New thread as max thread length reached.
Let's move on.
How does holding China accountable for what it currently lacks look like to you?
New thread as max thread length reached.
Let's move on.
How does holding China accountable for what it currently lacks look like to you?
67 brands of shampoo from 3 different multinational corporations whose CEOs are all best friends
You think its 63 choices but it's actually 2 when you follow the money back to the parent companies. Oh, and you're prematurely bald thanks to the stress
The freedom to speak your mind and live the life you want. So long as it conforms to what the ruling class decree.
No because you see you’re free to start your own telecoms company or hospital or bank with the money from your trust fund
That's America, not capitalism.
Europe, Canada etc, the unemployed have medical coverage.
Even setting aside America's bullshit Medical industry, yanks have really weird ideas about freedom.
As an Australian the American concept of freedom always seemed nuts, even pre-Trump. Yes American's have the freedom to carry firearms, but I much prefer the Australian freedom to live without fear of being shot.
I hate that when the world thinks of the US, they think of these 2A freaks. I get why it happens but I still hate it.
The one thing I'll push back on is your last point. Pretty much no one is afraid of getting shot. Gun violence IS an issue but it's not affecting 99.9% of people
Americans do not fear being shot on the daily either.
Americans do not fear being shot on the daily
Maybe if they did, something would be done about all the shootings
Oh they absolutely do. It's one of the reasons they have such an ingrained gun fetish in their culture and incessantly complain about needing the right to open carry in a Walmart to "protect themselves from a bad guy with a gun."
If you get stopped by the police because you're driving too fast or driving erratically, is there any chance they would draw their firearm during that interaction, even if they dont point it at you?
Not to mention their ridiculous belief in their right to drive over the speed limit without consequences. Canada included.
For now.....
I just wish we had full pharmacare in Canada. I know we got a partial rollout but I got laid off and lost my insurance and the actual price of some of my medicine is way crazier than I expected.
The last time I went to pick up medication, it cost me $450 (CAD) for only for 3 prescriptions which insane. Its nearly half of my EI which already pays less than what my rent is
Luckily I actually just got hired by another place and should have insurance again but damn, our system is still terrible
Crazy idea, but medication should cost nothing. Nobody should have to choose between groceries and getting the medications they need.
Despite, not because.
Europe has it due to how strong Socialism looked post Second World War. Neoliberal Capitalism has been eroding it as best it can.
It is still capitalism, and capitalism is based off of exploitation regardless of whether you have health insurance or not.
Okay but none of that makes the posted message true for most places.
One form of capitalism.
All forms of capitalism is exploitative. It is intrinsic to the system of private property ownership in that it creates a hierarchy of owners, who relegate access to necessities and the means of producing them unless one pays a fee, over workers who must labor for the owners in order to access said resources that they need to survive through being provided a wage from revenue that was generated through their labor, while the owner takes the lions share because of said private ownership.

Someone needs to read theory.
The sole fact that mostly capitalist countries provide healthcare for the unemployed is by no means a testament that capitalism is fundamentally compatible with this idea.
No country is purely capitalist or socialist - it's always a mix of the two. Sometimes it's a somewhat even balance, like in some European states. Other times one clearly dominates, like in the USA.
Universal healthcare is a concept deeply rooted in socialism. It functions within mostly capitalist countries, because they've decided to implement some socialist policies. Not because it follows capitalist thought. Because it doesn't.
The sole fact that mostly capitalist countries provide healthcare for the unemployed is by no means a testament that capitalism is fundamentally compatible with this idea.
That's a wild take. "The fact this exists perfectly fine in a capitalist system doesn't mean that it's compatible with a capitalist system!"
That's just America. There are plenty of capitalist countries where that's not the case.
The rest of the world may lag behind, but someday everyone will have the 63 shampoo flavors
We have the best of both worlds. 63 shampoo flavors and unemployment support.
My dream is instead of three people that own all 63 shampoo flavors, the workers own them
Get out of here you filthy socialist commy anarchist antifa wanker! That would benefit the people...think of the billionaires who would suffer!

Yes, you have concessions by the ruling class. For now...
TBH nowadays I don't think the US Federal government would ever give a single concession as they are now. Probably would rather roll in the military than make medication a bit cheaper.
Well yea that was the goal of all those concessions , to keep the working class pacified while they consolidated power towards the owning class. Now they have consolidated that power and dismantled the foundations which bred the resistance efforts of the past and are comfortable in their assumptions they can now freely abuse the people without the need to make concessions.
We have reached the point that they were warning would come about by accepting these concessions as if they were progress.
Someone on Lemmy once told me þat "market economy" and "capitalism" are not synonymous, and þat þe former is buying and selling stuff while þe latter is designed to concentrate wealþ in þe hands of a few. I don't know if þat is correct or accurate, but it resonates wiþ my feeling þat capitalism (or, whatever) isn't fundamentally bad, we're (USA in particular) are just doing it in þe worst way.
I wanted to respond to þis on my desktop; sorry for þe necrobump.
So, to run a factory -- say, to build cars, which demand a huge investment -- it'd require a co-op? Building a high-rise would be a co-op? Once built, would þe co-op be able to rent out space? You mentioned rent, so renting isn't illegal. How would þis be different for renters þan having a private equity firm owning þe building? Wouldn't it just funnel money to þe co-op members?
Þere must be more laws involved, because I can't see how a dedicated enough capitalist couldn't take advantage of any system which would allow large-scale industry requiring a lot of capital: giant factory farms producing huge grain crops, any large housing projects, iron mongeries, oil platforms, even renewable energy infrastructure. Unless þese were all owned and operated as non-profits by The Public. And running any of þese would be done by, what, a board? Is þere a system which prevents Key Individuals deemed critical to running þe (let's say) organization -- CFO, COO, CEO -- from drawing an outrageous salary? Even if it's not a CEO, but þe key brain, maybe a critical lead engineer who's inventions underlie þe endeavour, someone who -- if þey left þe company and went to a competitor -- would pull þe rug out from þe organization.
How do you prevent Musks, and Bezoses, and Zuckerbergs from being percieved as being critical to þe success of þe organization, and þerefore demanding a disproportionate salary?
These are two completely different kinds of 'freedom', that the English language coincidentally calls the same thing. All the other languages that I know of clearly distinguish the two. Interesting, isn't it?
So does English. The word everyone is confusing is liberty. We do not have freedom in America as is sold. We have liberty. Someone convinced too many they were the same thing.
As the song goes "freedom is just another word for 'nothing left to lose'"
Spoiler …all 63 brands of shampoo are owned by the same shareholders and shadowy investment firm
Let's ban all marketing, see what happens. They're the ones peddling bullshit.
Based on my observations, the freedom a lot of 'Muricans are thinking about is the freedom to be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/islamaphobic/antisemitic/misanthropic/all-around intolerably intolerant assholes
Capitalism is a shit show and having healthcare tied to employment is horrible but is this person arguing that having a lot of options to choose from is a bad thing?
is this person arguing that having a lot of options to choose from is a bad thing?
Probably. In a nation where 56 people are dying from malnutrition every day, having 11 different brands of cheese balls is a disgrace.
is this person arguing that having a lot of options to choose from is a bad thing?
What if those options are nothing more than bread and circuses to distract everyone from the growing dystopia that the sellers of those options are creating?
Monoculture farming and usurping native species is a significant contributor to green house gases and it destroys the ecosystem. Run off water contains nitrogen from fertilizers. Don't get me started on insecticides and insecticide resistant crops that one company has a monopoly on, they have won lawsuits against farmers for growing last year's seeds instead of purchasing new ones.
It is absolutely not all farmers but unfortunately farms are going bankrupt and their properties get rolled up into a portfolios and sold. And if you're a lucky* farmer then you lease areas of your land to the mega farming corp instead of out right losing your property.
Shampoo is distracting people?
Thats an impressive level of missing the point.
That's the example they used. There's good reason for there to be tons of different shampoos. People have all different kinds of hair and conditions that make it so one size can't fit all. Tons of products are like this. Even if the product is just for entertainment, why is it such a bad thing to have a lot of choice?
"Ha nice try! That is not real capitalism! You think workplaces would just give workers health insurance under a free market? They would just tell sick workers to figure it out themselves and replace them with healthy ones if needed!"
"Some of the first evidence of compulsory health insurance in the United States was in 1915, through the progressive reform protecting workers against medical costs and sicknesses in industrial America. Prior to this, within the Socialist and Progressive parties, health insurance and coverage was framed as not only an economic right for workers' health, but also as an employer's responsibility and liability—healthcare was in this context centered on working-class Americans and labor unions." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_rise_of_employer-sponsored_coverage)
all 24 comments