3 ms·
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. Like some other commenter noted, the "shock doctrine" for example is a very widely docu
by southerntofu 3y ago
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. Like some other commenter noted, the "shock doctrine" for example is a very widely documented/theorized phenomenon and not a conspiracy theory.
> hunger
There's a huge agro-food industry that profits from hunger. Its profits depend on subsistence farming being impossible or illegal so that's what they do: outlaw peasant seeds (like in France), buy all land from the owners until the population can't feed itself and needs the supermarket to survive, arrange for economic structures that allow for massive foreign subsidies (eg. EU CAP) to compete with the few local farmers left...
> poverty, economic instability, and unemployment
Temp work is another major industry that can only flourish when better employment conditions are not available to the workers. For those who don't find work and/or caught in the judicial system for some reason, the prison industrial complex will make profit on their incarceration. Once incarcerated, some companies will employ prisoners without working rights and protections in quasi-slavery conditions, making a ton more money than if they needed proper salaries and safety conditions. To give an example, here in France prison labor is usually < 1€/hour compared to ~10€/hour minimum wage.
> drug addiction
European settlers in America used alcohol as a weapon against natives. Later, during the cold war, the CIA organized for crack cocaine to destroy black neighborhoods social tissue, while financing the "contras" fascist militias.
We could go on. I'm not saying reforming incentives is wrong, it's certainly part of the solution. But it would be very naive to think that alone is enough to change society because nobody would want to harm others. Fascists very much exist and very much want to harm others, not necessarily out of a profit motive but also sometimes out of pure hatred.
- 0thgen 3y agoFair enough. It'd be impossible for me to argue that there aren't bad actors doing very bad things But to what extent are problems due to (a) bad actors, versus (b) structure issues, resource scarcity, trade-offs, collective action problems, etc And even if we suppose bad actors are 100% responsible for the world's problems, the systems-level analysis (if I understand it correctly) would still suggest that the solution is "structural" (cut off all the leverage points that allow bad actors to manipulate institutions) Say, in the case of the opioid crisis (which most of us agree was caused in large part from a bad actor), do we abolish pharmaceutical companies, or do we abolish the structural pathways (marketing, lobbying) that let them do bad things? I lean towards the latter, but don't know if it's any more feasible than the former