this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
1392 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
17 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is an alternative to capitalism?
Your analogy doesn't work at all.
The answer you're being asked for needs to be a solution (what can replace capitalism?). The answer in your analogy is an observation (the plane crashed).
It's fine to not have answers, but then your position is pretty useless. A societal system is a mandatory component of our lives. You can't get rid of it without it being replaced with something else. If we don't replace it, then one will arise naturally.
To follow your cancer example, it's like a cancer patient saying they don't want chemo or radiation because it's not good enough. When they are asked what they want to do instead they just say "I don't have answers, I just know these treatments aren't very good".
Winston Churchill is quoted saying
Pretty much the same applies to capitalism.
A societal system is an emergent property of social beings interacting. Mandatory is a really awkward way of saying that.
You're right. It's always wise to break a system without having a plan of what to do once it's broken.
Why would you disingenuously assume break the system instead of fix the system?
You aren't breaking a patient by cutting out a cancer.
Humanity got into the air without a plan for airports or fuel consumption. Most of the time, doing the thing is more important than planning for its consequences.
Counterpoint: Current ML/AI trends and the attempts to claw back digital privacy after tech outpaced the rules that could be made for responsible use.
I am sure Anarchy will lead us to a humanitarian utopia. Definitely not to an even worse form of capitalism. No, sir.
I don't think it's actually possible that actual anarchy would lead to more advanced capitalism immediately superceding it.
Today's capitalism is only possible through the large amount of complexity our system can manage. A collapse is sometimes defined as a rapid simplification of a society...in a collapse scenario...I don't think we'd be able to have three different payment mechanisms for one card, international credit organized, or software as a service models. If the instability of the US causes it to go to anarchy, nobody will give a shit about evil corp's business model and its corresponding license agreement. If they need to break it to eat, they will. They'll break it so often that it might as well not exist.
I agree that unregulated capitalism has its flaws but I personally don't think that capitalism itself (if properly regulated) is inherently bad.
Capitalism is inherently bad because every dollar of profit is a dollar exploited from the supplier, producer, worker, and customer all to benefit the owner who only got to their position by having exploited enough people and sequestered enough resources through leveraging this hellish ouroborus.
That's a massive question for someone to answer in a lemmy comment. There may be a variety of alternative systems that can work. Trade and society are forms of technology that we've halted progress on by locking ourselves into archaic systems of governance.
Just give people that reply a little latitude and understand no one person can fully describe a full system that took thousands of years of civilization could be replaced.
I think these questions are similar to the "I think we should fix society somewhat..." meme. Someone criticizing a thing is somehow expected to know and parrot a complete, flawless fix for the thing they're criticizing.
How is that their responsibility at all? It isn't, and even if they did have a perfectly good answer, they're usually utterly powerless to implement it.
It's pretty normal for people. Anti-auth positions are terrifying to many. How will I feed my dogs if there's no Purina? Forest for the trees and all that. What fucks me up is I come from an ethical position, so I don't actually care how we solve problems so long as it's voluntary.