145
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 02 Aug 2026
145 points (100.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
43128 readers
761 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sure you can make that argument under capitalism, where people are deprived of the value their labor created in order to force them to work more so they may survive. Hence why people should strive for communism. If everyone lived vegan people would be compelled to work as they are able in order to not cause undue burden on others, which again would not be vegan.
"From each according to their ability to each according to their need."
Would not be vegan. Are you starting a religion?
i don't quite get your last sentence. what if the person themselves doesn't want to work?
If the person doesn't want to work how will they sustain themselves? They have to rely on other peoples labor without contributing their own. If people don't want to subsidize someone else then that person would either have to start working "against their will" or take other peoples labor without consent, which you have already pointed out, is not vegan. So if everyone were vegan that person would be compelled to work as they are able in order to be able to remain vegan.
Idk its kinda tortured logic when spelling it all out lol
what you're describing is just capitalism with extra steps
Nature compells us to work for food anyway, that's not exploitation and coercion, that's just survival.
The construct of society is predicated on the idea of "from each... to each..." That saying often gets conflated with left-wing politics, but that's just the point of animals (humans included) grouping together; after all, what's the point of living in society if it doesn't convey any benefits to the individual that they could not provide for themselves? That would be exploitative of the individual. But if they are benefitting, then it is only fair and just to also give back to the society one extracts benefits from, otherwise it is exploitative of the others.
Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don't work, don't deserve to eat. "useless eaters" and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a "conservative").
capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn't work, doesn't get food. that's why many people say it's cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don't work. and that's exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of "who doesn't work, shouldn't eat". or at least that's how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don't always see things that way.
Not all of us ahem bourgeoisie ahem
of course, however what makes a societies differ is exactly what gets filled in to the "..."
"from each slave to each slavemaster" -> slavery
"from each serf to each lord" -> feudalism
"from each worker to each owner" -> capitalism
"from each person (according to their ability) to each person (according to their need)" -> socialism 😄
ok so what you're describing here is that ...
secondly, it seems to me that the point that "bourgeoisie" doesn't work is a big problem to you. mind explaining why? is it because society desperately needs that 1% extra labor output? is it because of some "work is a moral must" mindset (quasi-religious)? is it for some other reason?
thirdly, it seems to me that you're defining ~~communism~~ socialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don't get huge bonuses and shareholders don't skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.
did i understand that correctly? would you add anything? do you think that this setup is already feasible in today's legal framework through worker-owned businesses? ("co-ops" and what they're called)
This socialist ideal of providing luxury goods to the poor masses for cheap is exactly the problem. If the world would be more capitalist, we wouldn’t subsidise the meat industries and the poor would be forced to buy beans.
not necessarily, very abridged version:
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can't anymore if it's unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the "butter mountains" of the EU.
That wikipedia article on "The tendency of the rate of profit to fall" is a horrible introduction btw. If you want to know more you can read "Arbeitslohn und Kapital"/"Wage labour and capital" by Marx himself, much more digestible. And rather short.
ahem i just so happen to be very familiar with the whole concept of the tendency of rate of profit to fall (TRPF) and you're misunderstanding it here. it turns to be unprofitable in the sense that the profit rate approaches zero (for example, exponentially), it does not go negative! companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays. so they continue to produce stuff indefinitely, according to the model. even though they make less and less profit with it. no state subsidizing involved here.
this is maybe a subtlety here. something can converge towards zero while also always staying positive. check out this function:
ahem I know about e^-x^ and convergence thanks, I had some math in high school too.
I don't know what it means for the tendency of the rate of profit to be negative (or positive, or 0 for that matter). It's not a number. If you're talking about the rate of profit of course that can go negative. I think what you mean is that it will be balanced out, but not as high as it was before. Here is how its explained in Wage labour and capital, emphasis mine
If you want to illustrate this movement a function like cos(x)/x would be more prudent. Here is 10*cos(x)/x to make it "pop" more:
Remember that convergence doesn't necessarily mean monotone convergence, and you'll be hard pressed to find a monotone graph in economics 😄 Here is a more illustrive graph for TRPF
You also say that "companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays" which is absolutely false! A companies profit absolutely can be zero, or even negative! Remember profit = m - m', where m' is the money you have after selling the commodity. Or in more plain words, if you have less money after selling than before producing you made negative profit. If you didn't get your investment back, you didn't make profit.
Thats the exact opposite of capitalism. Unprofitable business go bankrupt. Then their possessions and their labor force gets absorbed by other companies.
This is to align work with reality.
If politicians would artificially decide what companies to keep someone would have to pay for their mistakes. Markets are much better at this (just read “the use of knowledge in society” by Friedrich von Hayek)
Just like the suffering of animals is unnecessary to feed the planet, we now have to pay for the costs of climate change, because people want to life in a socialist fantasy.
Ok so unprofitable businesses keep going bankrupt, get gobbled up by a bigger corporation until one corporation has a monopoly. That's the trend we're seeing right? How many corporations for food are there left now? Nestle, Unilever, Coca Cola, Mondelez and that's pretty much it right? Well what happens when the tendency of the rate of the profit to fall forces them to no longer produce food. Do we just go extinct?
This (in case of the "butter mountains" and in general) isn't some politicians deciding which companies to keep, this is the state intervening to save itself. They have to prop up an entire industry that cannot reduce costs any further which means that the price keeps fluctuating around 0 profit which means the entire industry goes extinct. That's why there is a fixed price on milk, not to save some companies, but to prop up the entire industry. Capitalism will devolve sooner or later into state planning since without this state intervention industries start collapsing.
Could you imagine the ramification of the entire dairy industry dying out? (😸) The economy would go haywire, entire villages depend on their dairy farming, they would revolt it would be pandemonium. This is where capitalism finally leads.
Veganism is extremely capitalistic, because it relies on supply and demand to change the amount of animal suffering that is/was produced.
Veganism is simply not taking part in animal suffering, you're thinking of "animal liberation" which is the active part.
And yes one way to reduce animal suffering is to leverage basic market laws about supply and demand. But buying and selling isn't capitalism. People in every socialist nation ever have bought and sold stuff, and when stuff wasn't in demand the supply reacted accordingly. If you want an introductory book I can recommend some (earnest, not trying to be mean, it just seems like you don't know the definition of the terms you're using).
But there is also direct action, adoption of rescued animals and maybe some other stuff I can't remember right now that people that take part in animal liberation do.
Buying and selling with a currency is capitalism. If I would just get a meal ticket from the communist party, I might trade away more of my belongings, but thats not the same market vegans try to address.
This is not how communism works, how any socialist society operates, I'm sorry but you've completely fallen for the propaganda and are living outside of reality.
The fact that "Buying and selling with a currency" is not capitalism is also very clear from the fact that we were buying and selling with a currency under feudalism, under slavery, currency predates capitalism by millenia.