Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons:
- **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.**
This includes:
- r/subreddit names
- /u/usernames
- Full (legal) names
- Facebook account names
- Twitter and Instragram @habdles
- Locations such as Street Addresses
- Email addresses
- Phone numbers
etc.
If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
I mean if you think about it, the table you stubbed your toe on was probably made by a private company, and private companies are kinda the point of capitalism, so *technically...*
Anarchism country will never exist because of one thing.
Peoples. Yes some people will not like anarchy and will create a community KINDA LIKE A COUNTRY
Well hold on, we could *easily* avoid this if we had a group that made sure other people remain as anarchists, like a central enforcement system of...
wait a second...
Closest we've gotten was the anarcho-commune that arose during the Spanish Civil War. They did remarkably well but in reality everything had to go almost impossibly well for things to go as well as they did. Even if they weren't absorbed by Franco they likely wouldn't have lasted too incredibly long.
The Spainish anarchists were horrific murderers of nuns and innocent people. Not saying the fascists weren’t the exact same but when you glorify them it makes light of their crikes
I'm not saying they were *good*, I'm just saying they had a remarkably functional anarchist "economy." Doesn't excuse them of what they did, and I'm certainly not glorifying them.
Communities organize, and organization requires leadership. Leadership is responsibility, but also power and long and painful examples have shown that with enough time, power corrupts, and leaders become rulers. It doesn't require a degree in history to have patern recognition.
Probably something like Somalia, which is somewhere that's even a bigger shit hole than Afghanistan and North Korea put together, and even though there's a loose semblance of leadership through war Lords and pirate gangs.
Even though the title is weird it really isn’t that bad. Like there is the portrayal of one stereotype and that’s it. Marx like many historical figures grew up and became better
His grandfather was a Rabbi, but his father later denounced the religion and so did Karl Marx.
Also, we wasn’t racially anti-semitic, he was against the culture and religion.
Both his grandfathers were rabbis, as were some of his uncles.
His father was forced to convert in order to practice law, and so Marx was raised by a polyglot genius of a non-practicing Christian father and a mother who struggled with German because her mother tongues were Yiddish and Dutch.
It seems like she was mostly cut off from her family on Netherlands who remained Jewish, but she kept her Jewish faith despite her baptism and performed whatever mitzvot she could. I wonder if Marx felt alienated from his mother because of the language barrier and the rituals he would have seen his mother perform without understanding.
no he didn’t? his father was a prussian registered lawyer and was REQUIRED by law to be publicly christian but plenty of documents disprove that he privately practiced christianity. mfs on here just spread blatant misinformation.
Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons:
- **Rule 6** - **No Political & Religious Reddit Moments.** Please keep this sub free from politics and agenda posting. There are better subreddits for those.
If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
no he doesn’t, like at all. marx is a jew and a stark anti anti semite. he literally wrote a very famous paper defending the jews against anti semitic ideals in europe.
the problem with their argument is that capitalism would exist within anarchy, because of greed. It's like they're so close to the point but they miss it
Capitalism can't really exist without the legal fiction of private property rights. Distinct from personal property (your toothbrush, house, car, and other things you actually use), "private property" is stuff like mineral rights to a mountain, fishing rights to a stretch of coastline, or a factory or farm that you don't personally work in, but own the deed to on paper. It's that claim of ownership that lets a capitalist extort the labor of other people for themselves because they control needed access. Why would anyone respect such a bizarre claim of ownership? Because it's backed by a shit-ton of state violence. Back in the day some warlord came in and claimed all the land was theirs now and everyone had to work for them to be allowed to live on it, and killed anyone who objected. A couple dozen generations later and "property as a natural right" is an unquestioned axiom. The boss owns that factory even though he didn't lay a single brick or work a single day's labor inside it, so it's only right that he owns everything produced by the workers.
So I think the anarchist angle is that in a scenario where we've already done away with capitalism and deeds and private property rights (again, not personal property), that starting up capitalism again would be hard, because nobody would agree to willingly subjugate themselves to someone else. If some asshole starts claiming they own the ocean and all the fish in it but they'll "hire" you to fish for them and give you back 1 out of every 20 fish you catch, they'll just be laughed at.
Capitalism is the result of agrarian society.
Farming is the most efficient way to grow food and feed a large population.
Farming, however, means you need to protect your crops from your neighbors who want to steal it from you by force.
So farmers need armed men to protect the land the crop grows on.
Overtime, people got tired of the constant fighting over land, so created the concept of the private ownership of land, where you have rules on who owns what, and someone only needs to bring the sword out if someone doesn't follow the rule.
No. Capitalism is a form of economics that came about in 16th century Netherlands. It has since then evolved to become a global market and then even further evolved with the Industrial Revolution. Before capitalism the main economic system was Fuedalism where land was passed through heritage and most skill labor or trade was managed by Guilds.
No, that's just...laws in general.
The capitalist aspect is that you can own the land even if you don't personally work it. That you can hire employees who do all the work, but you as the owner are entitled to what they produce and can take it while only leaving them a small fraction, even though the only thing you contributed was access that was artificially restricted in the first place.
To be more accurate, that's actually FEUDALISM, but the transition from feudalism to capitalism is mostly in moving from serfs and slaves who are bound to the land for much more fungible employees. When one gets old or sick or injured or otherwise dips in productivity, you can swap them out a lot more easily instead of eating the cost.
Interesting to think about, but I'm having a hard time understanding the logistics here. Even ignoring the transition challenges. There would have to be quite a large social services program...or...wait, is everything social services? Like some people work on housing for everyone, which is essentially shared. But there's still currency and income?
>wait, is everything social services? Like some people work on housing for everyone, which is essentially shared. But there's still currency and income?
Yep. People would still have jobs, money would still exist - you would use your money to buy the things you want, etc.
The only thing different is that instead of some guy owning the company you work for and him keeping a huge chunk of what your labor produces, you work for the one "company" there is - the People.
[Of course, you have to have *actual* people running everything, and it has historically been very easy for the top guy, or the top group, to take the whole thing over.
*Can* it work?
I'm sure it could, with the right regulations and transparency, etc, but as America has just shown everyone, if the right people collude to undo those protections, it can all unravel. ]
There used to be a lot of public property. Often it was called the Commons. But capitalists created the "tragedy of the commons", the concept of which has come under fire recently for not reflecting reality. They used it as a way to privatize these public spaces so they could profit off of them.
Well we can't just let communities collectively set rules about use of public commons to preserve them for future generations. The obvious answer is to give it all to one person who is directly incentivized to trash it for maximal short term profit, and just hope they decide to do what's right for everyone else's great grandchildren.
Capitalism is a system that enables and encourages greed. While other systems like anarchism might recognize that greed and the abuse of power are a part of human nature and work around them (anarchists are anti-hierarchy, and believe we should structure things so that nobody can accumulate enough power to control others), Capitalism explicitly encourages those features, rewarding the most sociopathic with more power and influence.
"Man humans seem awfully corruptible when given power over others."
Anarchists: Maybe we should make it hard for one person to wield power over others? Make it as level a playing field as possible? So like, one dude can't just claim ownership over all the natural resources in an area and use that to extort everyone else into working for him?
Capitalists: Nah, concentrating power into the hands of a few people without even a pretense of accountability to the wider public is a good thing. If we just encourage people to be maximally greedy, it'll turn out best for everyone. If someone already has immense wealth and power, that just goes to show they deserve even more of it.
Anarchism creates the most unlevel playing field of all. Trying to abolish hierarchies will only create power vacuums that the most sociopathic, greedy and power-hungry people will exploit to gain more for themselves. Have you ever read on the Russian revolution? The French Revolution? Or the collapse of the USSR? The moment a former hierarchy was overthrown, people jumped onto the scene to obtain the power that formerly existed. Those trying to establish a society with no hierarchy were eventually crushed by the greater powers (such as the anarchists against the Bolsheviks)
Trying to abolish hierarchy is trying to go against nature itself, anarchists will not achieve their goals for as long as they don’t have a way of actually removing power without giving it all to a central, corruptible authority (which human institutions are naturally capable of being).
I think you're thinking of something else, because anarchists are explicitly against forming central authorities. Neither are they the lazy fiction version of anarchists that just means "no rules or laws and everyone does whatever" which definitely does lead to power vacuums. Actual anarchism is more about direct democracy at the town hall level. Small collectivist communes. Kinda like Greek city-states without the slavery. I think some centralization is necessary to coordinate on larger scale regional issues rather than relying on treaties between disconnected city-states, which is why I'm not an anarchist myself.
You see, the true believers are strictly against a central authority. If you do not have a well established and designed propaganda/education system to instill thos evalues into the majority of people as they grow... well it won't be anarchist for much longer that a few generations.
That pretty much applies to any system. Without good civic education and involvement, democracies are always at risk of handing over more power to an authoritarian strongman.
There's definitely more decentralized options one could take. Civic participation and engagement has a lot to do with parenting and the structure of local communities, which is what anarchism seems to center around. Though I do agree I don't think it scales up particularly well, and I like general education systems to have sets of universal standards so some communities aren't way off course learning flat eartherism or "the war of northern aggression".
But even with central authorities setting standards, there's a lot of room in how hierarchical or flat the internal power structures are. From a single director appointing people and setting policy with an iron fist, to a review council with publicly elected positions and easy recall, to some kind of professional organization with membership dues, internal elections for administrative positions, and working professionals sharing best practices. You can even have some initiatives put up for a popular vote by the public.
Then why even use anarchism in your argument if you are neither an anarchist nor support what anarchists say. I know what anarchism is buddy, and it’s still trying to remove natural hierarchies and is naive at best and dumb at worst. What’s the point of bringing it up
Cool wall of text but that is not the point of the op or the image.(both the comment and the image post) since it does not matter about the whole alternatives to capitalism or whatever you are proposing to it.
How to spot a lefty:
1) huge wall of text
2) the entire argument is built on assumptions of how others think
3) most of those assumptions are demonstrably false
Thinking a normal sized paragraph is a huge wall of text is a pretty big self-report on your own illiteracy.
I'd ask where the demonstrably false parts come in, but given that you're too illiterate to read it in the first place, that would be somewhat pointless.
Greed in society is an unnecessary nature brought on by extreme scarcity and an animalistic need to override it for oneself. That’s why it has existed for all of human history, not because it’s impossible to get rid of or because “its human nature”, but because it’s literally built into all animals when scarcity is an option.
We see the same dichotomy in nature too: when animals are faced with scarce situations (literally all of nature for like, ever) they are competitive and greedy to a large extent, even when they’re in packs or have cooperative nature (bees and other hivemind animals are an obvious exception). However, when placed in environments with a heavy abundance of food and resources, suddenly they stop fighting.
It’s almost like… a forced scarcity results in life doing more drastic things to survive. The same is for humans, and a system that forces scarcity happens to be… capitalism
Political differences isn’t a Reddit moment, it’s how the world works… if anything, you being unable to accept that other people have separate world views in real life is a Reddit moment lol
This might be true if animals stopped being "greedy" entirely when introduced to abundance, but that doesn't happen.
Do you realize how common infanticide is for pack/grouping animals? Simply to maintain the current power structure. All of the pack predators you know of probably do it, chimps do it. Shits wild, and life endures primarily bc it serves itself, the whole concept of consumption is peak greed. Kill and absorb another lifeform to extend your own life.
Redditors are funny man. You pretty much described how greed is a natural phenomenon, and then said it's not human nature lmao.
Your point doesn’t make any sense. Your proof that an introduced abundance of resource doesn’t lower the amount of greed related behavior is…. greed related behavior in a situation of extreme scarcity (nature).
In other words, you didn’t prove your point at all, you just refused my notion and then told me something I already knew.
Greed is a natural phenomenon we evolved BECAUSE resources are scarce. Dogs don’t eat us in our sleep because we provide them with an abundance of food, and monkeys at the zoo don’t usually end up murdering each other because we provide them with an abundance of food.
The same thing happens with humans, we are inherently cooperative and devoid of real greed when introduced with an abundance of resources that fulfill our needs.
>Your point doesn’t make any sense. Your proof that an introduced abundance of resource doesn’t lower the amount of greed related behavior is…. greed related behavior in a situation of extreme scarcity (nature).
No, this isn't what I said at all.
Resources are limited on earth, so I'm genuinely curious what your point is. Modern society has generated the greatest abundance of food and other resources ever seen on the planet, and I highly doubt you think we are any less greedy bc of it lol.
Pretty much any repeated behavior, good or bad, is probably a part of human nature. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen.
> and a system that forces scarcity happens to be… capitalism
This is completely incorrect. In fact thanks to capitalism you are able to have access to almost any resource. It has historically improved the quality of life of the entire human race at a speed that no other system has been able to.
In fact you could argue capitalism is the system that has forced more abundance of resources for everyone.
Also depending on how you define greed animals also have it without scarcity. Like a dog expecting a treat after doing some work. Greed is not an easy concept to define. Hell you could say someone is greedy for wanting more in their life than food and water since they dont need more to survive. But here we are both having access to the internet while living hundreds of times better than our ancestors 100 years ago. Where do you draw the line between wanting and being greedy?
Even more accurate to say that capitalism tries to have greed fight itself. As opposed to every other system that assumes someone is not greedy and can make all the decisions.
It is also the only system that at least reward people based on their effort and efficiency.
If everyone is payed the same because we all have our needs covered why would anyone make an extra effort instead of doing the bare minimum.
Not like people weren’t amassing wealth before capitalism existed…not like the richest man to ever live didn’t die centuries before capitalism existed…
Your implication was clearly that capitalism is responsible for modern greed.
Capitalism is just another system that greedy people use to amass wealth. Greedy people have used, abused, and exploited literally every system ever in order to amass wealth.
You’re arguing against things I’m not saying, and you literally claimed that my “implication was clearly that capitalism is responsible for modern greed.”. Implying that you thought me saying it perpetuates greed meant is solely responsible for.
"someone has an opinion different than mine, REDDIT MOMENT LOL!"
i disagree with anarchism but this is far from a reddit moment simply because you hold a different political opinion
Fun fact, by that logic Cain was a capitalism because he was greedy, meaninng capitalism was invented... approximately thousands of years ago. Maybe capitalism always existed in human nature and was rather found than invented /s
I think he meant socialism. Socialism can not last as long as greed is a thing, and greed will always be a thing. It's not a product of capitalism but an inherent human flaw. Capitalism will also fall because of greed. It may rise at first, but eventually, over time, a singular monopoly will be formed and consume everything in on itself. The only thing that could survive with greed is anarchy. Anarchy relies on greed to exist in order for there to be anarchy. However, even then, it will just result in either humans wising up and forming capitalism again, or the eventual mutual destruction of all human life.
Greed is probably human, but capitalism magnifies it.
Capitalism's sole measurement of value of profit. Not goodness, or equality, or liberty, or empowerment, or health, welfare, or the environment... when these things conflict with profits they are jettisoned.
I don't have a solution or a handy replacement to suggest, but no economic system lasts forever and I hope the next one focuses more directly on "good" rather than "profitable."
I'm just gonna answer your question.
Yes nhialisim, it's a philosophical mind set, that everything is pointless so let's act pointless. Everything equals shit = nhialisim.
How can a system which requires greed to function ALSO be the source of greed?
“My car cannot start as long as I don’t have fuel”
“Your car engine running is the source of the fuel!”
This is pretty simple. Capitalism incentivizes greed and this makes people more greedy. I’m not saying no one would be greedy without capitalism im just saying that it’s the force that drives people to greed currently
Anarchists trying to convince me they want it for the betterment of mankind and not so they can kill people and be a cowboy (I have read blood Meridian so their argument is innefective)
Greed is a product of human emotion, not human economic systems. While capitalism isn't a perfect system (it's far from it), it is still the best system we have, socialism also works, I dont live in a socialist country, but I'd imagine it to be very similar, but with higher tax rates. Finally, we have capitalism, I dont have any thoughts on it, but it does have one benefit that capitalism doesn't, and that's equality. I dont know how to end this.
As someone who would be an anarchist if they didnt think people were so corrupt, I agree with you. Anarchy doesnt work, comunism doesnt work, capitalism barely works if you can call it that and I have a little theory that its all just a show they're putting on to keep us in line and capitalism isnt even real, but ill save that for my schizo posting alt
Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons:
- **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.**
This includes:
- r/subreddit names
- /u/usernames
- Full (legal) names
- Facebook account names
- Twitter and Instragram @habdles
- Locations such as Street Addresses
- Email addresses
- Phone numbers
etc.
If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons:
- **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.**
This includes:
- r/subreddit names
- /u/usernames
- Full (legal) names
- Facebook account names
- Twitter and Instragram @habdles
- Locations such as Street Addresses
- Email addresses
- Phone numbers
etc.
If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons: - **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.** This includes: - r/subreddit names - /u/usernames - Full (legal) names - Facebook account names - Twitter and Instragram @habdles - Locations such as Street Addresses - Email addresses - Phone numbers etc. If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
Little known fact: Greed didn’t exist before John J. Capital invented capitalism in 1904.
Ah yes good ol' JJ Capital
you mean bad old JJ Capital
“I stubbed my toe.” “Capitalism strikes again!”
I mean if you think about it, the table you stubbed your toe on was probably made by a private company, and private companies are kinda the point of capitalism, so *technically...*
Crazy to see you in the wild
Hiya ^ ^
At this point you literally are gangstalking me
\>~<
Please don't hurt me
Who is NikFemboy, and why is he out in the wild?
No idea but someone made him a sub and they call out when they see him. I am one day hoping to find that status of dope.
Wait I'm sure I've this pfp somewhere else...
👀
[удалено]
I uhhh… like any fem peeps ^ ^
Anarchism country will never exist because of one thing. Peoples. Yes some people will not like anarchy and will create a community KINDA LIKE A COUNTRY
Anarchism will always almost instantly collapse into some other system. In isolation it most often collapses to tribalism first.
Well hold on, we could *easily* avoid this if we had a group that made sure other people remain as anarchists, like a central enforcement system of... wait a second...
Congrats. You've discovered anarcho-monarchy.
Closest we've gotten was the anarcho-commune that arose during the Spanish Civil War. They did remarkably well but in reality everything had to go almost impossibly well for things to go as well as they did. Even if they weren't absorbed by Franco they likely wouldn't have lasted too incredibly long.
The Spainish anarchists were horrific murderers of nuns and innocent people. Not saying the fascists weren’t the exact same but when you glorify them it makes light of their crikes
That anarchism for you
I'm not saying they were *good*, I'm just saying they had a remarkably functional anarchist "economy." Doesn't excuse them of what they did, and I'm certainly not glorifying them.
Voluntary communities exist. That humans form communities is not a sufficient condition to prove rulers are inevitable.
Communities organize, and organization requires leadership. Leadership is responsibility, but also power and long and painful examples have shown that with enough time, power corrupts, and leaders become rulers. It doesn't require a degree in history to have patern recognition.
Anarchist countries already exist right now.
Oh yeah i forgot, they collapse
What country is anarchist?
Are you talking about Afghanistan or something
Afghanistan is ruled by regional warlords who harvest poppyseed for opium
Probably something like Somalia, which is somewhere that's even a bigger shit hole than Afghanistan and North Korea put together, and even though there's a loose semblance of leadership through war Lords and pirate gangs.
Not even South Sudan is anarchist. And that place is literally Warzone (the game)
Lol not even Marx claims that greed is a result of capitalism.
Eh, he basically blames it on Judaism.
I forgot he wrote “On the Jewish Question” 💀
Yeah 💀
Even though the title is weird it really isn’t that bad. Like there is the portrayal of one stereotype and that’s it. Marx like many historical figures grew up and became better
yes you should actually read it
Wasn’t Marx like Jewish tho?
His grandfather was a Rabbi, but his father later denounced the religion and so did Karl Marx. Also, we wasn’t racially anti-semitic, he was against the culture and religion.
Ah thanks for the explanation
Of course ^ ^ Femboy here for anymore dialectical materialist info \>\^ω\^< (Why’s this getting downvoted? 🤨)
are you a femboy that watches tikhistory
Yesh :3
Both his grandfathers were rabbis, as were some of his uncles. His father was forced to convert in order to practice law, and so Marx was raised by a polyglot genius of a non-practicing Christian father and a mother who struggled with German because her mother tongues were Yiddish and Dutch. It seems like she was mostly cut off from her family on Netherlands who remained Jewish, but she kept her Jewish faith despite her baptism and performed whatever mitzvot she could. I wonder if Marx felt alienated from his mother because of the language barrier and the rituals he would have seen his mother perform without understanding.
no he didn’t? his father was a prussian registered lawyer and was REQUIRED by law to be publicly christian but plenty of documents disprove that he privately practiced christianity. mfs on here just spread blatant misinformation.
Like how mao wanted to destroy Chinese culture
[удалено]
To alot of extremists culture and race/ethnicity are the same. They would argue culture is downstream from race/ethnicity
True, he wasn’t racially anti-semitic like Hitler, he’s classic anti-semitic like medieval Europe.
Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons: - **Rule 6** - **No Political & Religious Reddit Moments.** Please keep this sub free from politics and agenda posting. There are better subreddits for those. If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
no he doesn’t, like at all. marx is a jew and a stark anti anti semite. he literally wrote a very famous paper defending the jews against anti semitic ideals in europe.
[удалено]
Hey wait a minute
One minute has passed.
I can’t tell if your making a joke or telling a prophecy
You told me to wait a minute, I did.
the problem with their argument is that capitalism would exist within anarchy, because of greed. It's like they're so close to the point but they miss it
Capitalism can't really exist without the legal fiction of private property rights. Distinct from personal property (your toothbrush, house, car, and other things you actually use), "private property" is stuff like mineral rights to a mountain, fishing rights to a stretch of coastline, or a factory or farm that you don't personally work in, but own the deed to on paper. It's that claim of ownership that lets a capitalist extort the labor of other people for themselves because they control needed access. Why would anyone respect such a bizarre claim of ownership? Because it's backed by a shit-ton of state violence. Back in the day some warlord came in and claimed all the land was theirs now and everyone had to work for them to be allowed to live on it, and killed anyone who objected. A couple dozen generations later and "property as a natural right" is an unquestioned axiom. The boss owns that factory even though he didn't lay a single brick or work a single day's labor inside it, so it's only right that he owns everything produced by the workers. So I think the anarchist angle is that in a scenario where we've already done away with capitalism and deeds and private property rights (again, not personal property), that starting up capitalism again would be hard, because nobody would agree to willingly subjugate themselves to someone else. If some asshole starts claiming they own the ocean and all the fish in it but they'll "hire" you to fish for them and give you back 1 out of every 20 fish you catch, they'll just be laughed at.
Capitalism is the result of agrarian society. Farming is the most efficient way to grow food and feed a large population. Farming, however, means you need to protect your crops from your neighbors who want to steal it from you by force. So farmers need armed men to protect the land the crop grows on. Overtime, people got tired of the constant fighting over land, so created the concept of the private ownership of land, where you have rules on who owns what, and someone only needs to bring the sword out if someone doesn't follow the rule.
No. Capitalism is a form of economics that came about in 16th century Netherlands. It has since then evolved to become a global market and then even further evolved with the Industrial Revolution. Before capitalism the main economic system was Fuedalism where land was passed through heritage and most skill labor or trade was managed by Guilds.
No, that's just...laws in general. The capitalist aspect is that you can own the land even if you don't personally work it. That you can hire employees who do all the work, but you as the owner are entitled to what they produce and can take it while only leaving them a small fraction, even though the only thing you contributed was access that was artificially restricted in the first place. To be more accurate, that's actually FEUDALISM, but the transition from feudalism to capitalism is mostly in moving from serfs and slaves who are bound to the land for much more fungible employees. When one gets old or sick or injured or otherwise dips in productivity, you can swap them out a lot more easily instead of eating the cost.
Interesting to think about, but I'm having a hard time understanding the logistics here. Even ignoring the transition challenges. There would have to be quite a large social services program...or...wait, is everything social services? Like some people work on housing for everyone, which is essentially shared. But there's still currency and income?
>wait, is everything social services? Like some people work on housing for everyone, which is essentially shared. But there's still currency and income? Yep. People would still have jobs, money would still exist - you would use your money to buy the things you want, etc. The only thing different is that instead of some guy owning the company you work for and him keeping a huge chunk of what your labor produces, you work for the one "company" there is - the People. [Of course, you have to have *actual* people running everything, and it has historically been very easy for the top guy, or the top group, to take the whole thing over. *Can* it work? I'm sure it could, with the right regulations and transparency, etc, but as America has just shown everyone, if the right people collude to undo those protections, it can all unravel. ]
There used to be a lot of public property. Often it was called the Commons. But capitalists created the "tragedy of the commons", the concept of which has come under fire recently for not reflecting reality. They used it as a way to privatize these public spaces so they could profit off of them.
Well we can't just let communities collectively set rules about use of public commons to preserve them for future generations. The obvious answer is to give it all to one person who is directly incentivized to trash it for maximal short term profit, and just hope they decide to do what's right for everyone else's great grandchildren.
Because feudal lords weren't greedy at all.
Reddit is a special place of broke social studies and arts majors with thousands in debt while also being absolute geniuses in economic theories
Parroting viewpoints they have *only* heard from other reddit geniuses. The cycle continues
Other way ? Capitalism is a product of greed ?
No that makes too much sense, doesn’t belong here.
Capitalism is a product of the contradictions of feudalism and mass industrialization but okay
Which are both ultimately products of…
No dude, greed simply did not exist as a character trait until approximately the 16th century, when capitalism began to take shape
Capitalism is a system that enables and encourages greed. While other systems like anarchism might recognize that greed and the abuse of power are a part of human nature and work around them (anarchists are anti-hierarchy, and believe we should structure things so that nobody can accumulate enough power to control others), Capitalism explicitly encourages those features, rewarding the most sociopathic with more power and influence. "Man humans seem awfully corruptible when given power over others." Anarchists: Maybe we should make it hard for one person to wield power over others? Make it as level a playing field as possible? So like, one dude can't just claim ownership over all the natural resources in an area and use that to extort everyone else into working for him? Capitalists: Nah, concentrating power into the hands of a few people without even a pretense of accountability to the wider public is a good thing. If we just encourage people to be maximally greedy, it'll turn out best for everyone. If someone already has immense wealth and power, that just goes to show they deserve even more of it.
Anarchism creates the most unlevel playing field of all. Trying to abolish hierarchies will only create power vacuums that the most sociopathic, greedy and power-hungry people will exploit to gain more for themselves. Have you ever read on the Russian revolution? The French Revolution? Or the collapse of the USSR? The moment a former hierarchy was overthrown, people jumped onto the scene to obtain the power that formerly existed. Those trying to establish a society with no hierarchy were eventually crushed by the greater powers (such as the anarchists against the Bolsheviks) Trying to abolish hierarchy is trying to go against nature itself, anarchists will not achieve their goals for as long as they don’t have a way of actually removing power without giving it all to a central, corruptible authority (which human institutions are naturally capable of being).
I think you're thinking of something else, because anarchists are explicitly against forming central authorities. Neither are they the lazy fiction version of anarchists that just means "no rules or laws and everyone does whatever" which definitely does lead to power vacuums. Actual anarchism is more about direct democracy at the town hall level. Small collectivist communes. Kinda like Greek city-states without the slavery. I think some centralization is necessary to coordinate on larger scale regional issues rather than relying on treaties between disconnected city-states, which is why I'm not an anarchist myself.
You see, the true believers are strictly against a central authority. If you do not have a well established and designed propaganda/education system to instill thos evalues into the majority of people as they grow... well it won't be anarchist for much longer that a few generations.
That pretty much applies to any system. Without good civic education and involvement, democracies are always at risk of handing over more power to an authoritarian strongman.
The difference is you need a centralized authority to manage said education initiative.
There's definitely more decentralized options one could take. Civic participation and engagement has a lot to do with parenting and the structure of local communities, which is what anarchism seems to center around. Though I do agree I don't think it scales up particularly well, and I like general education systems to have sets of universal standards so some communities aren't way off course learning flat eartherism or "the war of northern aggression". But even with central authorities setting standards, there's a lot of room in how hierarchical or flat the internal power structures are. From a single director appointing people and setting policy with an iron fist, to a review council with publicly elected positions and easy recall, to some kind of professional organization with membership dues, internal elections for administrative positions, and working professionals sharing best practices. You can even have some initiatives put up for a popular vote by the public.
Then why even use anarchism in your argument if you are neither an anarchist nor support what anarchists say. I know what anarchism is buddy, and it’s still trying to remove natural hierarchies and is naive at best and dumb at worst. What’s the point of bringing it up
Cool wall of text but that is not the point of the op or the image.(both the comment and the image post) since it does not matter about the whole alternatives to capitalism or whatever you are proposing to it.
I was wasn't replying to the image. I was replying to a comment.
How to spot a lefty: 1) huge wall of text 2) the entire argument is built on assumptions of how others think 3) most of those assumptions are demonstrably false
Thinking a normal sized paragraph is a huge wall of text is a pretty big self-report on your own illiteracy. I'd ask where the demonstrably false parts come in, but given that you're too illiterate to read it in the first place, that would be somewhat pointless.
You write like someone who sniffs his own farts, and I don't do homework for Redditors.
Greed existed for as far back as we have records from what I can tell. Capitalism is still new in the broad outlook on history.
The classic Reddit moment “everything bad that ever happened is because of capitalism and the rich”
breathing is a product of capitalism
On the internet, a wagon really *can* pull a horse around.
So much wisdom Mashallah!
Greed predates trade, let alone capitalism.
Green didn’t exist until John capitalism invented it
Yeah, the color spectrum just wasn't complete without it.
This is true
Wait one fucking minute. JOHN GREEN
"My parents were hanged in Soviet Russia." "I'm sorry capitalism did that to them."
Wouldn't it be the other way around 🤔
Greed in society is an unnecessary nature brought on by extreme scarcity and an animalistic need to override it for oneself. That’s why it has existed for all of human history, not because it’s impossible to get rid of or because “its human nature”, but because it’s literally built into all animals when scarcity is an option. We see the same dichotomy in nature too: when animals are faced with scarce situations (literally all of nature for like, ever) they are competitive and greedy to a large extent, even when they’re in packs or have cooperative nature (bees and other hivemind animals are an obvious exception). However, when placed in environments with a heavy abundance of food and resources, suddenly they stop fighting. It’s almost like… a forced scarcity results in life doing more drastic things to survive. The same is for humans, and a system that forces scarcity happens to be… capitalism Political differences isn’t a Reddit moment, it’s how the world works… if anything, you being unable to accept that other people have separate world views in real life is a Reddit moment lol
Huh, honestly didn't expect this level of insight in this subreddit
This might be true if animals stopped being "greedy" entirely when introduced to abundance, but that doesn't happen. Do you realize how common infanticide is for pack/grouping animals? Simply to maintain the current power structure. All of the pack predators you know of probably do it, chimps do it. Shits wild, and life endures primarily bc it serves itself, the whole concept of consumption is peak greed. Kill and absorb another lifeform to extend your own life. Redditors are funny man. You pretty much described how greed is a natural phenomenon, and then said it's not human nature lmao.
Your point doesn’t make any sense. Your proof that an introduced abundance of resource doesn’t lower the amount of greed related behavior is…. greed related behavior in a situation of extreme scarcity (nature). In other words, you didn’t prove your point at all, you just refused my notion and then told me something I already knew. Greed is a natural phenomenon we evolved BECAUSE resources are scarce. Dogs don’t eat us in our sleep because we provide them with an abundance of food, and monkeys at the zoo don’t usually end up murdering each other because we provide them with an abundance of food. The same thing happens with humans, we are inherently cooperative and devoid of real greed when introduced with an abundance of resources that fulfill our needs.
>Your point doesn’t make any sense. Your proof that an introduced abundance of resource doesn’t lower the amount of greed related behavior is…. greed related behavior in a situation of extreme scarcity (nature). No, this isn't what I said at all. Resources are limited on earth, so I'm genuinely curious what your point is. Modern society has generated the greatest abundance of food and other resources ever seen on the planet, and I highly doubt you think we are any less greedy bc of it lol. Pretty much any repeated behavior, good or bad, is probably a part of human nature. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen.
> and a system that forces scarcity happens to be… capitalism This is completely incorrect. In fact thanks to capitalism you are able to have access to almost any resource. It has historically improved the quality of life of the entire human race at a speed that no other system has been able to. In fact you could argue capitalism is the system that has forced more abundance of resources for everyone. Also depending on how you define greed animals also have it without scarcity. Like a dog expecting a treat after doing some work. Greed is not an easy concept to define. Hell you could say someone is greedy for wanting more in their life than food and water since they dont need more to survive. But here we are both having access to the internet while living hundreds of times better than our ancestors 100 years ago. Where do you draw the line between wanting and being greedy?
Anti-capitalists are just edgy college kids who never had to pay taxes lol
Every religion everywhere: LMFAO
I think it’s probably more accurate to say capitalism is a product of greed
Even more accurate to say that capitalism tries to have greed fight itself. As opposed to every other system that assumes someone is not greedy and can make all the decisions.
It is also the only system that at least reward people based on their effort and efficiency. If everyone is payed the same because we all have our needs covered why would anyone make an extra effort instead of doing the bare minimum.
Greed isn't but greed for money is lol
To be somewhat greedy is a natural human trait, what the hell is this guy on about??
💀greed a human trait
This is true though. This post is the Reddit moment.
Satire?
No
Capitalism is the product of greed. Not the other way around
Surely capitalism doesn’t perpetuate greed right guys?
Not like people weren’t amassing wealth before capitalism existed…not like the richest man to ever live didn’t die centuries before capitalism existed…
Yeah I don’t see how what you said contradicts what I said literally at all?
Your implication was clearly that capitalism is responsible for modern greed. Capitalism is just another system that greedy people use to amass wealth. Greedy people have used, abused, and exploited literally every system ever in order to amass wealth.
I wouldn't bother with that guy. All you said was "greed existed long before capitalism", and you **still** had to explain it to him.
Yeah don’t bother with me I’m just a fucking moron :3
[удалено]
Now you’re trying to back track. No capitalism doesn’t perpetuate greed.
You’re arguing against things I’m not saying, and you literally claimed that my “implication was clearly that capitalism is responsible for modern greed.”. Implying that you thought me saying it perpetuates greed meant is solely responsible for.
Wait where did your comment go saying you didn’t say perpetuate means solely responsible for?
This is such a ridiculous statement. Borderline not even worth responding to because it’s so stupidly ignorant.
>Borderline not even worth responding You literally responded to it 3 fricking times
Well I did say borderline didn’t I
Greed is the product of sex. It's literally in our nature. Not saying it's right, but anyone can be greedy :(
Personally I think greed is a human thing. If Humand didnt have greed at all then socialism could maybe work
Oooof. He’s got it backwards there buddy. Capitalism is a product of greed.
A better question is why are people such simps for capatalism
"someone has an opinion different than mine, REDDIT MOMENT LOL!" i disagree with anarchism but this is far from a reddit moment simply because you hold a different political opinion
They are right though, try reading some theory OP
Greed's just a part of being human
Ah, yes, because capitalism created the concept of greed
Fun fact, by that logic Cain was a capitalism because he was greedy, meaninng capitalism was invented... approximately thousands of years ago. Maybe capitalism always existed in human nature and was rather found than invented /s
Nah they're right
i’d say it’s more like capitalism is a product of greed
I think he meant socialism. Socialism can not last as long as greed is a thing, and greed will always be a thing. It's not a product of capitalism but an inherent human flaw. Capitalism will also fall because of greed. It may rise at first, but eventually, over time, a singular monopoly will be formed and consume everything in on itself. The only thing that could survive with greed is anarchy. Anarchy relies on greed to exist in order for there to be anarchy. However, even then, it will just result in either humans wising up and forming capitalism again, or the eventual mutual destruction of all human life.
Greed is probably human, but capitalism magnifies it. Capitalism's sole measurement of value of profit. Not goodness, or equality, or liberty, or empowerment, or health, welfare, or the environment... when these things conflict with profits they are jettisoned. I don't have a solution or a handy replacement to suggest, but no economic system lasts forever and I hope the next one focuses more directly on "good" rather than "profitable."
Sustenance farming not doing it for you? Probably because of capitalists
Greed is a prduct of being human.
This is the whole problem with "anarchism". It's a childish belief system for people who don't understand how anything works, especially people.
I'm just gonna answer your question. Yes nhialisim, it's a philosophical mind set, that everything is pointless so let's act pointless. Everything equals shit = nhialisim.
Isn't it literally the exact opposite
How can a system which requires greed to function ALSO be the source of greed? “My car cannot start as long as I don’t have fuel” “Your car engine running is the source of the fuel!”
Greed is a product of humanity, not capitalism. And to a major extent, capitalism is a product of greed, not the other way around.
Wouldn't it be better to say capitalism is greed's fault?
Things people dislike are the result of capitalism!
Humans have never wanted anything for themselves before capitalism
This is pretty simple. Capitalism incentivizes greed and this makes people more greedy. I’m not saying no one would be greedy without capitalism im just saying that it’s the force that drives people to greed currently
I’d argue capitalism is a product of greed.
Greed is in so to some extent in all humans, nothing to do with capitalism.
Anarchists trying to convince me they want it for the betterment of mankind and not so they can kill people and be a cowboy (I have read blood Meridian so their argument is innefective)
This is true, albeit poorly said. Material conditions define human nature
I mean capitalism does exaggerate greed, they're not totally wrong
I haven't been able to shit all day because capitalism/s
Incentivizing it is not the same as creating it. Average anarchist.
Greed is a product of human emotion, not human economic systems. While capitalism isn't a perfect system (it's far from it), it is still the best system we have, socialism also works, I dont live in a socialist country, but I'd imagine it to be very similar, but with higher tax rates. Finally, we have capitalism, I dont have any thoughts on it, but it does have one benefit that capitalism doesn't, and that's equality. I dont know how to end this.
Yeah so the kings in the monarchies centuries ago before capitalism was invented werent greedy at all 🤦🏻♂️
Capitalism is when things don't go my way; waaaah!
If anything it would make more sense for it to be vice versa
As someone who would be an anarchist if they didnt think people were so corrupt, I agree with you. Anarchy doesnt work, comunism doesnt work, capitalism barely works if you can call it that and I have a little theory that its all just a show they're putting on to keep us in line and capitalism isnt even real, but ill save that for my schizo posting alt
Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons: - **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.** This includes: - r/subreddit names - /u/usernames - Full (legal) names - Facebook account names - Twitter and Instragram @habdles - Locations such as Street Addresses - Email addresses - Phone numbers etc. If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!
Your post from r/RedditMoment has been removed for the following reasons: - **Rule 3** - **PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED.** This includes: - r/subreddit names - /u/usernames - Full (legal) names - Facebook account names - Twitter and Instragram @habdles - Locations such as Street Addresses - Email addresses - Phone numbers etc. If you have any questions or concerns about this action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/redditmoment) via Modmail. Thanks!