#me that without capitalist greed

[awakefor48hours]

I’m gonna be a little controversial and say Wish was actually a good movie.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Podcasting “Capitalists Hate Capitalism”

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

This week on my podcast, I read "Capitalists Hate Capitalism," my latest column for Locus Magazine:

https://locusmag.com/2024/03/cory-doctorow-capitalists-hate-capitalism/

What do I mean by "capitalists hate capitalism?" It all comes down to the difference between "profits" and "rents." A capitalist takes capital (money, or the things you can buy with it) and combines it with employees' labor, and generates profits (the capitalist's share) and wages (the workers' share).

Rents, meanwhile, come from owning an asset that capitalists need to generate profits. For example, a landlord who rents a storefront to a coffee shop extracts rent from the capitalist who owns the coffee shop. Meanwhile, the capitalist who owns the cafe extracts profits from the baristas' labor.

Capitalists' founding philosophers like Adam Smith hated rents. Worse: rents were the most important source of income at the time of capitalism's founding. Feudal lords owned great swathes of land, and there were armies of serfs who were bound to that land – it was illegal for them to leave it. The serfs owed rent to lords, and so they worked the land in order grow crops and raise livestock that they handed over the to lord as rent for the land they weren't allowed to leave.

Capitalists, meanwhile, wanted to turn that land into grazing territory for sheep as a source of wool for the "dark, Satanic mills" of the industrial revolution. They wanted the serfs to be kicked off their land so that they would become "free labor" that could be hired to work in those factories.

For the founders of capitalism, a "free market" wasn't free from regulation, it was free from rents, and "free labor" came from workers who were free to leave the estates where they were born – but also free to starve unless they took a job with the capitalists.

For capitalism's philosophers, free markets and free labor weren't just a source of profits, they were also a source of virtue. Capitalists – unlike lords – had to worry about competition from one another. They had to make better goods at lower prices, lest their customers take their business elsewhere; and they had to offer higher pay and better conditions, lest their "free labor" take a job elsewhere.

This means that capitalists are haunted by the fear of losing everything, and that fear acts as a goad, driving them to find ways to make everything better for everyone: better, cheaper products that benefit shoppers; and better-paid, safer jobs that benefit workers. For Smith, capitalism is alchemy, a philosopher's stone that transforms the base metal of greed into the gold of public spiritedness.

By contrast, rentiers are insulated from competition. Their workers are bound to the land, and must toil to pay the rent no matter whether they are treated well or abused. The rent rolls in reliably, without the lord having to invest in new, better ways to bring in the harvest. It's a good life (for the lord).

Think of that coffee-shop again: if a better cafe opens across the street, the owner can lose it all, as their customers and workers switch allegiance. But for the landlord, the failure of his capitalist tenant is a feature, not a bug. Once the cafe goes bust, the landlord gets a newly vacant storefront on the same block as the hot new coffee shop that can be rented out at even higher rates to another capitalist who tries his luck.

The industrial revolution wasn't just the triumph of automation over craft processes, nor the triumph of factory owners over weavers. It was also the triumph of profits over rents. The transformation of hereditary estates worked by serfs into part of the supply chain for textile mills was attended by – and contributed to – the political ascendancy of capitalists over rentiers.

Now, obviously, capitalism didn't end rents – just as feudalism didn't require the total absence of profits. Under feudalism, capitalists still extracted profits from capital and labor; and under capitalism, rentiers still extracted rents from assets that capitalists and workers paid them to use.

The difference comes in the way that conflicts between profits and rents were resolved. Feudalism is a system where rents triumph over profits, and capitalism is a system where profits triumph over rents.

It's conflict that tells you what really matters. You love your family, but they drive you crazy. If you side with your family over your friends – even when your friends might be right and your family's probably wrong – then you value your family more than your friends. That doesn't mean you don't value your friends – it means that you value them less than your family.

Conflict is a reliable way to know whether or not you're a leftist. As Steven Brust says, the way to distinguish a leftist is to ask "What's more important, human rights, or property rights?" If you answer "Property rights are human right," you're not a leftist. Leftists don't necessarily oppose all property rights – they just think they're less important than human rights.

Think of conflicts between property rights and human rights: the grocer who deliberately renders leftover food inedible before putting it in the dumpster to ensure that hungry people can't eat it, or the landlord who keeps an apartment empty while a homeless person freezes to death on its doorstep. You don't have to say "No one can own food or a home" to say, "in these cases, property rights are interfering with human rights, so they should be overridden." For leftists property rights can be a means to human rights (like revolutionary land reformers who give peasants title to the lands they work), but where property rights interfere with human rights, they are set aside.

In his 2023 book Technofeudalism, Yanis Varoufakis claims that capitalism has given way to a new feudalism – that capitalism was a transitional phase between feudalism…and feudalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/28/cloudalists/#cloud-capital

Varoufakis's point isn't that capitalists have gone extinct. Rather, it's that today, conflicts between capital and assets – between rents and profits – reliably end with a victory of rent over profit.

Think of Amazon: the "everything store" appears to be a vast bazaar, a flea-market whose stalls are all operated by independent capitalists who decide what to sell, how to price it, and then compete to tempt shoppers. In reality, though, the whole system is owned by a single feudalist, who extracts 51% from every dollar those merchants take in, and decides who can sell, and what they can sell, and at what price, and whether anyone can even see it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/01/managerial-discretion/#junk-fees

Or consider the patent trolls of the Eastern District of Texas. These "companies" are invisible and produce nothing. They consist solely of a serviced mailbox in a dusty, uninhabited office-building, and an overbroad patent (say, a patent on "tapping on a screen with your finger") issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office. These companies extract hundreds of millions of dollars from Apple, Google, Samsung for violating these patents. In other words, the government steps in and takes vast profits generated through productive activity by companies that make phones, and turns that money over as rent paid to unproductive companies whose sole "product" is lawsuits. It's the triumph of rent over profit.

Capitalists hate capitalism. All capitalists would rather extract rents than profits, because rents are insulated from competition. The merchants who sell on Jeff Bezos's Amazon (or open a cafe in a landlord's storefront, or license a foolish smartphone patent) bear all the risk. The landlords – of Amazon, the storefront, or the patent – get paid whether or not that risk pays off.

This is why Google, Apple and Samsung also have vast digital estates that they rent out to capitalists – everything from app stores to patent portfolios. They would much rather be in the business of renting things out to capitalists than competing with capitalists.

Hence that famous Adam Smith quote: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." This is literally what Google and Meta do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

And it's what Apple and Google do:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23934961/google-antitrust-trial-defaults-search-deal-26-3-billion

Why compete with one another when you can collude, like feudal lords with adjacent estates who trust one another to return any serf they catch trying to sneak away in the dead of night?

Because of course, it's not just "free markets" that have been captured by rents ("Competition is for losers" -P. Thiel) – it's also "free labor." For years, the largest tech and entertainment companies in America illegally colluded on a "no poach" agreement not to hire one-anothers' employees:

https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/03/apple-google-other-silicon-valley-tech-giants-ordered-to-pay-415m-in-no-poaching-suit/

These companies were bitter competitors – as were these sectors. Even as Big Content was lobbying for farcical copyright law expansions and vowing to capture Big Tech, all these companies on both sides were able to set aside their differences and collude to bind their free workers to their estates and end the "wasteful competition" to secure their labor.

Of course, this is even more pronounced at the bottom of the labor market, where noncompete "agreements" are the norm. The median American worker bound by a noncompete is a fast-food worker whose employer can wield the power of the state to prevent that worker from leaving behind the Wendy's cash-register to make $0.25/hour more at the McDonald's fry trap across the street:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal

Employers defend this as necessary to secure their investment in training their workers and to ensure the integrity of their trade secrets. But why should their investments be protected? Capitalism is about risk, and the fear that accompanies risk – fear that drives capitalists to innovate, which creates the public benefit that is the moral justification for capitalism.

Capitalists hate capitalism. They don't want free labor – they want labor bound to the land. Capitalists benefit from free labor: if you have a better company, you can tempt away the best workers and cause your inferior rival to fail. But feudalists benefit from un-free labor, from tricks like "bondage fees" that force workers to pay in order to quit their jobs:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/21/bondage-fees/#doorman-building

Companies like Petsmart use "training repayment agreement provisions" (TRAPs) to keep low-waged workers from leaving for better employers. Petsmart says it costs $5,500 to train a pet-groomer, and if that worker is fired, laid off, or quits less than two years, they have to pay that amount to Petsmart:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

Now, Petsmart is full of shit here. The "four-week training course" Petsmart claims is worth $5,500 actually only lasts for three weeks. What's more, the "training" consists of sweeping the floor and doing other low-level chores for three weeks, without pay.

But even if Petsmart were to give $5,500 worth of training to every pet-groomer, this would still be bullshit. Why should the worker bear the risk of Petsmart making a bad investment in their training? Under capitalism, risks justify rewards. Petsmart's argument for charging $50 to groom your dog and paying the groomer $15 for the job is that they took $35 worth of risk. But some of that risk is being borne by the worker – they're the ones footing the bill for the training.

For Petsmart – as for all feudalists – a worker (with all the attendant risks) can be turned into an asset, something that isn't subject to competition. Petsmart doesn't have to retain workers through superior pay and conditions – they can use the state's contract-enforcement mechanism instead.

Capitalists hate capitalism, but they love feudalism. Sure, they dress this up by claiming that governmental de-risking spurs investment: "Who would pay to train a pet-groomer if that worker could walk out the next day and shave dogs for some competing shop?"

But this is obvious nonsense. Think of Silicon Valley: high tech is the most "IP-intensive" of all industries, the sector that has had to compete most fiercely for skilled labor. And yet, Silicon Valley is in California, where noncompetes are illegal. Every single successful Silicon Valley company has thrived in an environment in which their skilled workers can walk out the door at any time and take a job with a rival company.

There's no indication that the risk of free labor prevents investment. Think of AI, the biggest investment bubble in human history. All the major AI companies are in jurisdictions where noncompetes are illegal. Anthropic – OpenAI's most serious competitor – was founded by a sister/brother team who quit senior roles at OpenAI and founded a direct competitor. No one can claim with a straight face that OpenAI is now unable to raise capital on favorable terms.

What's more, when OpenAI founder Sam Altman was forced out by his board, Microsoft offered to hire him – and 700 other OpenAI personnel – to found an OpenAI competitor. When Altman returned to the company, Microsoft invested more money in OpenAI, despite their intimate understanding that anyone could hire away the company's founder and all of its top technical staff at any time.

The idea that the departure of the Burger King trade secrets locked up in its workers' heads constitute more of a risk to the ability to operate a hamburger restaurant than the departure of the entire technical staff of OpenAI is obvious nonsense. Noncompetes aren't a way to make it possible to run a business – they're a way to make it easy to run a business, by eliminating competition and pushing the risk onto employees.

Because capitalists hate capitalism. And who can blame them? Who wouldn't prefer a life with less risk to one where you have to constantly look over your shoulder for competitors who've found a way to make a superior offer to your customers and workers?

This is why businesses are so excited about securing "IP" – that is, a government-backed right to control your workers, customers, competitors or critics:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

The argument for every IP right expansion is the same: "Who would invest in creating something new without the assurance that some­one else wouldn’t copy and improve on it and put them out of business?"

That was the argument raised five years ago, during the (mercifully brief) mania for genre writers seeking trademarks on common tropes. There was the romance writer who got a trademark on the word "cocky" in book titles:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/16/17566276/cockygate-amazon-kindle-unlimited-algorithm-self-published-romance-novel-cabal

And the fantasy writer who wanted a trademark on "dragon slayer" in fantasy novel titles:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/06/14/son-of-cocky-a-writer-is-trying-to-trademark-dragon-slayer-for-fantasy-novels/

Who subsequently sought a trademark on any book cover featuring a person holding a weapon:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/07/19/trademark-troll-who-claims-to-own-dragon-slayer-now-wants-exclusive-rights-to-book-covers-where-someone-is-holding-a-weapon/

For these would-be rentiers, the logic was the same: "Why would I write a book about a dragon-slayer if I could lose readers to someone else who writes a book about dragon-slayers?"

In these cases, the USPTO denied or rescinded its trademarks. Profits triumphed over rents. But increasingly, rents are triumphing over profits, and rent-extraction is celebrated as "smart business," while profits are for suckers, only slightly preferable to "wages" (the worst way to get paid under both capitalism and feudalism).

That's what's behind all the talk about "passive income" – that's just a euphemism for "rent." It's what Douglas Rushkoff is referring to in Survival of the Richest when he talks about the wealthy wanting to "go meta":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/13/collapse-porn/#collapse-porn

Don't drive a cab – go meta and buy a medallion. Don't buy a medallion, go meta and found Uber. Don't found Uber, go meta and invest in Uber. Don't invest in Uber, go meta and buy options on Uber stock. Don't buy Uber stock options, go meta and buy derivatives of options on Uber stock.

"Going meta" means distancing yourself from capitalism – from income derived from profits, from competition, from risk – and cozying up to feudalism.

Capitalists have always hated capitalism. The owners of the dark Satanic mills wanted peasants turned off the land and converted into "free labor" – but they also kidnapped Napoleonic war-orphans and indentured them to ten-year terms of service, which was all you could get out of a child's body before it was ruined for further work:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#thats-fronkonsteen

When Varoufakis says we've entered a new feudal age, he doesn't mean that we've abolished capitalism. He means that – for the first time in centuries – when rents go to war against profits – the rents almost always emerge victorious.

Here's the podcast episode:

https://craphound.com/news/2024/04/14/capitalists-hate-capitalism/

Here's a direct link to the MP3 (hosting courtesy of the Internet Archive; they'll host your stuff for free, forever):

https://archive.org/download/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465_-_Capitalists_Hate_Capitalism.mp3

And here's the RSS feed for my podcast:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/18/in-extremis-veritas/#the-winnah

[intersectionalpraxis]

I just emailed the United Nations Women's Office in Geneva, Amnesty International, Oxfam Canada, and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) about the lack of period care in Gaza. It is frustrating to see that international organizations have not set up a fund specifically to help Palestinian people who need this. Having one resource to help with this shortage, Motherbeing, is not enough for millions of people.

Period care is health care. I don't want anyone to tell me that emailing international organizations about this is either silly or not important because not having adequate access to this can cause serious health ramifications -from infections to illnesses and later reproductive health issues.

Pregnant women in Gaza are also continually suffering right now -of the thousands of women that were supposed to give birth over these past few months -they have not had safe and consistent access to care during their trimesters. I have spoken about this before -but we need to keep amplifying this issue as well.

Women's health in Gaza has been under under crisis for a while now, and we KNOW this is part of a zionist's larger agenda -to attack women and children especially because they see them as some of the greatest threats. So please do what you can -send those emails, call your representatives/MP's and demand a ceasefire. Demand more than adequate medical care -which includes period care -reach those in Gaza who need it.

Original post where Hind Khoudary is reporting:

To say I'm bitter-sweetly fortunate my TL has been full of feminists talking about Palestine -while at the same time I have seen a plethora publicly turn away, ignore, or remain silent on it because of money or greed or worry about their social or financial capital (celebrities and 'influencers' -we know who you are) -I'm just embarrassed for them.

When I first started my journey into feminism as a first year well over a decade ago (and as someone who used to be ignorant about so many things until I started my process of learning/unlearning/educating myself) -I am resoundingly grateful for that beginning. Being able dig into intersectional theory, listening to activists from all around the world about their struggles, passions, and efforts to liberation -and I still continue to do so.

Reading about the importance of decolonization in tandem with dismantling the heteropatriarchal capitalist machine -I always know the importance of solidarity and ally ship as a result of years of study -because the power IS with the people -and our voices do matter -the system, time and again, wants you to believe you don't. And for those feminists who aren't using their platforms or voices to encourage and demand a ceasefire -or any and all ends of systemic oppression -you have blood on your hands. Feminist and women's movements aren't meant to be something you cherry pick.

So do the bare minimum, or don't call yourselves feminists.

I also don't have a 'template' per-say, since I just wrote them out individually and edited them, but if anyone wants to me post something generic so they can make their own to send to these organizations please let me know.

[nico-tines]

genuine question for hatchetfield fans

how do you believe each of the lords in black manifest their powers ??

ill go first

Pokey: This is the most obvious as we know he can actively take over people in hatchetfield/outside of the black and white using blue shit, but i also believe he can cause hallucinations (similar to what Lex experiences in Yellow Jacket at Toy Zone) where he appears as the doll in visions or people start to hallucinate blue shit everywhere around them in the place of blood.

Wiggly: Wiggly appears as the doll and can clearly cause mass hysteria/infatuation with him, but that power seems to not work on everyone (Lex and Hannah are good examples). The way that Wiggly can cause this kind of hysteria is by preying on anyone who deeply feels like they are missing something in their life, so i think his main power is manipulation of those he sees as weak or in need. I also believe he likes to send out his followers (like wilbur) to do his dirty work for him, rather than putting in the effort himself life the capitalist overlord he truly is. He is not actually the most physically powerful of his brothers, but he is the smartest in his manipulation tactics to stay the leader of the group.

Blinky: Blinky either can take over others in a way similar to Pokey without fully taking away their consciousness. Or he is able to send minions outside of the black and white similar to Wiggly. Either way, he will always be the watcher. He doesn’t use his powers as often to create mayhem, but he enjoys watching others suffer and creating drama. His main power manifests through the purple eyes that are always watching in different corners of hatchetfield, but I also believe he can cause overwhelming anger and panic in the people he decided to mess with. He can control the emotions of others to cause chaos that he likes watch. (an explanation of how Bill got so crazy at Blinky’s World)

Tinky: Tinky is difficult to say as his intervention in the only episode that revolves around him is seemingly all in Ted’s head. I think that he is able to create rifts in the time space continuum like Ted’s office, and in those little spaces he has power to worm his way into peoples heads. Giving them hope of the future and then using that to his advantage to take that away. Eventually trapping those he messes with in the bastardards box. He loves breaking people down piece by piece through his time manipulation.

Nibbly: Nibbly is really interesting to me, specifically because he doesn’t seem to affect anyone outside of the day of the Honey Festival. I think he’s entirely fueled by hunger and greed with very little brains or scheming unlike his brothers. But I do like the concept that he can cause a ravaging amount of greed in anyone he wants to possess. Sometimes that’s hunger, sometimes it’s for material possessions or money. His followers seem to be filthy rich, and filled with a hunger for more power. When he feels like messing with someone he causes them to ruin their relationships surrounding them through an uncontrollable greed.

These are mostly just headcanons so let me know what you all think, and if you guys have any other ideas for powers with each of them!

[germiyahu]

I would like to politely request that if you find yourself not understanding the point of my posts, don't engage with them. Don't embarrass yourself.

Because I certainly don't want to have to point out the irony of a person reacting to my (long winded) wry post about how uninformed uninterested Americans project and misinterpret the motivations, on a societal level, of Israelis and Palestinians... in a way that completely confirms that. You don't understand Zionism, point blank. You have not done your research, you do not understand why Jews for their entire history have yearned to return to Eretz Yisrael, and so you lie about that history, or you uncritically regurgitate other people's lies that you've heard about it.

You don't expect better of Muslims either, and there's a reason I only mentioned how people like you interpret this conflict to be about Jews vs Muslims, so do not pretend you care about the maybe 10% of Palestinians who are Christians. I note that the antizionist crowd routinely erases Bedouins, Druze, Samaritans, Circassians, Christian and Muslim Arabs who choose an Israeli identity over a Palestinian one. Not a single antizionist can mention the actual diversity of Israeli society without acting like their teeth are being pulled. So spare me.

My post was a (long winded and wry) assessment of what I have seen and what I think the general slacktivist Left conceive of Israel and Palestine. That it's a conflict between enlightened secular Christian-Lite white people who should know better, who should be over things like wanting a return to Zion... and what you see as noble savage barbaric Muslims who at least live a good honest non capitalist life, and we as the West owe them whatever they want because the War on Terror was horrific, yes.

But in the process you 1) erase the Jewish heritage and connection to their indigenous homeland, and replaces every single motivation for Zionism as racist imperialist bloodthirsty greed. Have fun gaslighting all of us as to how that's not blood libel. And you 2) excuse suicide bombing, targeting civilians, stabbing and driving over random people, mass shootings, war rape, hostage taking, torture, making fun little games out of torture... you'll excuse everything Hamas and their allied groups do in the name of "resistance," not just because you dehumanize Jews, but because I believe you really don't think Muslims are capable of being better than that. And because yeah, they're attacking Jews, who you view as privileged and annoying and the root of all problems in the world, so that's another reason not to expect better of them.

It ignores that there are tens of millions of Muslims who care about democracy, human rights, coexistence, peace... a lot of them are Palestinians. But you don't listen to them, you don't let them take the lead in their own liberation movement. You cheer on fascists because that's what a Muslim is in your head. Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, now the Houthis: masked insurgents who have no regard for the sanctity of human life, no regard for their own people, sadistic manchildren who are only interested in enriching themselves and causing pain in the world, thinly scaffolded with the most cruel interpretations of a religion that a billion people follow. The only difference between you and your conservative racist parents is that you think the terrorists are the good guys now.

But thanks for stopping by :)

[my-corneroftheworld]

Child without love

Summary: Namor finds a marine biologist with the powers to control water and deep knowledge of the sea and is intrigued.

Word count: 1.3

Tags: Smut in later chapters (no minors allowed), "water-bender" reader x Namor after the events from Wakanda forever, possessive Namor, mutant reader, talk of climate change, asphyxiation, the deep sea being a bit scary, war, violence, harsh language, Wakanda forever spoilers, the usage of y/n, sexual tension

Ps. I hope everybody's doing ok. I'm sorry for being late but I had two assignments due as well as a date. As usual, I accept any constructive criticisms in the comments

Masterlist

Chapter 3

Zyanya woke me up gently and pulled me toward a small pool of water. She started taking off my dress and I aided her. Last night left me drained and I think she noticed that. Every time she touched me or said something she did it as slowly as possible. It was as though if she spoke too loudly or felt me too roughly I’d break. I still don’t know how to answer him. I am well aware of the environmental and ethical issues my world has but these are ideals forced on us by colonial and capitalistic structures. We're forced to live this way by those who seek to uphold these values and those in power. I slipped into the pool while Zyanya lingered further away, keeping a watchful eye.

I, like many others, have thought of the positive effects of human disappearance. So much pain we've caused not only to the planet but also to ourselves. But it wasn't always this way, there have been thousands of civilizations that have lived in tune with nature and been part of its ecosystem. Surely there must be a way to go back but how? How do you convince a system based on greed and an exploitative hierarchy to allow resources to cultivate organically and only take what is needed? I sighed. I am not angry at his proposal. It makes sense but I'm worried about what that makes me if I were to agree? Many innocents will die and who am I to pass that judgment?

A splash emerged from another pool much further away and shortly after footsteps appeared and began to get closer and closer. I suddenly became acutely aware of my lack of clothes and slouched in the water as an attempt to cover myself up. Two figures emerged both were blue women like Zyanya but one had more adornments and a shawl whilst the other had a dress similar to Zyanyas. The more adorned woman spoke quick and sternly but not in a demeaning way. I'm sure what they were saying to one another but afterward, she turned to me and spoke to the other who then said.

"Ku'kulkan will meet you tonight. He urges you to have an answer by then. We have several guards in the area. Any attempt to escape with be dealt with harshly."

Then she left. The woman who spoke explained further.

"That was our general Namora and I am your translator, Izel. I may help ask Zyanya questions and give answers. I will not always be around but when I am, do ask what you need"

"Thank you" I answered.

The rest of the bath was filled with silence. After getting dressed I had breakfast whilst Izel and Zyanya were talking amongst themselves. Curious about their anatomy and how they came to be underwater, I asked Izel about it. She explained that due to a specific herb that was consumed by their ancestors as an attempt to run from colonizers, they develop breathing in water but it also meant that their skin would turn blue in the air and that they could no longer live on the surface without breathing equipment.

"Why does Ku'kulkan not have the same issues as you?" I asked and to that giggled slightly.

"Because he is not mortal in the way you and I are. He was blessed by the gods to have both sky, land, and water. He has seen us through all these years and will continue to do so till the sunsets of the last day."

I had a hard time wrapping my head around that. He must be a mutant like I thought but one whose mutation was wrought on by this herb. Prolonged life must be one of his mutations. I understand how they can view him as a god. He is captivating. The way he looked at me yesterday almost made me agree to any of his demands.

After wandering the cave. I noticed that Namora was indeed telling the truth. There were many guards all around. Escaping was not a viable option. Even if I did escape I don't know how far underwater I am. I sighed and went back to I went back to the pool and took a deep breath. Allowing the breath to mimic the movement of the water. Then I allowed my hands to do the same. When felt in total control I began pushing and pulling to my own rhythm trying to get the water to move as I see fit. Slowly it began to take shape like a small snake moving in a circle above the surface of the water. The bigger it got the harder it was to control but I needed more. I needed to feel more of it so I pushed my boundaries further and further until-

"You have already begun training."

And just like that my concentration broke and the water lost its shape and splash back into the pool. When I turned I saw both Zyanya and Izel buying slightly to him. He stood looking straight at me and I felt it again, that pull. He was drenched likely from swimming and the blue iridescence from the glow worms made him look divine. He said something to the girls and then proceeded to take my hand and began walking. I didn't struggle, I simply followed his lead and was overly focused by the feeling of his hand on mine. It is significantly bigger and callous and if you had asked me I wouldn't admit it but a part of me wanted it elsewhere. We walked into the cabin and he closed the curtains. I sat down on the chair in front of him. He began to wipe himself with a blanket not breaking eye contact with me.

"You´re answer?"

I gulped and felt my dress cling to my skin a little too tightly. "I- I am willing to help." And with that, his muscles soften. Just a little, which made me even more anxious for what I am about to say " But only if we allow people to surrender." He instantly tenses up again. I continued.

"There are people like yours who did not get away. People who are still struggling because of all that has happened. How is it fair to rob them of a chance to live like your people do? "

"I cannot guarantee that they will not try to exploit or harm what my people have worked so hard to build." He said bluntly.

"But can you truly call it a just cause if you're going to commit genocide on innocent people?"

"So you would have me do nothing?!" I felt his anger rise causing alarms to ring in my head,

"N-no. Not nothing. Just keep yourself open to aiding the innocent."

He stood quietly for a moment, thinking.

"Alright. I will consider sparing people. Only if you follow my every command without question."

I nodded. I knew this was the closest I could get to an ethical solution but it still felt wrong. He moved to my side and put his hand on mine.

"Thank you"

As the word fell out his lips I allowed my thought to wander too close to fantasy. He looked into my eyes as if searching for something. His hand moved to my face, slowly pulling me closer. I closed my eyes, leaning in. After a few moments, I felt his hand move away and I opened my eyes once again. He had turned away from me and before I could say anything he interrupted with.

"You can leave now. I expect you to train diligently"

Confused I left. It felt cold without his touch. I wonder what did I do to push him away? Or why did I allow him to draw me in so easily?

[pawpunkao3]

My personal ranking of how hard the lords in black slap (in my opinion)

1. Blinky

We only got one NMT with him but MAN was it fucking TIGHT. Blinky has such a clear and coherent theme (watching) which gives him a degree of predictability, but it's tempered by the fact that that theme has so many different offshoots. Blinky's power manifests in spectacle, capitalist surveillance, paranoia about relationships and the resulting controlling behavior that comes from that, sexual threats, false selves, and each of those themes could have easily been a whole episode alone, but instead they were woven together so well! There's clearly so much to explore with him. Also the fact that he's based on the concept of an audience that prefers its characters interesting more than happy is. Well it could have been stupid but it WASN'T okay it WASN'T

2. Pokey

Man I'm a sucker for a hivemind. His biggest draw for me is, well, the implications. Pokey pulls off the "seems goofy, is actually horrifying" better than the other lords in black in my opinion, and not just because he was the first, but because his mere presence subverts the whole medium TGWDLM was made in, reframing ordinarily harmless scenes as horror. The loss of self is a very human fear to play on, and opens up the potential for so much delicious tragedy.

3. Wiggly

Coherent theme of greed. I like that he manifested more subtly than Pokey-- rather than taking people over, he preyed on urges they already had and redirected them to himself. (The fact that he was going to be summoned ruined that a little for me, but not terribly.) I also liked the stress that Wiggly didn't have to do a ton of work because of the fact that humans already fucked up their world. Made in America SLAPS man.

4. Nibbly

I mean, you can't go wrong with a hunger themed monster. Nibbly had a bit of the multifaceted theming Blinky did with physical hunger and a strong "hunger" or desire to win, but the fact that he was kept as a late reveal meant that couldn't be explored as much. Overall, Nibbly didn't seem to have a strong corrupting influence or even a will or desire to conquer humans-- Roman was the real villain, Nibbly just helped.

5. Tinky

What even is this guy's deal? Yes, I know that he's "the bastard of time and space" but what does that mean? Why do we only see him interacting with time and not space? His persona has some karmic aspects, since his one victim was revealed to have caused all his own problems with time travel, but it's not emphasized enough to make it a coherent theme. It seems like his main thing is being obsessed with a terrible man, which nearly every tumblrina manages without magic powers. I would still like to see him expanded on though.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Swift definitely had a chance to buy her masters just not for the price she wanted. At first she said she didn't know about selling and was caught off guard with this information, but former owner of the label said she did get message about it prior to selling happening, plus her father is/was share holder in that company, so he had to be informed about it. So we already know she's not saying the truth. Most likely she wanted to buy just her masters, but Borchetta did tied deal of label+masters, for which he cannot be really blamed, it makes sense for him to sell it like that, because it gives him better options and price.

Also artists not owning their masters, not being able to buy their masters, someone else buying their masters for profit - those are literally industry standards. For example in the 80s Michael Jackson bought ATV label with entire The Beatles' catalogue actually thanks to McCartney's advice. He bought it for $47.5 million, sold half in the 90s for $95 million and after his death the other half was sold for $750 million. Since buying this deal was basically funding his very expensive lifestyle. Right now just the catalogue of The Beatles is estimated to be worth about $1 billion. It's just business. By buying Big Machine with Swift's masters Scott Brown didn't do anything special or nefarious as Swift tried to portay this. He was just making a deal and soon after sold it again for profit, just that.

Swift felt slighted for not getting what she wanted the way she wanted and figured out that from capitalistic point of view it is a good situation to once again pull out victim card and weaponize her cult fanbase against her "opponents" and against itself's wallets as well, since she knows they're gonna buy anything and everything from her even without playing victim. Lies and greed, pure capitalism.

Yep. 100% agree- especially with that last part. She wants so bad to have the world view her as an innocent victim of circumstances.

It makes no fucking sense. Frankly, she's not stupid, even though I don't believe her to be a creative genius, I admit she is a smart businesswoman. (not an ethical one- though).

I just don't understand how she fools the whole world into thinking she didn't know the deal was going down, and that she was never approached with an offer to buy her own catalouge.

First of all, of course they would approach her- the business world is about money, and anyone doing business with Swift knows she has a lot of money. So, how is it logical to assume they didn't even offer her a chance to purchase the music?

She clearly ran with the narrative that they somehow cheated her out of her own rightful property, because it's the point of view that enables her to rally the fan based against the mean corporate overlords. She carefully crafted it all to look like a personal attack on her, and her music, by playing the "Im just a girl who didn't know any better and got overlooked by the sleazy businessman" card. She knows this will land on people's heartstrings because- lots of people do get screwed over by businessmen. However, those people are not Taylor Swift who has decades of experience- a world-renowned reputation, and God knows how many people working for her. She has all the power she could ever want- and yet wants to make herself look powerless.

It begs the question, why? She requires the image of powerlessness in order to ratify her fanbase into trying to protect her.

Truly- you said it- She wants to make it look like Scott was doing something nefarious, when, in fact, he was just doing his job. Music Industry professionals engaging in multi-million-dollar business deals over some of the most popular music in the world? Color me shocked and appalled.

It's so disingenuous of her to paint the situation like this especially when considering her own economic and social power against that of the other players in this drama.

Now we have to deal with her re-records, which, honestly, some of those "from the vault" tracks should have stayed in the vault.

[kaija-rayne-author]

It's so sad. Bioware has been a staple, almost, of RPGs for a long time.

But them laying off so many people (it's 125ish over the past handful of months) really doesn't increase confidence in the company.

Even though DA:DW is in Alpha, it's going to affect how many people buy the game. Because they'll think that many layoffs will affect the quality of the game. Average people have little idea about how games are made. Alpha means it's in primary testing, meaning the game is mostly finished.

Could they have shot themselves in the foot better if they'd tried?

Fans are pissed and swearing they're done with Bioware.

A lot of fans.

And I have a Kassandra like feeling that DA:DW is Bioware's last chance as a company.

So, their behavior toward employees = loss of consumer confidence = fewer people buy Dreadwolf = Bioware sinks and we don't get any more Dragon Age after DA:DW.

Don't execs have business degrees and such?

If so, why is my ridiculous ass better at cause/effect for economics and business than they are? I've never even taken a business class.

What exactly do the execs do to earn those obscene paychecks?

Anyway, I really think it comes down to this; if we want more Dragon Age past Dreadwolf, we'll have to ignore Bioware's behavior and buy the game regardless.

And... I don't know how many people will do that. I don't even want to do that. I've boycotted companies for far less.

Edit Saturday Aug 26, '23

I need to add some thoughts to this.

Unfortunately, negative chatter will likely affect whether they release the game at all. Which sucks for people who do want it. (It's rhetorical, but it’s almost finished, why wouldn't they release it?)

I've read that Andromeda DLCs were canceled because of that. I won't be boycotting. I'm unhappy with bioware, but there's much more to consider.

For me, I've been thinking and reading what those laid off have said. It's them that are most affected, after all. It's not about bioware as much as it's about the people who no longer work there who poured years of time, love, and passion into Dreadwolf.

I don't like bioware, but at the same time, I refuse to shat on the creatives who loved and made Dreadwolf. I know, personally, how much of yourself you pour into a creative work. I'd be heartbroken if people boycotted something I'd worked on and truly loved. Even if I were no longer working at the company. I believe the devs can't even talk about it, unless/until it's released due to NDAs. Can you imagine putting years of your life and creativity into something only to have people boycott it?

And to use your status at the company as the excuse?

Kirby has said she hopes people love it as much as she does. She's one of the most affected and she's still hoping people play and love it.

And to be calmly realistic, Bioware isn't the main source of the issue. EA demanded a layoff of 800 people across all their holdings. Corporate greed. I doubt bioware would've made such awful choices without that pressure.

So even though my kneejerk reaction is to boycott, I'll buy it and play it for the creatives who poured everything into it.

Is it right? Hell no. There's no ethical consumption in a late stage capitalist nightmare world. But I'm also not going to punish the people who loved it enough to make it.

Y'all do you, but I wanted to share my more measured thoughts on the matter.

[obitoslay]

absolutely obsessed with how the strongest beings in orv are constellations, literally the oldest form of story telling and the more memorised/impactful the more important they are, from historical (more recent so weaker) to narrative to myth grade. and like i know this is all obvious to everyone but for the oldest form of story telling from religion to mythology and oldest fables to turn against people once the scenarios begin when they are so ingrained in what makes you human and what people turn to in times of desperation and and moral guidance makes this so much . more chilling and twisted to me

humans are the ones who named these stars and created constellations, we created a story out of nothing, kinda like how od birthed wos into existence, i think feeding into the idea that stories have both the capability to harm and save people. i’m sure we know constellations are a huge symbol for those who are content with monetising and consuming stories without care for others and how this sustains capitalist greed right down to what makes u human….. but i think it’s just. soooo good. but then what makes kdj so special as a constellation is that while reading is also a means for survival for him just like how it is for constellations consuming stories, he is so unbelievably selfless and full of love as he reads and gives his lives up for the characters he reads about rather than completely discard them like other constellations. in a world where the star stream has monetised even survival, kdj is in the end driven by hope and love and devotion . ach… a reader who gives back to the story as much as the story has helped him.

[yonpote]

another thing is like... under capitalism, business success and wealth begin to alienate you from others who don't have that. and that alienation can feed into greed, like why not keep investing and making business deals and buying expensive stuff? and no one around is really going to call you out because they are either capitalist hacks or maybe people who once struggled who now rely on you.

so like, I don't inherently expect much from creators like dnp who come into money. even though they probably have more financial freedom than many other creators because of all the tours, books, games, etc (because they are good at business!)

so like, as their fans who ultimately are their consumers, I think it's good to call them out, especially because they have shown before that they have good intentions.

am I expecting much from them? no. wealth can be corrupting and speaking out comes with risk to business/career interests. but they have a special relationship with their audience, as we're mostly all fellow queer and neurodivergent people with similar interests. so we can provide feedback and be the ones to try to ground them and be like "hey that wasn't cool please do better." stopping engagement with them and their content entirely doesn't really do anything to help, unless they did something they needed to absolutely be deplatformed for. stopping engagement is a valid personal choice, but when I see stuff that begins to resemble like 'they aren't being activists right now time for everyone to unstan' I'm like... if that makes you feel better, fine, but I would rather parasocially / affectionately be like "hey I expect more from you!" in a way that is constructive. which is something I would want to do with my friends, but the difference is, if my friends didn't change or try to then I probably would distance myself from them. Whereas Dan and Phil are entertainers we don't now irl, we have a different relationship with them. but compared to many other creators, they really do tend to be more sensitive to their audience (which has helped their success).

but so this time the (mostly leftist) phannies calling them out actually got them to do a fundraiser so that's cool! even if it's because of the backlash like, that's what the point of backlash is! we should want people to change behavior. not to just abstractly punish them, for something they could be unlikely to do without pressure. though hopefully it will lead to less instances of having to pressure them.

idk this brings up interesting stuff about parasocial relationships, the transactions between creators and their audience, and capitalism. so of course I had to rant about it for a sec lol.

thats completely true! thank u for the rant lol but yeah i dont want to come across as being like, NEVER EXPECT ANYTHING FROM YOUR FAV CREATORS it was more like, with dnp specifically we know where their heart is i guess so it can be unnecessary to call for whatever. BUT you're absolutely right in that they probably wouldn't have done a charity stream were it not for pressure from fans. and maybe this is ME being parasocial but i'd like to think that this isn't for damage control or performativism (i mean it is a LITTLE cuz any publicity is a little bit abt looking good) but rather like, putting their money where their mouth is basically! and showing to their core audience like hey we care about this thing too and we fully hear you.

i was thinking about this General concept wrt dnp because i think there have been other moments where dnp were called out about something or criticized for like their more offensive humor and they stopped doing that and educated themselves which is better than most creators who put up fakeass apology videos. ive seen a lot of ppl say they want dan to talk about and apologize for his racist and sexist humor (and honestly only asking dan but not bringing up that phil also had his share of racist jokes) but it's like. at this point what further could he say? he's not a 21 year old shit head anymore (and yeah good for you for being a socially aware 21 y/o in 2024 but that offensive humor literally was just the culture of that time period) and they both have SHOWN that they have grown and even talked about it in like the pinof react video where they talked about "yeah we bullied kristen stewart a lot cuz it was just popular to make fun of her and justin bieber and that really sucks that we did that" like they have changed and shown change! they do not need to make a grand apology statement cuz like if you wanna talk performativism then lets talk about the fakeness of basically every apology video on the internet????

sorry thats unrelated to what u were talking abt but it just made me start thinking BUT YEAH THANK YOU FOR YOUR HOT TAKES!!!!

[synchodai]

Just finished the Fallout TV show! Observations and spoilers under the cut:

GOOD: It's actually pretty lore accurate and canon compliant.

I don't understand the complaints that it retcons New Vegas? People argue that the Battle of Hoover Dam and "the fall of Shady Sands" both happening in 2277 renders FNV non-canonical, but that's not necessarily the case? It was clear from the chalkboard the fall of Shady Sands and the nukes dropping are two separate events? Meaning Shady Sands "falling," whatever that entails, doesn't necessarily contradict the NCR presence in the Mojave. Shady Sands is the capital of the NCR — not the entire NCR. Even without control of Shady Sands, they would still have rangers and citizens in their other settlements.

I think this is because people are so invested in this narrative that Bethesda hates FNV, and yes, they could have treated Obsidian way better and shafted them in numerous ways during game development, but developer Tim Cain himself said that Todd Howard loves FNV.

Yes, certain details in the show can be contradictory to its source text, specifically with how they handle ghoulification, but it wasn't like the games ever had a clear canon explanation for ghoul biology either. Fallout 4 showed that exposure to radiation isn't even the only way to turn into a ghoul — and I was certain the previous games emphasized that ghouls are ghouls because of overexposure to radiation.

All in all, the little details they do get right — the brand names, the music, the general vibe of how each faction operates — vastly outnumbers the ones that are a bit iffy.

BAD: They revealed who dropped the bombs and it doesn't make sense.

The twist of the entire series is that Vault Tec dropped the nukes because it wanted to increase sales and recreate the USA as a utopian, monopolistic corporatocracy. This doesn't exactly contradict established canon. In fact, with Mr. House being part of the corpo meetings discussing this, it explains how he was able to predict the nukes and shield his beloved Vegas before the bombs fell.

What this mainly contradicts for me is just...logic. This show clearly wants to tell its audience that corporations will prioritize profit over public welfare every time. It's a good, clear, and necessary message. However, corporations — no matter how evil they are — just wouldn't wipe out their own customer base, right? Who would they make profits from if 90% of Americans were dead? And let's say they don't care about the poors who couldn't afford their products and services anyway — they've just significantly reduced even the one-percenters' purchasing power by basically scorching the earth. Capitalists want to extract as much resources as possible. They will abuse and torture their golden goose so that it'll lay more eggs, but they will never just...kill their own goose.

There could have been a more logical scenario here. War is a one of the most lucrative times for corporations like Vault Tec. And American corpos ARE known for orchestrating wars and destabilizing entire regions, BUT they always do so outside the US — a safe, far distance from the paying customers and away from the company's executives.

If that board meeting talked about purposefully disrupting the hardearned peacetimes they were in and dropping a bomb ON ANOTHER COUNTRY just to incite people to buy more vaults, then yes, I can see that happening. I can even see them anticipating nuclear retaliation, but they're too blinded by greed and the need for infinite growth that they're willing to take that risk. Add some dialogue about how this is their way of manufacturing and exporting American nuclear annihilation anxiety so they can take their tech global, and we have something that's closer to reality than just....one-step self-immolation.

House in FNV more or less had the same motivations to recreate the world as a technocrat dictatorship, but FNV handled it better in that House knew that people, even rivals like the tribes, were better kept alive and converted to paying customers and/or employees than outright exterminated.

Unfortunately, since the entire theme is about how corporate capitalism can lead to the destruction of the world, the show portraying the "fidicuiary incentive" as akin to an ideology (a set of beliefs on how the world should be structured) is misguided I think. A corporation profit motive isn't ideological because only people can have ideologies and corporations are not people. They don't prioritize profit because they think this is the best system we have to achieve a utopian society — they do it because it is what corporate systems are designed to do. They do not care about societal good anymore than a cancer cell cares about the body it is in. All they want is to grow exponentially.

Corporations like Vault Tec and its ilk are more like machines made to churn money, and that has resulted in sometimes progress and sometimes destruction. But it is always uncaring of those consequences and the methods it has to utilize as long as it fulfills its end goal of continually making profit — and THAT'S the problem of capitalism. Not that corporate execs want total political control. Because if lax control meant they could continuing exploiting and siphoning resources and pleasing shareholders, they wouldn't care about governance or politics at all.

STRAY THOUGHTS

Mr. House at that table gave me everything I wanted. I'm so excited for season 2 being New Vegas centered.

I love the portrayal of vault dwellers. They all had quirky and distinguishable characters and there wasn't a vault dweller character I wasn't entertained by.

Vault 4 is such a good episode! It was so funny and such a good way to show Lucy and Maximus that kindness is still possible in the wasteland without making it uncharacteristically sappy or too after-school special.

Norm is such a compelling character. I didn't expect him to be such a big part of the story but I'm glad he was.

They did justice to the scenery. I love the deer because it shows it's been a while since the atomic bombs and how life inevitably recolonizes the land.

The twist that Hank Maclean helped nuke Shady Sands because his wife escaped to it? It's kind of a weak excuse to nuke an entire area again. I hope this gets elaborated on in season 2 and why Vault Tec decided to let the NCR become a full-blown national power before taking action.

Cooper Howard? No notes. Perfect performance.

I'm not a big fight scene person, but I appreciate the tribute to the games with the splattered body parts and how main characters didn't just curbstomp their opponents.

The vault scenes were the funniest but I hope they also lean in more to how weird the wasteland can be too.

A lot of threads left hanging. Who is Lee Moldover and why are the refugees of Shady Sands worshipping her? Why did she need whatever was in the Enclave scientist's head? Whatever happened to Vault 33's problem with their destroyed water chip? Why did Hank give Moldover the code just because Lucy told him to? WHERE IS FINAL PAM???

CONCLUSION

Amazing adaptation. Well-written characters that felt very at-home with the setting. It understood the games deeply enough to know that Vault Tec is the overarching villain of the series. Plot has holes and logical inconsistencies, but aside from what I've already discussed, these aren't egregious enough to take away from character arcs and the show's themes for me.

**Fallout games I've played:

Fallout 2

Fallout 3 (only got through half of the game)

Fallout: New Vegas

Fallout 4

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Antitrust is a labor issue

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me SATURDAY (Apr 27) in MARIN COUNTY, then Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

This is huge: yesterday, the FTC finalized a rule banning noncompete agreements for every American worker. That means that the person working the register at a Wendy's can switch to the fry-trap at McD's for an extra $0.25/hour, without their boss suing them:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-rule-banning-noncompetes

The median worker laboring under a noncompete is a fast-food worker making close to minimum wage. You know who doesn't have to worry about noncompetes? High tech workers in Silicon Valley, because California already banned noncompetes, as did Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.

The fact that the country's largest economies, encompassing the most "knowledge-intensive" industries, could operate without shitty bosses being able to shackle their best workers to their stupid workplaces for years after those workers told them to shove it shows you what a goddamned lie noncompetes are based on. The idea that companies can't raise capital or thrive if their know-how can walk out the door, secreted away in the skulls of their ungrateful workers, is bullshit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal

Remember when OpenAI's board briefly fired founder Sam Altman and Microsoft offered to hire him and 700 of his techies? If "noncompetes block investments" was true, you'd think they'd have a hard time raising money, but no, they're still pulling in billions in investor capital (primarily from Microsoft itself!). This is likewise true of Anthropic, the company's major rival, which was founded by (wait for it), two former OpenAI employees.

Indeed, Silicon Valley couldn't have come into existence without California's ban on noncompetes – the first silicon company, Shockley Semiconductors, was founded by a malignant, delusional eugenicist who also couldn't manage a lemonade stand. His eight most senior employees (the "Traitorous Eight") quit his shitty company to found Fairchild Semiconductor, a rather successful chip shop – but not nearly so successful as the company that two of Fairchild's top employees founded after they quit: Intel:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/the-traitorous-eight-and-the-battle-of-germanium-valley/

Likewise a lie: the tale that noncompetes raise wages. This theory – beloved of people whose skulls are so filled with Efficient Market Hypothesis Brain-Worms that they've got worms dangling out of their nostrils and eye-sockets – holds that the right to sign a noncompete is an asset that workers can trade to their employers in exchange for better pay. This is absolutely true, provided you ignore reality.

Remember: the median noncompete-bound worker is a fast food employee making near minimum wage. The major application of noncompetes is preventing that worker from getting a raise from a rival fast-food franchisee. Those workers are losing wages due to noncompetes. Meanwhile, the highest paid workers in the country are all clustered in a a couple of cities in northern California, pulling down sky-high salaries in a state where noncompetes have been illegal since the gold rush.

If a capitalist wants to retain their workers, they can compete. Offer your workers get better treatment and better wages. That's how capitalism's alchemy is supposed to work: competition transmogrifies the base metal of a capitalist's greed into the noble gold of public benefit by making success contingent on offering better products to your customers than your rivals – and better jobs to your workers than those rivals are willing to pay. However, capitalists hate capitalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/18/in-extremis-veritas/#the-winnah

Capitalists hate capitalism so much that they're suing the FTC, in MAGA's beloved Fifth Circuit, before a Trump-appointed judge. The case was brought by Trump's financial advisors, Ryan LLC, who are using it to drum up business from corporations that hate Biden's new taxes on the wealthy and stepped up IRS enforcement on rich tax-cheats.

Will they win? It's hard to say. Despite what you may have heard, the case against the FTC order is very weak, as Matt Stoller explains here:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/ftc-enrages-corporate-america-by

The FTC's statutory authority to block noncompetes comes from Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans "unfair methods of competition" (hard to imagine a less fair method than indenturing your workers). Section 6(g) of the Act lets the FTC make rules to enforce Section 5's ban on unfairness. Both are good law – 6(g) has been used many times (26 times in the five years from 1968-73 alone!).

The DC Circuit court upheld the FTC's right to "promulgate rules defining the meaning of the statutory standards of the illegality the Commission is empowered to prevent" in 1973, and in 1974, Congress changed the FTC Act, but left this rulemaking power intact.

The lawyer suing the FTC – Anton Scalia's larvum, a pismire named Eugene Scalia – has some wild theories as to why none of this matters. He says that because the law hasn't been enforced since the ancient days of the (checks notes) 1970s, it no longer applies. He says that the mountain of precedent supporting the FTC's authority "hasn't aged well." He says that other antitrust statutes don't work the same as the FTC Act. Finally, he says that this rule is a big economic move and that it should be up to Congress to make it.

Stoller makes short work of these arguments. The thing that tells you whether a law is good is its text and precedent, "not whether a lawyer thinks a precedent is old and bad." Likewise, the fact that other antitrust laws is irrelevant "because, well, they are other antitrust laws, not this antitrust law." And as to whether this is Congress's job because it's economically significant, "so what?" Congress gave the FTC this power.

Now, none of this matters if the Supreme Court strikes down the rule, and what's more, if they do, they might also neuter the FTC's rulemaking power in the bargain. But again: so what? How is it better for the FTC to do nothing, and preserve a power that it never uses, than it is for the Commission to free the 35-40 million American workers whose bosses get to use the US court system to force them to do a job they hate?

The FTC's rule doesn't just ban noncompetes – it also bans TRAPs ("training repayment agreement provisions"), which require employees to pay their bosses thousands of dollars if they quit, get laid off, or are fired:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

The FTC's job is to protect Americans from businesses that cheat. This is them, doing their job. If the Supreme Court strikes this down, it further delegitimizes the court, and spells out exactly who the GOP works for.

This is part of the long history of antitrust and labor. From its earliest days, antitrust law was "aimed at dollars, not men" – in other words, antitrust law was always designed to smash corporate power in order to protect workers. But over and over again, the courts refused to believe that Congress truly wanted American workers to get legal protection from the wealthy predators who had fastened their mouth-parts on those workers' throats. So over and over – and over and over – Congress passed new antitrust laws that clarified the purpose of antitrust, using words so small that even federal judges could understand them:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/14/aiming-at-dollars/#not-men

After decades of comatose inaction, Biden's FTC has restored its role as a protector of labor, explicitly tackling competition through a worker protection lens. This week, the Commission blocked the merger of Capri Holdings and Tapestry Inc, a pair of giant conglomerates that have, between them, bought up nearly every "affordable luxury" brand (Versace, Jimmy Choo, Michael Kors, Kate Spade, Coach, Stuart Weitzman, etc).

You may not care about "affordable luxury" handbags, but you should care about the basis on which the FTC blocked this merger. As David Dayen explains for The American Prospect: 33,000 workers employed by these two companies would lose the wage-competition that drives them to pay skilled sales-clerks more to cross the mall floor and switch stores:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-04-24-challenge-fashion-merger-new-antitrust-philosophy/

In other words, the FTC is blocking a $8.5b merger that would turn an oligopoly into a monopoly explicitly to protect workers from the power of bosses to suppress their wages. What's more, the vote was unanimous, include the Commission's freshly appointed (and frankly, pretty terrible) Republican commissioners:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-moves-block-tapestrys-acquisition-capri

A lot of people are (understandably) worried that if Biden doesn't survive the coming election that the raft of excellent rules enacted by his agencies will die along with his presidency. Here we have evidence that the Biden administration's anti-corporate agenda has become institutionalized, acquiring a bipartisan durability.

And while there hasn't been a lot of press about that anti-corporate agenda, it's pretty goddamned huge. Back in 2021, Tim Wu (then working in the White wrote an executive order on competition that identified 72 actions the agencies could take to blunt the power of corporations to harm everyday Americans:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

Biden's agency heads took that plan and ran with it, demonstrating the revolutionary power of technical administrative competence and proving that being good at your job is praxis:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

In just the past week, there's been a storm of astoundingly good new rules finalized by the agencies:

A minimum staffing ratio for nursing homes;

The founding of the American Climate Corps;

A guarantee of overtime benefits;

A ban on financial advisors cheating retirement savers;

Medical privacy rules that protect out-of-state abortions;

A ban on junk fees in mortgage servicing;

Conservation for 13m Arctic acres in Alaska;

Classifying "forever chemicals" as hazardous substances;

A requirement for federal agencies to buy sustainable products;

Closing the gun-show loophole.

That's just a partial list, and it's only Thursday.

Why the rush? As Gerard Edic writes for The American Prospect, finalizing these rules now protects them from the Congressional Review Act, a gimmick created by Newt Gingrich in 1996 that lets the next Senate wipe out administrative rules created in the months before a federal election:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-23-biden-administration-regulations-congressional-review-act/

In other words, this is more dazzling administrative competence from the technically brilliant agencies that have labored quietly and effectively since 2020. Even laggards like Pete Buttigieg have gotten in on the act, despite a very poor showing in the early years of the Biden administration:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/11/dinah-wont-you-blow/#ecp

Despite those unpromising beginnings, the DOT has gotten onboard the trains it regulates, and passed a great rule that forces airlines to refund your money if they charge you for services they don't deliver:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/24/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-rules-to-deliver-automatic-refunds-and-protect-consumers-from-surprise-junk-fees-in-air-travel/

The rule also bans junk fees and forces airlines to compensate you for late flights, finally giving American travelers the same rights their European cousins have enjoyed for two decades.

It's the latest in a string of muscular actions taken by the DOT, a period that coincides with the transfer of Jen Howard from her role as chief of staff to FTC chair Lina Khan to a new gig as the DOT's chief of competition enforcement:

https://prospect.org/infrastructure/transportation/2024-04-25-transportation-departments-new-path/

Under Howard's stewardship, the DOT blocked the merger of Spirit and Jetblue, and presided over the lowest flight cancellation rate in more than decade:

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/2023-numbers-more-flights-fewer-cancellations-more-consumer-protections

All that, along with a suite of protections for fliers, mark a huge turning point in the US aviation industry's long and worsening abusive relationship with the American public. There's more in the offing, too including a ban on charging families extra for adjacent seats, rules to make flying with wheelchairs easier, and a ban on airlines selling passenger's private information to data brokers.

There's plenty going on in the world – and in the Biden administration – that you have every right to be furious and/or depressed about. But these expert agencies, staffed by experts, have brought on a tsunami of rules that will make every working American better off in a myriad of ways. Those material improvements in our lives will, in turn, free us up to fight the bigger, existential fights for a livable planet, free from genocide.

It may not be a good time to be alive, but it's a much better time than it was just last week.

And it's only Thursday.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/25/capri-v-tapestry/#aiming-at-dollars-not-men

[aditheursula]

We're Kind of Doomed...Just a Little

Tonight while I was playing PVE DayZ, I came across a large gas canister that I didn't need. I typed out in the chat that I had a large gas canister that I didn't need and if anyone needs it then it's theirs. I would even leave it where they could find it later if need be. Someone responded with, "We can buy that at the Trader." This didn't exactly break my brain yet it started me thinking. Capitalism is a certain kind of brain rot that goes so deep into the psyche of a person that they impose its rigidity on a fucking video game.

I say this because that person and many other people on the server:

Believe that there should be no "hand outs".

Believe that community is not about sharing as much as it is about making a profit from others and expect rewards.

Find it foreign/baffling when a person doesn't want a reward or payment for something.

Get mean & aggressive when you want to share items with others. (Ex. "WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT?!?!? THAT'S WORTH X-AMOUNT YOU C*NT!")

Cannot comprehend bartering or mutual aid.

What baffles me is that DayZ is about surviving a zombie apocalypse. Keyword being "surviving". Just because there are traders it does not mean that the survival aspect must be capitalistic. Helping people and building a communal aspect in a post-apocalyptic environment where you could be mauled to death by zombies, bears, wolves, etc at any time is the best survival option and not where one must depend on having enough cash on hand to buy every little thing.

The more I think about a zombie/post-apocalypse type scenario happening in a place like the United States or United Kingdom (or any hyper-nationalist capitalist state) the more I think we're kind of fucking doomed. Like just a little fucking doomed. Mainly because of the individualist, "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality that has gotten only the 1% farther in life yet brainwashed billions into thinking they are millionaires in-waiting while they get paid unfairly. Too many do not understand mutual aid...yet they set up GoFundMe accounts so they can pay off their medical bills. It's disturbing how around-the-facts people can go and for how long.

Even in a fucking survival video game where you loot to survive in a post-apocalyptic world full of stuff that wants to kill you there are people that put a price on everything and hold currency over necessity. If you've ever been in a WoW Guild it can also be this way too.

We all saw and were impacted by the Pandemic. We all saw what people did with hoarding supplies and buying up supplies so they could sell them online at a markup...during a global pandemic. The world is still recovering from that greed (and Covid-19 has not gone away at all). Supply chains are still fucked. Imagine if the Pandemic was worse. Imagine if The Last of Us came to pass. I don't even want to think about it not because of the clickers. No. I don't want to think of it because of the ultra-individualism of too many people that would become a faction of rabid capitalists without a world bank or a stable currency.

Just a little fucking doomed.

[petitprincess1]

If funny when anti bitch about the show without knowing the lore. Like the Deaf Kid, the kid was hellborn not human. And they're also calling it Woke. Bitching that Mammon is fat greedy capitalist.

.....So, they're upset that a greedy person...is being greedy???? It's not exactly a hot take to say that capitalism is a terrible system that only benefits one percenters. I mean, just take a look at America.

Although, that hardly matters bc there's tons more to dislike about Mammon. He's a fun character, don't get me wrong, but he's an abusive, exploitative, manipulative asswipe. .....He just also happens to be a capitalist.

That and if you paid attention to the show, they rarely ever mention Mammon caring more for a profit. It's his character and personality they don't like. Not his Greed. I mean....that's what he's meant to represent, after all.

As for the deaf child....Idk how they think the imp was a Sinner. How the hell did he get to the Greed Ring then x3

[inkliinng]

A Psalm for the Wild-Built passed through me like a beautiful solar-punk daydream of an alternative future where the total destruction of the planet was prevented just in time (though not without considerable ecological loss) and humanity, having learnt from the errors of their industrialist and capitalist past, is now guided by caution and respect toward all life, however big, however small. It comforts without going into much detail about the birthing process or growing pains of this new world order, and speaks on only the aftermath. The present society is clearly utopian, everything is meticulously planned and green, the protagonist of the novel, Dex, has to travel regularly with a wagon full of tea supplies through empty roads that connect pockets of civilization, which they do without fear of any crime. They are a tea monk in service to their God of Small Comforts (a concept that I love btw) and their job is to provide the space and opportunity for stressed and harried people to sit, relax and be served a special blend of tea curated specifically for them and to take as long as is needed to unwind and gather oneself in a thoughtful space created by the tea monk. Other than a whole fascinating new pantheon of gods (short on much detail again), this society is clearly meant to sound comforting, considerate,and restrained- it is clear that one can leave one's job anytime one wishes and take up another with no adverse consequences. One can choose to 'self-teach' instead of being apprenticed and therefore take as long as is required to learn a new skill. The arrival of a tea monk in a village, or town, is heralded by a large number of people seeking comfort and it is also clear that this small comfort is considered a basic right and not resented by their employers. And this is where my disconnect starts, because as much as I'd love to believe in the opposite, that is fundamentally not human nature. It is impossible to eradicate greed, or cruelty, or anger so completely as Becky Chambers does in this story and still expect to call these people 'human'. Restraint regarding use of planetary resources may be taught, but there are always outliers in every situation. The book does not speak of a policing body of any kind, so how is crime or corruption controlled? I cannot conceive of a world where human beings exist and where there is none- maybe I'm too jaded but it is what it is. In short, I feel like I had to suspend my disbelief too far. This novel is meant to be comforting, and it has the potential for it, but it's at present too shallow to properly achieve that goal. Maybe this would work for a younger demographic with not much experience with the world and the people in it, but it did not work for me. The settings are lovely and the language is beautiful, and there are a few quotes I keep coming back to in my mind, but the novel refused to explore nuance and complexity, which is why my impression of it lingers near the surface and does not venture towards true depth. But again- there is potential there for sure. I'd love to read book 2 someday when I get the chance to do so.