The society we live in is an employment based, market fundamentalist society. It just used to be a different kind of fundamentalist theocratic rule is all.

Instead of lashing out and calling it a silly caricature, you can just say "I just plain don't like that." It would have had the same effect.

That being said, how much money would it take for you to change your mind about existence being measured in terms of money alone being a silly caricature? Even if you were the type to give it all away, eventually, we would find a number. Not only that, you'd be a multi millionaire and, as such, on that basis alone, your existence would be judged as an inherently good one.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The first paragraph is literally the same “I can’t justify capitalism but the others are worse” argument again.

Which happens to be true. Maybe in the future there will be something better, but so far it hasn't been found.

The society we live in is an employment based, market fundamentalist society.

Sure, ok. And it's better than a feudalist society where you're tied to the land, or a slave-based economy where you're property.

Instead of lashing out and calling it a silly caricature

I'm not lashing out. I'm just describing it as a silly caricature, which it is. Capitalism is fundamentally about owners of capital competing to make more money by investing in capital and selling goods at a profit. People who don't own capital have to work in that kind of a system. Similar to how peasants were tied to land they had to work under feudalism, or slaves were required to do whatever their owners demanded in a slave state, but it's less brutal. Workers can change employers and their bodies are not owned.

Is it fair? Of course not, but no socioeconomic system that has ever existed in reality has ever been fair.

That being said, how much money would it take for you to change your mind about existence being measured in terms of money alone being a silly caricature?

No amount of money would make me change my mind. There would probably be an amount of money where I'd be willing to lie, but what does that prove? You'd lie too if you were offered enough money. That's human nature, not capitalism. If this were a feudalist system you could be bribed with land. If it were a theocracy you could be bribed by religious titles.

I don't know what you're trying to prove. Capitalism is bad, but other systems are worse. There are purely theoretical systems that would be better, but none of them has ever survived an encounter with reality. But, that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Eventually we'll find a way to improve on capitalism, just like capitalism improved on feudalism.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

What is also true is that its the mentality of a depressive who views hope as a dangerous delusion, as had been said a fair few times now.

It is lashing out, as you can't refute it or engage it.

Dismissing a legitimate observation of our society as a silly caricature is a far more silly caricature of someone who just doesn't like what they're hearing.

Existence is measured in money, under capitalism. Why would you lying about it and not meaning make any difference? As long as you're doing what you were paid to do, it would have the same appearance and the same effect. I would take the money too, as its the most important thing in society and existance is measured in it. Thats the point here. Why would I care what was in your heart of hearts?

No, none of the other systems survived an attack by a system that cannot tolerate any alternatives to live unmolested. Had any of them failed of their own accord, you might have a point there. You can't shoot someone in the leg and then declare that their claims of being able to run didn't survive an encounter with reality.

Trying to improve capitalism has never survived an encounter with reality. All it did was make the rich richer.

Capitalism didn't improve feudalism. Firstly, capitalism grew out of merchantislism. Secondly, merchantislism had to be forced on people who had been robbed of their homes and were facing starvation. Had they any other option than starving, they would have stuck with feudalism.