To understand the world, you just have to understand that capitalism is redundant. Industry would function just fine if there weren't any owners. Modern politics consists almost entirely of capitalists trying to maintain their position in the face of their own redundancy.
What capitalists fear is a world that runs without them, so they sabotage anything that might contribute to the formation of a pure technocracy - an industrialized society without private ownership - and promote anything that generates fear of such an eventuality.
Under the condition of the permanent war of capital against the formation of technocracy it's impossible to solve many problems, since one of the things they have to ensure is that the 'social sciences', particularly economics, remain impoverished, as does government itself.
So while capitalists create many problems deliberately in order maintain their position, despite being of no use to the world, there are also many knock-on problems they create, simply because their obstructionism makes it impossible to develop solutions to these other problems.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with scientism

scientism Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mr_scientism

13 Jun
To understand liberal ideology, just look at it from the perspective of a developing country. You want modern technology, the source of the West's wealth and power, but the West wants you to control you. Liberal ideology aims to blur the boundaries between these two goals.
In order to develop technologically, you need compatible political and economic organization. The West's goal is to convince you that the only political and economic organization that can produce development is one that involves opening to Western trade, investment, media, etc.
Every component of liberal ideology, from free markets and free trade to free speech, free assembly, academic freedom, multiparty elections, and human rights is aimed eroding your sovereignty, so Western institutions can move in, gain control, and extract your wealth.
Read 6 tweets
2 Apr
The US uses ‘human rights’ primarily as a means to put pressure on allies. In each allied state there are institutions and individuals that are aligned with US interests. They use US material on ‘human rights’ to pressure their colleagues into taking actions the US wants.
Among US allies right now, it is US-funded think tanks, US-aligned media, US-aligned elected officials, and the military and intelligence services (who have a formal relationship with the US) using ’human rights’ discourse to coerce their colleagues into an anti-China position.
This is why ‘human rights’ enforcement is highly selective - i.e., only pursued where it aligns with US geopolitical interests and ignored or covered up otherwise. It’s primarily a way to put pressure on allies by publicly humiliating them. It wouldn’t work if it was consistent.
Read 8 tweets
7 Mar
If you look at the US 'empire' as a network of institutions, you can understand 'democratization' and 'state-building' through this lens. The goal is to create a political environment where US-affiliated institutions can gain entry and then to ensure that they set the agenda.
Liberal democracy requires a set of private institutions to function. These present themselves as 'independent' but actually form a network centered on a handful of unaccountable elites. The US seeks to 'spread democracy' because this is the ideal for spreading US influence.
Under liberal democracy, the goal is to create a 'vibrant civil society', which is just to gain entry for and establish the dominance of institutions that will represent US interests. These are either directly owned and controlled by the US or by US-friendly local elites.
Read 9 tweets
6 Mar
People talk about global 'influence' like its something magical, but if a country has economic power, politicians in smaller countries are going to take its side, and those people are going to rely on talking points it supplies. This is what America has, nothing else.
America's global influence works kind of like a sales organization. It has representatives all over the world, in both the public and private sector. They try to push whatever America is selling. The US media, think tanks, etc, supply the arguments or scripts they use.
The US has largely enjoyed a uncontested territory of influence since the fall of the USSR. America peddlers dominate global politics. But we already see the signs that this is changing, increasingly they're becoming more desperate and turning to more underhanded practices.
Read 4 tweets
8 Jan
There’s essentially three categories of ‘moral code’ in modern society and each is adopted based on the adherent’s relationship to the legal system. The dominant one is essentially a set of heuristics for staying out of trouble if you’re middle-class: don’t lie, cheat, steal.
If your relationship to the legal system is dominated by being policed or experiencing the court system ‘from below’, for whatever reason, then the moral code is a set of heuristics for staying out of trouble given those circumstances: most importantly, ‘don’t snitch’.
If you’re rich and have good access to the legal system, then you don’t really need a ‘moral code’ as such, you just consult a lawyer directly. You can afford to conform to the ‘word of the law’ rather than rely on heuristics.
Read 4 tweets
5 Jan
'Soft power' is more a matter of personnel than skill. America's 'soft power' comes from the presence of its apologists in other countries, who repeat its message, attack its enemies, etc. This has two important consequences: (1) it's adversarial; (2) it can decline rapidly.
'Soft power' is adversarial because it's about getting your view of events heard over others, but if your position becomes increasingly practically untenable (as your power declines), then your advocates increasingly just become loudmouthed liabilities.
This is why 'soft power' can decline rapidly: as other forms of (relative) power decline, your advocates around the world become liabilities to their hosts rather than assets. All that has to happen then, for a widespread collapse, is for those countries to switch personnel.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(