736
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
736 points (95.7% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
671 readers
1949 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,' Tankie, etc.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did... Did you read the whole link? Or just the snip the part that sounds like it supports your argument?
And yes, if you can't do better than the wiki then you didn't get a college education on a topic. It's an encyclopedia, not a 4 year degree with several thousand hours of learning. And that's when it's working well. This article has been cut to shit by ideologues trying to revise history for their own benefit.
You thought you were going to show up here 3 weeks later and leave some kind of last word discrediting my education when I'm the one pulling the .edu links for you to look at. The fucking irony.
As you clearly read none of it, I only had to read the first part, as that disproved your nonsense straight away which can be seen by your own words and your own link.
I don't need to do better than wiki. You haven't disproven them. You just declared them to be shit, thinking your arrogance alone can refute what it says. You university should've taught you to actually quote specific parts of articles and not just link their entirety, declaring them to agree with you despite it disproving you within the first couple of sentences.
The edu link disproved you, instantly. So, that's literally exactly what happened. Its not my fault you made a clown out of yourself by proving yourself wrong. I wish you hadn't done it too. Its taken the sport out of it.
Buddy. I did read it. Go back. Read it. Internalize it.
Child, you claimed Adam Smith was "cooking up Capitalism" and then provided a link that opened up by saying that claims like that are gross over simplification. Doubling down on saying you read it only makes you look even more stupid. I mean, you didn't even know that pre-industrial Capitalism existed ffs. Id be too ashamed to reply if I was you.
Just to head off your next commnet: no, weaponsed ignorance and professional grade arrogance do not qualify as a cogent rebuttal but I am looking forward to you attempting to singlehandedly refute das kapital again.
First, a gross over simplification describes the entirety of discourse on Lemmy. That's the format, and unless you want to start writing multiple actual papers every day I wouldn't complain about it.
Second, the gross over simplification they refer to is Adam Smith as merely the first economist. They go on to explain his entire body of work in philosophy, politics, and economics.
And no, my claim is that it wasn't capitalism yet. In the same way that we still have some of the same laws as we did under kings, but that wasn't democracy yet.
And the irony here is breathtaking. This is literally my field of study. And you read the first snippet and then start yelling about "weaponized ignorance". If you want to disagree then disagree but don't be so ignorant you project it into others.