_oghd

in the original article.... I quote:

Towards the end of Technofeudalism, Varoufakis canvasses some proposals, drawn from his earlier book Another Now (2020), for how to address these issues. These include ending the cloudalists faux “free service” model and replacing it with a universal micro-payment model, instituting a Bill of Digital Rights, and using digital technology to “democratise companies” (with decisions being taken collectively by “employee-shareholders”)

employee owned coops are a major socialist idea, and are a definitive step away from privately owned capital, toward collectively owned production by the employees (proletariat, if you will).

so, yes. he does. in this article.

nor is Yannis Varoufakis even remotely advocating eliminating the notion of private property ownership.

uh, yes, he does.

I try to create a vision of a liberal, socialist society that is not based on private property but does use money as a vehicle for exchange and markets as coordinating devices. I preserve money and markets because the alternative would be to fall to some fearsome hierarchical control, which, for me, is a nightmare scenario.

https://greattransition.org/publication/another-europe-is-po...

whether you agree with Marx or not, his description of capitalism is at the very least, complete. and it's his definition I used.

capitalism is private ownership of property and the exchange of labor for wage to produce commodities with said capital.

capitalism is not just "free market economy," where the natural opposite as you supoose being "centrally planned economies"

this is essential to understand what varoufakis presents as a new relation to production: technofeudalism.

can you elaborate on the difference between your definitions of distributism and socialism?

longevity? uh... no. capitalism is very young in human society.

for clarity, feudalism lasted twice as long as capitalism has currently existed.

and while competition has dominated the scientific and cultural narrative for a while, that's not the exclusive interpretation, or even necessarily the best or correct one.

my primary keyboards are a planck for my personal desktop and ergodox infinity for work. i guess if i used the planck every day i'd get used to it but i think that the braces/brackets/parens are common enough they deserve their own keys instead of chords. but again, i've not given the time to learn to type with chords as a daily driver.

i would like one of these though and maybe move on from the planck for my desktop. the minimalism is sexy as hell

99.9% of products aren't needed in any way by anybody.

90% of products are created to fill an artificial demand manufactured by advertising in the first place.

these products and their manufacturing comes at a massive carbon cost for meaningless gain.

i also worked in digital advertising. for some of the biggest brands out there. i quit.

biased to what people perceive as intelligence rather than intelligence itself

this statement is only reifying the presupposition that "intelligence" as a property of the universe, any more than something such as "crime" or "mental illness" is a fundamental property and not emergent from culture values and norms.

the reason why "AI conservatives" keep moving the goalposts is because it is a myth in the collective consciousness of people who believe that intelligence is fundamentally not something a silicon substrate machine could possess.

i think breaking out of the dichotomy of intelligent or unintelligent is necessary for the discussion. a "human level intelligence" is not real, so whatever does "human level intelligence" things is human level intelligence. if it quacks like a duck... it even may be imbued with "subjectivity" if you ask me.