Listen to a reading of this article: ❖ Basically we're looking at a race to see if the deterioration of material conditions inherent in capitalism leads to mass-scale revolution before the plutocrats have the technological and legal ability to roll out robot and drone security forces.
Your column today made me reflect on the time I sent something you wrote regarding our malignant American empire -- pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, actually, to anyone paying attention -- to my Blue Check family member.
He rejected your characterization so violently and defended the country so forcefully that it was clear that something else entirely was going on. Propaganda, unfortunately, works all too well.
Just because what Caitlin says often sounds unhinged doesn't mean she's wrong. I think that is what she means about her views being on the edge. Maybe it is that science fiction dystopia no longer seems to be as a far into the future as we once thought. Love the robot aerobics class.
“deterioration of material conditions inherent in capitalism”
This is so naive. I come from a third world country which was ruled by British till the 50s. Capitalism is what got millions of us out of poverty. My family went from my grandmother who was illiterate to my mother who got education to me who successfully studied and immigrated to Canada and now own my own small business making my own living. And this isn’t anecdotal, millions of us went through this.
Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than the USA. They have the lowest corporate income tax lower than USA and extremely high personal income tax (60% on 1.3x the avg income) plus 25% sales taxes on everything.
USA doesn’t have capitalism. USA has crony capitalism, bunch of oligarchs working with the government to make each other rich. In a capitalistic system, you don’t have things like subsidies, bail outs etc. In a capitalistic system, if you don’t produce something useful, you go bankrupt. But in USA, the government prevents that and gives out bailouts and subsidies and forces companies to censor people. The government gives free section 230 immunity without getting anything in return to make things fair. The government claims to bring democracy in other nations while over 50% of their own population can’t participate fairly in the democracy because of censorship.
1. People that hold a core belief that is very strong. And when they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.
2. People that believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism, and who are living in denial. So when confronted with the fact that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION is in fact an Empire, not unlike the Roman or British Empires before it, they vehemently deny the truth, and defend it anyway.
Perhaps “American Acceptionalism” would be more apt.
Part of our problem is that people on all sides keep conflating capitalism with corporatism. Of course, that conflation is part of the elite narrative, so that anti-corporatism can be smeared as "communism." We live in a corporate system, and criticizing that system is not necessarily a criticism of capitalism or the concept of private property owned by individuals.
Many people who want to do away with the current corporate system want to abolish private property completely, even property owned by individuals. But that's exactly what the World Economic Forum proposes when it says, "You will own nothing and you will be happy." Do we really want to live in a worldwide system where a handful of "technocrats" control all property worldwide? Where there is no escape from their rule? Thanks, but no thanks!
Property is always owned and controlled by some entity. Replacing corporate ownership with ownership by a one world government will not enhance freedom or promote accountability in owners. We should be strive to break up such entities and scatter them to the wind where individuals can pick up the remnants, then hold those individuals accountable for how they use their property. If they pollute streams and cause loss to those downstream, they should be forced personally to pay full restitution, even if they are driven personally bankrupt.
There would still be some need for collective ownership when a potential enterprise is so big and complex that no individual owner is willing to take the risk of personal bankruptcy by owning it. Such enterprises should be owned by society at large, with the benefits distributed to the whole of society, as well as any potential losses. Infrastructure, mining and perhaps much of heavy industry would be owned by society (government) and democratically run, but small farms and other small business would still be owned by individuals. It would be socialism without a Holomodor or the arrest and dispossession of kulaks.
I wonder the impact if millions of us left the old narratives behind and spent 24/7 imaging our new world. We are all here together, maybe we'll start acting like it.
The mission of my heroine, deemed The Buddhist Bomber by a media mogul who feels she can use fear of the different, unknown and that 'Asian thingy' to manipulate people, is laid out so clearly in your essay today: "We need people's vision of what's going on in the world to be unobscured by government/corporate/financial secrecy and propaganda. Once we can see, we can figure things out from there." I would like o talk to you about using your voice for my protagonist in my film AIRTIME - a script read by who I believe is truly a creative visionary that praised the quality of my soul and craftmanship. I reach out like this as I am so passionate and have failed in more traditional ways. Please contact me pamela
Your column today made me reflect on the time I sent something you wrote regarding our malignant American empire -- pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, actually, to anyone paying attention -- to my Blue Check family member.
He rejected your characterization so violently and defended the country so forcefully that it was clear that something else entirely was going on. Propaganda, unfortunately, works all too well.
Just because what Caitlin says often sounds unhinged doesn't mean she's wrong. I think that is what she means about her views being on the edge. Maybe it is that science fiction dystopia no longer seems to be as a far into the future as we once thought. Love the robot aerobics class.
“deterioration of material conditions inherent in capitalism”
This is so naive. I come from a third world country which was ruled by British till the 50s. Capitalism is what got millions of us out of poverty. My family went from my grandmother who was illiterate to my mother who got education to me who successfully studied and immigrated to Canada and now own my own small business making my own living. And this isn’t anecdotal, millions of us went through this.
Scandinavian countries are more capitalistic than the USA. They have the lowest corporate income tax lower than USA and extremely high personal income tax (60% on 1.3x the avg income) plus 25% sales taxes on everything.
USA doesn’t have capitalism. USA has crony capitalism, bunch of oligarchs working with the government to make each other rich. In a capitalistic system, you don’t have things like subsidies, bail outs etc. In a capitalistic system, if you don’t produce something useful, you go bankrupt. But in USA, the government prevents that and gives out bailouts and subsidies and forces companies to censor people. The government gives free section 230 immunity without getting anything in return to make things fair. The government claims to bring democracy in other nations while over 50% of their own population can’t participate fairly in the democracy because of censorship.
Crony rainbow capitalism.
American Exceptionalism
a·mer·i·can ex·cep·tion·al·ism
/əˈmerəkən/ \ ik-ˈsep-shnə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition:
1. People that hold a core belief that is very strong. And when they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.
2. People that believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism, and who are living in denial. So when confronted with the fact that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION is in fact an Empire, not unlike the Roman or British Empires before it, they vehemently deny the truth, and defend it anyway.
Perhaps “American Acceptionalism” would be more apt.
Part of our problem is that people on all sides keep conflating capitalism with corporatism. Of course, that conflation is part of the elite narrative, so that anti-corporatism can be smeared as "communism." We live in a corporate system, and criticizing that system is not necessarily a criticism of capitalism or the concept of private property owned by individuals.
Many people who want to do away with the current corporate system want to abolish private property completely, even property owned by individuals. But that's exactly what the World Economic Forum proposes when it says, "You will own nothing and you will be happy." Do we really want to live in a worldwide system where a handful of "technocrats" control all property worldwide? Where there is no escape from their rule? Thanks, but no thanks!
Property is always owned and controlled by some entity. Replacing corporate ownership with ownership by a one world government will not enhance freedom or promote accountability in owners. We should be strive to break up such entities and scatter them to the wind where individuals can pick up the remnants, then hold those individuals accountable for how they use their property. If they pollute streams and cause loss to those downstream, they should be forced personally to pay full restitution, even if they are driven personally bankrupt.
There would still be some need for collective ownership when a potential enterprise is so big and complex that no individual owner is willing to take the risk of personal bankruptcy by owning it. Such enterprises should be owned by society at large, with the benefits distributed to the whole of society, as well as any potential losses. Infrastructure, mining and perhaps much of heavy industry would be owned by society (government) and democratically run, but small farms and other small business would still be owned by individuals. It would be socialism without a Holomodor or the arrest and dispossession of kulaks.
I wonder the impact if millions of us left the old narratives behind and spent 24/7 imaging our new world. We are all here together, maybe we'll start acting like it.
The mission of my heroine, deemed The Buddhist Bomber by a media mogul who feels she can use fear of the different, unknown and that 'Asian thingy' to manipulate people, is laid out so clearly in your essay today: "We need people's vision of what's going on in the world to be unobscured by government/corporate/financial secrecy and propaganda. Once we can see, we can figure things out from there." I would like o talk to you about using your voice for my protagonist in my film AIRTIME - a script read by who I believe is truly a creative visionary that praised the quality of my soul and craftmanship. I reach out like this as I am so passionate and have failed in more traditional ways. Please contact me pamela