You literally left Reddit because of what capitalism did to it.
I left Reddit because of short term decisions to squeeze money out of consumers to look good in an IPO, instead of having an actual long term thought.
You do realize that the incentives of capitalism necessitate that right?
Removed by mod
You left reddit because of capitalism. What is an IPO? It is the launch of a business onto the public capital markets to release equity and to enrich its existing owners. What do all businesses on the markets operate on? Short term growth for the next financial quarter optimised to enrich their investors (shareholders) in the shortest amount of time possible.
Capitalism consistently destroys everything you enjoy and yet you defend it relentlessly while asking for long term thinking, which is not a feature of capitalism. When you wake up to this reality you might actually start to question “maybe the socialists are right about a few things” and spend some time with us learning what we actually believe.
But you know what happened after Reddit turned to crap? Because no one actually has to use Reddit, because Reddit is just a bunch of bored nerds and Reddit is just a bunch of forums, eventually someone realised: “wait a minute, I can code this in a few weeks and make it way less crappy than most social media. And maybe if I make it all open, a whole ecosystem of social networks can grow together”. And when Reddit turned to crap, “the invisible hand” acted and people slowly started to migrate over to lemmy and other social media and now reddit is just a bunch of bots
A few weeks?
Mate please check my profile. I have been here for 3 fucking years. Lemmy did not magically appear in a few weeks that is incredibly offensive to the sheer amount of work my comrades have put in to make it.
And calling their work “the invisible hand of the market” is also nonsensical. Because the forces driving its creation, and the rest of us communists that support it, are the destruction of the markets. There is not one single jot of profit motive involved in Lemmy. You seem to recognise some of the problems of capitalism but consistently come to incorrect conclusions about everything because you have spent no time whatsoever getting a real political education and understanding the forces at work.
And you fail to ask yourself what happens to your “market forces” alternative to reddit. In any scenario where the market is responsible for replacing reddit the market will also bring it back to exactly the same point of self-destruction through pursuit of capital. You will hurt yourself all over again.
So, capitalism?
Thank you for proving the theory.
Why’d you just repeat @Awoo@hexbear.nets statement?
Does Long therm thought make money in the short term?
That’s capitalists doing things because they exist in a capitalist society. You’re describing capitalism congratulations
Yeah but capitalism also made reddit great, before making it terrible.
There’s a balance in there somewhere. What we got ain’t it tho.
There is no balance though, the shit-ification that happened to Reddit is a necessary function of capitalism. What we saw as Reddit at its best was, from a capitalist’s perspective, Reddit at its worst. I’m sure you’ve noticed a similar process taking place in lots of other areas as well.
I mean the stages of economic transition have been “fuedalism->capitalism-> socialism” as each one is progressively more efficient and supercedes the previous.
I may be wrong, but I don’t see socialism and capitalism as hard opposites.
I see capitalism and communism are like hard opposites with socialism somewhere in between.
Okay, well, I’ve studied everything from all sorts of marxist tendencies to syndicalism to anarchism, to classical economics, and I think you’re either using terms wrong or have the wrong idea. Can you define your terms or rephrase what you mean?
I apologize if this is too blunt.
So I understand total capitalism as an entirely market driven economy with no government influence
And total communism as an entirely planned and government prescribed economy
And socialism as some of the economy is market driven and some government planned.
Viewing it entirely in economics is incorrect. All of the above can be done under capitalism. The key difference is not what form of economics are employed but which class controls power and puts the resources of the state to use.
The capitalist state is a state where capital owners hold power and use that power to exploit more capital.
The socialist state is a transitionary state in which the workers have seized power and use the state to repress the bourgeoisie and put resources to their own use.
The communist state is what occurs when capitalism is entirely defeated, all nations are socialist, conflict is eliminated and material abundance is achieved, at which point states start to stop existing as the resources within them that are put towards repressing the bourgeoisie through violence are put towards other things when there is only 1 class in society.
no more half measures walter
Capitalism is the state controlled by the capital owners with the workers repressed.
Socialism is the state controlled by the workers with the capital owners repressed.
They are literally hard opposites. One is a bourgeoise-state and the other is a proletarian-state.
Capitalism is where everything is owned by an individual
Socialism is where only the means of production are owned by the state, but the individual still has private properties
Communism is where everything is owned by the state
This is not correct, I encourage you to do some more reading about how coats are made if you’d like to understand this better.
best way I’ve seen to tell someone to read capital lmao
:che-smile:
I learned that “capitalism” is an economic system, not a system of government.
So you could have a socialist state that funds essentials like healthcare and transportation through taxes with a market (capitalist) economy.
Socialism is also an economic system.
I learned that “capitalism” is an economic system, not a system of government.
Consider for 3 seconds that what you “learned” about the world is a product of the system that produced it
Capitalism is a system of government, and in capitalist countries, they teach their citizens that capitalism is at at odds with the state and not working in conjunction with it
Amazed that I had to scroll down this far to read this. Capitalism does not magically create a fair society through the creation of value (which seems to be what its proponents keep saying: investors generating economic activity and wealth). But similarly you could have a socialist economic system, with no real democracy. Which, as we’ve seen, devolves into a corrupt oligarchy. We’ve seemingly lost this perspective in the decades since WWII, but a solid representative parliamentary democracy and separation of powers are the best way to create and maintain a fair society. It requires some other conditions too, like good education, free press, etc. but the core is a system where power is distributed and temporary, depending on democratic processes (elections). This democratic legitimacy is what we should be defending at all costs, imho. It’s not sexy, though.
As opposed to the corrupt oligarchies liberal states are… I guess you just don’t call it corruption when it’s working as intended.
That’s not a socialist state. It’s a capitalist state with welfare. If the political structure of the state itself has not been reworked to put the workers in power what you’re describing is just a state where the bourgeoisie (who control power) have decided to do welfare, usually for their own benefit such as reducing revolutionary energy by providing the workers with concessions (the welfare state). That is social democracy.
You do not have socialism without overthrowing the hierarchy that places the bourgeoisie as the ruling class:
Capitalism = Capitalists in power. Proles repressed.
Socialism = Proletariat in power. Capitalists repressed.
Communism = No more classes, only 1 class because the bourgeoisie have been completely phased out.
This just made China’s system click in my mind. Thanks Awoo
All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy. What political system would you see working with socialism as you describe it?
Reddit was never great lmaoo
It was a pedo networking tool reknowned worldwide for it’s jailbate and non-consensual creepshots. These moderators received awards from admins. Then it got too much attention and got a PR workover, burning a woman CEO at the stake to satiate the gamer-fascists before becoming a bland Atlanticist CIA sockpuppet front of bland corporate posts.
At no point during this entire thing did it ever approach anything comparable to greatness
Are you saying you used Reddit for its jailbait etc subs? Cause Reddit was much more than it’s jailbait subs.
…
Do you have a point?
That’s precious…
I meant the platform more than the company.
It’s my favorite format for social media… that’s why I’m on lemmy.
communism made lemmy so where does that leave us
I guess ‘a lot of free spare time in a socialized copitalism’ made lemmy.
activity = (forProfit) ? “Work” : “Hobby”
No, we left Reddit because of what Spez did to it.
Leadership is important when it impacts the bottom. Look at Twitter… That wasn’t capitalism, it was Elon Musk.
I’m not propping up capitalism, I’m just pointing out that bad leaders can easily ruin successful and/or good things.
No, we left Reddit because of what Spez did to it.
And why did he do that?
To paraphrase this cool guy named Ernesto: Its not our fault reality is marxist
That guy clearly never heard about the Pareto Principle.
E: fuck yeah, successfully triggered all the hexbear tankies. As fun as poking a wasp nest with a long stick. If only there was an online tankie bug spray equivalent…
If 20% of people own 80% of the land or wealth or whatever in a capitalist country then all that shows is that capitalism produces Pareto distributions. That does not mean Pareto distributions are some universal law of nature nor does it mean that non-capitalist systems are impossible.
The bias is justified. The left is correct. Markets don’t create wealth without necessarily simultaneously creating poverty
For more information, research “surplus army of labor”, “primitive accumulation”, and “accumulation by dispossession”.
Well that’s just bullshit. Markets have brought more people out of poverty than anything.
Capitalism literally requires poverty to even function.
Did you know that China is responsible for 75% of the global poverty reduction over the last 40 years?
Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty. At China’s current national poverty line, the number of poor fell by 770 million over the same period.
Do you know how China got such a huge poverty by the 1980s? Do you know how China got the wealth to start impacting it’s poverty?
Hint: the CCP took power in 1949. The Maoist era ended 30 years later, and massive economic liberalisation reforms started.
China today is a world trade powerhouse governed by an elite class (The CCP) with the proles given just enough to keep them where they are. It’s lifted them out of poverty, but it is the shining example of a totalitarian capitist state. If anybody thinks the proletariat have power in China, and it is therefore a socialist state…or that it’s classless with no elite and a communist state… well… You need to talk to some Chinese people.
Glad to see Liberals busting out the good old “it’s not real socialism!!111!!” to cope with China’s success :’)
“Uncorupted Goverment” LoL when did that last happen under Capitalism?
Wtf is an uncorrupt government?
“Military Intelligence”
Two words combined that can’t make sense 🎵
You’ll be happy to know there’s a social media site just like lemmy run by capitalists. It has all the benefits that capitalist ownership provides.
Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an “uncorrupt government” is remotely possible.
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it’s remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
There, now I’ve pissed off everyone lol
Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it’s remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
i wonder why this happens
Luckily an entirely uncorrupt government is not necessary, since that is indeed quite unlikely to ever happen. It is enough to have low corruption, which is much more achievable.
Honestly at this point, even a low corruption government seems harder than balancing a boulder on a toothpick for the super powers of the world
Maybe so, but… That might be because China and America have too much international power. Power attracts the corrupt and global power attracts the most corrupt on the globe.
There’s a book about why power seems to attract this sort of people - can’t remember the name right now, might update later.
In short, it’s not power on its own, but rather the systems we built around and for power, making it unattractive for people we want to end up in power, while the people who we don’t want to end up in power pursue it regardless because they want power for the sake of it.
What I’m trying to say is, this is another issue that we can actually tackle and solve to a large degree. There’s hope!
The problem there is the same as that of idealised communism, you’re relying on humans to do what they typically don’t do. Humans will take for themselves at the cost of communities if they feel they can get away with it, including the ones in government.
Capitalism is literally predicated on “you should take for yourself at any cost” and does everything in its power to limit anything that might bring consequences.
Why should some people be allowed to be rich but not most people?
“Uncorrupt government”
This is as delusional as anyone can get.
A wise man said it all once: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Oh so pragmatism would have that we abandon any hope at equality and we should accept to be slaves for the rich?
I don’t get why the only solution is to trust others to take care of you. I have some bad news: No one gives a crap about you. The sooner you realize this the better. You should be responsible and learn more on how to manage your assets, investments, money, etc. In my opinion, this idea that we have to keep trusting the elite to run our lives is ridiculous. People should be more responsible and manage their money in an independent way.
I like cryptocurrency for this, because I have full control on my money and no government will be able to rehypothecate my money for whatever risky nonsense they’re doing. But you don’t have to be like me or like cryptocurrency. All you have to do is start thinking of a solution that works for you. You can start saving now, diversify in the world economy, and take risks that are appropriate to you, and prepare for your retirement. No need to act as if you have zero power when there are enough tools to give you power over your own money.
I’m the kind of guy that takes all my matters into my own hands, because I trust no one. I even run my email server, my cloud, my VPNs, my everything. I don’t need anyone, company or government, and I have calculated risks in all my endeavour. I can migrate whenever I want. I believe everyone in the world should strive towards that. But we’re living in a centralized world where google alone can just block almost everyone’s life. I’m not in that club.
I don’t get why the only solution is to trust others to take care of you.
Society is built around people “taking care” of you in different ways. Like being a doctor, a teacher, an employer, the police, etc.
That’s why we grew out of being caveman, because we’re built to be cooperative with each other in our DNA. If we didn’t, we’d either be small tribes or individuals and probably die out really fast. It’s because we need others to rely on or we’d literally be extinct.
I don’t think you understand what trust means. There’s almost zero trust with doctors, teachers, etc. You don’t trust doctors out of the blue, but you build an informed decision from the reviews of such a doctor by seeing if they’re good at what they do. This hunky dory delusion that everyone trusts everyone is not real. The doctor, teacher, etc, will be punished if they misbehave and that’s what the free market is about. Keeping them in line as a kind of incentive to behave well.
On the other hand, what you guys want to do is hand all your wealth and power to elites that don’t give two craps about you, have zero consequences in the case they mess up, and have zero incentive to do the right thing (as opposed to make it look like they’re doing the right thing), and then expect them to not steal your hard earned money, and then cry about it when they do it. Well, guess what? I don’t trust the fed has my best interest when they printed 80% of the US dollar money supply over the last 3 years. Why should I store my wealth in USD? Now you go ahead and trust them and do that, and keep complaining on lemmy that the rich are getting richer (NOT because of the printing) when someone tries to talk sense into you. I guess everyone will pay for their decisions after all.
Doctors are doctors because they passed their doctorate.
Someone more knowledgeable than you set the minimum bar of skill they require to practice their craft.
You don’t get to make trust based decisions on doctors because you don’t know what a good doctor looks like. You lack the knowledge to do so. Unless you are yourself a doctor.
I have even less trust in corporations than the government.
If you let those, they would bring slavery back if they could. Since that improves their bottom line.
Dude everything you said is wrong… doctors don’t have doctorates… PhDs do. Also you didn’t invalidate my point, which is that trust isn’t blind. You sound like a teenager. When you grow up you’ll understand what accountability means and how governments have none.
So not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, you also fall back to ad hominem fallacies because you are unable to debunk the stuff I said.
Your knowledge is lacking, so your opinion on who you can trust is worthless.
You sound like a science-denying anti-vaxxer.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
~Carl Sagan
You will always have people taking care of you, from the clothes you wear to the things you eat. There is no escape.
Not even by living on your own are you not using other peoples knowledge or products.
Do conservatives on lemmy ever do anything but whine that they’re not immediately worshiped for their opinions?
Markets are inherently problematic and lead to wealth being centralized in the hands of the few owners. A well regulated market ignores the problem which must be addressed; the dichotomy of workers and owners. Class struggle won’t be fixed if not addressed. Neo-liberalism markets can’t be fixed with more neo-liberalism.
Even if everything was worker-owned, markets present problems. Through luck and circumstance, some buyers and sellers will have an easier time to the detriment of others. Some will be priced out. Wealth and power will concentrate. With that comes regulatory capture. There goes the idealist “uncorrupt government.”
Anti-social strategies like loss leaders pricing out competitors and price gouging and collusion don’t go away with worker ownership.
It’s still a system of self-interested parties. Social Darwinism over collective well-being.
… not only vertical relations of capitalist exploitation based around the wage labor–capital relation — capitalists exploiting their workers — but also horizontal relations of exploitation — wealthier firms exploiting poorer firms. Horizontal exploitation can occur even between worker-owned cooperatives, which leads you to argue that market socialism may be exploitative in much the same way capitalism is.
I thought left also meant protection against unregulated markets? Without regulations it is just going to be capitalismplusplus.
I’m confused, who is talking about unregulated markets?
The meme?
It mentions regulated markets, is that what you mean?
I know Hexbear skews very, very liberal. I haven’t spent much time in other lemmy places.
Hexbear also has a large number of Putin and CCP apologists. Authoritarian bootlicking isn’t liberalism.
if supporting a project that lifts 800M out of extreme poverty is wrong, I don’t wanna be right
Pushing Native Americans onto reservations lifted a lot of European immigrants out of poverty.
Burning fossil fuels lifted entire nations out of poverty.
Campaigns against the barbarians lifted many Romans out of poverty.
If you think this “lift” is some example of public good in action that hasn’t come at the cost of exploitation, you’re delusional.
China lifted 800 million people out of poverty by building healthcare, transport, housing, jobs, education and food security? Heh, but what about that time European settlers got richer by genociding Native Americans? Technically that was “poverty reduction” too, commie
Chinese poverty elimination didn’t come on the backs of any of those things you goober. “Well have you considered that sometimes OTHER countries did bad things to reduce domestic poverty, and therefore China doing so is inherently bad actually !?” Grow the fuck up, this isn’t a real argument.
sure, when the government looks like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulash_Communism
