this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
731 points (95.6% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

370 readers
377 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,' etc.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The CEOs are often just low level lords that get a small percentage of the legal murder they oversee for profit.

The meaningful shareholders know their money is bloodstained, and order the CEOs to do what they do, but don't dirty their hands with the day to day murders, too busy mega yachting.

REMINDER: there are less than 3,000 billionaires on Earth, there are only about 28,000 hundred million plus-inaires on Earth.

They are the greed disease we the billions of humans on earth subsist to serve. CEOs are often merely their top livestock generals, the ones they appoint as their proxies to do their legal murders for them while they live lives of abject gluttony while declaring themselves the hardest workers merely for making broadly cruel dictates into their cell phones from their guard gated world for others like their CEOs to enact.

Don't mistake any of this for publicly traded CEO pity, class traitors or nepo babies one and all, but the CEOs who arent also the meaningful shareholders are Vaders, not Palpatines.

[–] hanrahan 60 points 1 week ago

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work together for the benefit of all."—John Maynard Keynes

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

I’ve been saying this for years. Some douchebag will always pop up to argue with me saying that under capitalism, the serfs have a choice of whether to work for this king or that king (er, I mean, Company)… and I just laugh and laugh. And point to the existence of Company Towns as a concrete example.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also under classic Feudalism the lords usually did not micromanage your farm. At harvest time the collector would pass by and you had to fill your quota. How you got there was your problem but also your choice. It was often terrible because the quota was unrealistic, but you had an agency over your own work, that people today often lack.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Once if the things about feudalism though was that the conditions varied widely. One lord might tell you what to plant, when to plant it, and how to treat it. They might even work that field with you. On the other end of the spectrum is the tax collector method you mention. And it could change suddenly too, old lord dies with no male heir. The money and lands go to his daughter's husband who sells the land for more money. New lord shows up and demands a whole second round of taxes to offset buying the land.

Things could be really good when you had a good chain of leaders in feudalism. But they could be so much more bad with just one bad link.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Oh yeah, that's because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.

That's where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could've, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could've made that happen.

However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that's make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.

I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn't some natural state we defaulted to. It didn't happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn't chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.

Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.

[–] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 6 points 1 week ago

Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.

Holy cow. I never thought about it that way.

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good points. I feel like mercantilism would have evolved naturally into capitalism even without the catalyst of the upper classes and their influence. But that's another topic entirely.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We might have to agree to disagree but one of my main points is that there's nothing natural about capitalisms evolution at all. I agree that its presented to us as the natural state of things that all came to be organically, in the exact same way that the divine right of Kings was.

That too was a lie.

No one would work for a company where they didn't get a cut of the profit, unless it was turn up when you want and work when you like kind of work. People could do that, as many had access to common land to both live on and grow food.

They had to be dispossessed of their land, brutally put down when they rose up again and again over it, then killed, starved, imprisoned, whipped and or branded until they accepted their fate. They had to effectively re-colonise the UK.

This is why they dont teach the origins of capitalism in school. Funny how we learn about feudalism and its origins but not that. Well, tbf, the origin of capitalism is its own critique, from which it cannot morally recover from. So, that would be why.

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

I hope you know how appreciated you are. Thank you for being civil and thoughtful.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

The difference is that under capitalism, the blame is outsourced to the market.

[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Kings actually used to take care of their subjects, unlike modern capitalists' CEOs.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No, lots of kings were brutal tyrants and/or totally incompetent rulers. The ones who took care of their subjects and who were wise and competent were extremely rare. These were the philosopher kings Plato wanted as rulers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] woop_woop@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

CEOs take care of thier subjects very well.
Thier subjects: $$$

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's not like some dude was suddenly born one day and everyone decided he was in charge. The forefathers of Kings were inhuman psychopaths.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They were often the descendants of conquerors or settlers. While you could overcome competitors justly, being completely ruthless is typically advantageous. Maybe I'm crazy, but perhaps we should implement a governing system that discourages that behavior.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We could make it so that each person, as equals, gets a secret vote to put people in charge of writing laws, managing the treasury, appointing judges and military personnel, etc. In order to stop people from gaining too much power or authority we would limit the growth of their personal assets via tax brackets which increase based on the amount they gain, and when we end up with surplus of funds from taxation we then use that money to provide to the needy and build public goods which enrich everyone's lives.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kvoth@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Debatable honestly. People inherited who were so bat shit insane even the "free market" can't do worse.

[–] groet@feddit.org 13 points 1 week ago

Insane people inherit wealth today and lead their "kingdom" to ruin only to be proper up by somebody else only to fail again.

We just haven't had this type of capitalism for long enough to see many Neros that had infinite power and then ruin it completely. We are in the holy Roman empire with 1000+ kingdoms constantly in strive with each other. Some are more powerful than others and ever so often one completely shits the bed because the inherited child is an absolute buffoon.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also, it was by no means always inheritance. Quite often it was the most power hungry psychopath that won.

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

I’ll pay you more. Come with me! Well, that and God said that I should be king. It is my divine right! My great grandpa made a deal with his great grandpa! Oh, and never fight uphill, me boys. Not good.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And Musk can't order you beheaded.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And professionals instead of priests.

[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There should be a system that pays for producing value to all life. Something bigger than UN.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

This is totally possible under actual democracy, the only challenge is getting enough people to the point where they're not voting against their own long-term interests, and voting system's robust enough to withstand the influence of capital.

What I mean is, there are governments around the world already funding positive things, on the collective purse.

It's just at the moment, it pales in comparison to the stranglehold capitalism has over our economies.

Just saying, we don't need to wait for the entire world to join hands to move towards socialism.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Don’t most small farmers in the west at least own their own land. So not really like feudalism but I get your point.

[–] ninja@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Just as residents in cities are progressively owning less of the land they live on family farmers are being pushed out by corporate megafarms.

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

Ahh a small rural subset of the population rules their own land. But unfortunately they don't own the rights to their seeds, farming equipment, and the food they produce (sometimes). They produce things that sell for so little sometimes they can't be independent and need trade agreements with other feudal lords that work them to death. Aka a farmer still gets groceries at Walmart, healthcare, seeds from big seed Corp, and tractors from John deere so much so most small independent farmers are closing up shop

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I beleive most farms in the UK are leased now days. Not sure about anywhere else though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Oh they're solving that problem as fast as they can. Don't you worry.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison’d by their wives: some sleeping kill’d;
All murder’d: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king

[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Political power and purchasing power are just two kinds of power. And when those two powers merge - as with wealthy kings of the past or modern politically active business elites - bad things happen.

load more comments