/r/LateStageCapitalism - Yet more godless, freedom-hating Communists on Reddit

[pitawilson]

no matter what economic system you pick it will always gradually slide to the extreme ends

 

[Sweetpeaa]

Obvious Marxist is obvious.

The difference between corporatism and capitalism is that corporatism is a weird mix of lolbertarian free market stupidity (excessive de-regulation) and corporate oligarchy that is propped up by a sort of reverse socialism (AKA bailouts for corporations and corporate welfare) while capitalism is any system with a basic free market economy.

Only Marxism and its bastard children (Maoism, Leninism, AnComs, etc.) believe that capitalism's explicitly got an end goal of monopoly or oligopoly. There is no "end goal" because the real world doesn't operate on Whig History and dialectical materialist bullshit.

History is not a movie or a book where there is a defined ending nor is it a game where there is a specific "end goal" and only the far-left ideologies have the mindset of a "end goal" in the grand scheme of things (AKA the "classless stateless society" pipe dream)

That said, I think corporatism needs to be crushed and the lolberts can go fuck themselves. I also think capitalism is still far better than Marxism, Maoism, or Anarchism of any kind.

We're already under a plutocracy. Did you know the Chinese middle class is up and coming while all western middle classes are shrinking?

A middle class is healthy for a country. They you know... buy stuff. Wealthy people over asserting their influence on politics is completely unacceptable and lowers the standard of democracy for everyone.

 

[Syaoran Li]

One thing I think everyone can agree on is fuck the neoliberals.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

One thing I think everyone can agree on is fuck the neoliberals.

It's not a binary choice between communism and libertarianism and people online need to understand that. I don't like either of those things and they're not the only choices available.

 

[pitawilson]

It's not a binary choice between communism and libertarianism and people online need to understand that. I don't like either of those things and they're not the only choices available.

everyone knows you can either be a marxist or an ancap and that's it

 

[Milkis]

The difference between corporatism and capitalism is that corporatism is a weird mix of lolbertarian free market stupidity (excessive de-regulation) and corporate oligarchy that is propped up by a sort of reverse socialism (AKA bailouts for corporations and corporate welfare) while capitalism is any system with a basic free market economy.

What in the shit are you talking about? Corporatism is a well defined term and it isn't "when private corporations do things". Were you maybe thinking of corporate capitalism?

 

[NormieCasual]

What a crossover!

Seriously, do these people believe that working will be more fun in any other system? I guess we should have asked the farmers 1000 years ago if they were fulfilled, or maybe the modern Chinese factory workers. If it was fun it would be a hobby. If you're lucky, it's a hobby you have a hobby you can earn money from.

 

[HumanHive]

View attachment 1926960
What a crossover!

Seriously, do these people believe that working will be more fun in any other system? I guess we should have asked the farmers 1000 years ago if they were fulfilled, or maybe the modern Chinese factory workers. If it was fun it would be a hobby. If you're lucky, it's a hobby you have a hobby you can earn money from.

You don’t understand.
Gay space communism will allow absolutely everyone to do nothing but focus on their hobbies all day.

 

[Shaka Brah]

You don’t understand.
Gay space communism will allow absolutely everyone to do nothing but focus on their hobbies all day.

These people probably don't even have hobbies. Gardening is a hobby. Smoking weed is not a hobby.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

These people probably don't even have hobbies. Gardening is a hobby. Smoking weed is not a hobby.

They do. Have you not heard of consume product and get excited for next product?

 

[NormieCasual]

In other news, studies show that the cheapest way to solve starvation and the problems of starvation is to provide food. But the people making the study seems to not being able to answer the simple question of how.

On a more serious note: I guess this means that the government should be paying to make more housing for low-income people (which I personally think is a good idea as the housing market is a bit dysfunctional for just low rent housing since there is so little money to earn), but most homeless people in the developed world could get housing. Most countries have welfare which includes food stamps and housing subsidies, then there's just the question of why there still exists homelessness. From my understanding a lot of the times it's because people are drug addidicts or severe mental illness. Many times we as a society have tried to help them but they refused. In the end, we need to grabble with the fact that in all likelihood there will always be homeless people unless we literally allow people to live in places for free and where the government pays for maintenance.

Also, capitalists spend money all the time on the homeless both through charity and support government programs. I also don't see how capitalist spend hurt the homeless but I guess that even they couldn't tell. There is a real cost-benefit calculation because most if not all homeless people in the west could get help.

 

[Bixnood]

View attachment 1932459

In other news, studies show that the cheapest way to solve starvation and the problems of starvation is to provide food. But the people making the study seems to not being able to answer the simple question of how.

On a more serious note: I guess this means that the government should be paying to make more housing for low-income people (which I personally think is a good idea as the housing market is a bit dysfunctional for just low rent housing since there is so little money to earn), but most homeless people in the developed world could get housing. Most countries have welfare which includes food stamps and housing subsidies, then there's just the question of why there still exists homelessness. From my understanding a lot of the times it's because people are drug addidicts or severe mental illness. Many times we as a society have tried to help them but they refused. In the end, we need to grabble with the fact that in all likelihood there will always be homeless people unless we literally allow people to live in places for free and where the government pays for maintenance.

Also, capitalists spend money all the time on the homeless both through charity and support government programs. I also don't see how capitalist spend hurt the homeless but I guess that even they couldn't tell. There is a real cost-benefit calculation because most if not all homeless people in the west could get help.

I want to see this study on housing benefiting the homeless.
I thought they are "homeless" not "realistately challenged".
far as I know houses don't fix mental illness, trauma and drug addiction.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

View attachment 1932459

In other news, studies show that the cheapest way to solve starvation and the problems of starvation is to provide food. But the people making the study seems to not being able to answer the simple question of how.

On a more serious note: I guess this means that the government should be paying to make more housing for low-income people (which I personally think is a good idea as the housing market is a bit dysfunctional for just low rent housing since there is so little money to earn), but most homeless people in the developed world could get housing. Most countries have welfare which includes food stamps and housing subsidies, then there's just the question of why there still exists homelessness. From my understanding a lot of the times it's because people are drug addidicts or severe mental illness. Many times we as a society have tried to help them but they refused. In the end, we need to grabble with the fact that in all likelihood there will always be homeless people unless we literally allow people to live in places for free and where the government pays for maintenance.

Also, capitalists spend money all the time on the homeless both through charity and support government programs. I also don't see how capitalist spend hurt the homeless but I guess that even they couldn't tell. There is a real cost-benefit calculation because most if not all homeless people in the west could get help.

There are so many programs in urban areas designed to drive homeless out of the cities that you probably don't even notice them. You ever noticed how many park benches now have one or more iron "arm-rests" partitioning the bench? That's designed to prevent homeless people from lying down on said bench to sleep. Pissed off that the only fast-food places in town seem to be in the shady-as-hell neighborhoods these days? Any place with a "dollar menu" (see: something a homeless person might eat after begging) is being systemically pushed into said neighborhoods to "fix urban blight". Cities in California will literally pay to bus their homeless to San Fran.
The first solution city governments take towards the homeless issue is to try and make them be homeless somewhere else.

 

[NormieCasual]

There are so many programs in urban areas designed to drive homeless out of the cities that you probably don't even notice them. You ever noticed how many park benches now have one or more iron "arm-rests" partitioning the bench? That's designed to prevent homeless people from lying down on said bench to sleep. Pissed off that the only fast-food places in town seem to be in the shady-as-hell neighborhoods these days? Any place with a "dollar menu" (see: something a homeless person might eat after begging) is being systemically pushed into said neighborhoods to "fix urban blight". Cities in California will literally pay to bus their homeless to San Fran.
The first solution city governments take towards the homeless issue is to try and make them be homeless somewhere else.

Not sure about that. At least in Europe there are so many opportunities for people not be homeless and to have nice places to sleep at. One of the most common ones being churches (but then they must be clean so many refuse), but there are also social services. In my experience, the people who are driven out are the people who refuse help because I have seen similar programs to the ones you talk about.

We had a problem of a couple of homeless people always going to the bathroom outside a store in my hometown, in a town close by they had barricaded the tunnel to the trains making it very difficult to actually getting to your work. The solution just becomes to drive them away.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Not sure about that. At least in Europe there are so many opportunities for people not be homeless and to have nice places to sleep at. One of the most common ones being churches (but then they must be clean so many refuse), but there are also social services. In my experience, the people who are driven out are the people who refuse help because I have seen similar programs to the ones you talk about.

We had a problem of a couple of homeless people always going to the bathroom outside a store in my hometown, in a town close by they had barricaded the tunnel to the trains making it very difficult to actually getting to your work. The solution just becomes to drive them away.

I should have been more clear: I'm talking about America, which seems to hope that the homeless crisis will magically solve itself if they just shove it out of sight/that the homeless will all just die off.

 

[McMitch4kf]

I should have been more clear: I'm talking about America, which seems to hope that the homeless crisis will magically solve itself if they just shove it out of sight/that the homeless will all just die off.

A lot of it is the fact that it really isn’t that difficult to not be homeless in most of the US. Generally, people who are long term homeless and are so on public properties are the type to cause trouble, either because they have mental problems or they’re junkies or they’re just a useless person. The best way to minimize homelessness is to disincentivized it.

 

[HumanHive]

I should have been more clear: I'm talking about America, which seems to hope that the homeless crisis will magically solve itself if they just shove it out of sight/that the homeless will all just die off.

“The homeless crisis” is far more complicated than “deez dudes ain’t got no home”. A drug crisis that’s getting worse as we continue to normalize drug culture, a mental health crisis that was the result of complete deinstitutionalization and replacing it with “here are some meds, if you don’t take them that’s your problem”, and of course a nationwide deindustrialization crisis that feeds into the former two.

We could begin to solve homelessness with opening up asylums and factories again, but sure let’s just have free housing for these people to trash. Huh? “Tragedy of the commons”? What’s that?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

“The homeless crisis” is far more complicated than “deez dudes ain’t got no home”. A drug crisis that’s getting worse as we continue to normalize drug culture, a mental health crisis that was the result of complete deinstitutionalization and replacing it with “here are some meds, if you don’t take them that’s your problem”, and of course a nationwide deindustrialization crisis that feeds into the former two.

We could begin to solve homelessness with opening up asylums and factories again, but sure let’s just have free housing for these people to trash. Huh? “Tragedy of the commons”? What’s that?

Gee, thanks for putting all of those words in my mouth. I agree with two-thirds of what you said here.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

View attachment 1932459

In other news, studies show that the cheapest way to solve starvation and the problems of starvation is to provide food. But the people making the study seems to not being able to answer the simple question of how.

On a more serious note: I guess this means that the government should be paying to make more housing for low-income people (which I personally think is a good idea as the housing market is a bit dysfunctional for just low rent housing since there is so little money to earn), but most homeless people in the developed world could get housing. Most countries have welfare which includes food stamps and housing subsidies, then there's just the question of why there still exists homelessness. From my understanding a lot of the times it's because people are drug addidicts or severe mental illness. Many times we as a society have tried to help them but they refused. In the end, we need to grabble with the fact that in all likelihood there will always be homeless people unless we literally allow people to live in places for free and where the government pays for maintenance.

Also, capitalists spend money all the time on the homeless both through charity and support government programs. I also don't see how capitalist spend hurt the homeless but I guess that even they couldn't tell. There is a real cost-benefit calculation because most if not all homeless people in the west could get help.

Lots of working poors don't want homeless to get free housing because it makes them feel jealous. LOL you would not believe how common this type of mentality is among the working class. Rich people don't care if public housing gets built - as as long as it's not in their area. It's the working poors that rage at the thought of a person without a job getting a free house.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

“The homeless crisis” is far more complicated than “deez dudes ain’t got no home”. A drug crisis that’s getting worse as we continue to normalize drug culture, a mental health crisis that was the result of complete deinstitutionalization and replacing it with “here are some meds, if you don’t take them that’s your problem”, and of course a nationwide deindustrialization crisis that feeds into the former two.

We could begin to solve homelessness with opening up asylums and factories again, but sure let’s just have free housing for these people to trash. Huh? “Tragedy of the commons”? What’s that?

Asylums were closed because the were expensive to run. There was no return for profit. Don't buy into the big lie about them being closed because of changing public attitudes or human rights abuses.

Mentally ill people got put away in the first place not for their own protection but to protect the public.