Your average capitalism enjoyer : politicalmemes

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

To be fair, they DO bare all the risk of violent deposition and decapitation. Let's honor their sacrifice.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This argument against socialism has always made no sense, the only way it holds is as a critique of capitalism.

Money doesn’t disappear, either its circulation in a sustainable way…

Or someone is hoarding it.. like a capitalist.

[–] abc@suppo.fi 3 points 19 hours ago

This is a failure of thinking known as "zero-sum bias".

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Silly rabbit, welfare is for the rich.

[–] picnic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I dont get it, why dont everyone start their own companies and rake 100% of the profit for oneself, then?

[–] KAtieTot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 33 minutes ago

Pretending this is a good faith argument.

Because the market is already saturated, capitalism is not the freedom of business, it is the freedom for business.

No mom and pop can compete against walmart, they already have too much money, walmart is free to lower prices at locations around the mom and pop store until it runs out of business.

One example because like... If it's in good faith you just straight up lack the prerequisite knowledge to discuss economics.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 3 points 3 hours ago

Because capitalists made it so that competing with them is extremely risky.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

Money barrier/immediate life threat/limited market.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Economies to scale is a hell of a thing

[–] picnic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

Well 15% of bigger paycheck vs 100% of everything one accomplishes on own, I think economy of scale works in worker's benefit here

[–] abc@suppo.fi 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Because they're mostly wrong about their premises and thus conclusions. It makes perfect sense that they keep being poor until they fix those.

[–] ivan@piefed.social 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Meanwhile, biggest cooperatively owned businesses around the world usually switched to that form of ownership due to withdrawal of state subsidies, like New Zealand's farmer cooperative, or Argentinian businesses where workers just all chimed in to buy out their "bankrupt" workplaces and set them back on their feet.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, you didn't hear? They do the most work of all, and have the hardest job.

That's what they tell everyone constantly, anyway...

They are the easiest people to replace with AI. Come on society, do the thing. Make this bullshit end.

[–] abc@suppo.fi 0 points 19 hours ago

They are the easiest people to replace with AI.

Why aren't you doing it, then?

[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Clearly this is wrong.

The last frame should say 95%.

[–] Danarchy@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 day ago

Sounds more like crapitalism to me tut tut tut

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If the company owners aren’t making money they’ll shut down and we’ll all be out of a job so we should be happy they’re only charging eighty-five percent.

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

They seem to shut down companies if they can save a cent per hour opening another one in another state/country. So they do not only shut down if they aren't making money, but also if they could make marginally more somewhere else.

[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Hmm, the biggest problem I have with socialism is that you end up with government committees deciding who gets access to basic needs like food, water and medical care, when, where and how much. Attempts to plan out fair distribution for an entire country become brittle and inflexible, and result in scarcity and waste because human life is not static. Well-intentioned socialist governments become authoritarian out of the desire to control the behavior of the population in order to stabilize the plan, but the efforts to control inevitably create more instability.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 hours ago

I mean free health care for all, everyone gets it, and gets what they need. Or our social Car Insurance with one single insurer. We all pay about the same, and discount brackets for safe years of driving. And rebates if they took in more premium then they paid out in claims.

Where is the problem?

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is literally happening under capitalism. You buy health insurance, and a private Healthcare group motivated by profit decides if you get medical care.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hmm, and yet the US is not the only example of a capitalist nation with a health care system. The problem has more to do with regulatory capture. You can say that this is a consequence of capitalism, but then how do you explain other capitalist nations which do not have similar issues with their healthcare systems? There must be some aspect which is specific to the US, and personally I think it traces back to the degradation of antitrust enforcement under the Reagan administration, which allowed massive conglomerates to form.

Blaming this specifically on capitalism is too narrow, it ignores the broader sociocultural issues that lead to the current situation. Capitalism as it is realized in the US is more a symptom of underlying issues than it is the core of the problem. Attempting to replace capitalism with a different economic system will not resolve the problem.

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd argue it's because the other countries have tempered capitalism with socialism to create strong social nets to protect people.

[–] abc@suppo.fi 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

USA has one of the worst examples of health care: 17% GDP spending on health care. It's not just the most expensive private health care system, it's the most expensive health care system.

But it's also not a fully privatized health care system, or even the most privatized one. Roughly half of the insurance spending is public via Medicare, Medicaid, military, etc.

Switzerland's and Netherland's systems can be viewed as more privatized (100% of insurances are via private sector), and are way more efficient than the US system.

Looks like privatized health care + private insurance works the best, but it does seem to require some guardrails (which you might call socialism, I guess).

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, that problem is exactly the same in capitalism, except the committee is composed of people called executives instead of people called politicians. Executives have even less accountability than politicians.

Civil service bureaucracy can indeed become brittle and static, but at least it begins with the intention to serve the public rather than to make money. It works well in most democratic countries.

[–] abc@suppo.fi 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Why doesn't it tend to happen in free market capitalist societies, then?

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

It does. Private health insurance is but one example.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Your one step away from reinventing communism and 2 from discovering decentralised anarchism as the real answer.

Controlling a nation is power. The people who control the nation have more power than other citizens, they form a political class.

Communism seeks to create a classless society but its main flaw (which is actually a reasonable perspective in historical context and the technology of then) is that it still held on to the idea of having a state, a centralised leadership.

But technology has evolved, anyone can interact with any group through digital means. Anyone can share knowledge or document and publish problematic events in their local area.

Building a network of decentralised neighbourhoods where all citizens are welcome to join the local political debates (and multi local joined sittings) is possible.

There is no need why a few chosen people have to have all the power.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Your one step away from reinventing communism and 2 from discovering decentralised anarchism as the real answer.

Please learn to be less condescending. Stop assuming that people who have different opinions from your own are necessarily ignorant.

With that out of the way, isn't "decentralized anarchism" redundant? what would centralized anarchism even be, other than a contradiction?

But technology has evolved, anyone can interact with any group through digital means. Anyone can share knowledge or document and publish problematic events in their local area.

OK, for the sake of argument let's assume that this works the way you believe, in a technical sense. Reality is more complicated than that, but we'll overlook that for the moment.

Just because a person can share/publish doesn't mean that anyone else will bother giving them any attention. It's good that more voices are heard in the present, but there is also a lot more background noise. How much time do you spend reading comments on Facebook? Nextdoor? DeviantArt? Usenet? Webrings? There are 8 billion people on the planet, and ~8 billion active mobile phones. Ain't nobody got time for that.
More importantly, you can't solve social problems with technical means.

Building a network of decentralised neighbourhoods where all citizens are welcome to join the local political debates (and multi local joined sittings) is possible.

I would like to ask you to watch the Adam Curtis documentary All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace. Curtis is highly opinionated and his documentaries are built to drive specific conclusions. What he presents is true, but not necessarily the whole truth, so please keep that in mind. Even so this is particularly relevant, especially episode 2, which describes various attempts to analyze and manage biology, ecology and society with computer systems.

People have been trying such things since the 60s. They are misguided.

There is no need why a few chosen people have to have all the power.

All the power, no. However, it is also not possible to spread power out amongst every individual equally. For instance, where do you draw the age line of inclusion? Will 6-month-old infants be part of the discourse? 12-year-olds? What about 90-year-old dementia patients?

Even if we can make some practical exclusions, it is still not effective to get everyone's opinion on everything. Task specialization and division of labor are more efficient in every context. In practice, if everyone is responsible for completing a particular task then no one is.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Please learn to be less condescending. Stop assuming that people who have different opinions from your own are necessarily ignorant.

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, i ment that quite literally. Ironically, i feel like you’re being a little condescending here by quoting and dissecting my input like this. Sorry if i made you feel like i was attacking your input on the meme.

I mean it more informational, not just for you but also for context to other people who are reading these comments. I am not trying to have an actual debate which for this topic is quite impossible in forum like thread format. Wed need a much bigger debate with many more people if we want to take this matter seriously, that's kinda what i hope to inspire. Not a solution but a direction to have people work on a solution long term rather then idling in the status quo.

In the same vein you are correct that if you understand that anarchism is not simply “lawless chaos” that “Decentralized” is redundant, but many people still don’t know this so i add it as emphasis. Makes people who don’t know think twice about what is meant.

I am not going to overlook that reality is more complicated than what a 5 minute comment can express. I am not solving this alone, neither is anyone. But you do seem to think about this topic in a level headed/intelligent way and i do appreciate your input and documentary recommendation. If we ever have these bigger debates irl i wish for you to be involved.

[–] BassetHound@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A few people will always end up with all of the power, it's how its always been because that's how our species works. Having mechanisms for choosing these people peacefully is better than a free for all power grab.

[–] for_some_delta@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Saying concentrated power is human nature is weird. Humans are creative and social enough to do better.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 1 day ago

I approve of the optimism that we can do better, with effort. However, that optimism cannot be blind if it is to be successful. The historical record demonstrates an overwhelming tendency for power to concentrate in the hands of individuals and small groups. Even with the best of intentions, people in positions of authority inevitably work to protect their authority, at everyone else's expense if necessary. They will convince themselves that they are right to do so, because no one else understands their work.

[–] BassetHound@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We only need to look at human history, and animals in general. The power of an individual is very limited, so those with shared interests group together for protection. The bigger and more powerful groups dominate the smaller and weaker ones and power naturally concentrates into the modern nation state, political party, corporation, etc. And whoever controls those groups holds the most power.

Your perspective requires that all humans be willing and able to come to mutually acceptable compromises for any disagreement. But that's obviously not possible, there are many disagreements where humans can't just split the difference or are simply unwilling to make any compromise for whatever reason. And so power becomes the deciding factor.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But bears roaming the streets...

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That wasn't a community coming together to share the burden of governance. It was a group of selfish assholes who didn't want to be told what to do.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Then I think they just reinvented democracy. It would be nice to start over with a clean slate though.

Political Memes