I love being a Millennial. Being a Millennial is great. Being a Millennial doesn't make me yearn for death. 2000$ to exist is a steal
I love being a Millennial. Being a Millennial is great. Being a Millennial doesn't make me yearn for death. 2000$ to exist is a steal
You're viewing a single thread.
This is a living hell
Remember, socialism is evil because in socialism you won't own anything.
Meanwhile, capitalism creates this…
I've recently seen a random Youtube video (about the Unity pricing changes) that was talking about capitalism and what it was meant to be, and one key point that has stuck with me is that capitalism should absolutely hate rent, and the early capitalism was against it.
IIRC the reasoning was that rent was mainly a feudalism thing, and also because it doesn't really provide much value, since you aren't necessarily using it to invest and offer a better service to the one who's paying it, you're just extorting money from them.
The video was also mentioning a term, which may be totally made-up but I really like, which was technofeudalism - which describes the recent trend of every company trying to switch to subscription models, so they can also extort rent from you for using the internet, without providing a better service. Paying monthly for seat warmers in a car? Paying monthly for a guitar tuner app? Paying monthly for X? That's not capitalism, that's just plain feudalism - there's no added value or improved service, they are just slapping on unreasonable costs because they can.
I just woke up, and seen the video a few weeks back, so my summary of the main ideas of the video may be totally wrong. I also have no idea what sources, if any, was the video based on, so it may be total bullshit. But I like the term, technofeudalism sounds cool, and the idea is pretty intuitive to quickly share, while sounding like something that makes sense. But that one video is my only source I have about it, II don't even know whether that term exists or is made up. I'll try to find the video later.
EDIT: It was this one.
Socialism is frequently evil because the people pushing for it tend to murder a lot of people for no other reason than opposing socialist dogma.
When we find socialist societies not built on murdering everyone who disagrees with the leader/party/state then we can talk about it being better.
....boy do i have some news for you about US foreign policy since the 50's
No. You see, corporations murdering people for profit isn't the same. Coke killing union leaders or Rio Tinto destroying entire towns doesn't count because they're not government. Q.E.D
Oh boy....
Coke pushing foreign governments to murder union leaders is in fact quite different than the state purging people. One is a company paying off a corrupt government to murder people that government likely does not want gaining power and the other is the state murdering people who oppose their political views.
How many people were murdered in COINTELPRO? Where is the purge that is similar to say the numerous purges in Soviet or Chinese history?
Is the USA killing its own people in purges?
Yes, have you not been paying attention to the rampant unchecked police problem
...boy do I have some news for you about Soviet domestic policy back when it still existed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union
You understand that communism and socialism are not the same thing? Stalinism and Communism are also not the same thing.
OOOOOOOOOH ARE WE WIKI LINKING NOW?
Are foreign invasions and acts of war the same thing as domestic purges of opposing ideologues?
Haha let's go https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_empire
Party foul. The point was 'socialism bad because socialists kill people for opposing socialist dogma!!'
Showing the US spending 70 odd years ramming it up the arse of various countries for daring to consider /vote in a system that is not capitalism belies that position and acts as a counterpoint. Going 'hurrbluur soviets' adds nothing.
No the pointy, which I made, was socialism is evil because the people who attempt to install it purge their populations.
Thus the US's imperialism abroad is an entirely unrelated issue to the point I was making. If you have evidence of mass purges for ideological reasons that would be relevant but also has never happened here.
That's just because you didn't read the page, Soviet's did the same as the US, they just collapsed a lot sooner.
If we can take a critique of historical socialists and do a "whatabout the US", it's fair to do a "whatabout the Soviets".
How do you have a Lemmy account and still have this level of comprehension about socialism?
Tankies aren’t the entirety of socialists, just like anarcho capitalists aren’t all capitalists.
How have you not read history? The societies that have pursued socialism have all engaged in purges.
This has nothing to do with tankies.
Capitalism is rapidly making this planet less habitable.
Industrialism and overconsumption is what is doing that. The PRC and USSR are/were also responsible for colossal environmental damage. The Aral Sea is almost entirely gone due to bad planning by the USSR.
It's not capitalism, it's industrialization that's making the planet less habitable, which is completely possible under socialism or communism.
Correct, however if the workers own the means of production they would have greater motivation AND greater ability to change the methods of industrialization to ways that are a little less... pollutey or dangerous.
Instead, under capitalism, we get politicians who are actively working to eliminate as many environmental, health and safety regulations as possible because they're
bribedlobbied to do so by their corporate masters.Instead, under capitalism, we get politicians who are actively working to eliminate as many environmental, health and safety regulations as possible
Under capitalism, we got those regulations to begin with..
Which to be fair, isn't because of capitalism we got regulation, but because of Democracy. Democracy is capable of keeping capitalism in check, to a point. After a certain amount of wealth inequality, which we've already passed, capitalism goes destructively out of control.
Correct, however if the workers own the means of production
I generally agree, although if you have a "dictatorship of the proletariat" like the USSR that desides it needs to heavily industrialize to compete with capitalist counties, it could be just as bad or worse for the environment.
You don't want a "dictatorship of the proletariat", and neither do I, but we already have corporations trying to strip regulations and policies because they want America to be more like China or Russia. Mega corps could make a little more money if they were free to pollute and exploit as they pleased.
And, let's be clear, aside from some Uber-comrade tankies, no one is suggesting we adopt a soviet or Maoist style communism.
I'm not really that much invested in politics and don't really know much about any of the leading sociological/political theories aside from the common knowledge, but your point made me realize something.
if the workers own the means of production they would have greater motivation AND greater ability to change the methods
Oh, god. Give how does the political landscape looks across the world, be it the fact that there are still millions of Trump supporters, the fact that it looks like that in Slovakia, a guy who's basically unhinged and outright evil will win elections, and Hungary has it the same, to give just a few examples I know about from the top of my head...
Imagine if people who vote or act like that had the means of production. But that's just my general loss of faith in humanity, and I by no means want to start arguing about whether socialism is/isn't good, since I know nothing about it. Just a random though I had when I read your comment.
That's a very valid point. But the people you are describing are already in positions of power or authority, they're just all concentrated near the top of the chain. When you distribute that power and authority amongst the entire work force, things suddenly have a chance change for the better.
I actually spent some time working for one of the largest employee owned corporations in America. There were plenty of MAGA minded people working there, and It's amazing how quickly they'll embrace traditionally liberal or socialist notions when it affects their shares of stock. Things like strict health and safety regulations, hiring diversity and strong unions.
Obviously there will still be shitty people who make shitty decisions, hopefully there just wouldn't be as many as there seem to be today.
Why does the Aral Sea a fraction of its size before communists were in charge of the area?
It's industrialized societies that are the issue.
If the actual workers owned the actual means of production, I.E. if the people who's entire livelihood depended on fishing that sea, do you believe they would have let unscrupulous people on the other side of the country exploit the sea the way they did?
Would the fishers be the only ones who got a say versus the farmers who utilized that water to irrigate?
This was a failure of a non-capitalist industrialized society that resulted in horrific environmental damage. The fact that it demonstrates that capitalism is not the ONLY source of environmental destruction should give you a reason to think about the accuracy of that claim.
The fact is nations like the USA weren't causing widespread environmental havoc until the industrial revolution hit.
The simple fact that we have developed methods of production that can eliminate or, at the very least, mitigate catastrophic environmental impact, yet there are STILL corporate interests doing everything in their power to fight such progress because it's cheaper to bribe politicians means that, clearly, we're moving in the wrong direction.
The fucking shit you read on the internet sometimes, wow.
Find me a socialist nation that didn't purge its population please
Most of Europe, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, I'm writing this as I realize that you are too dense to be argued with, but will send the message anyways because I need to point out just how much of a empty, cognitively void, barely sentient individual you are for spouting this stupid argument.
So Denmark? The nation whose PM said in 2015,
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.""
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders
The Scandinavian nations are not socialist. They are not promoting workers owning the means of production and frequently push for free trade.
You are outright confused as to what socialism is and you should be less certain in your statements given that obvious confusion.
If anyone goes on to do this be a dear and find me a capitalist nation that didn't purge its population while you're at it.
You can't be this dense. Most of Europe is socialist...
You cannot be that dense as all of Europe is more oriented to capitalism.
You cannot be that dense
If I had a nickel...
name 10 countries in europe with majority socialist leadership
Way to put an uncrossable bar. Most of Europe are parliamentary democracies for which the ideological alignment of the individual leadership is irrelevant. What you have to look at is at the policy and law that those leaders are mandated to enact, and most of them will include socialist policies, even if they're not braindead propagandizing it as socialism like lemmygrad would like them to.
Way to put an uncrossable bar.
if picking just 10 countries (out of over 40) that actually mostly vote socialist is too high a bar for a group of 'mostly socialist' countries to clear, the bar is not the problem
Most of Europe are parliamentary democracies for which the ideological alignment of the individual leadership is irrelevant.
personally i think that the ideological alignment of a countrys elected leaders, and by extension their voters, is pretty relevant to a discussion about the ideological alignment of a country
personally i think that judging whether something is socialist based on whether it enacts -some- socialist policies as opposed to whether it is socialist is inane
if they’re not braindead propagandizing it as socialism like lemmygrad would like them to.
- can you explain what braindead propagandizing socialist policies as socialist actually means
- can you explain why european elected officials do not propagandize socialist policies as socialist?
Name five European countries that are attempting to give the means of production to the workers.
I thought you had blocked me, why are you still here? go away, nobody wants to interact with a bad faith online troll.
Im a different poster.
With that in mind please name five countries in Europe attempting any form of socialism. You will not be able to because no country in Europe is socialist.
Lol, no you aren't. You are the one who came at me with the same stupid “name x european…” in another thread of this post tree. That's a non-argument, shut up.
No, I used the same format but I am a different person.
You made a really bold and ridiculous claim now either provide proof to back that up or maybe consider your claim that Europe has ANY socialist countries at all is just not true.
It's a good thing capitalist countries haven't killed millions for oil or you might sound a little foolish. oh wait...
It's a lot more affordable in places other than Hollywood