Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress. That’s according to the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

  • jsdz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who are all these extremist wackos who don’t already want to abolish capitalism?

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How about we just regulate the companies instead. I know, it’s shocking to all of the Americans here, but just think about it. When companies are allowed to do whatever they want, it’s like being locked in a cage with a psychopath.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I ask the reader, if you could live in any country in the world, what country would that be? Seriously think about it for a moment. Take your time. … Now, note if the country you just chose is capitalist or not, it almost certainly is.

        Yes, capitalism has flaws, but we have yet to see a better system.

        • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because capitalist countries keep using their massive wealth to dismantle socialist/communist countries. Just look at the history of US interventions in Latin/South America, which replaced a lot of democratically elected leftists with murderous dictators so we could have cheaper bananas.

          Also it’s a lot harder to create a system that works for everyone instead of an oligarchy run by the wealthy. The reason so many countries slide into capitalism is because it’s a pit that self-interested parties are constantly trying to drag people in

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is China dismantled? No, the CCP enshittified their country all by themselves.

              • iopq@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                But they are socialist and successful. You don’t get to real Scotsman every example that doesn’t fit your narrative

                • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If American Leftists don’t wish to recreate China, then China is hardly what they stand for; they are not responsible for what people on the other side of the planet have done, and are not obligated to answer for their decisions over the last 60 years.

                • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The number of billionaires in China is increasing, the fact that they’re enshittifying is because they’re getting more capitalist not less

          • Bernie Ecclestoned@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It was called the Cold War… jeez, you guys love trotting out one side of a conflict.

            Test
            

            Text

             Text
            
            Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
            
    • Gigan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. It’s not perfect, but neither is any other system.

      • Shalakushka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Industrialization lifts people out of poverty, capitalism sinks them into poverty by stealing the value of their labor as profit.

        Also what’s with the phrase “lifted out of poverty?” The fuck does that mean? Why is this same phrase repeated anytime some criticizes capitalism? It’s like a stock phrase or talking point that makes you sound like a robot.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are you sure about that, because last I checked the Soviets industrialized and their people still stayed poor as hell.

          • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s your definition of poor? Because by the 70s most Soviet citizens had access to modern necessities like food, water, electricity, housing and healthcare, things which some Americans still don’t have. Their standard of living was significantly higher than it was in the early 1900s and better than actual poor countries in the global south. They weren’t as rich as the western nations, but those countries had a 50-100 year headstart on development so that’s to be expected.

            People will often compare the Soviet Union to the United States and point to how much less they have and blame it on communism, but that’s not a fair comparison. A fair comparison would be to a mexico that also had everything north of Mexico city bombed out in the 1940s. With that in mind the soviets don’t seem so poor.

            • bioemerl@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because by the 70s most Soviet citizens had access to modern necessities like food, water, electricity, housing and healthcare, things which some Americans still don’t have.

              This little comparison should be enough to get you laughed out of the room.

          • bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Industrialization happened because of individual efforts to make the lives of workers close to them easier.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, around that time, I’m pretty sure steam engines were literally considered ‘stealing from the worker’.

              The same with many other forms of mechanisation.

              It’s not that the luddites were wrong, just that they were easily beaten, because humans can’t compete.

              There are critics and cynics, but the same is happening now around AI.

              • bioemerl@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s not a worker in the world who will vote away their own job.

                Unchecked control of the workers for industry will harm us all. We don’t need socialism we need strong unions.

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There’s not a worker in the world who will vote away their own job.

                  The fuck are you talking about? This happens all the time.

                  • bioemerl@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No it doesn’t, historically people have literally burned down factories and assaulted those who were replacing their jobs.

                    There’s not a factory in the world with any significant number of workers that find some new innovation that makes all those workers obsolete where the workers go “oh yeah, let’s do that”

                    There are absolutely zero incentives for a worker too to support such a thing. If you think they’re going to somehow magically vote against their own interest and act in favor of the common good no matter the situation…

                    Well that’s very socialist thinking from you.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s pretty amazing considering Adam Smith didn’t write The Wealth of Nations until well after steam engines were in use in Britain.

            Capitalism must be so powerful it can time travel!

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Modern Capitalism is more a product of the Dutch East India company, chartered in the early 17th century, than Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations which was written as a critique of the subsequent 200 years of capitalist practices.

                • AtmaJnana@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Tell me you never read beyond cherry-picking a headline without telling me. Often regarded as the founder of the field of Economist, Adam Smith was a philosopher who wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which was the culmination of decades of studying the relationships between labor, capital, and markets (among other things.) This was during the early days of the industrial revolution.

                  Claiming he invented capitalism is like saying clouds bring rain. I am no historian, so I don’t claim one caused the other and I don’t really care all that much. But I DO know things are rarely so black and white as to have a single cause. And I know for damn sure Smith didn’t invent capitalism. Capitalism had to already exist for him to write a book studying it.

                  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Trade and markets have existed for a long time, but prior to Hume and Smith the dominant economic model was mercantilism which asserted that there was a finite amount of money in the world and you could only get richer at the expense of others.

                    They looked at this and re-interpreted it, subverting the dominant paradigm. That sounds like invention to me.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Industrialization in the USSR didn’t happen? Damn. Where did all those nuclear power plants come from, then? What about that massive agricultural surplus? How did they develop their own computer technologies?

            • kbotc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m amazed that you chose the three worst things you could have picked from the USSR. They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists, did not believe in genetics, period, and created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility (Gigantic centralized serf farms are bad if the local weather isn’t ideal! , and their computers were trinary garbage that barely functioned.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists

                Soviets had a hydrogen bomb before their Western peers.

                What’s more the world’s first nuclear power station at Obninsk was connected to the Moscow grid in June of 1954. The Soviets outpaced their American peers in nuclear power, rocketry, and advanced electronics well into the 1970s.

                did not believe in genetics, period

                That’s flatly untrue. And it completely neglects their role in eliminating smallpox during the 1950s.

                created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility

                https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/09/world/cia-says-soviet-can-almost-do-without-imports.html

                the average Soviet citizen consumes about 3,300 calories a day, as against 3,520 for an American. The report showed that the Soviet diet consists of far more grain and potatoes than the American diet, but less fish and meat and less sugar.

                They ended famine in Asia. A continent that suffered mass famine every ten to fifteen years was fully fed through domestic agricultural production by the end of the 1960s.

                Stalin was so stacked with grain in the 50s that he was bailing out the English colonies throughout India and Bangledish.

      • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, all those wonderful capitalist innovations like minimum wages, the 5-day work week and paid holidays.

        Oh wait those are all things capitalists fought tooth and nail against and social movements made happen. You’re assuming that because something good happened under capitalism that it’s because of it, but most of the actual good things that lifted people out of poverty were anticapitalist. Meanwhile all the needless suffering and deaths because of capitalism never seem to get attributed to it despite the fact that wealth hoarding is responsible for creating so many resource scarcity problems that we have the ability to solve.

      • theluddite@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That is only true if you use capitalist metrics to measure poverty

        (1) It is unlikely that 90% of the human population lived in extreme poverty prior to the 19th century. Historically, unskilled urban labourers in all regions tended to have wages high enough to support a family of four above the poverty line by working 250 days or 12 months a year, except during periods of severe social dislocation, such as famines, wars, and institutionalized dispossession – particularly under colonialism. (2) The rise of capitalism caused a dramatic deterioration of human welfare. In all regions studied here, incorporation into the capitalist world-system was associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality. In parts of South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, key welfare metrics have still not recovered. (3) Where progress has occurred, significant improvements in human welfare began several centuries after the rise of capitalism.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The way capitalists use capitalist metrics to prove capitalism is good is really annoying. “Look at our per-capita GDP!”

          “Yeah but you have one billionaire and everyone else goes bankrupt if they get sick.”

          “Yeah, but our per-capita GDP is high so we don’t need to do anything.”

          • theluddite@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Paul Krugman is an innovator in this field. The other day he had that one about how inflation is under control if you remove, food, energy, used cars, and everything else normal people use. That’s basically all my stuff!

            Also, obligatory GDP joke that’s been bouncing around the internet for a while now:

            As they’re walking, they come across a pile of dog shit. One economist says to the other, “If you eat that dog shit, I’ll give you $50”. The second economist thinks for a minute, then reaches down, picks up the shit, and eats it. The first economist gives him a $50 bill and they keep going on their walk. A few minutes later, they come across another pile of dog shit. This time, the second economist says to the first, “Hey, if you eat that, I’ll give you $50.” So, of course, the first economist picks up the shit, eats it, and gets $50. Walking a little while farther, the first economist looks at the second and says, “You know, I gave you $50 to eat dog shit, then you gave me back the same $50 to eat dog shit. I can’t help but feel like we both just ate dog shit for nothing.” “That’s not true”, responded the second economist. “We increased the GDP by $100!”

      • snipvoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a myth that capitalism alone has lifted people out of poverty. In fact, many nations have fought to implement strong social policies just to try and shield their citizens from its excesses. For every claim of progress, there are countless tales of exploitation, dispossession, and environmental ruin. Saying no system is perfect trivialises the issue. With capitalism, the true cost is often hidden behind the glittering façade of consumerism, at the expense of human dignity, ethics, and our planet’s health.

        • MrHandyMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What the hell are you talking about. The nordic countries constantly rate as one of the most economically free countries in the world. Capitalism is everywhere in the nordic countries, but it’s also used to support comprehensive welfare state.

          And yes, I come from the “happiest country in the world” so I guess I can literally see that we are quite capitalistic.

          Edit: it seems that the original comment was edited so my comment looks kinda unnecessary now

          • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve had so many debates with people who say “socialism is a success, it works in Scandinavia”.

            And I’m like, when have the Scandinavian and Nordic countries ever been socialist?

            • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nordic countries are socialist, unless you have a very narrow view of socialism in that it’s basically a synonym for communism. Socialism is the transition state between capitalism and communism, and therefore exists on a large spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is pure capitalism where capitalists have complete control and autonomy over production, and on the other end is pure communism where workers have complete control over production. Socialism stands ambiguously on the communist end of the spectrum, but theirs a large gray area. Government policies and institutions like progressive taxes, trade unions, welfare states, regulations and nationalized industries serve to empower workers and move the system towards the communist side of the spectrum into the socialist territory.

          • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Socialism isn’t necessarily about taking away economic freedom, there are versions of market socialism that may be considered economically free. Socialism is ,theoretically , the transition state between capitalism and communism, so capitalists might still exist in a socialist state, but not a communist state where they are completely abolished. Socialism therefore is about disempowering capitalists and empowering workers until one day the workers hold all the power and cast off the capitalist. This can be done in many ways from a revolution to sieze the means of production to a progressive tax that takes away capitalist wealth.

            Most modern socialists in the west realize without a large scale crisis the likes of the great depression, the people won’t support a revolution. The best they can do is to disempower the capitalists with tactics allowed in the current system. These tactics, trade unionism, welfare states, progressive taxes, nationalization of industries are all in heavy use in the Nordic countries, and imo contribute significantly to their happiness.

            Socialism is measured by the power of the workers, not the control of the market.

            • MrHandyMan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, I don’t disagree with anything you said. The original comment before OP edited it said that the nordic countries don’t have capitalism which was something I found highly misinformative.

        • cia@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those countries are capitalist. Research the Nordic Model.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s been several years in a row now Nordic countries have been rated the happiest in the world.

          Those studies tend to be heavily Euro-centric.

          Some of the happiest countries on earth are in East Asia. Bhutan, in particular, is the happiest country you’ve never heard about. Vietnam and Singapore also tend to rate very high. Bolivia also tends to punch well above its weight class.

          But it should be noted that the Nordic states have historically been very far removed from war. With the Ukraine/Russia conflict, Fins are significantly more unhappy than they’ve been in prior generations. I don’t think you can blame that on their domestic policy or their economic model. As more refugees are forced through Europe in an effort to flee conflicts in Armenia and police crackdowns in Hungary and industrial sabotage through the Baltic Sea, happiness in the region is plummeting.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The fact the Nordic countries are rated as the most happy in the world proves that abolishing capitalism is a fucking awful idea. The Nordic countries are all capitalist.

          • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think most of the happiness comes from the strong unions and long history of worker’s rights movements. Sweden don’t have a law that determines minimum wage for example. It is the unions that determine a fair wage.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re confusing capitalism with industrialization.

        The development of modern modes of production came about nearly two centuries after the foundation of modern marketplace practices. The Dutch East India Company did not bring people out of poverty. Just the opposite. It served as a means of rapidly conquering and subjugating large indigenous populations, by using the speculative bubbles created during periods of looting to construct large militaries capable of further conquest. The rapid militarization and trans-continental looting/pillaging of the 17th and 18th centuries resulted in the increased spread of contagious disease, the worst genocides committed since at least the Roman era, and the formalization of Colonial Era chattel slavery.

        Industrialization, which was a product of the mathematical and material sciences renaissance of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, produced huge surpluses in commercial goods and services. Revolutions in textile manufacturing, fertilization, fossil fuel-based transportation and electrification, materials sciences, and medical innovation brought hundreds of millions of people out of the agricultural economy and brought a functional end to a litany of common causes of death. The industrial era was not specific to the capitalist economic mode, but it was practiced most aggressively early on by capitalist states.

        But the Industrial Revolution had a huge knock-on effect. Mass media and modern communication reoriented traditional class hierarchies and formed new models for social organization. The seed of socialist theories that had been planted in the 17th and 18th centuries blossomed into massive revolutionary labor movements during the 19th and 20th centuries. This, combined with the industrial collapse of the imperial core in the wake of the First and Second World Wars, signaled the beginning of the end of capitalism as a hegemonic economic force.

        By the 1950s, numerous socialist political experiments produced successful industrialized civilizations, some of which even persist into the modern era. Meanwhile, rising standards of living from industrial surpluses in food, fuel, and living space raised living standards globally without regard to one’s economic mode.

        The real test of capitalism as an enterprise has kicked in during the last 50 years. By the 1970s, the era of cheap fossil fuel was coming to an end and various economic models were forced to contend with a declining rate of new surplus goods and services. Forced to choose between economic conservation/improved efficiency and a new wave of imperial aggression, the capitalist states have attempted to backpedal into their old traditional colonial models of business. The end result has been a new generation of major military conflicts - from the Vietnamese Jungle to the Iraqi desert - alongside a number of ugly civil wars and domestic insurrections in former capitalist strongholds.

        Without a continuous industrial surplus to drive profit, modern capitalist economic models are failing. Quality of life in capitalist states is beginning to decline. And capitalist leaders are turning to more militant methods of seizing natural resources, forcing low-wage labor, and wrecklessly disposing of excess waste.

        Capitalism rode the cresting wave of industrialization for a century. But now it is failing. And people in capitalist states - from the UK to Saudi Arabia to the Philippines - are seeing their quality of life erode away at a rapid pace.

        • Gigan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          The hivemind is strong on lemmy too. Makes sense, considering the name I suppose.