The talk was entitled "Organization, Collective, Decision."<p>"Hope without optimism" was his first topic, based on the book of the same name by Terry Eagleton.<p>The grammar is distractingly bad in places and I'm not sure there's any coherent idea tying it all together, but I thought it was an interesting read. I think we need more open-ended conversations about how people organize and get stuff done. Maybe this can inspire some.
The talk is at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNVcy09lx9A" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNVcy09lx9A</a>
Majorly flawed ideas in my opinion.<p>The gist of the entire talk in essence is about promoting an alternative to Descartes rules of method and other key rational rules that have served society well for hundreds of years.<p>He doesn't go so far as to outright claim this but the subject matter covered clearly indicates that this is the problem he is trying to solve.<p>If you look at all the aspects he covers, its designed as a flawed replacement for enlightenment principles.<p>Personally, if you have a working system (when you subscribe and follow it), why bother creating a fanciful flawed system as a replacement that hasn't stood the test of time? Descartes has almost 400 years on this, and it still is far better than what is concretely proposed (when rightfully discarding aspects that trivially fail basic a priori reasoning).<p>The talk also doesn't actually cover any of the implicit structural flaws in centralized organization itself, treating it as a forgone conclusion. Overall what's promoted is super wishy washy, borderline magical thinking from what I can see. Not something I'd want to rely on for safety critical systems.<p>I don't think this guy is worth taking seriously. He seems to have bias against IT people, who are one of the main sources for solutions for what he proposes, their job responsibilities are largely problem solving and resilient system's design.<p>This clear bias, in my opinion would call into question the credibility of everything he claims. If you going to discount professionals and experts whose job is tailored towards these problems, what are you really after, its a clear contradiction that goes unanswered? It really begs a credibility question, and historically Marxists don't have a lot of credibility to begin with, they often lie by omission.
People who bash Agile or who butcher it in practice could do with a good deal of learning Snowden's material and starting to understand WHY it is the way it is. Provided they're not too stupid to understand it, which is arguable in some cases.