We are at the threshold of building a global digital platform that can have conversations with millions of people at the same time, and represent the things people are seeing and saying as a shared world model for planning collective action.
The shared document is an interesting experiment in direct democracy, though if it was the way policies are discussed at global scale (after the Editorial Team cleans it up, check for redundancy, make sure it's technically feasible), it would be nice to have drill-down discussions, pros/cons, and votes on specific parts of policies. After a set amount of time/edits, the Editorial Team might need another pass, before a final vote, with Ranked Choice if there's several options. These policies might imply a team of people to assemble and work on it. At local scale to global scale. Each teams teams would answer to those impacted, organizing democratically within the teams. Open positions are like job interviews, as in a COOP, or it could be random selection from a pool of qualified candidates. It could all be voluntary, but if there's funds needed, COOPs formed from the GPC could orient a part of their production for the "outside" market, while priorising the members of the GPC. All this exists in Venezuela's CECOSESOA, just informally (it's true there's no need for an online aid to this, but I assume it can't hurt).
Human flourishing, not profit, should be the basic goal of economic systems. The metric of profit may be useful if it help achieve the goal. However, those with the power currently are violently opposed. It is obvious that infinite growth on a finite planet cannot last much longer. I would like to forget about "isms" and work directly with more useful concepts like "degrowth" or sustainable agriculture. New metrics need to be defined such as 'nutritional output' rather than 'caloric output'. This channel is on the right track, checkout Nate Hagens channel and Planet Critical.
I completely agree. But I wonder if the human species will even survive at this point. But indeed, however unlikely it is to find water in the desert, it remains a first and vital priority! We must have radical and planetary socio-economic change, or perish. And that is, sadly, simply reality without fairy-tales.
Why is socialism/communism good? Lets have a mix of capitalism and socialism. Communism robbed my grandparents from their homes, posessions and dreams, they were sent to Syberia.
Why is capitalism good? The preconditions of capitalism were to be found in a brutal system of robbery, manifested in the form of enclosures, the usurpation of the land, the dispossession of the peasantry, and the pillage of the colonized world-giving rise to proletarianization, genocide, and slavery. All of this involved the transfer of claims to existing property/wealth, along with the wholesale expropriation of populations, who were subjected to some of the worst forms of forcible oppression, removing them from the land and ownership of the means of reproduction, and transforming them into proletarians who had no way to live except by selling their labor power. Such violent expropriation, which characterized the entire mercantilist era, is not only a predatory precursor to capitalism proper, but is an integral part of capitalism, determining the very limits of the system, and continuing into modern times.
@yellowgreen5229 maybe they weren't. Consumerism makes kulaks of us all. But never mind the "contradictions" that imploded the soviet police state, it is clear to anybody who can honestly call themselves "Materialist" that a political/economic structure that disregards ecological science, is self destructive.
@@ppetal1 as we face the cliff of peak oil, climate armageddon and renewed Western and Russian military imperialism you must see the hypocrisy in what you are saying!
Absolutely Yes. I will def be a patron soon. The reason I won't be today is oddly relevant :) Company I work for is a sub-contractor for a contractor for a large telecom company that just underwent a merger in western Canada somewhere. Long story short, its a shitshow for everybody, money doesn't move without a crowbar, me and my workmates havent been paid yet this month, but some rich folks made some bucks. It's been interesting to be an actual participant in this case study, seeing it from the inside out. At times, it's been like announcing a hockey game. I just found your channel today, so a little late to the party, but intrigued by the GPC. Really like your ideas
The Wasteland is already on the way...most just don't know it yet. Collapse can't be more than 2 or 3 decades away. In fact, it could happen at the end of this decade if we have a 'blue ocean' event followed by a massive eruption of methane from the Siberian shelf. Even a 50 Gtn eruption woukd raise global temps 0.6 C in just a few weeks. This could very well be catastroohic for agric production. A 3 C world would produce summer avg growth temps over grain belts of 4-6 C. Because of photorespiration and inc insect pest herbivory expect at least 50% reductions. But it gets far worse than this as a study of the last interglacial makes clear.
Agreed on all of that. And I would add that the social fabric, so to speak, of at least American society where I'm from, is so utterly destroyed that it is impossible to even imagine, realistically imagine society at large rallying to the cause, to avert disaster and respond to an emergency. This country is liable to experience societal collapse, merely for cultural/socioeconomic reasons alone, forget about food or water shortages or anything like that. So we're in trouble....
@@Joeyjojoshabbadoo "he social fabric, so to speak, of at least American society where I'm from, is so utterly destroyed that it is impossible to even imagine, realistically imagine society at large rallying to the cause, to avert disaster and respond to an emergency. This country is liable to experience societal collapse, merely for cultural/socioeconomic reasons alone, " As a fellow American, I agree.
Hi Vlad, you are a hero -- but that doesn't keep you alive, so I did make a contribution to the cause. I'm not so hopeful as you that anything can be done before the next great catastrophe(s), but I feel we need to have laid the foundation, planted the seeds, etc. of what can be done after the next "bronze age collapse". When we (not me, i'm over 70 so hopefully won't be here) rebuild next time, I hope people like you will have provided a solid model of the alternatives to a "master/slave" world order. Keep going! Brian
I agree that a viable revolution wouldn’t be classically socialist. Still, deliberative democracy is about society and the individuals in it. Today, we are individualised instead, and there’s no ‘socialism’ across the OECD. The experiment of social democracy (Scandinavian model) has also lost its societal edge and values to business-like management of what isn’t already sold off to non-democratic entities. Ecology and economy share the same root - oikos (house) as in ‘what we live in’. The word was originally coined (1866) to describe every (known & unknown) interaction in a ‘system of life’, including us. However, American scientists narrowed it down to darwinistic relations outside of human life. Not that they were scientifically wrong, but ethically they misappropriated what Newton warned about before modernism took hold - That science alone doesn’t include three of Plato’s four virtues. Science is but a tool for the other three… Ecology, economics and physical energy as a whole, can better shape our ways of imagining a way forward - and faith itself should remain a private and personal motivator. Not the imperative we as humans often misuse for power…
@@mtn1793 Yes, there’s no doubt - whether deduced scientifically or intuitively. However, the last four decades (in rest of OECD, earlier in US) we’ve been hammering a rather individualistic narrative. In policies, how we individualise ‘failure’ or the focus on free will and bad choices. I’m not saying that it’s deterministic, but at least, everything we think or do is in relation and context to our life history, culture, knowledge and people - the total ecology we’re in. A “bad choice” (or any choice) doesn’t happen in a vacuum, so there’s a more complex interaction as to the causality or influences. Economy itself is after all an interaction of transactions, but a strange reality where legal entities (corporations) have rights. Today, those rights exceed personal rights (liberal economics), but that hasn’t always been the case. Modernity and our political economy are abundant with such logical dissonances, like how economy and ecology coexisted in early science (1830’s to 1890’s). Add ecology and E (energy from physical meaning of ‘work’) back in, and try to view our actual economic narrative and practice with that mindset. Finance (pure capital value) and ‘growth’ doesn’t look good, and neither does democracy as it stands. The only certainty is change, I guess…?
I agree, we need a well being index to measure our success. But I do not want pure socialism. It just leads to the bureaucracy becoming an elite class with all the power. And I do not want laissez faire capitalism either. That also leads to oligarchy. The best performing government has always been a hybrid. Degrowth is not the answer either; just a different kind of growth. But I like your approach and you seem to be approaching a reasonable balance. Just balance a little more to the right please. Good examples: ua-cam.com/video/6DhZIaJYBa0/v-deo.html
I do not understand the difference set in the video between a set of (progressiv) reform, and a (progressiv) revolution. one is a set of steps, the others is in one big step. but both want to change the statu quo for the better, and both are suceptible to similar type of problem, but in different amount of risk. I truly beleive people who do a reform/revolution harsh distinctionare people who want violence, not progressivism, because in their own ideological direction they put wedge between communities. edit : added explicitely my assumption of a progressive direction for the change in status quo
'democracy' is everywhere, ever so popular. but it's not democracy. actual democracy currently is non-existent, though the swiss maintain the core, of a proto-democracy. being squeezed out of them by the e.u. though. clearly, not natural to h. sapiens. we began with alpha males, and haven't made much progress. you can't have revolution. almost all of us are too busy getting a living from an over-crowded planet, and those with some taste of politics are constrained by laws and guns. revolution is possible, but chiefly by military oligarchies supplanting politician oligarchies. this has been going on since the invention of plow-farming. wide-spread education offers hope, but reality is that money and guns will rule us until the end.
Take the sponsor's money, dude. Every penny you take from them to spend on the project is them paying for the project. One thing I've learned is that socialism can only succeed if it exists within, but separate to, a capitalist economy.
We are at the threshold of building a global digital platform that can have conversations with millions of people at the same time, and represent the things people are seeing and saying as a shared world model for planning collective action.
The shared document is an interesting experiment in direct democracy, though if it was the way policies are discussed at global scale (after the Editorial Team cleans it up, check for redundancy, make sure it's technically feasible), it would be nice to have drill-down discussions, pros/cons, and votes on specific parts of policies. After a set amount of time/edits, the Editorial Team might need another pass, before a final vote, with Ranked Choice if there's several options. These policies might imply a team of people to assemble and work on it. At local scale to global scale. Each teams teams would answer to those impacted, organizing democratically within the teams. Open positions are like job interviews, as in a COOP, or it could be random selection from a pool of qualified candidates. It could all be voluntary, but if there's funds needed, COOPs formed from the GPC could orient a part of their production for the "outside" market, while priorising the members of the GPC. All this exists in Venezuela's CECOSESOA, just informally (it's true there's no need for an online aid to this, but I assume it can't hurt).
Commenting to feed the algorithm
And another amazing Video!!
Can't wait, really interested/impatient to see it.
the real jam
Human flourishing, not profit, should be the basic goal of economic systems. The metric of profit may be useful if it help achieve the goal. However, those with the power currently are violently opposed. It is obvious that infinite growth on a finite planet cannot last much longer. I would like to forget about "isms" and work directly with more useful concepts like "degrowth" or sustainable agriculture. New metrics need to be defined such as 'nutritional output' rather than 'caloric output'. This channel is on the right track, checkout Nate Hagens channel and Planet Critical.
Algo boost! A crystal flute for one day
We sing. How is culture, icky or not, passed? We sing. We have Poets and Bankers. When was the last time you heard a Banker sing?
I completely agree. But I wonder if the human species will even survive at this point. But indeed, however unlikely it is to find water in the desert, it remains a first and vital priority! We must have radical and planetary socio-economic change, or perish. And that is, sadly, simply reality without fairy-tales.
Why is socialism/communism good?
Lets have a mix of capitalism and socialism.
Communism robbed my grandparents from their homes, posessions and dreams, they were sent to Syberia.
Maybe they were greedy kulaks and needed re-education.
Why is capitalism good?
The preconditions of capitalism were to be found in a brutal system of robbery, manifested in the form of enclosures, the usurpation of the land, the dispossession of the peasantry, and the pillage of the colonized world-giving rise to proletarianization, genocide, and slavery.
All of this involved the transfer of claims to existing property/wealth, along with the wholesale expropriation of populations, who were subjected to some of the worst forms of forcible oppression, removing them from the land and ownership of the means of reproduction, and transforming them into proletarians who had no way to live except by selling their labor power.
Such violent expropriation, which characterized the entire mercantilist era, is not only a predatory precursor to capitalism proper, but is an integral part of capitalism, determining the very limits of the system, and continuing into modern times.
@yellowgreen5229 maybe they weren't. Consumerism makes kulaks of us all. But never mind the "contradictions" that imploded the soviet police state, it is clear to anybody who can honestly call themselves "Materialist" that a political/economic structure that disregards ecological science, is self destructive.
@@ppetal1 as we face the cliff of peak oil, climate armageddon and renewed Western and Russian military imperialism you must see the hypocrisy in what you are saying!
Absolutely Yes. I will def be a patron soon. The reason I won't be today is oddly relevant :)
Company I work for is a sub-contractor for a contractor for a large telecom company that just underwent a merger in western Canada somewhere. Long story short, its a shitshow for everybody, money doesn't move without a crowbar, me and my workmates havent been paid yet this month, but some rich folks made some bucks.
It's been interesting to be an actual participant in this case study, seeing it from the inside out. At times, it's been like announcing a hockey game.
I just found your channel today, so a little late to the party, but intrigued by the GPC. Really like your ideas
The Wasteland is already on the way...most just don't know it yet. Collapse can't be more than 2 or 3 decades away. In fact, it could happen at the end of this decade if we have a 'blue ocean' event followed by a massive eruption of methane from the Siberian shelf. Even a 50 Gtn eruption woukd raise global temps 0.6 C in just a few weeks. This could very well be catastroohic for agric production. A 3 C world would produce summer avg growth temps over grain belts of 4-6 C. Because of photorespiration and inc insect pest herbivory expect at least 50% reductions. But it gets far worse than this as a study of the last interglacial makes clear.
Agreed on all of that. And I would add that the social fabric, so to speak, of at least American society where I'm from, is so utterly destroyed that it is impossible to even imagine, realistically imagine society at large rallying to the cause, to avert disaster and respond to an emergency. This country is liable to experience societal collapse, merely for cultural/socioeconomic reasons alone, forget about food or water shortages or anything like that. So we're in trouble....
@@Joeyjojoshabbadoo "he social fabric, so to speak, of at least American society where I'm from, is so utterly destroyed that it is impossible to even imagine, realistically imagine society at large rallying to the cause, to avert disaster and respond to an emergency. This country is liable to experience societal collapse, merely for cultural/socioeconomic reasons alone, " As a fellow American, I agree.
I'm with you how do we do it
Hi Vlad, you are a hero -- but that doesn't keep you alive, so I did make a contribution to the cause. I'm not so hopeful as you that anything can be done before the next great catastrophe(s), but I feel we need to have laid the foundation, planted the seeds, etc. of what can be done after the next "bronze age collapse". When we (not me, i'm over 70 so hopefully won't be here) rebuild next time, I hope people like you will have provided a solid model of the alternatives to a "master/slave" world order. Keep going! Brian
Thank you Brian! I appreciate very much. I spend many waking hours thinking about how I can help with changing the world for the better.
I agree that a viable revolution wouldn’t be classically socialist. Still, deliberative democracy is about society and the individuals in it. Today, we are individualised instead, and there’s no ‘socialism’ across the OECD.
The experiment of social democracy (Scandinavian model) has also lost its societal edge and values to business-like management of what isn’t already sold off to non-democratic entities.
Ecology and economy share the same root - oikos (house) as in ‘what we live in’. The word was originally coined (1866) to describe every (known & unknown) interaction in a ‘system of life’, including us. However, American scientists narrowed it down to darwinistic relations outside of human life.
Not that they were scientifically wrong, but ethically they misappropriated what Newton warned about before modernism took hold - That science alone doesn’t include three of Plato’s four virtues. Science is but a tool for the other three…
Ecology, economics and physical energy as a whole, can better shape our ways of imagining a way forward - and faith itself should remain a private and personal motivator. Not the imperative we as humans often misuse for power…
Humanity is biologically a social species. It has to be part of our collective psychic in order to maintain strength.
@@mtn1793 Yes, there’s no doubt - whether deduced scientifically or intuitively. However, the last four decades (in rest of OECD, earlier in US) we’ve been hammering a rather individualistic narrative. In policies, how we individualise ‘failure’ or the focus on free will and bad choices.
I’m not saying that it’s deterministic, but at least, everything we think or do is in relation and context to our life history, culture, knowledge and people - the total ecology we’re in. A “bad choice” (or any choice) doesn’t happen in a vacuum, so there’s a more complex interaction as to the causality or influences.
Economy itself is after all an interaction of transactions, but a strange reality where legal entities (corporations) have rights. Today, those rights exceed personal rights (liberal economics), but that hasn’t always been the case.
Modernity and our political economy are abundant with such logical dissonances, like how economy and ecology coexisted in early science (1830’s to 1890’s).
Add ecology and E (energy from physical meaning of ‘work’) back in, and try to view our actual economic narrative and practice with that mindset. Finance (pure capital value) and ‘growth’ doesn’t look good, and neither does democracy as it stands.
The only certainty is change, I guess…?
I agree, we need a well being index to measure our success. But I do not want pure socialism. It just leads to the bureaucracy becoming an elite class with all the power. And I do not want laissez faire capitalism either. That also leads to oligarchy. The best performing government has always been a hybrid. Degrowth is not the answer either; just a different kind of growth. But I like your approach and you seem to be approaching a reasonable balance. Just balance a little more to the right please. Good examples: ua-cam.com/video/6DhZIaJYBa0/v-deo.html
I do not understand the difference set in the video between a set of (progressiv) reform, and a (progressiv) revolution. one is a set of steps, the others is in one big step. but both want to change the statu quo for the better, and both are suceptible to similar type of problem, but in different amount of risk.
I truly beleive people who do a reform/revolution harsh distinctionare people who want violence, not progressivism, because in their own ideological direction they put wedge between communities.
edit : added explicitely my assumption of a progressive direction for the change in status quo
'democracy' is everywhere, ever so popular. but it's not democracy.
actual democracy currently is non-existent, though the swiss maintain the core, of a proto-democracy. being squeezed out of them by the e.u. though.
clearly, not natural to h. sapiens. we began with alpha males, and haven't made much progress.
you can't have revolution. almost all of us are too busy getting a living from an over-crowded planet, and those with some taste of politics are constrained by laws and guns.
revolution is possible, but chiefly by military oligarchies supplanting politician oligarchies. this has been going on since the invention of plow-farming.
wide-spread education offers hope, but reality is that money and guns will rule us until the end.
Take the sponsor's money, dude. Every penny you take from them to spend on the project is them paying for the project. One thing I've learned is that socialism can only succeed if it exists within, but separate to, a capitalist economy.
I'm kinda with you, because I've never heard of this channel and just recently stumbled upon it. His material is highly insightful and well researched
"We must educate desire" is a scary comment. Who creates the desire, commands the will.