thank you for that, you fraud.

that wouldn’t happen to be lenin’s accounting and control, now would it?

book’s over here ftr

https://archive.org/details/UtopianThoughtInTheWesternWorld/

ok the book doesnt actually explain i can only assume it’s accounting and control, fits the bill

https://archive.org/details/UtopianThoughtInTheWesternWorld/page/20/mode/2up?q=applied+utopistics

and she follows up with classic projection.

no, the capitalists will arrive with a pragmatic product, not ‘in absence of an explicit and contestable theory’

she’s describing her own brand of grossly dishonest marxism

oh you mean ‘cosmopolitan democracy’?

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/cosmopolitan-democracy?utm_source=publication-search

right, as per f’in usual, all i see is opaque phrasing.

hey Gemini, is “applied utopistics Lenin’s Accounting and Control”

of course it bloody is.

wait, im now at page 322 of her ‘book’ and it’s still just criticism of ‘surveillance capitalism’

just like Marx!

“It's like looking through the menu at a Scottish restaurant: not much in it and nothing you want”

another inversion.

“we need to restore what we had” = we need to reform the system to become one that never was.

it’s just these deceitful lies all over once you spot it.

oh wow James Burnham’s Managerialism even finds a way into this loathsome trash

haha ok there’s only 330 pages to this book… and i was still searching for genuine recommendations on page 322.

figures.

exactly like marx. spend all the time whining about what you don’t want and ‘forget’ to explain what you do want, and how it will work.

and in marx’s case - how it will ‘wither away’ in practise.

ooo… she did a 1988 paper which sounds… Fragment on Machines’ish…

‘Informating’

possible even cybernetics/general systems theory

looks like we have ourselves a very interesting match

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0090261685900336

i have read a lot of books. still do. blows my mind Zuboff’s a harvard professor.

it’s typical, hysterical, overly emotional hard-left trash, trying to make you angry so that you forget to ask the crucial questions.

but she doesn’t have marx’s finesse. i dont know if that’s a positive or negative, tbqh.

let me guess - what she wants is people ‘without ego’, right?

that would fit right in with moses hess and michael laitman

now on page 109 and there’s STILL NO DEFINITION.

well, i mean, it leans heavily up against ‘rights and responsibilities’ as you’d expect out of a commie.

how the hell can you write SIXTEEN PAGES without a bloody definition of the ‘new laws’ in anything but abstract terms?

haha, she’s pro-NGOs. of course she is.

Surveillance NGO-ism.

‘deeply aware of own subjectivity’ = so a cosmopolitan idiot who abides the ‘global ethic’, then?

come on, just admit it already.