[–] 1 point 14 hours ago*

lol, yes "billionaires love me", as I'm actively fighting against them and organizing my community and the working class against them

Incompetent enemies can be more valuable than competent friends.

And you responded with made up bs about Nordic countries having to placate their population's desire for communism.

That's not why they moderated, and the fact that any capitalist system can be moderated and regulated to be somewhat effective disproves your black pilled nonsense about how capitalism is doomed to repeat America's specific flavour of unregulated, big-is-good, monopolistic, capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (2 children)

    Same thing in the Nordics. What is right next door? The Soviet Union, with a successful revolution that brought millions out of abject poverty and brought USSR from a feudal backwater to modern superpower within decades. The fear of that spreading caused Nordics and elsewhere to give more concessions to the working class. The form of Capitalism itself hasn't changed one single bit. There's still wars, worker exploitation, imperialism, global extraction and exploitation of the 3rd world (global south), etc.

    I'm guessing you're American given your piss poor knowledge of world history.

    Because no, the Nordic countries did not give worker concessions because the USSR next door.

    First of all, the conditions of the USSR were not seen as good by basically anyone. Do you know how many mass purges happened in communist countries and how poor they were? It was not seen as a glowing ideal in Nordic countries. East Germany was not seen as paradise compared to West Germany by literally anyone.

    Second of all, this ignore the enormous concessions, changes, and progress that Nordic countries made since ether fall of the Soviet Union.

    Your analysis of capitalism is just black-pill edginess. Congrats on being a "nothing can ever be done to fix this" nihilist. Billionaires love people like you.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 17 hours ago* (6 children)

    Explain your point or shut the fuck up with this low effort nonsense.

    It doesn't even make grammatical sense given that I claimed capitalism can provide one thing (reasonable prices), and you responded with 'none of that' as if I listed a multitude of things.

    Jesus Christ Lemmy is becoming as brain dead as Reddit.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 17 hours ago* (1 child)

    45 upvotes? Lmfao, there's not a chance in hell 45 people have listened to that half hour podcast and then upvoted the link.

    Stop blindly upvoting headlines people.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (13 children)

    The problem is not just monetization. Capitalism can function and provide reasonable prices, but that takes actual robust competition, and actual robust competition, requires lots of small players, not a few big monopolies.

    So to OP's point, yes, it would have been better to get off big tech earlier. Supporting small companies over big companies is always an inherent good in a capitalist society.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child)

    Wow, you're really bad at this.

    Lol, says the person who communicates like this.

    You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between what people say they care about and what actually motivates them to change their vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    Swing voters don't care about Democracy and when swing voters say they care about Democracy it doesn't count because swing voters say things

    Fucking hilarious! That's some serious weapons grade MAGA thinking right there!

    How is this hilarious? It's literally just pointing out that there is a difference between saying you care about something, and looking at the data of what actually changes votes.

    Democracy has been under attack for decades. Swing voters did not care until it drove up gas prices.

    Do you not remember that Trump got re-elected after being impeached, enacting numerous anti-democratic policies, and generally trashing democratic norms in the campaign? Voters still voted for him because he said he would bring down gas prices.

    CNBC polling backed that up, they found that 9/10 voters cited the economy as their top concern, and one of the major differences between last election and this election was that last election a plurality trusted Republicans with the economy and this election a plurality trusted Democrats. What would actually answer the question is seeing what the top concern was amongst people who voted Republican last time and Democrat this time, or those who voted Republican last time but stayed home this time.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    They should focus 100% on cost of living and nothing else.

    The only reason they won the election is because Trump fucked up the cost of living for the average American. That is literally the only that matters to people.

    Everything else is an optional side quest at best, and you'll only have time to take on side quests if you keep the main quest going.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    Because both The Onion and The Beaverton have 'The' in their titles, the italics is emphasizing the difference between them... Though I don't know if that's correct, and on reread, it does bug me too.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›