• Sabo_Tabby@lemmy.ml
    0·
    2 years ago

    Amazing how many people will step in to defend the ownership of everything to a small minority. They will not reward bootlicking yet yall continue.

  • lasagna@programming.dev
    0·
    2 years ago

    Goes without saying. Look at the profits of the companies providing essential resources like energy. They most certainly didn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    0·
    2 years ago

    Communism works nice in theory, and in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. But we e can definity re-shitproof internet based services.

    • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
      0·
      2 years ago

      Shitty people always ended up in charge and found a way to enrich themselves. Maybe in the far future once we have a true artificial intelligence, communism can truly work after they elect some unbiased AI (no skynet please) to be their leader.

        • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
          0·
          2 years ago

          Who will direct productions if someone not in charge of anything? Who stops bad actors from inciting their society into anarchy if no one wield any power to control the population?

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            0·
            2 years ago

            The answer to both questions is the people themselves. We’re stronger together. No individual can stop the collective will.

            • redcalcium@c.calciumlabs.com
              0·
              2 years ago

              That’s very noble but sadly I don’t trust humanity at current state to be able to do that. We’ll probably need to genetically engineer selfishness out of humanity’s gene pool before communism has any chance to success.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                0·
                2 years ago

                No, we don’t need eugenics to ensure socialism. People are plenty empathetic as it is. The biggest hurdle to true selflessness at the minute is living in a society that incentivises greed. And that is the fault of capitalism.

              • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
                0·
                2 years ago

                I don’t trust humanity at current state to be able to do that

                Which is precisely why the first step of the communist experiment is Class Consciousness.

  • Silviecat44@vlemmy.net
    0·
    2 years ago

    Is this a communist post? I would live to see someone succeed with that idea but not realistic (see: history)

    • Surreal@programming.dev
      0·
      2 years ago

      I took a look at history and see nothing but downside of capitalism: environmental crisis, homelessness, wealth inequality

        • Zozano@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 years ago

          Capitalism is just another step in the long line of governance systems throughout history.

          Before now, feudalism, imperialism and monarchism were important steps to building towards the world we live in today.

          Capitalism should not be the goal, it has many flaws and is not sustainable. Like it or not, communism is inevitable.

            • Zozano@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 years ago

              Political theory points towards communism being the best and most likely outcome.

              Things like UBI are going to be necessary soon due to AI.

              Now strip the 1% of their wealth. What does that sound like?

              • Silviecat44@vlemmy.net
                0·
                2 years ago

                I can’t imagine you would want your house owned by anyone other than you. I certainly wouldn’t. The downsides are just bigger than the upsides.

                what does that sound like?

                Just saying UBI and stealing money from people (or “stripping their wealth” does not make communism? And I dont see how that could ever go well 😂.

                • Zozano@lemmy.world
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  I already live in a house I don’t own.

                  The real question is, would I prefer not to pay far out the ass to live here?

                  What are the downsides to living in affordable government accommodation, as opposed to paying for the house over thirty years, and giving the bank a small fortune in interest?

                  “UBI and stripping 1% isn’t communism”

                  Sorry, I forgot that redistributing the wealth from the 1% and providing everyone with equal opportunity is not the entire premise of communism. You’re right, my bad.

                  “I don’t see how that could ever go over well”

                  Yes… That’s the idea…

        • BlackSpasmodic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          01·
          2 years ago

          There are too many downsides that are too severe and won’t change unless we change the system. I suggest you research the successes of communism. The USSR accomplished a lot and there are other examples like Cuba

  • onlinely@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 years ago

    Yes, or at a bare minimum, CEO-proof everything and put more power in the hands of users of monolithic infrastructural utility products like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit

    • platypus_plumba@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      2 years ago

      Capitalism generally allows for a range of ownership structures, including traditional privately owned businesses, publicly traded corporations, and worker-owned enterprises.

      I guess an argument would be that privately owned companies are already too wealthy to allow for fair market competition, but in worker owned companies nothing is stopping them from becoming large corporations that can also do everything a private lobbyist company does. If you don’t believe me, just look at your democratically elected capitalist government. Just because something is democratic doesn’t mean it will be ethical or fair internally or externally.

    • DarthCluck@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 years ago

      Using socialism as a boogeyman by definition, is a poor argument. There are merits to many different economic systems, many of which have pros and cons, capitalism and socialism included.

      The laugh, and “listen” while providing absolutely no reasoning demonstrates a certain level of arrogance, while at the same time demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the subject

        • Summzashi@lemmy.one
          0·
          2 years ago

          Some of the richest countries in the world have a socialist framework in place lol. Norway, Switzerland, The Netherlands etc. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • DarthCluck@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 years ago

          You are making the extraordinary claim, that despite socialism being used throughout the world, it simply doesn’t work. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So, can you please describe why socialism doesn’t work?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          01·
          2 years ago

          Every single socialist country is an example of working socialism having lifted millions of people out of poverty, provided them with, food, housing education, and jobs. Meanwhile, we’re still looking for examples of working capitalism where majority of the population is not being exploited for the benefit of the capital owning oligarchy.

          • Kaea@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            2 years ago

            Wow. Read the rest of the thread because I’m not gonna rewrite stuff.

            But as I was saying. I live in post communist country and the influence of socialism was extraordinarily destructive and I can see damage made from it to these days.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              0·
              2 years ago

              I grew up in USSR, and I lived through the collapse of USSR. It was one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in history. People who are cheering that on are the ones who benefit from all the exploitation under capitalism today. People who got theirs and don’t care about anything else. Deplorable.

              • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml
                0·
                2 years ago

                Only a small percentage of socialists (albeit larger in this instance) hold the USSR up as anything but an example of an early, ham-fisted attempt at socialism with a lot of mistakes. If there have been no places socialism has worked yet (debatable, but I’ll argue from this position), that disproves nothing. The first several hundred tries at the lightbulb were probably failures, too, but capitalists talk about that failure as a side effect of innovation without realizing that social systems might need innovation too. I’m sorry if you suffered under an authoritarian socialist government; there’s nothing inherent about the connection between those two characteristics. But authoritarian governments tend to survive better against the kinds of conspiracies and attacks established capitalist governments launch against socialist ones, so you get to see what’s left. (If you don’t know about this, go to a library, start with…maybe Allende in ‘73…It’s very well-documented.). In sum, it has nothing to do with not caring about people harmed by authoritarianism. It has to do with seeing the evils of the system around us and refusing to accept that this is the best humanity can do. I’m sorry you can’t see that. But I’m not letting my friends’ access to insulin sit in the greedy hands of insurance companies without a fight. I’m not living in a pay-to-play political system where donors’ interests matter more than voters’ my whole life if I have anything to say about it. Regardless of your beliefs.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  I think perhaps you meant to reply to the parent comment, I certainly did not suffer in USSR and the dissolution of USSR was a great tragedy in my view.

                  USSR obviously wasn’t the ideal of socialism. In fact, it would be pretty surprising if the first ever attempt at building a socialist society didn’t have problems. Obviously we can learn from USSR and do better going forward. However, I do think that despite all its problems, USSR did manage to achieve many positive outcomes for the majority of the people. It provided everyone with education, housing, healthcare, jobs, and all the necessities of life. This was done despite USSR having been under duress during its whole existence and it’s something that current capitalist regimes are unable to achieve.

          • Anoril@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            2 years ago

            “Lifted millions out of poverty”

            Some people were effectevelly not much different from slaves up until 1970 as they had no passport, worked for food (oh, sorry, for workdays, which is even worse) and required permission to move from kolhoz. Ah tankies never change.

            All wcommunists did for citizens is: lost the election, overturned it with force and forced millions of people back to medieval society with fancy goals.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              01·
              2 years ago

              NoT MuCh DifFeReNT FrOm SlaVes. Should really read up on what actual serfdom was like before the revolution instead of making a clown of yourself in public.

  • Sarla@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    You can tell that this audience is primarily American because they still defend capitalism, even after being shafted by it over and over. Careful everyone, big bad socialism is going to take your kids and your wife!

    Don’t dare dream of something better, instead keep swallowing the propaganda of the state and its controlling elites.

    • Cfreeze@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 years ago

      Why complain when capitalism ruins something that it created? Isn’t that how it works? Something else will come along and don’t better or differently and people will flock to it until it sucks too.

    • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      2 years ago

      Communism does not have a good track record in places like Poland. After the absolute shithole that the PRL was, I dont kniw how you except people to defend communism.

      • shuzuko
        1·
        2 years ago

        Did they say communism? I don’t think they said communism. In fact, I’m pretty certain they said socialism, which is not the same thing unless you’re a propagandized American who licks boots.

        Communism is not the only alternative to capitalism, my dude.

    • fuklu@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      0·
      2 years ago

      Depends on what you mean by socialism. All systems have upsides and downsides. Late stage capitalism in the US has a lot of downsides, but workers taking over the means of production does not have a good track record.

    • Fredselfish @lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 years ago

      Man socialism keeps sounding better and better they will even take those pesky wife and kids off my hands/s.

      But in serious most Americans don’t know shit about socialism our capitalism they live under. Dumb fucks look at you with surprise when you mention our highway system would be considered socialist program.

        • Fredselfish @lemmy.ml
          0·
          2 years ago

          Roads and streets are funded 100% from taxs which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism but it’s as close as the United States will allow.

          Also most Americans always going on especially fucking Republicans and their voter base about how the government should be run like a business. But don’t realize the government should never be ran as one.

          The corruption already bad enough.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            04·
            2 years ago

            which make them a social program. I know not true 100% socialism

            This is part of the problem of people not knowing what socialism even is. Even the ancient slavery systems could have social programs (for example famed Roman grain handouts in Rome), and the first modern, universal state funded social programs were introduced in 1889 in German Empire. neither of them was by any means socialist because socialism is not when the government does stuff.

    • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
      01·
      2 years ago

      I like capitalism. It is cool sometimes.

      (Comment gets downvoted to oblivion)

      Edit: would someone care to explain why there are no cases in which capitalism is cool?

      • version_unsorted@lemm.ee
        0·
        2 years ago

        Anti-capitalism is centered around removing power from holding capital. By tying power to capital, there is an incentive to accumulate capital in disproportionate exchange.

        Anti-capitalism is NOT anti-market. Markets are an economic tool used in all economies. Socialism is offered as an alternative to shift power to collective agreement through direct vote (direct democracy) or reprentative agreement (republic). By not granting economic goverance to a democratic government, there is a limitation on the ability to keep commodities responsibly sourced and consumed.

        Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.

        • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
          0·
          2 years ago

          Based on your definition of what it means to be “anti-capitalist” vs “anti-market” I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?

          While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of “the means of production”, in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don’t think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.

          Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.

          One last thing I’d like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of “capitalism”.

          • version_unsorted@lemm.ee
            0·
            2 years ago

            These seem good: https://www.wordnik.com/words/capitalism

            from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

            noun An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

            from The Century Dictionary.

            noun The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
noun The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.

            from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

            noun An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.

            from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

            noun politics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun economics, uncountable a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
noun countable a specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.

            from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

            noun an economic system based on private ownership of capital
            • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
              0·
              2 years ago

              Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for “anti-capitalism” as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don’t inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be “anti-extreme wealth” rather than “anti-capitalism”?

            • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
              0·
              2 years ago

              The article seems to characterize efficiency solely in the context where it optimizes a process to the detriment of other useful aspects of the process (i.e. removing redundancy makes a system more “efficient” in some sense, while also making it more prone to disruption).

              Putting aside the article’s weird definitions, I do like the article’s overall message: grow slow and sustainability rather than as “efficiently” as possible. I can see how the impulses of growth at all costs and short term efficiency gains at the cost of long term stability might be related to certain forms of capitalism, however capitalism is not defined (as in the definitions given in your other comment) by rampant disregard for caution and sustainability, (there are capitalist societies today known for their careful planning and risk management!). Capitalism as a concept is only defined via private ownership of capital, so I think my original comment still stands: capitalism is good, sometimes.

      • lokoluis15@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 years ago

        Because it’s unsustainable and actively degenerates everything in its environment in pursuit of an insatiable need for capital growth.

        Saying capitalism isn’t that bad is like saying early stage cancer isn’t that bad. It doesn’t change the nature of the cancer and what it will become unabated.

        • Zyansheep@vlemmy.net
          0·
          2 years ago

          Going with the cancer metaphor, what does “late-stage” capitalism look like? How do we know that it will happen? Are there any other possible timelines that has something resembling capitalism but is not terrible? Capitalism is a pretty broad term that can describe all types of economies from the american gilded age to modern social democracies, and while I would certainly consider various forms of extreme capitalism to be cancerous to a functioning society, are they truly representative of all types of capitalist systems?

          Edit: spelling

  • SociallyIneptWeeb@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    Honestly I don’t even know where to start with this, so I’ll keep it simple. Enshittification of Twitter, Reddit et al. is not necessarily a result of capitalism, and likewise Fediverse doesn’t exist because “workers took the means of production”.

    For example the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly” (that’s why swear words and gore are banned), and in part due to a need to follow existing copyright law.

    Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.

    • Dr. Jenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube
      0·
      2 years ago

      Monetisation rules are a direct result of capitalism. Profits are what motivates the decision making. In a post-capitalism economy it would be the needs and wants that motivates the decision making. One of the failures of capitalism is that we assume wants/needs has a correlation with profits, when clearly the enshitification demonstrates otherwise.

      • Kaea@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        2 years ago

        In socialism nobody wants to work so good luck with your YouTube. There is a reason for proprietary software being most popular and often more feature rich. What we need is capitalism + more opensource work from us, regular people. Capitalism + opensource is way to go.

        • randomguy2323@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          0·
          2 years ago

          Nobody? Look to be honest there are some lazy people that dont want to work but most of us will be happy to work in a socialist economy where we the workers get compensated fairly. Capitalism and open source dont go hand by hand. People is literally creating all of this amazing products for free!! Workinf for the community thats what socialism is. And also the proprietary software is more “popular” because big companies just take open source and make it proprietary then they said they created just look at Apple and RedHat.

          • Kaea@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            2 years ago

            huge part of opensource is funded and developed by capitalistic companies. Take Linux for example.

            And imagine if you wanted to open your own coffee shop. Where would you get a place for it? From the state probably. But what if they decide that there is no need for new coffee shop? You would have problem. In capitalism on the other hand you have your free will and as long as you have money you can open your coffee shop anytime anywhere. I know it’s not really as easy to make money but if capitalism isn’t broken by stupid regulations and other nonsense it really can work, allowing you to take cheap loans and start your own businesses.

            I live in a post communist country and trust me I know how shitty socialism is

            • randomguy2323@lemmy.fmhy.ml
              0·
              2 years ago

              My problem with Capitalism is the profit over anything. The environment , workers , resources , quality , control over the things you bought. There are so many examples where corporations abuse their power.

            • randomguy2323@lemmy.fmhy.ml
              0·
              2 years ago

              I understand your point on the coffee shop in that you are right. Thats not exactly how capitalism works , if you open a coffee shop and become very profitable then a big company comes in putting out of business forcing you to work for them or close your place. Capitalism is brutal against small businesses. I totally support small business , that’s why I believe that people should have more power not corporations.

              • Kaea@sh.itjust.works
                0·
                2 years ago

                Free market is a democracy. That’s awesome you support small business and if more people were doing the same thing I can guarantee that big corporations wouldn’t be a problem.

                Another really important factor are regulations. Capitalism right now is way to regulated which makes it really difficult for small businesses to exist. On the other hand big corporations are not regulated enough tho.

                We should work on existing system, try to improve it rather than change it to totally different.

                Also if you wanted to make a switch to socialism you would have to rob a lot of people from their private property

                • irmoz@reddthat.com
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  Your conflicting points on regulation show that you don’t actually understand the problems with capitalism.

            • irmoz@reddthat.com
              0·
              2 years ago

              Not from the state. From the community. And the community would be happy for more nice stuff

        • Dr. Jenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube
          0·
          2 years ago

          In socialism nobody wants to work so good luck with your YouTube

          They said, on a decentralized, free and open source platform, developed by socialists.

          • Kaea@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            2 years ago

            If you seriously compare socialism with opensource then I’m sorry for you.

            I’m huge advocate for opensource software and I can even say it’s my life passion and I really know how important the relation between capitalism and opensource is.

            You wouldn’t have react.js without capitalism. You know what is made in react.js? Mastodon

            They could have used different library for js. one made totally by volunteers, but they haven’t. Why? Capitalism and opensource provide reliable products because there is a money factor and it fuels development

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  0·
                  2 years ago

                  When somebody thinks that something like react.js wouldn’t be possible without capitalism, you can only laugh or cry. If you really can’t understand that open source existed long before corps started messing with it, then you’re an utter ignoramus not worth having a discussion with.

            • aski3252@lemmy.ml
              0·
              2 years ago

              If you seriously compare socialism with opensource then I’m sorry for you.

              This is how big tech saw free software until quite recently. Microsoft used to call linux communist.

              FOSS basically goes against the concept of private property of software and embraced common ownership of software. Without private property, there is no capitalism. I wouldn’t call FOSS communism or socialism, but there are elements in it.

              You wouldn’t have react.js without capitalism.

              Ok, and what’s your point? If you read Marx, one essential point he claims is that without capitalism, there cannot be socialism.

              They could have used different library for js. one made totally by volunteers, but they haven’t. Why?

              Probably because they saw no use in reinventing the wheel? And why should they?

              It’s as if you told a revolutionary during the French revolution “You used weapons that you looted from the Bastille, weapons that were produced by the king.”. What exactly would be the argument here?

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      2 years ago

      Enshittification of those services is a direct symptom of capitalism.

      No one is arguing that the fediverse exists because of workers owning the means of production.

      You should really look into what “enshittification” means and how it’s a direct result of capitalism.

    • aski3252@lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 years ago

      the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly”

      Sure, but the reason why they want to keep the site “child friendly” is because content for children is incredibly profitable and because advertisers don’t want their ads getting related to “controversial” content.

      Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.

      This is the reason why I don’t like equating socialism with “workers owning the means of production”. Worker-cooperatives can exist in a capitalist economy, which means they have to follow capitalist rules (including the drive to generate profits).

      When leftists say “workers”, they generally mean “the 99%” or “the working class”, not individual workers. When leftists say “the means of production”, they mean the economy/industry overall, not individual companies.

      If youtube was owned and operated in common, it would not be bound to profitability, but to use.

      We can also look at something like peertube, which is essentially a commonly owned version of youtube. Instead of being guided by profitability, it is used based on many different use-cases. There can be peertube instances that are completely private, there can be peertube instances that are used for a specific topic or community (for example kids) and there can be peertube instances which are not for children at all.