This is how all capitalist markets progress, which is why I get annoyed when folks try to talk about this as though it is hypocritical. There is nothing hypocritical about a capitalist attempting to stifle innovation and competition for the advancement of their own personal wealth. This is what capitalism is about.
I think that what you’re saying is that actions of hypocrites cannot be considered hypocritical since it’s their nature to be hypocrites. It’s all a bit circular, isn’t it?
I think that in the case of Mr. Musk, the issue is that he has been seen as an innovator not just as a capitalist for much of his time in the spotlight. For 2018 Musk, this declaration would have been hypocritical. For 2024 Musk, whatever, why are we still listening to this clown?
No, not quite. I’m saying musk has never believed in the free market in his life and has never argued in good faith. All of those wealthy types know exactly what they are doing. They publicly embrace a fake ideal of free market economics up until they no longer have to put up the facade.
I’m saying musk has never believed in the free market
Correct. No politican, economist or, indeed, capitalist “believes” in the (so-called) “free market” - they all know perfectly well that it’s a fairy tale designed to justify them and their cronies parasitizing at everybody and everything else’s expense. The regime that made Musk’s billions possible - the Apartheid-regime - knew perfectly well that the “free market” was a big, fat lie all the way back in 1948. That’s why they built all the public infrastructure that enriched white people’s lives (including Elon’s) while repressing the majority of South Africans into becoming the glorified indentured labour that made Elon’s daddy rich.
It’s no different than “hearts & minds,” “spreading civilization” or Cinderella’s glass slipper. They all know it and they have always all known it.
I suppose you’re right, it is. I am not articulating myself properly here. Let me re-frame this.
Every time we chalk things up to a bad actor being hypocritical, we are taking our eye off of the ball. The problems we are facing are not individual actors that are simply acting hypocritical in the moment. We are, in reality, dealing with a much larger issue. The economic structure is filled with grifters, liars, and exploiters at the top because that is how it is best leveraged.
So when articles are written calling some billionaire a hypocrite, we are not accomplishing anything. I would argue it is largely a game of masturbatory whack-a-mole to make ourselves feel better, because we cannot fix this system with random callouts and the (extremely) rare removal of “bad apples.”
We are, in reality, dealing with a much larger issue.
Care to articulate how you’d describe it?
Much more than just capitalism, right? Like that, plus our entire culture, generations of propaganda and indoctrination. All of our power structures, political, financial, military, media, education.
Everything. Much larger issue is an understatement. How do we fix it?
I will say that I am no oracle, just one man. It is easy to perceive problems and very hard to prescribe solutions.
That being said, I can offer the following perspectives.
We have lost control of our leaders to the wealthy. We do get to vote, but we do not get to vote for a working class person. In order to be elected into the high offices you need a lot of money and influence. This money is provided largely by the wealthy who have a shared interest in filtering us little people out of the process entirely.
People (the masses) always have absolute power, but power must be shaped and directed for progress. Currently, a lack of class consciousness and the constant bombardment of propaganda to our televisions, our phones, etc, is ruining us. We also have no presence on the national stage via political party, as stated earlier, which exacerbates the directionless nature.
Capitalism is largely unregulated in any way that matters, and has gotten us into a sustained feedback loop of the above points.
In order to fix these problems, we need to fight back through locally organized groups; tenant unions, renters unions, etc. Having the hard conversations with friends and family. Re-framing arguments and world views in terms of class rather than cancerous “red versus blue” politics. Showing up to peaceful protests while we can still participate in them. Pulling the levers of democracy given to us in local elections, and on the national stage, pulling the levers for the candidate that will not plunge us into immediate fascism as a stop gap. We need to do this now and with vigor to prevent the other potentials.
The alternative to action now, I’m afraid, will end in revolution attempts by a divided working class. This implies civil war where nothing is certain.
Yep, capitalism is at direct odds with competetive markets almost by definition.
“free” is the non-specific term tht they use rhetorically. “Competition” is the market feature that might theoretically benefit consumers in some circumstances - and they don’t often include that word in their rhetoric.
It’s always been about acquisition of market power, this is sort of opposite of a free market.
If any threat of consumer rights / anti-trust / labour rights or balancing of market power arises, their incentive is to acquire political power and influence to defend their power.
It was the same story in western Europe before industry and “capitalism”, just the landed class monopolising land vs peasantry (and/or enslaved/indentured labour). Landowners monopolised all the votes and even when suffrage expanded it was usually top down. Until maybe 1789 when something else happened to the top.
Unfortunately I think many of the major progressive changes of the past (that benefit people in general rather than the elites - again in “the West”) have mostly followed catastrophic events or political upheaval, or martyrdom.
Peasants revolts, black death, aftermath/stress of major wars, civil war, workers uprisings, race riots, 1929, ww2.
I guess the 1929 and all the FDR stuff and strengthened social policies in western Europe was all widely democratically backed (honourable mention to the banks’ major incompetence , to hitler for being such a massive c*nt and a decent 50-or-so years of European imperial decline) .
So maybe there’s some hope for the democratic or the MLK/Gandhi type approach - not that it worked out too well for those two individuals.
The “Free Market” is a fantasy originally pushed by Think Tanks funded by the Koch Brothers.
All the great things we’re told about The Free MarketTM only ever work in highly competitive markets with no barriers to entry were it’s easy for any Jane, Jack or Joe to enter the Market and start competing with the rest: thinks like soap or teddy bears.
As soon as something as simple as Land-ownership gets involved (for example, for your store in a prime location) it stops being perfectly competitive and all of a sudden you get feedback loops were the more money somebody does the more money somebody is capable of doing, meaning that first mover advantage is close to unassailable (and what we see in the modern world is that the ones with the biggest first mover advantages inherited them).
The Free MarketTM is really just an ideological excuse from neoliberals to convince people that the power of the vote should be indirectly weakenned (sure, you can vote, but the State, which is controlled by voters’ elected representatives, can’t regulate or otherwise “intervene in the market”, so de facto the vote loses most of its power) so that the Power of Money can do whatever it wants because “the Free Market knows best”. Dig through the technochratic pseudo-Economic mumbo-jumbo and what you find is a ideology to weaken Democracy and replace it by Oligarchy.
That’s why you work to make sure that there is competition. I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t come as a shock that a EV manufacturer doesn’t want to have to compete.
I agree that’s it’s a “hate the game, not the player”. The issue is how much influence he could have to steer the market to favor his product vs. the competition. It’s happened so many times in history where the better product fails because they can’t play the game like the inferior company.
To quote “Pirates of Silicon Valley”:
Steve Jobs: We’re better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don’t get it, Steve. That doesn’t matter!
So is it fair for the consumer for big companies to be able to influence the game itself and not just play within the same rules? I’d say no.
I don’t think you’re really addressing my comment, which is just a criticism of how folks write about these “hypocrisies.”
Of course it’s not fair; that’s the entire foundational pillar on which capitalism rests. I’m not saying “hate the game, not the player”. Rather I’m saying the game is bullshit and the player should have his balls kicked with steel toed boot repeatedly.
This is how all capitalist markets progress, which is why I get annoyed when folks try to talk about this as though it is hypocritical. There is nothing hypocritical about a capitalist attempting to stifle innovation and competition for the advancement of their own personal wealth. This is what capitalism is about.
I think that what you’re saying is that actions of hypocrites cannot be considered hypocritical since it’s their nature to be hypocrites. It’s all a bit circular, isn’t it?
I think that in the case of Mr. Musk, the issue is that he has been seen as an innovator not just as a capitalist for much of his time in the spotlight. For 2018 Musk, this declaration would have been hypocritical. For 2024 Musk, whatever, why are we still listening to this clown?
No, not quite. I’m saying musk has never believed in the free market in his life and has never argued in good faith. All of those wealthy types know exactly what they are doing. They publicly embrace a fake ideal of free market economics up until they no longer have to put up the facade.
Correct. No politican, economist or, indeed, capitalist “believes” in the (so-called) “free market” - they all know perfectly well that it’s a fairy tale designed to justify them and their cronies parasitizing at everybody and everything else’s expense. The regime that made Musk’s billions possible - the Apartheid-regime - knew perfectly well that the “free market” was a big, fat lie all the way back in 1948. That’s why they built all the public infrastructure that enriched white people’s lives (including Elon’s) while repressing the majority of South Africans into becoming the glorified indentured labour that made Elon’s daddy rich.
It’s no different than “hearts & minds,” “spreading civilization” or Cinderella’s glass slipper. They all know it and they have always all known it.
isn’t this the definition of hypocrisy?
I suppose you’re right, it is. I am not articulating myself properly here. Let me re-frame this.
Every time we chalk things up to a bad actor being hypocritical, we are taking our eye off of the ball. The problems we are facing are not individual actors that are simply acting hypocritical in the moment. We are, in reality, dealing with a much larger issue. The economic structure is filled with grifters, liars, and exploiters at the top because that is how it is best leveraged.
So when articles are written calling some billionaire a hypocrite, we are not accomplishing anything. I would argue it is largely a game of masturbatory whack-a-mole to make ourselves feel better, because we cannot fix this system with random callouts and the (extremely) rare removal of “bad apples.”
Care to articulate how you’d describe it?
Much more than just capitalism, right? Like that, plus our entire culture, generations of propaganda and indoctrination. All of our power structures, political, financial, military, media, education.
Everything. Much larger issue is an understatement. How do we fix it?
I will say that I am no oracle, just one man. It is easy to perceive problems and very hard to prescribe solutions.
That being said, I can offer the following perspectives.
In order to fix these problems, we need to fight back through locally organized groups; tenant unions, renters unions, etc. Having the hard conversations with friends and family. Re-framing arguments and world views in terms of class rather than cancerous “red versus blue” politics. Showing up to peaceful protests while we can still participate in them. Pulling the levers of democracy given to us in local elections, and on the national stage, pulling the levers for the candidate that will not plunge us into immediate fascism as a stop gap. We need to do this now and with vigor to prevent the other potentials.
The alternative to action now, I’m afraid, will end in revolution attempts by a divided working class. This implies civil war where nothing is certain.
Yep, capitalism is at direct odds with competetive markets almost by definition.
“free” is the non-specific term tht they use rhetorically. “Competition” is the market feature that might theoretically benefit consumers in some circumstances - and they don’t often include that word in their rhetoric.
It’s always been about acquisition of market power, this is sort of opposite of a free market.
If any threat of consumer rights / anti-trust / labour rights or balancing of market power arises, their incentive is to acquire political power and influence to defend their power.
It was the same story in western Europe before industry and “capitalism”, just the landed class monopolising land vs peasantry (and/or enslaved/indentured labour). Landowners monopolised all the votes and even when suffrage expanded it was usually top down. Until maybe 1789 when something else happened to the top.
Unfortunately I think many of the major progressive changes of the past (that benefit people in general rather than the elites - again in “the West”) have mostly followed catastrophic events or political upheaval, or martyrdom.
Peasants revolts, black death, aftermath/stress of major wars, civil war, workers uprisings, race riots, 1929, ww2.
I guess the 1929 and all the FDR stuff and strengthened social policies in western Europe was all widely democratically backed (honourable mention to the banks’ major incompetence , to hitler for being such a massive c*nt and a decent 50-or-so years of European imperial decline) .
So maybe there’s some hope for the democratic or the MLK/Gandhi type approach - not that it worked out too well for those two individuals.
They believe in the “free market” insofar as the government being commodities to be bought.
It’s not what free market is though. Which is what capitalists pretend they are for.
The “Free Market” is a fantasy originally pushed by Think Tanks funded by the Koch Brothers.
All the great things we’re told about The Free MarketTM only ever work in highly competitive markets with no barriers to entry were it’s easy for any Jane, Jack or Joe to enter the Market and start competing with the rest: thinks like soap or teddy bears.
As soon as something as simple as Land-ownership gets involved (for example, for your store in a prime location) it stops being perfectly competitive and all of a sudden you get feedback loops were the more money somebody does the more money somebody is capable of doing, meaning that first mover advantage is close to unassailable (and what we see in the modern world is that the ones with the biggest first mover advantages inherited them).
The Free MarketTM is really just an ideological excuse from neoliberals to convince people that the power of the vote should be indirectly weakenned (sure, you can vote, but the State, which is controlled by voters’ elected representatives, can’t regulate or otherwise “intervene in the market”, so de facto the vote loses most of its power) so that the Power of Money can do whatever it wants because “the Free Market knows best”. Dig through the technochratic pseudo-Economic mumbo-jumbo and what you find is a ideology to weaken Democracy and replace it by Oligarchy.
Yep. Democracy dies when regulation does, basically.
That’s why you work to make sure that there is competition. I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t come as a shock that a EV manufacturer doesn’t want to have to compete.
I agree that’s it’s a “hate the game, not the player”. The issue is how much influence he could have to steer the market to favor his product vs. the competition. It’s happened so many times in history where the better product fails because they can’t play the game like the inferior company.
To quote “Pirates of Silicon Valley”:
Steve Jobs: We’re better than you are! We have better stuff.
Bill Gates: You don’t get it, Steve. That doesn’t matter!
So is it fair for the consumer for big companies to be able to influence the game itself and not just play within the same rules? I’d say no.
I don’t think you’re really addressing my comment, which is just a criticism of how folks write about these “hypocrisies.”
Of course it’s not fair; that’s the entire foundational pillar on which capitalism rests. I’m not saying “hate the game, not the player”. Rather I’m saying the game is bullshit and the player should have his balls kicked with steel toed boot repeatedly.
Ok, what do you suggest? There isn’t any alternatives. You can just ignore the opinion of some billionaire and be done with it.
We do not have the option to ignore the opinions of billionaires. Their opinions become government policy through lobbying and it impacts us all.
There’d be alternatives if people didn’t give up before ever looking for them.
The players make the game. It’s not a one or the other thing.