By contrast, "consumers" are atomized - there are millions of us, we don't know each other, and we struggle to agree on a course of action and stick to it. For "consumers" to make a difference, we have to form institutions, like co-ops or buying clubs, or embark on coordinated campaigns, like boycotts. Both of these tactics have their place, but they are weak when compared to monopoly power.

11/

Luckily, we're not just "consumers." We're also *citizens* who can exercise political power. That's hard work - but so is organizing a co-op or a boycott. The difference is, when we dog enforcers who wield the power of the state, and line up behind them when they start to do their jobs, we can make deep structural differences that go far beyond anything we can make happen as consumers:

pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/adm…

12/

We're not just "consumers" or "citizens" - we're also *workers*, and when workers come together in unions, they, too, can concentrate the diffuse, atomized power of the individual into a single, powerful entity that can hold the forces of capital in check:

pluralistic.net/2024/04/10/an-…

And all of these things work together; when regulators do their jobs, they protect workers who are unionizing:

pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goo…

13/

And strong labor power can force cartels to abandon their plans to rig the market so that every consumer choice makes them more powerful:

pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how…

And when consumers *can* choose better, local, more ethical businesses at competitive rates, those choices *can* make a difference:

pluralistic.net/2022/07/10/vie…

14/

Antimonopoly policy is the foundation for all forms of people-power. The very instant corporations become too big to fail, jail or care is the instant that "voting with your wallet" becomes a waste of time.

Sure, choose that small local grocery, but everything on their shelves is going to come from the consumer packaged-goods duopoly of Procter and Gamble and Unilever.

15/

Sure, hunt down that local brand of potato chips that you love instead of P&G or Unilever's brand, but if they become successful, either P&G or Unilever will buy them out, and issue a press release trumpeting the purchase, saying "We bought out this beloved independent brand and added it to our portfolio because we know that consumers value *choice*."

16/

If you're going to devote yourself to solving the collective action problem to make people-power work against corporations, spend your precious time wisely. As Zephyr Teachout writes in *Break 'Em Up*, don't miss the protest march outside the Amazon warehouse because you spent two hours driving around looking for an independent stationery so you couldo buy the markers and cardboard to make your anti-Amazon sign without shopping on Amazon:

pluralistic.net/2020/07/29/bre…

17/

When blame corporate power on "laziness," we buy into the corporations' own story about how they came to dominate our lives: we just *prefer* them. This is how Google explains away its 90% market-share in search: we just *chose* Google. But we didn't, not really - Google spends *tens of billions of dollars every single year* buying up the search-box on every website, phone, and operating system:

pluralistic.net/2024/02/21/im-…

18/

Blaming "laziness" for corporate dominance also buys into the monopolists' claim that the only way to have convenient, easy-to-use services is to cede power to them. Facebook claims it's literally impossible for you to carry on social relations with the people that matter to you without also letting them spy on you.

19/

When we criticize people for *wanting to hang out online with the people they love*, we send the message that they need to choose loneliness and isolation, or they will be complicit in monopoly.

The problem with Google isn't that it lets you find things. The problem with Facebook isn't that it lets you talk to your friends. The problem with Uber isn't that it gets you from one place to another without having to stand on a corner waving your arm in the air.

20/

The problem with Amazon isn't that it makes it easy to locate a wide variety of products. We should stop telling people that they're wrong to want these things, because a) these things are good; and b) these things can be separated from the monopoly power of these corporate bullies:

pluralistic.net/2022/11/08/div…

21/

Remember the Napster Wars? The music labels had screwed over musicians *and* fans. 80 percent of all recorded music wasn't offered for sale, and the labels cooked the books to make it effectively impossible for musicians to earn out their advances. Napster didn't solve all of that (though they did offer $15/user/month to the labels for a license to their catalogs), but there were many ways in which it was *vastly* superior to the system it replaced.

22/

The record labels responded by suing tens of thousands of people, mostly kids, but also dead people and babies and lots of other people. They demanded an end to online anonymity and a system of universal surveillance. They wanted every online space to algorithmically monitor everything a user posted and delete anything that *might* be a copyright infringement.

23/

*These* were the problems with the music cartel: they suppressed the availability of music, screwed over musicians, carried on a campaign of indiscriminate legal terror, and lobbied effectively for a system of ubiquitous, far-reaching digital surveillance and control:

pluralistic.net/2023/02/02/non…

You know what wasn't a problem with the record labels? The music. The music was fine. Great, even.

24/

But some of the people who were outraged with the labels' outrageous actions decided the problem was the *music*. Their answer wasn't to merely demand better copyright laws or fairer treatment for musicians, but to demand that music fans *stop listening to music from the labels*. Somehow, they thought they could build a popular movement that you could only join by swearing off *popular music*.

25/

That didn't work. It can't work. A popular movement that you can only join by boycotting popular music will *always* be unpopular. It's bad tactics.

When we blame "laziness" for tech monopolies, we send the message that our friends have to choose between life's joys and comforts, and a fair economic system that doesn't corrupt our politics, screw over workers, and destroy small, local businesses. This isn't true. It's a lie that monopolists tell to justify their abuse.

26/

When we repeat it, we do monopolists' work for them - *and* we chase away the people we need to recruit for the meaningful struggles to build worker power and political power.

27/