I see you like things that work. We've decided that we'll break it, and sell you the solution. We call it service.
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.
I think they're worse then that though. They attempt to manipulate and influence. Graffiti is just kind of there. Advertising attempts to look like its just there. All so it can actually pull tricks on you. Its a messed up industry.
After all the ad industry is what spawned climate denialism and also spread confusion between cigarettes and cancer among other issues. Issues that we have to be convinced of otherwise we might actually make a better societal choice. Hell The grandfather of modern advertising Edward Bernays leveraged what he know of human nature and sub consciousness to build this industry.
Sure almost all ads are benign individually. But as an industry they're pretty evil. Hell if it wasn't for ads, we wouldn't have lost the internet to the shit show it is today. All the identity stealing, data collection and propaganda machines were spawned because we ignored the growing cancer that is online ads.
When I grew up there was a big push to reject ads and corporate spread. Even sub cultures like punk was focused on rejecting that growing bullshit. Then it all stopped. Like the ads won and now you're the insane one if you say that advertising is a major issue in society today. Now every kid wants their own sponsorships and some do get it.
•
There actually is paid graffiti. Most that I've seen looks absolutely awesome. It's insane what a graffiti artist can do when they got plenty time and don't have to watch out to not be caught.
You should check out Wynwood Walls if you ever find yourself in Miami, Florida. Blocks of amazing street art.
Why does winamp now require ads and $12.99/ month to run?! It was free back in 1997!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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.
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.
•
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.
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.
You don't understand, that's for your protection so you can feel safer and even more freedomery
•
No because freedom and innovation have nothing to do with capitalism? If anything the opposite?
The thing about capitalism is that it DOES promote freedom and innovation. The problem is that continuous innovation is rarely profitable so companies generally won’t bother innovating after a certain point and the text on the reverse side of the freedom coin is “free from consequences”
Capitalism is like… a good start to a much better economic system we haven’t figured out yet.
You're not at all wrong. The problem is now we're all so "bought in" (heh) to capitalism, and the power it has established its so entrenched, that the idea of iterating on it has become so close to literal blasphemy as makes no odds.
The sight of Theresa May dance-walking to ABBA was an insult to the United Kingdom and Sweden :(
Is that what’s going on here? Is it as terrible and hilarious as Trump’s “double handjobs” move to Village People?
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.
“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...
“I’ve made bought 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
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.
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
There are a loooot of extra words in there, that seem unnecessary. I've read pages and pages now, and it's just repeating meaningless words without reaching a conclusion. I have no idea what it's trying to convey.
He does spend several pages worth of mobile phone screen just setting up his premises. What meaningless words are you referring to?
I don't have the patience to read 20 pages with no arrival at any conclusion. Is there somewhere I can just read a summary of the conclusions?
Dude needed an algebra lesson or something. He'll write three pages trying to explain an idea that could be expressed in two simple equations.
Maybe the machine also does it with less waste and more consistently, the same reason woodworkers make jigs for complex cuts or identical parts.
Still investing and taking recurring upkeep costs for something that may or may not yield more income.
You could ask the other 9 to pay for it with you, the other 9 are also owners in a worker co-op.
I created a new email service that prevents spam and organized your email. If it works out and I become successful, I can imagine Google trying to buy it, and if I say no, all of a sudden Gmail starts having issues receiving mail from my service. Gmail and Exchange together share about 70% of the business email market, so they can destroy smaller competitors if they aren’t willing to sell. Yay capitalism!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Email vs. Capitalism, or, Why We Can't Have Nice Things.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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'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.
•
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 agree government needs to be involved to an extent. My comment was still correct, the issues of medicine do not stem from capitalism. This does not mean capitalism is without flaw
•
The example you gave doesn't make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. "the public" at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson's stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.
As for drug patents (and patents in general), the idea is to secure timed exclusivity to sell in the market in exchange for public disclosure of method of invention. If we didn't have patents, companies would instead treat drug formulations as trade secrets and so they'd hold onto that exclusivity as long as they can keep the formulation a secret or until another entity reinvents the same thing. There are issues with the patent process and especially with private companies benefiting from publicly-funded research while locking up exclusivity and jacking up prices, but those are still problems with capitalism, and they're still better than just letting the free market completely monopolize the process.
The example you gave doesn’t make sense. First off you confused public trading (company shares are available to the general public) with public ownership (owned by the government i.e. “the public” at large). Johnson and Johnson is publicly traded but the shares are held by private entities. If I buy a share of Johnson and Johnson’s stock, I privately own a piece of Johnson and Johnson.
If a corporation is publicly traded, then its ownership is held by the public collective that chooses to invest. The ownership in question is not your specific ownership of a share individually, the ownership in question is the ownership of the means of production, which a public collective invested in. It is not true that you buying one share privately implies the whole thing is private. That's like saying the fact that you voted in private means the government is privately controlled. Yes, private individuals can vote and buy stock, that does not make either private. It makes them public.
The definitions also agree with me btw
Private Ownership:
- the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled "define private ownership")
- Private companies are owned by those who establish them and those invited to invest in them. The public-at-large cannot buy shares or otherwise invest in private companies at their own discretion.
Public Ownership:
- A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company's assets and profits. (Same source)
- ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled "define public ownership")
So, if it's owned by the government, or has shares available for purchase by any public body, then it is public. If it's not owned by the state or public body, it's private.
Johnson & Johnson, just like all public corporations, has its shares available for purchase for the public. Therefor, it is public, not private. Honestly, the more you go into it, the harder it is to get away from the simple fact that private means private, and public means public.
•
Do you not understand what the point of a public offering is? It's to offer up shares of your company to others in order to raise funds so you can expand more rapidly. You throwing in the word "collective" is a poor game of word association. Are you trying to argue that publicly-traded companies are communist? You should really hit the books and straighten out your terminology because you're using it all wrong and you're only misleading others who don't know any better.
"Public companies" are owned by private individuals, you absolute dingus. Being for sale means private. They belong to specific persons and organizations.
Do you understand how something being owned by a democratic government is different than something being owned by individuals, whether it is publicly traded or not?
Like, from a power perspective, do you understand the difference for the average prole between the means of production being owned by individuals based on heredity vs being collectively owned by a democratic body?
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.
I'm not missing it, that's just a different point. I don't disagree with everything you say here, it just doesn't really address or refute anything I said. I stuck with the topical example of helpful medicine, which is demonstrably controlled by corporations and the state. Thus, it is not at all capitalist.
businesses without a guardrail HAVE proven they will sacrifice everything, literally everything in the name of profit. Hence why market competition should be encouraged, right? Which businesses are you referring to, public ones or private ones? (they both do it btw, don't pin it on private)
Reminder: profit does not mean capitalist, market does not mean capitalist. Public bodies can act in and/or control markets, and they can make profit. That's not a private thing
Okay, let's do it explain how in a "pure" capitalist society a public body, without the ability to at least nominally use a legal system to guard against collusion and monopoly using the threat of breaking up or shutting down corporations, provide any protection?
Giving them the power to do that makes them just a government by another name.
You literally directly quoted me saying that it seemed like you thought I was advocating for pure capitalism, and now you are directly asking me to defend pure capitalism. You are trying incredibly hard to straw man me into something I'm not, and I would like you to stop that.
This conversion will go no where unless you actually want to respond to things I'm saying, so please let me ask you directly about what I was actually saying: is it appropriate to blame capitalism when a public corporation in collusion with the government is at fault for an issue? If not, why?
I guess i'm getting that from when you first said,
but in a truly free market capitalist system
I just assumed you were defending a "truly free market" capitalism.
to address what you just posted,
is it appropriate to blame capitalism when a public corporation in collusion with the government is at fault for an issue? If not, why?
yes, capitalism creates the conditions for that collusion. It allows entities with the only goal of profit at any cost.
removing the government doesn't reduce that corruption it just allows it to go unchecked without even an illusion of protection to the public.
We live in a world with limited resources. Late stage capitalism is characterized partly by a concentration of wealth. Anyone that has played the board game Monopoly understands the issues with the concentration of wealth, and access to concentrated wealth in a world of limited resources accords a few individuals almost unlimited power over the majority.
Limiting government regulations over fiscal entities just trades governmental tyranny for corporate tyranny over the working-class.
That's a popular belief, sure. But, limited resources aren't the only thing that exist in markets (art, ideas, services, consultation, etc...). In fact, much of the necessary resource market is entirely renewable (most food certainly is).
Limiting government regulations over fiscal entities just trades governmental tyranny for corporate tyranny over the working-class.
It's just kinda funny that this is your response when I demonstrated state-corporate cooperation inflicting that tyranny. Corporations are chartered by the state, and the are currently also empowered by the state. Lowering regulations for private entities would empower them against corporations. It would also just make sense considering they are more regulated than corporations are currently, and the market is already completely captured by corporations.
You danced around the fact that late stage capitalism is a shitshow of monopolies.
Secondly, "renewable" does not equal "unlimited".
Food, despite being renewable, is not unlimited, regardless of scientific advancements. It is a limited resource, and access to it is extremely limited in a monopolistic late-stage capitalistic system. Land, housing, minerals, and the physical components of all consumer goods are composed of limited resources.
Time is a limited resource.
Lowering regulations for private entities would empower them against corporations.
Are you suggesting we have a more powerful government to limit incorporation? Otherwise, private entities stand no chance.
If you are suggesting the government abolish the right to incorporate, I'd entertain that notion with you. As well as an amendment to the 14th amendment while we're at it.
And just for clarity, when we're talking about regulations, are you also suggesting we dismantle things like the FDA?
I don't know what to tell you when it comes to farms. Where I'm from, farmers have been able to buy land pretty damn freely. In my small town, there are hundreds of private farms, and it's thanks to the fact that government isn't stopping us, and it's only slowed recently since corporations and government have taken an interest in buying land themselves. Private is the farmers, public is the corporations and government. Farming should stay private, to prevent the misuse of land that comes with government and corporate ownership. The fact the it remains arable and plentiful is thanks to private ownership in fact, because the owners have a vested interest in not depleting the value and use of their land. Farming is their way of life, they don't want to lose it.
You tend to see land misuse and resource depletion in corporate and government farms, not private ones.
Are you suggesting we have a more powerful government to limit incorporation?
The government currently regulates private entities really heavily while also doing things that benefit themselves and corporations. I would suggest that they both stop working with corporations like that (enforcing patents on helpful medicine for example) which would make the government and corporations both less powerful.
Empowering the government in a way that hurt corporations is tempting, but I'm not sure if it's possible since corporations are charted by the state itself. It would be really hard to have the state create them in a way that doesn't in some way help them, and thus it would be hard to stop them from empowering the corporations because they'll always benefit from it. They set it up, house always wins.
If you are suggesting the government abolish the right to incorporate, I’d entertain that notion with you.
That might be the answer, just get rid of them. It'll be hard to get done, for the reasons I described, but yeah, I think it might have to be done. Let's enthusiastically agree on this one :)
And just for clarity, when we’re talking about regulations, are you also suggesting we dismantle things like the FDA?
Hmm, great question honestly. Really hits the heart of the medicine issue. I think it serves a public good, because big corporations had the freedom to sell some awful stuff, but with corporations gone... maybe not necessary right? My position is that it's currently regulating far too much. A lot of potential medical innovation has been stifled for dubious "safety reasons", while there's also been a lot of dangerous things stopped, so the balance is hard. Reduced regulation is where I stand for now
Ah yes, that unlimited resource: food.
Learn what words mean, god dammit. You can't discuss economics based on what you imagine these terms sound like!
The whole thing my guy, You clearly have no idea what Capitalism is. . . Fucking hell that bit you wrote about Corporations not being a part of the Capitalist system because they are incorporated and not privately owned. Comedy gold, if you weren't being sincere. Economists that support Capitalism would laugh at that word salad you wrote, its just so fucking dumb it hurts.
Public corporations are absolutely not private :)
I don't really need to point out that you're actually just being really rude and lashing out at someone who's challenged your beliefs, I don't think anyone could read your comment and see anything different whether they agree with you or not. But, I'm still happy to reason out why exactly a public corporation is not private. I don't mind taking the time to go over the facts and leave a few references, even if I don't really expect you to read any of it in good faith. You just should know that everything I said actually can be directly reasoned from respected sources.
For starters, would you dispute my definition of capitalism? "The private ownership and/or control of the means of production". Not only is this from Marx himself, but you'd be hard pressed to find any capitalists who would describe it any other way. It's widely accepted all across the isle.
I think that's a pretty strong start in knowing what capitalism is. I guess what might be left for debate is what can rightfully be called "private".
Private Ownership:
- the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled "define private ownership")
- Private companies are owned by those who establish them and those invited to invest in them. The public-at-large cannot buy shares or otherwise invest in private companies at their own discretion.
Public Ownership:
- A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company's assets and profits. (Same source)
- ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled "define public ownership")
So, if it's owned by the government, or has shares available for purchase by any public body, then it is public. If it's not owned by the state or public body, it's private.
Johnson & Johnson, just like all public corporations, has its shares available for purchase for the public. Therefor, it is public, not private. Honestly, the more you go into it, the harder it is to get away from the simple fact that private means private, and public means public.
Corporation, specific legal form of organization of persons and material resources, chartered by the state, for the purpose of conducting business.
As contrasted with the other two major forms of business ownership, the sole proprietorship and the partnership, the corporation is distinguished by a number of characteristics that make it a more-flexible instrument for large-scale economic activity, particularly for the purpose of raising large sums of capital for investment. Chief among these features are: (1) limited liability, meaning that capital suppliers are not subject to losses greater than the amount of their investment; (2) transferability of shares, whereby voting and other rights in the enterprise may be transferred readily from one investor to another without reconstituting the organization under law; (3) juridical personality, meaning that the corporation itself as a fictive “person” has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, may make contracts, and may hold property in a common name; and (4) indefinite duration, whereby the life of the corporation may extend beyond the participation of any of its incorporators. The owners of the corporation in a legal sense are the shareholders, who purchase with their investment of capital a share in the proceeds of the enterprise and who are nominally entitled to a measure of control over the financial management of the corporation. Corporation
Unfortunately, the definitions change based on context.
When we're talking about political and broad economic systems, private means non-government organizations. Public means government.
When we're talking about a company's status, public means its equity is traded on a public stock exchange. Private is everything else. So a ma and pop shop is a private company and a private organization. Microsoft is a public company but a private organization.
The rest of you commenters are assholes for talking to HardNut like this. They clearly don't know these definitions, and rather than educate, you criticize to inflate your own egos and display some bogus superiority. Instead, explain the terms so constructive conversation can happen. Cue the "well it's not my responsibility" crowd. If you want to promote your own ideas, education is a better method than mockery when it comes to those who aren't clearly and steadfastly directly opposed to you. And even for those directly opposed to you, the display of educating wins third parties to your cause.
Good on you, HardNut for trying to Google things and figure them out on your own. The context between these two areas is tricky, and your understanding makes sense without the additional context. Sadly, we're terrible at naming things.
I appreciate your comment and defense a lot. You seem like a very kind person and you're very straightforward with your words, I like that. I'm telling you that not just because I believe it's true and you deserve to hear it, but also so you don't take it the wrong way when I tell you that, well, I'm sorry but I found your comment a bit condescending too. And I don't blame you for it! Truly, I get it. You are referencing the fact that I'm on the hunt for the truth on Google, and it's fair enough that it paints the picture in your head of a young, maybe naive, person on the hunt for the truth of this nebulous area of private and public ownership. I guess it's not really far from the truth either lol. But, the context I haven't shared is that I actually am very educated on this. I studied economics, history, philosophy and political science in post-secondary for two years before graduating (with a different major) and a minor in philosophy. Outside of school I've actually read heaps of books pertaining to the general theories the revolve around the distinction between public and private, from anarcho-capitalists to totalitarian-communists and everything in between.
The reason I don't share this context and why I choose to reference google, is because after all this studying I've come to see that most conclusions drawn by these intellectuals can be demonstrated very easily by using commonly accepted definitions. Most misunderstandings can be contradicted by people's own language or easily accessible sources, so that's what I try to do. It seems a lot more favorable to do a simple "premise -> premise -> conclusion". Besides, it just seems like a waste of time to open up a physical copy of some philosopher and manually re type something to quote them, just to come off as as grand standy, or just get told they don't like who I quoted, or have the comment not even post to begin with because Lemmy has issues with long comments.
I'm sorry, that's enough about my frustrations for one comment lol. I just wanted you to know I don't come from a place of naivety or ignorance on the topic before I respond to your insights, because I think the assumption of ignorance has prevented some people in this thread from reading what I'm saying in good faith. I also do think you're mostly spot on in what you say. The only exception might be that while I am familiar the distinction between public traded and private organization before, I don't think that distinction applies here. After all, you're totally right, things do change based on context :) I'll try and show you what I mean.
My original comment's purpose was to show the flaw in using capitalism as a catch all term, especially when it comes to medicine. The most commonly used definition of capitalism refers to private ownership. You're absolutely right that private can refer to not being publicly traded, but private ownership refers to "being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body".
Regarding the term public, when things are open to the public, they are open to us because we are members of the public. Public places are open to members of the public. We are members of the public, public refers to the state, and we live in a democracy and are thus members of the state. People who are exiled are not free to trade in stocks because they no longer are a member of the state that holds them. Exiled folk are not free in public places because they are no longer a member of their public, and are banned from visitation so they're sent elsewhere.
Recall the definition of Corporation I provided before, specifically that it's "chartered by the state". This means the government and the government alone establishes corporations as legal entities, and sets the parameters by which they can do so. They exist as part of the state, but operate separately from the government, under parameters set by the government. That's the distinction that's made when you call Microsoft a private organization, the business isn't controlled by the state directly, but government and corporations are both part of the state, and they certainly influence each other a lot right now.
This can also be seen in the etymology of the word itself, along with the history of how modern corporations came to be. "Corporation" comes from latin corpus, meaning corpse, or "body". A body that's chartered by the state, a body of the state. The reason the etymology took this path can be seen in how corporations evolved with time. The publicani of Rome is sometimes considered the first corporation to exist, which were independent contractors that performed government services. The Dutch East India Company found the first stock exchange, and was a corporation owned and controlled by the Dutch senate as well as others.
Now, considering where corporations evolved from, and the amount of easily identifiable government-corporate collusion today, I think corporations land far closer to being an independent arm of the state, and publicly owned than representing the private ownership represented by capitalism.
Now, just to nip it in the bud, you might infer that this means that corporations are socialist. Well, kinda, but also no. Characteristics of corporations can be seen all over early modern socialist philosophy, including syndicalism and trade unionism. But, if socialism is the public control of the means of production, and corporations are controlled independently, it doesn't quite fit, right?
The context between these two areas is tricky, and your understanding makes sense without the additional context. Sadly, we’re terrible at naming things.
You and I couldn't agree more. I guess it would really help if people incorporated (heh) the word corporatism into their vocabulary. We could freely disagree on the nature of corporations and their relationship with public and private ownership and control, while still distinguishing companies like Microsoft from ma and pop shops with clearer language.
At the very least, I wonder if you can agree that there's enough reason to take issue with blaming all issues on capitalism alone, when there's so much more to it. Feel free to let me know what you think :) I know it was still a really big comment but, yeah, like I said, there's a lot to it lol I really appreciate it if you've even read this far
Lmfao why didn't just just google the word capitalism my guy, It quite literally is our current economic system, no if ands or buts.. regardless of your attempted semantics. 
Who owns the Post Office? Nobody, because it's a public utility.
Who owns Johnson & Johnson? The shareholders. That's what they're holding. That's what they bought. That's what the money was for. Because being "a public corporation" only means any rando can participate in that textbook fucking definition of capitalism.
It's a joint-stock company! That is what defines the advent of capitalism!
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.
Thank you for taking the education angle. I'd like to add another perspective for folks' benefit. I'm not 100% sure it's correct, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Your labor has some value. Ideally, you should be paid a corresponding amount of wealth to the amount of value you generate through your labor. So you do $20 worth of work and get $20 worth of money. This is the ideal.
But how much labor is worth $20? Capitalism takes advantage of this ambiguity. The capitalist, e.g. a business owner or investor or similarly positioned person, pays you $19 for that $20 labor and pockets the remaining amount as profit. Sure, the capitalist likely provides some amount of leadership and direction, which is labor with value, but their compensation vastly exceeds the value they generate. This is why you see CEOs getting >300x the pay of their employees. The labor of these CEOs is not worth that much. One person's labor literally cannot be worth that of 300 people. (Engineers may pipe in on that point, but please realize you're in the same boat.)
If you see capitalism from this perspective, it makes sense why you would be angry. You're literally getting short-changed for your effort. Not cool
So what's the alternative? Well, there's a bunch. Personally, I like the idea of employee-owned companies. This way, you get the advantage of pooling people's resources, and any profit can be invested back into the company to generate more wealth for its employees or be held onto in case of a downturn. Both are better than a CEO's pocket.
One issue is capital investment. Starting a company is expensive, and many companies take a long time to become profitable. If every company had to bootstrap, we'd see much fewer successes and much slower progress. I'm not exactly sure how to solve this, yet. Would love to hear folks' ideas
•
This point is even stronger if you look at property rights instead of value. The workers in a capitalist firm jointly receive 0% of the property rights to the produced outputs and 0% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs while the employer receives 100% and legally owns the produced outputs and legally owes the liabilities for the used-up inputs. This is a violation of the moral principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match
My issue is socialism doesn't resolve centralization of wealth.
If you write a book and everyone buys it, you're rich now. Your second book will do better with your name recognition too, so you get wealthier by reputation rather than effort or quality. This is the exponential/multiplicative impact of wealth.
You need janitors and sanitation workers society and I doubt most people will just want to do it. Cleaning doesn't contribute to the bottom line, you can't say you cleaned $30 worth of value, so how much do you pay the janitor under socialist models?
You can see the same greedy processes as capitalism in condo strata and other situations where people must share costs. We're greedy shits and half of us will let the world turn to shit to avoid paying more than they have to.
And what happens to people who want to produce things nobody wants? Sometimes this stuff pays off hugely like the math behind cryptography (which was nothing more than an academic exercise for like 100 years), but sometimes a person wants to spend all their time making macaroni Squidward vore content.
I agree CEOs are overpaid, they're overpaid because there's a perceived lack of them because being a CEO is all about your pedigree. Shareholders won't make Jeff the 18 year employee into CEO because they don't know who Jeff is, and Sandy over there went to Harvard and has run 6 companies before, starting with the one she inherited or bought with her trust fund. That's not really fair at all, and it makes capitalism worse too.
I like the ideas of cooperatives and all that, but in my cynical eyes human greed is the center of the problem.
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.
•
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
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
Then you should demand the government stop interfering with the free market for housing, or at least minimize the interference.
Houses are super expensive because they’re in short supply. They’re in short supply because there are numerous laws constraining what can be built. For example someone might see profit in building a complex of 100 apartments, but the zoning says that land can only contain houses on half acre lots. So where you could have maybe 150 people living, instead you get 6 people there.
Supply is artificially constrained, and so prices go up. We desperately need a free market for housing.
Theyre in short supply because of artificial scarcity, which benefits the people who own and rent land. The government loosening building regulations would not fix the fact that it is more profitable to create artificial scarcity.
Also you're pretending like the government is in opposition to landlords. The leech class owns the government, that is why the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" or alternatively "democracy of the bourgeoisie" was invented.
Why would I read what you wrote when my one and only downvote appeared at the same time as your comment? If you want to talk, be polite.
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.
You can also invent better ways to do things under capitalism. There is no difference in that regard