this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

46385 readers
177 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rhacer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I'm a fan of capitalism, but not the kind of capitalism that decrees something is too big to fail and must be bailed out.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Next you'll say that you'll like capitalism, but not the kind that uses slave labor as an integral element.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I don't care for capitalism, but Adam Smith was an abolitionist. He absolutely hated slavery because he believed it to be immoral firstly, and economically inefficient secondly. He couldn't prove the second part, but once someone at either Cambridge or Oxford did manage to prove it, Great Britain and Europe outlawed slavery. Again, I'm not defending capitalism here, and I'm certain, from the tone of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that, were he alive today, Smith would be railing against Capitalism. I'm just pointing out that it was supposed to be abolished far quicker than The Civil War.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Slave labor didn't stop being integral element after the Civil War. It was scaled back, but it's still both locally an integral element of the economies of many states (via prison labor, to say nothing of how under-the-table migrant dealings go) and via imperialism, etc. used abroad.

I'm not attacking Smith. The "invisible hand" thing is silly and short-sighted, but his work more broadly was the foundation for Marx economically. I'm attacking capitalism as it has existed in history, where it has virtually always used slave labor as an integral element.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I'll be that guy that says wars cost a fuckton. So the US gov't can't live war to war because it doesn't help them. Not financially anyway.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering

The government isn't something that exists above society, but is a facet of it. The MIC directly profits from wars, it pays politicians, politicians are motivated toward hawkish positions, the taxpayer is made to subsidize this. There are many other circuits discussed in the article, as concern the impact war has on the consumer market, how it's used for imperialism, etc.

Ultimately, wealth comes from labor, but the arrangement of war profiteering is extremely good at extracting wealth from labor in all sorts of ways.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People might have an easier time understanding a statement if it's a full sentence.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Seriously? Government debt is different than private MIC profit.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're asking me to make your argument for you. Use you words.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Can you not try to construct a syllogism for me? Stating one obvious fact is not an argument.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe not the government or citizens, but war helps the congress members, the CEOs of the military industrial complex, and their families get fabulously wealthy.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can do that without war.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

I'm not talking about what could be. I'm talking about the political reality that surrounds us.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Wars are plenty profitable if you’re a lot bigger than your opponents and can force them to be subservient to your business interests. It’s not a fluke that the richest country on earth is also the one with the most frequent wars.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Then why does the US government constantly do it? Are they stupid?

Isn't this the official story? That they're a clumsy giant who just keeps oopse whoopsie-ing into all these atrocities with no selfish motive?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Profitable for industries. Expensive for government. Take a look at any federal deficit and debt.

[–] sketelon@eviltoast.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is that not the point? Government functions by moving wealth from the public into the private, massive expenses portrayed to be for our benefit end up being excuses for taxes, and the enormous costs facilitate enormous wealth transfers into the private corporations who support and facilitate the wars.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

moving wealth from the public into the private

That's a side effect of capitalism and lobbying (aka bribing) the government for preferential treatment. But it's kind of the opposite of the point of government. Most businesses are incredibly selfish and will cut every corner they can without the government there to enforce workplace safety, market rules, and policing fraud and theft.

[–] AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hey I've seen this meme in so many times but can some one tell me from which movie it is.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Person of Interest TV series. S04E10 The Cold War.

Know Your Meme page.

[–] AnnaFrankfurter@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

Thank you kind stranger.