this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
1008 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

59638 readers
4332 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Reddit is ending Reddit Gold and users are furious::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChatGPT 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Capitalism could be amazing if the psychos of society didn’t constantly rise to the top then again the same could be said for communism and just about every other system we’ve tried.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That's because Capitalism rewards exploitative psychos, essentially by design

[–] ChatGPT 20 points 1 year ago

Any system has to give a group of people some authority to keep order the crazies will eventually work their way in and ruin it.

[–] FediFuckerFantastico 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Doesn't communism do the same? In fact why the fuck do the crazy psychos rise to the top seemingly everywhere? Is this one of those "nice guys finish last" kinda deals or some phenomenon I've never heard of?

[–] Dark_Arc 26 points 1 year ago

Evil only needs to succeed every now and then, good needs to constantly win.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I like to think there's a distinct difference, summed up like so:

Communism attempts to put the control and distribution of resources (capital) on the collective, ie everyone. Since everyone effectively owns it, it feels like nobody does.

Capitalism puts it on individuals. Nowadays, almost all of these individuals acquired their resource(s) by inheritance. If not, by dubious (morally questionable) means.

This is a simplification that may upset people on both sides, but it's about as clean as I can think to make it.

Note: the following is from the perspective of a somewhat average person living in the US.

My personal thought is that the democratic republic political system would ideally be coupled with the communistic (I'd prefer federated unions, ie federations, but speaking broadly) economic one. They seem to be natural matches.

However, it seems the coupling of said republic with capitalism causes significant and repeated backslides on social issues and education. Capital owners, after all, are most interested in maximizing gains while minimizing losses; this has led to a fairly high number of people being convinced to think that education is bad, especially university level education. Which, in turn, makes them compliant voters and eager workers, often severely underpaid. Which they, of course, have no idea of knowing since they likely have never left their birth town.

That's not to say that such things won't happen with communism. They should happen a lot less, but only if we put controls in place to combat abuse and overreach. In other words, regulations. Capitalism...might be beyond hope at this point, given how capital owners have been acting lately.

I don't know what will actually end up working, but I hope we try something new soon. Because this ain't it. Preferably before we extinct more species. Hopefully before we extinct ourselves.

I keep ranting, sorry for the wall of text.

[–] FlyingSquid 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And socialism is the middle ground that apparently no one with the power to implement it wants.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I do hope we see more of this bridging the gap with socialism, but you're right. To current capital owners, a new system will mean the end of being capital owners. Since they're defined entirely by their money/capital, to them it's a legitimate existential threat. Or so it feels like, it seems, given how they've been acting.

But fingers crossed for a more sane future. Hopefully.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t know what will actually end up working, but I hope we try something new soon.

Personally I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution. Each problem needs a different approach. We need to figure out how to have all these systems work in tandem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Hey, I'm open to trying anything. The current biggest problem is oligarchs and power centralization though, which capitalism sort of encourages.

Without much heavier regulation, sticking with capitalism will essentially doom us all. We need more localized, equal resource management. We need logical transportation logistics, and we need more nationalized (federal) goods and services.

But I do agree with the spirit of your message. We do need to all be working together towards a shared goal, instead of...this.

[–] Seasoned_Greetings 13 points 1 year ago

It's because of the concept of successful ambition correlating with the lack of morals or integrity. It just so happens that people ambitious enough to do whatever it takes to rise through the ranks often have to be necessarily immoral to step on people to get to the top.

People who have others' best interests at heart simply don't take advantage of the opportunities as often because a number of those opportunities would involve unfairly stepping on someone else.

So to answer your question, yes, ambitious assholes tend to ride faster and further than good people. Kind of like how a large portion of cops tend to be former bullies.

[–] Action_Bastid 10 points 1 year ago

It's because people are too focused on who controls the capital and not focused enough on what the capital itself is actually doing.

It doesn't much matter whether it's controlled by a Capitalist or a Communist if the person controlling the capital is a fucking idiot. Hell, it honestly doesn't even matter that much if they're smart, because the actual driver of growth has always been competition, which is only very indirectly connected to who controls the Capital, largely because it's pretty much always been taken at the point of a gun for all of human history and likely will be for as long as we exist unless we somehow manage to decide on post-scarcity society rather than infinite growth society.

[–] Xanthobilly 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/3eBN_9rMoVI

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] maxcorbetti 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Want to say, "Communism" is democratic control of the economy. So ideally there is no "top".

[–] maxcorbetti 13 points 1 year ago

Using some terms really loosely here to avoid a wall of political theory.