• dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember, socialism is evil because in socialism you won’t own anything.

    Meanwhile, capitalism creates this…

    • Mikina@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve recently seen a random Youtube video (about the Unity pricing changes) that was talking about capitalism and what it was meant to be, and one key point that has stuck with me is that capitalism should absolutely hate rent, and the early capitalism was against it.

      IIRC the reasoning was that rent was mainly a feudalism thing, and also because it doesn’t really provide much value, since you aren’t necessarily using it to invest and offer a better service to the one who’s paying it, you’re just extorting money from them.

      The video was also mentioning a term, which may be totally made-up but I really like, which was technofeudalism - which describes the recent trend of every company trying to switch to subscription models, so they can also extort rent from you for using the internet, without providing a better service. Paying monthly for seat warmers in a car? Paying monthly for a guitar tuner app? Paying monthly for X? That’s not capitalism, that’s just plain feudalism - there’s no added value or improved service, they are just slapping on unreasonable costs because they can.

      I just woke up, and seen the video a few weeks back, so my summary of the main ideas of the video may be totally wrong. I also have no idea what sources, if any, was the video based on, so it may be total bullshit. But I like the term, technofeudalism sounds cool, and the idea is pretty intuitive to quickly share, while sounding like something that makes sense. But that one video is my only source I have about it, II don’t even know whether that term exists or is made up. I’ll try to find the video later.

      EDIT: It was this one.

    • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      85
      ·
      1 year ago

      Socialism is frequently evil because the people pushing for it tend to murder a lot of people for no other reason than opposing socialist dogma.

      When we find socialist societies not built on murdering everyone who disagrees with the leader/party/state then we can talk about it being better.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        83
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        …boy do i have some news for you about US foreign policy since the 50’s

      • Custoslibera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you have a Lemmy account and still have this level of comprehension about socialism?

        Tankies aren’t the entirety of socialists, just like anarcho capitalists aren’t all capitalists.

        • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          How have you not read history? The societies that have pursued socialism have all engaged in purges.

          This has nothing to do with tankies.

        • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Industrialism and overconsumption is what is doing that. The PRC and USSR are/were also responsible for colossal environmental damage. The Aral Sea is almost entirely gone due to bad planning by the USSR.

        • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not capitalism, it’s industrialization that’s making the planet less habitable, which is completely possible under socialism or communism.

          • lingh0e@lemmy.film
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Correct, however if the workers own the means of production they would have greater motivation AND greater ability to change the methods of industrialization to ways that are a little less… pollutey or dangerous.

            Instead, under capitalism, we get politicians who are actively working to eliminate as many environmental, health and safety regulations as possible because they’re bribed lobbied to do so by their corporate masters.

            • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Instead, under capitalism, we get politicians who are actively working to eliminate as many environmental, health and safety regulations as possible

              Under capitalism, we got those regulations to begin with…

              Which to be fair, isn’t because of capitalism we got regulation, but because of Democracy. Democracy is capable of keeping capitalism in check, to a point. After a certain amount of wealth inequality, which we’ve already passed, capitalism goes destructively out of control.

              Correct, however if the workers own the means of production

              I generally agree, although if you have a “dictatorship of the proletariat” like the USSR that desides it needs to heavily industrialize to compete with capitalist counties, it could be just as bad or worse for the environment.

              • lingh0e@lemmy.film
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t want a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and neither do I, but we already have corporations trying to strip regulations and policies because they want America to be more like China or Russia. Mega corps could make a little more money if they were free to pollute and exploit as they pleased.

                And, let’s be clear, aside from some Uber-comrade tankies, no one is suggesting we adopt a soviet or Maoist style communism.

            • Mikina@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not really that much invested in politics and don’t really know much about any of the leading sociological/political theories aside from the common knowledge, but your point made me realize something.

              if the workers own the means of production they would have greater motivation AND greater ability to change the methods

              Oh, god. Give how does the political landscape looks across the world, be it the fact that there are still millions of Trump supporters, the fact that it looks like that in Slovakia, a guy who’s basically unhinged and outright evil will win elections, and Hungary has it the same, to give just a few examples I know about from the top of my head…

              Imagine if people who vote or act like that had the means of production. But that’s just my general loss of faith in humanity, and I by no means want to start arguing about whether socialism is/isn’t good, since I know nothing about it. Just a random though I had when I read your comment.

              • lingh0e@lemmy.film
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a very valid point. But the people you are describing are already in positions of power or authority, they’re just all concentrated near the top of the chain. When you distribute that power and authority amongst the entire work force, things suddenly have a chance change for the better.

                I actually spent some time working for one of the largest employee owned corporations in America. There were plenty of MAGA minded people working there, and It’s amazing how quickly they’ll embrace traditionally liberal or socialist notions when it affects their shares of stock. Things like strict health and safety regulations, hiring diversity and strong unions.

                Obviously there will still be shitty people who make shitty decisions, hopefully there just wouldn’t be as many as there seem to be today.

            • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why does the Aral Sea a fraction of its size before communists were in charge of the area?

              It’s industrialized societies that are the issue.

              • lingh0e@lemmy.film
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the actual workers owned the actual means of production, I.E. if the people who’s entire livelihood depended on fishing that sea, do you believe they would have let unscrupulous people on the other side of the country exploit the sea the way they did?

                • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Would the fishers be the only ones who got a say versus the farmers who utilized that water to irrigate?

                  This was a failure of a non-capitalist industrialized society that resulted in horrific environmental damage. The fact that it demonstrates that capitalism is not the ONLY source of environmental destruction should give you a reason to think about the accuracy of that claim.

                  The fact is nations like the USA weren’t causing widespread environmental havoc until the industrial revolution hit.

                  • lingh0e@lemmy.film
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The simple fact that we have developed methods of production that can eliminate or, at the very least, mitigate catastrophic environmental impact, yet there are STILL corporate interests doing everything in their power to fight such progress because it’s cheaper to bribe politicians means that, clearly, we’re moving in the wrong direction.

          • crushyerbones@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If anyone goes on to do this be a dear and find me a capitalist nation that didn’t purge its population while you’re at it.

            • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So Denmark? The nation whose PM said in 2015,

              “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,” he said. “Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

              In Rasmussen’s view, “The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”"

              https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

              The Scandinavian nations are not socialist. They are not promoting workers owning the means of production and frequently push for free trade.

              You are outright confused as to what socialism is and you should be less certain in your statements given that obvious confusion.

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Way to put an uncrossable bar. Most of Europe are parliamentary democracies for which the ideological alignment of the individual leadership is irrelevant. What you have to look at is at the policy and law that those leaders are mandated to enact, and most of them will include socialist policies, even if they’re not braindead propagandizing it as socialism like lemmygrad would like them to.

            • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Way to put an uncrossable bar.

              if picking just 10 countries (out of over 40) that actually mostly vote socialist is too high a bar for a group of ‘mostly socialist’ countries to clear, the bar is not the problem

              Most of Europe are parliamentary democracies for which the ideological alignment of the individual leadership is irrelevant.

              personally i think that the ideological alignment of a countrys elected leaders, and by extension their voters, is pretty relevant to a discussion about the ideological alignment of a country

              personally i think that judging whether something is socialist based on whether it enacts -some- socialist policies as opposed to whether it is socialist is inane

              if they’re not braindead propagandizing it as socialism like lemmygrad would like them to.

              1. can you explain what braindead propagandizing socialist policies as socialist actually means
              2. can you explain why european elected officials do not propagandize socialist policies as socialist?
              • dustyData@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I thought you had blocked me, why are you still here? go away, nobody wants to interact with a bad faith online troll.

                • Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Im a different poster.

                  With that in mind please name five countries in Europe attempting any form of socialism. You will not be able to because no country in Europe is socialist.

                  • dustyData@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Lol, no you aren’t. You are the one who came at me with the same stupid “name x european…” in another thread of this post tree. That’s a non-argument, shut up.

      • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a good thing capitalist countries haven’t killed millions for oil or you might sound a little foolish. oh wait…