you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 3 months ago (50 children)

To be fair, what we're doing now isn't capitalism, it's corporatocracy. It's the end stage of capitalism, the part of the Monopoly game where one guy has all the properties except the dude with the railroads, and the rest of us are hoping to land on Free Parking.

You shop from a handful of large conglomerates and they're fixing the prices.

There's no (beneficial) innovation. There's no competition. We're essentially in a truck system going into debt trying to survive from the company store.

  • source
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 3 months ago (38 children)

    just to be a pedantic ass: the “end stage” of capitalism is still capitalism. it’s like the end stage of cancer is still called cancer; we need to continue to reference the fact that capitalism is destroying all it touches.

    new phrases or labels only cleave attention spans in a world already designed (by capitalism) to have no focus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago

    I don't think it still counts as capitalism when it's no longer a market economy. We get all our goods from an oligopoly that fixes prices like a cartel, only for all goods and services that consumers buy.

    It's like when the body in question is more cancer than it is healthy tissue, the system doesn't come close to behaving like its prior iterations.

    The only step from here is collapse into war and famine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 3 months ago (35 children)

    Then the end stage of communism, is communism.

    What Stalin did, is the end of communism. What followed was the decline and lack of innovation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    no it wasn't, at least according to marx, who they claimed to follow
    the stage BEFORE communism was the dictatorship of the proletariat, which they decided was extended, and they were representing the will of the people
    so it actually never got to communism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    But it did... and that's the joke.

    There is no "end stage" communism or capitalism that fits their own purity tests; they are both ideals that we haven't managed to accomplish as a society, ever.

    So, as far as humanity is concerned, what results in the attempt to reach that ideal is communism/capitalism as we know it (not as we imagine it will be at some point in future).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    All forms of larger scale attempts at communism ends with dictatorship. There is no other practical way to enforce the "correct way" of existing within the human species. Correct according to who? Religion is pretty similar to communism in that way. There is either a God/king that expresses what you are allowed to do, or a written text that is followed at the moral guideline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Aside from the deliberate efforts by the west to destabilize any socialist or communist movements, staged coups to overthrow democratically elected leaders, and rampant pro capitalist/anti communist propaganda, a much better large scale similarity would be to the wildly successful open source movement where the product/service is free to use (moneyless), contribute to (classless), and owned in commons (by and for the proletariat).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (21 children)
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    Thats just even more fucked up libertarianism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    i think you mistake anarchism with anarcho-capitalism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    Ah I see, you are American. Sorry for your circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    If by " summarize ideologies in a succinct fashion" you mean "be completely wrong and lack any understanding of the ideology" the sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Cool, so you're just ignorant and proudly so. Gotcha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    Oh, do enlighten me what part of the statement is untrue and start from there. Instead of going to name calling.

    Anarchism is absolutely part of libertarianism, so that is check one.

    Ludicrous, because of it's inherent opposition to structure undermines the idea of a coherent framework of ideals in a society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (8 children)

    Keep on showcasing how ignorant you are. Go read a book, child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    I've read plenty of them, but please. Bring your own interpretation instead of being a little condescending brat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Indeed I have, but please keep embarrassing yourself by not even countering and just going to name calling.

    I suggest reading "Debt" by David Graeber to get a better understanding of the economic effect in social structures. There are plenty of examples of historical societies that have attempted and failed at anarchy. Most of them fail when the people that do the work society needs, get used by those that do not work, eventually leading to violence. That violence goes in opposition of the social agreement, although not necessarily, as there is nothing inherent about anarchism that would hinder violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)

    I have read Debt, as well as Dawn of Everything plus Bullshit Jobs, also by the late prominent anarchist political activist and cultural anthropologist, David Graeber. The irony that you didn't understand that those books are in support of Anarchism. You clearly didn't understand anything about what you read.

    Keep embarrassing yourself. You're doing great at it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    From that book I understood that anarchism is not going to work. From the words of an anarchist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    You are talking about capitalism, you mean... they are talking about communism. Nice attempt to control the conversation while admonishing another for attempting to control the conversation, that's funny, you win a cookie.

    p.s. this is not a one-topic-only discussion, even if you want it to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] [S] 25 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    what we're doing now isn't capitalism, it's corporatocracy.

    Capitalism is an ideology that favors the accumulation of capital over all else and, corporations being the most effective vehicle for doing so, corporatocracy is an inevitable component of it.

    It's the end stage of capitalism, the part of the Monopoly game where one guy has all the properties except the dude with the railroads, and the rest of us are hoping to land on Free Parking.

    AKA the goal of capitalism.

    Monopoly was originally called The Landlord's Game, and was created by a Georgist as a critique of and warning against the inevitable consequences of capitalism and rent seeking as well as an education tool about Georgism.

    It even had a cooperative game mode where the goal was to beat the bank by engaging in the kind of mutually beneficial trade that's antithetical to capitalism.

    That Parker Brothers (now Hasbro) took it and turned it into a popular CELEBRATION of rent seeking is exactly the kind of bullshit Elizabeth Magie was trying to warn people about.

    There's no (beneficial) innovation. There's no competition.

    And that's a natural consequence of capitalism.

    Contrary to the pro-capitalism gaslighting, capitalism is NOT about improving conditions for the many via healthy competition. It's about increasing the wealth of the privileged few by eliminating competition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    free parking

    That's the tile where nothing happens?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The board game, like the kleptoctacy, was house ruled to death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Hmmm, true. Isn't it less fun when the game just ends abruptly because someone rolled into free parking? Unless it's endgame like the other person described but I don't imagine that lasting long enough to get too boring. IDK, I don't have friends to play monopoly. This is opposed to other house rules that, could sometimes make the game more fun. Like "you can stack plus cards" in uno makes the game play more like those funny internet videos about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Normally Free Parking is a square where nothing happens, much like landing on GO or Jail. Some households have a rule where they get a bonus for landing on Free Parking, such as all the taxes paid (like Luxury Tax), but officially, it's just a blank square.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    what do you mean by beneficial innovation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Beneficial innovation is the development of new features of goods that are a benefit. Examples include the invention of interchangeable parts, the power loom which makes textiles better quality and more cheaply, the invention of the point-and-click interface (by Xerox, not Apple) that fundamentally changed computer operating systems and productivity software.

    Contrast malignant innovation such as shrinkflation packaging, software as a service or lobbying government to get subsidies and pass anti-competitive legislation. ETA: A lot of malignant innovation we see in the present day as enshittification but we also see it at the enterprise end, say when Enron pivoted from managing power to manipulating the market after it got overvalued to preserve the illusion of growth, and in so doing defrauding power consumers of California.

  • source
  • parent