Well, I have limited time and happen to know what the microchip crisis was actually about. If he makes this the introduction of his article, he really should try to be more factual and less simplyfing. It sends a signal what to expect from the rest of the article. If have since then skimmed over the article and found some complaints about big tech that I share but in absolutly no way anything that could make things better nor a concise explanation.
And he gets stuff wrong all the time.:
His depiction of capitlism as something where you create value and get rewarded vs feudalism where you own stuff and get rewarded is fundamentally screwed. How does he think John Rockefeller made his fortune? By refining oil? Well, I’m pretty sure he never in his live refined even one barrel of crude oil. How did Howard Hughes made his fortune? Making something valuable is for some (some also skip this through inheritance) the first step of becoming a super rich. The next step is always letting others (or even your money) work for you, give them less than they deserve and take more than you need.
Companies trying to maximise profits and being not consumer friendly is no thing that was born in the information age. Already the light bulb had planned obsolence, food safety regulations haven’t always existed so people literally died because some companies liked producing cheaper more than having healthy costumers, tons of highly addictive drugs were sold to people with various claims, most of the time without medical evidence. Consumer protection is a thing that emerged from people fighting for it, and in the end, becoming law. Why this extra step with questionable effects when we could just say: “corporations have to ensure that they’re products are made in a way so they last as long as possible plus must provide ways to repair them really cheap and if anyone fails to comply their company gets taken away by the state”?
It seems to me that he is so much brainwashed by capitalist propaganda that he refuses to call capitalism a broken system despite him decribing it as a broken system but with a different name.
To me the feudalism vs. capitalism idea refers to an emphasis on inheritance and low mobility between financial/social classes. Capitalism doesn’t have to work the way it does now in the US, but alas, this is how it is now. Sure, it sucked 100 years ago also, but it’s getting steadily worse.
I really don’t think Doctorow is brainwashed by capitalist propaganda. He has steadily and consistently opposed the excesses and abuses of the system.
English is a foreign language for me. Which languages do you speak?
Mainly I’m objecting to the “I stopped reading at…” thing. I generally find Doctorow’s work and activism to be good quality.
Well, I have limited time and happen to know what the microchip crisis was actually about. If he makes this the introduction of his article, he really should try to be more factual and less simplyfing. It sends a signal what to expect from the rest of the article. If have since then skimmed over the article and found some complaints about big tech that I share but in absolutly no way anything that could make things better nor a concise explanation.
And he gets stuff wrong all the time.:
It seems to me that he is so much brainwashed by capitalist propaganda that he refuses to call capitalism a broken system despite him decribing it as a broken system but with a different name.
To me the feudalism vs. capitalism idea refers to an emphasis on inheritance and low mobility between financial/social classes. Capitalism doesn’t have to work the way it does now in the US, but alas, this is how it is now. Sure, it sucked 100 years ago also, but it’s getting steadily worse.
I really don’t think Doctorow is brainwashed by capitalist propaganda. He has steadily and consistently opposed the excesses and abuses of the system.