Balaji Srinivasan Profile picture
Feb 20 8 tweets 4 min read
Thesis: the assembly line trained people for the top-down mass politics of the 1900s.

Today's workplace is network-based. With the crucial exception of China, which still builds things, any viable political ideology will scale up what people are doing on their devices.
Put another way: you don't get communism, fascism, or mid-century democratic capitalism without mass production. Top-down politics pantomimed the assembly line. Centralized states told the masses what to do.

See for example:
Today, the West has deindustrialized, while China has industrialized.

Millions of its people are still conditioned to work together en masse in factories. The scenes below are still common.

This may be why it's capable of doing things like the 1950s US, but the 2020s US is not.
As Alinsky put it, "never go outside the experience of your people…the result is confusion"

The West remembers mid-century politics, is still geared for them at an official level, but the workplace & lifestyle are completely different. It's not an assembly line culture anymore.
The assembly line trained millions to take orders from leaders, then dutifully carry out a choreographed set of tasks.

Even union actions were well organized, as union leaders could (implicitly) call upon that self-same shared experience even when protesting the company.
And what are people trained for today? To hit keys on phones and laptops.

That's what Westerners know. Not the assembly line.

That's why all politics became social media, and soon all politics will revolve around cryptocurrency.
Many say China can build infrastructure *because* they're authoritarian.

But the 1950s US was better at infrastructure while (ostensibly) democratic. And China under Mao was even more authoritarian, with far worse infrastructure.

The industrial base is now different, though.
This may all be obvious, but I hadn't heard it before.

China can build stuff in the large, like public infrastructure, because it can build stuff in the small, in factories.

America cannot build stuff in the large because it cannot even build stuff in the small.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Balaji Srinivasan

Balaji Srinivasan 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 @balajis

Feb 21
51% democracy vs ~100% democracy

In a 51% democracy you just barely pass the bar, and then assume all will do as you say. They won't.

The ideal is actually a ~100% democracy. An opt-in society, where everyone has chosen to be there. And can leave.
Set aside the question of whether ~100% democracy is practical for a second. (The ~ indicates that 100% is an asymptotic goal, even if not fully achieved.)

Once you agree it is desirable — and morally superior if feasible — then you start thinking about whether we can build it.
The fundamental concept is that democracy is about the *consent of the governed*.

If you have only 51% support, you have the absolute minimum necessary level of consent.

It's a democratic Fosbury Flop. You just barely clear the bar.
archive.is/aP2hv#selectio… Image
Read 23 tweets
Feb 20
Important article by my friend @DavidSacks. He argues crypto isn't enough, politics is needed.

My counterargument is that BTC + web3 provides the crucial philosophical/technological *base* for pro-freedom advocacy.

Examples: Wyoming, Miami, El Salvador.
bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-social-cre…
That is, I agree it's not exit *only*. You can't run forever.

But exit can get you to a high ground. You can beat a tactical retreat, to a place where you can speak and act freely, demonstrate a better system, and thereby reform the old.

That's Bitcoin.
bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-social-cre… Image
The Harper's letter approach fails because each signatory exists wholly within the old system. They can be surrounded, forced to recant.

But technological & physical exit gets you into a new system. With financial freedom & censorship-resistance, they can't silence your voice.
Read 11 tweets
Feb 18
The US military may be weaker than many think.

This detailed post by a retired colonel reviews everything from ground forces to air defenses, and concludes that the US military is overmatched against a peer like Russia — especially in its backyard.
smallwarsjournal.com/index.php/jrnl… Image
All the observable parts of the American state are failing. That may include the military, and in more places than Afghanistan. And that means updating our mental models.
Well, it’s not the same country.

The WW2 America could make a B-24 bomber in ~60 minutes [1]. Whereas 2022 America needs 20 years to reopen a bathroom.

[1] pbs.org/kenburns/the-w…
[2] mercurynews.com/2022/02/02/bar…
Read 4 tweets
Feb 17
Three kinds of DAOs

Autonomous DAO — a group that interacts with a truly self-running smart contract with no admin keys and no CEO

Bureaucratic DAO — a mess of politics

CEO DAO — a single clear leader
Yes, I’m well aware that the A in DAO in theory already stands for “autonomous”, but today’s DAOs mostly aren’t autonomous — so the distinction is worth making.
A non-obvious point is that a single decision maker in a CEO DAO may protect user rights more reliably than the groupthink of a bureaucrat DAO.

No decision makers (autonomous) or one decision maker (CEO) can both be better than a group of decisionmakers (bureaucratic).
Read 5 tweets
Feb 17
The truckers didn’t have a way to win.
But the Canadian state found 3 ways to lose.

First, they couldn’t censor social, so they lost the narrative.

Second, they went after the money because they lost hard power.

Third, they don’t control hard money, so they’ll lose there too.
We will see how things pan out. Much can change.

But this fits with the thesis that the Counter-Decentralization will fail in the West but succeed in the East.

There was a big push by the Western establishment for retroactive censorship — but it may prove too little, too late.
A state that loses social lacks soft power. No narrative, no obedience.

A state that loses AI lacks hard power. No surveillance, no drones.

And a state that loses BTC/web3 lacks hard money. No seizures, no freezes.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 14
The defining scarce resource of each decade?

2000s bandwidth
2010s attention
2020s blockspace
2030s loyalty
First, get people online.
Then, connect the world.
Next, observe that these new connections cause new conflicts by obviating old borders we didn't know existed.
Add crypto to restore digital rule of law.
Finally, rebundle society after the coming unbundling.
Provable patriotism

When something becomes highly abundant, its scarce complement becomes valuable. Given infinite peanut butter, people want jelly.

So, when we enhance technological exit to the nth power, the systems that arise will be those that engender genuine loyalty.
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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(