Zyansheep

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

Dang, this is hilarious! Bureucratic mistakes at their most helpful :D

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Oh no my unjustified beliefs!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Another way to solve the issue is to have users and communities be instance-independent where the instances only provide storage for communities and users they want to support.

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

Mmmmh, aracnids

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh god, its This

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

The article seems to characterize efficiency solely in the context where it optimizes a process to the detriment of other useful aspects of the process (i.e. removing redundancy makes a system more "efficient" in some sense, while also making it more prone to disruption).

Putting aside the article's weird definitions, I do like the article's overall message: grow slow and sustainability rather than as "efficiently" as possible. I can see how the impulses of growth at all costs and short term efficiency gains at the cost of long term stability might be related to certain forms of capitalism, however capitalism is not defined (as in the definitions given in your other comment) by rampant disregard for caution and sustainability, (there are capitalist societies today known for their careful planning and risk management!). Capitalism as a concept is only defined via private ownership of capital, so I think my original comment still stands: capitalism is good, sometimes.

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

Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for "anti-capitalism" as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don't inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be "anti-extreme wealth" rather than "anti-capitalism"?

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

Find people on the internet who seem similar to you and see what they did and what the result was, see what the best result was and do that. Takes a long time, and may or may not be worth it, but for expensive purchases it may be.

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

I like communism too, it can be cool sometimes as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Based on your definition of what it means to be "anti-capitalist" vs "anti-market" I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?

While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of "the means of production", in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don't think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.

Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.

One last thing I'd like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn't (and shouldn't!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of "capitalism".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Going with the cancer metaphor, what does "late-stage" capitalism look like? How do we know that it will happen? Are there any other possible timelines that has something resembling capitalism but is not terrible? Capitalism is a pretty broad term that can describe all types of economies from the american gilded age to modern social democracies, and while I would certainly consider various forms of extreme capitalism to be cancerous to a functioning society, are they truly representative of all types of capitalist systems?

Edit: spelling

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Its either the fascists, or people trying to make money from tribalism.

 

Get ready for one of the greatest scientific throwdowns of the past 3 centuries!

view more: next ›