a right to a meal? a succulent, Chinese meal?!
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
1026 points (97.9% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
943 readers
310 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
This is Democracy Manifest!
Get your hand off my penis!
I personally find it easier to sidestep the rights issue and just say "we CAN ensure everyone has healthcare, so we should do that". Whether people have a right or not is sort of irrelevant if you see government as having a duty to materially improve people's lives.
But trans people would get healthcare too and we can't have that. /s
A lot of people think that specifically is not the government's duty, though. You'd have to first convince them that the government's duty isn't simply to defend against invasion, or enforce the will of the people, or whatever else they believe.
Invasion from what? Mongols? Flu virus? Smoke?
We have the right to lofe liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Not having proper healthcare coverage is literally against that right.
While I would love to agree with you, the way I read the 14th amendment is that the government can not do anything (or pass any laws) that would deprive you of those rights. It does not imply (in my opinion) that they are required to do things to ensure you have those rights.
Congrats, you just discovered strict vs. loose interpretation.
But but but then THOSE people will have them, too, and we can't abide THOSE people having nice things.
Clean air and drinking water? Communism
Is he actually against people having enough food ro survive?
If you think people have a right to live, then because to be able to live they have to work, eat, and have a roof over their heads, then yes they should have a right to all of those things.
You don't have to work to live. It facilitates the others, but they can be facilitated other ways.
Historically speaking the elites weren't that fucked up. In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn't completely fall into shit.
Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in. Going farther back, a lot of the beautiful artwork we see made in the Renaissance period was commissioned entirely by some of the most ruthless, murderous bastards in human history.
What we are seeing now is not the greediest of bastards, but simply the most unlettered, the most uncultured, and the most barbaric of them. They live and work and think exactly like gang leaders and brigands who reached a point where they can destroy the restrains against them. They would be content to live in vulgar shit and not enjoy life despite their unimaginable wealth, as long as the rest of the world around them burns. I don't think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.
In the Middle Ages and the Ancient era in many places the nobility were seen as also being stewards of the underlings and HAD to make sure they didn’t completely fall into shit.
This strikes me as a touch revanchist.
Middle Ages / Ancient Era nobility operated on a patronage system for their courtiers and military officers, sure. But they obtained the surplus to satisfy the duties of the patrician class by looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.
Even the original robber barons funded medical research, and built theaters and libraries and other cultural stuff for the society they lived in.
They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.
Communities on the periphery were as heavily exploited then as they are now. Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close by, with innovations like Roman roadways and early Medieval shipbuilding technologies pushing those frontiers outward.
The Vikings were not funding medical research in Angland. The Romans were not building libraries in the Black Forests along the Danube. The Columbian Era Spanish were not bringing Renaissance art and culture to the Aztecs and Incas or sending over architects to build beautiful stained glass churches in what would be Texas and Florida.
I don’t think even Hitler held the land and the earth and humanity in general with that level of contempt.
The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.
The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.
This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.
I stand corrected on a lot of stuff. But I was referring to the imperial core of those people's rule. Like without the United States most billionaires would not exist, but they are doing less nothing. They are stripping everything for parts. That is what stands different. The British build Britain up (even if it was socialist leaning policies that elevated most poor out of poverty) at the expense of everyone else, they didn't simply have niche enclaves where they had everything but left the rest of the country/cities into as much shit as is happening now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
looting and pillaging neighboring city-states or by taxing the working people inside their domain.
It’s worse today
They bought bread and built circuses for the artisan class that they sought to cultivate in their immediate vicinity. But their largesse was very geographically limited. The farther from the center of power you got, the more you suffered and the less you benefited.
Same today
Only the limits of technology kept that frontier relatively close
Correct, that’s what made it better
The Scorched Earth tactics of the World Wars were pioneered a century earlier. General Custard and King Leopold II absolutely employed wholesale destruction of the agricultural basis of local communities as a means of enslaving or exterminating native people.
More than a century, it’s called scorched earth because you would literally light a fire. And in the same vein is salt the Earth
Brief reference
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth
The English and Portuguese would employ opium addiction as a means of expanding their empire along the Pacific Rim. The French would make an industry of trapping and killing wild game that wiped whole species out of the New World. Their commercial farming practices in Africa and Southeast Asia would obliterate local biomes for private profit.
Same thing goes on today
This is just more of the same short-term profit oriented expansionism. The machines are bigger and the damage more expansive, but the intent and the incentives are all the same.
Yes the lack of technology made it better, though you’re covering a wide time period
The biggest difference is the wealthy realized religion isn’t real (not that it ever mattered: see Catholic ban on ranged weaponry) and no one is going to remember you so bloodline/country doesn’t matter
The biggest difference is the wealthy realized religion isn’t real
The proletariat realized religion isn't real. Or, at least, the religious demagogues realized there's no longer a point to evangelizing to the impoverished. Bourgeois still cling to it, though. The ranks of Opus Dei and the Mormon Church are thick with mega-millionaires. Religious indoctrination is one of the ways you get "in" with the upper echelons of the western oligarchy, whether its through Focus on the Family or some Silicon Valley AI cult.
Idk, Canada is a lot more religious now than in the 20th century
It’s takes a second to differentiate someone telling you they have a religion and they aren’t saying they’re gay
It’s prejudice and I try not to hold it against them but a life of being raised prejudice makes me think for a moment
Idk, Canada is a lot more religious now than in the 20th century
https://madeinca.ca/religion-statistics-canada/
Based on answers in the 2021 census, 53.3% of the Canadian population identify as Christians. That means over 19.3 million Canadians reported belonging to a Christian religion. However, the proportion of Christians is falling rapidly in Canada. In 2011, 67.3% of Canadians identified as Christians, while in 2001, the percentage of Christians was 77.1% of the population.
...
The number of Canadians who say they have no religious affiliation has more than doubled since 2001 when 16.5% of the population had no religious affiliation. By 2011, the percentage had risen to 23.9% and in 2021, 34.6% of Canadians had no religious affiliation. 34.6% is approximately 12.6 million Canadians.
Perhaps the existing Christian base is getting louder, but the raw number of Christians is falling. Meanwhile, no affiliation seems to be filling in the gap. Canada isn't filling up with Muslims or Satanists or whatever the current ForwardsFromGrandma email chain might suggest.
Based on answers in the 2021 census, 53.3% of the Canadian population identify as Christians. That means over 19.3 million Canadians reported belonging to a Christian religion. However, the proportion of Christians is falling rapidly in Canada. In 2011, 67.3% of Canadians identified as Christians, while in 2001, the percentage of Christians was 77.1% of the population.
Crazy we had 2-3 maybe 3 people out of 200 in my grade that were publicly religious (as in not publicly atheist) everyone I’ve talked to in uni and beyond say the same thing
My grandparents moved here (on both sides) to get away from religion
It wasn’t until adulthood that churches started being built and it taking off
But I did grow up in a very conservative farming town. The 3 things you couldn’t be were black, gay, and religious
Perhaps the existing Christian base is getting louder, but the raw number of Christians is falling. Meanwhile, no affiliation seems to be filling in the gap. Canada isn’t filling up with Muslims or Satanists or whatever the current ForwardsFromGrandma email chain might suggest.
It’s Christians in my experience
while there's good points, the last sentence is out of place.
That guy was contempt manifest. In the end he ordered the destruction of the oh so beloved country
I am aware. When the Nazis were defeated Hitler basically said 'I was wrong, the Germans are not the master race and they all deserve to be exterminated'.
This is why I don't understand the love that they have for Hitler. Hitler's alleged 'love' for Germans and his people was extremely conditional. Also he believed in 'quality' of genetics over 'quantity' and while there is no end to the amount of white supremacists who whine about birth rates, Hitler believed that if his policies resulted in a population decline that would be better because the 'quality' would be superior to more dumbasses.
And also when Hitler lost the war, yes, he did have the Nero Decree. I don't understand why they think someone who was totally fine with the complete destruction of the German 'aryan' race is a good role model. If Hitler came back to life (and as he was physically in 1925) he would hold pretty much all neo-Nazis in absolute contempt and wonder why the fuck the Germans are still alive.
At least some of those old murderous bastards patronized the arts and the sciences.
Current murderous bastards actively seek to destroy them and 'at most' they will share or create memes.
Worst elites ever.
What we are seeing now is the rich are Noah's Arking us to climate change they have known was going to happen since the 70s, and have been preparing for it this whole time. Which is why we haven't made any real progress with climate change in the first place and has been the Republican goal this whole time - they will just kill most of the people on earth to reduce carbon emissions and then continue as they have been with a smaller pool of people but bigger pool of money.
Is this extremely stupid, cruel, and shortsighted and ignores how people work together in societies to make and build stuff?
Yes.
But look at the Titanic submarine. The rich literally believe they can bend science to their will. They literally think they can force the world to their delusions. And they will bet their lives and their kids' lives on that.
There's a reason Trump is building death camps and selling people to other countries. There's a reason Assad was saved and sent to Russia, as one of the most sophisticated death camp operators in modern times.
And what is fucked is that this also consistent with the actions of many elites. When the going got tough for a lot of major leaders of formerly rich and powerful nations, their course of action was to pack up their valuables and flee.
In Ancient Rome when the empire was declining, many Roman nobility just took their valuables and their slaves/servants away from the cities and started their own self-sufficient villas where they still tried to draw a salary from the empire while not giving a damn to pay taxes back. This is how the feudal system and serfdom as we know it started in some places. During the Fourth Crusade when the crusaders sacked Constantinople the emperor at the time expected his subjects to fight... but fled with his treasury behind him.
Even today with the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, the US-backed puppet they put in power spoke about never surrendering, but then fled to the UAE with 150 million dollars with him.
They're all like this shit. I wonder if even trying to win is even feasible at times.
Edit: The titanic submarine is the perfect example of that. These people weren't just violating the laws of physics, but they also were talking about submarine travel as if they invented it, when it has been around since the 19th century. Their arrogance is unbelievable.
Its his download a car moment.
Why is your wealth and power more important than everyone else’s right to simply exist with a basic level of comfort? Let’s put you on a desert island alone and see you create your empire. You can’t, because you NEEDED people and society for everything you have. You stole most of the benefit from our labor and pretend you are entitled to it. Fuck your broken system.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. You have a right to all those things.
Hmm this meme makes me think. I am a socdem and was thinking of what the difference between communism and social democracy is and the answer i got to is that communism shares resources equally while socdem shares enough resources that everyone can lead a life but more resources are locked behind more work. In communism you get the best phone that everyone can get while in socdem you get a feature phone and you have to work to get a better one. I am not very qualified for deeper discussions about things like this but id like to see other peoples opinions. To me and most working class people i think this sounds like a more appealing system. I THINK(emphasis on I and think) that this leads to more innovation and a faster economy which, at the end of the day, does trickle down in a proper socdem system. Also i think european countries should have right to healtcare in the constitution and the right to food and housing is also healthcare because you need it to be healthy. Other things i think should be rights is transportation and communication for example. I guess those are similar to right to job but not the same and not mutual. Last time i tried to have a discussion it was on hexbear and everyone called me a a stupid capitalist pig but this is world so i hope someone whos even more to the left than me can add to this discussion. In the end we are more so allies than enemies.
Not an expert by any means, but communism/socialism are inherently anti-capitalist, while a social democracy exists within the framework of capitalism.
In a socialist society, everyone will have their basic needs met. Basic needs are however different for everyone. To stick to the example of phones: not everyone will have the same phone, but you'd likely have a limited variety of phones to choose from. Big and small, maybe a feature phone for grandma and a special kind of device for the blind/hearing impaired etc.
In a capitalist society, you are forced to get a job and earn some money to survive. Since everything evolves around money, companies will compete for whatever amount of money you have left at the end of the month and will try to get you to buy their products. That's how you end up with a dozen big smartphone manufacturers, each of which release multiple models of phones every year, claiming to have built their "best iPhone yet".
Whether this leads to "innovation" is probably up for debate. The differences between the last couple years' flagships of Samsung, Google and Xiaomi are marginal and, if I may dare to say it, nobody truly needs five different cameras on their phone anyway. I'd go as far and make the opposite claim: things like patents and trade secrets are actively holding back humanity and cost lots of lives. Studies on climate change done by the oil industry got actively buried and patents on the Covid vaccines held back vaccination efforts in poorer parts of the world, only for Biontech shareholders to make bank. I'd also bet that there is tons of research hidden in the drawers of big companies, that never got published because it might give an edge to a competitor. Science thrives out in the open, when knowledge is being shared, not when its done in secret.
As for social democracies: It's capitalism with guide rails. It will try and make sure you do not starve and start revolting, but it will always make sure you are never doing well enough to stop going to work. The inherent issue is, that it is still based on capitalism. Profits are still going to the guy that owns the company, and wealth will always start accumulating. You can try and keep wealth accumulation in check by implementing high taxes, but at some point, someone will get wealthy enough to start lobbying politicians. Said politicians will start removing some of the guiderails, accelerating the accumulation of wealth and the whole system comes crashing down.
I want to say that this is basically what's been happening around the western world for the last couple decades. It started out as a somewhat well working system. Workers where unionized and fought for their rights, wealth taxes existed, people could afford food and housing. The economy grew, the rich got richer and started lobbying. Then wealth taxes disappeared, public utilites and housing got pawned off to the highest bidder, productivity exploded, wages stagnated, minimum wage didn't get raised. Then a pandemic, a war in Europe and inflation. Now people can't afford to live anymore and start turning to facism.
Long story short: a social democracy sounds better than an anarcho-capitalist hellscape, but it will sooner or later turn into one, because capitalism is the inherent evil.
view more: next ›