Anon hates capitalism

[-]

Crushalot9@reddit

Capitalism is the worst system that exists... except for all the others

Guess we should never try anything else ever again, this is as good as it gets, why bother trying to improve

I wonder if there’s a word for this. Capitalist realism? Maybe there are interests out there by a class of people that differ from yours and they’re very invested in selling this idea that nothing could ever be better than what we have now

[-]

arbiter12@reddit

The main issue is that we're directly competing with other capitalists in foreign countries.

Long story short, capitalism is probably not the best "comfort of living" system, but it's the most "short-term efficiency" one, and short term efficiency is all you need to win a generational war.

Who will take a 50 years hiatus on development (and military production), just to see if you can live with 4hrs of work per day?

[-]

RoboticGoose@reddit

“We’re competing” lol. No you are not. But maybe your boss’s boss’s … boss’s boss is competing with other capitalists.

[-]

tosiv@reddit

ok but who makes the decisions that affect how we work? it certainly isn’t me. It’s my boss’s boss’s boss and they are competing with everyone else. I can’t afford to work 4 hour days and pay my bills

[-]

Robo_Stalin@reddit

Maybe you should make some of those decisions. Have a share in the workplace, you know? I wonder if we have a term for that.

[-]

ArmedWithBars@reddit

Have you ever worked at a large company? Over half of the staff is literal smooth brain crayon eaters that make me wonder how they even got the job. The idea we would all have an equal say in the company direction and management is some straight socialist daydreaming. These people can't even decide what color crayon they are gonna eat today.

The reason we don't see large worker co-op companies isn't because it can't be done, it's because it's inefficient as fuck at scale. Sure you can do that at some family owned bakery with 6 employees, but it doesn't work well when it's thousands of employees. Half the country is one step above mentally disabled.

Unions are the best bet in that regard. Too many stupid people who literally need leadership to be useful. Unions provide the benefits of collective bargaining without letting the average idiot into the boardroom.

[-]

Robo_Stalin@reddit

It's stupidity all the way down, but also all the way up. I'm not claiming that managerial or administrative roles are redundant, but plenty of people who should never be in any position of authority sit in those roles.

[-]

Blackout1154@reddit

peter principle

[-]

MechaWASP@reddit

Yeah, they just aren't successful or influential.

So said the feudal monarchs in the 16th century, so said the neoabsolutists of the 19th century and probably so said the bronze age emperors in the 12th century BC. Systems are never eternal.

[-]

NCD_Lardum_AS@reddit

We're not talking about democracy here.

The economic system is mostly independent from the system of government...

The current economic system has, in some form of or another existed as long as civilization.

[-]

TearOpenTheVault@reddit

> The current economic system has, in some form of or another existed as long as civilization.

What on Earth are you talking about? Modern capitalism is pretty much built on the back of a bunch of 16th century European traders, and around them the engines of the modern financial world were assembled.

"Trading goods and/or services on a market" isn't capitalism. "Using money as an exchange medium for goods and/or services' is also not capitalism.

[-]

NCD_Lardum_AS@reddit

The defining characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, recognition of property rights, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, economic efficiency, profit motive

None of this is all that unique to modern times. Of course I'm not saying that there's no difference between ancient Rome and today... but they're most definitely the same species of economic systems.

But compare that to the (theoretical) system like communism and you can see what I mean.

[-]

TearOpenTheVault@reddit

Neither classical slave economies nor medieval feudal economies had a concept of private property (because it was all owned by the monarch and leased to his vassals) open markets, complex pricing systems, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovreignity or economic efficiency.

It's not feudalism though, you can say it's comparable to feudalism but capitalism is also comparable to feudalism in some ways. it's reductive. We're not moving to a system of vassals and fiets each having personal contracts to their Lords and then to the king now are we.

is basically your master.

Even in that ridiculous hypothetical, he isn't. Under feudalism, you had to do what your master said or he would slit your throat - legally. Under capitalism, voluntarily enter a contract (that you are free to leave whenever) and do a job for a temporary period of time.

[-]

NebulaEchoCrafts@reddit

I'm sorry, but in Antartica temparatures are freezing, therefore the inside of the freezer is in Antartica

[-]

nilslorand@reddit

the key aspect of Antarctica aren't freezing temperatures, the key Aspect of Antarctica is that it is located on the south pole.

Same with Capitalism: they key aspect of capitalism is private ownership over the means of production, just like how the key aspect of Socialism is worker ownership over the means of production.

[-]

forkproof2500@reddit

rEaL cApItAlIsM has never been tried??

[-]

NebulaEchoCrafts@reddit

In its entirety, as was philosophized from the Founders? No. We don’t even have free trade as it is. So competitive advantage has never been fully realized.

And most people don’t take Marx’s work on labour and objective value seriously.

Why hasn't it been tried? Surely there must be a way to take over some little country somewhere and make it perfectly capitalist. And since that definitely works in real life that country would quickly become the richest country ever and could just buy all the other countries?

Chevron was allowing bureaucrats power that should be in the hands of elected representatives. I think this is a net positive from a democratic perspective. I think all western nations are all mixed economies or social democracies already, just a matter of where on the scale

[-]

NebulaEchoCrafts@reddit

The same bureaucrats confirmed by Congress? The real answer is to time limit recess appointments. Because both side abuse them. Congress isn’t going to enforce rules, because that’s what bureaucracy is for. Laws vs regulations.

In reality I think a lot of people don’t know how government actually works.

Corrupt Democracies

Of course, since communist regimes are known for being not corrupt at all.

[-]

MattTheFreeman@reddit

Communist regimes rely on a vanguard system to implement Communism. You can't just create communism, you have to build it. Just like a "healthy" capitalist system, you can't just shove a Walmart in the Australian outback and expect it to work, you have to create systems to support the movement of capital.

Corruption was rampant in the Russian Empire before the Revolution, the USSR just continued it. Many communist countries modeled itself off of the Soviet system this corruption was more or less just apart of the equation.

But you can't say the soviets were bad when at the same time the American and European countries were also electing conservative head peices that due to backhand deals dismantled the social safety net for millions of people. Except that corruption is seen as buisness as usual in a capitalist world

Before people call me a commie I'm pro-capitalism. I don't want to live under communism. But an issue in western, and especially north American education is that they assume Communism is bad because it's communism

[-]

Lopsided-Drummer-931@reddit

When the revolution comes may you have a swift and painless death for being the singular rationale capitalist 🫶

[-]

[-]

SaulGoodmanAAL@reddit

Ok doomer, I'm gonna go push for a brighter future.

[-]

Deanzopolis@reddit

Bro has never heard of the indomitable nature of the human spirit and would rather wallow instead

[-]

Alrightwhotookmyshoe@reddit

mfw I don’t know what communism is

doomerville

[-]

lol.

[-]

jobitus@reddit

You can't just create communism, you have to build it.

Yeah, the communist theory says you have to first do a revolution, then establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and build out from there (optional: first spread this revolution and dictatorship to the whole world).

This dictatorship of the proletariat takes the form of former revolutionaries taking all the positions of power and eating each other so the strongest dogs win.

The strongest dogs then find themselves in a position of complete power. They have mansions and yachts, limos and planes, servants and bodyguards - but of course an important figure with full support of workers and peasants deserves all that.

However, they no longer have any incentive to build communism. Why would they want to give up these obviously limited resources and the ability to use labor of others (did I mention servants?) and build a classless society?

It went that way every fucking time.

[-]

_Two_Youts@reddit

Believe it or not Mao actually did try and create the classless society, and it was even worse than the system you describe. As an example, literal children (Red Guards) were deputized with the power to execute counter-revolutionaries - often including overly strict teachers.

This just doesn't work.

[-]

comrade_joel69@reddit

That's not really why the Cultural Revolution happened, it was primarily so Mao (and the"Gang of Four") could retain power after the embarrassment of the great leap forward. Most Chinese and English sources I've read lay the blame almost solely at Maos feet, and other figures within the CPC (especially my boy Zhou Enlai) were trying to do their best at damage control while Mao let teens with guns run rampant through the countryside, killing teachers and destroying pre-communist landmarks.

I don't wanna be one of those "that wasn't real communism!!!!" nerds but the Cultural Revolution was a thinly disguised attempted coup by Mao and his most fervent supporters, not an attempt to achieve "real" communism.

[-]

jobitus@reddit

There's no way he actually wanted or pursued the classless society. He rode limos and private trains and had a special service dedicated to supplying him young girls as concubines. Then there was a horde of his ministers, generals and commissars, not so lavish but still way above your normal Wang.

[-]

hallr06@reddit

But you can't say the soviets were bad when at the same time the American and European countries were also...

Yes you can!

Both things can be bad, and one doesn't have to talk about both at the same time to be accurate, fair, and intellectually honest. Coffee and tea can both be shitty when prepared poorly. If I talk about how someone can fuck up coffee, I don't need to balance it out with a thorough comparison to how tea can be fucked up.

[-]

MattTheFreeman@reddit

You are completely right.

My point was more to educate than to criticize. Again, I pro-capitalism. I just think there is a lot to learn from Marxism and communism that us (North America) tend to shun because we assume communism is bad.

Both systems have deep flaws. But North America vilifies one to the point of using it as a political boogey man. My issue is in that. So when a lot of people claim. "communism bad" it usually comes from a place of ignorance.

[-]

hallr06@reddit

That's fair. I guess that the main thing I keyed in on was the idea that one couldn't criticize. That's actually been a particular avenue pushed on by anti-ukraine Russian propagandists online (citation required, FWIW).

Draidann@reddit

When I was a kid my mom used to have a saying about money and trees.

I never really put attention so I don't know exactly how it went but I assume it was "money grows on trees".

Money, bills, coins are all totally a natural product, else why would there be a saying like that.

P.d. your ass is also very natural and organic and you should be proud

[-]

Foronir@reddit

I dont think that you get what Capitalism means. It means that the means of production are owned privately and that prices (which are just informations of how scarce one product/asset/ressource is compared to other ones is) are found out made by market mechanisms. It doesnt necessarily need money, it can be direct barter, too.

[-]

Draidann@reddit

Of course it can be barter.

It's not even prices what is a concern but relative prices since most economic models tend to normalize at least one price to 1 and a barter system perfectly allows that. It just accomplishes it in an utterly inefficient manner.

But, you know, a reddit comment with over the top hiperbole is not a source for reliable and precise information and one would hope that the almost cartoonish response would be enough to avoid a "well actually..." comment but alas, here we are.

[-]

Foronir@reddit

All good, i just love the semantics on that topic, because usually most people dont even use the same definitions when discussing a topic like this.

You grew up in it so to you its natural, but to understand it you have to look out of your bias and apply that same logic to other places on earth.

But thats a view point. Thats an exact definition of an ideology and system. Its a layered idea that comes together to explain a phenomenon.

Also, assuming that capitalism is "natural" and "organic" and what humans do "without regulation" is historical revisionism. We have known since trade was invented that without regulation we get bad products and bad actors. Its why feudal systems had guilds and why in todays society we have government watch dogs. Just as communism can never exist due to human nature, capitalism in its purest form would collapse under bad actors. You can say that the "system" would correct its self as people would vote with their wallets, but we dont even do that now. We've known for a long time that unregulated markets make bad products.

[-]

WillieDickJohnson@reddit

Communism is bad because it requires force against people's will. If people decline, you have to force them, which us akin to slavery. Communism only works with automation because you need people to work in a system of redistributed wealth while distributing the working classes wealth to non workers.

[-]

MattTheFreeman@reddit

Nope.

You are explaining what is called Vanguard Communism, which is what the soviets used. I won't be the one to say "it's not real communism" because real communism does not and will never exist, but you are explaining a moot point that can be attributed to any system that deals with labour. Communism isn't the only one with blood on their hands.

Capitalism famously has choice, but the choice is pointless. Of course I have the Freedoms to choose not to work, choose not to engage in society and even be a freeloader. But I really don't. While it is much better than the Soviet system in which they'd exile you, put you into forced labour or kill you, the capitalist system forces you to comply to their system as well.

While yes you have a choice, that choice is the equivalent of a kid stomping their feet at their parents. I can choose not to work, but the reality of the system and the maintenance of my Freedoms and rights require I do.

If I don't work, I starve, I loose shelter, I get thrown in jail. The coal miners of west Virginia famously got slaughtered for refusing to work. The Winnipeg strike ended with the RCMP. Right now we have a wave of elected conservative officials deticated to forcing work, criminalizing homelessness and making it easier to force people back to work.

While yes I'd rather be in this system than the soviets, to say that the communism is bad because it forces you to work is historical ignorance.

[-]

finnicus1@reddit

Vanguardism is bourgeois nonsense that came out of a bourgeois revolution.

[-]

Foronir@reddit

Communism is bad, because it is a bad idea, it is so utopian it CANT work, at least as long as humans arent "perfect" And there is any type of scarcity.

[-]

garebeardrew@reddit

That’s actually a good point I never thought of

[-]

Ck_shock@reddit

Communism is one of those things that only works in a perfect world. In reality it' easy to exploit for those up top just like any system. Resulting in the people living in forced poverty that there is no escape from.

At least I'm capitalism as shit as it can be you van rise up in some way. Even if that way involves being a shit person.

[-]

MattTheFreeman@reddit

Because those are only two systems that exist, yes....

Both systems are ruined by the ruling class that sits at the top.

With a ruling class, democracy isnt really a democracy.

With a ruling class, communism isnt really communism.

Literally all we have is capitalism. Across the board.

[-]

lucasthebr2121@reddit

And capitalism is dominated by ruling class

The biggest problem is that there is no perfect option they all suck but there is quite literally nothing better which most would agree as the perfect option

[-]

Luke92612_@reddit

I mean people like Allende tried to do things differently and seemed promising, but then foreign powers coup them because they don't like being challenged.

[-]

PaintThinnerSparky@reddit

Also yes. Basically there is no right option because the masses are pretty dumb and influencible.

Maybe a massive education reform could do the trick after a few generations. Maybe cutting profit out of basic societal funtions like we did church from state.

But what do I know. Much easier to keep comparing each other to one another while we all collectively sink.

[-]

lucasthebr2121@reddit

Yes that is what i mean humanity is too lazy to actually change and the people that can actually influence enough people for such changes dont want to because that would not benefit them

[-]

BaconDragon69@reddit

You’re proving anon right….

[-]

Salaino0606@reddit

No they are just not democracies.

[-]

BBobArctor@reddit

To be fair socialist countries are on average less corrupt than free market countries ie the Nordic countries, New Zealand etc. Wether that would be true if they had a more free market is unknown.

And they're definitely known for their affordable housing.

Cus if you place the bed in the right corner of your 1-room squarepartment and crawl to the top of the bed you might not get woken up by dripping water from the ceiling throughout the night.

It's rather die

[-]

BaseballSeveral1107@reddit (OP)

Ffs why every leftist thought or post is considered communist.

[-]

philkiks@reddit

communism isn't authoritarian

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA

You just described a really ineffective government.

Who enforces the punishment? Who determines that the neighbor you shot was actually trying to steal from you? Who determines what constitutes property that can be considered stolen?

Who makes the laws? Records them? Interprets them? Enforces them on those unwilling to follow them? Who resolves disputes? What happens when you can't get concensus on what laws there should be? Who keeps the neighboring communities from coming over and taking things?

How is the council selected? What are their powers? What happens if the council decides something that people don't agree with?

See, this is why nobody respects anarchists. Communists at least have an idea that works on paper, anarchists have an idea that would fall apart under the idle questioning of a 5 year old.

[-]

dumb_idiot_dipshit@reddit

the council isn't "selected", it isn't a representative democracy but a direct one, a la zapatistas or rojava. people have a mutual interest in maintaining the peace, most of the time. those who don't are outnumbered by those who do, and have the motivation to fight for it. that's the principle of anarchism; am i claiming to be one? not necessarily, but it's an ideology that's hopelessly misrepresented and misunderstood.

[-]

PuzzleheadedTry6507@reddit

the community - whether through a council or whatever,

These keyboard apes think communism and vanguard socialism are the same thing

It's legitimately astounding.

It'd be like saying "using a microwave is the same as eating soup" it's legitimately amazing

[-]

TroxEst@reddit

I'd like to know where such a state exists.

[-]

philkiks@reddit

Yeah, but first we have to get there, right?

It's funny how simmilar communism is to the concept of heaven. Imagined utopias that are made to make you content with any ammount of suffering caused in reaching them.

[-]

Pepsiman177013@reddit

You’re not wrong, but you’re mistaking what OP said. Communism is defined by Marx as a stateless, classless society. The problem with communism is that, as you said, it can’t exist because enforcing it would, by definition, make it not communism.

[-]

philkiks@reddit

That is of course true, but I meant to hint at socialism.

As communism cannot be achieved by definition and by practical means, I think it's safe to equate the connotations of communism to those of socialism. Meaning trying for communism will always lead to totality.

I hope I got your comment right, but feel free to correct me.

[-]

Pepsiman177013@reddit

Ah, I see. I should’ve picked up on that, my bad. ❤️

[-]

Drafo7@reddit

On paper, communism is a society where everyone is equal and everything is publicly owned. But how do you prevent power dynamics from occurring naturally? How do you prevent one person from taking all the food and not distributing it to everyone else? You need a government to enforce the equality. And that's where communism runs into trouble, because governments are run by people who are inherently greedy and selfish. When everything is publicly owned, that means the government, which in theory is equally accessible to every citizen, must have full control over everything. Giving the government absolute power is the definition of authoritarianism. Thus, I'm sorry to say, in practice, communism is, in fact, authoritarian.

[-]

goosebumper88@reddit

Theoretically, but in practice is highly susceptible to corruption

Not saying other systems arnt too

[-]

Non-authoritarian communism is incompatible with human nature. We can't handle it outside of very very small groups.

[-]

Yeseylon@reddit

Maybe fifty hippies living in a commune in the woods isn't authoritarian, but Communism as popularized by Stalin and Mao definitely is.

[-]

ProTrader12321@reddit

All forms of government are authoritarian. There's no such thing as a libertarian government.

[-]

im_problematic@reddit

To enforce communist policies one must be authoritarian. You cannot risk someone not doing enough while retaining the same benefits as those that do more or you enter into a much faster race to the bottom.

In a capitalist country, for better or worse you can choose not to work, be a bum, and fuck off. In communism that's not allowed. It sounds like a good thing till you realize that it results in death penalties or gulag instead.

[-]

EZ3Build@reddit

My reaction to this comment was like those two pictures of Dean Norris

[-]

liluzibrap@reddit

Missing the forest for the trees. You suck.

[-]

Twistinc@reddit

Even if you're right that doesn't negate the corrupt democracies, pointing out someone else's flaws doesn't absolve yours.

[-]

sabrefudge@reddit

You always listen to what the CIA tells you?

[-]

Broxios@reddit

communist regimes

Who doesn't know the ruling class of the states which implement the system that has neither states nor classes. Same stupid shit as everytime: authoritarian state capitalism = communism.

[-]

Capital_Selection643@reddit

Don't worry, our descendants will be mining He3 in the oort cloud for Weyland Utani like the good Lord intended

[-]

TheIronzombie39@reddit

“Each new generation has a worse living standard than the previous one”

This is flat out wrong. The world is far better than it was in the past and will only get better over time.

Doomers have always been wrong. An Assyrian tablet from 2800 BC said

“The earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.”

And they were completely wrong.

[-]

BaconDragon69@reddit

The average american can’t afford a 500$ expense, the average woman doesnt have bodily autonomy, the average young white man is mentally unhealthy, the average young black man is poor.

The average young person can’t afford a home.

The minimum wage does not pay to live.

You’re cherry picking examples while ignoring shit like climate change and the rise of christo fascism that wants to take away the rights of everyone.

[-]

Diezelbub@reddit

rise of christo fascism that wants to take away the rights of everyone.

I dare you to open a history book sometime and still try to pretend religion is "on the rise" reddit users have the attention span of a goldfish lol

[-]

BaconDragon69@reddit

Oh sorry I forgot, more and more christians imposing their views on others is okay because they aren’t rapidly growing the number of christians.

Please tell me how you would describe the fact that christian nationalists are forcing their view on others on a scale like they havent in centuries other than the rise of christo fascism?

[-]

Personal_Heron_8443@reddit

Historically speaking, the trend of religious extremism among christians is extremely downward. Did you know that only 70 years ago there were still religious genocides between groups of christians?

[-]

BaconDragon69@reddit

It’s fascinating to me how uneducated the average person has to be if they can ask a question, never recieve an answer and still fall for your bullshit

I tried engaging with you like an adult but I see you want to talk like a politician

[-]

Personal_Heron_8443@reddit

You said something that is false and I pointed it out. How is that "talking like a politician"?

[-]

[-]

jeffwulf@reddit

A couple. They just go by Syrian now though.

[-]

Diezelbub@reddit

Exactly, they've lost their ass, they're clearly worse off than every generation before them

[-]

YummyMexican@reddit

Most based 4chan post

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

Each new generation has worse living standards than the previous one

MrPopanz@reddit

Planned obsolescence was invented by engineers to better tell when stuff needs fixing: make one unnecessary part fail slightly before the more important shit and when it breaks, you know it's time for some deep maintenance.

[-]

Revan2424@reddit

You made this up. The term “planned obsolescence” finds its origins in mid-depression Britain to describe a method for manufacturers to encourage consumers to start purchasing.

[-]

MrPopanz@reddit

Guess those engineering proofs made shit up than 🤷‍♂️

[-]

Revan2424@reddit

Yeah whatever concept you’re talking about has nothing to do with the term in English. It describes a manufacturing/economic phenomena.

[-]

MrPopanz@reddit

That's incorrect, it is essentially the same, just used to ones advantage. Think about it in the example of an elevator: if this thing breaks, it could cause deaths, so it makes sense to design a certain non essential part that suffers similar strains to other vital parts of the machinery in a way that makes it deliberately break earlier than those vital parts. But when it fails, it only results in a red light and maybe inoperability till maintenance.

MrPopanz@reddit

So OP is the average online socialist, how cute.

[-]

Millennials have higher real earnings and net worth than Boomers did at the same age.

[-]

Legitimate_Age_5824@reddit

There were fewer people (higher living standards attract immigration), therefore lower demand for housing

Houses were crappier (full of asbestos and lead, less insulated); the same was true for most other products

Osha and environmental standards were less demanding

Boomer had far fewer retirees to take care of; the fact that we can afford to have a giant army of unproductive old people is itself a sign of our wealth

The greentext doesn't start with the boomers, it starts with medieval peasants, and boomers were obviously much better off then those

[-]

tsar_nicolay@reddit

Be in medieval Europe People can leave and work whenever they want

Anon hasn't heard of serfdom

[-]

PM_MEOttoVonBismarck@reddit

Yeah that didn't make much sense. It's a difficult question to tackle since medieval Europe spans 1000 years and there were different systems of serfdom, but you were typically tied to a plot of land, owned by a lord, regulated by a contract where a portion of your income went to the lord, another portion went to the state and another portion went to the church.

Serfdom was fucked. You don't just pack up and leave.

[-]

Assblaster_69z@reddit

Well he is kind of right. Serfdom was absent in Eastern Europe at that time. And in the west it was disappearing by the late middle ages.

[-]

xigor2@reddit

Wait, wth do you mean serfdom was absent in eastern Europe at that time? What was the socio-economic regime then lol?

[-]

Assblaster_69z@reddit

Serfdom developed as a result of the black death, which halted the migration of westerners (mostly germanics) east.

Eastern Europe always had a lower population than the west and so the nobles tried to create peasant-friendly environments to attract new people. This worked well until the plague freed up agricultural land in the west.

Similarly, there weren’t supermarkets to peruse easily purchased goods - many lived far away from any accessible market and either had to travel to obtain their produce or otherwise grow it themselves - all of which takes a lot of time.

So yes, they did technically work less at their jobs, but all of the luxuries that come with modern day living were not available to them so many of the simple tasks took much longer which is also work for them.

[-]

xigor2@reddit

Yeah being a woman sucked major ass. Cus women were in charge of watching over kids, cooking, cleaning, washing, making new clothes at nigh usually. Men lived better lives than men do today. Albeit they did work a lot more physically demanding tasks, they did have more leisure than a modern man. Maintaing a house isnt that hard and wasn't that different than today( only major work would be if you got leaky roof, same as today). Pr maybe mice chewed the wall so you gotta patch your wall with more mud and reeds. Also yes they grew all of their foods, because that was cheaper and faster.

[-]

_Two_Youts@reddit

Men lived better lives than men do today

Just right off the bat, I would be an infant mortality statistic because of a routine medical procedure thst would have been impossible in medieval Europe. This is absurd.

[-]

xigor2@reddit

I mean you wouldn't really get a consciousness if you died as a newborn. So yes higher infant mortality. But people generally lived a better life in the mediaeval age( not women though, but reddit is mostly male so yeah).

[-]

Medical-Ad1686@reddit

Men lived better till their lord needed soldiers to take over land because he was bored.

[-]

xigor2@reddit

I mean yes, but they could always hide or be lucky to be a serf to the church.

[-]

Serfdom was about giving away a percentage of your harvest, not clocking in a certain amount of hours every day. A medieval peasant had more days off than some poor minimum wage shmuck today

[-]

Business-Emu-6923@reddit

OOP is a bit late to the party, raging at the Enclosure Act.

[-]

TheCanadianHat@reddit

Or starving to death

[-]

BaseballSeveral1107@reddit (OP)

That's before commodification and enclosure.

[-]

I was going to say, weren't most peasants serfs during the Middle Ages?

[-]

GandalfTheGimp@reddit

Serfdom disappeared in the west around the 15th century.

[-]

bubbanator1@reddit

Anonymous doesn't understand economics. Or how other countries fair under those other systems.

[-]

Landio_Chador@reddit

Each new generation has a worse standard of living than the previous one

Oh yeah, I forgot about how my great grandparents had…

AC
cars with advanced efficiency, safety measures, and other creature comforts
modern medicine
modern entertainment (literally endless)

Shall I go on?

[-]

BaconDragon69@reddit

Yeah they must have really suffered in that house they could afford on a minimum wage job.

But hey if you think minor conveniences and entertaining time killers are more important than freedom and security I guess you go off king

[-]

Landio_Chador@reddit

Standard of living

noun — the degree of wealth and material comfort available to a person or community

Literally what I said matches the definition of standard of living. Read book pls

[-]

BaconDragon69@reddit

Ok so you’re saying that a house is less wealth and material comfort than a microwave?

[-]

BaseballSeveral1107@reddit (OP)

Boomers could afford a house, a car and kids on a single wage of a husband working in a factory. Millennials and Gen Z can't afford a 1 bedroom apartament with an office job.

[-]

Willdoeswarfair@reddit

I had a few point to get into, but I can see from your profile that you are MAYBE 13 at best, so now I realize that this is all coming because you haven’t even gotten to the point where you actually have to have a job and rent a place in the first place. Your only experience with the real world is hearing people complain about it in echo chambers online.

When you move out of the massive cities, which compromise the most desirable and heavily competitive housing markets there are, you find that rent isn’t some impossible challenge to pay.

I managed to afford an apartment, college, and putting away some in saving while working 15-20 hours a week. And now that I have an office job I rent a wonderful 2 bedroom with a view of the river, a front porch, and a 10 minute walk to work and downtown. And all for $750. Sure, I could split it with someone if I really needed, or moved into one of the MANY cheaper apartments in my city, but I didn’t need to.

You can do that in MANY places in the US. Anywhere that keeps the population under 500k really. Not everyone lives in Los Angeles or NYC, and when you don’t, life becomes a hell of a lot more affordable.

And before you ignore any of my questions and bring up how capitalism did inventions that’s not true, people invented fucking fire without capitalism and the internet was invented by an oh so evil government.

[-]

Revan2424@reddit

Country implements capitalism

genocide ensues

That wasn’t capitalisms fault!!

[-]

Neil_Peart314@reddit

Got it. What do you think needs to happen to achieve your vision of government? Can we achieve it through democracy or does something more accelerationist need to happen?

[-]

BaconDragon69@reddit

Anon is unfathomably based and redpilled

If everyone was like anon we could rise up

Anon is proud of his sexuality no matter what it is

Anon kisses his homies good night because he has love in his heart

Anon would be a better US president than the last 50 of them

[-]

PM_ME_DNA@reddit

caused other good economic models to fail

[-]

BaseballSeveral1107@reddit (OP)

The CIA snuffed out every commune and caused coups in every country that became socialist, like Chile

[-]

ordinaryperson007@reddit

onyx-gilbert-carter@reddit

Yes, I am speaking colloquially. The Soviet Union was socialist, not communist.

WUS DE MURICA!

Yeah, thank the gods for the gift of communism! It's common knowledge that socialist and democratic governments have never done any mass killings like that holocaust thing that libertarians made up. Free market is the manifestation of sin. The signals that building or renting space is not worth your time or money(high price) is a lie, and it's actually just pure greed, the capitalists want those empty houses for themselves to ..... because they cost literally nothing to maintain, and the money that they could sell them for is better than what you can spend it on. If you want housing prices to be lower, you need to create more laws and obsticles for developers so they don't just greedily create more space to live in. Eat shit rich people, and hail central planning!

[-]

GodzillaDoesntExist@reddit

First 99%

Government, government, government

Last 1%

Obviously capitalism bad, communism good

FingerlessPolydactyl@reddit

OOP never read about the "miracles" of communism for the masses, like mass murder, mass famines, mass purges...

[-]

Nay-the-Cliff@reddit

Be anon

get transported to medieval europe in the good old times before capitalism

work like a slave from dusk to dawn on a sustainment farm and get paid with the food your lord doesn't take as tribute

Harvest is bad this year, be hungry all winter

Day 47 of bread and beans

Huddle near the fireplace, the only barely tolerable space in a freezing cold and humid stone house with 11 other people

Catch a cold, die at 28

[-]

ComicBookFanatic97@reddit

Cause other good economic systems to fail

Like what?

Each new generation has a worse living standard than the previous one

Demonstrably untrue.

[-]

BaseballSeveral1107@reddit (OP)

Like socialism.

Boomers could afford a house, a car and kids on a single wage of a husband working in a factory. Millennials and Gen Z can't afford a 1 bedroom apartament with an office job.

[-]

ComicBookFanatic97@reddit

First of all, take a history class or an economics class. Preferably both.

Second, despite inflation (which is largely a product of bad economic policy), even the poor have access to things that the ultra rich 100 years ago couldn’t imagine.

[-]

Xenokrates@reddit

Yeah all the history I'm reading seems to show the US backing military coups, conducting political espionage, and otherwise using it's power to topple fledgling socialist governments. (Contra affair, Bay of Pigs and current Cuban embargo, 1973 Chile coup, Venezuela sanctions, Vietnam war, the list goes on.) If socialism is such a bad system why doesn't the US just let these sovereign nations fail on their own merit instead of constantly destabilising them by force?

[-]

ComicBookFanatic97@reddit

Pointing to the Cuban embargo as an example is essentially an admission that the socialists can’t thrive without the help of free market capitalism. Not the “gotcha” you think it is.

[-]

Xenokrates@reddit

So a gigantic super power intentionally restricts a country from trading freely and allowing them to obtain the resources they need to grow, and you think the opposite of doing that (AKA doing nothing) would be the same as 'helping' them? I don't think that's the gotcha you think it is mate.

Be socialist

Raped by an immigrant and die in a hospital

At least it was free.

[-]

lildoggihome@reddit

medieval europe? that sounds like 2024 usa

[-]

AtomicMonkeyTheFirst@reddit

God I hate having the highest living standards in history. Lets go back to being medieval peasants. That was great.

[-]

LocalGalilSimp@reddit

Anon should take a look at literally every other economic system and find a way to tell me how their failures were anything but their ow fault

[-]

Buddy_chumpal@reddit

A lot of failed socialist states fail because they use the Soviet Model. A lot of others fail because of Juche, which is essentially trying to be completely independent from other countries. Some consider Europe to be socialist, but it's objectively just toned down capitalism with welfare. I'd say out of all the examples of communism/socialism in practice, Vietnam and Yugoslavia are the better ones, and just about every time a democratically elected leader in a poor country is too leftist, they get overthrown by capitalist backed coups. Also, there are capitalist countries that are poor as shit, so it isn't just a commie thing.

As for the bit about capitalists fighting it, the U.S. (which is very influenced by corporations) has interfered with Latin America so much under the guise of stopping communism and socialism. Actually.

-Backed, practically primed the grounds for the coup Salvador Allende, a democratically elected politician.

-Sponsored the coup of Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, another democratically elected leader who was making land reforms and trying to get workers better conditions. Unfortunately 'ol United Fruit had some profits to make, and the U.S. had to pop in to union bust.

-Widenly speculated that the CIA backed a coup against Thomas Sankara, a far-left African leader who lowered the infant death rate dramatically and gave medical care to thousands of burkinabé. He also helped make Burkina Faso into a food efficient country.

-Although it doesn't completely block out trade, the economic embargo on Cuba made it much more difficult for Cuba to trade with others, combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union it would make sense for this to have some sort of effect on them

-There is evidence of the backing of many, many right wing dictators, including Carlos Castillo Armas, Augusto Pinochet, The Somoza Dynasty, and encouraged Argentina's 'dirty war'.

Makualax@reddit

The Bengal Famine alone killed upwards of 3 million. Its estimated that Britain's 100 year occupation of India accounted for over 100 million deaths. You can split hairs about what caused those deaths, if they were intentional, if some of them would've happened regardless even without colonial rule, but the fact of the matter is even very conservative estimates are looking at tens of millions of deaths for one region on one continent that can be attributed to a colonial ruling power, it's pretty easy to say that the colonialism body count is several times higher than that overall.

[-]

BaseballSeveral1107@reddit (OP)

How

[-]

You know what /pol/ would answer to "who is to blame" question

Das rite

Anon is highly regarded

[-]

Impressive_Rice7789@reddit

every generation has a worst standard of living than the last

lol, lmao even

[-]