663
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

It's not like some dude was suddenly born one day and everyone decided he was in charge. The forefathers of Kings were inhuman psychopaths.

[-] SoleInvictus 2 points 10 hours ago

They were often the descendants of conquerors or settlers. While you could overcome competitors justly, being completely ruthless is typically advantageous. Maybe I'm crazy, but perhaps we should implement a governing system that discourages that behavior.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

We could make it so that each person, as equals, gets a secret vote to put people in charge of writing laws, managing the treasury, appointing judges and military personnel, etc. In order to stop people from gaining too much power or authority we would limit the growth of their personal assets via tax brackets which increase based on the amount they gain, and when we end up with surplus of funds from taxation we then use that money to provide to the needy and build public goods which enrich everyone's lives.

[-] SoleInvictus 1 points 10 hours ago
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Some places notionally ran that way. But in reality it was the person putting the crown on a baby's head who was in charge.

[-] rational_lib@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Political power and purchasing power are just two kinds of power. And when those two powers merge - as with wealthy kings of the past or modern politically active business elites - bad things happen.

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 43 points 1 day ago

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work together for the benefit of all."—John Maynard Keynes

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Don’t most small farmers in the west at least own their own land. So not really like feudalism but I get your point.

[-] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago

Ahh a small rural subset of the population rules their own land. But unfortunately they don't own the rights to their seeds, farming equipment, and the food they produce (sometimes). They produce things that sell for so little sometimes they can't be independent and need trade agreements with other feudal lords that work them to death. Aka a farmer still gets groceries at Walmart, healthcare, seeds from big seed Corp, and tractors from John deere so much so most small independent farmers are closing up shop

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Oh they're solving that problem as fast as they can. Don't you worry.

[-] ninja@lemmy.world 14 points 23 hours ago

Just as residents in cities are progressively owning less of the land they live on family farmers are being pushed out by corporate megafarms.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

I beleive most farms in the UK are leased now days. Not sure about anywhere else though.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Something like 39% in the US too, mostly the best farming areas according to the government's map. There's no cross data though on how many small farm operations in the US have to rent land.

[-] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago

And professionals instead of priests.

[-] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 12 points 22 hours ago

And like, specifically bureaucratic profesionals. There's plenty of us out here with real jobs that require experience and specialty knowledge like skilled trades, culinary, medical, etc, but then there's those asshats that pretend "synergy" is a thing and for some reason they make the most money???

[-] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I’ve been saying this for years. Some douchebag will always pop up to argue with me saying that under capitalism, the serfs have a choice of whether to work for this king or that king (er, I mean, Company)… and I just laugh and laugh. And point to the existence of Company Towns as a concrete example.

[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

The difference is that under capitalism, the blame is outsourced to the market.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

Oh yeah, that's because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.

That's where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could've, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could've made that happen.

However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that's make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.

I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn't some natural state we defaulted to. It didn't happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn't chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.

Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

To be fair mercantilism was highly controlled. The original corporations were created under mercantilism and given such broad monopolies that they had their own soldiers and fought their own wars.

So it wasn't exactly a bastion of choice either. Capitalism was the Democratic backlash against kings giving out monopoly contracts. But it was only ever meant to widen the ownership class so all the nobles and rich people could play, and not just the super connected ones. The workers were never supposed to benefit.

[-] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 3 points 12 hours ago

Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.

Holy cow. I never thought about it that way.

[-] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Good points. I feel like mercantilism would have evolved naturally into capitalism even without the catalyst of the upper classes and their influence. But that's another topic entirely.

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 12 points 1 day ago

Also under classic Feudalism the lords usually did not micromanage your farm. At harvest time the collector would pass by and you had to fill your quota. How you got there was your problem but also your choice. It was often terrible because the quota was unrealistic, but you had an agency over your own work, that people today often lack.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Once if the things about feudalism though was that the conditions varied widely. One lord might tell you what to plant, when to plant it, and how to treat it. They might even work that field with you. On the other end of the spectrum is the tax collector method you mention. And it could change suddenly too, old lord dies with no male heir. The money and lands go to his daughter's husband who sells the land for more money. New lord shows up and demands a whole second round of taxes to offset buying the land.

Things could be really good when you had a good chain of leaders in feudalism. But they could be so much more bad with just one bad link.

[-] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Do company towns still exist?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Look at oil companies. They have to house a lot of workers in remote areas.

[-] ScrotusMaximus@lemm.ee 8 points 23 hours ago

See also: cities where the healthcare system or hospital system is the largest employer.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

When I meet someone in Seattle, I ask them if they work for Amazon or Microsoft. Usually I'm correct.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

But that's still a city all on its own. A company town is owned, administered, and policed by the company.

[-] Reality_Suit@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago

Kings actually used to take care of their subjects, unlike modern capitalists' CEOs.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 15 points 22 hours ago

No, lots of kings were brutal tyrants and/or totally incompetent rulers. The ones who took care of their subjects and who were wise and competent were extremely rare. These were the philosopher kings Plato wanted as rulers.

[-] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 2 points 12 hours ago

Democracy and Capitalism is barely better.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Democracy and capitalism is worse, even, compared to life under an enlightened monarchy. Unfortunately, wisdom and kindness aren’t as hereditary as we’d wish them to be.

[-] woop_woop@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

By the post black plague metric where mistreating workers meant they literally walked off to a better kingdom. It lasted like 2 generations each time.

[-] Kvoth@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Debatable honestly. People inherited who were so bat shit insane even the "free market" can't do worse.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

And Musk can't order you beheaded.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

The path to being a CEO of an established company starts with being born in a zip code that offers connections to the wealthy elite. We already have an Aristocracy back.

[-] groet@feddit.org 13 points 1 day ago

Insane people inherit wealth today and lead their "kingdom" to ruin only to be proper up by somebody else only to fail again.

We just haven't had this type of capitalism for long enough to see many Neros that had infinite power and then ruin it completely. We are in the holy Roman empire with 1000+ kingdoms constantly in strive with each other. Some are more powerful than others and ever so often one completely shits the bed because the inherited child is an absolute buffoon.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Also, it was by no means always inheritance. Quite often it was the most power hungry psychopath that won.

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I’ll pay you more. Come with me! Well, that and God said that I should be king. It is my divine right! My great grandpa made a deal with his great grandpa! Oh, and never fight uphill, me boys. Not good.

[-] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

There should be a system that pays for producing value to all life. Something bigger than UN.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

This is totally possible under actual democracy, the only challenge is getting enough people to the point where they're not voting against their own long-term interests, and voting system's robust enough to withstand the influence of capital.

What I mean is, there are governments around the world already funding positive things, on the collective purse.

It's just at the moment, it pales in comparison to the stranglehold capitalism has over our economies.

Just saying, we don't need to wait for the entire world to join hands to move towards socialism.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison’d by their wives: some sleeping kill’d;
All murder’d: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king

[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

LMAO bro never heard about Caligula.

He surely thinks Ivan the terrible was great with people hahahha

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago

LMAO bro never heard about Caligula.

You mean the Caligula who was assassinated after a reign shorter than a modern US presidential term? Is that the Caligula that you claim OP is ignorant of and you're not?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
663 points (100.0% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

327 readers
559 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' etc.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS