797
'Neoliberal capitalism' has contributed to the rise of fascism, says Nobel laureate
(www.abc.net.au)
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
797 points (96.8% liked)
World News
38548 readers
2005 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Efficiency under capitalism?
We waste tremendous amounts of food but people go hungry.
We produce absurd levels of clothing, much of which is destroyed and sent to landfills without being worn, but there are people who need it.
We have more houses than unhoused by a huge factor.
Capitalism optimizes for profit and profit only. Sometimes that leads to good outcomes, sometimes it leads to bad outcomes.
It's not "efficient" in terms of taking care of people's needs. It's only efficient in terms of producing profits for the owner and investor classes.
This waste may look big in absolute numbers, but probably isn't meaningful as percentage of total economy - we're wealthy so many of us can afford to be a little wasteful.
Usually bad outcomes are the corner cases - I'm perfectly aware that they exist (harmful monopolies, CO2, ect.) But it's the role of solid legal framework to deal with these issues.
On the other hand you have at best no idea what sort of pathologies can arise in alternatives to capitalism, and at worst it can be repeat of the of USSR or North Korea.
I'm used to shallow responses that regurgitate the capitalist realism everyone grows up in but this one is exceptionally poor.
We waste food on an industrial scale, it's not just household waste. Grocery stores dump good food all the time, sometimes going so far as to spoil it or otherwise prevent it from being retrieved from the dumpsters they toss it in.
You're also just parroting the notion that socialism means authoritarianism, there are many examples of non-democratic and pseudo-democratic countries with a capitalist economy, this is because the economic system is different from the political system.
The biggest irony with your (poorly thought out but strongly held) belief is that a socialist economy IS more democratic. Workers owning their workplaces and benefiting from their output and participating in decision making is more democratic and free than the petite dictatorships that make up a capitalist economy.
As a worker you are only hired and remain employed insofar as you produce more value for the company than you cost, that's a plain fact. This means that the people who own your company are taking wealth that you produce. This is the "freedom" you're blindly advocating for.
I wonder why you feel like you must be a champion for this exploitative system. You're being so submissive to your owners. What a good little worker.
My relative happens to work in the food trade industry. The only cases when they dump food is either when expiration date is passing, or when they suspect that frozen stuff was transported incorrectly - aka cooling/freezing chain was broken somewhere - in that case they just don't accept the transport - it's most likely dumped afterwards by the company delivering it.
Sale of expired food is forbidden by law.
Of course. Also as a worker I remain hired and employed as long as the employer delivers me more value (aka wage and other benefits) than his competitors. Otherwise I dump him just like he'd dump me.
The "best before" dates aren't expiration dates. They dump them only because they don't sell as well. It's prioritizing profit over feeding people.
You're very uninformed, but very confident.
In EU they ARE expiration dates. It's forbidden to trade expired food
I don't know anything about European regulation but food waste is still a major problem there https://feedbackeurope.org/results-of-eu-food-waste-survey-2024-edition/. In the US and Canada grocery stores throw food out if they think they can't sell it, even "ugly" fruit and vegetables.
Your point seems to be that you think grocery store food waste is a matter of too much regulation. I can't argue with someone who treats capitalism like a deity and works backwards from the axiom that capitalism is perfect therefore something else must be wrong.
You're the biggest capitalism simp I've encountered in quite some time. You come across like a libertarian, and maybe you are, if so I wish you had been forthcoming with that information so I knew not to waste my time trying to have a rational conversation with someone with an oxymoronic political identity. Nobody can rationalize their way out of such doublethink.
I thought it's a mater of public health and safety.
I can't ignore what I see. And I see, computers, airplanes, modern agriculture, and all the wonders of modern civilization.
I was a libertarian as a teenager, but with time I understood that every extremism is pathological. I'd say I'm a liberal now.
It's always gets personal with you people. You can't win the debate and you get angry.
Which part of my identity is oxymoronic? You throw accusations but you never give any examples.
The oxymoronic identity is libertarianism. It masquerades as anarchy but doesn't oppose capitalist oppression.
You don't seem to understand that what's profitable isn't always what's best. You are ignoring the scale of waste.
In the off chance that you're interested, here's a really accessible apolitical video about climate (likely from a liberal perspective, but apolitical like I said) that does a great job summarizing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4GDLaYrMCFo. Liberal regulations might help there, but it's capitalist forces at play.
Regarding your "what about iphone?" comments, I'm sick of that tired argument and won't engage further. You might consider that there's been technological progress long before capitalism and even in recent history the Soviets outperformed the Americans in quite a few areas.
I'm not pro-soviet, but it's interesting that a serfdom-turned-communist nation that was brutally destroyed and lost much of its population in world war 2 was able to maintain global superpower status against a nation that was relatively unscathed and gained economically from ww2.
China is absolutely a capitalist nation, but they don't need American style capitalism to dominate the Americans in green technologies.
Attributing all technological progress to your vision of capitalism is pure worship, not fact.
I see a pattern here - you're operating on a twisted set of definitions - this isn't the first time I'm seeing this when debating people online
Particularly, you have completly different definition of anarchy. You probably consider it some sort of organized social system, but I consider it lack of any framework being enforced.
If you don't understand the difference between these definitions, you can't have any dialogue.
With the definition I use (and many other people BTW), basically anarcho-anything is an oxymoron. When somone talks about anarcho-capitalism, it's nothing but gibberish to me.
In light of different definition, consider this:
Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy - it's a system that minimizes state intervention to the absolute minimum, leaving as much to free market forces as possible, providing only minimal legal rails for enforcement of agreements.
There's no paradox here if you run with that thought process.