273
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] hostops@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

About defending capitalism (and not billionaires - who more often than not abuse this system). Some of us lived in other systems. And we understand any other system is way way way way worse.

There are however a lot of problems with capitalism and should be held on a very short leash. Or else monopoly happens. The most effective actions to keep capitalism at bay: strong anti-trust laws, strong worker protection (this includes a lot of stuff), wealth tax.

And be aware there are many flavours of calitalism. Most commonly people in USA are the most extreme where you have really "long leash". And people see such capitalism as failing and want to replace whole system.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

For the same reason people idolize the King.

[-] Krono@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago

I think the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" idea is overstated, most people I interact with have a somewhat negative outlook on the economy and their future wealth.

I think the real issue is that no viable alternative is presented to most people.

The alternatives presented are Russian-style authoritarian oligarchy, Islamofascism, or a Venezuela-style "socialism" in which the narrative only focuses on poverty.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

The PRC is absolutely a viable alternative, it's a Socialist Market Economy that has been steadily transfering Private Property into Public Property as markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, which are then capable of central planning.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

They feel they will make that money someday.

[-] DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

They sold a lottery ticket to the population and made it look like 99% of you can win when the odds are rigged like a gambling machine. Everybody would defend a gambling machine as “fair and balanced” with enough indoctrination. “The American Dream” was when everybody could afford everything on minimum wage but capitalism is a short term oriented goal where for profit is the only actual mission. Tell me how many people can be sacrificed for it and I would say everybody as climate change has proven and a trillion dollar industry has shown. These climate change activists are stupid enough to think they can take down big corporations with wallets older than some of them. Never in a million years as long as capitalism exists. Imagine 112 years of sitting on their asses and not until 10-20 years ago they decided to use tweezers to put some pressure on them. Now that the whole world is about to be changed completely and irreversibly they want to stop it. It’s basically a cancerous economy that only festers at the top of the economy sucking everything around it until theirs nothing left but the cancer.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

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

This might be relevant:

https://youtu.be/J_fZ9o6P0-A?si=-fl7rLryYZBDVgTN&t=194

Conditions here were deplorable by any objective measure. And if you'll recall, one of the hallmarks of early Russian industrialization was: the workforce was often transient. People moved back and forth between their home villages and jobs in the cities, and this flux meant that the places people lived and where they ate and bathed and got medical attention were only ever temporary expedients. It was a bit like you were going off to some particularly crappy summer camp. It was only meant to be temporarily endured, not lived in full time, and so conditions just never got better. People were not just renting rooms; they were renting corners of rooms. You could rent not just a bed, but part of a bed. Sanitation was, of course, practically non-existent, and the food was disgusting. The work itself, meanwhile, was long and grueling. There were no safety standards in the factories. There were hardly any rights for anybody at all. And pay was literally inadequate. The ministry of finance itself surveyed conditions and concluded that a family of four needed about fifty rubles a month to purchase basic necessities (that is, food and shelter and heat) and then they found that 75% of the workers were making less than 30 rubles a month. The economic and moral math was just not adding up.

https://youtu.be/J_fZ9o6P0-A?si=FtaiY47HVyXXBeAP&t=340

The lower skilled, less educated, and still mentally "peasant" workers tended to remain culturally conservative. They were orthodox christian and believed strongly in the divine benevolence of the czar. And indeed one of the things reported by both social democrats and SRs back to their respective central committees was that they struggled to recruit among these workers because they were out there pitching "overthrowing the czar" and everyone was like "What? We... we love the czar, and he loves us too!"

To them, the czar was not a villain, but a hero. Not the devil, but their savior. It understandably made recruiting for a political revolution to overthrow their "hero and savior" very difficult.

https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/revolutions_podcast/2020/02/1033-bloody-sunday.html

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Which is why the conservative mandate is to defund education and keep people as ignorant as possible.

I mean, to keep the common man as ignorant as possible -- the children of the elites will always go to prohibitively expensive Montessori schools, which will better prepare them for critical thinking and bullshit detection so that they may better rule over and parasitize off the common man.

[-] Belgdore@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

They believe that the status quo is better than any alternatives. They have not been exposed to other ways of living and those that have lock themselves to basic tribalistic thinking.

Imagine trying to get a sports fan to see the benefits of being a fan of another sports team. Even if they aren’t personally playing and their team isn’t winning they maintain loyalty. Some even bet on their loser teams and lose money just because of loyalty.

It’s all about team loyalty/ tribalism

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Stockholm syndrome

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

I think you know why. Is this a real question or are you just fishing?

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I genuinely want to know from those that defend them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
273 points (93.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43606 readers
1542 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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