1. This is really presumptuous of me, and I’m an amateur in the field, but reading through the most popular definitions of capitalism, it seems that almost all them airbrush its true nature to some degree. Could we, together, develop a better one, in one sentence?
Thread/
2. I’m probably deceiving myself, but this feels to me like a tight definition. Unfortunately it’s likely to be incomprehensible to almost everyone:
“Capitalism is an economic system that constantly creates and ruptures its own hypervolume.”
3. This draws on a crucial ecological concept, developed by GE Hutchinson in 1957: the n-dimensional hypervolume. Here’s the presentation in which he explains it: www2.unil.ch/biomapper/Down…
4. Plainly, this won’t do, as any definition should be self-explanatory. So here’s a stab at something more comprehensible. It’s probably rubbish, so please improve it:
5. “Capitalism is an economic system founded in colonial expropriation, that operates along a constantly shifting and self-consuming frontier, on which natural wealth, labour and money are commodified and common resources captured by private interests.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. This week’s column is about something we badly want to believe, regardless of the evidence: that livestock farms are benign and harmonious. Why? Mostly, I think, because it chimes with books and cartoons we see as very young children. Also: a threadtheguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2. It discusses a film enjoying unexpected success in UK cinemas: Six Inches of Soil. In many ways, it’s a good film. But it tells us a story we want to hear, and in some respects is misleading and wrong. sixinchesofsoil.org
3. This is especially the case with the carbon calculations for the cattle farm it features: first we see a temporary, cyclical gain reported as making the farm carbon negative. Then entirely hypothetical figures treated as if they are real. Both cases are serious misinformation
1. There’s a telling sequence in the Netflix docuseries Raël. A completely mad cult claims, without a jot of evidence, to have cloned a human. And the world’s media fall for it, hook, line and sinker. All it took to fool them was 2 people in white coats and some lab equipment.🧵
2. What do we learn from this?
A. That the media is as susceptible to evident BS as the members of the crazy cult.
B. That it has a massive diversity problem – and not just the one(s) you are probably thinking of.
3. In any major newsroom, just about the only people with science degrees are specialist reporters. Almost without exception, the senior staff and main decision-makers have non-science degrees. Their knowledge of basic science is approximately zero.
Nowadays, when you discuss the far right, people insist “That’s not far right!”.
Folk who have plainly shifted to the far right claim to have “transcended left and right”. Or state that the terms have no meaning.
What’s going on?
Hold onto your seats, it’s a wild ride. 🧵
For the past few years there has been a concerted effort on the far right to reposition Nazism and fascism as left/socialist movements.
I know, I know, but bear with me, because this is now a widespread thing, and unsuspecting people have been fooled by it.
As usual with these matters, it began - and continues - with utter blithering idiocy. “Nazism stands for National Socialism: ergo it’s socialism.” Hitler and Goebbels both mentioned socialism in public statements, therefore they were socialists.
In the UK and around the world, environmental defenders are being attacked with ever more extreme laws. Who designs these laws? Corporate lobbyists. Who demands they are imposed? The billionaire media.
THIS IS NOT JUSTICE.
This week's column. 🧵 theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
In the UK, you can now receive a longer sentence for “public nuisance” – meaning peaceful civil disobedience – than for rape or manslaughter.
Ordinary criminals are being released from prison early, and the spaces filled with environmental defenders.
Around the world, corporate lobbyists (often disguised as "thinktanks") have been drafting new laws against those who challenge destructive industries. The billionaire press then demands the introduction of these laws, while demonising peaceful campaigners. It's totally corrupt.
This is a shocking exposure of how the BBC has been captured and disciplined by government minders. It might explain why, almost every day, the BBC still lets corporate lobbyists from Tufton Street junktanks pose as independent, objective commentators.🧵prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/64…
This is in direct contravention of the BBC’s own editorial guidelines. It breaches them day after day. Almost the only times when these corporate lobbyists are held to account is when guests challenge them about the way they hide their funding.
I don’t want to have to do this. I want to get on and argue about the issues. But transparency is essential to democracy, and when corporations and oligarchs can get what they want by hiding behind their secretly-funded lobbyists, we are all the poorer for it.
The UK government's criminalisation of rough sleeping, now passing through Parliament in the Criminal Justice Bill, is overseen by a Prime Minister who owns four luxury homes for his own use. One of them, in Kensington, is reserved for accommodating family guests.🧵
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France
What we are seeing play out in the UK, in ever more extreme forms, is class war. The war being waged by the rich against the poor.