Its not the giving value to stuff in exchange for goods and services that's the problem, its actually pretty useful. It's the giving everything completely arbitrary value and allowing only a couple people to play with any of it that's the problem. The evil is what created and perpetuates that.

[–] festnt@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

yeah, my comment was just a joke but you're right

[–] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Figured, just thought I should maybe clarify

[–] festnt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

thats understandable

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Just wanted to make sure people knew I was referring to late-stage capitalism

I'll ask you again - what are you clinging to? Why do you have to specify? Why do you think "regular" capitalism is worth defending?

[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So for the record, I did not want to argue anything about capitalism. I know it's bad, I don't agree with it, it's terrible. It's just that late-stage is where it's currently at. I in no way support any sort of capitalism. That's it.

Please don't assume what I didn't say, I am not "clinging to" anything.

Sorry, but it's just upsetting when someone takes what you say out of proportion to fit their own point of view or whatever.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sorry, but it’s just upsetting when someone takes what you say out of proportion to fit their own point of view or whatever

Literally just asking you to clarify, and get you to think critically about why you phrase things the way you did.

If you don't want either to happen, try doing them yourself first.

Edit to add: As for the actual point: all capitalism is bad, by only framing late stage capitalism as a problem (which is what you do when you take the time to come back and diferenciate it in a comment about capitalism being bad), you make it seem as if "regular" capitalism is fine, and that all we need to do is roll back to those good old days before it started impacting you.

You had it right the first time, and yet you took the time to come back and "correct" yourself, so you obviously thought it was an important enough distinction to make, when all it does it normalise "regular" capitalism, which is entirely self defeating, and why I've even bothered trying to get you to think critically about your comment instead of just disregarding you as a capitalism bootlicker.

Don't want to think critically? That's your choice. But at least take responsability for your own words.

[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I edited my original post before you posted this. Capitalism = bad. I agree. Full stop.

Everything you assumed from my (original) edit is nonsense, I was just clarifying what exactly I was referring to in that comment.

Please don't draw so many conclusions from such a small thing.

I'd say my views fit most closely with Anarcho-communism.

I don't want to hear your views on that if they continue to be as hostile as your other comments.

[–] festnt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

maybe they meant the other stages dont have that problem? idk

edit: i found another comment of theirs explaining that. they believe the other stages are not as bad, basically

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

But they do, so I'll ask again - what are you people who think there is any value in differentiating different "kinds" of capitalism clinging on to?

[–] festnt@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

idfk. i just replied that because i saw that the person you were talking with had stopped talking to you.

also, just so you know, from the way you're writing, you come off really aggressive. if you want people to listen to you, try being more polite, even if you disagree with someone's opinion.

edit: oh cool they don't even think capitalism can be good so all you did was get people confused. thanks.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'm far left and get it, but I also understand the controversy. In Das Kapital Marx explains how the ownership class will always push for more gains until the working class struggles to survive and the economy collapses as a whole.

On the other hand, the problem isn't simply that industrialist greed is inevitable (though history bears this out so far) but we haven't developed a model that successfully mitigates this problem. This isn't to say it doesn't exist, only that it doesn't exist today, kind like superluminal space travel.

There are capitalists who believe it's possible to create a well-regulated capitalist system that is resistant to corruption and the influence of money on government, but they have been in the minority since the 1980s, and since then market manipulation shenanigans like private equity have only increased. So even if it is possible, and industrialists should be motivated to preserve a status quo that allows them to stay rich and in power, we just don't even try.

Rant: (One of the things I find fascinating is how the game industry still sees crunching as acceptable, even though retroactive studies have showed crunching consistently reduces productivity. Similarly, micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters -- to prevent them from web-surfing or checking email or chatting with loved ones -- costs way more than the productivity lost and workers allowed to do these things even excessively show higher mean productivity rates. And yet over-surveillance and micromanagement of online workers and telecommuters remains the common norm. This demonstrates that the management structures that are commonly used within our capitalist model don't do what they're supposed to do, which is maximize profits and shareholder dividends, and yet the giant crackdown we'd expect to happen for doing abuse for abuse's sake... isn't. It's all just a charade to preserve a stratified social structure.)

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's exactly my point - that's what it comes across as.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You didn't raise your pitchfork high enough and yell loud enough so the extremists in the group are attacking you for being a traitor to their group even tho you're on the same side. Happens in any political group on any side whether dictator antifa whatever. If your outward appearance isn't 100% For, they forcefully Align you until they are comfortable with you. Notice how you are now trying to adjust your words to be acceptable. I've seen it everywhere and still find it annoying so at this point i just block. Anyway, human nature; it isn't always enjoyable.

[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Haha. Thanks for that. I think you're 100 % correct. I think the block function is definitely the right solution to it. I'm going to do that right now for the individual who was being dumb.

Again, thanks. Your comment definitely summed up this whole scenario.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What about mercantilism? I think Trump's going to give that one a go. Hopefully we can establish some nice colonies, say in a tropical place where we can grow pineapples.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Oooh is that what going to Mars was all about?

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

MF nowhere else as shit healthcare like the US, don't drag everwhere else into this.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh the Tories want US style healthcare so bad, the way they're cutting into NHS.

I can't speak for Australia, but from the corruption bullshit I hear coming from their whatever socialized medicine they have right now is at risk of dissolving.

Hopefully, the EU knows better than to go the same route.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I can’t speak for Australia, but from the corruption bullshit I hear coming from their whatever socialized medicine they have right now is at risk of dissolving.

Hopefully, the EU knows better than to go the same route.

I've been on the NHS, and the EU would do well to emulate THE INTENDED FORM of the NHS.

You can't shit on the NHS because it's become infiltrated with corrupt arseholes or been underfunded recently.

In Godel, Escher and Bach one of the ideas is that you cannot have a system that is completly useful and 100% airtight. Any useful enough system can be corrupted to destroy itself. The NHS needs to be better funded and cut out the stupid amount of middlemen it has adopted, 100%, but the blueprint should be emulated by many other places.

[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 4 points 2 weeks ago

I'm Brazilian. Brazil have a free healthcare system called "Sistema Único de Saúde" ("Unified Health System") or, as we often call it by its acronym, "SUS".

While I personally had a fair good experience with it when I needed medical care, SUS is not perfect. There are notorious disparities between Brazilian states regarding to how many public health financing from taxes each city any state gets. For example: the state of São Paulo has better public healthcare than, say, Minas Gerais (and I'm talking about two states that I personally know and resided in, so I'm not talking about something I read somewhere or something I heard from someone). Even when they're neighbors. It's not because Minas Gerais is worse than São Paulo, because it isn't, it's because São Paulo gets to get more tax funding.

The following is recent news (as from this week) from a major Brazilian news television program, translated to English:

That man is hospitalized through the Brazilian public healthcare system. Cases like his happen on a daily basis throughout the Brazilian territory, especially in the northern states, but not limited to. It's just that his case got to get the attention of the media. Several Maurílios (and Marílias) face similar bureaucratic slippery slopes every day.

Is the private healthcare better, then? Hell no, of course not! Our "convênios médicos" are as bureaucratic as the US healthcare insurance, perhaps even worse. The only thing that's far from bureaucratic is "particular healthcare" because the patient pay directly to the doctor, but it's generally expensive and far from the reaches of the reality of millions of Brazilians, and they don't really cover all the medical needs (e.g.: paying directly to a doctor won't cover the need of MRI scanning, because individual doctors often have no MRI machines for their own medical service).

The "Sistema Único de Saúde" is something to be improved and it's far from perfect and it needs lots of fixes, but it's undeniably a public healthcare system model to inspire Americans so they can begin with a proper healthcare system nationwide. I don't really know British NHS or Canadian public healthcare systems, but Brazilian system is probably unique because of how many people it serves (216 million people, more than UK and Canada populations summed up).

[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'm not from the US. I'm happy with my country's healthcare. I'm not trying to drag anywhere else into it.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not for lack of trying, the corruption of the US spreads wherever it can. When a large tree is dying, it rots from the centre of the trunk first. The rot at the core of capitalism started where the most power resides, and that's why the US is such a horror show. You aren't immune from it, it just hasn't rotted as badly where you are.

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

That’s just because your health care is excluded from capitalism. The evils of capitalism still apply to everything else.