• dartos@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but capitalism also made reddit great, before making it terrible.

      There’s a balance in there somewhere. What we got ain’t it tho.

      • Bobby_DROP_TABLES [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        90
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is no balance though, the shit-ification that happened to Reddit is a necessary function of capitalism. What we saw as Reddit at its best was, from a capitalist’s perspective, Reddit at its worst. I’m sure you’ve noticed a similar process taking place in lots of other areas as well.

        • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          What we saw as Reddit at its best was, from a capitalist’s perspective, Reddit at its worst.

          And capitalists will allow this “at its worst” phase in order to capture the market, before squeezing it. This pattern is consistent in many industries.

      • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        75
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Reddit was never great lmaoo

        It was a pedo networking tool reknowned worldwide for it’s jailbate and non-consensual creepshots. These moderators received awards from admins. Then it got too much attention and got a PR workover, burning a woman CEO at the stake to satiate the gamer-fascists before becoming a bland Atlanticist CIA sockpuppet front of bland corporate posts.

        At no point during this entire thing did it ever approach anything comparable to greatness

        • dartos@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I may be wrong, but I don’t see socialism and capitalism as hard opposites.

          I see capitalism and communism are like hard opposites with socialism somewhere in between.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            66
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Capitalism is the state controlled by the capital owners with the workers repressed.

            Socialism is the state controlled by the workers with the capital owners repressed.

            They are literally hard opposites. One is a bourgeoise-state and the other is a proletarian-state.

            • dartos@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I learned that “capitalism” is an economic system, not a system of government.

              So you could have a socialist state that funds essentials like healthcare and transportation through taxes with a market (capitalist) economy.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                65
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s not a socialist state. It’s a capitalist state with welfare. If the political structure of the state itself has not been reworked to put the workers in power what you’re describing is just a state where the bourgeoisie (who control power) have decided to do welfare, usually for their own benefit such as reducing revolutionary energy by providing the workers with concessions (the welfare state). That is social democracy.

                You do not have socialism without overthrowing the hierarchy that places the bourgeoisie as the ruling class:

                Capitalism = Capitalists in power. Proles repressed.

                Socialism = Proletariat in power. Capitalists repressed.

                Communism = No more classes, only 1 class because the bourgeoisie have been completely phased out.

                • wewbull@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy. What political system would you see working with socialism as you describe it?

                  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    18
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Representative “democracy” alienates the common man from the political process while maintaining a semblance of democracy. For this reason it is the ideal political form for capitalism, an economic system which alienates power from the masses and concentrates it in the hands of a few.

                    Class interests are the primary axis on which all political activity turns. Getting the working class to vote does not help them, it helps those in power.

                  • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    16
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What about the absolute lack of “representative democracy” we experience under capitalism?

                    I’d argue that the capitalist system is more at odds with representative democracy than other systems mentioned. Most workers have no say in what is produced, who produces it, how they are paid, how much products are sold for, etc. Instead, we end up with figurehead CEO’s and nameless investors making all of those decisions, and of course they do everything to minimize costs, maximize profits, and disempower workers so that they can collect billions of dollars at the expense of the workers who actually make their companies run. If we had representative democracy do you think we’d have billionaires?

              • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                51
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I learned that “capitalism” is an economic system, not a system of government.

                Consider for 3 seconds that what you “learned” about the world is a product of the system that produced it

                Capitalism is a system of government, and in capitalist countries, they teach their citizens that capitalism is at at odds with the state and not working in conjunction with it

                  • Clever_Clover [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    ‘democratic’ is used today a lot of the time to describe neoliberal capitalist governments that are controlled (influenced greatly) by the capitalist class

                    for example we can look at somewhere like the US and point out how the majority of people in government are all rich capitalists and how through lobbying and campaign ‘donations’ and owning the media the capitalist class controls the government

                    marxists call this kind of state a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (capital), as opposed to a dictatorship of the proletariat (workers)

                    dictatorship here meaning general ‘rule’ not the specific meaning that the word has taken on more recently

                    so ‘democratic’ capitalist countries that exist today are under the “rule of the capitalist class” or “dictatorship of capital”

                    so if you wanted an actual democratic (in the real sense of the word) government, you’d need a government which is controlled by the majority of people, that is, the workers, a dictatorship of the proletariat

                    under such a system capitalists cannot be allowed to have influence on the government, which is something that is not really possible unless you implement tight capital controls like they do in China

                    the reason being that capital flight is a very real threat to a capitalist economy, and having that power over a government lets the capitalist class dictate terms and change laws to be favorable to them despite what the majority of people might want.

                    so to answer your question, the only way to have a government with a capitalist system not be controlled by capitalists is through suppression of the capitalist class, if they are allowed to have influence then you no longer have actual democracy.

              • drlecompte@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Amazed that I had to scroll down this far to read this. Capitalism does not magically create a fair society through the creation of value (which seems to be what its proponents keep saying: investors generating economic activity and wealth). But similarly you could have a socialist economic system, with no real democracy. Which, as we’ve seen, devolves into a corrupt oligarchy. We’ve seemingly lost this perspective in the decades since WWII, but a solid representative parliamentary democracy and separation of powers are the best way to create and maintain a fair society. It requires some other conditions too, like good education, free press, etc. but the core is a system where power is distributed and temporary, depending on democratic processes (elections). This democratic legitimacy is what we should be defending at all costs, imho. It’s not sexy, though.

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism is where everything is owned by an individual

              Socialism is where only the means of production are owned by the state, but the individual still has private properties

              Communism is where everything is owned by the state

              • spectre [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                28
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is not correct, I encourage you to do some more reading about how coats are made if you’d like to understand this better.

              • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago
                You are impressingly wrong

                Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff the government does, the more socialist it is. If it does a whole lotta stuff it’s communism <- This is you, but unironically. Educate yourself on the subject of which you claim knowledge.

          • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            44
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Okay, well, I’ve studied everything from all sorts of marxist tendencies to syndicalism to anarchism, to classical economics, and I think you’re either using terms wrong or have the wrong idea. Can you define your terms or rephrase what you mean?

            I apologize if this is too blunt.

            • dartos@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So I understand total capitalism as an entirely market driven economy with no government influence

              And total communism as an entirely planned and government prescribed economy

              And socialism as some of the economy is market driven and some government planned.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                46
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Viewing it entirely in economics is incorrect. All of the above can be done under capitalism. The key difference is not what form of economics are employed but which class controls power and puts the resources of the state to use.

                The capitalist state is a state where capital owners hold power and use that power to exploit more capital.

                The socialist state is a transitionary state in which the workers have seized power and use the state to repress the bourgeoisie and put resources to their own use.

                The communist state is what occurs when capitalism is entirely defeated, all nations are socialist, conflict is eliminated and material abundance is achieved, at which point states start to stop existing as the resources within them that are put towards repressing the bourgeoisie through violence are put towards other things when there is only 1 class in society.

              • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                33
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Okay, so extremely abridged, here is what seperates capitalism from socialism.

                Under capitalism, private individuals own the means of production, distribution, and sustenance. Workers are forced to go to one of these private individuals and exchange their labor power for a wage. Capitalist profit is generated by paying the worker less than their labor power is worth but enough to sustain workers as a class. The workers are prevented from using the means of production without entering into the wage labor model through the threat of physical violence.

                Under socialism, the means of production are managed in common, somewhere along a sliding scale of the people working in a workplace and democracy having control of how the workplace operates depending on the system

                You’ll note that these both can operate within markets, and both require at least some planning.

                Video: we need a mixture of capitalism and communism is bullshit

                Book: Explaining why markets are bad

                Edit: this is ignoring the way the state plays a role in these economic formations but Im trying to keep it simple.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                For the record, I think before this your definition of capitalism was defensible, but then communicating clearly would require using the term “liberalism” to describe the government.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is a difference between being a hard opposite and being mutually exclusive. They are not hard opposites, but they are mutually exclusive, like being a plant, fungus, or animal. None of those categories are the opposite of any other, and they share many interesting commonalities, but one cannot be both.

      • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah but capitalism also made reddit great

        Engineers and designers made it great. Reddit could very well exist without capitalism (see Lemmy). What fucked up Reddit was explicitly capitalist incentives.

        • dartos@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lemmy would not have existed without Reddit. Lemmy is a clone of reddit!

          Plus reddit put all the work intro attracting users and communities in the first place, before driving them to places like lemmy.

          • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should probably read up on the original author of reddit, Aaron Schwartz, before claiming capitalism made it.

            • dartos@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I know about Aaron Schwartz. His beliefs didn’t change the fact that Reddit had major VC backing and wouldn’t have existed without it.

              It’s really not a hard concept to grasp.

                • dartos@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Bruh, reddit was created in search of capital. It grew and attracted communities in search of capital.

                  Reddit wouldn’t have existed otherwise.

                  • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Aaron Schwartz did not author reddit in search of capital. He created it because he thought it would facilitate internet communication. Ohanian thought he could profit off of it.

      • SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        When did capitalism make Reddit great? It took a while for capitalism to take effect, and it was still ok. Capitalism took effect, and it was bearable. Now it’s shit.

        • dartos@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It just wouldn’t have existed at all without VC funding.

          Lemmy exists now because Reddit already existed, built the model link sharing site, and over years of ad revenue and VC money, convinced communities to gather there and then convinced those same communities to move to lemmy

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think anyone’s arguing that the US is a good example of a well balanced economy.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, we left Reddit because of what Spez did to it.

      Leadership is important when it impacts the bottom. Look at Twitter… That wasn’t capitalism, it was Elon Musk.

      I’m not propping up capitalism, I’m just pointing out that bad leaders can easily ruin successful and/or good things.

      • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes because people never communicated over the Internet before Glorious Visionary Entrepreneurs from the Great Private Sector took hold of it and gave us all these Valuable Products, they just sat on their ass wondering what to do with such technology like complete idiots.

        I swear free market ideology is the dumbest shit you can possibly believe in, I’d sooner become a fucking Mormon.

        • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          How would you have communicated without someone owning a server and paying for it? Reddit and other centralized platforms emerged for some reason… You would have to literally make that illegal, i.e. make it illegal to host your own server and let users use it.

          You can’t just imagine some fantasy utopia, and compare that to the current system.

          • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            How would you have communicated without someone owning a server and paying for it?

            You do realize the Internet first started being used by universities and the military, not the private sector, right? I see literally no reason why Internet infrastructure couldn’t be publicly owned. It could function pretty much like any other public utility.

            • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And would it have grown into more than that? Into something that everyone, and not just military and scientists can use?

              • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                28
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Why not?

                Sorry I just don’t buy into the ideology that the free market has this kind of “magic sauce” that makes everything innovative and better.

                The early Internet was filled of people doing all kinds of cool things for free just because it was interesting to do, the only thing the private sector did is provide the base infrastructure, this is something the state can easily do too. All kinds of communities, FOSS software and media popped up and none of them had VC funding or expected any money out of it.

                It was only in mid-late 2000 that capital really sank its teeth into the Internet properly.

              • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It did though? I don’t know what point you think you’re making but the internet did in fact grow from a technology limited to universities and the armed forces to a publicly accessible network, mostly off the back of publicly funded researchers and various techies that started their own neighborhood ISPs.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            How would you have communicated without someone owning a server and paying for it?

            I’d probably have posted on one of the many voluntarily run forums that existed before reddit swallowed everything.
            How would you have communicated without the telemasts installed and maintained by the state, which are now privatized and slowly falling apart?

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The internet wouldn’t exist without socialism lmao, and you wouldn’t be able to type that idiotic statement without the state funded infrastructure that supports your internet connection.

        The “free” market doesn’t innovate, at the very best it creates redundancy.

        Reddit itself began as a passion project made voluntarily, inspired by and built upon other similar projects.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Competition drives innovation.

            1. There is no proof for this, it’s just something we like to say. There is also no real way to test it - Non competing versus competing? We can however look at historical and current examples. The Soviet Union led the space race, the Soviet Union made many innovations without the need for competition. Cuba has a higher life expectancy than the us and a stronger healthcare sector. China leads in published scientific journals. Both the Soviet Union and china eliminated famines. Both the Soviet Union and china drastically increased industrial productive capacity in decades - something that took capitalists more than a century.

            2. Even if competition led to innovation, it also leads to incredible redundancy and waste. The idea that two people working against each other creates a better product than two people working with each other, is absurd. It has no basis in reality, it’s just a vibes based thing we like to say. At best we end up with two similar products. Had they people collaborated we would have had the same amount of manpower focused on making one project - typically meaning higher quality, faster innovation. We highlight the times people choose to go against competition (The three-point-seatbelt, the Polio cure and insulin) as “good things” that had an immense influence. It is not a coincidence that when we choose to go against this competetive nature of capitalism, the gains are immense.

            3. Competition drives specifically innovation that increases profits, which generally means making things more shit. Jeff Bezos innovated how to fuck over his workers so they could work harder for less. Uber innovated how it could fuck over taxi drivers. The tech firms innovated how to make walled gardens, and the hardware world at large innovated “planned obsolescence”.

            Germany’s “social” market has a high amount of homeless people. It also has a high amount of underpaid immigrants being exploited for their labor. It relies - like all western capitalist states - on the exploitation of the third world as well.

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I left Reddit because of short term decisions to squeeze money out of consumers to look good in an IPO, instead of having an actual long term thought.

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s capitalists doing things because they exist in a capitalist society. You’re describing capitalism congratulations

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You left reddit because of capitalism. What is an IPO? It is the launch of a business onto the public capital markets to release equity and to enrich its existing owners. What do all businesses on the markets operate on? Short term growth for the next financial quarter optimised to enrich their investors (shareholders) in the shortest amount of time possible.

        Capitalism consistently destroys everything you enjoy and yet you defend it relentlessly while asking for long term thinking, which is not a feature of capitalism. When you wake up to this reality you might actually start to question “maybe the socialists are right about a few things” and spend some time with us learning what we actually believe.

        • Kidplayer_666@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But you know what happened after Reddit turned to crap? Because no one actually has to use Reddit, because Reddit is just a bunch of bored nerds and Reddit is just a bunch of forums, eventually someone realised: “wait a minute, I can code this in a few weeks and make it way less crappy than most social media. And maybe if I make it all open, a whole ecosystem of social networks can grow together”. And when Reddit turned to crap, “the invisible hand” acted and people slowly started to migrate over to lemmy and other social media and now reddit is just a bunch of bots

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A few weeks?

            Mate please check my profile. I have been here for 3 fucking years. Lemmy did not magically appear in a few weeks that is incredibly offensive to the sheer amount of work my comrades have put in to make it.

            And calling their work “the invisible hand of the market” is also nonsensical. Because the forces driving its creation, and the rest of us communists that support it, are the destruction of the markets. There is not one single jot of profit motive involved in Lemmy. You seem to recognise some of the problems of capitalism but consistently come to incorrect conclusions about everything because you have spent no time whatsoever getting a real political education and understanding the forces at work.

            And you fail to ask yourself what happens to your “market forces” alternative to reddit. In any scenario where the market is responsible for replacing reddit the market will also bring it back to exactly the same point of self-destruction through pursuit of capital. You will hurt yourself all over again.

    • alcasa@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Profit motives may have been a driver for reddits decisions, but we don’t need to pretend that foss doesn’t have its own share of unpopular or controversial decisions.

      It’s about choice and foss makes it much easier to reject and do your own thing.