A404
Lefty Memesnot to mention all the progress traps capitalism stepped into
Okay but why does the picture look like someone put their phone on a flatbed scanner
Or they took a picture of another screen and the camera's refresh rate caught the display's scan line.
It’s not capitalism per se. It’s the lazy, stupid populace that allows the system of regulatory capture we have.
The fossil fuel industry also gets a metric fuck ton of tax payer funded subsidies. That’s not capitalism. That’s a quasi state economy.
In a true capitalist system, we’d see more competitive forms of energy taking off, like solar and wind which are cheaper than fossil fuels at this point. But because the government keeps fossil fuels going, we’re not getting off them.
I think it's inevitable of any human system that it eventually is undermined by greed and selfishness. Some systems are just more prone to it.
If a system were to work, it would have a way to deal with the psychopaths and other cluster b folks. It's always been us vs them, throughout history.
Genuine question. how are the voters supposed to keep their leaders accountable?
By voting. The US has set term lengths at every level. If the leaders are not fulfilling their job properly, they get fired.
For representatives it’s every two years.
That requires having an informed and active constituency though, which we do not have.
I hear the French have ideas
the fossil gas problem is only about 50 years old. before that, levels were increasing but still manageable. carbon taxes were designed to be a solution compatible with capitalism
How will we prove that we're the pointy end of the food chain of we don't completely destroy everything below us?
Who knew that you could turn an entire planet into a gas chamber?
Venus.
"Why...there oughta be a law!" /s
There oughta be enforced laws. There’s plenty of laws, just rich people have enough lawyers that they make prosecution onerous. Nobody has the balls to cut through the bullshit because rich people will apply all kinds of pressure to a system that has become more and more vulnerable to the pressures wealth can exert.
once you control a large percentage of a given currency, you become above the law
The planet won't die, but we will
Not a fan of comments like this because it ignores all of the species that we are taking with us. Sure the planet will bounce back eventually but we really fucked the ever loving shit out of it.
Even if humanity doesn't go extinct, we are one of earth's big extinction events. If anything it could be argued that humanity being wiped out would save more species in the long run.
To e clear I don't disagree with you, I just don't see the point in enshrining species alive now as the most deserving over potential species in the future simply because they have emotional value to humans that will be dead.
Our particular iteration is statistically not the first time that life has evolved in the universe. When humanity and every other species goes extinct, life will evolve again.
The dragons will rise again! (But in all seriousness, this whole situation does really suck)
200 species a day!
Let's be fair, we've made plenty of species extinct just for the love of the game.
Oh, it's not capitalism doing all that. It's people. Regardless of the type of government, once people get enough power they start fucking things up for everyone else to benefit themselves. People are shit.
"The problem is people" is eco-fascist rhetoric. It's not indigenous people's fault that it's 100 degrees in the arctic.
No it's the Chinese communist party building and opening a new coal power plant every week, year after year.
Oh, it’s not capitalism doing all that. It’s people.
It is done by people, living and being shaped by a capitalist system.
Regardless of the type of government, once people get enough power they start fucking things up for everyone else to benefit themselves
Sure, that can happen in any society. The difference with capitalist societies is that this behavior is the socially encouraged one. Capitalism (or, more accurately, liberalism in its classical form) is taking the natural human greed, amplifying it a thousandfold and putting it on a pedestal. It is only natural that people in power in a capitalist system will be much more likely to try this behavior, and much more likely to succeed at it as well.
Honest question: What would you base an alternative system on? I think any economic system needs to appeal to something as basic as self-interest to survive long-term. If a population exists, there's a sum total amount of labor that needs to be done to sustain them. How do you motivate the labor?
I think your argument finally convinced me. Before I believed that people are people and will find a way to game any system to build power/wealth. You're right though. Our current structure rewards greed while it spits on hard work, helping your fellow man, and generally all the good things that make society work.
Tell me why a single person can be valued at a trillion dollars. Did that man really do that much work that progressed society? So much more than mine or my neighbor so that we deserve to barely get by?
I don't want to take any credit for the argument, I'm mostly paraphrasing Marx. I personally love this rendition of it by Andrew Collier:
To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough
As a transgender, black , height-disadvantaged man I fully agree with with his argument and find that it has changed my life as well.
It is done by people, living and being shaped by a capitalist system.
Unchecked greed is not capitalist tho it isn't exclusive to any system this argument is just lazy. "this behaviour" is "more likely under capitalism" what behaviour?
What is exclusive to capitalism that is causing this can you articulate it?
One can argue that capitalism is not a zero-sum game because prioritization and valuation of resources is not the same for every individual.
However, from the point of view of financial gain, it is a zero-sum game. In a transaction, only one party gains money (generally). In a zero-sum game where you have the options of share, steal, and give, the optimal strategy is to steal as dictated by game theory. Therefore, capitalism encourages greed.
In contrast, under an economic model such as socialism or communism, financial gain is measured across the entire system rather than any individual. In this scenario, transactions may be a nonzero-sum game because multiple parties can benefit more from working together than competing. Therefore, non-capitalist economies encourage less greed than capitalist ones.
If you’d like any sources about the game theory, let me know.
Cheating to gain an advantage is not exclusive to capitalism :/
Yet another day where no one can articulate what is actually wrong with competing_political_propaganda because it was never the problem it is the distraction.
Cheating to gain an advantage is not exclusive to capitalism
You are correct. Cheating to gain an advantage is exclusive to zero sum games, not capitalism. Capitalism just happens to be a zero sum game, while other economic models happen to not be zero sum games. In which, cheating to gain an advantage is not a winning strategy. The optimal strategy in those cases is to cooperate
Edit: To phrase this differently: under an economic system where sharing is more beneficial than cheating, having more than your fair share becomes a losing condition instead of a winning condition because it decreases the value of future trades and harms the collective valuation of resources. Under capitalism, cheating is encouraged because having more than your share is a win condition.
That is oligarchy/corruption it's absolutely not exclusive to capitalist countries.
Okay, let’s try the numbers route:
To be clear, “cheat” or more commonly “take” doesn’t necessarily refer to actually cheating the system, it refers to reducing the amount of resources the other player has.
Let’s imagine that in each transaction you gain ‘points’ depending on how the transaction went.
If 1 player cheats and the other shares, the cheating player receives 1 point (this is your standard transaction of giving money for goods or services or working for money). If both players share, they both receive 0.5 points (this is a transaction where both parties gain money, like a brokerage account). If both players cheat, both players get 0 points (this is when you say “fuck it I don’t want it it’s too expensive” or they say “sorry you can’t afford that”). This is the standard point assignment for a capitalist system or a zero sum game. (Assuming the paying party pays an equivalent sum to that gained by the receiving parties. Failing to do so is usually called Fraud lol)
In this scenario, the optimal solution is to always cheat because it offers the highest average point return. Assuming the other player plays randomly (ie, you are a company selling your stocks to an irrational population like in reality), the average is (1+0)/2 or 0.5. Someone who is kind and always shares has an average point return of (0+0.5)/2 or 0.25. Thus cheating is encouraged.
Contrast this with an economic system that is not a zero sum game - one where creating value for other players also increases your value. The exact mechanism of rewarding “share” over “take” is specific to the economic model in question. As an example, let’s pretend you get an extra 0.6 points from Big Brother when you pick the share option. Now, your average point return is (0+1.1)/2 In this scenario, cheating is discouraged because the total points created on average are lower than sharing and in the case of repeated interactions, cheating reduces the likelihood that the other player will choose share in the future.
There's a whole school of political ideology about explicitly not centralising power in the hands of a few people
Stalin and Mao aprrove this message. But their approval is irrelevant, it's not they they have any power...
Until there are plenty of wonderful examples of that working out well, long term, in large nations with large economies then it's as relevant as the Spiderverse.
Until there are plenty of wonderful examples of that working out well, long term, in large nations with large economies
I like how you keep having to add qualifiers.
It's like we can see the strata of all of your previous lost arguments.
Because when they started gaining momentum, they got crushed by powerful states.
Sure, but if a thing isn't viable in the real world then it's not a very meaningful theory. It sucks, and I wish it wasn't the case, but we don't have many lists of utopian societies that worked out and became secure members of the global community.
If the awful people currently in power in the world are just going to burn your civilization down and you can't account for and stop that then you're not going to succeed at making something better.
Good news! China lifted 800 million people out of poverty in the last 40 years using socialism!
China is a authoritarian state with capitalism tied in...
Every state is authoritarian. The workers participate in democracy, and own the majority of production in China. Like I said, 800 million in 40 years.
No they don't lol, fucking hell you tankies are hilarious.
Yes they do, fucking hell you dumbfucks who just get your information from the news are embarrassing. Do some googling before you open your mouth to me next time.
You guys aren't hilarious, it's fucking terrifying the level of confidence you have in your propaganda laden brains.
For most of human history power wasn't given to the most shit, rewarding shit behavior. The last 12000 something years are relatively new
Humans lived quite egalitarian, matriarchal, and some indigenous societies have managed to somewhat stay that way
Damn, if only we hadn't invented agriculture, we would have been much better off.
I'm not sure if that's the link that led to capitalism, but I'm not an expert
No, agriculture lead to civilisation.
Huh, isn't this common knowledge? Wikipedia or something
What history have you been reading?
They just said human history. Work on your reading comprehension, bro.
Rofl
Seriously I love how far up their own asses some people have their heads.
Yeah rofling at history 101
I saw a documentary once and the supreme leader was chosen by a woman in a lake throwing swords at you. Times were better then. No one had to get on the dead carts until they were ready.
Societies went splendidly and were all utopian paradises before Capitalism was invented, that's why Ghengis Khan and the bulk of old timey figures we know the names of were all renown for their diplomacy and love and those floral crowns they passed out.
Hence why we should stop giving power to individuals
Individuals may be dumb, but they're even dumber in large groups.
People's complacency is what really makes it work.
You can make strong arguments that our Soma is just the pervasive bullshit that is hoisted on us in a constant torrent. Everything at our fingertips even when a shitheel like Trump is in power.
I came in to this comment section knowing I would find this stupid ass comment.
