> there is no 'ruling class' because even CEOs are replaceable and less than a hundred people control the majority of the worlds money [..] rulers have completely lost control of virtual capital
well.
that's a take
well.
that's a take
ひげ
@icedquinn "there are no rulers, because there are rulers"
@beardalaxy you could make the argument those 100 people are the ruling class, yes.
@beardalaxy the argument that nobody is genuinely in charge of anything because its just whoever happens to be signing the cheques that week is certainly an interesting take.
basically saying you have people with all this theoretical power but they don't have real power because they can all get shot in the head and replaced overnight without anyone batting an eye. the power is abstracted in to tokens and the tokens just sort of fly around and mean things because people decided they do.
taken in the context of the competence crisis articles (different philosopher, different generation) it makes too much sense.
basically saying you have people with all this theoretical power but they don't have real power because they can all get shot in the head and replaced overnight without anyone batting an eye. the power is abstracted in to tokens and the tokens just sort of fly around and mean things because people decided they do.
taken in the context of the competence crisis articles (different philosopher, different generation) it makes too much sense.
Follow
@icedquinn @beardalaxy Not a new argument.
As Frank Herbert put it: "The spice must flow".
Not a good argument either.
The flow of said tokens does get cut off on occasion, revolutions rock the boat, changing things into what is perceived by some to be the "opposite" direction from the "proper" flow of history.
@coded_artist @beardalaxy well the guy the article is going on about is from the 1970s, so nobody claimed it was that new. 
