93 Year Old Woman Arrested for Resisting Eviction
This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
您正在查看单个对话串。
capitalism is terrorism
Go move to Cuba then.
Among the countries you could have picked, I could not think of one that better supports the idea that capitalism is terrorism the way Cuba has been harrassed for decades for essentially doing some pragmatic reforms - to the point they were forced to side with the USSR to prevent invasion by the US.
Fun Fact:
That happened in Vietnam too. And Libya. And Venezuela... And the Spanish Republic... And
Move to the bottom of a ditch.
Ahh, nice, cordial Lemmy interaction in the morning
Lemmy has the most death threats per user of any social media I've ever used. It's kind of crazy. I guess that's why user numbers keep trending down. Monthly active users are down 21% on July last year.
You don't even know what a threat is.
Yeah I have to say the political environment here is getting more and more exhausting as time goes on. Lemmy is developing a 4chan-esque reputation that will keep it from ever really taking off.
Kind of a bummer.
“Lemmy is politically hostile”
receives downvotes, insults, and death theats
Yeah…..
Generally speaking, the idea isn't to yell at the shitlibs unless they're saying shitlib things. When they're being polite enough you just hit them with history.
insert memes of starving communist societies
Mhmm. Because the British Empire didn't repeatedly use artificial famines as a weapon, and the American-caused Great Depression and breadlines aren't synonymous.
Because no one starves, or is homeless, right now, in America. Because Republicans aren't so caught up in Supply Side Jesus they literally want children to go hungry if their parents can't afford a school lunch.
I'll give you this, though. Blind ideological thinking is dangerous.
Ignoring reality, history, and science, the way you have to to pretend capitalism is a good thing, or to create Lysenkoism, just never works out.
You either starve a million people or burn the world to death.
For the purposes of this thread, I’m a commenter on Lemmy who’s tired of overtly hostile users harassing anyone who doesn’t align with their chosen stance.
No, youre just a dick that has to pick a fight in every conversation you have like it’s your only personality trait. And exactly the type of user that’s killing communities all over Lemmy.
Just as much as USSR and Stalin are proof socialism is genocide.
Dude holy shit
Just Lemmy stuff 😃
While you wait for someone else to do it for you while you tap away at your keyboard?
I’m gonna point this out again, I haven’t made an argument or taken a position, you’re just being vitriolic because it makes you feel better.
Seriously, are you ok? Does running around threatening people on the internet give you some sense of purpose?
Violent revolutions have only worked in rural areas.
Thankfully, chances are the people taken care of would be psychos like you, who would kill people over internet comments ;)
Careful not to cut yourself on that edge.
dumb response to dumb comment
Weak troll. Troll harder
Mate, you condone calling people terrorists but consider edgy telling someone to move. I can't troll a troll.
Nobody called anyone a terrorist. OP identified an economic ideology as terrorism.
And yeah, it's middle-school-cringe-level edginess to simp for capitalism by telling someone else to move to a different country. Especially when that particular line of fallacious thinking was debunked decades ago.
If you're feeling targeted by that comment calling out capitalism, that's your deal; you're free to be a capitalism fanboy, but just know that the billionaires will never love you back.
You are saying it as if it was a real suggestion. It was an attempt at equally ridiculous comment as calling our entire economic model terrorism.
And the award for best acrobatics performance in the course of avoiding the point goes to...
I am not avoiding it, I am dismissing it. I am not getting roped into a serious discussion about something this dumb.
To be clear: "something this dumb," in this case, means an unimportant little issue like someone being evicted and made homeless due to circumstances beyond their control.
Just so we're on the same page, you think that it's not worth talking about how the system could be changed to protect people from predation like this. Not even that you're against it, just that it's completely beneath you.
Cuba makes a huge amount of money from the tourism industry and it doesn't all get redistributed to the people according to their needs. Just because a country calls itself a communist country doesn't mean it's true. Believe it or not, the DPRK is not actually democratic or a republic.
Cuba is absolutely a Socialist country. The vast majority of industry is centrally planned by the state. There have been some market reforms to help participate in the global economy after the dissolution of the USSR, but there isn't a Borgeoisie class in power.
This is ideological purity taken beyond rational extremes, if you believe any amount of Capitalism in a country is sufficient to call it Capitalist, then you would disagree with Marx, who advocated for gradually building up the productive forces so that Communism can be meaningfully achieved, and which also requires global Socialism.
Let me tell you a little secret (that is a lie, it just basic logic). The reason every "communist country" is in name only is because a real one can't exist. Not for any real length of time anyway. As long as the system requires humans to make decisions, they will make selfish decisions. And socialism just make it so much easier for few decision makers to take all the power.
Wait, are you talking about socialism or communism?
Both. It applies to both if they are at the extreme end. Socialism has extra steps.
And to be absolutely clear, I mean socialism with no capitalistic elements. An in the middle system is what I am advocating from the start.
What are these "Capitalistic Elements" that mean you cannot have Socialism?
The greedy motivations of decision makers being aligned with prosperity for the people and separated from lawmaking power.
How do you make a successful company? Sell good cheap things to the people. You get filthy rich, but people have good cheap products to buy that would not exist otherwise. And they get their share in form of wages.
Government needs to be separate to be able to legislate worker protections such as minimal wage, work safety, etc.
Are you under the impression that in Socialism, economic planning is done without the participation of the Proletariat? That's nonsense.
Secondly, products do not need to be good to make a profit, hence the process of enshittification. Workers also get less than their share, they make all of the Value but the Capitalist entitles themselves to the bulk of that Value.
Government does not need to be separate. This is nothing but vibes based analysis.
https://lemmy.world/comment/9597138
If the proletariat participates, the values are misaligned the other way. See thread above.
As for whether products need to be good, there are two caveats. In most cases of enshittification online, you are mistaking what is the product. The advertisers are the customers that pay, users are the product.
The other caveat is anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices which is one of the many reasons why you need independent government to regulate those.
You have not backed up that "the values are misaligned the other way." It is better for production to serve all of humanity, rather than an elite class of owners.
Enshittification happens all the time. Over time, Capitalists try to squeeze as much profit out of as little investment as possible, which usually takes the form of cost cutting in materials and increased exploitation. The fashion industry is a great example of this, and is part of why vintage fashion is popular right now.
All in all, you're still entitely vibes-based.
So... capitalism is bad and if you do not like it, move to Cuba which is still capitalist?
yes, that is the stupidity of it. Saying you want to live in True Communism is like saying you want to live in Narnia. Might sound nice, but it is not possible
You were the one who said it though...
Why would "making selfish decisions" be worse in a collectively owned system where industry is run by the public, than in a Capitalist system where the only decisions made are selfish ones?
What kind of purely vibes-based analysis is this?
true, at least she wouldn't be in jail for the crime of not being able to work with 93
True. Go move then. Or any other non capitalist country.
No? Maybe those are worse than capitalism and we should try to fix it instead of calling everyone terrorists? Ok then.
nah, corporations are literally evil, as in no morals evil
Fire is also no morals evil. Corporations are tools. Dangerous but powerful tools. You use them poorly and you end up with corporations murdering union leaders and poisoning communities. You don't use them at all and you end up with breadlines and authoritarianism.
nah, fire is just the propagation of exothermic reactions.
Corporations require intent, they are designed to literally strip any moral consideration from their actions.
PS: about that breadlines and authoritarianism, the US has had plenty of breadlines, and still does to this day, also authoritarians love corporations, after all corporations are inherently authoritarian.
Corporations don't do moral consideration by their nature, just like fire. You can say it was "by design" for corporations and coincidence for fire, but that is a distinction without difference. Irrelevant for the argument.
And funnily enough, having many authoritarians in a system surprisingly results in much less authoritarian system than having just one. That is why the 3 branches of government are split and it is why I don't know of any true democracy that is not capitalistic. The authoritarians keep each other in check.
you do realize that corporations aren't some law of nature? corporations are a social construct in the most literal meaning of the phrase.
secondly, you must think the HRE must have been some free paradise by your understanding, also I don't know of any fascist system that that wasn't capitalist, but I do know plenty of pre-capitalist democratic societies
Again, distinction without a difference.
And you may want a refresher on your ancient democracies ;) Which one did not have a separate class of landowners (owning the only relevant means of production back then)? Also, just comparing agrarian societies to modern economic systems is childish. I am much better of living under "tyrannical capitalists" today than in any of those societies.
I would wager to argue that one being, entirely a concept only existing in human thinking. The other being an exothermic reaction following the laws of nature is quite a distinction here.
unless you are going to concede that we could just trust bust fire, can i sue fire for the damages on my house? what exactly is the fiscal return on the primary product of fire?
as for:
Also, just comparing agrarian societies to modern economic systems is childish. I am much better of living under “tyrannical capitalists” today than in any of those societies.
You confuse the achievements of modernism with capitalism, it wasn't capitalism the stopped famines in most of the world, it was a crazed Jewish-German nationalist with the backing of a local monarch
also, most of the Greek democracies had all not enslaved male citizens enfranchised, with the woman's vote in most the world being a consequence of socialist campaigning
Breadlines happened in the Great Depression. They happened because of Capitalism and Corporations.
Do you believe history is a real thing that impacts where countries are development-wise, or do you believe colonialism, imperialism, and destructive geopolitical policies are fake and do not exist?
Do you think that if Cuba turned Capitalist it would suddenly become a fully developed country like in Western Europe or America overnight? Why?
Then take a look at China as an example. Its explosive growth started when it embraced capitalism (authoritarian flavor, but capitalism). Before that it more or less stagnated. Capitalism is obviously not the only requirement but it is a necessary one.
China grew steadily under Mao, but was not an industrialized economy. Under Deng, Capitalistic market reforms took place and foreign Capital was brought in to speed up development, but as you've said, the State still maintains dominance over the economy.
Capitalism is not necessary for development. Humanity developed for thousands of years pre-Capitalism, which itself is only a few hundred years old. You do not require individual mini-dictators competing for higher and higher profits in order to develop, industry can be run by the collective.
It just can't be at scale. Would be lovely if it could.
People who don't own something have no incentive to improve it. A factory run by a collective will always prioritize wages over modernizing equipment etc.
People will not invest into new ventures if they don't get profits, prioritizing luxuries/lifestyle instead.
Why can't it be at scale?
People who share ownership can democratically decide how to invest in industry, and elect a representative if they so choose. Planning is careful and democratic, and the need to invest in industry is something that is easy to understand with a well-funded education system.
On top of that, you can just-as-nonsensically claim that Capitalists will always prioritize their own pockets over modernizing equipment, which is just as false.
People will invest in productivity so that they can work less, prioritizing their material conditions.
Share ownership of what? If you mean just the factory they work in or a small group, then you get most of the same issues you denounce in capitalism. Some factories will inevitably become rich and prosperous, some will go bankrupt. There will still be wealth inequality. You will also get various new issues such us how do you found new factories and industries without re-inventing capitalism or at least having the same consolidation issues.
If you are talking about all the capital in the nation/world, then the gains you can obtain from improving your own productivity is insignificant, evaporating the motivation. It is much easier to slack off and leach of others.
Share ownership of the Means of Production collectively at scale.
Additionally, even if we follow your strawman of there being wealth inequality from different worker cooperatives, these are not "the same issues as Capitalism." You eliminate exploitation with worker cooperatives, there isn't a Capitalist stealing surplus labor value.
You create new industries and new factories via collectively directed investment. You can do this through the government, or workers councils.
No, it is not much easier to slack off systemically.
You can only argue off of vibes, I suppose.
Cuba that is self sufficient and has the best healthcare in the world? As well as the most beautiful beaches? Yeah it’s on my list if countries to flee to when Trump wins my dude.
Enjoy continuing to live in this shithole country.
If it is so great, why wait for Trump to win? A second time?
Cuba is doing well despite brutal Imperialist sanctions from the US, but is not a developed country yet. People are driven by their Material Conditions, and are products of their Material Conditions, so it does not make sense to move from a developed to a developing country purely out of ideological purity.
Instead, people should try to shape the State they live in to be more equitable. Changing a Capitalist country to Socialist is a good thing.
