I actually sat down and listened to both of these guys speak and it's like two different worlds but what amounts to technology will ultimately change our material conditions.
Could Jim be the cyber anarchist to Paul Cuckshot's tankieism?
Other urls found in this thread:
Am I the only one who noticed that Jim Sterling is like a bad combination of Profit and Jason Unruhe and he's a sleazy mod?
It's straight up anime plot level stuff here
Then who was phone?
I thought you were talking about pic related
He’s being honest. Also if you read his book he said the USSR was socialist, but not of the type of socialism that he advocates for. He said that part of the reason the USSR collapsed was there fault. He doesn’t support the Soviet model, just understands that it is socialist. He isn’t a Tankie. Thinking the USSR is socialist doesn’t make you a Tankie. Unless you consider Anarchists and Trots to be “Tankies.”
I'd say Jim Profit has more in common with U/ACC these days actually, though he clearly has a marxist leninist background if you look at his older videos
If you were a Zig Forums oldfag you'd remember when he used to post there as a ML(M).
Truly the big other of the non-ML left
Whelp there goes Cockshott's credibility.
Dude, I'm pretty sure Cockshott is not a fan of Juche, but he doesn't necessarily give a shit about the superstructure if the economic base is still fundamentally socialist.
What I find funny is that even Cockshott knows zilch about Laos. I feel like Laos is the left's Wakanda.
I don't see the left shouting Laos forever or using it as a model to aspire to.
Jim still posts here and on Zig Forums anonymously actually, I can recognize his posting style since I know him personally.
He said mixed economy with a large capitalist sector, I don't see how that's wrong? Forgive me, the extent of my knowledge on Vietnam is essentially 2 skimmed Wikipedia articles.
No that’s Cuba. Laos is an illiterate shithole.
sage because unreadable
This might be the best Jim Profit video in awhile, holy shit
Cockshott's position is kinda odd. He thinks the USSR, NK, etc were socialist because they were a new type of economy which emerged out of capitalism. However he doesn't advocate for that kind of socialism.
How did the USSR emerge out of capitalism? The Russian Empire wasn't capitalist, right? And I don't know shit about NK, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't capitalist before the revolution either.
New Economic Policy was capitalist and the socialist five year plans emerged from that.
this is not the worst part, after all just by reading that if you squint you could treat him like a zizek, largerly acepting that the ussr was socialist, but in practice rejecting the majority of the ussr policies, the worst part is how he wants to create a berlin wall to keep people in a country, so they won't migrate, which is bullshit since his whole theory is predicated on massive scale state sponsored movement of labour
Of course the Russian Empire was capitalist. The serfs were liberated in fucking 1861, which is over 50 years before the October Revolution. Don't make the mistake so many Marxists make and conflate a capitalist society with a capitalist mode of the production - of course, in 1917 there was still a peasant mode of production of subsistence economy, but the society was fully capitalist. Serfdom is a social relation, not a mode of production, and capitalist social relations existed way before capitalism (there was wage labor in the middle ages). There was even a small medieval proletariat made up of artisans, day-laborers, etc. as Silvia Frederici points out.
Make an argument though. Cockshott said that having society fund your education and living but then working somewhere else is simply theft. In Berlin there were people that had their apartment sponsored for free and worked in the Western part, because the West went out of its way to pay them more than usual workers.
It even looks like him if he was black lol
i already did read my comment, cockshott's tans is based on the allocation of labour based on the productivity of enterprises, and when taken to its conclusion, i.e. the implementation of international plans like it's touched on tans, it means that labour is allocated internationally, this is fucking diametrically opposed to literally building a wall so that people won't go away
This. There is of course much to critique about the USSR (and its offspring), but it's also the biggest attempt at creating a socialist economy and central planning. If you advocate those things, then it is impossible to ignore the USSR's example in an instructive sense.
On a somewhat related note, I also find it really annoying when demsocs totally handwave the "what about Venezuela" question. Venezuela is unquestionably the most ambitious and long-lasting attempt at reformist-yet-radical socialism in history, and its history, triumphs, and failures therefore demand very serious analysis. (That's not to say that we should make apologies to rightists for another country's actions; I'm talking about internal discussion)
How did I manage to fuck up that parentheses so bad?
Tankieism isn't even a thing