This is not my sort of Company

Why don't I leave? No, it does not matter, I shall stay; no, not leaving.

One of the principal delusions here on Substack (-the-media-company) is: “we are just the same as our subscribers,” so the staff write too. So, here the word “subscriber” would mean the writers like myself: anybody who has joined Substack as a writer.

The Company men all say, “we are just like them”! So, I saw the writing of two of apparently the major creators of the company. So, I say this is not at all the case, and there is a difference between the persons running the show and the writers putting up their own pieces of writing on the site (or platform. is that what you say?). Each person gets to have his or her own page for as many writings as they want to do. But I see that the founders or chief executives also like to write. Like they are just one of the guys! Wow, that is so inspiring I don’t know what to tell you. In my reading journey, I encountered this one: How we change the internet (substack.com). That was supposed to come out as a link (I don’t know why it did not). It starts: “Substack is part of a seismic shift in the media economy…” Maybe you can find it. Whatever.

All three writers of this amazing piece of trash are listed “co-founders.” We are in deep trouble. But hey — I knew that. The thing I noticed is that, here, the company is deigning to behave as if they are regular writing, too. Just equal participants with clients! “We write stuff, too!”

Yet, these founders of Substack must be very intensely competitive. It is the competition aspect of the economic world that they get turned on by. They compete. When they write or think or reason, it is to get the best of someone, Say twitter. Somehow, at the same time, they are peaceful and eat fruit juice. They don’t want twitter to refuse to link to them! They mention that twitter is not allowing links to Substack and they “hope it was an accident.” So, they are hot-blooded competitors. Nothing they say can be taken at face value. You cannot believe a word of it.

Now, if one goes there - it is called ‘how we change the Internet; direct relationships are the future - then one also sees the founder people conversing with users about strictly business aspects. This is something I am always amazed by. The content does not matter. It’s the business strategies that get Substack out in the lead. So, they were discussing things like which new devices (gimmicks) need to be added next. It never occurs to these persons that writers write. Writers should write. But, simultaneously, there is this big tall business discussion going on between somebody and one of the co-founders. I can see what they like to do. It is positively schizo.

What sort of psychotic “equality” is at work here? These are business discussions, not writers on Substack. What is left to say to these nutcases?

Well these people who joined your company are clients, and they would like to be treated fairly. Thank you for doing so and can you please hold the childish behavior in check?

Or maybe it isn’t childish. Maybe it is the “next big thing” in the “media economy.”

Anyhow one of the themes I am discussing in my recent pieces is the distinction between a sub-economy or sub-market and the whole economy. But the intellectuals just call everything a “market” and do not make any distinction between the whole society or society itself, and some particular sub-sector, like “M & A,” a tiny part of the economy, some particular niche. And, of course, “M & A” is really important, because of a few rich people.

Capitalism as a historical phenomenon and a social phenomenon relates to the whole society and not just one competing entity. It is not just the individual. This is the basic mistake in economics. We understand it as relating to individuals when it actually relates to whole societies.

Now then, what is “globalization”? Well, this is the case where capitalism has now straddled the world — all of it, save a few outposts. This is why, under present circumstances, the biggest capitalist entities will certainly find it necessary to kill off a large section of the human race. This is a new development, but I read about it on Substack and I believe it.

At first, I conceptualized globalization as a protocol system. That was in my work in the nineties, when the business culture became international. That indicated to me that there was now only one society, economically speaking, and I thought it was a protocol system and there could be regulations such that the entirety of humanity would get better attention and fairer treatment.

But those systems were never put into place so now the persons who are in control, the biggest owners of capital, will have to kill off everyone.

My situation as a Substack writer is as crazy as all the rest of it. It is a Catch-22, really. Is this not so? I think it is. What if they read this, and they tell me to go? They could, if I keep having wrong ideas like I am. If I do not like it, I should cease my relationship with them—should I? Well, I don’t think so. I only left Medium when they kicked me off. There are other writers here, writers whom I respect. I want to collaborate. There is a group of persons here, who need some kind of linkage and also we are -all of us -I will assume others like myself are interested in letting as many people as possible share or buy into it. Ain’t that sweet? Sure, I want other to know what we are doing, or what me and my friends are up to. I am one of the group too, and if Substack has corralled all of us together, I do not see the harm. So much so good. I think we stick together.

I cannot gather up such a great group on my own. So to a very minimal degree, this is a market function operating. Maybe that is the magic of the market. Maybe that is the wonder of business. If that is so, let us treat it carefully, gently, in fact—delicately. I do not want bottom-of-the-barrel policies. I do not want (for myself I mean) despair. You serve your subscribing writers by letting their work speak for itself. It does not require advertising or the latest gimmicks. That is not it at all. Substack should stop thinking that way. If they are going to introduce something like “notes,” it does not self-regulate. They need to pay attention to what they are doing. The basic idea is always good (Substack beat Medium at this), but if we investigate—no followup.

If the company could control their egos, the higher quality writers (from a certain point of view) stand more of a chance to be recognized and supported. We do not all want to get swallowed up by consumerism or some psycho idea of “self as writer.” It’s that simple.

— — + — —

How do we protect ourselves, without constant vigilance!???

-best way to keep them on their toes is to be a member of their Substack system, and, Um—do I capitalize? [the ‘S’].

— — + —

I recognize that Substack has become a very, very big operation. I want to reach people. It seems like the bigness would make that easier. I think eventually the market madness has to end, and be replaced by a sane, reasonable government-sponsored political plan to provide the American people with the free discussions guaranteed by our Constitution and our way of life, which now must spread its influence, to include not just the U. S. alone, but other countries as well.

The simple, straightforward commercial process seems to me fated to meet its end. Of course, the government can only help to a degree. It could not ensure the freedom of its most free or individualistic member, that is up to the individual, but some processes need to be inserted. I do not just believe “the markets will triumph.” That is so far away from the truth. That is the Economist magazine’s view! I am quite far away from agreeing with it. I think probably all social media should be regulated by government. It just matters how you do that. From what I have seen of the government, under the regulators, the Democrats, that won’t happen. The regulations will be, in the words of one Substack writer, totalitarian censorship.

— — — —