I think the biggest problem with the way politics is talked about in pop culture is that it's centered on politicians and legislation instead of donors and agendas.

What if we all just start rewriting political tweets en masse with donor names instead the politicians names? An example would be tweets about the destruction of USPS. Instead of Trump and Dejoy, we're replace them with Frederick W Smith and David P Abney, the founders and CEO's of UPS and FedEx. They've spent hundreds of millions on lobbying and contributions.

Smith and Abney put a hit out on USPS and Trump and Dejoy are the the guys taking the contract. Shouldn't our economic and political discourse focus on the sources of the decisions, the donor-class?

  • Leftoid [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    CEOs are just mouthpieces. You go after the investor class if you want real change.

    • PopCultureIsTheCIA [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I understand why you think that but it's not always the case and I can assure that I did the research on this one. David P Abney (UPS) and Frederick W Smith (FedEx) are both the founders, ceo's and owners of their respective companies. They are the human individuals who stand to gain the most from USPS dying so the entire conversation should be able their actions, not Dejoy and Trump.

      • Leftoid [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Fantastic, we're on real strategic analysis instead of muh bezos PR bullshit.

        I personally believe USPS is a critical infrastructure service and its mission ought to be expanded to include TCP/IP packets as it is now as proven a technology as envelopes and stamps/zipcodes+addresses. This would remove corporate hegemony from their lynchpin position as financial decision makers who either allow the packet network to evolve or not. In short a sufficiently transparent United States Packet Service would prove to be a new evolution of the United States Postal Service.

        • PopCultureIsTheCIA [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          You know how when a for-profit business wedges itself into a non-profit supply chain it eventually ends up spreading its tendrils and privatizes the whole thing? Well i think it also works in reverse. If they hadn't been trying to destroy USPS for the past two decades, it would have been growing into other parts of the economy. If it wasn't for a few hundred spent on lobbying, we'd have USPS public banking and all kinds of other shit and they knew it.

          • Leftoid [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Efficacy is persusasive. I mean, we really have to look to the USPS as a model of efficient government service, in operation, over a non-trivial time domain...I believe that this model, coupled with a few of the recent digtal transparency advances could really lead, via better-than-corporate alternative, legitimate government competition to private infrastructural services....to a degree this is almost ideal.

            Corporations risk, customers test, government (perhaps via public private partnership, as in public transport) supersedes....a new layer of infrastructure is created and corporations can risk in a yet undreamed of realm.