this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43376 readers
1413 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi all,

I'm seeing a lot of hate for capitalism here, and I'm wondering why that is and what the rationale behind it is. I'm pretty pro-capitalism myself, so I want to see the logic on the other side of the fence.

If this isn't the right forum for a political/economic discussion-- I'm happy to take this somewhere else.

Cheers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Whirling_Ashandarei@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (28 children)

I'm really not trying to be a dick, but uhh... Look around? The world is literally on fire and efforts to put it out or even to stop pouring more gas on it are put down at every turn by capitalists in the never ending pursuit of more money for it's own sake.

Let's start here: are you a capitalist? Do you own any actual capital? I don't mean your own house or car, that is personal property not private property or anything resembling the means of production.

I ask because many people consider themselves capitalist when really they are just workers who happen to own a bit of personal property, and they make themselves essentially useful pawns for actual capitalists.

And, if you're not an actual capitalist, why are you so pro capitalism?

[–] steltek@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not illogical to be pro-Capitalism while not owning any "means of production" if it means you still have better outcomes.

There are no true Capitalist countries and no true Socialist countries. It's not even a spectrum; it's a giant mixed bag of policies. You can be for some basic capitalist principles (market economy, privately held capital) and for some socialist policies (safety nets, healthcare) and not be in contradiction with yourself. There's more to capitalism than the United States.

I think OP was seeing a lot of "burn the system down" talk. Revolutions aren't bloodless, instantaneous, or well directed. Innocent people will die and generations will suffer. It's stuff only the naive, the malicious, or the truly desperate will support. And if you're here posting it on the daily, I don't believe you're that desperate.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Global warming is upon us. If something doesn't drastically change, now, our entire species is going to die.

[–] Matt_Shatt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And some people will be hoarding money until the last, bitter second.

[–] Zyansheep@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hmmm, its those kinds of extreme statements that make me a bit suspicious. Is global warming really an extinction level event? I can imagine terrible civil wars over resources and increasing displacement from natural disasters, but total eradication of the human race is afaik not a possible result of global warming.

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's kinda like when they called it world war 1 and 2 - it didn't actually include the entire world, but it did include so many countries that people considered it to be the world. The amount of people that could die or be affected by global warming could kill billions. Billions.

[–] Zyansheep@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

Hmmm... words used in not-satiric circumstances where the true meaning isn't the intended meaning is a bit confusing...

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

If global warming doesn't completely wipe us out, we'll finish ourselves off with nukes.

[–] persolb@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this conflates capitalism with lack of coordination. We could fix global warming today via regulation. Even if our government was socialist, it would probably still not be curbing emissions due to trying to achieve some other non-capital goal.

Second, there isn’t any need to falsely imply our species is going to die because of climate change. No model points at that. Billions of people having crappier lives and dying sooner should be enough motivation.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're ~ 5 degrees from mass crop failure and famine, and that's pretty well documented.

"Billions of people having crappier lives" is a weird way of describing starvation.

[–] persolb@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago

Because the models don’t support your statement.

Billions WILL have worse lives due to this. A very small subset of that will be because they are on the verge of starving.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Yup, that is the goal. Juuuuust short of desperate. That is where we are aiming for most of our population to live.

load more comments (25 replies)