176
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] algorithmae 53 points 6 months ago

Capitalism may hold us back in some regards but really helps in others.

The majority of people would likely be feudal peasants, working under a warmonger family that owns the sustaining land by force. No upward mobility except through bloodshed.

[-] distantsounds@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago

I suppose not much has changed then

[-] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 6 months ago

The majority of people ~~would likely be~~ are feudal peasants, working under a warmonger family that owns the sustaining land by force. No upward mobility except through bloodshed.

FTFY

[-] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 7 points 6 months ago

No you don’t understand, this 9-to-5 job that’s slowly but surely wearing me down is just a stepping stone to my millions of $$. That’s why I keep voting for tax breaks for the rich; because I’ve just been temporarily down on my luck for 30 years. /s

[-] algorithmae 3 points 6 months ago

No, if you're lucky, clever enough, overwork yourself, or manipulate others you can live a somewhat comfortable life. Those methods don't require taking a life.

[-] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 months ago

overwork yourself

comfortable life

Make it make sense

[-] algorithmae 4 points 6 months ago

Comfortable as in "you have a heated living space, food on the table, and security." Don't be dense.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Nomad@infosec.pub 9 points 6 months ago

Capitalism optimizes for efficiency. Sadly slavery is terribly efficient in terms of economics. Therefore capitalism needs to be capped by society at certain acceptable limits. Which is called socioeconomics and its not perfect but the best system we have. insert handwavy remark about whatever america is doing here

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

the problem with this is that we depend on the capitalist overlords to keep their pinky promise of not fucking with our rights.

right now they are breaking it again because they can.

i also don't think having the majority of the money/value going to a few owners is efficient at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Thats still in a sense a commerce based system. The only reason that warlord fights for that land is because it has value, be it food, a cash crop, a strategic location.

Warlords hoarded land and power in similar ways billionaires hoard money and power.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] illiterate_coder@lemmy.world 50 points 6 months ago

Commerce is just the exchange of goods and services. If we all stop exchanging goods, in what sense would we have a civilization? What would you or anyone accomplish if you had to grow your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house...?

[-] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 12 points 6 months ago

Commerce is fine, greed is not. OP missed that distinction.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

An exchange of goods and services means you get nothing unless I get something. Maybe OP means everything is given as you take what you need with nothing expected in return.

You grow carrots, you bring them to town once a week. Other lady raises chickens, brings eggs once a week. If you need either you take some. You use the eggs to make cookies, you have extra, you give them away to anyone you see for the day.

[-] monsterpiece42@reddthat.com 19 points 6 months ago

This works at a feudal technology level. Who makes the trains? They train makers need steel and literally no one would work in a forge or a mine for fun/preference.

Who makes computer chips?

[-] EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Idk little Jimmy has bees having so much fun in the coal mines he's 24 hours past the end of his shift

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 26 points 6 months ago

Significantly less, since commerce and the ability to trade things for a different value forms the basis for civilization. It's easy to grow and hunt your own food, because that's immediate and concrete. The farther away you get from that, the more abstract that thing becomes. It's going to be harder for people to feel any sense of connection and purpose with making the rubber that goes into a seal on the International Space Station when they don't see any direct benefit from the research done there, and they likely can't even see the indirect benefit of that fundamental research.

For good or ill, commerce is how civilizations universally work, and you'd have to imagine a completely different species that evolved under vastly different circumstances to have anything else.

[-] EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I think personally That commerce as we know it has played it's role in the success of humanity But now more and more of the bad is showing and way way less of the gain

I personally think it's time to move on or at the very least adapt the systems we have in place

Edit: this was more focused on capitalism not commerce

Imagining a society with out trade is a very hard one for me to grasp

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I kinda feel like we would have done way, way worse without commerce. We're social beings. We do better when cooperating than trying to go at it alone. Commerce is merely one of the many glues that keep us cooperating on some level. Yes, it also leads to competition; but less so than it would without it. Why kill you and take what you have that I want when I can just give you something I have that you want for it?

Capitalism, and making commerce the end all be all of civilization is what we could do without. It's a means to an end, not the goal.

[-] Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 6 months ago

Interesting, what would be the alternative? Technology, culture, religion, military? Taking those options out of Civ

[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago

I think that's the key question. Like, I get capitalism is hedgemonical (is that even a word?), but what alternative do you propose?

[-] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

"Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others."

[-] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

What about socialism - ie, everyone gets their basic needs met, but is free to work for more.

[-] HolyDiver@aussie.zone 6 points 6 months ago

It almost seems logical huh

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 7 points 6 months ago

You could start by giving everyone a share of profits rather than pushing all the money up towards the people who have the most.

Let machines do the work so we can do what we want with our time. We're working more than people did in the past despite our technology. And the reason we have to is the alternative is starving to death in the streets.

Both of these things violate the principles of capitalism.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

religion

I'd love to see how that one plays out. Lol

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 4 points 6 months ago

Tbf we ostensibly already have and are again.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

I'm currently reading The Day The World Stops Shopping by JB Mackinnon, which argues the same point you're asking about, I think you'd find it interesting.

https://www.jbmackinnon.com/the-day-the-world-stops-shopping

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 months ago

imagine everything humans could accomplish if we used billionaires as food and fuel

[-] aleonem@lemmy.today 5 points 6 months ago

Wouldn't using them as food just be using them as fuel anyways? The only difference is what you're going to fuel with them.

[-] experbia@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

came to say this. food is fuel, we are merely labyrinthine biological furnaces that chemically incinerates whatever unfortunate matter may enter us. the fuel's affluence is not typically relevant, but I'm a little out of touch on the science, I might be wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What is a commerce based civilization? Isn't everything commerce based?

[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If you feel the need to defend capitalism, then you should read "The Jungle".

[-] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 4 points 6 months ago

Is it time to advance to the Fortress Age?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
176 points (78.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

28866 readers
1043 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS