1408
Unfathomably based (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 128 points 1 month ago

capitalism wouldn't be so bad without the corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs

[-] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 153 points 1 month ago

Capitalism grantees they rise to power.

[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

systematic removal of regulations and consequences has enabled greedy corporate dickbacks to sieze power.

systems are made of people. To make a better system, you need better people.

[-] AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com 62 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You're wrong. Capitalism is, by definition, a "winner takes it all" system. The logical endpoint of competition between private entities is the consolidation of one of those entities, and once economy of scale plays a role, reversing that is almost impossible. And once a private entity has significantly more economic power than the others, it can manipulate regulations and consequences. Capitalism explicitly rewards by design being greedy

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago

Yes, and that's capitalism. The regulations are antithetical to capitalism, but they're also the only thing keeping us slightly safe from it. Yes, making capitalism less capitalist makes it a lot better. We can have a better system that's just better, with the people that exist.

[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

I think a lot of people misunderstand capitalism in the same way other people misunderstand communism.

What you said is absolutely wrong, regulations are not antiethical in capitalism, they are necessary for the free market to remain free.

The system we see today is a corruption of capitalism the same way Stalinism is a corruption of Communism

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago

A regulated market is by definition not a free market.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

The Supreme Court specifically, they gave US citizens united, and then unlimited executive power. Now we’re fucked being most hope.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] the_wise_wolf@feddit.org 21 points 1 month ago

They always do, regardless of the economic system.

[-] sudo@programming.dev 23 points 1 month ago

I would not describe any communist or socialist leader as a Christian Fascist Oligarch.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

it sure does with small government.

remember there are countries that enjoy capitalism without the 5 ring circus shitshow we have going on in the states

[-] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 month ago

So far, but corruption is always the end result.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 29 points 1 month ago

corruption is always the end result.

i'm not trying to simp for capitalism, but corruption can and does happen under any system

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 month ago

Give Europe a bit more time. They'll get there.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

Those countries are headed towards that circus at varying paces, so that argument doesn't work anymore. I mean Germany? France? Sweden? Britain? Italy?

[-] RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

The problem with capitalism in a representative democracy is that is almost impossible to maintain a perfectly sized government. If the government asks for too many taxes (on an extreme level) etc the market doesn’t function anymore. The “free market” needs some level of class difference to make profit attractive and keep people committed to their jobs. Because of these differences class conflict is created and through privately owned newspapers, corruption and short term economic gains regulation’s get liberalized. This results in wealth accumulation, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This then leads to the social and economic conditions that allow for the rise of the populist right.

As a European I can currently see this happening in all countries to which I pay attention (namely Germany, Netherlands and Britain).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

Capitalism ultimately rots into authoritarianism through wealth accumulation.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 49 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is always bad, because capitalism is where an ownership class who does no work leeches from a working class who owns nothing.

Don’t confuse free markets with capitalism, they’re different.

[-] testfactor@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Genuine question. How do you have free markets without the existence of capital and the pursuit of its accumulation?

The definition of capitalism per the dictionary is:

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

How do you have free trade without people who own things trading them?

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago

Capital has existed far longer than capitalism has.

[-] testfactor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I mean, this feels semantic. The word capitalism is obviously of the modern era, but there are governments and economic systems going back to antiquity that I think meet all of the definitional requirements of "capitalistic."

Really, I just lack a vision of what "free trade but not capitalism" could possibly mean. Could you describe that system for me?

When I try to do so, the result always meets the literal, dictionary definition of capitalism, as listed above.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's definitely semantic, but semantics is the reason we use different words for different things.

Anyway, "free trade but not capitalism" would just be anything where you can buy and sell stuff, but without the individual owner class. It can be part of anything. Let's say workers own their workplace. They still get paid, and they can use that money to buy what they want. That isn't capitalism, but it still has free trade. Free trade is one component that is required in capitalism, but it isn't exclusive to it.

Edit: Also, something can be capitalistic without being capitalism. It can have characters related to capitalism, but not meet all the requirements.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] skisnow@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

This is the huge problem with the wider debate; hardcore leftists have a very specific well-defined meaning in mind when they use the word "Capitalism", whereas the majority of the general public think "Capitalism" just means "you can start a business if you want".

"Neoliberalism" doesn't work in most rhetoric either because it's got the word "liberal" in it. We need a new word that's unambiguously understood to refer to the specific components of capitalism that are objectionable.

[-] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

Which "specific components of capitalism" would you say are not objectionable? It's essence is the private ownership of the productive forces of society and the derivation of profit by selling the product. The core of it is objectionable from the view of democracy or egalitarianism.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago

Well you have mercantilism, which was the predecessor of capitalism

Basically, the difference is the role of government. Think of it in feudal terms - a noble owns a mine, owns an expedition, uses their soldiers for both security of their land and their monetary interests. As far as raw resources/resource producing land, you couldn't buy that without buying a title first

But it's a line that blurred as time went on. If you're a leather worker, that leather came from an animal owned by the king or by livestock owned by a noble. So you're paying taxes on the inputs, but you can probably sell stuff freely - although imports and exports might be taxed. And if you're a merchant, you might buy spices from one noble and sell it to others

But the means of production were owned by a noble - they owned the land and the serfs that work it, they own the animals and the mines.

As time went on, it kinda faded... Maybe you sell the rights to mine a site, maybe you partner with a merchant to go on an expedition for spices, maybe you just require a permit to hunt on the land, and so on

But then as supply chains gets more complicated, you kind of naturally evolve into capitalism

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 1 month ago

That’s what capitalism is.

Anarchists still believe in trade.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

Corruption is an inherent part of capitalism

[-] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is the accumulation and hoarding of wealth at all costs. Exploitation and abuse are foundational concepts. There is no ethical or moral version of such a system, and so no version of it that “wouldn’t be so bad.” It is immorality and evil distilled into a code of conduct.

[-] shawn1122@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's a reason capitalism is essentially counter to the teachings of all major world religions, many of which are extremely authoritarian in their own way.

One aspect of modern capitalism is predatory loans, which every Abrahamic religion has writings against.

It's pretty telling most religions would not go as far as "poor people can go fuck themselves" despite being used to control people through fear over millenia but the end game of unchecked capitalism is truly as simple as "poor people can go fuck themselves"

[-] sudo@programming.dev 26 points 1 month ago

corrupt bloated shitheel scumbag fucking christofascligarchs

AKA the inventors and vanguard of capitalism.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Capitalism only works when heavily regulated, because human greed is a cancer to everything it touches.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago

That regulation is antithetical to capitalism. Yes, it's the only thing that keeps it functioning in a reasonable manner, but that's just an indication capitalism is bad.

Yes, less capitalist capitalism is better than more capitalist capitalism. Maybe we should just have none.

[-] shawn1122@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's the problem. The system prioritizes wealth accumulation above all else. When you build a society that views wealth as the highest state of being then those regulatory systems will eventually be bought out.

There may well be no such thing as a sustainable regulated capitalism, especially when we've normalized the monetization of everything.

[-] witchybitchy@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago

capitalism is amazing as long as it not allowed to run rampant. stricter regulations and safety nets (usa) would make the whole risk/reward game of capitalism more palatable imo

[-] MrVilliam@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago

Salt and pepper make dog shit more palatable too. Instead of seeking to make bad things palatable, can we try something different instead?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com 11 points 1 month ago

Please tell me, when exactly has capitalism been amazing?

[-] shawn1122@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

They're confusing free market with capitalism most likely.

[-] evenglow@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yup. Most things go bad if not fixed and out of control. Moderation is key. The problem is the people in charge don't want a good system. They want a system they can control.

They will do anything but a fair system because then they would lose control.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

That's saying a grilled cheese wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have cheese. At that point it ain't a grilled cheese anymore so why even try to defend it in the first place? Just eat some god damn bread

[-] prole 5 points 1 month ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Coolkat@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Gee I wonder why a system that rewards people for being corrupt … oligarchs keeps producing corrupt … oligarchs?

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
1408 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

9061 readers
2316 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS