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.
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
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.
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.
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…
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.
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).
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.