cross-posted from: https://leminal.space/post/20980927
When television first started, there were 3 channels and a handful of commercials. After a few decades of more channels and more ads appearing, cable showed up. Now you could pay a subscription to get premium content without ads!
But after a decade, not only were they putting ads on cable you paid a premium to watch, they were speeding up both the shows and the ads to fit more into breaks that kept getting longer.
Younger people are just starting to see the cycle is underway again with streaming services, but over the last 10ish years, I've noticed all the various cliques going "why is {our interest} going to shit" as if it were an isolated incident and not happening everywhere.
The first act of capitalism when it was created was the slave trade. Corporations have always been vehicles the ultra rich use to extract wealth.
Revenue is how much money a company brings in selling things. Profit is how much of that remains after paying for materials, leases, power, reinvesting into the business, and paying wages. Basically, CEOs are paid 300x more than employees to defer maintenance and suppress wages.
Economics 101- charge as much as you can, pay as little as possible. Any corporation that makes billions in profit only does so by gouging customers and stiffing workers.
Real wages are stagnant, pensions aren't a thing, and they're trying to get rid of social security. There's a reason we're told to use things like HSA, 529s, and 401ks: it enriches the already rich.
There is something called a fiduciary duty to shareholders which basically means publicly traded corporations must act in the best interest of investors. It SOUNDS like a good idea, but it's not really well defined.
The reality of the situation is BlackRock basically owns the stock market and the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by a group of banks- not the US government. Those banks are publicly traded corporations that own chunks of everything and each other. It's a giant rich guy circle jerk that basically means the recent uniform RTO mandates were probably from Larry Fink himself due to how central commercial real estate is to collateral for things like naked shorting.
Inflation isn't things costing more; it's the dollar being worth less as more money exists. The reason the rich buy art, watches, and shit is because they benefit from inflation. If you hold on to $5,000 for a decade you have $5,000 that buys less after a decade of inflation. If you buy a painting, jewelry, or whatever, it appreciates overtime being worth more than $5k.
Federal minimum wage was 7.25 in 2008. Not much, but you could buy 1-3 shares of AMD or 18" of Subway. Today, M2 (a measure of money in the economy) is three times what it was in 2008 and minimum wage is still $7.25 and might get you 6" of sandwich. AMD, on the other hand, currently sits around $120 a share.
Someone that works to eat will always be falling behind while someone that's not struggling can just load up on wealth that keeps growing. A majority of the country doesn't have money on hand to deal with a $500 emergency while more than half the wealth of the country is owned by a handful of people that make lifetimes of wealth through passive investments alone.
Unfortunately, it's all very complicated and basically everyone is stupid most of the time with only brief windows of subject specific competence. Reason and rationality is a best case outcome but people act like it's the default.
Welcome to the meat grinder. None of us matter.
I know Cory Doctorow (who coined the term) has said that he doesn't mind if people use the term "enshittification" to simply mean "product gets worse", but the definition he gave it specifically refers to anti-capitalistic practices (what he calls "technofeudalism").
"Enshittificiation" as described by Doctorow hurts businesses too. "Capitalism" definitionally implies the presence of a competitive market. "Enshittification" (like you said nothing new) describes what happens when a market is no longer competitive because it controlled by a single entity (monopoly). "Enshittification" happens when the government stops enforcing laws that protect free markets and allow capitalism to break down.
Sorry for being a pedant but I see those words gets thrown around a lot in ways that IMO can muddle the meaning.
Yeah, but under Capitalism monopolies are an inevitability no matter how many regulations you put into place. It's a structural tendency given how competition, capital accumulation and the pursuit of extraction of surplus value drives firms to outproduce/underprice/eliminate rivals for survival, and so larger firms outcomplete/absord or destroy smaller ones as a result, turning them into monopolies. It inevitably concentrates capital.
Regulations only delay this given how it's a reactive measure rather than treating the problem at its root - companies adapt, find loopholes or just lobby (one prominent example being breakup of AT&T, it took them like 2 decades after regulation to remonopolize).
So by that logic, enshittification is an inevitability if it's the result of monopolization, given how monopolies themselves are inevitable.
I'm just saying, the term "capitalism":
OP said that enshittification is "the MO of capitalism", and that just definitionally doesn't really make sense because enshittification (as defined by Cory Doctorow) happens not under capitalism, but what he calls "techno-feudalism". Where you see monopolies existing and antitrust laws not being enforced, you are not seeing capitalism because you are not seeing a competitive market.
Since we're being pedantic (love it!), I'd add that monopoly is not required for enshittification. It may lead to monopoly, but that isn't necessary. Amazon isn't (arguably) yet a monopoly, nor is Facebook, but they are both certainly enshittified. You could argue they are effective monopolies, but the jury could deadlock there.
Cory was talking about platforms, not necessarily any capitalist venture, but it holds true that more than platforms can enshittify.
That said, things simply getting worse doesn't fit my understanding, unless it follows the pattern below:
Yeah absolutely, and woo pedantry that's on me for oversimplifying. I do recall reading (I can't find it right now) an essay where he said that "enshittification" as he describes it can happen in any situation where an entity has trapped both consumers and businesses but that it's more common with tech companies because they move faster than regulations do.
fwiw I totally agree but if I may play an uno-reverse-pedantry card on you, Cory has said he doesn't care if someone uses the word to simply mean "gets shitty".
I get your point but yes, it is pedantic in the way that it is all the same.
Capitalism is not the same as trade. It is the ability to own things one does not occupy, as well as amass things others need. If you want to be less serious, we call it grifting.
Enshittification is of course counter to the functioning of a certain part of the market. But it is rooted in capitalisms tendency to consume itself.
As long as we agree that the term "enshittification" describes a failure of capitalism (and not it's "MO").
Although I get your point somehow (like, its not the EXACT definition) but its not important. It is ONE of the many forms of capitalist failure. Maybe its not its MO but it definitely is TENDENCY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
I agree, like I said I fully own that I was being pedantic over definitions.
It is the MO of unregulated capitalism.