this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
208 points (93.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43520 readers
2147 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 11 minutes ago

For the same reason people idolize the King.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 17 points 5 hours ago

Because propaganda is effective.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 11 points 5 hours ago

Unfortunately many of us have been taught that being a good person and a good citizen equals being productive and accumulating resources. Things that are quantifiable and external to the actual person and their relationships.

Being productive and accumulating some resources can be good activities to spend time on, but they are practical necessities and not defining characteristics of existence.

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 11 points 7 hours ago

Because the average person doesn't have any real time to think deeply about politics. They believe whatever big media tells them. Some also can't understand how evil someone people can get.

"Surely the basic logic of how things work must be very consistent in order to have such a large and prosperous country like the USA. I don't understand it. Probably because I'm missing something not because it's fundamentally flawed"

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 hours ago (2 children)
  1. Because it's in their personal interests to perpetuate capitalism
  2. Because liberal ideology is hegemonic and it is what most people have been raised to believe
  3. Plenty of other reasons why people hold the political beliefs they hold, surely it's obvious that there are many ways that someone can arrive at a belief system
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I like how these pretty neatly map to the three I gave for defending billionaires, even though they're worded very differently and probably thought of completely independently. We even ordered them the same way.

People who defend billionaires either have a vested interest, have actually bought that they’re 1000x smarter than normal people, or have some (possibly vague) abstract moral position that overrules the basic idea of fairness. Often it’s more than one.

I suppose the 1000x smarter thing isn't the only propaganda reason given, but I'd say meritocracy is by far more pronounced than inherent property rights or red-baiting in today's mainstream media. People who go with the latter two tend to learn it through personal connections.

[–] tudor@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Your username on a post about capitalism makes me giggle

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Yes comrade.

[–] hightrix@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Regarding capitalism, in reality, it is the best system we’ve seen so far.

Yes, theoretically other systems could be better for the general public. But in reality, they never have been.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago

Socialism has been proven to do far more for its citizens than Capitalism. Capitalism is just a phase in development, Socialism supercedes it.

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 33 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

because they prefer to dream of themselves as billionaires in potentia. it's hard to admit you've been duped, especially when society gives you so many targets to punch down on.

or, as futurama put it, link

[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 9 points 8 hours ago

A slave doesn't dream to be free, but to be a king

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

because they arent the ones being stripped of their livelihoods to fatten the moneypigs

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 31 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Well it's similar to what Churchill said about democracy... it's a bad system but it's better than all the others.

If you can put ideology aside and think in terms of economics, in many industries capitalism offers an efficient way of determining the an optimal price and quantity to produce considering the costs and value something brings. And it's something that allows for industries to function without an excessive amount of centralized planning which will often get things wrong.

But it's like a machine in a many ways. And like any machine it requires maintenance. Things like trust-busting, progessive taxation, regulations, and occasional stimulus are necessary to keep it running smoothly.

But once you bring ideology into it, it all becomes a shitshow. Some will argue capitalism is a perfect machine and any kind of maintenance on the machine will ruin it's perfection. Others take any kind of maintenance on the machine as a sign the machine will inevitably fail and needs to be replaced entirely. But then we go back to the beginning where other systems have been tried and they're worse. Charlatans, grifters, ideologues abound pushing people in every direct except for simply taking reasonable measures to keep the machine running smoothly. There's an almost religious devotion towards arguing the either the machine is perfect or the machine is doomed to failure and not only should be replaced they should accelerate the failure so it can be replaced sooner.

Zealots from all sides demonize the mechanics that are simply keeping things running. A lot of emotional nonsense about this thing. But to an economist, it's just a machine with both strengths and weaknesses. The functioning of the machine is well understood, and the other machines that have been tried didn't really work.

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I think decentralization of power is a nice feature too. Billionaires are power centers outside of the government, judiciary, or military. They exist as a result of lax control on the markets by the government. In countries without capitalism and property rights, the billionaires are the government and the judiciary and the military. So, even though it might seem like nationalizing their wealth would decrease inequality, if there aren't good safeguards for decentralizing government power, it would result in a less equal society.

Part of the existence of billionaires is the ability to actually determine which money is theirs. In autocratic governments, you can't really say who owns what because you never know what the government might decide to take.

I don't defend billionaires, I think power should be spread more fairly, but eliminating them via the government needs to be done wisely in order to maintain decentralization.

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

In countries without capitalism and property rights, the billionaires are the government and the judiciary and the military.

In the US, they just have solidified a really good means of controlling it… I mean, the amount we don’t tax them, the super PACs we let them contribute to, and the control they have over our media are definitely forms of control that may not be β€œas bad” as other systems (arguably) but it seems like it’s really similar.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago

Maintaining decentralization just allows for more centralization as markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, better to centralize, make public property, and democratize.

[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 117 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Many people do not grasp the sheer size of the disparity between the truly wealthy and everyone else.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They really think billionaires are like them, the only difference is that someone else goes to Walmart for them

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

People who defend billionaires either have a vested interest, have actually bought that they're 1000x smarter than normal people, or have some (possibly vague) abstract moral position that overrules the basic idea of fairness. Often it's more than one.

Capitalism, as the term is commonly used, is poorly defined enough that you have to specify what it means here. Is it any kind of market? Is it large corporations? Is it every interaction being purely voluntary (somehow)? If you consider a big Soviet firm like Gosbank a "corporation", all three could also be socialist depending on who you ask.

Since this is .ml, for the classical Marxist definition that it's "private ownership of the means of production", the arguments are mainly against the proposed alternatives, or just that private vs. personal is hard to demarcate, and nobody wants to share a toothbrush.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 76 points 1 day ago (7 children)

I assume they think they will be able to achieve the same status in the game that's designed to literally oppress them and make them think they are cared by the billionaires.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 13 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

The Post apocalyptic nature of alot of media makes me think that people can more easily Imagine the fall of human civilization then we can a better world where everyone's needs are met.

To the 1%, losing all your wealth and power be an apocalypse, so it is in their best interests that everyone would be thinking the same as well. No matter how much better we all would be together otherwise.

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 14 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Our retirement is tied to it.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

my retirement is non-existent

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AliSaket@mander.xyz 30 points 1 day ago

Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who's rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.

Stockholm syndrome

[–] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.

Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago

I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.

Nitpicky, but that's the premise of Liberalism, not Capitalism. Capitalism emerged not because it was an idea, but an evolution in Mode of Production. Liberalism is the ideological justification.

Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.

Have you read Marx? He makes the case that due to Capitalism's tendency to centralize and form monopolist syndicates with internal planning, the next mode of production is Socialism, ie public ownership and planning of the syndicates formed by the market system.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί