Reddit's r/antiwork sub has imploded

[User.45]

There is a movie running on the TV just now, The Grapes of Wrath, which just had a scene that casts a bright light on one of our system's biggest flaws. The people that make major decisions have no connection to them beyond a number on a ledger. I understand how finance works, but when it comes down to strangers in other cities handing down decisions that end up ruining the lives of people they have never even so much as glimpsed out the 27th floor window, and have chains of authority that prevent the affected from even knowing who the decision makers are, that is a serious defect.

Agree. Everyone's trying to game the system and socialize costs, but privatize profits. I'll make an example. Coca-Cola is one of the biggest plastic polluters in the world and their prime product contributes to diabetes. Are the adverse environmental and health effects factored into their margins? Not at all. It's society who'll pay for those.

I am not anti-Capitalism either and I do get this argument, at the same time in China when they tell you to wear masks, you're wearing a mask and that's that. One could argue about their case counts and that would be fair but the point is they address without a bunch of rightwing lunatics telling them to stick it while gladly spreading the virus.

The other side of that are human rights atrocities, like Tibet. I would like to see more of a balance somewhere in the middle but Capitalism makes for wild and unpredictable cultural and financial shifts.

China is a bad example. In a >4000 year old empire where a significant proportion of people still carry the name or ancient dynasties (Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Wu, Wei, Shu, Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing/Xing) authority works differently.

 

[Yoused]

Agree. Everyone's trying to game the system and socialize costs, but privatize profits. I'll make an example. Coca-Cola is one of the biggest plastic polluters in the world and their prime product contributes to diabetes. Are the adverse environmental and health effects factored into their margins? Not at all. It's society who'll pay for those.

I see arguments to the effect that the alternative to capitalism is authoritarianism, but when I look at our system, the biggest corporations have a pretty firm grip on the government, which works out to vanishingly different. We are effectively a plutocracy.

 

[User.45]

I see arguments to the effect that the alternative to capitalism is authoritarianism, but when I look at our system, the biggest corporations have a pretty firm grip on the government, which works out to vanishingly different. We are effectively a plutocracy.

Yes, this is the issue. Once a company is large enough it gains enough influence to distort policy to hinder competition. A good example is ISP's splitting the market to be able to hike prices while also reducing competition. It's called a cartel and well, it's generally considered anti capitalistic. Stock buybacks by Airlines, CEOs getting bank, then fire employees and scream for a bail out. At a certain university, the board of directors froze 401K contributions unilaterally when COVID hit. Did they take a salary cut? Of course not.

 

[Herdfan]

There is a movie running on the TV just now, The Grapes of Wrath, which just had a scene that casts a bright light on one of our system's biggest flaws. The people that make major decisions have no connection to them beyond a number on a ledger. I understand how finance works, but when it comes down to strangers in other cities handing down decisions that end up ruining the lives of people they have never even so much as glimpsed out the 27th floor window, and have chains of authority that prevent the affected from even knowing who the decision makers are, that is a serious defect.

The same exact thing can be said about government and regulation.

 

[Yoused]

The same exact thing can be said about government and regulation.

No, because, apart from the undue influence of capital on the political system, government regulations are not designed to profit individuals but to seek social stability. It may be exactly the same, only with apposite motivation. In theory, at least.

 

[NT1440]

Yes, this is the issue. Once a company is large enough it gains enough influence to distort policy to hinder competition. A good example is ISP's splitting the market to be able to hike prices while also reducing competition. It's called a cartel and well, it's generally considered anti capitalistic. Stock buybacks by Airlines, CEOs getting bank, then fire employees and scream for a bail out. At a certain university, the board of directors froze 401K contributions unilaterally when COVID hit. Did they take a salary cut? Of course not.

Considered anti-capitalistic….but it’s the natural conclusion of Capitalism when the State doesn’t restrain it (because the State has been bought by the same corporate powers).

So that’s just capitalism. If it requires restraint, that restraint is by definition not part of the system. It’s merely a potential check on the power of that system.

The State hasn’t been adversarial to capitalism since it’s inception. So no one can claim that what we see with our own eyes isn't the way the system actually functions.

 

[MarkusL]

In Capitalism man exploits man. In Communism it is the other way around.

All jokes aside, it is not always easy to tell the difference. In the nineties when Swedish PM Carl Bildt, a right-winger by Swedish standards, visited Bill Clinton in the White House he gave his host a tie featuring an image of the cartoon bear Bamse. This was frowned upon by a spokesperson of his party's youth organization. Claims that Bamse is a communist were supported by the fact that he had helped his friends organize a labor union, and similar suspicious activities. As an alternative motif on a gifted tie the youth organization suggested the Smurfs even though this group of creatures are apparently living in a planned economy without any competition within each trade, under the leadership of a patriarch in red clothing and rocking a beard worthy of Karl Marx.

Anyway, when Rune Andréasson - the creator of Bamse - was asked by the press about Bamse's communist tendencies in the wake of this controversy he replied that "Bamse is not really a Communist, he is just friendly".