• tweeks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t that the thing, we needed capitalism now to be able to have communism in the future?

    • Phanlix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      …sorta. I think the better question is to what degree should we be communist? Should people be homeless and hungry in 2023? Do people have the right to a doctor, access to free education, and communication through the Internet as basic human rights?

      I’m pretty sure we can do these things, we just don’t.

    • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is legitimately one school of thought, as I’ve heard it, yes. I’m not so sure about it myself, but we’ve definitely got capitalism – no one’s going to argue that – so we may as well use it to the advantage of human flourishing.

      • Phanlix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So our world is literally dying, we’re living in the greatest mass extinction event ever, and instead of anything being done this process is actually accelerating by every conceivable metric we have. A friend of mine works on coral reef preservation. Most of the people in that field have given up on actually preserving wild coral as it exists today. His group switched to trying to preserve and grow as many samples as possible in private environments in the hopes that one day the oceans can again support coral reefs. If people knew in how bad shape our oceans and natural spaces really are there’d be a lot more panic.

        All because capitalism exists solely to consume endlessly until there’s nothing left.

        Making a lightbulb that lasts forever is a terrible business decision because you’ll sell less lightbulbs. In 2023, replaceable batteries have all but disappeared because once the battery dies in a modern day device people see it as time to replace that. Building to last, building renewable, building self-sustaining, that will NEVER be a core tenant of capitalism, because none of those things are profitable. So is building multi mile long fishing nets which indiscriminately catch everything, up to the point where they’re too worn to use, then they’re cut free and rest across the bottom of the ocean where they pin everything they land on and go on killing more sea life. Our oceans are literally coated in those nets because that’s what’s profitable.

        We’ve got capitalism, yes we do, and people have cancer and aids, it doesn’t mean we should all just learn to work with cancer and aids. People falsely tie a lot of ‘positive’ things to capitalism, but in the end, capitalism is all about making a quick buck no matter what the cost by any other metric.

        • JamesFire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Making a lightbulb that lasts forever is a terrible business decision because you’ll sell less lightbulbs.

          If you’re referring to the Phoebus Cartel, they had legitimate reasons for limiting lightbulb life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY

          TLDW: While they undoubtedly made more money because of their actions, shorter life (incandescent) bulbs shine brighter, and with a “better” colour mix than longer life ones.

          • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wonder if we would have gone in that direction without a profit motive, or if I dimmer bulb would have been “good enough” if it meant we’d have to spend less resources on bulbs (and making them) overall.

        • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed. Rereading it, I now see how my statement about “using capitalism” sounds like I’m advocating maintaining it in some capacity. Poor phrasing on my part.

          I meant simply that it’s uncontroversial to recognise that we’re living under capitalism presently, but that’s just our starting position. That even if you think socialism or communism “needs capitalism” (debatable, academic), well that’s step #1 out of the way already, because we’ve got it, so now what?