The alternative he proposes is not communism. At least, not in the top-down governmental-controlled sense of communism tried in Russia, China and the like. He's not suggesting the end of large companies, small companies, or companies with outside investors (shareholders). There is no reason why startups could not exist or flourish if organised along the lines he suggests. In fact, startups would probably be the best place to try implementing his ideas, to show if (that?) they can work.
Neither is it overly political. He has a go at Republicans and Democrats alike. Maybe a bit more so at Republicans, but they do make themselves easier targets w.r.t. rampant 1%-centricism.
No I don't have the time to watch a 90 minute video. I did however read his website and what he is proposing undermines the concepts of ownership and free trade in a free society.
This is extremely political, the fact that he is too extreme for democrats only underlines that.
I'm a libertarian and I don't spam HN with pro free-market links because it doesn't belong here.
No, he's not proposing a change in ownership of companies or corporations, or free trade.
He's proposing a change in the way that they are governed, such that the employees democratically decide the direction of the company, rather than have that dictactorially imposed by the ruling class^W^Wboard of directors. Giving the workers more control over the direction of a company is certainly something that adherents of "pure" non-state-controlled communism would be aligned with, but using democracy to achieve his ends is something that will confuse many who find it hard to separate political and economic worldviews.
His points about how capitalism /as we currently practice it/ seems to be inherently unstable - 11 significant downturns in the 70-odd years between the Great Depression and our current major crisis - seem valid. Rather than throw capitalism out entirely, he seems to be trying to find a clever hack that would make it less volatile.
FWIW, I don't think his proposal is right. I'm not sure exactly what I think is wrong with it yet, but I think he's got an interesting idea which is worthy of discussion. And his insight into the 180 year history of how and why we got to where we are now is incredibly thought-provoking.
So, I thought, rebut rather than downvote.
(It appears not many other people agree. That's fair enough. Meh.)
Comments
Did you even watch to the end?
The alternative he proposes is not communism. At least, not in the top-down governmental-controlled sense of communism tried in Russia, China and the like. He's not suggesting the end of large companies, small companies, or companies with outside investors (shareholders). There is no reason why startups could not exist or flourish if organised along the lines he suggests. In fact, startups would probably be the best place to try implementing his ideas, to show if (that?) they can work.
Neither is it overly political. He has a go at Republicans and Democrats alike. Maybe a bit more so at Republicans, but they do make themselves easier targets w.r.t. rampant 1%-centricism.
No I don't have the time to watch a 90 minute video. I did however read his website and what he is proposing undermines the concepts of ownership and free trade in a free society.
This is extremely political, the fact that he is too extreme for democrats only underlines that.
I'm a libertarian and I don't spam HN with pro free-market links because it doesn't belong here.
No, he's not proposing a change in ownership of companies or corporations, or free trade.
He's proposing a change in the way that they are governed, such that the employees democratically decide the direction of the company, rather than have that dictactorially imposed by the ruling class^W^Wboard of directors. Giving the workers more control over the direction of a company is certainly something that adherents of "pure" non-state-controlled communism would be aligned with, but using democracy to achieve his ends is something that will confuse many who find it hard to separate political and economic worldviews.
His points about how capitalism /as we currently practice it/ seems to be inherently unstable - 11 significant downturns in the 70-odd years between the Great Depression and our current major crisis - seem valid. Rather than throw capitalism out entirely, he seems to be trying to find a clever hack that would make it less volatile.
FWIW, I don't think his proposal is right. I'm not sure exactly what I think is wrong with it yet, but I think he's got an interesting idea which is worthy of discussion. And his insight into the 180 year history of how and why we got to where we are now is incredibly thought-provoking.
So, I thought, rebut rather than downvote.
(It appears not many other people agree. That's fair enough. Meh.)