this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
957 points (98.0% liked)
Facepalm
3081 readers
1953 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's neither free market nor communism, but it sure is capitalism. It's like a wind up toy about to fall off the edge of a table, we need to free the market again somehow to place it back in the middle of the table
Isn’t this specifically free market though? Robin Hood chose to not offer the service anymore - they aren’t obliged to offer their service?
Iirc, a factor in them doing this was related to the way their model works and the way that prices were fluctuating - that shit could go wrong and bankrupt them.
Like yeah it’s counter to their own marketing, but doesn’t seem counter to the idea of a “free market.”
Free market is as much a myth as stateless communism.
So you can get yours while it slowly edges back to the ledge your children will have to face? Let's fix the problem once and for all.
How?
Actually... I don't care for your opinion since you're already wrong about my motives
That may not be your motive, but it most certainly is the consequence of "bringing it back to the middle". There is no future is capitalism
With the right regulations in place we can continuously find more ways to prevent or at least slow down the consolidation of wealth and therefore power.
Consolidation of power is the enemy ultimately, and the problem is no matter what the system is, power tends to eventually consolidate due to human nature. The success of capitalism isn't that it's perfect, far from it. It's that it results in a much slower consolidation of power than other systems
Yes, the right regulations, that will then be constantly clawed back again and again until no regulations exist once more. We had wonderful social services and financial and industry regulations in the past, but people who are greedy and don't want to help their neighbours work tirelessly to remove those services and protections until they no longer function and then remove them completely as "obsolete" because they were never allowed to actually work in the first place.
It's slowness is it's most effective and insidious trait. It ingrains itself into a society, with promises of "this is healthy if we just let it be". Which is clearly not the case.
If most positives from it involve it having to be shackled entirely by regulation to constrain its most definable traits, it is not a good thing. It is just exploitable.
I'd still rather have that than a system that immediately becomes a dictatorship. I just don't think there is a perfect system if it's going to be run by dumb selfish humans. AI could maybe take a crack at it though, idk
So don't support dictators :)
I don't :)
Yet you support capitalism, which is a dictatorship of capital over people.
Capitalism is an inherently hierarchical system, and hierarchical systems fundamentally consolidate power to the top. This consolidation of power is a primary feature of the capitalist and state structures. You can't out regulate the nature of hierarchy, it will always adapt to the present conditions and find ways to consolidate power. A just and equitable society cannot exist under hierarchy. Humans are highly social and highly adaptable animals, there is no singular "human nature". What you've labeled human nature is the nature of capitalism and the state, not humans.
I'm not interested in slower consolidation, because at the end of the day that means someone else is going to have to deal with the consequences of it down the line. See Canada, the UK, Germany, and Sweden as examples of what will happen under "better regulated" capitalist systems. Things are ok for a generation or two, and then capital begins it's encroachment once again. They're closer to the path the US is on than any of them will readily admit. Why would I fight for half measures?
I think we can agree to disagree on that part about human nature. I've met plenty of nice people, but those aren't the ones I'm worried about. You seem to be suggesting we could create a system that could be corruption free indefinitely which has me very intrigued
No, just suggesting that people take charge of their future instead of just assuming that the system will work itself out. The best system is the one that encourages people to not only look out for each other, but also criticize and question each other. And do so freely without the need for financial backing to do so.
That only happens when people decide to work together for their goals, even if they occasionally have to work towards someone else's instead of their own. Which is entirely possible, no matter how dim a view of others one might have.