this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
1157 points (97.5% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

2176 readers
550 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Betterment of yourself and your part of society, human connection, just fucking around with curiosity and silliness. That's what I know deep down I want to guide me, but I'm also fighting against an internal system that had me hearing "you have to work if you want to eat" since I was a child.

You have to eat food to eat. That's it. It's literally the basis of life. I don't see birds commuting and paying taxes on their food

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Birds commute all the time. If they aren't where the food/nesting material/mating partner is, they commute there.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, they follow their basic needs. Migrating and commuting are not the same thing. They don't have to deal with made up "you have to work from the office" situations was my point

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You have to eat food to eat. That’s it.

...and that food has to come from somewhere. Someone has to work so you can eat.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Surprise, it comes out of the fucking ground! Of course if you want to eat something that is not native to your region it's a whole thing with exploitation and whatnot. I just find the disconnection with nature/life jarring

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Food doesn't simply erupt out of the ground on its own, not in quantities necessary to feed any kind of significant population. Farmers do in fact have to do labor to produce crops.

The bit about food not simply erupting from the ground on its own in quantities sufficient to feed a significant population goes double for cities where you have lots more people and lots less growing land.

[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of course that was hyperbole. I am not saying that growing food is effortless or easy. I'm just saying that food is natural (duh), while coerced farmers aren't natural, but rather a product of capitalism allowing you to buy any kind of food known to man, fresh, in a huge supermarket, and throw it away if it is not sold. Or any another authoritarian system for that matter, it would just happen in different ways. As my other comments show, I'm talking about different scales. Cities provided an advantage not long ago in many ways - infrastructure, culture, economy, opportunities etc -, but as modern technology shortened distances, I feel less and less people can find a compelling reason to live surrounded by miles and miles of cement and smog. High-density and high-volume communities/housing are two different things.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago

You started with a rejection of "you have to work if you want to eat", my whole point was someone has to work if you want to eat, and if that someone isn't you they probably need some kind of incentive for why they are working so you can eat.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 3 points 1 week ago

I think your observation is valid even though labor and planning are needed to produce enough and consistently enough to sustain a big population. Reconnection with nature, some autonomy in culture, I also think are necessary