this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
1028 points (97.9% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

965 readers
16 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 172 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah dude that's basically the idea

[–] Karjalan@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I have no idea who this is, and thought It was just some dude saying some based shit... Then I read the blurb at the bottom...

I'm guessing he meant this ironically?

[–] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

This was a capitalist whining about how ridiculous the idea sounds. But little does he know that he’s in the minority…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 110 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why stop there?

Bro you haven't even started there

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WandowsVista@lemmy.world 77 points 1 week ago (1 children)

a right to a meal? a succulent, Chinese meal?!

[–] alt_xa_23@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is Democracy Manifest!

[–] Nfamwap@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Get your hand off my penis!

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And you, sir, are you ready to receive my limp penis?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 71 points 1 week ago

Uh yes. So little self-awareness here.

[–] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 52 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I personally find it easier to sidestep the rights issue and just say "we CAN ensure everyone has healthcare, so we should do that". Whether people have a right or not is sort of irrelevant if you see government as having a duty to materially improve people's lives.

[–] Branch_Ranch@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

But trans people would get healthcare too and we can't have that. /s

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We have the right to lofe liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Not having proper healthcare coverage is literally against that right.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A lot of people think that specifically is not the government's duty, though. You'd have to first convince them that the government's duty isn't simply to defend against invasion, or enforce the will of the people, or whatever else they believe.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 47 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nobody asked to be born into this capitalist hellscape you cunt

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

And they’re making damn sure that keeps happening.

Its almost as if having what one needs to live is called basic nessesities for a reason, something capitalism does not provide.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Yes to all but a right to a job. People shouldn’t have jobs. It’s not natural.

[–] graycube@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago (11 children)

I think it could be argued that you have a right to a "purpose". For some people that may be a job. And some may choose to not have a purpose. But no one should be denied a purpose if they want one - even if it involves goals they will never succeed at.

Almost as if that mazlow guy had a point or something

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Jobs are fine. It’s for-profit companies that’s the problem. Why does a company need profits (outside of maybe emergency capital)?

No company needs to profit by billions/trillions.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Humans find jobs for themselves and their community all the time, but not fucking bullshit jobs like data entry technician or call center technician.

I fucking hate cleaning, but I will happily help a friend or family member clean their house or their apartment because we thrive in a community.

Not getting the humanity squeezed out of us for a few cents more.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Someone has to grow the food. That's a job.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Either nothing humans do is natural, or everything is.

Democracy and human rights aren't natural. Capitalism isn't natural. Or they both are.

People do like to work, the caveat being that they generally don't want to work with virtually nothing to show for it. The modding community is massive, and they almost never get paid. People love to bake, or draw, or garden, or volunteer, all without fiduciary compensation.

But when people make it where they have to "get a job" to survive, the love of the labor disappears.

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Costco has a low turnover rate because they’re paid a living wage. Hell, even (ugh) Chick-fil-A pays their teenage employees decently.

I agree that most people absolutely want to work; the two most important factors are choice of labor and not being treated like shit - either by compensation or other mistreatment.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Who's going to provide your food, shelter and clothing if no one is working?

Yes, if you want to live in a society, you must contribute. Even if you live in a village with no government or economic system, people have to haul water, catch fish, grow crops, make charcoal, weave baskets, 1,000 other jobs.

And to care for the people too elderly or disabled to care for themselves, you must work harder than merely providing for yourself.

Oh, were you thinking rich people could just give us money? Where do you think they get that money? Hint: It comes from our labor, which you propose shouldn't exist.

If you don't like any of that, go homestead. Dick Proenneke left for Alaska in his 50s, single-handedly built a nice cabin and lived there alone for 30 years.

Ol' Dick didn't have a filthy job, unless you count survival. If a middle-aged man can do it with 60s tech and gumption, so can you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago (10 children)

This. As automation increases, fewer of us should have to work. A significant issue with the Soviet Union and their legendary inefficiency is that every one had the right to a job even if there were no jobs to be done. Leading to them creating unnecessary intermediary positions at every level of the system.

Basic income, sure. And people should be educated. But beyond that, encourage the people who don't need to work to pursue art or other ends. Get them involved in community activities. But work towards a society of leisure if possible.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] don@lemm.ee 22 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Fascists: You have no rights, your sole purpose is to enrich the oligarchy with your very life.

Democrats: We disagree with the Fascists, but we aren’t gonna do fuckall about it. Sorry.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] recarsion@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you think people have a right to live, then because to be able to live they have to work, eat, and have a roof over their heads, then yes they should have a right to all of those things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Historically speaking the elites weren't that fucked up. In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn't completely fall into shit.

Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in. Going farther back, a lot of the beautiful artwork we see made in the Renaissance period was commissioned entirely by some of the most ruthless, murderous bastards in human history.

What we are seeing now is not the greediest of bastards, but simply the most unlettered, the most uncultured, and the most barbaric of them. They live and work and think exactly like gang leaders and brigands who reached a point where they can destroy the restrains against them. They would be content to live in vulgar shit and not enjoy life despite their unimaginable wealth, as long as the rest of the world around them burns. I don't think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn’t completely fall into shit.

This strikes me as a touch revanchist.

Middle Ages / Ancient Era nobility operated on a patronage system for their courtiers and military officers, sure. But they obtained the surplus to satisfy the duties of the patrician class by looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.

Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in.

They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.

Communities on the periphery were as heavily exploited then as they are now. Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close by, with innovations like Roman roadways and early Medieval shipbuilding technologies pushing those frontiers outward.

The Vikings were not funding medical research in Angland. The Romans were not building libraries in the Black Forests along the Danube. The Columbian Era Spanish were not bringing Renaissance art and culture to the Aztecs and Incas or sending over architects to build beautiful stained glass churches in what would be Texas and Florida.

I don’t think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.

The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.

The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.

This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] starchylemming@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

while there's good points, the last sentence is out of place.

That guy was contempt manifest. In the end he ordered the destruction of the oh so beloved country

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Decree

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Spendrill@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago

Do they owe us a living?

Of course they do, of course they do.

Owe us a living?

Of course they do, of course they do.

Owe us a living?

OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Clean air and drinking water? Communism

[–] menemen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Is he actually against people having enough food ro survive?

[–] ToadOfHypnosis@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

Why is your wealth and power more important than everyone else’s right to simply exist with a basic level of comfort? Let’s put you on a desert island alone and see you create your empire. You can’t, because you NEEDED people and society for everything you have. You stole most of the benefit from our labor and pretend you are entitled to it. Fuck your broken system.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. You have a right to all those things.

load more comments
view more: next ›