this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024

-22 points (19.4% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6281 readers

191 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-22

People like to criticize Free market economies (Capitalism) while using it more than they should. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TLDR: People who criticize capitalism are still using it and benefiting from it more than they should, hoarding resources more than their essentials.

I see a lot of people online who criticize Free market economies without thinking about the people who make it work which is them.

If people collectively in masses had stopped buying luxury items for example that industry would die out in a couple of years, apply that to any other industry (with the exception of necessary ones like medical industries) and the same results is expected to happen. why do people do not do that and kill the bad industries you ask, because they are in need of Free market economy and it's results.

It's like people who are looking to change from free market economy like to think of themselves as week enough to not be able to change it but strong enough to hate it, while in reality they are strong enough to change their economic system but week enough to not think about the problems in other economic systems. I think that most believers who think that the world is making a mistake by committing to free market economy are people who believe in idealistic values without looking at the science or history of application.

Most popular figures in the modern age who associate themselves wirh other economic systems, don't bother to even try to apply it to their lives and a lot of them are very rich with millions of dollars(Example: Bernie Sanders networth is more than one million dollars).

I fully understand that everyone dream of a better world where everyone in the world has good food, healthcare and education, but sadly that is impossible and the best that can be achieved in real life is to collectively have a system to support the people who need help in hopes of making capitalism easier on them.

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Market economies aren't exclusive to capitalism. A postcapitalist society could use markets in some places.

It is capitalism's defenders, who are unscientific. Basic facts are unmentionable to capitalism's supporters. The fact that only persons can be responsible and things no matter how causally efficacious can't be responsible for anything is unmentionable in an economic context. The employer's appropriation of 100% of the positive and negative fruits of labor is obfuscated

@unpopularopinion

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is actually a very popular opinion, the one that comes up very often in real life as I try to address the negative aspects of the economic system.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Considering that this post has no supporting comments and more downvotes than upvotes, I am inclined to believe that this is a unpopular opinion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Thank you for your opinion

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

Thank you for your comment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism is like an unstoppable, unavoidable virus that has already breached the farthest reaches of the world. It's almost like every single person on the planet is born into it and cannot escape it for the entire duration of their lives - their deaths approaching ever faster, the less capital they accrue.

See how just stating the obvious sounds like a criticism of Capitalism itself?

I am not criticizing Capitalism, but I am being honest about some dark truths about it. If I had to venture a guess, I would say people who know the true nature of the beast are better prepared to tame it and become wealthy.

Some of those people are also going to sound like they are criticizing Capitalism whenever they broadcast the truth they know.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago

How is your comment relevant to my post?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So birds in a cage are at fault for living in a cage… and there is no escape from the cage so they should just be content that they have a cage to live in…?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

The birds in the cage are also repairing the cage for their owners even when they don't need to. Sure they need to sing for food but the OP comments are about luxury goods.

Diamonds losing value is a good example of how consumers can change the market by changing their buying habits.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

What cage are you talking about?

Is Bernie Sanders for example living in a cage??

He can stop working tomorrow and he would still have more than enough money to live comfortably till the end of his days.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but he would rather everyone have access to affordable healthcare. That's the artificial limitation imposed by U.S. Drug manufacturers.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

So why not donate his money to achieve that?

He is a owner of more than 1 house, btw.

Nonsense does not work in real life.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

I agree that it's distasteful that Bernie Sanders has the net worth that he does, but acting like somebody with a net worth of a couple million dollars could change the world is idiotic.

Bernie could hoard like 50 million, and if he forced billionaires to pay their fair share, we would still come out on top by a long goddamn way. you need to bitch at the people that are actually individually sitting on enough money to do things like end homelessness in America

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sweetheart, who would he donate it to?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That is a great resource and I'm sure Sanders' lifetime earnings would be a fine contribution to their 1,400 clinics.

After that runs out, wouldn't it have been more effective in the long run to encourage the younger generation to organize against inequalities on a systemic level?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You missed my point, he can donate to them right now and still have a net worth which consists of one house and couple hundred thousands of dollars and he would be living by his principles, instead he is advocating for a change that he is not a part of.

Just to be clear, under capitalism it's his money and he is free to do with it what ever he want, but if he is advocating for socialism shouldn't he start with himself first and lead by example?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Oh I'm sorry, I did not understand your point. Freely donating most of one's wealth and possessions for the better good is helpful, but it is not, nor has it ever been a principle encouraged by Sanders.

When you describe capitalism as "free to do with it what ever he want(s)" we have to acknowledge that money is limited by all kinds of laws, such as ones that disallow the purchasing of slaves, and limit the amount gifted to a political candidate.

The problem occurs when very few people have access to excess capital, or economic energy, which would grant them more power than the limitations created by the government could control.

Sanders' political ideology is not Communism. He identifies as a Democratic Socialist, and is in favor on expanding the rights of education and healthcare through taxation.