My favorite bit is that she's well known for her exaggerations about the DPRK, yet will say US college campuses run by liberals "remind her of it." That's why conservatives love her so much and why she makes good money, and why other defectors have criticized her for essentially spinning tales in a way that ends up undermining actual struggles in North Korea, or distorting their character for profit.

Thanks!

I mean, you're almost speaking of the exact system Marxists want to work towards, just with the caveat that Marxists think Markets are only useful tools in less-developed and less-critical industries temporarily, before public ownership and planning becomes more efficient, and that the spread in difference between "luxuries" decreases over time as productivity improves to account for that. The whole "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" bit that requires extremely developed industry to achieve.

Marxists aren't opposed to increased pay for more skilled or more intense labor, rather, such a system is a necessity until sufficient automation and industrialization allow for more goods and services to be free.

Have you read Marx, or Marxists?

Socialism is when the government is nice to you bottom text

This.

Also, extremely agressive measures to stop the harm of others through the accumumation of mass wealth.

Basically, once you reach, I dunno, 5-10 million total "worth", you get taxed at 100%.

Something like that. No one will ever need that much ever, and they can feel free to just reture and live out their life doing nothing if they manage to get there.

This sounds fantastic, and will never work in the USA as long as there are classes of people who live above the rules and can influence society through policy and social media. If they smell any extra income, rights or services you receive, it's like blood in the water and they will come from miles to get a piece of anything you own, exactly as they do now.

Provide basic needs, food, clothing, healthcare, childcare, and education. Hell even a phone and Internet access.

Any government that has the power to grant these goods/services will have the power to take them away. Unless the public can directly own and administer the property through local councils and administrative bureaucracies, they are banking on the largesse of national socialist leadership to continue indefinitely.

Allow for those who do not wish to, or are unable to work to live with all basic needs covered. Those who wish to work are incentivized to do so, with access to luxuries. Better housing, better clothing, better technology. Allow a place for the market, but don’t make people depend on the market.

All of that is predicated on a continuously expanding surplus of raw materials, advanced technologies, and an educated labor force.

You can either import these as luxuries, in which case you're operating an export-oriented economy predicated on the market price of your domestic surplus. That requires a bigger economy you're effectively beholden to. Looks good in the moment, but over the course of centuries you just end up as a West African / Middle Eastern / East India Tea Company-controlled kingdom, wherein the bottlenecks of trade produce oligarchs of immense personal fortune.

Or you produce domestically, in the Juche model, and live within the means provided by your real estate and your people. But that requires an economy that can plan and organize resources on the order of decades (if not centuries) and invests domestically rather than keeping an eye towards meeting the needs of foreign import markets. It won't work as a capitalist system, because the capitalist demand for growth will push you back into the export-oriented model that foreigners exploit.

"Free" markets follow the bubbles in credit and compel local economies to chase short term speculative bubbles at the expense of long term economic needs. Planned economies can build infrastructure in advance of future needs and plan social policy to curb economically regressive short-term profitable impulses with long term costs (opium consumption, coal/NGL power grids, cash crops that deplete arable land and water reserves like tobacco and pistachios).

They aren't durable. They produce rapid consolidations of wealth and political capital. And they create intergenerational risks that the current cohort of investors have little reason to acknowledge or prevent.

I'm sure fighting a global proxy war for most of a century has absolutely nothing to do with the (state) failure of the USSR.

Now, excuse me, I have to go to the ER because of all the compounded brain damage it takes to both think that and say anyone that believes otherwise is a tankie.

Yeah, I agree with that. Mass centralization is bad regardless of the situation IMO. We need collaboration instead.

I'm personally a fan of Prof Wolff's idea to force all corporations to surrender ownership to their workers, converting them into worker-owned coops. This would largely mitigate the ability for extreme wealth concentration to happen to begin with, especially if combined with other wealth-limiting regulations.

But don't worship it. Make it work for the nation, don't make the nation exist for the sake of the economy. This is what we do in America, and it's fucking wrong.