What I like about this comic is that it depicts the lure of ‘cool new thing’ as a party, with someone notifying about it. Why even care about ‘cool new thing’? Largely it’s because of the ‘fear of missing out’; a product as a shared experience with your peers, where not having that same experience may distance you from them and make you more of an outsider. For me, I’ve found that what seems like wanting something for its own sake often masks this underlying dynamic, like I will only start wanting it after people I like mention it positively, and things no one mentions positively I will just be less interested in regardless of whether they should be up my alley. That doesn’t make you a sheep, it’s just how humans work.
This dynamic is intentionally manufactured, and some of it is fake (it’s not actually popular or relevant you just got tricked by an ad), but some of it is real. So then the mistake is in seeing consumerism as an individual struggle of self-deprivation, when it’s really a shared cultural battle; what it comes down to is supporting the people around you in non-consumerism.
Here are some tangible ways I think we can do that:
If your friends don’t have adblock, get them on adblock
Capitalism is the allowing of control over companies to be bought and sold without the consent of their workers.
Consumerism is using cheap marketing tactics to sell cheap garbage to people who don’t know any better, and is mostly the result of not requiring companies to pay for the waste they create.
Either of these could easily exist without the other.
Stop defining everything you don’t like about the economy as capitalism.
Open-source provides cool things all the time. For example, allowing that some prefer KDE (totally valid preference), I personally feel like Gnome is the greatest desktop environment humanity has ever created and every six months it keeps getting better still.
This is the main problem I have with the people who call for socialism. If you boil it down to what they really want, it usually gets down to “i want free stuff”. They dont want to socialize means of production… most of the time they dont even know what that even means. People conflate social programs with socialism when thats just not the case.
If you truly hate capitalism so much, you will be willing to reduce your paycheck, willing to purchase less, willing to donate your social wealth for the common good.
If you boil it down to what they really want, it usually gets down to “i want free stuff”.
This is the main problem I have with the people who call for capitalism . If you boil down to what capitalist really want, it usually gets down to “I want to own people”. They don’t want to free the markets… most of the time they don’t even know what it means. People conflate employees as people when that’s just not the case.
If you truly hate socialism so much, you would be willing to shun unions, willing to work more for less, willing to donate your body and health to enrich your employer for their own self interest.
How do you even claim to love capitalism when you aren’t even a child working in a coal mind?
Socialism doesnt imply that you cant have coal mines with children… unions are not socialism. Capitalism doesnt have to be rutheless top-down… What are you even talking about.
You can make a case where you want to see more co-ops but this still is in a capitalist structure. You can have more unions and not be more socialist i am so confused by what you are saying. Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Capitalism doesn’t imply that you should have coal mines with children… just that you can. Socialism doesn’t have to be ruthless top-down…What are you even talking about?
My point was that your statement was so vague and based on vibes that you could literally change a few words and make the opposite claim.
Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Hmmm, what if were to have just one big international union? One that could dictate the command of the entire global economy ? One with enough group bargaining power to perhaps control the means of production…?
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions. Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers. They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate. We can call it capitalism!
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions.
Like forbidding people to strike , forcing unions to utilize arbitration, destroying their fund raising capabilities, and sending in the national guard to murder the people who don’t capitulate? Yep sounds like capitalism…
Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers.
Lol, how does the government “give more worth to the most desired workers” when the workers themselves are the ones who create the wealth in the first place?
They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate.
Ahh yes, I love to be given a tiny portion of the wealth that I created.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers. I can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits. You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case. However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers.
That’s pretty arguable… mixed economies can function adequately for a while, but theyre typically hampered by inflation and a constant press to privative socialized sectors which drains away at social monetary funds.
can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits.
How do they find these social programs…? Oh yeah, by socializing massive aspects of their resources and economy.
You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case.
Can you give me an example of post industrial capitalist nations with a shrinking inequality gap?
However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Lol, I don’t care about rich people, I care about the huge wealth inequality capitalism thrives upon. As you said, the workers of apple have created on average 20m in profits each, and yet how much of that will they ever see?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
What would a socialist economy be rivalrous against if there is no capitalism?
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that? Would this still be the evil capitalism? These ideas are not exclusive to socialism… in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all. A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream “mixed economies” all day but its just not true.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy. It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with ‘rich bad man’ and socialism with ‘poor enlightened worker’. I feel like i am falling on deaf ears though so ill just leave it here. You have a blessed day.
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that?
The problem is that programs like UBI directly conflict with the competitive nature of capitalism. Capitalism is dependent on stripping away choice from workers to achieve it’s labour needs. The expansion of social healthcare programs conflicts with competitive nature of capitalism.
Would this still be the evil capitalism?
In this scenario, what do you think would happen to the labour market? If we had an actual functional UBI, who do you think is working all the he shitty low paying jobs? Do you honestly think corporations would start offering higher pay to attract labour, or do you think they’d just hire migrant workers who have no rights?
These ideas are not exclusive to socialism… in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all.
I think you have some core misconceptions on the consolidating nature of capital. The problem with the types of economies you are advocating for is that even if they are created with good intentions, there is always going to be conflicts of interest.
Capitalism sees a social programs as competition, to them it’s a entity that is receiving government funding that could be captured by private interest. Just look at any social programs started in a capitalist country, and then see how much of it has been privatized or minimized in a span of 20 years.
A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream “mixed economies” all day but its just not true.
Socialism isn’t that specifically defined, it’s most based description is that the workers have control over the means of production. What they decide to do with the means of production is left to them.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy.
I think you’re over thinking what the difference between capitalism and socialism is. It doesn’t have to do with competitive markets, or private property, it’s specifically the about organizational structure of the hierarchy of labour.
Capitalism is when private interest owns the means of production, meaning business owners and the management class owns the means to produce goods and thus the control of the capital those goods create. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production and the capital that they create.
When you apply that to something like healthcare we can clearly see the difference in motive. In America we have capitalist social programs, where private interest is subsidized by the people, but we have little to no influence on how it operates.
When private interest controls the social service, they have a motivation to provide services, but they also have a profit motive. They have motivations that do not align with the people they serve. There is motive to deny care, limit coverage, and siphon funding that should be going directly back into the insurance pool.
It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with ‘rich bad man’ and socialism with ‘poor enlightened worker’.
I think you are the only one whos made that claim? I just think you are as uninformed about capitalism as you are about socialism. Capitalism is inherently dependent on exploiting the labour of workers to create a surplus to be sold for profit.
Because of the inherent competitive nature of the free market, corporations are dependent on growth to remain solvent. There are only a couple ways in established markets to create that growth. The first being to lower your operating cost ie, pay your labour less. The other form of growth is outcompeting your competition, but this is really hard. You either have to secure material goods at a cheaper rate, or get into price war and see who wins the monopoly war through attrition. Alternatively you can just form conglomerates with your competition, and avoid destructive competition. Whatever you choose, the base motive of growth remains the same.
Now let’s tie this all together… for a sustainable capitalist economy to remain solvent and out of recession the majority of the corporations in that economy have to be experiencing growth. To achieve this growth the economy needs three things. An increase in consumers to purchase the surplus production, an increase in production to meet the increased demand, and an increase in material goods to meet the increased productivity.
What does that mean? Well, unless we have access to an ever increasing population to meet our need for growth in consumption and production, and more importantly access to an infinite amount of material goods, capitalism is doomed to eventually enter an endless economic recession.
I honestly don’t think capitalism is that terrible of an economic structure for certain governments at certain times, depending on their level of economic growth. But it’s only helpful during specific times in technological and economic development, namely during industrialization. Once a country is post industrialized and rapid unorganized growth has slowed to a controllable pace, capitalism begins to cannibalize itself to the benefit of the ownership class.
Let’s try a thought experiment. Lets pretend I appointed you into a position of power where you can decide any or every aspect of how the economy would behave until you die. How would that economy look like? What does the ideal workforce look like in your vision? (You start with how the world is currently set up, greedy people still exist, billionaires still exist, conservatives still exist, etc)
Let’s try a thought experiment. Lets pretend I appointed you into a position of power where you can decide any or every aspect of how the economy would behave until you die.
Lol, I don’t foresee how this is a valuable thought experiment? For one, it would force me into the position of some kind of global dictator. Secondly I’m not an economist, nor do I have aspirations for political leadership.
There is not a single person in the world who has the knowledge and experience to create an equitable economy by themselves. And it’s a little telling that you believe that to be even theoretically possible. The entire point of leftist ideology is that the workers get to collectively choose their own destiny.
That being said, just because I’m not helicopter pilot, doesn’t mean I don’t know that youre not supposed fly them into mountains. My point is that capitalism isn’t even theoretically sustainable, and that we need to find an alternative as we fully transition from a post industrial economy to a service economy.
A major aspect of that change will have to be the extension of workers rights and benefits across international lines. The problem with your idea of unionization is that it’s tied to nationalism. American unions are built to protect only Americans, which pits workers of the world against each other, just the way corporations like it.
If we fail to extend unions outside our borders than corporations will continue to exploit the weakest and most powerless workers across the globe, using unprotected labour as ammunition bto further destabilize workers rights in America.
Why else do you think workers pay has consistently failed to match increases in profitability and production for the last 30 years?According to your view of capitalism, aren’t the most productive workers supposed to be rewarded for increasing profits, isn’t that the inherent motivation for workers to work harder?
Wow, you are terrible at this. Not only do you want to criticize anything I say but you refuse to respond to a hypothetical where you have the ability to make the best case scenario. You dont want to make changes you just want to be ‘correct’. Im done with this conversation. What a useless waste of time.
Wow, you are terrible at this. Not only do you want to criticize anything I say
I’m not criticizing everything you say, I’m just explaining my understanding of some of the economic mechanisms I have problems with.
you refuse to respond to a hypothetical where you have the ability to make the best case scenario.
That’s a false dichotomy though… I don’t have to have come up with a hypothetical theory that adequately replaces an entire political and economic reality, just to criticize it.
That’s like if I were to complain about my piece of shit car, and having someone say you can’t criticize your car unless you can design and manufacture a better replacement.
I don’t possess the knowledge or time to accurately replace an economic system through authoritarian actions as you suggested in your hypothetical. That doesn’t mean there’s not a more sustainable economic model out there that would lead to less wealth inequality. It just means that a person who went to medical school for orthopedics and rehabilitation prob isn’t going to be part of the team that figures it out.
You dont want to make changes you just want to be ‘correct’.
Lol, dude. What do you mean “don’t want to make changes”? I’m not a senator, I don’t have the ability to force change on anyone. Literally the only thing I can do to enact any form of change is to create honest and meaningful discord with people like yourself.
Do I think I’m correct, yes, of course. Am I being honest when I challenge your views, yes.
And I think it’s kinda ridiculous to adopt a “higher than thou” posture towards me not participating in your impossible hypothetical, when you haven’t addressed any of my questions or rebuttals.
Im done with this conversation. What a useless waste of time.
I mean, what was your goal here? What would have made this discord more useful? Did you honestly expect me to just change my viewpoint when you haven’t actually engaged with any of my concerns?
The problem with blanket attacks on capitalism is that it ignores the fact that the US became an economic superpower under capitalism, and we built the strongest middle class in history under capitalism WHEN WE MIXED IN SOCIALIST PROGRAMS.
BASIC economics shows that BY FAR capitalism is the most efficient way to generate wealth.
It sounds profoundly ignorant to be against that system.
Instead, we should be talking about what to do with the wealth it generates.
Bernie Sanders “Democratic socialism” is actually “capitalist socialism”. It leaves in place all the profit incentives and machinery of innovation and production, but then it redistributes wealth away from the hoarders at the top, and gives it back to the workers who generated it.
This is a much more compelling system to fight for than just a blanket “capitalism bad!” argument.
Social programs are not socialism. It’s often up to the socialists to put enough pressure on the system to get social programs implemented, but that’s because liberals are completely devoid of compassion.
Socialism is an economic idea diametrically opposed to capitalism in one key point: private property.
Social programs are not socialist. The government is not socialism.
Modern governments are tools directly descendent from the capitalist bourgeoisie revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. They are tools of the capitalist class.
Social programs are appeasements to the proletariat class so they don’t revolt and destroy the government/capitalist class.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is (among other things) the private ownership of the means of production.
By the way, when socialists/communists say “private property”, they mean “private property of the means of production”. So “abolish private property” is to collectivise the means of production amongst the workers. Not to share toothbrushes.
Is wealth really the one thing we should be capitalism thankful for? I wouldn’t argue that it helped make so many advancements in so many fields in such a short time, but from my understanding, wealth isn’t really something that helps living a better life. Wealth is more a by-product of hoarding. Like if someone would hold the monopoly over something like housing, they would have immense wealth. If all houses were to be distributed, so that in this theoretical village everyone would have a house, this would still lower the overall wealth of the village. First of all the houses would be priced more competitively and secondly no one would be in desperate need of a house and thus wouldn’t buy houses at an impractical price. I would agree with you that throwing away all lessons learned from capitalism is a bad idea, but wealth isn’t it.
Is the generation of wealth really the end goal, though?
On top of that, yes I agree that there are various declinations and modifications of capitalism. And yes, democratic socialism is still a version of capitalism, but one where the harshest edges of capitalism have been significantly smoothed over. Looking at Europe, they are also under capitalism, but implemented significant socialist policies, and the problems there are less extreme than in US. And still, this meme would apply.
No. Social democracy is what nordic countries practice—a capitalist system with relatively strong social and welfare programs. It does not do away with private property and owner class, just tries to reform and regulate it.
Democratic socialism is a socialist system (means of production collectively owned) which is ruled by democratic principles. Instead of reforms and regulations to try and reign in the owner class, it completely does away with private property. You can also have socialist systems ruled non-democratically, by a dictator.
Also by draining wealth from poorer countries. Banana Republics in Central America. The constant pro-american coups in South America. The plantations of Liberia that used essentially slave labor to harvest rubber.
Social safety nets and taxpayer funded programs aren’t socialism either. Socialism is a tainted word anymore and is basically used wrong by everyone including Bernie.
I don't understand how people find it so difficult to just stop spending their money on shit they don't need. You have to treat yourself occasionally, but I'll never understand those who anyways have to buy the newest thing.
My car is over ten years old. I still use a Pixel 4. I don't own any fancy clothes, new consoles, TV's, etc. and I'm perfectly happy. I run my own business and put money aside, ensuring I'm not going to go hungry if shit hits the fan, which is always a very real possibility. The last nice thing I bought myself was a gaming laptop, and that was just to replace my old one which got me through a good 5 years of use.
People need to start being happy with less. It's really, really easy to do, and you'll likely find yourself feeling happier not giving a fuck about the New Thing... or maybe I'm just getting older and my priorities have changed.
EDIT: I should note that this is aimed at people who complain about having money issues, but who go out and spend it on things they don't need and then blame anything but their own actions. If your dopamine hits come from buying stuff, and you're all good with that, more power to you.
Very true. I’ve never had a car loan or a loan for any of my toys like campers, motorcycles, boats, dirt bikes etc… Because I save to buy and buy used. I still have tons of shit I don’t need, I just don’t buy on credit. I’d love to buy a Tesla brand new, but I have too many cars already, I don’t have 100k laying around, and if I did I’d be a fool to not pay off my house.
Mine definitely burned out sometime in the last five years. Used to be so excited for new tech, new features, new consoles, not necessarily to even buy, but just to see what’s going on. Being fair, there was also some crippling depression, but now the new yearly tech release feels exhausting rather than sparking any amount of curiosity. Same with programs, Google releasing something is more of a “what now?” rather than the neat exploration it used to be.
I don’t know, it feels a lot more exploitative than things used to be. Phones cost as much as laptops, all your programs are trying to spy on you better, everything seems to be trying to find the maximum limit for how expensive a thing can be before the line starts going down instead of up.
It brings me great pleasure to own things for a long time. My car is 15 years old and it’s in amazing condition, my phone is 6 years old and it’s fine. Hell, I have several pairs of shoes that are 6-8 years old and I can’t believe they’re still going strong. When it’s time for something new I’ll happily upgrade but I’ll never understand people who constantly need new things all the time.
You have to treat yourself occasionally, but I’ll never understand those who anyways have to buy the newest thing.
sudo apt-get install -y mongodb-org
I’m not going to gatekeep. I have a PS5 so I am not coming at this from a high horse. But Pixel 4 is a very new phone, and even if it weren’t, all it takes is a billion people “treating” themselves every few years to make the system work.
This speaks to me to. Ironically I wanted to spend more on virtual things to keep down possesions and enjoy more in a way that impacts the environment less, but the way its all gone to subscriptions leaves me cold. Luckily there is a ton of free stuff that is old or just not cool that is great to watch. Just watched the third man do to a post someone had here and I think I have seen clips from it before but it was great watching the whole thing.
yeah I just talked about consumer thigns but agree. good walks and nature not only I enjoy but try to enjoy the heck out of while its here. Unfortunately its been difficult getting rid of plastic. Especially since I don't drive if not completely necessary.
I spent 5 years gaming like a penny pincher on an old faithful ps4, buying games only on sale years after their release. Finally gave out and splurged so I could play ps5-only Baldur’s Gate 3 on release date (do the math on the total bill there). I don’t mind it. By all means let the industry learn that producing a Baldur’s Gate 3 is how you make a lot of money.
Add comment