Capitalism is so absurd that its proponents respond to questions of *systemic* problems by babbling about what people can do *as individuals*. Jobs don't pay enough? Get a better job. It's like addressing the problem of a skyscraper being on fire by saying "Try not to get burnt."
It's like if there was a locked room full of ten prisoners and you only gave them enough food to keep seven alive, and you responded to their complaints by saying "Make sure you grab the food first when I throw it in your cell then."
It's a belief system you can only hold in place with psychological compartmentalization. Tell that one suffering guy to get a better job and save his money, and then simply do not think about the millions of people who are working low-paying jobs and unable to save any money.
Any competition-based system will necessarily have losers as well as winners in those competitions. Saying "Compete better than those you're competing against" does nothing for the part of the population who must necessarily lose. A collaboration-based system is what's needed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Consider the possibility that the Orwellian dystopia you fear is already here and has been in place for many years but you just haven't noticed because you're still allowed to watch Netflix or buy a gun or say whatever you want to say within a small impotent online echo chamber.
Consider the possibility that the powerful are already getting everything they want from you, right now, and any suspicious actions you see them taking is not them constructing a cage for you but them tightening the bolts on a cage that was quietly built around you some time ago.
Consider the possibility that while they've been training you to watch out for communism and microchips and overt totalitarianism, they've been covertly transforming us all into mindless gears in a machine constructed to serve their interests which challenges them in no way.
Silicon Valley manipulation of information via algorithm is far more consequential than its censorship of individuals. The fact that online platforms manipulate what speech gets heard has far more of an impact on public thought. It doesn't matter what you say if no one hears you.
A big deal gets made whenever a high-profile individual gets removed from a major online platform, and rightly so; we shouldn't let overt censorship be normalized and expanded. But censorship via algorithm is far more damaging, and gets far less attention. caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/silicon-vall…
Some celebrity losing their online platform has far less of an impact on the way people think about things than the way government-tied monopolistic megacorporations are using algorithms to elevate authorized narratives about the world while suppressing unauthorized narratives.
We don't talk enough about how bat shit insane it is that monopolistic Silicon Valley corporations censor people in obedience to US government orders, up to and including censoring discussion of a wildly important historical figure who was assassinated by that same US government.
Medhurst literally just posted screenshots from this thread. Tell me what's in here that you think should be censored on US government orders and why that should not freak you the fuck out.
When I talk about censorship on social media I always get airheads bleating "Hurr, durr, it's not censorship, it's a private company enforcing their TOS." No it's censorship you idiot. It's just a job that's been outsourced by the government like everything else in neoliberalism.
This is what happened in Syria, it's what happened in Libya, and it's what was on track to happen in Xinjiang before Beijing said "nah" and launched its crackdown. The west isn't mad at Beijing for committing a "genocide", it's mad at Beijing for preventing one.
The actual interest in Xinjiang has been about the fact that it is a key geostrategic region that the western empire would greatly benefit from balkanizing away from China so it can't fulfill the role planned for it in the Belt and Road Initiative.
You can understand why the US political system refuses to bring Americans out of debt and impoverishment by imagining what would happen if it didn't. Ordinary people would use their new financial influence to create a system that serves them rather than a globe-spanning empire.
In a system where money equals power, people would begin using their new economic power to change political and economic realities for their benefit. They'd begin working to divert wasteful war machine spending to themselves. The oligarchs who control US politics can't have that.
Money is power and power is relative, so those with lots of money are incentivised to keep as much money as possible for themselves to maximize their power. If everyone a is king then nobody is a king.
"The Assange issue is simple. What makes it seem complicated is the lies people have been fed by the media class whose job is to manipulate the public into consenting to the agendas of the US power alliance." caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-assange-…
The Assange Case Explained Simply (Audio)
"One of the most common reasons I hear from people on their reluctance to wade into the Assange debate is that they don't understand it. It looks like a complicated issue to them, so they leave it to the experts." soundcloud.com/going_rogue/th…
In reality, the complexity of this case is a complete illusion. It's very, very simple. It only looks complicated because many years of media distortion have made it appear so.