capitalism has led to never before seen economies of scale, allowing for dirt cheap food prices never before seen in history. if we were to look at capitalism through that metric and that metric only then it would be wildly popular...

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

did capitalism do that, or did technologies like aircraft and refrigeration do that?

why would economies of scale not exist under a different socio-economic system?

[–] kralamaros@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the focus wouldn't be on profit just for profit's sake. That is the main problem with capitalism. The technologies just allowed it. Plus, technologies are not sentient, you can't blame a technology...

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the focus wouldn’t be on profit just for profit’s sake

what socioeconomic system has existed where increased productivity was viewed as a bad thing?

e.g.:

pure feudalism would've led to economies of scale because it would make the king of the castle wealthier.
any kind of socialism with a centrally planned economy would've led to economies of scale because it enables the government to more easily meet the needs of the people.
even pure marxist communism probably would've led to economies of scale eventually because any communities that worked together on a global scale would've been more prosperous for their community members, which is still a goal of the system

The technologies just allowed it

or in other words, their invention led to it, which was the original quote I was responding to

Plus, technologies are not sentient, you can’t blame a technology…

socio-economic systems aren't sentient either
nobody's "blaming" a technology—there isn't even really a consensus in this thread on whether economies of scale leading to increased meat consumption is a good or bad thing

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't call "profit" synonymous with "productivity". Quite the opposite. Profit is intentional market inefficiency for individual gain. I'm just calling it because so many people do make the mistake of treating them as the same, presuming the former is inherently good because productivity is.

Pretty much everything else you said I agree with.

[–] fart@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

because prior to the advent of capitalism the priorities were not on the consumer, but on the aristocracy. while the end results of free market capitalism are clearly destroying the planet, it is insanely more equitable than anything that came before it.

the economies of scale exist due to the consumer pressure, which didn't exist in other market systems.

i don't get why people are downvoting that. i'm not saying capitalism is the best thing in the world and nothing will ever be better than it. i'm saying it allowed people to eat more meat and is democratic compared to feudalism or mercantilism

[–] Dark_Blade@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because people can’t seem to understand the difference between ‘criticizing stuff while also being aware of and acknowledging its benefits’ vs ‘mindlessly bashing something whenever you get the chance bcuz tribalism’.

Hell, even Marx praised capitalism for the immense wealth that it has generated for the masses, which so many so-called ‘socialists’ don’t seem to understand.

[–] fart@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

nobody reads theory anymore 😔

[–] Scew@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Nobody reads anymore.