cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/7643915
As always in capitalism, video games have largely deformed from an art form into just another means to generate profit for large corporations
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
340 points (90.3% liked)
Memes
45896 readers
1340 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, games require labor to develop.
The capital pays for the labour, unless you have people who can work for free.
Within the confines of capitalism I would probably agree. But under socialism, production happens independently of capital accumulation.
FTFY
But moreso where there's no opportunity to make money
That's a pretty drastic statement to make without evidence
Okay but the bottom 5 are all capitalist countries.
Even if that wasn't the case, just linking a corruption index doesn't prove your original statement:
Edit: since you've edited and added words, let me add:
I would even go as far as to say that your evidence in fact suggests rather the opposite trend: countries where wealth is more equitably distributed have lower rates of corruption
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-system-made-me-do-it-corruption-post-communist-societies
Are you aware that this is an article about how the poorly managed transition to capitalism allowed highly concentrated wealth and power, and thus corruption?
Yeah the "postcommunist" is a very difficult word and the guy couldn't understand the meaning. He thought that it might have something to do with the post office
While certainly capitalist, Denmark and Sweden use the nordic model which tends to lean pretty social-democrat/welfare-state.
Not to mention, much of bribery under capitalist states is legalized and codified. For example, I'm guessing their study didn't consider Super-PACs as a form of corruption or bribery. Even though that's clearly what they are.
Lol, there's plenty of opportunity to make money under socialism. You just have to do the labor. Under capitalism, however, there exists opportunity to derive money from other people's surplus labor value, for example, I can pay a worker $4 to make a thing that requires $1 in supplies and sell that for $10. That difference of $5 is stolen surplus value from the laborer. Socialists seek to abolish this parasitic relationship.
Yeah, fuck that. I've had over 30 jobs in 30 years, I just played the game, retired once, now I have the luxury of no debt and passive income, I can go all in on green tech.
Plus, you have to trust that the central government knows best. Looking at things like the famine in China after the 4 pest policy and the govt's recent performance where I live in the UK, I have zero faith, in either system.
Time for something new
Even if we suppose that's true, you're still failing to illustrate how capital is necessary for production under socialism.
Maybe we should start with what you mean by capital
Given the context of the meme being a picture of Karl Marx, I was using the Marxist definition of capital. Marxists.org provides a pretty digestible definition: https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm
Ok good. So capital is required for capex and opex.
As you start with 0 sales you need to get capital from investors to fund you until sales >1
Yes, that is how it works under capitalism.
Under socialism however, the state funds labor based on needs and/or desires for the output of that labor (the commodity). In this case, the money isn't used for the goal of making more money, therefore, this isn't capital at all. And yet, the labor happens and the commodity created. Therefore, the production is independent of the capital.
It's how the state decides to fund things that's the problem though. As has been proven over and over again in multiple countries.
It's great theory, but it's just theory.
What exactly is the relevance? To me it seems like you're just shifting the goal posts.
Decentralisation > centralisation
Power corrupts.
So it's not relevant and you've shifted the goal posts? Got it.
Nope. You said
How it chooses to fund labour is less efficient than decisions made where the decision needs to be made. Centralising power doesn't work. Not in China, not with the EU, not in Russia, not in America
We need new theory, not 19th century failed ones. We're connect at the speed of light, representative forms of government are now unnecessary.
We need local governance, my favourite is sortition and some form of global digital decision making