox
Twitter: / boxloner
Twitch: / lonerbox
Discord: / discord
Reddit: / lonerbox
Join Loner in his Box: / @lonerboxlive
#hasanabi #Leftism #politicaldebates #destiny
Central planning is when you're a private company that operates in accordance with market forces lmao
When he says "they just didn't have enough computational power to do central planning," he reminds me of some tech bro who says "x problem will be completely addressed by AI."
Yeah the problem is Hasan has an insane problem with saying „I don’t know“ instead he goes into this lecturing tone, but just regurgitates random talking points.
I have the same problem ever since I did my political science bachelor. Expectations of people do a number on you. I'm specialised in foreign policy and sociological regulation but people expect me to be an expert on anything political which turns me into lecture mode even if i have only slight to no education on the subject.
Hasan really helped me to reel myself in lol
It helps your own character to whitness the effect of your behaviour in someone else. In this case Hasan.
Being the largest politics streamer probably doesn't help him with managing expectations or what you think people expect from you.
I don't know if I'd have changed my behaviour if I wouldn't have seen Hasan stumble through foreign policy subjects lol
He wants to have his cake and eat it too where you can't criticize him because he's not "socialist Jesus" but also he definitely wants the clout of talking about politics and being that tankie adjacent "communist himbo"
Absolutely. I wish more people were willing/capable of saying "you know what? I have no idea! Let's find out together!", everything is so much better that way..
There's nothing wrong with not knowing something; it would be impossible for anyone to know even 1% of everything, there's just too much data. It only becomes a problem if one is unwilling/unable to admit it.
@@ashfox7498Nailed it.
I love that "centralized planning" to tankies is quite literally just "a small number of people directing everything from the top down..... for their own benefit at the expense of workers"
Wait a minute.. that's just capitalism. lol
Personally I would consider myself a reformist socialist, as in I actually *prefer* the path of reform to 'revolution'. There's two main reasons for this:
1. In addition to being violent, bloody, destructive affairs, historically a lot of revolutions don't even accomplish the thing they're intended to do. As in, once the revolution is over the new people who take power decide to do something else entirely with that power. This is hardly limited to socialist revolutions but they're certainly no exception to it. In fact they seem to be particularly susceptible...
2. Nobody can really agree what a true socialist government should look like anyway. What Marx wrote was a work of philosophy, not policy. I think a lot of those ideas are worth pursuing, but the whole question of *how* to get there is far from settled. With a reformist approach you can make small-scale, incremental changes, evaluate their effects, and pursue stuff that appears to work on a larger scale, gradually working towards a more equitable and functional system. With a revolution, even if successful, you're suddenly being tasked with essentially redoing a whole economy without a clear idea what would even work.
In the short term, yes this would pretty much involve a lot of standard socdem stuff. Hopefully more worker democracy like providing incentives to make co-ops and supporting unions, etc. as well. But it drives me nuts when people act like nothing can be done within the current system and just larp about revolution when they don't even really know *what* government they would create if that were to happen. Well, other than the tankies who just want USSR 2...except the USSR was fucking terrible so why the hell do they want that?
This is exactly my mindset as a Georgist. I believe that a Land Value Tax is the most efficient Tax possible and could theoretically fund a very High UBI that would be the main (if not only) needed welfare from the government. However, I have to acknowledge that this is a very radical position to pretty much most of society. Therefore I have to focus on convincing people of step 1: replace less efficient taxation (I.E. property and sales/VAT taxes) for the far more efficient and inherently progressive Land Value Tax.
Yes! I’ve come to very similar conclusions myself. The epistemology of how to find out what our desired society is so important and not easy at all. Why would we prefer quick change when gradual change is not ruled out at all? Conspiratorially I fear that quick grand changes are exactly tools of ill-intentioned actors. I feel scared of those to seem to pretend that everything is all figured out and it’s only a matter of making it happen. Being dogmatic and giving ‘explanative powers’ to a few can so easily lead to dangerous mistakes if not dictatorship, fractional fighting, and atrocities.
We need science, we need all the experts’ knowledge and advice, we need scientific experiments and testing of various methods, we need people carefully vetting new policies, discussing and approving them, we need negotiation and balancing of interests of different groups. Wanting to skip these steps shows a lack of confidence in our ideas if not an intention to hold on to excessive power.
This is the actually sane approach, rather than saying we should overthrow society to do ????? in a time of unprecedented environmental crisis
@@thenayancat8802 The counter-argument to that would be that slow-paced reform allows the planet to cook and people to suffer for longer.
Socialists: Tech bros ruin everything
Also Socialists: This one program in Chile that was going to use supercomputers to centrally plan the economy would have totally worked bro
When I was child, my fathe taught me that smart people say "I don't know" a lot. True intelligence and perspective requires some humility from you. You cannot learn or grow if you cannot fine fault within yourself.
Listening to Hasan is like listening to fox with all the unexplained jargon he uses.
It's the norm among tankies. At least it's not total word salad, like what haz says.
The fact that this tankie podcast has a Molchat Doma album on the wall is kind of funny. It seems like a weird band to pick unless you're entirely going by the "soviet aesthetic".
I haven't read The People's Republic of Walmart, but from an interview with the authors, it's my understanding that their point isn't that Walmart is, or could be, planning the entire economy, their point is that Walmart and Amazon are extremely efficient systems of real time demand monitoring, and distribution of products, which could be appropriated by the working class.
Would you ever go on H3? Ethan doesnt understand a lot about socialism and I think you'd do really well to inform him and his audience.
That'd be neat!
I doubt Loner is big enough to be invited and he doesn't strike me as the guy who would invite himself onto the show.
Keep in mind it's a big podcast with staff and corporate structures behind it. It's not like a discord call in
@@trax72 I think the bigger problem is even if he had the clout to be on h3's radar Hasan hates Lonerbox's guts, so Ethan might not want to have him on.
hasan and ethan both live in LA, lonerbox lives in the UK
Hey Lonerbox, I’m Chilean. The plan was supposed to work over a proto-internet. What ended up being impmemented was a manual version with human calculators and communicating via teletrams
It wouldn't have worked either way. The computational power and technology (machine learning etc.) simply wasn't there. Even arguing that the plan would work with modern technology would be a huge uphill battle.
@@ziwuri so.. whats the end game here? eternal neoliberalism?
@@derivesruraleEternal? Dude maybe over our lifetime. In 200 years most parts of the world will be tribes and monarchies again. You think civilization and the global markets are going to survive the next centuries of climate devastation?
Well, out of the dichotomy of planned economies and democratic workplaces LB presented, right now, I'd choose the latter. @@derivesrurale
@@ziwuri2008 financial crisis
Walmart is a really good warehouse logistics business. Everything outside of the warehouse is completely out of their purview.
That project Cybersyn looks (and sounds) like something Mark Zuccerberg would add to the metaverse.
Including the terrible chairs that look like one would fall over backward in.
What a cathartic rollercoaster. Great video. Not only for my values going forward, but just for my mental health lol.
Can someone PLEASE make a Depeche Mode parody about Hasan called "Socialist Jesus"?
Yeah watching these H3 Hasan talks are violators to my ears
I’ll try!
Whenever I use to see a ‘Hasan’ take on something in the news, UA-cam etc. I’ve always felt like Hasan isn’t genuine. I don’t know why, just his way of speaking or his mannerisms, or that he never goes into depth.
The more I watch of him the more apparent it’s becoming that he is the ‘Tesco’ of socialism/left wing speaking. I’m glad I discovered your channel LB.
Well he admits he's just an entertainer to stay rich and doesn't care about the movement. Basically admitting he's a grifter.
@@mindlander yeah that’s true. I know he’s openly admitting it essentially but I’m not sure if people like him are that useful. I suppose he makes people aware of socialism.
The irony is, the most hyperactive/passionate I’ve ever seen him is when he’s talking about China and Russia which is kind of bizarre.
I think that's a side effect of being an Entertainer. He probably checks the reaction to his opinions more then he should.
Couple that with a pinch of egoism and you get 'everyone expects me to be socialist jesus'.
Hasan probably has a big problem with not meeting expections he thinks people have of him even if that is not the case. The internet does the rest.
It does not help sympathy towards him when he rakes in millions with these opinions however lol
Watching him nervously squirm at obvious and genuine questions over China from Ethan made it clear to me he's nothing at all but a grifter who is saying what he thinks he needs to say so the donations keep rolling in. I don't think he really has genuine beliefs at all that don't eventually get hammered into a mold by his audience. He can't even have an honest conversation with someone who is ostensibly his friend because he knows the doners are watching.
@@ashfox7498 that sounds more realistic than what I originally thought (of him being a closet propagandist). I think that kind of sums him up
Thank you. These conversations are so frustrating.
My understanding of this book is that although Walmart doesn’t produce these things themselves, through the utilisation of monopoly and monopsony powers, they effectively plan the production of thousands of producers. In a lot of the cases these producers have one customer - Walmart - and are barred from working with anyone else in the same market. In others there’s only one seller of certain goods - Walmart - so producers have to work with them on their terms.
To facilitate all of this, Walmart employees complex planning algorithms that allow them to keep the supply and demand in fairly perfect equilibrium for profit maximisation.
The book was written as a retort to the common argument that planned economies work for big things like industrial production where you have limited number of inputs and outputs but fail when you have to plan for consumer goods where the inputs and outputs are off the charts.
Hasan’s interpretation is very stupid but he’s not known as the smartest cookie in the jar :)
Wouldn't surprise me if he's just going off of a second hand regurgitation of the ideas in the book or even the Wikipedia plot summary
It's still stupid as hell. Generally the issue with planned economies is threefold. First, you need to _decide_ a utility function to actually say what social good is, with some specific constraints, and then you maximize social good. Second, to actually compute this utility function you often need information a centrally planned economy finds it difficult to have (the so called "local knowledge" problem). And thirdly the computation power to run this problem is massive, as the overall problem in full generality is just horrifically complicated. (Even a linear approximation to this system should have a horrible runtime, and the correct model is probably nonconvex.)
The Walmart example fails to solve _any_ of these problems. It's simply assumed, at the level of Walmart, that the utility function is profit (and at the level of the producers you wish to minimize costs). Having a utility function by definition skips the local knowledge problem, so that's two issues we've skipped. As for the third, these producers don't interact with each other. Suppose firm F1 and F2 both need plastic and there's a plastic shortage. Walmart doesn't intervene on behalf of the overall Corporate Walmart Umbrella to make sure that the optimal amount of plastic is distributed between F1 and F2 such that Walmart's profit will be maximized. Walmart will give both F1 and F2 the orders, and F1 and F2 will try to get the plastic, and if they fail to do so they'll be penalized. If I have a skilled laborer at firm F3, Walmart doesn't look at them and say "huh, your talents would be better utilized at firm F4". Insofar as any of this happens it's a result of market forces, F1 and F2 bidding for plastic and F4 paying better wages, which aren't planned.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems and the fields at play. Which makes sense, given that the book uses the phrase "linear programming" once.
@@najawin8348 if my memory serves me correct there's an entire chapter in the book that is rebuttal to this specific argument. I don't remember the details but I think it mostly discusses how it is flawed and assumes things about what planned economies are supposed to do that just don't have to be true.
@@DanielleTinkov This seems obviously false again. I'm not suggesting that planned economy = command economy. I'm simply noting that the solution the Walmart Corporate Umbrella uses to allocate scarce resources is market forces. This is clearly not a planned economy. I note again that as a result of this, your constraints in an economy are quite likely to fail during a shortage, and it's non-obvious whether you're going to output the optimal distribution of goods without those constraints. (Read: in general you will not.) This is a real problem for the model they're suggesting.
@@najawin8348 I think, I see what you mean, but correct me if I'm misunderstanding. What you are saying is that the point of an economy is to handle scarcity. Walmart may well act as a planning mechanism to instruct companies to produce consumer goods, but if a scarcity arises that prevents a supplier from delivering, they can't solve this to maintain the supply chain. All they can (and probably will do) is to buy the missing good from the market short term and then try to incentivise their supplier to fix the problem. Ultimately the reason all this planning works is that it has the market to bail it out for when it doesn't.
Yes, it was the lack of computational power that told the commissars to go door to door and tell farmers 3 cows was one too many and they had to deal with the problem by the next day.
wait what fo you mean that sevond thought guy has a channel reviewimg supercars lol , is that real?
Yep. It used to show up when you look under his channels on his page but now it’s hard to find. 😂
Ooh so revolutionary work is all about "planting the seeds". Since we're waiting for the revolution and reform can't work, that's all I can do and all I need to do. My comment will blossom into a tree under which the revolution will rest.
When giving any sort of honest assessment on centrally planned economies ala the Soviet Union and it's copycats, it's important to remember these were all largely rural, illiterate peasants living in an under developed system. It's easier to fail when everyone is still primitive and bad actors take over. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Luxembourg & Liebknecht succeeded in Germany after WWI, where industrialization and education was way ahead of Russia.
We're stuck with these do-nothings and the lemmings that do mental gymnastics to justify insanely disingenuous shit like back when Molotov said "fascism is just a matter of taste" when signing the Nazi pact.
Thats a racist assesmemt
companies state and private have been using computers to plan their operations for ages, british rail had the tops system to organise their operations. computers involved in planning is not some new idea.
also my view is everything is harm reduction organise around solutions not say all is lost. at least helping my local soc dem party would actually get my local community improved.
Read "Towards a New Socialism" by Paul Cockshott
No they’ve misunderstood the book.
Why doesn't hassan split up the profits from his stream evenly to every single person who is on it, or helps him produce it? When he has a guest on, doe she split the proffits of the day evenly? no of course not, he probably doesn't even give them money, and says he provides exposure.
Not a tankie but Salvador’s was the only Democratically elected socialist so he was the only one that cared.
This is so bad faith you are guessing what their stances are you don't actually know
30 secs in, Hasan using words he doesn't understand will never not be funny to me.
Yeah, c'mon guys, he's only in this group chat about being a socialist content creator with Yugopnik and Second Thought to let the world know that socialist politics is just a small part of his overall repertoire.
Really, he's just an entertainer-or edu-tainer, if you will. He's just a dum-dum himbo who passionately and bitterly critiques capitalism on a daily basis while praising former communist states, generally advocating for his warped version of socialism, and taking the time to teach his followers socialist concepts.
It's just for shits!
The REAL stream is when he's playing shit like Mortuary Assistant. That's the actual, true meat of the stream. After all, that's the stuff the Hasan industrial complex© are clipping.
The argument made in The People's Republic of Walmart is downright silly, but for a different reason I think. It's not about depth. Walmart works because it has its market incentives, as do their competitors, suppliers, workers and customers. Remove the market incentives and you fundamentally change the working of businesses and the economy at large. Say what you want about the invisible hand, but it does allocate resources.
"Walmart works"
For the shareholders, not for most people. The invisible hand allocates resources unfairly and inefficiently, which is the problem.
It absolutely it does. It's purpose is to give people a service and a product and it give them correctly. That's why people buy to them
All of this work and investment into AI just to make a highly inefficient system of organizing the economy feasible.
"They're confusing a command economy with central planning..." No, you're confusing words they said with shit you just cooked up for some reason. Hasan said central planning, not command economy.
I have to say, it's really dumb to argue that our central planning is totally different because Walmart only does consumer goods, which isn't totally true anyway they also make a lot of money through finance and real estate, etc. A command economy could delegate different things to different entities too, that changes nothing. It doesn't matter if Walmart does one thing and Exxon does another and Morgan Stanley does another... effectively, those are all just branches of the endless bureaucracy of capitalism, and they share not only values and strategies, but board members, executives, culture, and investors. How they're run functionally represents as much independence and diversity of interest as the various state-run administrations in a totalitarian system.
I also have to say, several people have complimented you on your ability to "steelman" an argument. Odd that immediately goes out the window when reacting to anyone to your left. You're responding to things they never said.
The idea that Walmart only does retail and doesn't control and influence the use of resources in any other sector is kind of charmingly quaint. As if Walmart just buys products at fair market price, no foothold in manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, transportation, finance, real estate. Nope. Just retail, not an everything store at all. Not the largest grocer in the country, just the retail of consumer goods.
The point about efficiency is just laughably wrong. Centralized systems are always more efficient. How is it efficient to have a bunch of people making the same product slightly differently? 30 kinds of peanut butter may be nice, but it’s not efficient. This is one reason capitalism tends toward monopoly. Standard Oil running the rigs, refineries, the trains, and the railroads themselves was super efficient, that’s not the problem at all. You also seem to be imagining that a planned economy means markets can’t be used. A command economy wouldn’t have to predict what everyone will want without any input from the people anymore than private companies do, it’s about directing the economy in general. And it’s a bit strange to dismiss the notion outright without addressing that capitalist economies don’t allocate resources based on what people want or need, only what they are able to budget for. The result is insanely inefficient. The USSR was poor, they only became a super power due to the efficiency of central planning.
Bro, look up any text book. Planned economy and central economy is zden as synonymous
@@b.6.7.f.h.i think you live in a fairy world. No command economy does/has done anything like your utopia.
I dont think Loner does a good job of explaining the difference between Central Planning and company planning. He essentially says that the “depth” of the problem is insurmountable because it does less stuff. But the computational power argument is supposed to address the “intricate supply web” 5:00 objection. He says “its night and day” but that is begging the question.
yeah, one of the weakest arguments from him ever. I feel like it's more of a intuitive gut reaction, because he associates any kind of economic planning immediately with tankies.
Capitalists often use argument that central planning is not fast enough when it comes to demand-supply. They will say - free market is the only option. The book shows that it is not true and that ie Walmart reacts very fast to what is happening among consumers and producers. And if you want to add depth you can just scale it up. Maybe you should read the book? Because it seems that you have missed some points.
Goddamn this summed up every single frustration I have with leftists
I genuinely hate Hasan
What 99% of online leftists need to understand is how economics actually work, because then they'd be much more effective advocates for their cause.
Because the only elements/industries/sectors of a socialist economy that you would want state control/central command of instead of going with a market socialist approach with a bunch of worker co-ops and unions with 50/50 board of directors represention co-determination laws are the sectors/industries with markets that currently don't clear when left to market principles ie inelastic demand markets and natural monopolies (and maybe natural resource extraction as well).
Thats because with the technology available to us for the forseeable future, no amount of "cybersocialism" principles will ever make central command/state owned firms function more efficiently than a market approach to sectors of the economy where demand is elastic - these sectors are just too large, chaotic, and too frequently evolving for central planners to keep up with even with a lot of assistance from modern technology. But sectors with natural monopolies and inelastic demand already operate at low efficiency from bad incentive structures, to the point you can't really make them less efficient with state control and central planning; however, central planning *can* offer thesr goods and services more cheaply, equitably and fairly if you don't care about operating at a loss, essentially treating them as a public service/right, which leads to savings for the public to spend elsewhere in the market socialist sectors of the economy, where the gains should more than offset the loss to the economy by nationalizing these inelastic/natural monopoly sectors.
Can you explain why industries without a market failure would function worse when centrally planned, in such a way that the same argument can't be used for industries with a market failure?
Saying stuff like "its too large, too chaotic" is just a cop out imo.
@Khalkara lmao idk, like every historical instance of centrally planned economies is proof that in general they've functioned worse than ones that rely on decentralized markets? Is that good enough for you?
My point wasn't that central planning could make industries with market failures operate, say, more efficiently than when left to market forces. It was that these industries (of the inelastic demand and natural monopoly type) are already not clearing when left to market forces and the private sector to sort them out, so you probably don't lose anything by nationalizing and centrally planning those specific industries. Between the economic gains from the industries still left up to markets and the extra public savings would be spent into those industries if you treated the nationalized, centrally planned industries like a government service whose job was to provide their goods/services equitably to everyone instead of the most efficiently for a market that by islt's design will never be able to clear properly (ie will never have competition in cases of natural monopoly, etc)
@@dmore454 That's another cop out, its vaguely gesturing at something without explaining *why* something is the case.
Care to try again? Or can you only spew out empty talking points?
@Khalkara they're not empty talking points, it's called brevity because *this is the UA-cam comments section*
I shouldn't have to explain in a UA-cam video comment why centrally planned economies have proven horribly inefficient *when entire advanced economics course textbooks have been written about the challenges they are inherently ill-equipped to handle compared to market solutions*
When I say "too big and too chaotic," I'm referring to trying to centrally plan an entire economy; there's too many demand and supply variables for bureaucrats to juggle, and each of those variables are also constantly evolving and changing with their own slew of altering variables.
As lonerbox has pointed out, if "cybersocialism" were the solution, then it wouldn't have died with the Pinochet coup before it could finish being implemented, other communist nations had the opportunity to take what Chile had outlined and implement it. The USSR and China, the two largest communist nations on Earth at the time of the Pinochet coup, both implemented massive economic reforms a relatively short time after it, yet neither attempted to use the considerably larger pool of resources they had to make Chile's fairly vague cybersocialism concept reality despite being the two best equipped to do so. People tried to argue even in the 80s "with current improvements in computer and communications technology, surely we can make central planning command economies work," as if the USSR and China didn't have access to computers and daily production number updates for the massive central planning committees and bureaucratic personel they had devoted to managing their massive economies at the time, trying to figure out what micro to macro level capital investments on the supply side needed to happen in which sectors and where geographically, etc. And yet both pursued massive market based reforms instead.
Trying to completely centrally plan an entire economy and the various supply and logistics chains that go with it have proven, historically, in every instance it has happened has led to massive economic inefficiency and stagnation - *every time* - that's what I mean by too chaotic and too big.
So rather than try to centrally plan an entire economy and its supply and logistics chains, you focus on the sectors and industries that already can not - and will not ever - function without massive market failures occurring because of their structure and/or built-in bad incentives. Maybe, maaaybe central planning can work in the future with improvements to automation technology, software programs, etc, but it's pretty clear it's not there yet. So you start with the sectors/industries that have inelastic demand and conditions for natural monopolies and provide them as public services, and you use labor reforms to democratize the workplaces of the other sectors and industries that arent being nationalized; if the planning of those nationalized sectors improve the efficiency of them to a significant degree, it's possible that technology may be to the point you could start nationalizing other sectors and they will run efficiently (although as a socialist, I have a huge issue with that idea because the government owning the means of production is NOT the same as the workers owning the means of production - the latter comes with worker owned co-ops and union industry syndicates, not nationalizing).
Can you explain to me now how what I've laid out is at all a bad road map for implementing a socialist economy?
@@dmore454 "I'm referring to trying to centrally plan an entire economy; there's too many demand and supply variables for bureaucrats to juggle"
Based on what evidence or logic? We currently know how much people consume of each good every year.
When you don't substantiate your statements, and just repeat them, they are just empty talking points.
"The USSR and China, the two largest communist nations on Earth"
You're further showcasing your ignorance here, neither of these countries were socialist. Let alone communist.
"People tried to argue even in the 80s.."
Not sure why you're bringing this up, I'm not arguing for a command economy.
Command economies != planned economies
"Trying to completely centrally plan an entire economy and the various supply and logistics chains that go with it have proven, historically, in every instance it has happened has led to massive economic inefficiency and stagnation"
Are you gonna sit there and pretend that the USSR had virtually no corruption and no internal problems whatsoever?
Because that would have to be the case for you to be correct in claiming there is a causal relationship with central planning and economic inefficiency and stagnation.
Otherwise you're just committing a correlation==causation fallacy.
"Can you explain to me now how what I've laid out is at all a bad road map for implementing a socialist economy?"
I don't disagree its a bad road map in general, literally any move away from markets is a good thing even if its just a few industries.
I also disagree that its necessary to limit ourselves to only nationalizing & planning certain industries whilst leaving the market to cause mass harm in other industries when we could just nationalize & plan all industry. There's no valid reason why we couldn't if we wanted to.
You haven't laid out a single example of *why* central planning fails at the scope of an entire economy. You've only given bad/disingenuous examples of individual examples where it ended up failing whilst ignoring any other possible factor that might have led to it.
Hiding behind "bro its a YT comment section" is just cowardly. If you don't want to defend your statements then don't post them on a public forum maybe?
But Walmart does 3 of those things, consumer goods, military, and infrastructure. Walmart’s quasi-military is its security, which in western countries is sparse or unnecessary, but in satellite firms in other countries, is out in force. Walmart definitely builds its own infrastructure, not just the stores and parking lots, but roads and depots and shipping hubs, etc. that encompass a tremendous skilled labour and machinery, land, and design. In some smaller towns, the infrastructure that’s required to facilitate large buildings or depots isn’t even present, so Walmart builds it.
"Walmart’s quasi-military is its security" LOL
"but roads and depots and shipping hubs" link?
They employ other companies to do those things. That's his point.
...what was that comment about north korea? You know they're not and have never been ideologically communist right?
They wouldn't implement a program that would actually work and help people because that's not their goal... gee... dropped the ball on this one imo.
LB was listing states that have employed planned economies.
Exes profits from big corporations should be taken and distributed to the government to allocate more funds to agriculture housing etc… or am I just a moron?
Dude he didn’t actually say anyone “wants” him to be socialist Jesus. You just made that part up lmao.
"I know everyone already views me as the greatest mind of the 21st century and the sole pillar upon which all socialism is based but you guys don't understand I can't handle all this pressure" he's talking like the main character of a self insert fan fiction story having his big emotional break down moment to Goku and Naruto and Harry Potter
@@ashfox7498 Are you seriously quoting sarcasm wtf is wrong with u?? Lmao dude get real
This video is a good example of someone being obtuse
Just say you like him and expect no standards from him, its fine, you dont have to try to fool others or yoursef....or call him a hater/n*zi/jealous as every other hasan fans does.
Obtuse is making 200k a month just off of subscriptions with a hammer and sickle shirt to then cry when people ask you to actually do something with the wealth youre sitting on
@@CHClNOfullmelt But he did do something with that wealth, he bought a lambo
Also he's making 200k off subscription by constantly stealing content for his streams from other creators
This comment is a good example of having an opinion, but not an argument.
@@CHClNOfullmelt I’m not even a Hasan fan I think he’s corny and egocentric. Stop malding and calm down lmao
Is it true Hasan is losing views
According to a couple different tracker sites, he averaged around 30k concurrent viewers in 2022, while he's been hovering at around 20-25k in recent months.