1135
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago

how would that be different without capitalism?

[-] [email protected] -1 points 18 hours ago

A lot less crime for one. We funnel people into prison because of how currency functions. If Basic Needs were met like not charging for food or other necesseities people wouldn't be nearly as miserable. Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand this. Complain about where the money comes from all you want but keeping things status quoe means we are okay with all the cruelty in our world.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Is misery really the only factor? I know a lot of people who are doing well or really well that are complete assholes and steal shit

Stealing for necessities is really rare. People are just selfish assholes

Non-capitalism doesn't magically make people rich. Don't know what you're thinking. If anything, you consume less

[-] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago

If you meet people's basic needs, they do not cease to care or aspire.

A lot of the issue is "bullshit jobs" and being forced to do one. Work needs to be done, but we could be just as productive and maintain higher quality of life if we all worked less or for a shorter part of our lifespan.

Folks are happy to do a job that helps others, but they're less inclined to do a job to make a few bastards rich.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago

I don't get why it's so controversial that people should be able to survive without a job. It doesn't need to be glamourous, but nobody should be unhoused or unfed. We are blessed with plenty and we should share. And before it sounds like I'm religious, no, I'm not saying churches should be responsible for that, government should. (Though obviously I have no problems with any religious groups feeding and housing people as well.)

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

The argument is mostly that if nobody has to work, too few people will choose to work, and then the quality of life for all will deteriorate. It is still true that our modern society requires an enormous amount of upkeep just to keep the quality of life where it is now. That's work and if nobody does it then services will stop functioning.

Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on homeless shelters and soup kitchens right now in the modern day, without the need to work. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which motivates people to work (or steal).

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

What do you mean with quality of life? Remember people will only get their basic needs met. If they want more quality they have to pay for it and thus have to work. So the rest should be figured out by the free market (even better than now because labor market isn't free if people have to work to survive). Of course there will be a certain percentage that is okay with just surviving but I am sure their needs can be met by the taxes of the overwhelming amount of people who want more than that.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago

Well, like I said, even today, it is basically impossible to starve to death in the Western world. You can get your caloric needs met from charity programmes and government assistance alone. It requires you to sacrifice your dignity and accept a very low quality of life, but you will not die.

So if coercion is defined as "forced to perform some action under threat of not having one's biological needs met", nobody is in fact coerced to do anything.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

and if you're not doing good then there's always the "go to jail" route: free housing and food, at the cost of your freedom

[-] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

In some parts of the Western world (particularly in the US), prison is also forced labour. The state I live in has abolished it but many other states still have it.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I completely forgot this was a thing

Still a way not to die I guess?

What happens if the prisoner refuses to work?

It seems like they get less privileges, not specifically punished

[-] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)
[-] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

It doesn’t state that this is a punishment that can happen when refusing to work

[-] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago

It's a general prison punishment. What do you expect them to do if a prisoner refuses to work? Shrug and say "aw shucks, too bad I guess"?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

You can’t just assume things. From my research, there is no forced labor. Prisoners work to gain benefits

[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

That is certainly some thing to say from someone who apparently did not even read the Wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Removing consumers from a consumer economy does what exactly to that economy?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on a single job right now in the modern day. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 90 points 2 days ago

It's also just not true. Most people will find work to do if they have none. That's pretty much what hobbies are. And all of the people I know who lived very long lives stayed active volunteering the whole time. My grandmother was like that, and died at 97 shortly after she had to stop for health reasons.

Not to mention that if your basic necessities are covered, you could still work to buy things that aren't necessities.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago

Claim is ok, the unspoken "so everything will collapse" is bullshit. In the end, Hampton is right: "work (do what someone else wants) or starve" is not how anyone should live

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] [email protected] 49 points 2 days ago

Capitalism, the system where we allow poverty to exist

load more comments (34 replies)
[-] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I disagree that "labor" can never be voluntary. But I also fully agree that labor in a Capitalist system is fundamentally based on coercion.

The thing to me is that "labor" and "doing work" can be two fundamentally different things. You can accept a role that someone else needs done in exchange for something, or you can work on things you find important or interesting, or that just needs doing, to maintain yourself and your environment in a broad sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There's a fact that a lot of people commenting here are overlooking. Marx himself admitted that in the lower stage of communism, wages will have to exist until people's mindset on labor changes. It's simply not true that communism will not work because 'people don't like working'.

edit: grammar

[-] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

What prevents me from working a few months, getting enough money for a computer and internet, and then have food and housing for free and don't work for the rest of my life?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Serious question, how can we provide everyone's basic needs without some work? Food doesn't harvest itself. Tools don't maintain themselves.

Labor will always be required on some level though it does not need to be exploited.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago

The premise is that without coercion people won't work. Which is just not true, people will do the work they want to do. It's just that the work people want to do isn't necessarily the work capitalists want them to do. Which means less exploitation and profit for the capitalists.

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

The point being raised is that the current wage system is oriented around profit alone. Systems designed to meet the needs of the people as the prime order for society would still pay for labor, at least initially, but wouldn't threaten people into doing so via starvation.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
1135 points (97.5% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

2125 readers
636 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS