I see you like things that work. We’ve decided that we’ll break it, and sell you the solution. We call it service.
Hmm, sorry my associate was meaning “temporary solution”, about every year you will need a new one. And we are so generous that if you buy two years in advance we will give you a 10% rebate and a big ole sticker with our brand in bold colors on it so you can give us free publicity.
Them: this is pretty good right? And affordable too!
Me: yeah it’s decent, don’t touch anything
Them: we’ve put in ads
Me: what? I don’t want ads, wtf
Them: bro, totally have you covered. No ads for $12.99 a month
Me: arr matey, don’t worry yerself 🦜🏴☠️
This is why I felt like the best thing we all could do is reject every ounce of advertising we could. Marker up all the billboards. If you’re watching a video and x3 3 minutes ads play, Leave comments about how the product gave you a bad rash. Make it so all these companies remove themselves from spaces we enjoy. It would also help get rid of the fucking content creators trying to be a copy of the latest and greatest channel but instead waters down the internet with the 10000000 clone of the latest and greatest
I agree. I also think ads do influence us way more than almost anyone would believe or admit. Why else would companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ads without batting an eye. Many products cost as much or less than their ad campaign cost to make.
So I try to avoid ads as much as possible. I haven’t seen or heard an ad in a long time aside from billboards and posters which are basically impossible to avoid.
1995: Welcome to the internet, check out these awesome stupid websites 2023: Here have an ad, after you subscribe, and accept cookies, and sign your life away to a terms of service written in alien legalese
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/k1BneeJTDcU?si=vS3hZfIKHbxA9154
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
We beat scarcity. We’re up to our eyeballs in labor-saving technology. We just left people in charge who cannot imagine using it to save labor.
It’s about control. They don’t want to lose that control. They don’t deserve that control. We need to take control back.
You don’t deserve control either.
This is public interest ad made by myself- use your fu*king brain consumer brainnnn
Exactly, automation shouldn’t kick some people out of jobs and leave others just as overworked as before, it should automate things that don’t absolutely need humans and just decrease the workload of (currently) irreplaceable people so that more people can work as much as one did before and still get the same salary.
Hell, unemployment as a whole should not exist in the modern era. If there’s “too few jobs”, decrease working hours and increase wages accordingly so the total monthly/yearly/whatever pay is the same. And if there just physically aren’t enough resources to accomodate so many people having decent salaries (which is absolutely not the case right now), then we should start talking about overpopulation.
And if there just physically aren’t enough resources to accomodate so many people having decent salaries (which is absolutely not the case right now), then we should start talking about overpopulation.
Don’t blame overpopulation, blame the C-levels who think they need to take home 500k+ a year salaries.
The problem is as long there is no national wide law that forces companies to do so one would have much higher costs employing 2 people half time for the same job as 1 full time (with unpaid overtime of course as a bonus). And a Business that can’t compete won’t exist long. Or rather nobody even tries it because only greedy people are getting in high power positions for some reason.
But have you considered the following:
Capitalism good because freedom and innovation.
Bet you feel dumb now.
I bet OP posted this using an iphone, I am very ismart vuvusela
/s
Mhh yes freedom through capitalism. I love the freedom Apple gives me over their device that I bought but don’t own. Or when Samsung locks devices in mexico because they can and people in mexico dare to buy used phones.
No because freedom and innovation have nothing to do with capitalism? If anything the opposite?
It’s sarcasm friend, I know capitalism is basically the opposite of that.
What! You mean I can’t make new things or grow because of financial predators?
The sight of Theresa May dance-walking to ABBA was an insult to the United Kingdom and Sweden :(
It was also an insult to walking and dancing
Is that what’s going on here? Is it as terrible and hilarious as Trump’s “double handjobs” move to Village People?
“I’ve made a machine that does the labor of 10 men!”
“You’re going to still pay the other nine, right?”
…
You’re still going to pay the other nine, right?
So the ten men can all do a tenth of the labor now right?
Oh you’re going to fire nine, cut the tenth’s pay, and make him work even longer hours, and keep the vast majority of the profits for yourself, got it. That’s fine too I guess…
For more info on how automation works under capitalism, read chapters 15-16 of capital
Chapter 15: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm
“I’ve
madebought a machine that does the labor of 10 men!”“You’re going to still pay the other nine, right?”
“Why? I bought it to get more of the money to myself. Why would I pay for something and get nothing in return? Why would I just lose money for no reason?”
Seriously though, the dynamics are pretty clear, there’s no investment without the expectation for extra profit (even for a state. Invest in a new railroad with the expectation of higher economic activity and therefore more taxes). Otherwise it’s just charity
What if the teen men are the ones who own the machine?
That’s called a cooperative, they exist. You share both the profits and the risks of the enterprise. Not all enterprises succeed. Also, some of the men need to be the managers, accountants, sales etc. It’s not just about the factory workers.
Otherwise, more indirectly, they could be the shareholders of the company. Some companies even use shares as payment for their managers and top employees in order to encourage them to improve the profits of the company.
Otherwise they could just be both the owners and the only people working at a company. If the machine ends up generating lots of profits, they could all ten decide to retire and live off those profits while hiring an eleventh person to operate the machine, or they could reinvest in the company, buy even more machines, hire more people and bring in even more profits, like a complex game of cookie clicker.
Choose the one you prefer and try making it a reality if you want that.
I hope for your sake that when the factory workers can’t afford to feed their kids and they drag you from your home and try to beat you to death in front of your family they find that argument compelling.
I’m one of the ten men, I’m just a worker like anyone else here, I can just use the little grey matter I have to try and understand the world and look at it with more objective eyes, instead of killing anyone who disagrees with me.
Fucking fascist pos. If you want to kill families go to Russia or Israel and look at how fun it is.
Also there are now people with jobs who are developing, making and maintaining the machines, so it’s not that black and white to begin with.
If you still pay the other 9,why would you even look for a machine though?
Not sure if you’re aware of this but workers are what are known as “humans” who need “food” and “shelter.”
deleted by creator
You could ask the other 9 to pay for it with you, the other 9 are also owners in a worker co-op.
Unregulated capitalism that made worse by the lack of QOL improvements by the govt is what made these new shitty electronics and tools profitable.
I will never get tired of seeing these pictures
Cubicle went from utopia to dystopia in not even a week.
Ahha this works nice, now lets break it
How do you expect it to be free?
Nobody does. I dont think you understand the concept.
Removed by mod
Inventor: invents something Capitalism: rewards him
Inventor: invents something communism: *cricket noises"
Inventor: invents something Capitalism: rewards him
Inventor invents something: capitalism has them pay to be an inventor as they are probably a grad student and then sells the patent for a pittance to a corporation they are friendly with
Inventor invents something or fails and has to try again: communism gives them free Healthcare, education, housing and food.
Not to mention that they overlooked the fact that for some people - a sizable number too - the reward can be in helping others. Not everyone is a pariah looking to churn profits while pretending to care about other people’s needs.
Unfortunately the barrier to do this in capitalism is high, because like you mention, if you’re devoting your time to something that is not immediately producing profit then you may lose access to those basic needs. Companies can weather those losses, but will then want to make up the costs by - usually - using shady practices.
That’s not to say communism is the answer. But it surely isn’t capitalism as we have it today.
I mean to get rid of profits ya gotta get rid of the bourgeoisie, and then you’re in a classless society.
capitalism has them pay to be an inventor
I live in a capitalist country with free education. Healthcare is free if you cant afford it and is always a percentage of your income otherwise. Housing and food is also free if you cant afford it.
I have trouble seeing why capitalism is supposedly so bad
Social democracy isn’t sustainable though, it requires the threat of a revolution to force the capitalists into a compromise and will be rolled back when that threat passes in the name of profit.
Inventors in the USSR were paid just as well, if not better than, their American counterparts. Mind you, this is not a defense of the USSR or authoritarian communism, Stalinism killed many people. However, maybe educate yourself on how these systems worked before critiquing them. A critique of communism does not negate critiques of capitalism.
Also - be careful with conflating inventors and capitalists. Inventors are often laborers who have their work profiteered by from the owning class - famously, Nikola Tesla lost control of his patent for DC motors and was left penniless as capitalists formed a new utility company.
Philo Farnsworth invented the television, as well as making significant contributions to microscopy, medical procedures and nuclear fusion. He had to fight legal battles throughout his career because of patent fuckery, and never saw the fruits of his labor. His research was constantly underfunded and he died of alcoholism in relative obscurity.
Inventing better ways to do things isn’t rewarding?
You can also invent better ways to do things under capitalism. There is no difference in that regard
I’d love for people to stop using capitalism as a catch-all term for every wrong in the world. This post illustrates a great reason why.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. This means every private citizen has control over that which they own, and is free to sell it. In short, it’s characterized by a free market, because everybody is free to sell whatever they want.
The reason people view this favorably is because if, for example, someone is selling some really useful farming tool, they’re free to sell it at whatever price they want. But, someone else - who is also free to sell whatever they please - might figure out an alternative or their own way to assemble this tool. They can now sell it for a lower price to get more customers, thus forcing the original inventor to bring down the price as well. As a result, the farming world becomes more efficient thanks to innovation and market forces.
I feel like most people understand market forces, so I’m sorry if I’m not saying anything new yet, but it’s crucial for seeing the flaw in the next part…
Modern medicine is not controlled by private entities, and they are not operating in a free market. The conditions that allow for market forces simply does not exist in Canada or America (probably Europe too but I know less about their system to get into details).
Take Johnson and Johnson for example. For one thing, they are not a private entity, they are incorporated and act in the collective interest of its shareholders. If capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production (which it is!) then immoral acts they take cannot be attributed to capitalism.
Now consider their business, aside from who owns and controls them. They have a medicine called Stelara, which has no generic alternative. They have an effective Monopoly on this Crohn’s medicine, becauae no one else is allowed to sell medicine of the same chemical composition until the patent wears out and it’s genericized. This patent is enforced by the state. So, the state enforces a ruling that prevents private business from selling medicine, which gives the corporation an effective Monopoly.
So we have a public entity, using state-enforced rules to prevent a private business from controlling the means of producing that medicine. That’s completely anti-capitalistic from every angle I can think of
When a new medicine is invented, and a company marks up the price to high heaven, it’s not because they’re a capitalist and thus greedy, that simply shows anti-capitalist bias. It’s because the state and the laws they enforce give them the opportunity to.
People can be greedy whether they’re capitalist or not, so don’t use it as an indicator for the flaw in capitalism because you’ll just be wrong a lot of the time, because they’re independent things
For one thing, they are not a private entity, they are incorporated and act in the collective interest of its shareholders.
Jesus fucking Christ, you think “private” means “individual.”
You know less than nothing about this subject. Don’t give lectures.
Yep, communism isn’t state-owned means of production as this post implied, it’s democratic - that’s one of the reasons the USSR model failed.
That is far from the wrongest idea in that comment!
All this ignores that the free market naturally converges on monopolies and that these monopolies will pay off the government to continue being a monopoly in their respective industry or industries. If the government had less control then even better since they wouldn’t have to pay off as many people.
Why do they have to pay off the government? You’re still assuming some government control, but in a truly free market capitalist system, the government would not have any influence in the market anyway, so paying them off would yield 0 results. You directly say the less government control the better, that’s a deeply capitalistic sentiment.
I feel as though you’re also assuming I’m 100% advocating for what I’m describing. This is incorrect, because I believe some statehood is necessary to ward off the inherent chaos of a completely free society. The one and only point my post makes, is that the systemic flaw pointed out by the post is absolutely not a capitalist one, regardless of political alignment the post is incorrect.
Whether you’re more capitalistic or socialistic, the first step to solving a problem is proper diagnosis.
You’re saying it’s not capitalist because of government involvement, but the government has to be involved in order to enforce capitalism. A private entity can claim ownership over something, but what enforces that claim? I said “the less government control the better” as in better for the monopolistic companies who wouldn’t have regulators threatening to break up their monopoly or having to pay them off.
I didn’t say anything regarding what you advocate, I’m just pointing out that capitalism requires statement enforcement, so pretending that government involvement is not capitalist is wrong. I’m also pointing out that the situation would be worse without certain regulations such as anti-trust laws because capitalism naturally converges on monopolies.
I feel as though you’re also assuming I’m 100% advocating for what I’m describing
i think you’re missing it. Government for as glacial and corrupt and corruptible as it is, is the only buffer from the excess of a free market.
businesses without a guardrail HAVE proven they will sacrifice everything, literally everything in the name of profit.
Oil companies have know for about a century that they are destroying the planet and they are *still * doing it. They fight every regulation that stops them tooth and nail. They buy and shelve technologies that would cut into their profit. Imagine a world where there was no one trying to stop them at all?
That is the proper diagnosis of our system. We have allowed unaccountable immoral groups to control the means of production and they are literally using it to with kill us all.
This has given me alot to think about.
As we sit in a capitalist society surrounded by incredible technology zero people could afford ten years ago.
Yeah capitalism. Always ruining everything 🙄
In case you want the good faith counterargument (I know, I know, socialist wall of text):
I’d be willing to bet you have a different definition of “capitalism” compared to socialists. For most people, capitalism is just trade, markets, commerce, etc. None of that is incompatible with socialism (broadly speaking). When socialists talk about capitalism, they’re referring, specifically, to private ownership of capital. It’s not the buying and selling, it’s that ownership of companies is separate from labor.
We don’t owe technological development to capitalists, we owe it to engineers, scientists, and researchers. We owe art to artists, performance to performers. Socialists want those people to be the primary beneficiaries of their own work, not someone who may or may not even work at a company, but whose wealth means they can profit off of other people’s labor by virtue of owning the property those people need to do their jobs.
And you’ve probably been bothered by enshittification in one form or another. Some product or service you like has probably gotten worse over time. That’s not a decision made by the people who take pride in their creation, or the laborers who want long-term security. It comes from the capitalist class that doesn’t really give a shit about any of that, they just want quarterly profits, long-term survival be damned. That’s capitalism, as the meme was getting at.
You can take this further, and discuss how many empty homes are owned by corporations that are sitting empty, along with how many homeless people there are in the richest country in the world. Or how much food is thrown away while people remain hungry. Both of these things are happening because housing homeless people and feeding hungry people just aren’t profitable.
That’s my main problem with American capitalism. Along with capital owning our politicians and passing anti-competitive laws designed to allow the ones at the top to stay at the top unchallenged. That’s probably a different discussion though. The “Free Market” is a myth.
Absolutely. While I can be convinced on markets for some things (with regulation to protect consumers and prevent monopolies), it completely falls apart in others. Necessities absolutely should not rely on free markets because capital holders hold an extortionate amount of power, most people have little to none, and if it’s more profitable to let some people die, then the profit motive will let those people die.
Necessities must rely on free markets because free markets are the only mechanisms productive enough to cover those necessities.
Health care, education, and housing are three markets that we have attempted to control on the basis that they’re necessary so we shouldn’t take any chances.
As a result, health care, education, and housing are ultra expensive and scarce, and major sources of stress and worth for people.
But far more fundamental than any of those, and hence capable of producing far greater suffering when lacking, is food. Food is a much more free market than health care, education, and housing, and as a result food is abundant and cheap.
The constantly-driven message that capitalism cuts people off from things is deep within our brains. And it makes sense: you imagine someone wanting to eat and not having money and they don’t eat and that’s a horrible thought. But it’s not what happens. We buy and sell food all the time, and we also give enormous amounts of food to people for free. Heck we just had an annual ritual last night based on giving people food. I flew a sign once that said “food only please” and I ate very well. Like, people saw that sign and went to buy me a $50 steak then came back to give it to me.
All I’m saying is: please just try and differentiate between the things that are mostly handled by free market, and the things that are centrally controlled, and then ask yourself what is abundant and what is scarce.
I think you’ll find that capitalism gives more away as an afterthought than other economic systems even produce in total.
In 2018, 11.1% of American households were food insecure. While this is better than many developing and historically colonized countries, this statistic is still worse than for many other developed nations.
Health care in the US is so expensive because there is currently a capitalistic private ownership of insurance because historic efforts for socialized medicine were crushed by the ruling class. Additionally, efforts to implement socialized programs have been systematically handicapped by private insurance company stakeholders.
In Finland, a country with socialized education, tertiary education is free to citizens. In the US, the average cost of attendance to a public university, the cheapest category of 4-year tertiary institution, is $26,000.
Housing prices are skyrocketing because private equity groups and hedge funds are rapidly buying property to drive up prices for profit.
You are pointing out problems that capitalism and free markets have given us, and pointing the finger at socialism, when efforts to socialize each of these necessities have been systematically squashed. You are contributing to misinformation by writing this post. Please do some research and back up your claims with reliable sources before spouting nonsense you don’t understand on the internet.
Both of these things are happening because housing homeless people and feeding hungry people just aren’t profitable.
Actually, under our free market system, people eat like kings even when they have no money to buy food.
I’ve been homeless and I’ve been on food assistance. In both cases I ate plenty of food provided voluntarily by people who … just like the idea of feeding people.
No centralized system is necessary to achieve that. Capitalism is so productive that we have food coming out of our ears. I find it kind of interesting that as a capitalist nation where supposedly there’s a price tag on everything, there are copious resources freely available.
It’s not because free stuff is the central ethos of capitalism. It’s because capitalism produces so much wealth that the tiny sliver we are willing to part with for free is still beyond the total production of the non-consensual economic systems.
The thing is, that separation of capital owner and worker that you’re referring to is the arrangement people come to when given the freedom to choose their arrangements.
To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.
Turns out, many people would rather have a steady job than be in business for themselves. I’ve done both, and I see the merits of both. Right now, I choose to work for a huge corporation. As long as I show up I get paid. That’s working well for me.
What you’re referring to as the laborers getting the benefit of their labor is something that’s already permissible in a free market, and it happens a lot. I was a freelance software developer for many years. I also had a business building and selling easels. And cookies. And smoothies, on a subscription model. You read that right: smoothie subscriptions.
So while it may seem that my definition based on free markets, and your definition based on the separation of ownership and labor, are different definitions, I see them as the same thing.
Or maybe, to be precise, free markets lead to capital accumulation and when capital accumulates beyond an individual’s ability to work it themselves and they hire someone else to work it, capitalism begins. So maybe free markets lead to capitalism by your definition, as a state of wealth distribution and a set of working relationships.
The real key point is that this set of relationships you call capitalism, is the natural result of people being free to do as they see fit.
To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.
If you think a system where the means of production are owned by a class of people and another class of people must sell their labor power in order to survive (the definition of capitalism according to Marx) is full of consensual economic relationships I worry about your definition of consent.
The means of production are not entirely owned by a seperate class nor is the barrier to entry for many industries so high that it is entirely impossible for the average joe to enter.
Sure some industries are nigh impossible to get into, like pharmaceuticals for example, there are much bigger industries that have lower barriers like machine shops (which are really medium entry but you can scale them), and manufacturing via 3d print hubs.
Not to mention aoftware development which is a fucking wonder when it comes to potential money vs barrier to entry.
Certain construction contractors and engineering consulting firms can be opened up with fairly low barrier to entry.
I’m sleepy so my replies may not seem very coherent so tell me if you don’t understand what im saying
Look up how much debt the average US citizen is in and tell me what low barrier to entry industries they can break into
This touches on the concept of an inalienable right, which is a right that the holder cannot give up even with consent because to give up that right would, in effect, put the holder in the legal position of a non-person contradicting their factual personhood. Some rights that are recognized as inalienable in many countries are political voting rights and the right to a lifetime of labor. A free market does not require that all human rights be alienable
Good things exist, pay no attention to the bad things!
