# In order to improve the standard of living for all we must be economical with our resources.



## fdyyt (Aug 31, 2022)

Much of capitalism, which is buying things to appease others and to further your own selfish desires, is incompatible with this belief. Instead of buying the latest device which would only give you little additional utility, why not devote the money to bringing remote and impoverished fast and reliable internet, this could provide a much bigger benefit to a wider group of people.


----------



## KleinesSinchen (Aug 31, 2022)

The internet is the most resource hungry machine we have (consisting of billions of connected devices). A good chunk of that energy is needed to power any form of video streaming. The internet could be used to save energy on the other hand ("Home Office" for example).

Improving the ""standard of living" is often the opposite than being careful with resources. In order to reduce out ecological footprint we need to turn down our expectations and demands.

Looking around here, I see people driving their car 200 meters to the mailbox or starting the big engine to buy fresh buns on Sunday morning. The smartphone needs to replaced each year or at least every two years. The previous full-HD TV is not enough and doesn't have Netflix app integrated… Here we go: 4K!
Traveling across the world, with a plane – of course. The quality of a vacation is directly proportional to the distance of the destination from home.
I could go on forever.

Our economical system is built in a way that is requires constant growth in order to persist. In a finite world with finite resources, the exponential function will win at some point.


----------



## fdyyt (Aug 31, 2022)

But the Internet is necessary for many people. Maybe we could power it with renewable energy like solar or geothermal.



KleinesSinchen said:


> The internet is the most resource hungry machine we have (consisting of billions of connected devices). A good chunk of that energy is needed to power any form of video streaming. The internet could be used to save energy on the other hand ("Home Office" for example).
> 
> Improving the ""standard of living" is often the opposite than being careful with resources. In order to reduce out ecological footprint we need to turn down our expectations and demands.
> 
> ...


However，I do agree that we need to stop buying upgrades for the sake of them and make the most of what we already have.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 2, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> Much of capitalism, which is buying things to appease others and to further your own selfish desires,


Ehhh. Not really.
I would describe capitalism as the resource management system that puts power in the hands of the (ultra) wealthy.
Most people aren't selfish. The closest thing to "selfish" Is when you have rent covered, food covered for a month, and are unwilling to help a homeless person.

But even then it doesn't get to the crux of the issue.
Your not holding it because your selfish. Your holding it because how insecure your job is.
In a lot of state employers can just fire you at the drop of the hat. And thus, turn you homeless.
But we then have to ask how the homeless person got there.
Recently I believe it was one of the us banks went on to say that too many people are employed. Now to you that sounds absurd. To me it doesn't. Because homelessness is the pinicle of "if you don't comply with our conditions, this is where your life will be"
It's coercive. Here in the states even the ability to get drinking water is commodified. To Europeans that sounds insane and absurd. But that's where we are. A thing we need to live a commodity. And in some places the drinking water is so bad from the tap due to deregulation, that people are forced to buy soda. Because that's cheaper than water.

Simply put, this entire system is designed to put money into the pockets of the few. And as a result, power into the few. The rich live longer because they can access healthcare. While the rest of the people in the united States can't without occurring some absurd massive bill.

  Society as whole (including whatever goverment and or resource management system) should not even have these problems. Yet we do.
Back to the homeless person. He could of got fired. And due to how tight our leash is, a lot of us miss even a single day of work, and that may difference between having and keeping our homes, or not.
So getting sick is a pently all on itself. We get the least amount of vacations, despite productivity reportly being higher than ever before. Or there is simply no jobs. Either phased out from the invetible progress of technology or managers looking to make more profits by cutting jobs and deligating the original jobs responsibilities onto current workers. They don't get a choice, not in the us. You even speak the word union and the company will do everything it can to shut it and you down.


 When we have more houses then people. Yet somehow still have a homeless crisis. We overproduce food, yet still have hunger problems. We have the most advance medicine we can provide. Yet people are still dying to amonia, or dying to perfectly preventable causes. (Referencing insulin prices being absurd. Even though the actual cost to make it is low)

This is the  problem with captalism. Profits over people.

Back when covid hit. Landlords were complaining that they lost 15% of revune while owning a private jet. There's also studies showing that top 10%  disproportionally use more resources than the bottom 90% in day to day life.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US ON THE BOTTOM 90% could pull such bullshit. (That's not an excuse to start doing it. It means that it shouldn't even be a thing. Use public planes since economy of scale.


----------



## LainaGabranth (Sep 2, 2022)

We can improve the standard of living by abolishing capitalism, but y'all aren't ready for that conversation.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 2, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> Ehhh. Not really.
> I would describe capitalism as the resource management system that puts power in the hands of the (ultra) wealthy.
> Most people aren't selfish. The closest thing to "selfish" Is when you have rent covered, food covered for a month, and are unwilling to help a homeless person.
> 
> ...


That's why the vast majority of people won't matter in the long run, because any chance of them being able to contribute to society in a profoundly positive way has been quashed by the elite, who have the privilege of wealth to improve the condition of our planet and its people, but squanders it on mansions, private jets, and fancy cars. It's just like America, whose geography blessed it with power, space, and influence, but is collapsing from within through government and unsustainable auto infrastructure. Truly, privilege is wasted on the privileged.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> When we have more houses then people. Yet somehow still have a homeless crisis. We overproduce food, yet still have hunger problems. We have the most advance medicine we can provide. Yet people are still dying to amonia, or dying to perfectly preventable causes. (Referencing insulin prices being absurd. Even though the actual cost to make it is low)


So the rich create scarcity from abundance to appease shareholders.

No wonder why Cuba, China, and Vietnam turned to communism because the capitalist west always gave them the short end of the stick.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> No wonder why Cuba, China, and Vietnam turned to communism because the capitalist west always gave them the short end of the stick.


and commonly when they tried, the united states didn't have any of that, and pulled every measure they could to severely hamper it. See the time when the United States invaded cuba and overthrew their democratic government.(which is apart of why the cuban missle crisis happen. It wasn't because Cuba wanted to threat the United States, it was because they were tired of being mess by them. And needed some form of deterrent, which is when the USSR came by)
(or just Vietnam. The reason we got involved was because the States was afraid of them going communist, regardless if the people may of actually wanted to do so)


----------



## DJPlace (Sep 3, 2022)

is this topic about you give something to someone or keep it youself?


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> and commonly when they tried, the united states didn't have any of that, and pulled every measure they could to severely hamper it. See the time when the United States invaded cuba and overthrew their democratic government.(which is apart of why the cuban missle crisis happen. It wasn't because Cuba wanted to threat the United States, it was because they were tired of being mess by them. And needed some form of deterrent, which is when the USSR came by)
> (or just Vietnam. The reason we got involved was because the States was afraid of them going communist, regardless if the people may of actually wanted to do so)


Why did US actively oppose communism just because of russian ties. Why didn't they go down there and learn why these countries did those drastic measures? This is why language is important, even though we split up with Britain, soon enough relations were restored because of the anglophone connection to a strong power. The rusophone nation of the soviets made them inaccessible and alien to Americans, naturally the Americans were against russia.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

DJPlace said:


> is this topic about you give something to someone or keep it youself?


about sacrificing personal gain for mutual benefit.


----------



## DJPlace (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> about sacrificing personal gain for mutual benefit.



i use to do that.... but then fucking gorvement screwed me over with SSI. so i'm now and always be a greedy bastard.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

DJPlace said:


> i use to do that.... but then fucking gorvement screwed me over with SSI. so i'm now and always be a greedy bastard.


I'm sorry to hear that, what went wrong with the SSI?


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 3, 2022)

KleinesSinchen said:


> Looking around here, I see people driving their car 200 meters to the mailbox or starting the big engine to buy fresh buns on Sunday morning. The smartphone needs to replaced each year or at least every two years. The previous full-HD TV is not enough and doesn't have Netflix app integrated… Here we go: 4K!
> Traveling across the world, with a plane – of course. The quality of a vacation is directly proportional to the distance of the destination from home.
> I could go on forever.


I'm going to borrow this talking point and critique it a bit. To say now, yes your right, but the blame is not on ordinary people.

Let's take phones for a second. The reason people buy new ones, despite their current working one, is generally around planned obsolescence, difficulty of repair (either intentionally a nightmare to repair, or locking things) and advertising.

Starting with planned obsolescence and repair. I'll just cite apple for this one. As the battery degrades, the performance of the phone decreases. Now this wouldn't be an issue, if the phone was easily repairable, or you at least had access to the battery and could easily switch it out.

But you don't. You also don't get any reasonable access to purchasing that battery (if you want a apple genuine branded battery for the longest time, you had to haverest out of another one), let alone a manual to dissemble the phone. Ontop of course, apple locking parts to the device. If you switch a home button from say, a iphone 7, to another iphone 7. The home button would be rendered unusable.

And sadly, apple isn't the only one doing it. Samsung has started doing it as well. This adds unnecessary waste and forces a dependence on those companies. And commonly the price of repair from them, is more than a new phone. So people just buy a new phone.

The real issue is again, the ceo's and managers. (and overall the system we live in)

Now onto marketing. People don't choose to be unhappy with their stuff (tv's for example) they become unhappy with it because of advertising. A entire thing that is exclusive to capitalism. entire industries are built upon it, even though it gives 0 value back and acts a resource hog. It's designed to get people to buy more, even if they don't need it. If this system was built around sustainability, it would not be profitable, as instead we'd just be replacing parts as they fail, or create designs that enable upgrading of parts without having to buy a entirely new set. Reducing waste by only removing what needs to be removed, and keeping what already works.

traveling itself isn't a problem on it's own. It becomes a problem if it's extremely frequent, and not resource efficient.
 if your flying in your own private jet, that's horribly inefficient. Which suprise, top 10% commonly does that.

Or do things that poor people just don't do, because we can't afford it. Some folk like heating their garages... Heating their garages. To me that's an incredibly foreign and stupid idea. But nope they do that. Or buy idk, 10 cars because you need 10 cars (hello Elon musk)

Oh god great now I'm reminded of our car centric cities, where most of it is unwalkable for pedestrians, and designed around cars. Instead of idk... making cities walkable? and not car hell? that would EASILY cut down emissions if I could safely walk to work or bike, without having to worry about getting mowed down. (let alone sidewalks being absent on my street I should add... for a good stretch of the walk... or lacking of cross walks) getting to my job would be so much more possible without a car.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 3, 2022)

DJPlace said:


> but then fucking gorvement screwed me over with SSI.


I wish that I was surprised. I wish you best of luck and safety.
reason I'm not surprised is:
 Republican party (and democrats) have been playing the game of constantly cutting public safetynets or making it even harder to obtain. For republicans it's because "well SSI (or insert public safetynet here) makes people lazy and not work" Even though people usually try to get it because conditions are bad and are in need of it. Since you know, it's demoralizing to an extent that you need to ask for help. Democrats tend to usually just mask it behind some bill they are passing (though less absurd. doesn't make them good either)


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> it's designed to get people to buy more, even if they don't need it. If this system was built around sustainability, it would not be profitable, as instead we'd just be replacing parts as they fail, or create designs that enable upgrading of parts without having to buy a entirely new set.


Great example of this is when Hoover Vacuums came into the general consumer space. They were made remarkably well for their time, so much so that I actually still have a working one in my Grandmother's home (for reference these things were made in the early 1900s) The company mass producing these then realized that their profits fell almost immediately after a few months because.. the damn things didn't break. Thus was born a major part of Capitalism, as you said.. _planned obstinance._

After that fiasco since they realized their profits went to shit, they then created a new line, advertised it as better - yet they specifically designed them to fail after a given amount of time; which then forced people to buy more. End result? More profit without giving a shit about what they're wasting.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I'm going to borrow this talking point and critique it a bit. To say now, yes your right, but the blame is not on ordinary people.
> 
> Let's take phones for a second. The reason people buy new ones, despite their current working one, is generally around planned obsolescence, difficulty of repair (either intentionally a nightmare to repair, or locking things) and advertising.
> 
> ...


Corporations and casinos have the same goal, exploit people's desires in order to profit from them.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Great example of this is when Hoover Vacuums came into the general consumer space. They were made remarkably well for their time, so much so that I actually still have a working one in my Grandmother's home (for reference these things were made in the early 1900s) The company mass producing these then realized that their profits fell almost immediately after a few months because.. the damn things didn't break. Thus was born a major part of Capitalism, as you said.. _planned obstinance._
> 
> After that fiasco since they realized their profits went to shit, they then created a new line, advertised it as better - yet they specifically designed them to fail after a given amount of time; which then forced people to buy more. End result? More profit without giving a shit about what they're wasting.


Toyota had built it's reputation on reliable vehicles and gained a large following for their high quality products, now it's the world's largest automaker. Chrysler and GM just built unreliable gas guzzling SUVs and pickups with high profit margins, so when the great recession came in, their revenue dropped and the gov had to bail them out. Even to this day, they are struggling to gain much relevance outside North America and in GM's case china, all because they underestimated the Japanese newcomers at the wake of the oil crisis.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> If this system was built around sustainability, it would not be profitable.



Not always the case.


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> Not always the case.


It may not always be the case long-term. But people generally try to get the highest amount of profits, in the shortest amount of time. Corporations have a tendency to exploit the most profitable margin, then move onto the next until they fade. It's not always about providing a genuine service, rather gaining profits through exploitative means.

Sure it's not always the case, but generally you can count on it being so.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> It may not always be the case long-term. But people generally try to get the highest amount of profits, in the shortest amount of time. Corporations have a tendency to exploit the most profitable margin, then move onto the next until they fade. It's not always about providing a genuine service, rather gaining profits through exploitative means.
> 
> Sure it's not always the case, but generally you can count on it being so.


The lesson you learn when you reach adulthood is that everything sucks one way or another.


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> The lesson you learn when you reach adulthood is that everything sucks one way or another.


And so the world goes. It's impossible to please everyone - a fact I've long since accepted. Put simply there's nothing that can be done to truly change the state of things as of now, and if it ever is changed for the better? I doubt I'll ever see it in my life-time.

I understand _why_ these means are used, whether I agree with them or not; it's just something we can't change as of now. Or rather won't change because people refuse to lose the smallest margin of profit.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> And so the world goes. It's impossible to please everyone - a fact I've long since accepted. Put simply there's nothing that can be done to truly change the state of things as of now, and if it ever is changed for the better? I doubt I'll ever see it in my life-time.
> 
> I understand _why_ these means are used, whether I agree with them or not; it's just something we can't change as of now. Or rather won't change because people refuse to lose the smallest margin of profit.


, this is why economics exists.


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> , this is why economics exists.


Oh, I know. I'm actually enrolled in an Economics class. I'm just simply stating that until the overwhelming majority of people are on the same page with the issue - there isn't much to be done.

That being said though, with a government such as ours which can be strong-armed by major corporations, which most of refuse to sacrifice any form of profit, I don't see much in the realm of change any time soon. 

Feel free to prove me wrong though, since I never claimed superiority on the subject.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> That being said though, with a government such as ours which can be strong-armed by major corporations, which most of refuse to sacrifice any form of profit, I don't see much in the realm of change any time soon.
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong though, since I never claimed superiority on the subject.


https://tcglobal.com/bill-gates-the-entrepreneur-and-the-philanthropist/


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> https://tcglobal.com/bill-gates-the-entrepreneur-and-the-philanthropist/


And what exactly does this prove other than him owning a large charity organization?

Yes, charities exist; and I'm not downplaying the genuine good that a lot of them do. But the fact of the matter is that even with them, people still fail to receive a lot of the actual help they could benefit from.

Take government run reliefs for example, they've become increasingly difficult to obtain, much less maintain even for people who fully qualify and genuinely need it. I can vouch for this wholeheartedly as I personally know people who've been denied things like disability, or even food stamps even when in sore need of them. Yes they help some people, but it's also done in such a way to make it exclusive and a royal pain to even get on the process to obtain.

Take food stamps as an example of which I've already stated: Yes they can help provide relief to people with low-incomes or in an impoverished state. However the circumstances in which said benefits apply are extremely fickle, and can leave people in genuine need unable to collect said benefits. A personal example I can pull from is that when I was younger, my family lived in genuine poverty, and we had to make a choice: Should my mother get a full-time job and not qualify for food-stamps, yet still not make enough money to be fed? Or take multiple part-time jobs just to take said benefits and still barely be able to pass by. The worst thing about the option we had to take (multiple part-times) is we often had to apply multiple times a year for said benefits to even be able to receive them, as many of the times we tried we would just be told to stop being "lazy" Yes, because working 3 jobs just to survive is being lazy.

Let me re-state this again: I am _not_ trying to downplay their genuine uses and the good things charities and reliefs have done. I'm just saying that with the majority general corporations they value profit above anything else - and let's face it Charities aren't the run of the mill corporations, and relief programs help a lot less people than they'd lead you to believe.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> And what exactly does this prove other than him owning a large charity organization?
> 
> Yes, charities exist; and I'm not downplaying the genuine good that a lot of them do. But the fact of the matter is that even with them, people still fail to receive a lot of the actual help they could benefit from.
> 
> ...


"If you're good at something, _never do it for free_."-Joker (The Dark Knight - 2008)
In the end, the moral of economics is, that nothing is free, and if it was free, it had to be either subsidized or the distributor wants something from you in return.


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> "If you're good at something, _never do it for free_."-Joker (The Dark Knight - 2008)
> In the end, the moral of economics is, that nothing is free, and if it was free, it had to be either subsidized or the distributor wants something from you in return.


And this is true, no denying that. But the fact of the matter is that when it starts to negatively effect a large populous.. then there is most certainly a problem.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> And this is true, no denying that. But the fact of the matter is that when it starts to negatively effect a large populous.. then there is most certainly a problem.


people have the solutions, but there is no collective effort and desire to implement them due to the oligarchs trying to neuter the dissenters and activists. Thus we must concede and withdraw to the internet or to our isekais.


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> people have the solutions, but there is no collective effort and desire to implement them due to the oligarchs trying to neuter the dissenters and activists.


And when people in the seat of power would rather relish in wealth, these solutions will never see fruition. Any such efforts will be given unsavory labels and then fed to the masses which have been conditioned to treat said labels with dissent. My point stands, while these practices continue: change is not likely.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> And when people in the seat of power would rather relish in wealth, these solutions will never see fruition. Any such efforts will be given unsavory labels and then fed to the masses which have been conditioned to treat said labels with dissent. My point stands, while these practices continue: change is not likely.


That is why escapism is so popular among Generation Z., because no matter where you go, the world is inadequate, that change we wanted residing in us all along. The borders that the oligarchs made due to their perceived insecurities are futile since we can go see anywhere in the world on youtube and see who people really are, and meet like-minded people to create our ideal world away from plutocrats in places like here. Honestly, we can just be content with that, right?


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> That is why escapism is so popular among Generation Z., because no matter where you go, the world is inadequate, that change we wanted residing in us all along. The borders that the oligarchs made due to their perceived insecurities are futile since we can go see anywhere in the world on youtube and see who people really are, and meet like-minded people to create our ideal world away from plutocrats in places like here. Honestly, we can just be content with that, right?


If only it were actually that simple. Sure people can escape to their idealized version of the world - but that just opens a whole other can of worms that I don't even want to dive into. 

Escapism is just actively avoiding the problem or putting a blind-fold over your eyes because you wish to remain blind to the atrocity of a world around you, while this may work for some short-term, there is definitely no benefit in doing so, as people who adhere to escapism tend to become infatuated by their delusions of grandeur, being blind to the shit show they live in.

While change may be inside of us, or attainably possible given that the masses unite - it's highly unlikely, either due to the people who actively oppose said views, go out of their way ignore them; or try to _escape _the reality of them, or like I said before are projected to the populous as the "group of evil". 

Why be content with escapism if you're contributing to the issues you vehemently already oppose? I said change was improbable, not that it was a cause you should just simply ignore.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Then 





Korozin said:


> If only it were actually that simple. Sure people can escape to their idealized version of the world - but that just opens a whole other can of worms that I don't even want to dive into.
> 
> Escapism is just actively avoiding the problem or putting a blind-fold over your eyes because you wish to remain blind to the atrocity of a world around you, while this may work for some short-term, there is definitely no benefit in doing so, as people who adhere to escapism tend to become infatuated by their delusions of grandeur, being blind to the shit show they live in.
> 
> ...


Then let's just hope for the best for each other no matter what comes next, it was a pleasure discussing these matters with you. The world could be a lot better place if everyone were introverted by default, people would focus on improving the most important thing in their life, themselves. A lot of worm cans would remain closed when people stick to their own affairs and not interfere in matters irrelevant to them.


----------



## Korozin (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> Then
> Then let's just hope for the best for each other no matter what comes next, it was a pleasure discussing these matters with you. The world could be a lot better place if everyone were introverted by default, people would focus on improving the most important thing in their life, themselves. A lot of worm cans would remain closed when people stick to their own affairs and not interfere in matters irrelevant to them.


Agreed, and thank you as well. I have to admit that it's nice to actually have civil conversations like these without being attacked by people who scarcely understand the subject. I like when my views are challenged logically, not by fallacy and hostility devoid of any reasoning. Anyways have a good night / day, whatever time it is for you.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> Agreed, and thank you as well. I have to admit that it's nice to actually have civil conversations like these without being attacked by people who scarcely understand the subject. I like when my views are challenged logically, not by fallacy and hostility devoid of any reasoning. Anyways have a good night / day, whatever time it is for you.


good night my friend.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 3, 2022)

Korozin said:


> My point stands, while these practices continue: change is not likely.





Korozin said:


> - it's highly unlikely, either due to the people who actively oppose said views, go out of their way ignore them; or try to _escape _the reality of them, or like I said before are projected to the populous as the "group of evil".


You can view it that way. Or, you can choose to be hopeful.

I reject the idea that nothing will change soon. More and more people are experiencing the crumbling of this system. you have all these crisis, and they can't go on forever. I'm going to bring up jobs.

We value jobs so much. but why? (Sounds stupid to ask but just play with me here)
It's not because all jobs are valuable, take point again, advertising, it provides nothing back of value in total allocation of resources, or assists anyone, or being a landlord. Yet that's paid more, than say, the people who work in a coffee shop, or the people who stock shelves, or the people who clean the floors and bathrooms. But it's not also strictly because it needs to get done. Again, see landlords, who never add anything.



The answer is that we are told to value it, and threatened to abide to it, because that's how capitalists get money out of people. Workers are severely underpaid, it's the only way for a system to make this much profit for the select few. so to maintain it, everyone needs to be under threat constantly. And the system is _designed_ to work like this. As if they didn't underpay their workers, they wouldn't make any profits and go even, and share holders would get angry. And if workers weren't under threat, they would demand better conditions.
 And when there's nothing stopping them from taking directly, that's when you get your predatory healthcare systems, your landlords who raise rent every year by 10%

Another part is people don't hate their work. They hate their job.
What I mean is people don't hate the tasks that they are given. they hate every thing surrounding it. The managers, the constant time crunch, the work culture. ontop of the little pay many get. That same pay needed to live.

everything cycles around debts, and work. Treating humans beings like profit machines.

Because even debt, or putting someone in it, (with interest) is profitable.

Given the far right extreme actions resulting in fascist rhetoric rising. Left wing, the actual left (not moderate right aka democrats I mean actual leftism)  is inventively going to surface. The only question is, are we prepared?

Because the fascist side of the far right has already peered it's ugly face. (bomb threats at children hospitals because of mat walsh claiming that a children's hospital was doing gender  surgeries on kids. Even though such a process is never done until 21 due to complications from such a precedure and the body growing)
 And capitalism itself, has already proved that it's willing to give into fascism. See Nazi Germany, Ford's antisemitism, Coca-Cola's fanta, and other products produced and effectively supporting Nazi Germany.

(while yes, the party Hitler came from was the socialist party. The part that often tries to get skewed or attempted to be, is that that party didn't like him, and he never followed through any actual leftist policy. and that party was the first to experience bloodshed. facism kills the first immediate opposition.)


It's also unlikely that this problem will be voted away. As Capitalism already has a strong grip on our government system. (bills 30% of the time get passed, regardless of popularity. Up until lobbying occurs, which then rises up to 70% chance of that bill passing)
Most that can be done is damage mitigation attempt whatever reworks that are possible, and look to move away from this system entirely.

It's incredibly grim looking at all of this. But if we want a better future, we have to keep our eyes on that future and keep hope so that when we are given the chance to do something, anything, we aren't depressed or defeated by then. Because it's a loss if you already mentally given up.

edit:
And this is really nice to finally have one single civil conversation, it's finally just something logical and reasonable to discuss.


----------



## luisedgarf (Sep 3, 2022)

> It's also unlikely that this problem will be voted away. As Capitalism already has a strong grip on our government system. (bills 30% of the time get passed, regardless of popularity. Up until lobbying occurs, which then rises up to 70% chance of that bill passing)
> Most that can be done is damage mitigation attempt whatever reworks that are possible, and look to move away from this system entirely.



And, do you suggest a better system, outside_ communism?_


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> And capitalism itself, has already proved that it's willing to give into fascism. See Nazi Germany, Ford's antisemitism, Coca-Cola's fanta, and other products produced and effectively supporting Nazi Germany.


The defeated Kaisereich was the third Reichs mother, Modern America was its father. People followed Hitler because they were emotionally vulnerable after their postwar humiliation and his words were the antidote for their malaise. Why didn't America prevent such a catastrophe from happening before it was too late by being an impartial mediator of the conflict instead of letting France and Britain's spite degrade the treaty of Versailles?
America is like Mysterio from Spiderman: Far from Home, creating monsters so he could "defeat" them and play the hero.


----------



## Nothereed (Sep 3, 2022)

luisedgarf said:


> And, do you suggest a better system, outside_ communism?_


I'd assume socialism would fall under the same category
If so. No then.
Libertarians (US's libertarians. Since they don't mean the samething across seas)
Just want to deregulate the goverment as they believe the goverment is the main problem. When it's just one of the many symptoms. I obviously don't need to explain why capitalism wouldn't work. As it created these problems. It's like saying using more fire to put out the fire. It's not going to work nor very effective.
I don't entirely like the concept of just staying with socialism (I could live with it) the problem with that though is that you still have a society based in class, ie, the goverment and the governed.  Unless you somehow manage a direct democracy system and refuse to elect anyone. Which infrastructure wise would be a challenge. However there still aspects of capitalism left over as well. Sooo. Invetibly that corrupting hand will act.  However would be the best most likely outcome.

Lets also get communism cleared up for a second. Classless stateless society. This means no money (our conception of trade would have to revaluated and practically the whole world would have to agree with it. Since trade difficulties. Unless there is some bs currency conversion happening)
 And operating under "provide what you can take what you need"
A lot of right wingers try to conflate it with authortianism. Which is just false. They cite Marxist Leninism aka lenins bs  interpertation of Marx. Which if you ask most people who would be in favor of communism, they heavily hate because they are anarcho communists.
To explain the anarcho part briefly.
 Capitalism can be authoritarian/leaning on a strong goverment.
Or have no goverment at all (anarchist) (except well. Companies would act as the new goverment but whatever) aka what american culture calls libertarianism.
Apply this to now communism. You can have a authortian version (stalinism. Which I despize. Since you created a class with a military force)
Or what most modern communist prefer, as close to no goverment as possible. And disagreeing with Marx's belief that you need a temporary "vangaurd" state. And tweaking Marx's belief of no private property. Mostly in the sense of inteperting it as "no company private property. But PERSONAL property is different and not in the open)
I fall (if it isn't obvious) the later category.
If you got an idea go ahead and suggest it. If it's ancap (anarcho capitalism/Libertarian) I can give a full explanation as to why that would just not work in DM.

Tl;Dr you'll just invetibly end up with another top to bottom hierarchy with ceo's being the new "government" enforcing a military through spending to keep people working.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> Much of capitalism, which is buying things to appease others and to further your own selfish desires, is incompatible with this belief. Instead of buying the latest device which would only give you little additional utility, why not devote the money to bringing remote and impoverished fast and reliable internet, this could provide a much bigger benefit to a wider group of people.



because its harder to control someone when they have the things they need.


----------



## DJPlace (Sep 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> I wish that I was surprised. I wish you best of luck and safety.
> reason I'm not surprised is:
> Republican party (and democrats) have been playing the game of constantly cutting public safetynets or making it even harder to obtain. For republicans it's because "well SSI (or insert public safetynet here) makes people lazy and not work" Even though people usually try to get it because conditions are bad and are in need of it. Since you know, it's demoralizing to an extent that you need to ask for help. Democrats tend to usually just mask it behind some bill they are passing (though less absurd. doesn't make them good either)


do you know what the FUNNY thing about this is. every time i try to get a job or change my life style some BULLSHIT get's in my way. health related issues or have to move other BULLSHIT that's going on. also i live in the most shitty place on earth and i can't move... i swear to god if i could do things to where i'm living at and get away with it. IT would happen.


----------



## fdyyt (Sep 3, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> because its harder to control someone when they have the things they need.


"The world has enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Sep 3, 2022)

fdyyt said:


> "The world has enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed.



now that, is true.


----------

