742
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
742 points (100.0% liked)
196
16710 readers
2170 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'll ask you again - what are you clinging to? Why do you have to specify? Why do you think "regular" capitalism is worth defending?
So for the record, I did not want to argue anything about capitalism. I know it's bad, I don't agree with it, it's terrible. It's just that late-stage is where it's currently at. I in no way support any sort of capitalism. That's it.
Please don't assume what I didn't say, I am not "clinging to" anything.
Sorry, but it's just upsetting when someone takes what you say out of proportion to fit their own point of view or whatever.
Literally just asking you to clarify, and get you to think critically about why you phrase things the way you did.
If you don't want either to happen, try doing them yourself first.
Edit to add: As for the actual point: all capitalism is bad, by only framing late stage capitalism as a problem (which is what you do when you take the time to come back and diferenciate it in a comment about capitalism being bad), you make it seem as if "regular" capitalism is fine, and that all we need to do is roll back to those good old days before it started impacting you.
You had it right the first time, and yet you took the time to come back and "correct" yourself, so you obviously thought it was an important enough distinction to make, when all it does it normalise "regular" capitalism, which is entirely self defeating, and why I've even bothered trying to get you to think critically about your comment instead of just disregarding you as a capitalism bootlicker.
Don't want to think critically? That's your choice. But at least take responsability for your own words.
I edited my original post before you posted this. Capitalism = bad. I agree. Full stop.
Everything you assumed from my (original) edit is nonsense, I was just clarifying what exactly I was referring to in that comment.
Please don't draw so many conclusions from such a small thing.
I'd say my views fit most closely with Anarcho-communism.
I don't want to hear your views on that if they continue to be as hostile as your other comments.
maybe they meant the other stages dont have that problem? idk
edit: i found another comment of theirs explaining that. they believe the other stages are not as bad, basically
But they do, so I'll ask again - what are you people who think there is any value in differentiating different "kinds" of capitalism clinging on to?
idfk. i just replied that because i saw that the person you were talking with had stopped talking to you.
also, just so you know, from the way you're writing, you come off really aggressive. if you want people to listen to you, try being more polite, even if you disagree with someone's opinion.
edit: oh cool they don't even think capitalism can be good so all you did was get people confused. thanks.
I'm far left and get it, but I also understand the controversy. In Das Kapital Marx explains how the ownership class will always push for more gains until the working class struggles to survive and the economy collapses as a whole.
On the other hand, the problem isn't simply that industrialist greed is inevitable (though history bears this out so far) but we haven't developed a model that successfully mitigates this problem. This isn't to say it doesn't exist, only that it doesn't exist today, kind like superluminal space travel.
There are capitalists who believe it's possible to create a well-regulated capitalist system that is resistant to corruption and the influence of money on government, but they have been in the minority since the 1980s, and since then market manipulation shenanigans like private equity have only increased. So even if it is possible, and industrialists should be motivated to preserve a status quo that allows them to stay rich and in power, we just don't even try.
Rant: (One of the things I find fascinating is how the game industry still sees crunching as acceptable, even though retroactive studies have showed crunching consistently reduces productivity. Similarly, micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters -- to prevent them from web-surfing or checking email or chatting with loved ones -- costs way more than the productivity lost and workers allowed to do these things even excessively show higher mean productivity rates. And yet over-surveillance and micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters remains the common norm. This demonstrates that the management structures that are commonly used within our capitalist model don't do what they're supposed to do, which is maximize profits and shareholder dividends, and yet the giant crackdown we'd expect to happen for doing abuse for abuse's sake... isn't. It's all just a charade to preserve a stratified social structure.)
That's exactly my point - that's what it comes across as.