512
Japan tried to build an operating system for the entire world, then the US government intervened
(www.xda-developers.com)
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 21 Aug 2026
512 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87418 readers
3501 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Say the line!!
"That isn't REAL captialism"
Lmao
Just like the dumbasses say "the Soviet Union wasn't REAL communism"?
Except I'm correct. A government implementing protectionist policies to control economic sectors is not capitalist.
Yes it is - capitalism demands that in fact. You're thinking of free-markets. Capitalism inevitably destroys free markets.
Lets see if we can agree on some definitions.
What you're describing as "free-markets" I know as laissez-faire capitalism. This definition came from, unsurprisingly, the French in the 18th century and was used heavily by Adam Smith in the book The Wealth of Nations. I think we all agree there are very few, if any, true large scale laissez-faire capitalism in operation today.
What have in most places is regulated capitalism where there are government rules that change the outcome to a different outcome (sometimes better/sometimes worse) that would have occurred under laissez-faire capitalism.
Are we in agreement with these definitions or do we still have discussion needed to arrive at the same place?
OK sure - if we're being strict and academic about this - perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that capitalism in the pure platonic sense doesn't really exist, and tends always towards crony or state capitalism where the power of the state is used to funnel money and power towards the holders of capital rather than to provide a free and fair playing field for economic actors.
I agree with this without any reservations.
I take exception with "always". In the USA for example, there have been many notable exceptions where state capitalism implemented protections from abuses that pure laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed. The National Labor Relations Act was a state action that allowed for collective bargaining of workers. More recently the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau acted as an agent against uncheck capitalist forcing a fair playing field.
I'd probably agree if you changed your word to "frequently" though.
fair - I agree ;)
Except I never said you were factually incorrect, since that seems to be the most important thing for you to get out of this exchange.
It is capitalism. It's all part of the system.
Government tipping the scales to help their capitalist mates seems to be exactly how capitalism works.
And North Korea is definitely a democratic republic 🙄🙄