20 ms·

Of course it is. Why? Because both parties operate at the behest of the capital-owning class. The only bills that pass are performative, extend police power dom

by jmyeet 4y ago

Of course it is. Why? Because both parties operate at the behest of the capital-owning class. The only bills that pass are performative, extend police power domestically (eg [1]) or extend military power internationally (which typically means a massive giveaway to the military-industrial complex anyway). Nothing curtails corporate power. It's also why the focus of politics is on being divisive on social issues. This is to distract the voters and prevent class solidarity of the working class. [1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/politics/house-vote-supreme-court-justice-security/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/14/politics/house-vote-supre...

Frost1x 4y ago
Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" The alternative is to fix rampant abuses we see with highly concentrated capital accumulation that results in a proxy of many unchecked powers in private and increasingly public spaces. There's lots of paths being pursued to curb this. Antitrust legislation and most business regulation exists because of abuses that naturally arise, I don't know why the narrative of continued deregulation solves these problems--regulation is pretty much the only way to leverage the benefits of capitalism without allowing it to become yet another oppressive system over the majority of society where the oppressors just become a class of the ultrawealthy. My opinion is that were well on our way down that path as we see increasingly less value add back to society and a lot more value capture strategies instead.
- drekipus 4y ago
  > Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" I don't think as many people say that as you think. I think most people want better regulation and control, but perhaps done incrementally (with haste) and with a feedback circuit. Most alternatives that have been "hard-stop" switched to lead to a lot more destruction and problems than we currently have now
- fallingknife 4y ago
  I would like to see some evidence for this "continued deregulation" I always hear about. Seems like everywhere I look regulation either has stayed the same or been tightened.
  - chalst 4y ago
    The hobbling of Dodd-Frank by Obama and its gutting by Trump, in each case at the behest of Wall Street, is an obvious example. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_in_post-financial_crisis_reform_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_in_post...
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      Your linked source does not support the claim, but rather talks about efforts to restore Glass-Steagall in some form and their failure, which is not a loosening of regulations, but a continuation of the status quo. I do acknowledge that the repeal of Glass-Steagall itself was a loosening of regulation, but that was 25 years ago.
      - chalst 4y ago
        The link was 'Cf', meaning it gives background on the part of financial regulation I talk about, rather than being a direct source. It talks about the rationale for not adopting Glass-Steagall-strength measures during the Obama years. During the Trump years, most US banks were exempted from Dodd-Frank in 2018 via the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act.
    - Aunche 4y ago
      Anyone in finance would tell you that Dodd Frank drastically changed how banks are run. Glass–Steagall was never reinstated because it had very little to do with the financial crisis. Many of the bigger players of the mortgage crisis never did anything related to commercial banking (e.g. Lehman Brothers, AIG).
    - missedthecue 4y ago
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Right, and the most frustrating thing is that antitrust laws have been on the books since 1890. We as a country and a people know how to stop unchecked corporate power, and we already have laws to do so. Unfortunately, lawlessness is much more of a problem than any one ideological position.
closewith 4y ago
Okay, so why is the EU seemingly able to regulate big tech? It's a capitalist continent.
- truckerbill 4y ago
  Less lobbying focus (though probably still a lot)? Protectionism (big tech is USA born)? Elites are old money not new? No tax income (probably this)?
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    > Elites are old money not new This is the big one right here. Europe has pretty much missed the boat on tech so its elites are from older industries that tech is starting to compete with. You can see this same dynamic here in the US as the legacy media has declared war on the tech industry for threatening its power.
- Cipater 4y ago
  Because big tech is mainly foreign (American) companies to them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 4y ago
  Because it’s politically expedient for them? Notice how China has no trouble regulating US tech either?
- jltsiren 4y ago
  The primary purpose of the EU is administering a common market that consists of a large number of sovereign states. Each state naturally wants to be protectionist and give domestic businesses advantages over those from other member states. The EU can't allow that, as it would destroy the common market. As a consequence, the EU has a lot of experience in pushing against powerful interests. It's doing that all the time, and it's also moderately successful at that. While many attempts at regulating giant businesses or forcing member states to do something they don't want ultimately fail, sometimes the EU manages to get things done.
rayiner 4y ago
> Nothing curtails corporate power. It's also why the focus of politics is on being divisive on social issues. This is to distract the voters and prevent class solidarity of the working class. I think you’re misdiagnosing the cause. Nearly everyone I know—my circle skews highly educated and well compensated—cares more about social issues than economic ones. It’s telling that, in this crowd, Clarence Thomas gets exponentially more hate for the ways in which he’s a typical older Black man from a working class background (his views on social issues) than for the ways in which he starkly departs from that background (his economic libertarianism). While these folks would deny they’re acting in their class interest, the effect is identical. Working class people, being less educated and less cosmopolitan, are naturally going to be more socially conservative. By making politics more about “rights” and “justice” than “wages” and “government services” you’re naturally going to divide the working class and have a powerful club to use against them.
- feet 4y ago
  The more well compensated you are, the more disconnected you are from the perils of working class poverty. Most people I know who are well compensated don't see an issue with the system simply because it has worked for them I should note that these people are well compensated workers, and they are not capital owners even if they aspire to be one some day which helps solidify the ideals of capitalism working for them
  - noobker 4y ago
    > The more well compensated you are, the more disconnected you are from the perils of working class poverty. For sure, but there's a type of blindness that comes from our culture and class expectations too. I know many service workers who make more than white collar workers. But -- critically -- the white collar workers are unaware of it. You could say the white collar workers are banking on social clout for why they feel better than the service workers they utilize, but I don't think so. It looks like straight up ignorance and willful projection. The service workers are happy to let the white-collar-fools carry on with the delusions --> it leads to big tips when the white collars need to show off and there's a payoff for workers who can put on a show of subservience while ultimately enjoying more freedom.
the_lonely_road 4y ago
Trying to engage with this comment in good faith is very difficult. The best case I can come up with is you are engaging in significant hyperbole to push forward some point you are passionate about. Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. We don’t hear about them because Congress agrees and does it job is not interesting or newsworthy. We do hear nonstop about the divisive issues that the parties are split on and can’t find common ground. There is no half abortion or half gun seizure. I quickly glanced at those hundred bills and didn’t see much in the way of expanding police power or military conquest of Europe and Asia.
- feet 4y ago
  Have you heard of think tanks? There are groups like ALECS that literally write legislation at the behest of corporations, it's been a problem for a long time. The reason you think it isn't in good faith is likely due to corporate owned media pushing specific narratives to keep workers placated
  - User23 4y ago
    With minor exceptions like grandstanding bills that are never meant to make it to a vote let alone pass, no federal legislation is written by legislators or even their staffs. I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. In any event it’s clear to any intelligent observer that the actual dynamics of governance put a lie to the fiction that our system functions as a representative republic.
    - diogenescynic 4y ago
      >I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. The last example I recall was when republicans passed an over-ride of Obama's veto on the bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia then once it passed were worried about the actual consequences.
  - 4y ago
refurb 4y ago
Not really. They only support the capital-owning class when the capital-owning class supports them in return. And that’s how this will turn out. If Big Tech decides to back the current politicians? They’ll go easy on them.
- smt88 4y ago
  Big Tech already backs current politicians. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2022/01/24/tech-spent-big-on-lobbying-last-year-00001144 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2022/01/24...
throwaway787544 4y ago
I have a simpler explanation: boredom. Public opinion was probably getting bored of the big tech trials, which means they might not be fired up about voting for those politicians. So now politicians are pivoting to a different, more attractive cause. Votes are all that matter to politicians. It's unfortunate that the great unwashed still haven't realized this.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  The UK has managed to keep people engaged over Brexit for seven years now. In the US abortion is an ancient topic, but has been a big topic since the supreme court nomination of 2016 and seems to keep people more engaged than ever. I don't really buy that the nation can't keep interest in big tech regulation for more than two years, if congress and the media wants them to.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Big tech regulation: abstract thing. Abortion: talks about freedoms. close to peoples hearts. Brexit: talks about freedoms. close to peoples hearts. Is a 3 week old baby considered sacred … vs … someone sold some data or something.
mberning 4y ago
We need a separation of money and state. Desperately. The fact that you can do the bidding of the donor class for years then leave office and immediately get placed in a cushy job is gross.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
I wish. Extending police powers? Meaning refund the police?
- throwaway23234 4y ago
  No, they are still defunding in extreme left areas: https://lasd.org/effects-of-defunding-the-lasd-on-public-safety/ https://lasd.org/effects-of-defunding-the-lasd-on-public-saf...
  - claudiulodro 4y ago
    The chart in that article shows LASD budged increased from $3.4b to $3.5b since last year, hardly defunding.
    - kansface 4y ago
      That's well under inflation.
      - banannaise 4y ago
        No it isn't. That's the change from FY 2020 to FY 2021, which was ratified in April 2021. Inflation for the prior year was well under 2%, and even a live chart would have given you less than 5%.
        daniel-cussen 4y ago
        Yes it is under inflation. Inflation is what, what it says on the news? Dude narcos what do they charge for their product, how many police do they murder, what's the budget for a dead cop? $100 million is...dude you realize I voluntarily pay taxes specifically so there can be a Medi-Cal and police, first and foremost?
        banannaise 4y ago
        "I love the cops and want them to have more money" is not a measure of inflation.
PontifexMinimus 4y ago
> This is to distract the voters and prevent class solidarity of the working class. You are very cynical. Note: I did not say you are wrong.
anonymouswacker 4y ago
^ This person gets it. The "overton window" in American politics is narrow enough that we essentially have a de facto uniparty, that agrees on everything except what matters. About 40% of the country is Independent but we pretend that either of these parties represent us. Then we fight about which party is worse. I can't see any other way that this could have happened after the introduction of fiat currency and endless war budgets financed by fiat. Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.
- smiddereens 4y ago
scarface_74 4y ago
I would much rather curtail government power than corporate power. I can much easier get away from a corporation than a government. Government has a "monopoly on violence". They can take away my rights much easier than corporations.
- krapp 4y ago
  You just want to trade a monopoly on violence for a market of violence, and for some reason you believe that would make you safer. But you're making the common mistake of assuming that corporations won't simply fill the power vacuum themselves in the absence of a government capable of stopping them. Government power is the only thing stopping corporations from exercising violence against you or take away your rights. Look at the way corporations operated in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when they had company towns and private armies coercing votes and killing strikers, or corporations' support for coups and cartels in foreign markets, or just the East India Trading Company, which was a de facto superpower of its time.
  - jmyeet 4y ago
    100% this. I heard it said that the only things Americans know about is World war Two and they don't know that much about that. It's a sobering thought. To your point, if anyone wants to see the effects of unchecked corporate power, just look at the 19th century and the robber barons. most notably, look at the history of the Pinkerton Detective Agency [1]. "Detective agency" is an inocuous sounding name but at its peak the Pinkertons outnumbered the US Army. Pinkertons were frequently used as striker breakers and to quash any form of labor movement. They did so with the blessing of the US government. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)
    - livueta 4y ago
      While you and the parent are totally correct about the dynamics of power vacuums, I think it's also relevant to note that the robber-baron stuff wasn't exactly happening in some kind of Hobbesian state of nature - it's right there at the end of your quote: "They did so with the blessing of the US government". This was an environment where centralized authority was weakened to the point that private armies were worthwhile, yet still strong enough to engage in selective enforcement on behalf of corporate powers. Hence, the dynamic where you'd get beaten up by the Pinkertons and then arrested for fighting back. This sort of halfway environment is the worst possible case: in a more total vacuum, opposing corporate power via collective action is more viable; in a society with a stronger grip on a monopoly on violence, corporate abuses are (theoretically) restrained. While untrammeled corporate power and untrammeled government power are both scary, the effective fusion of the two via state capture is the real nightmare. I think that sort of halfway environment, where there's enough state to be worth capturing but not enough to be an effective counterweight, is the default in a lot of the particularly cursed post-colonial nations - Angola and Burma spring to mind - where traditional means of social organization were sublimated into the colonial state, leaving a vacuum when the colonial state itself began to molder.
dekhn 4y ago
Well, I think it's more about the fact that the tech industry is the us's lifeline to long-term viability and that other country's tech industries (like china, russia) are far worse in terms of human rights. Why would congress attack the golden goose for class solidarity? That would help send the US to historical irrelevance.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  if you look at the quantitative reports on trade, you will quickly see that high tech is massive, but not the only category to have that title. You are arguing a perceived difference without quantitative grounding. In other words, the mind-share of tech is massive, and that certainly is part of the political gridlock here.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Yes, we also make money via agriculture although often times it's really just contaminating our environment for short-term profits (almond growers in california). We also have a vibrant manufacturing sector, although most of it is in high-end costly items because we can't compete on price for the cheapest items. We also have a huge health sector which is based mainly around rent-seeking rather than quality of care, and its main contribution seems to be causing medical bankruptcies. Nor did I ever imply these other industries didn't exist. It's just that they aren't our lifeline to viability long-term because many countries could produce the food and physical products we can, but don't have the infrastructure to support high tech companies.
nemo44x 4y ago
Occupy Wall St had a huge impact on the culture war and it’s no coincidence that todays intense culture war began after it. Occupy failed for many reasons but primarily it failed because it couldn’t get funded. Donor class and corporate sponsorship are required for progressives to attain the power they want. Class warfare - the traditional progressive cause - died and gave birth to a new identity politics (we call it Woke today) that could get funded. Donors and businesses (the same thing) can get behind a movement that centers group identity so long as it isn’t class because it’s useful. It’s why you didn’t see any corporations updating their logo for Occupy or speaking out in favor and why mainstream media did its best to paint it as a rudderless, leaderless collective that didn’t have clear messaging or requests. People ask how wokeness became such a big thing so fast and it’s because it has been extremely useful in crushing class solidarity after the collapse of the financial system.
- ndesaulniers 4y ago
  I feel like I'm reading the plot of a Metal Gear Solid game. What will the Patriots do next? So intriguing!
- canadiantim 4y ago
  Occupy failed because it didn’t have clearly defined goals. Ending capitalism isn’t really a readily achievable goal; Occupy would have had more success if they broke down their broad sweeping goals into smaller more attainable goals.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    It did have clear goals - “we are the 99%”. It addressed wealth and income inequality and money in politics and it didn’t have a leadership head for the same reason Antifa doesn’t - they are collectives against hierarchal societies. They operated on loose consensus and because of these principals I agree it was weak. But their message was clear. But they couldn’t get donor class support because, well that is the 1%. The media painted it as a well meaning (they’re progressives after all) thing that has no concrete goal. That was a lie. However, radical gender ideology doesn’t address the 1%. If anything it’s an attack on the working classes that tend to have traditional values. So here we are.
mike_hock 4y ago
Aunche 4y ago
Blaming the ineffectiveness of Congress on the "capital-owning class" is a convenient, but lazy way to defect the blame to a place where you can pretend you don't have any control. Did you forget our that the government gave trillions of dollars in stimulus/unemployment during the pandemic? The problem is that politicians act in ways that are more likely to be elected and voters are shallow. Throwing money at a problem is easy and creates good publicity, so that still gets done. Actual effective regulation is boring, so it's just as effective for politicians to simply grandstand against big tech companies. Corporations are powerful enough to convince politicians that a proposed bill will cost them votes in the long term, but not much else. For example, Facebook, despite being one of the most heavy lobbying spenders, has spent even more money establishing their content Oversight Board. If they could actually buy politicians, we'd have more regulation that happens to benefit big tech. Both the Republican solution of not allowing social media companies to censor content and the Democratic solution of creating more rules for moderate disinformation are beneficial to Facebook because they can offload some of the responsibility of moderation to the government.
banannaise 4y ago
Look, speaking as a trans person, I would love to ignore social issues and focus on economic ones, but I can't exactly do that when there's a growing movement to simply have me banned from society, and a smaller but also-growing movement to declare me a pedophile and have me executed. Class solidarity doesn't help me if I'm dead.
- zwkrt 4y ago
  As a femme gay myself I am feeling the heat, although not as much as my trans compatriots. I think GP is point stands though. The right is being told that a very important thing that they should be worried about is the existence of trans people. Which is ridiculous. But the reason the issue was brought up is because it’s very emotional and very personal and has nothing at all to do with curtailing corporate power.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    Yeah. It's really frustrating to deal with. When anti-queer hate becomes a focal issue, many people treat the hate as half the problem and our existence as the other half of the problem. And it thus becomes untenable to simply move on to bigger issues, because the middle ground that this implies is very dangerous to us.
- blub 4y ago
  It sounds like you live in a dictatorship or theocracy in which case the best approach would be to apply for asylum in the US, Canada, the UK or the EU. If your life is in danger (as it seems it is), it should be reasonably straightforward to be accepted.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It sounds like you live in a dictatorship or theocracy in which case the best approach would be to apply for asylum in the US, Canada, the UK or the EU. They are describing the status quo in the US (and, though not having had the kind of success in actually writing preferences into law yet, the UK.)
happythebob 4y ago
I'm incredibly disappointed a Both Side's fallacy would appear at the top of a Hacker News post after all of the evidence we have all over the globe about both side's fallacies. This week the far left got arrested for protesting abortion rights, while the far right tried to block countries from joining NATO and it's the usual pro-Russian agenda GOP politicans. Also this week, the House voted to move forward with codifying marriage rights, and only Republicans voted no. We could go on all day. Both sides are not the same and even remotely implying otherwise is very ignorant and damaging. Didn't you learn anything after 2016? Even Hacker News is no longer safe for reasonable discourse?
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  Their donor base is the same. So they stick together on the issues that are about value and money instead of values.
  - happythebob 4y ago
    We need a good examination on when and how so many people got tricked into thinking cynicism is the same thing as critical thinking. The conservatives dismantled your public education, not the liberals and progressives and social democrats. The conservatives are also organizing on discords and 4chans to upvote shitty Both Sides Fallacies on social media, such as yours. Feel free to provide voting records that show your theory. You will quickly move goalposts and start more clearing citing conspiracy theories, because Both Sides Are Nowhere Near The Fucking Same.
    - koube 4y ago
      Taking a position has a high social cost. Try defending any candidate and you'll get a 10 comment chain where you have to defend your position against multiple internet commenters who are arguing mutually exclusive positions against you but not against each other. These kind of comment chains generally devolve into the every issue and often touches on the history of mankind and the nature of government. Both sides-ism has a low social cost. Everyone is bad to some extent, this can always be true in a vacuous sense, nobody is offended. You are not partisan nor biased if everyone is bad. If someone questions you you can infinitely motte-bailey backwards into an agreeable position, just by saying you are actually taking no position.
olalonde 4y ago
There's a lot of evidence that regulations actually benefit the capital-owning class. Look at heavily regulated industries (insurance, pharma, banking, etc.) and how little competition the incumbents face. What most worries a big business is not whether they are allowed to do something or not, it is whether someone else will be able to do it better and hence, compete. It also doesn't help that large companies are the ones doing all the lobbying and practically end up writing the regulations[0]. [0] https://reason.com/2021/07/07/how-big-business-uses-big-government-to-kill-competition/ https://reason.com/2021/07/07/how-big-business-uses-big-gove...
carabiner 4y ago
In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies.
- choward 4y ago
  I'd go further and call it the neoliberal party. Business isn't necessarily evil. But selling out the people to huge multinational corporations is evil. Giving away our resources and institutions to corporations while screwing over small businesses is a problem. These are the same corporations that are their donors, that they buy stocks in and get cushy jobs when they retire.
thrashh 4y ago
Disagree. I think we haven’t curtailed big tech because we haven’t figured out what that involves (without dire consequences). What does it exactly involve anyway?
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Because both parties operate at the behest of the capital-owning class. The push to regulate big tech has come from within the capital owning class (and particularly from the traditional media.)
- mise_en_place 4y ago
  Correct. The legacy institutions and old money fear becoming even more irrelevant than they already are. But I suspect that most people want to trust bust companies like Facebook, spinning out business units into separate entities to pave the way for fairer competition. I know I want that, as both an investor and entrepreneur.

by jmyeet 4y ago

Frost1x 4y ago

Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" The alternative is to fix rampant abuses we see with highly concentrated capital accumulation that results in a proxy of many unchecked powers in private and increasingly public spaces. There's lots of paths being pursued to curb this. Antitrust legislation and most business regulation exists because of abuses that naturally arise, I don't know why the narrative of continued deregulation solves these problems--regulation is pretty much the only way to leverage the benefits of capitalism without allowing it to become yet another oppressive system over the majority of society where the oppressors just become a class of the ultrawealthy. My opinion is that were well on our way down that path as we see increasingly less value add back to society and a lot more value capture strategies instead.

drekipus 4y ago
> Too many apologists keep totting the line that capitalism as practiced in the US is A-OK and then deflect with "what's the alternative?" I don't think as many people say that as you think. I think most people want better regulation and control, but perhaps done incrementally (with haste) and with a feedback circuit. Most alternatives that have been "hard-stop" switched to lead to a lot more destruction and problems than we currently have now
fallingknife 4y ago
I would like to see some evidence for this "continued deregulation" I always hear about. Seems like everywhere I look regulation either has stayed the same or been tightened.
- chalst 4y ago
  The hobbling of Dodd-Frank by Obama and its gutting by Trump, in each case at the behest of Wall Street, is an obvious example. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_in_post-financial_crisis_reform_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_in_post...
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Your linked source does not support the claim, but rather talks about efforts to restore Glass-Steagall in some form and their failure, which is not a loosening of regulations, but a continuation of the status quo. I do acknowledge that the repeal of Glass-Steagall itself was a loosening of regulation, but that was 25 years ago.
    - chalst 4y ago
      The link was 'Cf', meaning it gives background on the part of financial regulation I talk about, rather than being a direct source. It talks about the rationale for not adopting Glass-Steagall-strength measures during the Obama years. During the Trump years, most US banks were exempted from Dodd-Frank in 2018 via the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act.
  - Aunche 4y ago
    Anyone in finance would tell you that Dodd Frank drastically changed how banks are run. Glass–Steagall was never reinstated because it had very little to do with the financial crisis. Many of the bigger players of the mortgage crisis never did anything related to commercial banking (e.g. Lehman Brothers, AIG).
  - missedthecue 4y ago
nathanaldensr 4y ago
Right, and the most frustrating thing is that antitrust laws have been on the books since 1890. We as a country and a people know how to stop unchecked corporate power, and we already have laws to do so. Unfortunately, lawlessness is much more of a problem than any one ideological position.

closewith 4y ago

Okay, so why is the EU seemingly able to regulate big tech? It's a capitalist continent.

truckerbill 4y ago
Less lobbying focus (though probably still a lot)? Protectionism (big tech is USA born)? Elites are old money not new? No tax income (probably this)?
- fallingknife 4y ago
  > Elites are old money not new This is the big one right here. Europe has pretty much missed the boat on tech so its elites are from older industries that tech is starting to compete with. You can see this same dynamic here in the US as the legacy media has declared war on the tech industry for threatening its power.
Cipater 4y ago
Because big tech is mainly foreign (American) companies to them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
refurb 4y ago
Because it’s politically expedient for them? Notice how China has no trouble regulating US tech either?
jltsiren 4y ago
The primary purpose of the EU is administering a common market that consists of a large number of sovereign states. Each state naturally wants to be protectionist and give domestic businesses advantages over those from other member states. The EU can't allow that, as it would destroy the common market. As a consequence, the EU has a lot of experience in pushing against powerful interests. It's doing that all the time, and it's also moderately successful at that. While many attempts at regulating giant businesses or forcing member states to do something they don't want ultimately fail, sometimes the EU manages to get things done.

rayiner 4y ago

> Nothing curtails corporate power. It's also why the focus of politics is on being divisive on social issues. This is to distract the voters and prevent class solidarity of the working class. I think you’re misdiagnosing the cause. Nearly everyone I know—my circle skews highly educated and well compensated—cares more about social issues than economic ones. It’s telling that, in this crowd, Clarence Thomas gets exponentially more hate for the ways in which he’s a typical older Black man from a working class background (his views on social issues) than for the ways in which he starkly departs from that background (his economic libertarianism). While these folks would deny they’re acting in their class interest, the effect is identical. Working class people, being less educated and less cosmopolitan, are naturally going to be more socially conservative. By making politics more about “rights” and “justice” than “wages” and “government services” you’re naturally going to divide the working class and have a powerful club to use against them.

feet 4y ago
The more well compensated you are, the more disconnected you are from the perils of working class poverty. Most people I know who are well compensated don't see an issue with the system simply because it has worked for them I should note that these people are well compensated workers, and they are not capital owners even if they aspire to be one some day which helps solidify the ideals of capitalism working for them
- noobker 4y ago
  > The more well compensated you are, the more disconnected you are from the perils of working class poverty. For sure, but there's a type of blindness that comes from our culture and class expectations too. I know many service workers who make more than white collar workers. But -- critically -- the white collar workers are unaware of it. You could say the white collar workers are banking on social clout for why they feel better than the service workers they utilize, but I don't think so. It looks like straight up ignorance and willful projection. The service workers are happy to let the white-collar-fools carry on with the delusions --> it leads to big tips when the white collars need to show off and there's a payoff for workers who can put on a show of subservience while ultimately enjoying more freedom.

the_lonely_road 4y ago

Trying to engage with this comment in good faith is very difficult. The best case I can come up with is you are engaging in significant hyperbole to push forward some point you are passionate about. Congress has passed nearly a hundred bills in the last year alone. We don’t hear about them because Congress agrees and does it job is not interesting or newsworthy. We do hear nonstop about the divisive issues that the parties are split on and can’t find common ground. There is no half abortion or half gun seizure. I quickly glanced at those hundred bills and didn’t see much in the way of expanding police power or military conquest of Europe and Asia.

feet 4y ago
Have you heard of think tanks? There are groups like ALECS that literally write legislation at the behest of corporations, it's been a problem for a long time. The reason you think it isn't in good faith is likely due to corporate owned media pushing specific narratives to keep workers placated
- User23 4y ago
  With minor exceptions like grandstanding bills that are never meant to make it to a vote let alone pass, no federal legislation is written by legislators or even their staffs. I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. In any event it’s clear to any intelligent observer that the actual dynamics of governance put a lie to the fiction that our system functions as a representative republic.
  - diogenescynic 4y ago
    >I can’t find it, but there was a case not so long ago when the senate accidentally voted for one of those grandstanding bills. Maybe somebody else recalls the particulars. The last example I recall was when republicans passed an over-ride of Obama's veto on the bill to allow victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia then once it passed were worried about the actual consequences.
- 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

Not really. They only support the capital-owning class when the capital-owning class supports them in return. And that’s how this will turn out. If Big Tech decides to back the current politicians? They’ll go easy on them.

smt88 4y ago
Big Tech already backs current politicians. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2022/01/24/tech-spent-big-on-lobbying-last-year-00001144 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2022/01/24...

throwaway787544 4y ago

I have a simpler explanation: boredom. Public opinion was probably getting bored of the big tech trials, which means they might not be fired up about voting for those politicians. So now politicians are pivoting to a different, more attractive cause. Votes are all that matter to politicians. It's unfortunate that the great unwashed still haven't realized this.

wongarsu 4y ago
The UK has managed to keep people engaged over Brexit for seven years now. In the US abortion is an ancient topic, but has been a big topic since the supreme court nomination of 2016 and seems to keep people more engaged than ever. I don't really buy that the nation can't keep interest in big tech regulation for more than two years, if congress and the media wants them to.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Big tech regulation: abstract thing. Abortion: talks about freedoms. close to peoples hearts. Brexit: talks about freedoms. close to peoples hearts. Is a 3 week old baby considered sacred … vs … someone sold some data or something.

mberning 4y ago

We need a separation of money and state. Desperately. The fact that you can do the bidding of the donor class for years then leave office and immediately get placed in a cushy job is gross.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

I wish. Extending police powers? Meaning refund the police?

throwaway23234 4y ago
No, they are still defunding in extreme left areas: https://lasd.org/effects-of-defunding-the-lasd-on-public-safety/ https://lasd.org/effects-of-defunding-the-lasd-on-public-saf...
- claudiulodro 4y ago
  The chart in that article shows LASD budged increased from $3.4b to $3.5b since last year, hardly defunding.
  - kansface 4y ago
    That's well under inflation.
    - banannaise 4y ago
      No it isn't. That's the change from FY 2020 to FY 2021, which was ratified in April 2021. Inflation for the prior year was well under 2%, and even a live chart would have given you less than 5%.
      - daniel-cussen 4y ago
        Yes it is under inflation. Inflation is what, what it says on the news? Dude narcos what do they charge for their product, how many police do they murder, what's the budget for a dead cop? $100 million is...dude you realize I voluntarily pay taxes specifically so there can be a Medi-Cal and police, first and foremost?
        banannaise 4y ago
        "I love the cops and want them to have more money" is not a measure of inflation.

PontifexMinimus 4y ago

> This is to distract the voters and prevent class solidarity of the working class. You are very cynical. Note: I did not say you are wrong.

anonymouswacker 4y ago

^ This person gets it. The "overton window" in American politics is narrow enough that we essentially have a de facto uniparty, that agrees on everything except what matters. About 40% of the country is Independent but we pretend that either of these parties represent us. Then we fight about which party is worse. I can't see any other way that this could have happened after the introduction of fiat currency and endless war budgets financed by fiat. Eisenhower was right about the Military Industrial Complex.

smiddereens 4y ago

scarface_74 4y ago

I would much rather curtail government power than corporate power. I can much easier get away from a corporation than a government. Government has a "monopoly on violence". They can take away my rights much easier than corporations.

krapp 4y ago
You just want to trade a monopoly on violence for a market of violence, and for some reason you believe that would make you safer. But you're making the common mistake of assuming that corporations won't simply fill the power vacuum themselves in the absence of a government capable of stopping them. Government power is the only thing stopping corporations from exercising violence against you or take away your rights. Look at the way corporations operated in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when they had company towns and private armies coercing votes and killing strikers, or corporations' support for coups and cartels in foreign markets, or just the East India Trading Company, which was a de facto superpower of its time.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  100% this. I heard it said that the only things Americans know about is World war Two and they don't know that much about that. It's a sobering thought. To your point, if anyone wants to see the effects of unchecked corporate power, just look at the 19th century and the robber barons. most notably, look at the history of the Pinkerton Detective Agency [1]. "Detective agency" is an inocuous sounding name but at its peak the Pinkertons outnumbered the US Army. Pinkertons were frequently used as striker breakers and to quash any form of labor movement. They did so with the blessing of the US government. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)
  - livueta 4y ago
    While you and the parent are totally correct about the dynamics of power vacuums, I think it's also relevant to note that the robber-baron stuff wasn't exactly happening in some kind of Hobbesian state of nature - it's right there at the end of your quote: "They did so with the blessing of the US government". This was an environment where centralized authority was weakened to the point that private armies were worthwhile, yet still strong enough to engage in selective enforcement on behalf of corporate powers. Hence, the dynamic where you'd get beaten up by the Pinkertons and then arrested for fighting back. This sort of halfway environment is the worst possible case: in a more total vacuum, opposing corporate power via collective action is more viable; in a society with a stronger grip on a monopoly on violence, corporate abuses are (theoretically) restrained. While untrammeled corporate power and untrammeled government power are both scary, the effective fusion of the two via state capture is the real nightmare. I think that sort of halfway environment, where there's enough state to be worth capturing but not enough to be an effective counterweight, is the default in a lot of the particularly cursed post-colonial nations - Angola and Burma spring to mind - where traditional means of social organization were sublimated into the colonial state, leaving a vacuum when the colonial state itself began to molder.

dekhn 4y ago

Well, I think it's more about the fact that the tech industry is the us's lifeline to long-term viability and that other country's tech industries (like china, russia) are far worse in terms of human rights. Why would congress attack the golden goose for class solidarity? That would help send the US to historical irrelevance.

mistrial9 4y ago
if you look at the quantitative reports on trade, you will quickly see that high tech is massive, but not the only category to have that title. You are arguing a perceived difference without quantitative grounding. In other words, the mind-share of tech is massive, and that certainly is part of the political gridlock here.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Yes, we also make money via agriculture although often times it's really just contaminating our environment for short-term profits (almond growers in california). We also have a vibrant manufacturing sector, although most of it is in high-end costly items because we can't compete on price for the cheapest items. We also have a huge health sector which is based mainly around rent-seeking rather than quality of care, and its main contribution seems to be causing medical bankruptcies. Nor did I ever imply these other industries didn't exist. It's just that they aren't our lifeline to viability long-term because many countries could produce the food and physical products we can, but don't have the infrastructure to support high tech companies.

nemo44x 4y ago

Occupy Wall St had a huge impact on the culture war and it’s no coincidence that todays intense culture war began after it. Occupy failed for many reasons but primarily it failed because it couldn’t get funded. Donor class and corporate sponsorship are required for progressives to attain the power they want. Class warfare - the traditional progressive cause - died and gave birth to a new identity politics (we call it Woke today) that could get funded. Donors and businesses (the same thing) can get behind a movement that centers group identity so long as it isn’t class because it’s useful. It’s why you didn’t see any corporations updating their logo for Occupy or speaking out in favor and why mainstream media did its best to paint it as a rudderless, leaderless collective that didn’t have clear messaging or requests. People ask how wokeness became such a big thing so fast and it’s because it has been extremely useful in crushing class solidarity after the collapse of the financial system.

ndesaulniers 4y ago
I feel like I'm reading the plot of a Metal Gear Solid game. What will the Patriots do next? So intriguing!
canadiantim 4y ago
Occupy failed because it didn’t have clearly defined goals. Ending capitalism isn’t really a readily achievable goal; Occupy would have had more success if they broke down their broad sweeping goals into smaller more attainable goals.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It did have clear goals - “we are the 99%”. It addressed wealth and income inequality and money in politics and it didn’t have a leadership head for the same reason Antifa doesn’t - they are collectives against hierarchal societies. They operated on loose consensus and because of these principals I agree it was weak. But their message was clear. But they couldn’t get donor class support because, well that is the 1%. The media painted it as a well meaning (they’re progressives after all) thing that has no concrete goal. That was a lie. However, radical gender ideology doesn’t address the 1%. If anything it’s an attack on the working classes that tend to have traditional values. So here we are.

mike_hock 4y ago

Aunche 4y ago

Blaming the ineffectiveness of Congress on the "capital-owning class" is a convenient, but lazy way to defect the blame to a place where you can pretend you don't have any control. Did you forget our that the government gave trillions of dollars in stimulus/unemployment during the pandemic? The problem is that politicians act in ways that are more likely to be elected and voters are shallow. Throwing money at a problem is easy and creates good publicity, so that still gets done. Actual effective regulation is boring, so it's just as effective for politicians to simply grandstand against big tech companies. Corporations are powerful enough to convince politicians that a proposed bill will cost them votes in the long term, but not much else. For example, Facebook, despite being one of the most heavy lobbying spenders, has spent even more money establishing their content Oversight Board. If they could actually buy politicians, we'd have more regulation that happens to benefit big tech. Both the Republican solution of not allowing social media companies to censor content and the Democratic solution of creating more rules for moderate disinformation are beneficial to Facebook because they can offload some of the responsibility of moderation to the government.

banannaise 4y ago

Look, speaking as a trans person, I would love to ignore social issues and focus on economic ones, but I can't exactly do that when there's a growing movement to simply have me banned from society, and a smaller but also-growing movement to declare me a pedophile and have me executed. Class solidarity doesn't help me if I'm dead.

zwkrt 4y ago
As a femme gay myself I am feeling the heat, although not as much as my trans compatriots. I think GP is point stands though. The right is being told that a very important thing that they should be worried about is the existence of trans people. Which is ridiculous. But the reason the issue was brought up is because it’s very emotional and very personal and has nothing at all to do with curtailing corporate power.
- banannaise 4y ago
  Yeah. It's really frustrating to deal with. When anti-queer hate becomes a focal issue, many people treat the hate as half the problem and our existence as the other half of the problem. And it thus becomes untenable to simply move on to bigger issues, because the middle ground that this implies is very dangerous to us.
blub 4y ago
It sounds like you live in a dictatorship or theocracy in which case the best approach would be to apply for asylum in the US, Canada, the UK or the EU. If your life is in danger (as it seems it is), it should be reasonably straightforward to be accepted.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It sounds like you live in a dictatorship or theocracy in which case the best approach would be to apply for asylum in the US, Canada, the UK or the EU. They are describing the status quo in the US (and, though not having had the kind of success in actually writing preferences into law yet, the UK.)

happythebob 4y ago

I'm incredibly disappointed a Both Side's fallacy would appear at the top of a Hacker News post after all of the evidence we have all over the globe about both side's fallacies. This week the far left got arrested for protesting abortion rights, while the far right tried to block countries from joining NATO and it's the usual pro-Russian agenda GOP politicans. Also this week, the House voted to move forward with codifying marriage rights, and only Republicans voted no. We could go on all day. Both sides are not the same and even remotely implying otherwise is very ignorant and damaging. Didn't you learn anything after 2016? Even Hacker News is no longer safe for reasonable discourse?

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
Their donor base is the same. So they stick together on the issues that are about value and money instead of values.
- happythebob 4y ago
  We need a good examination on when and how so many people got tricked into thinking cynicism is the same thing as critical thinking. The conservatives dismantled your public education, not the liberals and progressives and social democrats. The conservatives are also organizing on discords and 4chans to upvote shitty Both Sides Fallacies on social media, such as yours. Feel free to provide voting records that show your theory. You will quickly move goalposts and start more clearing citing conspiracy theories, because Both Sides Are Nowhere Near The Fucking Same.
  - koube 4y ago
    Taking a position has a high social cost. Try defending any candidate and you'll get a 10 comment chain where you have to defend your position against multiple internet commenters who are arguing mutually exclusive positions against you but not against each other. These kind of comment chains generally devolve into the every issue and often touches on the history of mankind and the nature of government. Both sides-ism has a low social cost. Everyone is bad to some extent, this can always be true in a vacuous sense, nobody is offended. You are not partisan nor biased if everyone is bad. If someone questions you you can infinitely motte-bailey backwards into an agreeable position, just by saying you are actually taking no position.

olalonde 4y ago

There's a lot of evidence that regulations actually benefit the capital-owning class. Look at heavily regulated industries (insurance, pharma, banking, etc.) and how little competition the incumbents face. What most worries a big business is not whether they are allowed to do something or not, it is whether someone else will be able to do it better and hence, compete. It also doesn't help that large companies are the ones doing all the lobbying and practically end up writing the regulations[0]. [0] https://reason.com/2021/07/07/how-big-business-uses-big-government-to-kill-competition/ https://reason.com/2021/07/07/how-big-business-uses-big-gove...

carabiner 4y ago

In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies.

choward 4y ago
I'd go further and call it the neoliberal party. Business isn't necessarily evil. But selling out the people to huge multinational corporations is evil. Giving away our resources and institutions to corporations while screwing over small businesses is a problem. These are the same corporations that are their donors, that they buy stocks in and get cushy jobs when they retire.

thrashh 4y ago

Disagree. I think we haven’t curtailed big tech because we haven’t figured out what that involves (without dire consequences). What does it exactly involve anyway?

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Because both parties operate at the behest of the capital-owning class. The push to regulate big tech has come from within the capital owning class (and particularly from the traditional media.)

mise_en_place 4y ago
Correct. The legacy institutions and old money fear becoming even more irrelevant than they already are. But I suspect that most people want to trust bust companies like Facebook, spinning out business units into separate entities to pave the way for fairer competition. I know I want that, as both an investor and entrepreneur.