'Wokeness' and 'identity politics' are just the latest in the long line of methods the plutocracy's philanthropic networks have used to gain and maintain power. In this case, they fund and staff organizations that purport to represent minority groups.
An earlier iteration of this strategy was to build political power through 'experts' who were trained and funded by the philanthropic networks. This was followed by the promotion of 'civil society', which was just organizations funded by the same philanthropic networks.
These strategies are embodied in academic movements and these movements tend to criticize one another, masking the fact that they're funded by and do the bidding of the same organizations. Thus, the current movement criticizes the 'technocratic' nature of the older movement.
The academic fads change but the result is always the same: government is beholden to people in the private sector who belong to organizations funded by large networks of private philanthropy headed by massive family wealth.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
'Airforce 2025' forecast (from 1999): "the study speculates on the rise of a 'Sino-colossus' incorporating China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan. ... the US turns inward because of severe economic problems 'the American Century has given way to the Asian Millennium.'"
"Crossroads 2015 ... arrives ten years before the other scenarios. Here, the US faces economic hard times, and the pace of technological progress has slowed. Russia, its power on the rise, attempts to seize and incorporate independent Ukraine."
Another scenario: "the US is pinned down by a host of microcrises around the world ... The US is 'overwhelmed and preoccupied with worldwide commitments, such as counterterrorism and counterproliferation efforts, humanitarian assistance, and peacekeeping operations'"
When it comes to ‘money in politics’, there’s a lot of research activity around campaign finance but little around the sprawling network of foundations, think tanks, NGOs, activist orgs, etc, that make up the more permanent structures of plutocratic control of government.
This is because the plutocracy itself is interested in certain ways in which money can enter politics, or rather they’re interested in the ways in which NEW money can enter politics and displace their incumbent political networks. Campaign finance is one such entry point.
Setting up an alternative network of think tanks, NGOs, etc, would be extremely difficult, and the process of gaining influence would tend to lead it to endorsing the status quo anyway. Backing ’anti-establishment’ politicians is a more likely avenue of attack for new money.
People love to say 'science is the new religion', 'scientists are the new priests', etc, but this betrays the fact that, according to our culture, science is NOT supposed to be like religion and scientists are not supposed to be priests. But why not?
What could have been more mundane than that the new cosmology would have simply been incorporated into our culture, replacing Medieval cosmology? Why, instead, did we concoct the idea of a 'scientific method' that opposes itself to 'religious dogma' and applies to all things?
The 'scientific method' and the supposed opposition between science and religion are a political invention that subordinates the scientific revolution and incorporates it into the dominant ideology of the modern world: liberalism.
"Beijing was not happy last year when some big internet companies invested heavily in apps that sell vegetables to local residents. That’s because the apps could replace the mom-and-pop vegetable stands where many lower-income people make a living." Those... monsters...
The article portrays regulation as corporations having their 'rights' violated by an 'authoritarians'.
"For the companies, it’s helpful to know Beijing’s priorities. Domestically, that is to reduce inequality and promote what the party calls 'collective prosperity.'"
Basically, liberal democracy is wholly inadequate for running an industrialized society, so in the early 20th century the American ruling elite built a new government out of a network privately-owned non-profits and that has been running things ever since.
There's no 'getting money out of politics' because you could never have a modern industrialized society that used America's formal institutions. They keep the lie going because it conceals where real power lies in America and it's incredibly useful for imperialist expansion.
If you wanted to move beyond the current system you'd have to nationalize the entire policy and opinion forming apparatus that's now privately owned, along with the commanding heights of the economy. This would create a system that looks just like... *drumroll* modern China.
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.