Its getting old.

I see you like things that work. We've decided that we'll break it, and sell you the solution. We call it service.
- Them: this is pretty good right? And affordable too!
  Me: yeah it's decent, don't touch anything
  Them: we've put in ads
  Me: what? I don't want ads, wtf
  Them: bro, totally have you covered. No ads for $12.99 a month
  Me: arr matey, don't worry yerself 🦜🏴‍☠️
  
  This is why I felt like the best thing we all could do is reject every ounce of advertising we could. Marker up all the billboards. If you're watching a video and x3 3 minutes ads play, Leave comments about how the product gave you a bad rash. Make it so all these companies remove themselves from spaces we enjoy. It would also help get rid of the fucking content creators trying to be a copy of the latest and greatest channel but instead waters down the internet with the 10000000 clone of the latest and greatest
  
  Why does winamp now require ads and $12.99/ month to run?! It was free back in 1997!
  
  [Pirate music intensifies]
- Hmm, sorry my associate was meaning "temporary solution", about every year you will need a new one. And we are so generous that if you buy two years in advance we will give you a 10% rebate and a big ole sticker with our brand in bold colors on it so you can give us free publicity.

We beat scarcity. We're up to our eyeballs in labor-saving technology. We just left people in charge who cannot imagine using it to save labor.
- It's about control. They don't want to lose that control. They don't deserve that control. We need to take control back.
  
  You don't deserve control either.
- Exactly, automation shouldn't kick some people out of jobs and leave others just as overworked as before, it should automate things that don't absolutely need humans and just decrease the workload of (currently) irreplaceable people so that more people can work as much as one did before and still get the same salary.
  Hell, unemployment as a whole should not exist in the modern era. If there's "too few jobs", decrease working hours and increase wages accordingly so the total monthly/yearly/whatever pay is the same. And if there just physically aren't enough resources to accomodate so many people having decent salaries (which is absolutely not the case right now), then we should start talking about overpopulation.
  
  And if there just physically aren’t enough resources to accomodate so many people having decent salaries (which is absolutely not the case right now), then we should start talking about overpopulation.
  Don't blame overpopulation, blame the C-levels who think they need to take home 500k+ a year salaries.
  
  The problem is as long there is no national wide law that forces companies to do so one would have much higher costs employing 2 people half time for the same job as 1 full time (with unpaid overtime of course as a bonus). And a Business that can't compete won't exist long. Or rather nobody even tries it because only greedy people are getting in high power positions for some reason.

But have you considered the following:
Capitalism good because freedom and innovation.
Bet you feel dumb now.
- I bet OP posted this using an iphone, I am very ismart vuvusela
  /s
- No because freedom and innovation have nothing to do with capitalism? If anything the opposite?
  
  It's sarcasm friend, I know capitalism is basically the opposite of that.
- Mhh yes freedom through capitalism. I love the freedom Apple gives me over their device that I bought but don't own. Or when Samsung locks devices in mexico because they can and people in mexico dare to buy used phones.
  
  You don't understand, that's for your protection so you can feel safer and even more freedomery
- Darn, what was I thinking /s
- The thing about capitalism is that it DOES promote freedom and innovation. The problem is that continuous innovation is rarely profitable so companies generally won’t bother innovating after a certain point and the text on the reverse side of the freedom coin is “free from consequences”
  Capitalism is like… a good start to a much better economic system we haven’t figured out yet.
  
  You're not at all wrong. The problem is now we're all so "bought in" (heh) to capitalism, and the power it has established its so entrenched, that the idea of iterating on it has become so close to literal blasphemy as makes no odds.

The sight of Theresa May dance-walking to ABBA was an insult to the United Kingdom and Sweden :(
- It was also an insult to walking and dancing
  
  and sight and insults
- The worst attack to British-Swedish relations and culture since the Beowulf movie
- The worst thing is that she's not even in the bottom three Prime Ministers any more.
  
  Thatcher, Johnson, Truss?
  
  What's wrong with her? She did the thing people had voted for.
- She's much less stilted in private.
- Is that what’s going on here? Is it as terrible and hilarious as Trump’s “double handjobs” move to Village People?

1995: Welcome to the internet, check out these awesome stupid websites 2023: Here have an ad, after you subscribe, and accept cookies, and sign your life away to a terms of service written in alien legalese
- https://how-i-experience-web-today.com/
- https://youtu.be/k1BneeJTDcU?si=vS3hZfIKHbxA9154
  
  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  https://piped.video/k1BneeJTDcU?si=vS3hZfIKHbxA9154
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

“I’ve made a machine that does the labor of 10 men!”
“You’re going to still pay the other nine, right?”
…
You’re still going to pay the other nine, right?
- So the ten men can all do a tenth of the labor now right?
  Oh you're going to fire nine, cut the tenth's pay, and make him work even longer hours, and keep the vast majority of the profits for yourself, got it. That's fine too I guess...
- “I’ve ~~made~~ bought a machine that does the labor of 10 men!”
  “You’re going to still pay the other nine, right?”
  "Why? I bought it to get more of the money to myself. Why would I pay for something and get nothing in return? Why would I just lose money for no reason?"
  Seriously though, the dynamics are pretty clear, there's no investment without the expectation for extra profit (even for a state. Invest in a new railroad with the expectation of higher economic activity and therefore more taxes). Otherwise it's just charity
  
  I hope for your sake that when the factory workers can't afford to feed their kids and they drag you from your home and try to beat you to death in front of your family they find that argument compelling.
- For more info on how automation works under capitalism, read chapters 15-16 of capital
  Chapter 15: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm
  
  There are a loooot of extra words in there, that seem unnecessary. I've read pages and pages now, and it's just repeating meaningless words without reaching a conclusion. I have no idea what it's trying to convey.
- If you still pay the other 9,why would you even look for a machine though?
  
  Maybe the machine also does it with less waste and more consistently, the same reason woodworkers make jigs for complex cuts or identical parts.
  
  You could ask the other 9 to pay for it with you, the other 9 are also owners in a worker co-op.

I created a new email service that prevents spam and organized your email. If it works out and I become successful, I can imagine Google trying to buy it, and if I say no, all of a sudden Gmail starts having issues receiving mail from my service. Gmail and Exchange together share about 70% of the business email market, so they can destroy smaller competitors if they aren’t willing to sell. Yay capitalism!
- Email vs. Capitalism, or, Why We Can't Have Nice Things.
  
  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  Email vs. Capitalism, or, Why We Can't Have Nice Things.
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
  
  Oh I haven't seen that one yet. Beatie's talks are always great.

I will never get tired of seeing these pictures

It's* getting old.
- Words is hard
  
  be hard
  
  It's ok, you can edit titles on lemmy :)

My favorite thing about this comment section is the ratio of comment score and comment length

US healthcare system in a nutshell. Said nut cost $120 in hospital bill.
- Pssst, you dropped a pair of 0s, here you go: $12,000 please.

Unregulated capitalism that made worse by the lack of QOL improvements by the govt is what made these new shitty electronics and tools profitable.

Cubicle went from utopia to dystopia in not even a week.

Ahha this works nice, now lets break it

How do you expect it to be free?

I'd love for people to stop using capitalism as a catch-all term for every wrong in the world. This post illustrates a great reason why.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. This means every private citizen has control over that which they own, and is free to sell it. In short, it's characterized by a free market, because everybody is free to sell whatever they want.
The reason people view this favorably is because if, for example, someone is selling some really useful farming tool, they're free to sell it at whatever price they want. But, someone else - who is also free to sell whatever they please - might figure out an alternative or their own way to assemble this tool. They can now sell it for a lower price to get more customers, thus forcing the original inventor to bring down the price as well. As a result, the farming world becomes more efficient thanks to innovation and market forces.
I feel like most people understand market forces, so I'm sorry if I'm not saying anything new yet, but it's crucial for seeing the flaw in the next part...
Modern medicine is not controlled by private entities, and they are not operating in a free market. The conditions that allow for market forces simply does not exist in Canada or America (probably Europe too but I know less about their system to get into details).
Take Johnson and Johnson for example. For one thing, they are not a private entity, they are incorporated and act in the collective interest of its shareholders. If capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production (which it is!) then immoral acts they take cannot be attributed to capitalism.
Now consider their business, aside from who owns and controls them. They have a medicine called Stelara, which has no generic alternative. They have an effective Monopoly on this Crohn's medicine, becauae no one else is allowed to sell medicine of the same chemical composition until the patent wears out and it's genericized. This patent is enforced by the state. So, the state enforces a ruling that prevents private business from selling medicine, which gives the corporation an effective Monopoly.
So we have a public entity, using state-enforced rules to prevent a private business from controlling the means of producing that medicine. That's completely anti-capitalistic from every angle I can think of
When a new medicine is invented, and a company marks up the price to high heaven, it's not because they're a capitalist and thus greedy, that simply shows anti-capitalist bias. It's because the state and the laws they enforce give them the opportunity to.
People can be greedy whether they're capitalist or not, so don't use it as an indicator for the flaw in capitalism because you'll just be wrong a lot of the time, because they're independent things
- For one thing, they are not a private entity, they are incorporated and act in the collective interest of its shareholders.
  Jesus fucking Christ, you think "private" means "individual."
  You know less than nothing about this subject. Don't give lectures.
  
  Yep, communism isn't state-owned means of production as this post implied, it's democratic - that's one of the reasons the USSR model failed.
- All this ignores that the free market naturally converges on monopolies and that these monopolies will pay off the government to continue being a monopoly in their respective industry or industries. If the government had less control then even better since they wouldn't have to pay off as many people.
  
  Why do they have to pay off the government? You're still assuming some government control, but in a truly free market capitalist system, the government would not have any influence in the market anyway, so paying them off would yield 0 results. You directly say the less government control the better, that's a deeply capitalistic sentiment.
  I feel as though you're also assuming I'm 100% advocating for what I'm describing. This is incorrect, because I believe some statehood is necessary to ward off the inherent chaos of a completely free society. The one and only point my post makes, is that the systemic flaw pointed out by the post is absolutely not a capitalist one, regardless of political alignment the post is incorrect.
  Whether you're more capitalistic or socialistic, the first step to solving a problem is proper diagnosis.
- We live in a world with limited resources. Late stage capitalism is characterized partly by a concentration of wealth. Anyone that has played the board game Monopoly understands the issues with the concentration of wealth, and access to concentrated wealth in a world of limited resources accords a few individuals almost unlimited power over the majority.
  Limiting government regulations over fiscal entities just trades governmental tyranny for corporate tyranny over the working-class.
  
  That's a popular belief, sure. But, limited resources aren't the only thing that exist in markets (art, ideas, services, consultation, etc...). In fact, much of the necessary resource market is entirely renewable (most food certainly is).
  Limiting government regulations over fiscal entities just trades governmental tyranny for corporate tyranny over the working-class.
  It's just kinda funny that this is your response when I demonstrated state-corporate cooperation inflicting that tyranny. Corporations are chartered by the state, and the are currently also empowered by the state. Lowering regulations for private entities would empower them against corporations. It would also just make sense considering they are more regulated than corporations are currently, and the market is already completely captured by corporations.
- Please feel free to point out any fact you think I got wrong.
- This has given me alot to think about.
  
  I'm glad :)

As we sit in a capitalist society surrounded by incredible technology zero people could afford ten years ago.
Yeah capitalism. Always ruining everything 🙄
- In case you want the good faith counterargument (I know, I know, socialist wall of text):
  I'd be willing to bet you have a different definition of "capitalism" compared to socialists. For most people, capitalism is just trade, markets, commerce, etc. None of that is incompatible with socialism (broadly speaking). When socialists talk about capitalism, they're referring, specifically, to private ownership of capital. It's not the buying and selling, it's that ownership of companies is separate from labor.
  We don't owe technological development to capitalists, we owe it to engineers, scientists, and researchers. We owe art to artists, performance to performers. Socialists want those people to be the primary beneficiaries of their own work, not someone who may or may not even work at a company, but whose wealth means they can profit off of other people's labor by virtue of owning the property those people need to do their jobs.
  And you've probably been bothered by enshittification in one form or another. Some product or service you like has probably gotten worse over time. That's not a decision made by the people who take pride in their creation, or the laborers who want long-term security. It comes from the capitalist class that doesn't really give a shit about any of that, they just want quarterly profits, long-term survival be damned. That's capitalism, as the meme was getting at.
  
  You can take this further, and discuss how many empty homes are owned by corporations that are sitting empty, along with how many homeless people there are in the richest country in the world. Or how much food is thrown away while people remain hungry. Both of these things are happening because housing homeless people and feeding hungry people just aren’t profitable.
  That’s my main problem with American capitalism. Along with capital owning our politicians and passing anti-competitive laws designed to allow the ones at the top to stay at the top unchallenged. That’s probably a different discussion though. The “Free Market” is a myth.
  
  Thank you for taking the education angle. I'd like to add another perspective for folks' benefit. I'm not 100% sure it's correct, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
  Your labor has some value. Ideally, you should be paid a corresponding amount of wealth to the amount of value you generate through your labor. So you do $20 worth of work and get $20 worth of money. This is the ideal.
  But how much labor is worth $20? Capitalism takes advantage of this ambiguity. The capitalist, e.g. a business owner or investor or similarly positioned person, pays you $19 for that $20 labor and pockets the remaining amount as profit. Sure, the capitalist likely provides some amount of leadership and direction, which is labor with value, but their compensation vastly exceeds the value they generate. This is why you see CEOs getting >300x the pay of their employees. The labor of these CEOs is not worth that much. One person's labor literally cannot be worth that of 300 people. (Engineers may pipe in on that point, but please realize you're in the same boat.)
  If you see capitalism from this perspective, it makes sense why you would be angry. You're literally getting short-changed for your effort. Not cool
  So what's the alternative? Well, there's a bunch. Personally, I like the idea of employee-owned companies. This way, you get the advantage of pooling people's resources, and any profit can be invested back into the company to generate more wealth for its employees or be held onto in case of a downturn. Both are better than a CEO's pocket.
  One issue is capital investment. Starting a company is expensive, and many companies take a long time to become profitable. If every company had to bootstrap, we'd see much fewer successes and much slower progress. I'm not exactly sure how to solve this, yet. Would love to hear folks' ideas
  
  The thing is, that separation of capital owner and worker that you’re referring to is the arrangement people come to when given the freedom to choose their arrangements.
  To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.
  Turns out, many people would rather have a steady job than be in business for themselves. I’ve done both, and I see the merits of both. Right now, I choose to work for a huge corporation. As long as I show up I get paid. That’s working well for me.
  What you’re referring to as the laborers getting the benefit of their labor is something that’s already permissible in a free market, and it happens a lot. I was a freelance software developer for many years. I also had a business building and selling easels. And cookies. And smoothies, on a subscription model. You read that right: smoothie subscriptions.
  So while it may seem that my definition based on free markets, and your definition based on the separation of ownership and labor, are different definitions, I see them as the same thing.
  Or maybe, to be precise, free markets lead to capital accumulation and when capital accumulates beyond an individual’s ability to work it themselves and they hire someone else to work it, capitalism begins. So maybe free markets lead to capitalism by your definition, as a state of wealth distribution and a set of working relationships.
  The real key point is that this set of relationships you call capitalism, is the natural result of people being free to do as they see fit.
- Yeah a new TV is great. I’d like to be able to buy a house though.
  
  Then you should demand the government stop interfering with the free market for housing, or at least minimize the interference.
  Houses are super expensive because they’re in short supply. They’re in short supply because there are numerous laws constraining what can be built. For example someone might see profit in building a complex of 100 apartments, but the zoning says that land can only contain houses on half acre lots. So where you could have maybe 150 people living, instead you get 6 people there.
  Supply is artificially constrained, and so prices go up. We desperately need a free market for housing.
- Good things exist, pay no attention to the bad things!

Inventor: invents something Capitalism: rewards him
Inventor: invents something communism: *cricket noises"
- Inventor: invents something Capitalism: rewards him
  Inventor invents something: capitalism has them pay to be an inventor as they are probably a grad student and then sells the patent for a pittance to a corporation they are friendly with
  Inventor invents something or fails and has to try again: communism gives them free Healthcare, education, housing and food.
  
  Not to mention that they overlooked the fact that for some people - a sizable number too - the reward can be in helping others. Not everyone is a pariah looking to churn profits while pretending to care about other people’s needs.
  Unfortunately the barrier to do this in capitalism is high, because like you mention, if you’re devoting your time to something that is not immediately producing profit then you may lose access to those basic needs. Companies can weather those losses, but will then want to make up the costs by - usually - using shady practices.
  That’s not to say communism is the answer. But it surely isn’t capitalism as we have it today.
  
  capitalism has them pay to be an inventor
  I live in a capitalist country with free education. Healthcare is free if you cant afford it and is always a percentage of your income otherwise. Housing and food is also free if you cant afford it.
  I have trouble seeing why capitalism is supposedly so bad
- Inventors in the USSR were paid just as well, if not better than, their American counterparts. Mind you, this is not a defense of the USSR or authoritarian communism, Stalinism killed many people. However, maybe educate yourself on how these systems worked before critiquing them. A critique of communism does not negate critiques of capitalism.
  Also - be careful with conflating inventors and capitalists. Inventors are often laborers who have their work profiteered by from the owning class - famously, Nikola Tesla lost control of his patent for DC motors and was left penniless as capitalists formed a new utility company.
- Philo Farnsworth invented the television, as well as making significant contributions to microscopy, medical procedures and nuclear fusion. He had to fight legal battles throughout his career because of patent fuckery, and never saw the fruits of his labor. His research was constantly underfunded and he died of alcoholism in relative obscurity.
- Inventing better ways to do things isn't rewarding?
  
  You can also invent better ways to do things under capitalism. There is no difference in that regard