BC SOCIETY
Saved by @jay_millerjay

Capitalism demolishes society and, with it, itself.

A thread.

1/

 Prior to capitalism, there were plenty of elite-centric, exploitive systems in place. European and Japanese feudalism. Roman mass slavery. The corvee labor of the ancient hydraulic state. Etc.

2/
But as exploitive and repressive as these systems were, they still retained some sense of mutual obligation among classes. Elites depend on the masses to survive and thrive. You can only exploit them up to a certain point, beyond which you threaten your own labor supply.

3/
Consider this quote from Kenneth Jupp on European feudalism. Feudalism entailed *mutual obligations* between rich and poor.

4/
These obligations were not equal, uniform, or always universally respected. But they were at least *there.* In return for labor and agricultural surplus, a feudal lord was obligated to protect his villeins, provide them justice, and respect their usufruct land rights.

5/
From Jupp again, feudal lords were also obligated—by self interest as much as ancient custom—to provide the basics of production—homes, tools, etc—to their villeins.

6/
If you’re living off the labor of others, *it doesn’t make sense to leave the ability to produce or even reproduce labor up to chance.*

But then along comes capitalism.

7/
I’ve written about the late medieval price revolution elsewhere, but to sum up: there came a point where the value of the poor’s obligations to the rich dropped below the opportunity cost of the rich’s obligations to the poor.

8/
So the rich revolted against the poor, seized their lands, outsourced security to the state, and basically canceled all their obligations to the poor.

9/
People like to justify their actions, so they concocted an ideology—liberalism, the Enlightenment, etc—that held that *no one* had any a priori obligations to anyone else. It was all voluntary!

10/
It’s not hard to see what a bait-and-switch this was. The poor still had to labor for the rich to gain access to the resources they needed to live. Their obligations were de jure but not de facto eliminated. Only the obligations of the wealthy were actually erased.

11/
So we end up with a society dominated by the sociopathic idea that none of us have any obligations to each other and we’re all just atomized, alienated individuals with no ties to each other. (Cue an epidemic of suicide, depression, substance abuse, etc.)

12/
In the centuries since then, this ideology has only gotten more extreme and encompassing. Even *Friedrich Hayek* argued in favor of state-run social welfare, environmental protection, worker rights, etc, in “Road to Serfdom.”

13/
He’d basically be considered a communist in today’s political landscape, because we have taken this ideology of *no obligations* to its logical, fanatical extreme.

14/
To wit: the (now former) mayor of a Texas town—what’s the point of having a mayor if not for situations like this?—making this point crystal clear in real-time.

15/ https://t.co/yYv44pqvNW
We hang on to scraps of our primordial sense of mutual obligation. The rich have privatized resources we’d otherwise be free to access, but in emergencies we still drop the pretense a bit and (temporarily, marginally) de-privatize essential resources.

16/
So consider that we marshal public resources to help people in disasters, disrupt markets with laws against price gouging, etc. But for people like this Texas mayor, *even that is too much.*

17/
Go watch the brilliant Chernobyl miniseries if you haven’t already. It deftly illustrates the ways that the late Soviet ideological package—secrecy, siege mentality, careerism and bureaucratism, suspicion and surveillance, etc—all add up to an inability to confront disaster.

18/
And then consider the ways that *we in America* have boxed ourselves into an ideological corner, in which the most basic elements of living in a society together are viewed as the worst forms of tyranny.

19/
We could easily make billions of N95 masks, but we still don’t have enough. The disaster in Texas was easily predictable & avoidable, but children are freezing or suffocating to death *right now* because of a fanatical ideological commitment to a stunted vision of “liberty.”

20/
Over and over, we find ourselves unable to address challenges, not because we lack the resources but because we have been led to believe that even the mildest of collective action is communist tyranny.

21/
All of this so the rich can justify holding on to every scrap of marginal wealth, no matter how many people die from an avoidable virus or freeze to death in their homes while the rich vacation in Mexico. There is nothing *substantive* stopping us. Just ideas.

22/
Marx observed the contradiction inherent in capitalism: the profit motive drives the capital class to lower wages as much as possible, but this leads to immiseration that undermines the capital class’ ability to sell anything. It would eventually undercut itself.

23/
Was Marx too optimistic? We’re going to destroy ourselves first by stubbornly refusing to respond to avoidable disasters. We’re passengers on a sinking ship refusing to bail out the water because it would “violate our individual liberty” to take care of each other.

24/end
PS: The main ideological difference between the two main political parties in the US hinges on this: do we dismantle *all* obligations and let the rich suicidally accumulate wealth to the point of immiserating and destroying the labor that creates their wealth?

Or only *most*?
PPS: LOL https://t.co/AIIrX6cAVv

More from Society

Sumon Chakrabarti
Sumon Chakrabarti
@TorontoIDDoc
I've been wanting to write this thread for a while. It has been inspired by hearing a common thought: why can't people just "listen"? If people just followed the rules, we wouldn't be in this mess. I think this is oversimplification of the problem with COVID: 1/

It is true, there are people who haven't been following guidelines (by definition that happened a LOT at Christmas/NYE in my region), but even before, we know transmission in private gatherings happens. 2/

These private gatherings are pictured to be big raucous parties, but in reality, even before lockdown, this is just people having dinner, watching TV, doing things we did before on a daily basis. These little ripples when added across the country make a big wave.. 3/

...and little can be done about this apart from positive messaging. You can't very well have police patrolling neighbourhoods across the country. 4/

Next thing is we keep hearing over and over and over, stay home. There are diminishing returns with this advice, but also, most people who can stay home ARE. So what's the issue? There are a HUGE # of people who can't stay home because they work in essential jobs 5/
SOCIETY , COVID
Arielle Selya
Arielle Selya
@ArielleSelya
1/14 How do e-cigarettes (ECs) affect cigarette smoking among youth? My new paper with @FloeFoxon simulates each scenario and finds out which one best matches actual trends... https://t.co/dBB7kcnTls @jgitchell @mikepesko @SwitchFinder @jkelovuori @TobPolicy @Clive_Bates

2/14 First, let's talk about why this question is so difficult to answer: COUNTERFACTUALS. We can't know the alternate-reality answers, like which smokers would have never started in a world without ECs, and which nonsmokers would now be smoking without ECs as an option.

3/14 So, the best we can do is use fancy/sophisticated methodologies to estimate what would have happened to youth smoking rates in the absence of ECs. In our case, simulation modeling


4/14 First, we look at the declining smoking trends *that were already happening* before ECs came (~2010), and project them into the present. This is our BASE-CASE SCENARIO about what smoking trends would be if ECs were never invented. Actual trends were LOWER than this base-case


5/14 Side note about terminology: We use the term “catalyst” instead of “gateway,” because “catalyst” is more precise about the claim we are modeling (that ECs are used first, and then causally lead to smoking). Whereas "gateway" can include other mechanisms like renormalization.
SOCIETY
Advertisement
AFP news agency
AFP news agency
@AFP
Hong Kong protester equipment list:
- respirator (dubbed "pig snouts" in Cantonese)
- helmet
- eye mask
- heat-proof gloves
- water bottle
- cling wrap
- saline
- traffic cones
- pots and pans

Demonstrators find creative methods to battle police tear gas
https://t.co/kPeUTu9iFh


AFP graphic charting Hong Kong's main socio-economic indicators and opinion polls on press freedom and government performance

@AFPgraphics


AFP graphic showing the main equipment used by hardcore pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong to battle police tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets

@AFPgraphics


Frontline first aid.

Nurses, doctors, medical students and ordinary citizens with first aid training have clamoured to join a small volunteer corps helping treat people involved in the Hong Kong protests

@AFP's Yan Zhao reports: https://t.co/uDfYkMeZJf

📸 Anthony Wallace


Pro-democracy activists kick off three days of rallies at Hong Kong airport.

Protesters hope to win international support from arriving passengers. The last demonstration at the airport on July 26 passed off peacefully without causing flight disruptions
https://t.co/jmVqtEd4M2
SOCIETY
Bradly Mason
Bradly Mason
@AlsoACarpenter
Okay, let's do this summary again since there seems to be a collective amnesia relating to Christian Abolitionism in America.

Here again is a summary of the Christian Abolitionists’ arguments against enslavers’ appeals to the Scripture: Thread
SOCIETY
Joshua Cypess
Joshua Cypess
@JoshuaCypess
1/ A thread of comments & observations about the death of the cackling vampire Rush Limbaugh.

My first observations in the main thread are here, but this offshoot is needed because there's been so many wise & witty things I've


2/ First, re: those who in their wayward moral obtuseness feel we "can't speak ill of the dead." I've said that this is what abuse enablers say, but I hear that some religious traditions preach this. Oy.
So there's this: https://t.co/7Ky4RA3nkZ &


3/ Drucker is another great wit, and this carries the proper mood


4/ There's definitely a Jewish Tradition angle for how to treat evil people who die: the only respect is to justice, right & wrong, and above all compassion's existence necessitates condemning cruelty


5/ We're coming up on #Purim, and that's all about how to remember evil. There may be a reason, then, that I share the attitude of many other people committed to righting
SOCIETY

You May Also Like

Erik Torenberg
Erik Torenberg
@eriktorenberg
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
LIFE
Scienceismymuse
Scienceismymuse
@scienceismymuse
This was grabbed from r/greatawakening on Reddit:
"Here's what it looks like when all the pieces are sewn together

It smells like conspiracy and treason. Everyone needs to read this. Slowly, and patiently, because it’s very important......

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ...
CONSPIRACY
Advertisement
Sam Korus
Sam Korus
@skorusARK
1/ The #Tesla Model 3 is one of the most efficient #EV on a range/kWh basis, followed closely by the Bolt. Meanwhile the “Tesla Killers” lag significantly.


2/ “But they’re different types of cars so they aren’t comparable!” That’s why we put them into our physics based model that simulates EPA range to separate out form factor from battery/drivetrain efficiency.

3/ Even accounting for the fact that the Jaguar iPace is an SUV, it’s far less efficient than the Model 3.


4/ Which means Tesla should be able produce a car of a given range (or at least the drivetrain) for cheaper than its competitors. (This doesn't even take into account that Tesla is likely making batteries for less than its competitors).


5/ Why is the Bolt so efficient? Perhaps it sacrifices performance to achieve it. Either way the “Tesla Killers” look like they’re throwing everything out the window to try & match Tesla performance.
ALL
Edwin Hayward
Edwin Hayward
@uk_domain_names
Handy guide for Dominic Raab and other Brexiteers, and for anyone keen to replace our EU trade with trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms...


You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea


But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster


And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical


Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot
POLITICS
Larry Schweikart
Larry Schweikart
@LarrySchweikart
1) 538 walks it back:
Right now, in fact, the polls are not showing a Democratic turnout advantage. Instead, based on a comparison of likely-voter and registered-voter polls, they’re projecting roughly equal turnout between the parties,

2) with Republicans’ demographic advantages (older, whiter voters typically vote at higher rates at the midterms) counteracting Democrats’ seemingly higher enthusiasm.”

3) Give little Natey a week and he'll see what we see: An R turnout advantage.
ALL