You must log in or register to comment.

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

"Slavery was a good system because your cotton shirt was made by slaves."

"Feudalism was a good system because it made your pitchforck."


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I think there's more implied by the 'critique' than your response lets on.

Using specific examples here doesn't completely work, because it's possible to respond saying that we can expect there still to be shirts or pitchforks regardless of the socioeconomic system, but that it is harder to show that we would have iPhones.

Here, the dig is that something you desire would not exist under another system. For the asshole, you want the phone, and to reject capitalism means you don't get to have the luxury of the phone - you would have to give up your phone for your precious socialism, since it is only something that would exist in a capitalist world. Implying a kind of hypocrisy at the level of your ownership of the thing but also your desire for it.

(personally I don't pretend to know whether we would have phones anything like iPhones in an ideal world, but I am skeptical about technology since I think it is highly alienating)

If we don't assume that we would have such phones in our ideal worlds, I think we get to reach a more meaningful response, of which I think there are at least two.

One is to say that the only reason you use the phone in the first place is because you're forced to by capitalist relations. You need a phone number for a bank account or a job application. Also, technology is so pervasive in capitalism you're basically excluded from participating in basic life in many parts of the world if you don't have a smartphone.

And another, related, way to respond is to say that the world you want is one where people aren't raised to see shit like iPhones as desirable in the first place. The entire way that we live and relate to people would be different and not governed by capital. You like playing the garbage game on your phone because life is terrible under capitalism and it's hard to engage with people and just be an open and sociable human.

If you happen to be pro-technology, though, there's a third response, which is to say that there's no reason to think that you wouldn't have an even better phone under socialism or whatever.


nishi_jochiro wrote

but they could say:

  1. Its entirely possible to get around in this capitalist world without a smart phone. I you feel so inclined you could go live out in the bush like a caveman and hey whats stopping you?

  2. That's pretty ironic coming from you an iPhone user. Just goes to show how much you truly believe in your statement. Actions speak far louder than words!

  3. Prove it!


[deleted] wrote (edited by a moderator )


ziq wrote

Glorifying slavery, you piece of shit?


WhereIsMyFreeStuff wrote (edited )

Capitalism doesn't make anything, workers do that. The only factor capitalism plays here is that these workers are wage slaves and some asshole in Silicon Valley profits from their labour.


fusir wrote (edited )

Not a fallacy. Communism can't solve the coordination problem. An iphone would not be created outside of a capitalist system and a mixed economy is still capitalist even if also socialist. The capitalist element is necissary for that phone to exist so it's not entirely cazy to defend it somewhat. Socialism without capitalism is communism and it will not create that phone.

Marx completely did not understand R&D markets as illustrated in his fallacy attempting to illustrate base theory. In it he argued that the presence of furnices necessitates the existance of coal shovelers and therefore creates poverty so we should just get rid of furnices. Little did he recognize that someone already in a better position would not take a coal shoveling job and only people in worse positions would and that coal shovelers and furnices are coordinate goods so the goods character of a furnice depends on the presence of laborers and the second order good of a furnice design is dependent on the goods character of its lower order good and so wouldn't be developed without the presence of cheap labor niether would the capital expenditure for the making of the furnice happen without the presence of cheap labor. So it is the coal shoveler that makes the furnice and not the furnice that makes the coal shoveler. The truth is that without the ability to calculate ROI and act on it upstream firms would never design and build the equipment needed to make the tiny chips incorporated inside of the iphone upstream.

Maybe that's not an attack of socialism but it is an attack of communism. Seeing as socialism is capitalism + government intervention you still need capitalism.

So "You do not like capitalism but you are using a phone capitalism made" is accurate.


Halstan wrote

The workers create everything. Workers don't need any bosses. Look at all the advances the Soviet union made in technology.