• gayhitler420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you though?

      Do you own the means of production and employ people to operate it, paying them a fraction of the value their labor produces?

      Are you able to live comfortably without working for the foreseeable future? Do you exert outsized control over municipal, regional and state government far beyond your “vote” if you live in a place that claims to be a democracy? Does that control come from your power over the means of production that you control?

      Supporting a society controlled by the people described above does not make you a capitalist, being one of the people described above does.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Are you able to live comfortably without working for the foreseeable future?

        I’m pretty sure that’s just a strawman version of capitalism. Plenty of capitalists who had their life’s work taken during a communist revolution and were at best told they could come back as a manager worked plenty hard. Didn’t save them.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, capitalism is the system that creates this. Capitalists are the ones living comfortably at the top of their piles of money while we work to make them that money.

          And yes being a capitalist didn’t save them from having to work like everyone else, boohoo evil commulism.

      • dafo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do not agree with you, gayhitler420. That sounds as polarized as US politics.

      • huge_clock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oxford English Dictionary defines a capitalism as :

        1. ​a person who supports capitalism

        2. a person who owns or controls a lot of wealth and uses it to produce more wealth

      • Flumsy@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The dictionaries say otherwise. But sure, if “capitalist” just means a person thats very succesful and uses their power for the bad, then they are obviously not good to society but that doesnt make the system of capitalism any worse…

        • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think you’re being disingenuous here and English is a crazy language, so here’s the definition google came up with:

          noun: capitalist; plural noun: capitalists a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.

          In the sentence

          I’m a capitalist who doesn’t defend billionaires and also doesn’t feel left out…

          The word capitalist is a noun.

          But even if you were to pull up a dictionary definition of the word that says otherwise, in the context of the economic and political system of capitalism there’s three hundred years of writing that define capitalists under capitalism as various groups of bourgeoisie.

          I think we can dispense with petty arguments over the dictionary definitions of words given what we’re discussing. If it will make you feel better I can refer to capitalists as flying purple people eaters.

          • Flumsy@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Alright, Im fine with that definition, thanks for clarifying that.

            However, if I invest part of my money (eg. into stocks or ETFs) as you do if you want to start saving money, that would make me a capitalist, wouldnt it? Your previous comment kind of made it seem like all capitalists are evil and rich af…

            • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think if we just go by that dictionary definition, you being a wealthy person who invests in trade and industry to make a profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism would by definition make you “rich af” and would align your interests against those of the people whose labor allows trade and industrial production.

              The people whose labor allows trade and industrial production want to get the highest pay and best living conditions possible, you, as a wealthy investor in the concerns that employ and pay them want the most profit possible. The raw materials of trade and production are fixed quantities so any profit must come from paying the worker less than their labor produces.

              Does that make you evil? I don’t know.

              You used the example of an etf and I wanna talk about stock and securities trading briefly. A person with enough money can invest it in the market in such a way that it causes huge changes and can basically write their own ticket. Small time (retail, if you’re familiar with the lingo) investors take on quite a bit more risk and while they might hope their bag goes up or down they don’t generally have any control or say over what happens to laborers or industries and certainly not any power to control markets.

              There’s an argument to be made that the move to replace pensions with invested retirement funds was explicitly intended to align retail investors and working people with the interests of the very capitalists who needed them to accept lower wages and reduced benefits, but this tea…

              I do take issue with using dictionary definitions though, because they tend to be truncated and devoid of the background and context that allow for understanding and use of words in conversation or correspondence. This one, for example doesn’t explain what the principles of capitalism are, only that they must exist because capitalists are people who invest according to them. This definition doesn’t even describe capitalists as a class, which is fundamental to understanding the overwhelming majority of ink spilled in the last few centuries about them and the system they are in control of!

              • Flumsy@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Im not wealthy by any means, though the wealth cant be the deciding factor, can it?

                If Im a student with a savings plan (one where you put aside money every month and invest it [not sure if thats the correct Engkish term]) so it grows over time, am I a capitalist in your opinion?

                The raw materials of trade and production are fixed quantities so any profit must come from paying the worker less than their labor produces.

                The finished product is worth more than what their labour produces, otherwise they could just sell the product themselves. Because the organization, strategy, marketing and the needed capital for all of that are values in itself.

                A quick question about that trading example, as far as I know market manipulation is illegal so using that to your advantage wouldnt worky right?

                • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  According to the goofy dictionary definition were working with, wealth is a requirement.

                  That definition doesn’t talk about the relationship between wealth and extracted profits because getting to the bottom of that relationship ultimately ties the two together. There’s no space to explain that if you own productive capital, you’re by definition wealthy.

                  If we wanted to examine your retail investment portfolio under a broader definition, you could possibly be considered the most petit-ist of bourgeoise under some circumstances, but generally if you have to work for a wage or are expecting to have to work for a wage once your education is over then you’re not a capitalist. Participating in the securities market doesn’t change your relationship to the means of production.

                  If you made your living as a securities trader, that might be a different story.

                  I’m not sure what you’re saying about the labor and selling it themselves, but the organization, strategy and marketing are all labor that went into the production of the goods. The capital in the form of facilities and equipment are fixed costs like the raw materials used in production, so any profit from the sale is necessarily coming out of the value of the labor.

                  Good to know that market manipulation is illegal, surely there’s no examples of markets being manipulated in our recent memory!

          • devbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you forgot to show the adjective definition, which is what he is using in his sentence. and you are the one dispensing in petty arguments by continueing the arguement unti you get final say.

            • gayhitler420@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I did not forget, I purposefully excluded it because were talking about the definition of the word capitalist in the sentence:

              I’m a capitalist who doesn’t defend billionaires and also doesn’t feel left out

              In that sentence the word capitalist is used as a noun, not an adjective.

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So, you support a system that inherently creates an upper class of obscenely rich people, yet are opposed to those people?

          A system set up to enrich the owner of a business, while its workers lose out, creates exactly the people you claim not to defend.

            • irmoz@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them.

              It doesn’t work like that. They are in power, and by not opposing them, you consent to their continued power.

              I make more money from them than I would without them,

              That isn’t even close to true. Capitalist extraction of surplus value is exactly how they make their profits. If they paid you the value you made them, they wouldn’t have a profit. If they weren’t there to extract that value, you and your fellow workers would make more - it’s basic mathematics.

              and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.

              This part is true, yes.

              I’ve never been forced to take any job…

              So, you’re saying you’re able to retire right now and never work again?

              I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules

              That’s a slave mindset.

              That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.

              That’s cool you can think that small and that selfishly. Others, however, realise you could be living even better, and everyone else, including those with nothing, could have that standard of living, too, if we stop being complacent with mere crumbs.

              That’s what you have. Mere crumbs of luxury. It’s great that you’re not on the street, but that is an incredibly low standard to have.

                • irmoz@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it any less true. How do you refute it? It’s a basic mathematical truth. It’s literally impossible for a capitalist to pay you the value you brought them, without them going broke.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Read: “I only subscribe to the economics of the oppressor class. If they refuse to accept a basic mathematical truth that implies bad things about them, so do I!”

          • SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Markets are nothing more than voluntary association. Most, if not every “obscenely rich” person got this rich because of govt interference (lobbying, govt sanctioned monopoly, corporate welfare, subsidies, etc.)

            “Organic” market economy would be beneficial to everyone

      • Flumsy@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If that were the case (which it isnt) I dont see a problem defending billionaires (and on the side also everybody’s freedom and justice)…

              • Flumsy@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fairness is subjective. To me it means: everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom; if a person performs well, they should be rewarded well; everyone should have the same initial possibilities in life.

                The version of capitalism I was talking about is capitalism with a regulated market. Basic needs should be covered (except if you refuse to contributr anything at all). Im pretty happy with the “social market economy” in Germany where I currently live.

                • irmoz@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom

                  But how am I gonna get someone to work for me without invading their freedom to choose to do what they want?

                  Hell no, man. No one will work at my shop if they’re allowed to do what they want.

                  Basic needs should be covered (except if you refuse to contributr anything at all).

                  Fuck yeah man! That’s how we do it! That’s what gets people working for me - the threat that not doing so will put ‘em on the street! That’s what I’m talkin’ about!

    • huge_clock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right? There are pros and cons with every system. People disagree based on value judgements not based on misinterpretation of facts. People in their echo chambers will have you believe that everyone on the other side of the political spectrum all thinks the same way “the same people who say X also say Y!” Rarely is that the case. Most people are actually centrists who have their own independent beliefs on a wide range of topics.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not everyone on my side of the political Spectrum thinks the same way. But if you are pro capitalist. You simply aren’t thinking. Capital, markets, and currency. All existed before capitalism. The only thing capitalism did was justify the wealth and power of the wealthy and Powerful Beyond being simply born to wealthy powerful people. Now you get to be a wealthy powerful person by having capital. Which ironically just so happens to be most common among people born too powerful people. New boss same as the old boss. Funny how that works.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned lies, and statistics. First you lose points by linking to a supposed study behind the paywall. Second you lose points by that study being conducted by The Fraser institute. A solidly right wing group. With a less than credible reputation.

            I apologize for only attacking the messenger on this. Though that should be enough to dissuade anyone from trusting it. But you didn’t link to anything that actually proves your point that we could read to argue against their flawed methodology, definitions, sampling, and data Gathering strategy. I’m sure we could attack and pick apart those endlessly. But I’m not going to pay 30 bucks to do it.

            • huge_clock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is a study by an independent researcher from the University of North Dakota. The economic freedom index is published by the Fraser institute. There is no alternative index at this time. Here is a link beyond the paywall. Here’s a few others as well:

              https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-015-9616-x

              https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-017-9543-6

              You’re welcome to share your own studies on economic freedom and happiness btw. . I’m “not thinking” yet i am the only one sharing scientific literature.

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                First their SSL certificate is misconfigured second my DNS here at work is blocking access to it for now.

                Second. Economics psychology Etc are not any sort of hard science. They struggle to even show correlation sometimes. Let alone causation. And statistics is certainly not a science in and of it self. Making your confident claim of scientific literature adorably naive at best or wildly spacious at worst.

                Combined with the fact that I have strong doubts that this study includes actual honest studies of socialist economic structures. Typically it’s just “leninism bad hurt durr”. Which I agree with. But Leninism=\=socialism. Did they actually go out and survey communes? Or honestly categorize social democracies? Most of these so-called BS scientific studies don’t.

                And honestly I could link you any number of studies showing the countries with strong support for labor and protections for labor have a much higher satisfaction than countries that don’t. The problem is I don’t believe you’re being honest. And that that would be a waste of time. But you are welcome to go to Google and search if you’re interested.

                • huge_clock@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You seem to be really good at coming up with excuses why you can’t access the data or why the data isn’t admissible for this or that reason. And awfully good at coming up with reasons why you cannot produce any data. Too much so IMO for someone that makes the claim of others of being intellectually dishonest and that they cannot think for themselves.

                  But it’s okay. Why don’t we just agree to disagree? That was my original point. Some people have centrists views on the economy where they believe in socially progressive causes, free markets and strong institutions. That this view is both rational and supported by data. That disagreements are based not on misinterpretation of facts but on differences in values.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Uh, no shit. Economic freedom means not being destitute. Of course that makes you happier than not. What are you trying to prove, here? Do you think economic freedom is synonymous with capitalism, or only possible through it?

        • TAG@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hate capitalism, I just don’t know of a better alternative. Nordic socialism is just capitalism with a big government. Soviet socialism failed miserably (it turns out, it is very hard to plan an economy). I have never heard a solid plan for communism that works on a national scale, never mind a plan for transitioning to such a society.

          On the other hand, capitalism works reasonably well most of the time and we can just fix issues with it when they crop up (and we have a big backlog of issues to fix).

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Capitalism does not work reasonably well most the time. Unchecked it leads to countless busts and Booms that leave the average person destitute. You really should look into the history of the early 20th century. The only reason we even still have capitalism. Is because of two massive world wars. Slaughtering and grinding up many tens of millions of people. As well as passage of basic Social Security nets. We’ve largely at least abandoned the spirit of. If if not in practice as well.

            Capitalism has been a failure at every level. Constantly. That isn’t a justification or Praise of leninism. There’s a lot of other ideologies on the Socialist side Beyond leninism. And they don’t require large National level government. Look into them sometime.

            • Flumsy@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is there any system that is more fair and/or gives you more freedom? I havent found any.

              On a hypothetically completely free capitalist market, I can sell and buy whatever I wish and the value that I get when selling directly correlates to the value I’m bringing to the buyer. If I generated a lot of value, I have more capital so I can also buy more value using that capital. Sounds fantastic in theory.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                In an unregulated free market, you could buy milk, drink it and fucking die because it had poison in it.

                • Flumsy@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah of course thats why there are regulations in place. Nobldy would trust that milj seller again though, so for cases that are not as bad as a human life being ended, the system would still work…

              • OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Democratic socialism, Social democracy, original libertarianism of the non Rothbard variety, even pragmatic anarchocommunism. As long as they aren’t dogmatic ideologues.

                A completely free market has never, and will never exist. Further markets, and currency existed before capitalism. Capitalism didn’t make them possible. Finally capitalism demands you sell for as much as the market can bare, not what is fair for the value you added. Of which capitalists generally add none. Without labor nothing gets done.

                Under capitalism people that generate most of the value get the least of the capital. It’s just a more abstract way of defining and justifying oligarchy. Other than Divine Birthright.

                Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for rewarding people who come up with new processes and ideas to increase efficiency etc. That’s not really what capitalism does.

                • Flumsy@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Would you mind elaborating on the “original libertarianism”? What doed that mean exactly? Could really find much…

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Soviet socialism failed miserably (it turns out, it is very hard to plan an economy).

            Did you actually check? Because based on a bunch of metrics I saw the USSR did pretty well compared to the feudalism that came before it and the capitalist “democracy” that came after its illegal and undemocratic dissolution.

            • TAG@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I know (and have discussed it with) plenty of people who lived in the former USSR. Everyone I spoke to agreed that it was a mess.

              Of course, there is clear selection bias in who I spoke to (they are people I am friendly with and most of them reside outside of Eastern Europe) and all of them only experienced the Soviet system after it had gone through Stalin.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Here is an illustrative anecdote since we are trading those:

                I miss free housing, social justice, positive constrictive ideology, bearable work relations (or would it be more proper to say conditions?).

                Age is…far above 30.

                I admit, I haven’t encountered social justice or ideology in my very early ages, but I had opportunity to feel benefits of free housing (since my family got a nice 3bd-room flat in their possession), and…my parents worked much less than I do, and never worked at home.

                https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/sxdi3q/comment/hxtgsbd/

                Here is data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1128057/russia-opinion-on-dissolution-of-the-ussr-by-age/

                Note that the people who were adults before its collapse overwhelmingly want it back, and that Russians only supported its continuation back in the 90s referendum at 55ish percent compared to much higher percentages in the non-Russian SSRs.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Define nothing. And then Define wealthy. Then we’ll talk. Bill Gates did not build from nothing. Jeff Bezos did not start from nothing. Elon Musk did not start from nothing. Harlan Crow did not start from nothing. The Koch brothers did not start from nothing. The Mercers did not start from nothing. Peter Thiel did not start from nothing. Mitt Romney did not start from nothing.

            A ton of people who pretend to start from nothing. Started out with more access and resources than many people could imagine. More than many people will ever see personally in their lifetime.

            No one making minimum wage in the United States can afford their rent anywhere in the United states. Millennials and younger are struggling to even buy homes or be financially secure. Most Americans are a single emergency medical or otherwise from being bankrupt. It’s the biggest indicator of your future wealth and success is who you were born to.

            The reason you don’t understand why this is so complicated for people. Is because you don’t understand the basic supposition being made. Most people don’t and that’s the problem. The fact that most people use the phrase “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” out of context and unironically should be a massive indicator of how uneducated people are on the subject. But everyone is capable of understanding if they want to. Please do some reading on the subject. Even a small amount. It won’t take much to help get you up to speed.

            https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

            https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/full-time-minimum-wage-workers-cant-afford-rent-anywhere-in-the-us.html

            https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-house-home-real-estate-mortgage-rates-rent-debt-boomers-2022-9

            https://www.norc.org/research/library/most-working-americans-would-face-economic-hardship-if-they-miss.html

            • InputZero@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I expected you to be a pro-capitalist shill but then you pull out this. Bravo. I misjudged you. Going back to where you said you support capitalism, I think your idea of capitalism is just outside the bullseye. Like you obviously understand a lot, I don’t need to explain much to you. I think your inaccuracy comes from linking currency with capitalism, which a lot of people do. They’re not the same thing. Keeping in mind I’m going to keep things in the most basic terms, capitalism, socialism, communism, are all different forms of distributive justice. Capitalism says, whomever contributes the most capital to an endeavor deserves the most distribution, labour is just a cost. Socialism says, whomever contributes labour deserves the most distribution, and communism says everyone deserves equal distribution regardless of labour and capital. You’re really close to the bullseye though, so close I’m not sure my comment is even worthwhile.

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                think your inaccuracy comes from linking currency with capitalism, which a lot of people do.

                To quoth my first post in this thread.

                Capital, markets, and currency. All existed before capitalism.

                Also, I’m generally anticapitalist. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? I’m of the school that thinks we should abolish the concept of unlimited private property in favor of something like personal property with much more reasonable limits. And think capitalism should only be allowed with regards to unique items that aren’t generally “necessary” for society. Paintings, tchotchkes, etc.

                Also your definition of communism is a bit exclusive of actual Libertarians and anarcho-communist. Isn’t it? I think you are referencing leninist theory? Which has never held up in practice. The rest of it though generally tracks.

    • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      The volume of anti-capitalist and pro-China rhetoric on Lemmy is disconcerting. It makes me appreciate how good other platforms are at moderating state generated garbage.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fact that you think that there is a huge difference between capitalist and China is part of the problem. They’re closer than you think. Not going to lie though. Leninists are just as bad as capitalists on this front.

          • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            How do you motivate people to reach for more, he asks, on a platform that is literally developed for free. Have you ever thought that people do certain things because they like them ? I see not every job is likable tho. But that’s a different problem, we can try to solve by technology. I know my opinion is also biased but in the end we should try to a bit more open minded.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Real talk. Socialism works great for much of europe. Look into england, austria, pretty much any Scandinavian country they all have programs and systems focused on supporting workers. That they would never give up.

            Second are we talking Big C or little c communism. They are different things. And you are wrong immediately off the bat. Under communism which is not defined as socialism in its entirety. No single person owns the means of production. But people do own the means of production. Under big C communism, let’s call it what it is leninism. They have a warped and twisted definition of who the people are. Expanding it out to a single Nationwide party and that party’s dictatorial leader. That’s very different from communism. Under communism the workers own the means of production. Meaning that if you work in a factory. As a worker of the factory you own a piece of, and have a stake in the factory and its success.

            If people require capitalism to motivate them to strive for more. How did we get where we are? Capitalism has only existed a few hundred years. Human history goes back tens of thousands of years. How does that work? Because it really seems like we don’t need capitalism for that. And there’s no evidence showing that communism hinders it either. You do realize that even under the warped leninism that the Soviets used. They industrialized, expanded, had scientific and technological progress alongside the rest of the world. That doesn’t excuse the atrocities that they committed or the capitalists have committed. But that sure doesn’t seem like it puts a damper on striving for more etc.

            And if human nature is the biggest roadblock to socialism as you say it is. It’s just as big or bigger a roadblock to capitalism. Your argument against socialism is more of an argument against capitalism. Think about that. I think you mean well. But I also think you have very little idea about what you’re talking about. Which isn’t an insult. When it comes to some Western Nations and especially the united states. We are washed in propaganda and purposefully miseducated.

              • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s literally the only thing you have that’s even close. But you wouldn’t give it up. It’s certainly not a capitalist system. Prove how capitalist you are though. Give it up for a system like America’s if you think it’s so adorable.

                Strictly speaking universal healthcare isn’t socialist. But it is a logical outcome of socialist policy.

      • Karius@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve left an anti-China warmongering echo chamber for a place where moderation isn’t predicated on silencing dissent against the west. The people you describe as ‘pro-China’ bots have plenty of issues with Chinese policy decisions. Accepting that the USA and capitalism more generally are evil forces in world politics are not state generated.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              How is that an attack? The petite bourgeoisie generally have more to gain from joining the proletariat in the class struggle, and almost none of them have caused suffering at a scale that justifies the same attitude had towards the haut bourgeoisie. (Now people who own multiple car dealerships on the other hand)

              It is only an attack if you think being a massive leech on society like Musk or Bezos is a good thing.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You also have less influence on the world around you than your farts. You have crumbs and you think you’re in charge because the people below you are worse off. You’re not going to have control until you organize together with the people on your side of the class conflict.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you took a statement about your class position as an insult. But I want to clarify, if you stopped working tomorrow would you have enough income for the rest of your life? If not, youre a member of the proletariat. If you could, youre petite bourgeoisie. You operate under capitalist logic but don’t have enough power to actually exercise control over the wider context your business exists in. You would be a small fish at the mercy of being eaten by larger fish. Better to not live in a system where anyone is a fish.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Capitalism is what allows billionaires to exist. If you are pro-capitalism, you are pro-billionaires. They are the real capitalists because the are the ones with real capital (and capital = power).

      Even if you support better worker pay, trans rights, healthcare or what have you, you are just asking big money for it, not actually taking it. They are the ones deciding in the end.

  • Franzia
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone time something controversial is posted, damn I missed out on all the discussion because Blahaj.zone defederated all these capitalist losers so I can just think about being trans and cracking jokes.

  • pizzahoe@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    These capitalist and billionaire cocksuckers sure love socialism when they socialise their losses and fucking take our tax payer money to bail themselves out. if you’re working class and don’t support socialism, you should look into it more. Propaganda from these blood sucking billionaire ghouls have made most of us blind to the better life socialism can offer us.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      That isnt socialism, thats the capitalist state doing its job of protecting capital. Socialism is when the proletariat own the means of production.

      • pizzahoe@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes i agree. Just pointing out the fact there’s no free market. When they lose, they still win by taking our hard earned money and using it to further their interests. I’d be happier if it were used for our welfare instead.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Id argue that the free market incentivizes the capture of politicians but I think we are on the same side here.

  • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Capitalists need workers to oppress. Without them, they would have nothing to give them a feeling of superiority. Mincing people into fertilizer would surely be a fun pastime for the rich, but it’s hardly a sustainable hobby

  • Facebones@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Never mind that not a single one of them pipes up when some lazy fascist bullshit gets posted here.

    Only when it’s left of like 1990s Biden then they all lose their fuckin minds.

      • Flumsy@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thats still very much generalizing. What this meme essentially says is that if you’re a capitalist, you’re not part of Lemmy.

        On a seperate note, you cant possibly know how many people on Lemmy actually support capitalism or not. It has a left tendency, yes, but I bet the majority of Lemmx users do support caputalidm in some shape or form.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Does anyone here own capital? As in being haut bourgeoisie? Probably not.

          If you support capitalism and you’re not a capitalist you’re just a bootlicker.

          • MashBoilPitch@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            And you live on your own self-sustaining compound, posting from your open hardware, fabricated in free factories, Libre software OS and applications, with compost-generated power? Didn’t think so. Welcome to the gray zone bootlicker.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “If you dont own factories you dont benefit from the system, you should not defend it”

              “Oh okay, so you have completely isolated yourself from the system then?”

              No, that’s not the point, the point is to end the exploitation, not escape it, which is always a fanciful idea as you cannot escape the indirect effects of it. Also do you think almost anyone is capable of doing the things you mentioned? You’d have to be really wealthy to do those things.

              • MashBoilPitch@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You used the wrong quote from yourself. What you quoted from me was a reaction to this gem of a statement:

                If you support capitalism and you’re not a capitalist you’re just a bootlicker.

                which is black and white, and typical of us-good versus them-bad argument fallacies. If you live and participate in a capitalist system, as the vast majority of humanity does, you are, to some degree, supporting it.

                Based on the comments in this thread I take your position to be it’s a matter of degree of support. Owning a truck isn’t capital, it’s apparently got to be a lot to make someone a capitalist. That is not leftist or anti-capitalist, but simply “eat the rich”. Most people exist in classes that participate in ways that keep the lower earners below. I do not believe most humans think this great system for all but feel helpless, and participate as a way to simply exist.

                Surely spreading insulting, erudite rhetoric in online is not the solution.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Owning a truck isn’t capital, it’s apparently got to be a lot to make someone a capitalist.

                  Owning a truck for personal transportation is literally personal property, not private property. Can you give me a quick definition according to Marxists of personal and private property?

                  Because you speak as if you’re qualified to define leftist:

                  That is not leftist or anti-capitalist, but simply “eat the rich”.

                  I do not believe most humans think this great system for all but feel helpless,

                  That is capitalist realism for you.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, it is saying that if you are capitalist, you will get pushed into a corner by downvotes and can’t enjoy the discussion as much as everyone else.

          As is clearly shown with this comment.

          If you actually read the posts made here on Lemmy (and I don’t mean the hexbear lemmygrad ones) you should still clearly see a contempt towards the capital class.

          • Flumsy@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The upvote ratio on this comment (which is at 15up to 15down currently) is in no way representative of Lemmy. At best its representative of this specific community (memes@lemmy.ml).

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Does anyone here own capital? As in being haut bourgeoisie? Probably not.

      If you support capitalism and you’re not a capitalist you’re just a bootlicker.

      • huge_clock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You wouldn’t be any better off on a socialist system. The people at the top of the party would control everything and the working class would be even poorer than they are now. You’re just licking the left boot instead of the right one.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is empirically untrue, but also just nonsense. Politicians do not have the same class relationship as capitalists with the proletariat.

          • huge_clock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh I’m sorry i didn’t realize there was empirical evidence for socialism. Please send me a link to some of these successful socialist societies.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos for starters China went from a century of humiliation to a superpower in less then a century thanks to socialism. The USSR was better than the feudalism before it or the dictatorships of the bourgeoisie that came after it by a wide margin. For a place much poorer than the US, they had similar nutrition, better education, more rights for women both legalistically and practically.

              Oh, throw in east Germany too. Do you know what the Stasi did to the lgbt movement that they saw as subversive? Destroy it by ending discrimination against gay and trans people, including a massive education campaign to eradicate homophobia and transphobia and state funded gay bars. Compare that to how the US was treating gay people at the time.

            • Deuces@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not a socialist by any means (well, I have been called one by republicans…) but I’ve always hated this argument. The USSR and China are the only two I’m aware of that weren’t massively screwed over in their infancy by the US, and/or (usually and) manipulated by the USSR.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The USSR was literally invaded in its infancy by France Britain and the US. Trust me the USSR was getting fucked with by bourgeois dictatorships since the beginning.

              • huge_clock@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then you shouldn’t go around saying it’s “empirically true” because at best there is no evidence.

          • MashBoilPitch@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dang, for a moment I considered that you might have independent thoughts. This LemmtGradChatGPT BS ruined it.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, yes. It is cool and subversive to support capitalism, or at least oppose its alternatives.(aka support capitalism) You’re part of the cool club of people who act in the interests of the bourgeoisie and not of your own class. A real independent thinker.

              (Not that any of us are independent thinkers, but one of us is defending the powers that be and calling the other a chatbot)

              • MashBoilPitch@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You have no idea what systems I support, yet you assume I support capitalism because I didn’t agree with you, which says a lot. The only evidence of my beliefs I have provided is that I do not support your approach. Further, I do not believe your rhetoric is a genuine attempt to make the world any better for anyone.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Oh, so you are an anticommunist “leftist” then?

                  Edit: your post history seems to indicate you’re a social democrat, which is just capitalism with a welfare state. Aka capitalism.

      • WrittenWeird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How do you define “capital”? I own a paid-off vehicle. That’s my biggest single asset. Am I therefore evil? It’s parked in the garage of this home I rent. Used car market right now means it’s worth a bit more than it would be otherwise.

        Oh, and I’m also a shareholder in my employer. Gasp!

        All this talk is highly dangerous us-vs-them, black-and-white divisive crap that isn’t going to go anywhere productive. Stop it. Grow up.

        • EurekaStockade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Owning a car is not bourgeois. Owning a business is.

          If you could stop going to work tomorrow and still pay your bills because your assets are generating sufficient income to cover your expenses and still accumulate, you’re in the capital class. If you trade your time and labour for income and quitting work would mean your resources will get depleted, you’re working class.

          And if you think that you’re not working class because you sit in an office and work on a computer, then that’s exactly what the ownership class wants you to believe so you’ll be happy with your lot and not rock the boat.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How do you define “capital”? I own a paid-off vehicle. That’s my biggest single asset. Am I therefore evil?

          Oh my god, we aren’t coming for your toothbrush. The idea that owning anything makes you a capitalist is absurd. We are talking about businesses that alienate workers like yourself from their labor.

          Oh, and I’m also a shareholder in my employer. Gasp.

          And if you had enough shares to live off of you wouldn’t be renting. You’re a member of the proletariat, not even the petite bourgeoisie who still have more to gain by overthrowing capitalism.

          All this talk is highly dangerous us-vs-them, black-and-white divisive crap that isn’t going to go anywhere productive. Stop it. Grow up.

          Maybe instead of being afraid of shadows you should read what socialists actually believe. We believe that the means of production (aka your workplace) should be owned and managed by the workers (you) and not some board who see the business as a paycheck every month (and probably don’t understand how it actually functions) overseen by a democratic body to coordinate between businesses. We claim to live in a democracy but nowhere is this more evidently wrong then workplaces, which are almost always run as dictatorships…what little political agency employees exercise has to be won in conflict to the goals of the system.

          We oppose land commodification. People, especially children and the elderly, should not be at risk of being evicted from where they live, and if they have income they should just contribute to the collective maintaining and construction of property which is generally 5 percent of income, not 1/3 of a paycheck like it is under capitalism with all the middlemen leeches.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay, that at most makes you petite bourgeoisie not haut bourgeoisie. But I’m guessing you can’t live off of your passive income so you’re still proletariat. You have more in common with the proletariat than not, and you have more to gain by overthrowing capitalism then preserving it.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, the goal posts of definitions created by a guy who has been dead for more than 100 years. Clarifying a misunderstanding on a basic concept of Marxist analysis of capitalism written more than 100 years ago is moving the goalposts.

              Also, can you live entirely off your passive income? If not, youre not even petite bourgeoisie.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, I take my family on vacations via airlines run by capitalists who fly airplanes built by capitalists. I like to sit in a bar that is privately owned by capitalists and chit chat over a beer that was brewed, bottled and distributed by capitalists.

        Sure, I’m missing out on all the socializing that communists have time for when they are waiting in bread lines. But hey you can’t have everything.

        • snail_hatan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Person is already dead inside. They “have a family” but are acting like a teenager - speaks for itself…

            • snail_hatan@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for calling me on the shoddy rhetoric. The person I was replying to claims to have a family while themselves providing a typical teenage retort, thereby failing to act maturely, which is what one would expect from a decent parent. Any better? Still too ad hominem?

              • Kiosfriend@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                who said anything about ad hominems? or shoddy rhetoric? you’re calling them a teenager while using the phrase “speaks for itself”, which is a pretty immature phrase. And then you dress up your language for the reply to me to sound more mature? sounds like someone who’s stuck in adolescence and pining for “adulthood” to me.

                inb4 “thanks internet psychoanalyst, sugondese”

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not quite, I made a bland general comment to troll on a bland general post. My intention was to trigger some commies. Judging by the comments I’d say it was a success.

              • magnetosphere@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                I love it when these people burn themselves by being stupid, annoying pricks. If they get enough negative feedback, they just say they were “triggering” people on purpose. Then they congratulate themselves on their brilliant, flawless, and totally original tactics. It’s the same routine every goddam time.

                I can appreciate a joke at my expense if it’s even remotely clever, but this is just pathetic and tired. It’s 2023, ffs. Somebody needs to come up with a new trolling script.

                I hope that these are young kids who will outgrow this shit and move on. I know that’s not true in every case, though.

              • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No not a prank. A prank would indicate I wasn’t serious about my actions and want to apologize.

                I’ve been pretty up front that I wanted to trigger some commies. I also take nothing back and apologize for nothing.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        My man, capital was expended developing the technology underpinning those devices. It was expended building the tools and sourcing the materials that went onto the device that the workers built. Capital was expended paying the workers for the time they took making the devices and bringing the device to market to sell.

        Labor and capital are needed to function. Both can be true at the same time.

        • Custoslibera@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then the capitalist should only be entitled to recuperate their initial investment + whatever personal effort they put in.

          How can it be the capitalist captures profit many years after those first two occurred?

          • trailing9@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How would you manage risk?

            The capitalists invest their profits in new ventures. Good capitalists choose often what is needed, bad capitalists constantly lose money and stop being capitalists.

            You want to reward good decisions. So those with profitable investments should get all returns so that they can make more good investments.

            So don’t set a limit but tax their income proportionally.

        • freebee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Public capital. The smartphone is the culmination point of billions and billions of government “aimless” r&d for half a century.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was made by inventors and workers. The capitalists own the company. They don’t create.

      You are not a capitalist.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Capital”… You keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.

        What is it that Investors invest? Could it be capital? Investors also tend to have ownership of the company.

        Funny I thought a good education was one of the benefits of communism.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          And why should they? What makes investors special beyond “having lots of money”

          Why should workers forfeit their labor at a fraction of its actual value to line the accounts of people who won the birth lottery?

          Investors did not invent the product, they did not design it’s manufacturing process, they did not acquire materials or even the land upon which the factory is built. And yet, they reap all the profits.

          There’s a simpler way

        • xor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you think “capitalism” just means that money exists, then you’ve completely misunderstood the concept

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We can have nice things without crushing levels of inequality orders of magnitude higher than humans have ever known at any point in history.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Give it up. These people are living the benefits of a century of capitalism. Now that it’s going down the shitter, the idea has, somehow, always been evil.

      I figure it’s a bunch of kids who haven’t got the notion that any form of economy is, has and will be corrupted by humans.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Global capitalism is a very, very, very recent occurrence historically.

        We went from a merchant-style sort of economy to capitalism almost overnight.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And in this merchant-style sort of economy, the rich weren’t an order of magnitude richer than the poor, and profiting off their backs?

          FFS, monkeys quickly figure out how to trade “money” for sex. World’s oldest profession anyone? We’re no different. Capitalism just perfected it.

          Capitalism is just dandy, with some serious government oversight. Problem being, how do you stop the overseers from getting rich legislating the oversight? Same problem in any economic policy.

          Kinda funny thought I had in my 20’s. The only way to truly get rich is by getting other people working for you. Never pursued that line of work, just not me, can’t do it. But it’s still true and always will be, no matter the economics.