this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
776 points (99.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

29819 readers
692 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I can't really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by "both" sides of the spectrum. It's just something I find interesting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, do you have a genuinely better alternative than a free market with some rules to prevent monopolies and protect worker rights?

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, worker owned means of production.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure no disputes will ever occur in wonderland

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Our current model is driving the world off an ecological cliff. The externalities of free market capitalism are fast approaching and it should be clear as day to any rational person that it is a massive failure.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So your response to why would workers have no disputes is because pollution?

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well the idea that no workers would ever have any disputes was your contribution to the discussion, not a claim I ever made. Of course they would have disputes, and those disputes would be dealt with democratically. You like democracy, I assume?

My point in bringing up climate change is that people like to bring up the current system as a working model. But it doesn't work at all. If we continue doing things the way we are we are cooked.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How many times has diplomacy ever solved a dispute? Munich 1938 is a great example on why they usually only delay the inevitable

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Presumably it works some of the time. My country doesn't descend into war every time there's an election.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Those are not the disputes I'm talking about

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Diplomacy is like an oxygen supply: You only notice it when it fails. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t generally work.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean besides the decades the US and USSR didn’t blow the entire world to pieces or even enter direct conflict, which would likely have killed millions more than the proxy wars that occurred with diplomatic intervention? I’m sorry, I just can’t take anyone who truly thinks that diplomacy is always useless seriously. It strongly suggests they’ve never read a history book.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nukes discouraging any escalation into war:

[–] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are going to be multiple factors in any international relations situation. I’m sorry you don’t understand that.

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, and the probability of nuclear annihilation is a hell of a factor to prevent war

[–] Piers@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, do you have a genuinely better alternative than a democracy with some rules to prevent ogliarchys and protect citizens rights?

[–] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's definitely not the same as having no private property

If someone hates what you said they're just stupid

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmao capitalism I literally the innovation engine behind all green and sustainable development.

Fun fact: socialists also burned coal and oil

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Human ingenuity is the innovation engine behind all technological advancements. Capitalism stifled green tech for years, and still does, by putting way too much money in the hands of O and G companies who have had every motivation to do so to protect their business.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol capital is shifting non-green companies to be more sustainable, not the other way around.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Government subsidy is the driving force behind green technology. Capital has done everything in it's power to fight it to protect its O and G investments. Capitalism is an anti-innovation machine.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An industry which sucks up government subsidy. An industry which would have never got off the ground without that subsidy. I guess you're the real socialist considering your industry wouldn't exist without all those government dollars, lol.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So wait capital is defined as "government subsidies?" You sure you're not a capitalist?

Unironically, you know who gets too many subsidies? Small farmers. Kill the farm bill.