realitaetsverlust

Who says they’d need to?

We have a certain standard of living right now that is only maintainable that way.

we’d make glass and clay pots

Lmao.

people doing jobs for the money rather than less demand would actually mean people wouldn’t even need a set job

Yes, that’s how it generally works. Most jobs that people expect this day and age are not enjoyable. Are there people who’d do them for free? Yes. But not on a massive scale that works for billions of people.

Look at Animals, how many animals work 2 jobs just to survive?

What a retarded comparison. Probably the dumbest you could’ve made.

Animals don’t have access to a network of goods and services, they also don’t live in a city with potentially millions of inhabitants. They don’t have internet, they don’t have healthcare, they don’t have delivery drivers, plumbing, electricity or anything that we know from modern life.

With all due respect, but if that’s something you strife for, get a few like minded people and go live on an island. Nobody is stopping you. There, you can live free of capitalism. But you also get all the disadvantages.

It amazes me how blinded people are to a capitalist free world

We had a capitalist free world and it was shit for the most part. People got killed, life expectancy was shit, education was shit, extreme poverty was rampant (WAY more than under capitalism) winters were harsh and potentially deadly - bro you talk like someone who just played 12 hours of manor lords straight. You’re romanticizing a time that was just straightup terrible for the most part.

And if you’re referring to “modern” communist countries, ask yourself why so many people try to flee from them and why the regimes actually made leaving the country illegal.

Look at the waste now, the plastic pollution and then look carefully at the next package you buy and ask “does this really need ‘this’ much packaging? Do i care if this new spade I bought with all its shiny cardboard and plastic protection, arrived with a scratch? But even if the TV was scratched, does it really matter so long as it worked as intended?

You’re talking about minor individual problems. How is this a problem that warrants the abolishment of capitalism? Why not just fix that singular problem? You’re finding a small scratch in the wallpaper of your house and instead of just fixing it, you want to tear down the entire house? All of these things are SOCIETAL problems that are not the fault of capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t force companies to use excessive plastic for each cucumber - it’s the customers expectation that makes companies do that.

Okay, let me rephrase it: Not enough people enjoy working the middle of an australian desert at 40°C in a lithium mine to cover the global demand of rare earths.

Normal functioning societies don’t leave heaps of stinking trash around, they neatly pack it and the work of a janitor of garbage collector becomes actually enjoyable if you’re a proper type of personality.

Idk if you noticed, but people won’t behave that way if there is no repercussion for it.

He has his basic needs met by other means, and his “job” pays him enough to get a cup of coffee before the shift and a sandwich after. He just enjoys making the world cleaner, chatting with locals, taking care of stray cats, and having a routine.

Great but some people have more aspirations than your uncle. And I think they should have the chance to achieve that. And I don’t think having a clean neighborhood should depend on having that uncle that enjoys cleaning for free.

All of that is possible in a world that doesn’t revolves around squeesing every bit of labour from people

I mean, yes, absolutely possible without squeezing every bit of labor from people. However, it’s not possible in a world without money or capital. The wide-spread introduction of capitalism has DRASTICALLY reduced the amount of people living in extreme poverty. According to https://ourworldindata.org/end-progress-extreme-poverty , from 1990 - 2025, the amount of people living in extreme poverty dropped by 65%, from 2.3 billion to 800 million. If we extend the timeframe a bit further, according to https://ourworldindata.org/history-of-poverty-data-appendix , the number went from 53.9% in extreme poverty to only 5.5% - meaning an almost 90% reduction in extreme poverty. Unless I’m too stupid to do math now.

(ourworldindata.org is a non-profit funded by the university of oxford btw - so it’s fairly reliable)

Now, capitalism isn’t the sole reason why poverty dropped - it’s the combination with effective social policies. Capitalism creates wealth, taxes take a part of that wealth and spread it to the rest of society. That’s how it should work and that is also by far the best system we could ever have in place. The fact that america fails on that tax-part is not the fault of capitalism. It’s a failure of the government.

It’s insane that so many people tried to flee from communist terror regimes, and still try to flee to this day out of North Korea or Cuba, yet people on lemmy will just close their eyes and pretend that communism is the perfect system and every system that fails is just because of the “CIA”.

Like, half of the jobs you listed would be automated out pretty quick in a world without money

If that was even remotely possible, companies would’ve done that already. Every company tries to cut staff as much as possible.

pretty sure we can find something better for batteries than lithium

Which requires research, which requires investment. Much of the research we currently have only exists exactly because of funding, and a lot of funding is done by companies, not by the government.

What’s left can be rotated out or done by lottery, and those doing the undesirable labor get to have more luxury items or whatever

I like the “whatever”. Let’s just introduce a shitty system that also potentially forces people to do work they don’t want to do and they get like a bar of soap or “whatever” as reward…

It’s not hard to imagine, people have been doing it for centuries.

I don’t know where these people lived that you talk about, but it certainly wasn’t on this planet. Such a system has never existed.

If you removed money, imagine where we’d all be as a society

Probably dead or living in the stone age.

There’s so many jobs that people don’t enjoy but are necessary. Nobody enjoys working in the middle of an australian desert at 40°C in a lithium mine. Nobody enjoys collecting your stinking trash. Nobody enjoys sitting in a store for 8 hours a day, scanning groceries. Nobody enjoys working in a warehouse for 8 hours.

However, these jobs and many more are vital for todays society.

toxicity of money, wars and hate!

You make it sound like wealth and wars are an invention of capitalism and not something that has existed basically since the dawn of time, even as something you can observe in primates, albeit on a much smaller scale.

But there’s WAY more surviving devices from 1960 in 2020 than there will be from 2020 in 2080.

I don’t get it. Landlords don’t buy houses. They mostly buy apartment blocks. At least in central europe, where I’m located. It’s usually not lucrative enough to invest money into a house to rent it back out for like 1500€ - 2000€ a month when you can invest the same amount into an apartment block, have 10 apartments and make like 800€/apartment.

Also, in germany specifically, the problem isn’t landlords. It’s extremely restrictive and confusing building regulations that are extremely hard to fulfill. It also sometimes takes YEARS for buildings to even get approval. Well, and the prices for raw materials are currently through the roof aswell. No idea how it’s in other european countries tho.

Bro could at least invite her for dinner before making such … interesting demands.

Okay, I’m curious, how exactly do you think landlords affect your ability to buy a house?

Classic lefty talk, landlords are bad yada yada yada I guess.

Woman: breathes

Crazy people: It emphasizes empowerment and self-expression

Okay can I actually pet bumblebees or is this just a meme?

American suddenly realizing that not the entire world is america.

👍

This is stupid. Valve telling developers “you can’t sell your game cheaper on other platforms than on steam” is taking the cake away alone.

First of all, that’s not entirely true - valve is demanding price parity, meaning long-term undercutting steam is not allowed (something absolutely normal in almost any larger e-commerce scenario btw), but they have no problem if you have sales or value-added offers on other platforms. Now, you can think about price parity what you think, I’m not the biggest fan of it either, but it’s a very common practice, not exclusive to steam and has nothing to do with anti-trust.

You somehow keep ignoring the fact that valve makes more money than any other corporation per employee. They are clearly over-charging and you cannot argue against this

I ignored it because it’s a retarded metric. Yeah, guess what, if you automate a lot, you’re going to need less employees. I have no clue how that has any relevance in if a product is worth it or not. I’m pretty sure the v-servers I’m renting from hetzner involve nobody, it’s all automated, from purchase to setup - should I get it for free now? Would it be fine to have a 30% cut if valve employed like 1000 more people or what is the logic here?

Stop defending megacorporations.

I’m not defending megacorporations, I just don’t agree with you at all. Fundamentally, you are saying “making money bad” which is just a naive and highly uneducated argument to have.

30% cut was fine when infrastructure was just not there yet, but 64GB HDD no longer costs 100€ and internet is not metered in megabytes.

Steam isn’t just storing stuff and letting people download it. They’re an entire distribution network. There’s not just the tech (which is already expensive in itself), but also the entire legal stuff. Invoicing, legal compliance, fraud prevention, chargeback processing, the customer support (which actually got fairly helpful in the last 2 years) etc.

If you genuinely think Valve and Gabe’s fleet of Yachts is not monopolistic squeezing/pricing

It’s not. Valve has not adjusted their pricing once, at least not upwards. They have reduced the pricing for extremely high-grossing games, but other than that, the price has stuck at 30%. How is that squeezing? Wouldn’t that make them INCREASE the percentage point instead of leaving it where it is?

Also, it’s funny that you talk about “monopolistic”, because epic has probably engaged in more monopolistic behavior with the EGS than steam ever has. And if we compare the features of the EGS (which didn’t even have a shopping cart for the first year of it’s existence) with the feature set of steam, I can absolutely see that a 30% cut is fine.

Now, could they lower it? Probably. But 30% is still worth it for any indie dev and significantly less than any other entity with the size and reach of steam would take for all their services.

They introduced a feature, the community didn’t like it, and they canceled it a few days later because of that feedback. What exactly is the problem? Making a mistake and rectifying it within days is not a bad thing at all.

Users are just more tolerant towards Valve than any other platform because of the cheap games they can buy during a sale

If that was the case, people would be extremely tolerant towards the epic game store which regularly throws out games for free, but they aren’t.

“doing nothing”

Global distribution of exabytes of data, handling the entire e-commerce side and offering great toolings with steamworks while requiring onyl 100 dollars upfront is now considered “nothing”. Yeah, we should definitely go back to a time when steam wasn’t a thing and indie devs were required to have a publisher to even get their games into stores, and those publishers often took 80% of the entire profits. I’m sure indies had a much better time back then when they didn’t have to pay steam!

One of the most accurate descriptions of this entire beef.

Steam does nothing and just keeps winning.