3 ms·
I'll bite: > The action item that falls out is the same in both cases: drive capture to keep the “right people” running things. This rings true, and seems an
by sebastos 3y ago
I'll bite:
> The action item that falls out is the same in both cases: drive capture to keep the “right people” running things.
This rings true, and seems an insightful point. But I lost the plot in the following:
> The result is the same in both cases: if you do a halfway honest plot of productivity and genuine standard of living against the decades, you get divergent lines that seem to be training for an Olympic gymnastics qualification.
I don't really get how this "result" follows, or what prescription you're hinting at. Are you just saying we're very productive but fail to distribute among the citizens? That seems like a garden variety left talking point, which is a bit.. anti-climactic. Not that I even agree or disagree overmuch, but the tone of your post made me think you were building towards a more heterodox take. Am I missing something?
- benreesman 3y agoYeah, that’s a fair point I suppose. It’s kind of a limitation of it bot being the aforementioned book someone needs to write. Establishing the financial economics of productivity and its relationship to the Western Liberal Enlightenment conceptualization of the public good along a non-differentiable surface of capture from WWII to the present is a masters thesis alone. The level of ambient violence in a surveillance kleptocracy with a nascent domestic security apparatus breaking through that of a country in the grips of a 7-sided civil war, this being the tip of the iceberg because the non-violent people with no hope are suiciding with fentanyl at some staggering multiple of that, and this being caused by capture is hard to prove but easy to see absent an agenda. I don’t want to see a climax more intense than how far we’ve already traveled down that road.
- GhettoGPT 3y ago[flagged]
- GhettoGPT 3y ago[flagged]