this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
1032 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
7075 readers
431 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, it's monopoly capitalism. A certain Mr. Marx from Germany had a few things to say about it.
One consequence of monopoly capitalism is businesses pursuing growth in revenue more aggressively than growth in user base.
When the market is saturated, all you can do to pursue growth is to increase unit margin. This eventually leads to production of "fictitious capital" as a stand in for real capital (as paper assets cost virtually nothing to produce).
Das Kapital goes into lengthy detail about this process. Specifically, the "how much does it cost to make a coat" chapter gets into it in (exhaustive) detail.
Enshittification is a feature of capitalism, smartass.
Sure. But it's a consequence of monopolisation. Once you break up the monopolies, enshittification will no longer be economically viable.
Monopolization becomes inevitable in a capitalist economy since the wealthy are still the ones with power, and they will always seek to increase their wealth by any means necessary.
Even in a heavilly regulated form of capitalism, the wealthy will do everything in their power to slowly strip regulations over a period of time where they think people won't notice and attempt to move public opinion towards the wealthy class's benefit via propaganda.
"You're not talking about Sprite, but about sugary soft drinks" <- that's you
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I was giving a name to a specific feature of capitalism and you were all "umm actually"-ing me that I'm talking about capitalism.
That's like:
Me: "I really like this chocolate croissant" You: "Actually, you're talking about a pastry 🤓"
My point is that you were mixing up cause and effect.
How?
By talking about the effect (enshittification) instead of the cause (capitalism). One could read your initial comment and conclude that the only problem is enshittification, and not even think about capitalism as the cause, since you didn't mention it.
I'm giving the name of a process. When someone asks for the title of a book, I don't start with Guttenberg's printing press.
You weren't asked for anything, and this certainly isn't the equivalent of book titles and the tools to make them.
It's more like interrupting a discussion about someone who was just shot dead by police to say, "yeah, it's called being shot", then getting all pissy when someone tells you that actually, the broader issue is police brutality in general.
Do you commonly criticize comments that don't issue a historical paper on the background of a meme?
Do you commonly interpret criticism as a request for a thorough academic study?
Only if it's that kind of smartypants criticism.
If that seems "smartypants" to you, your intellectual standards are set pretty damn low.
Mixing up cause and effect isn't some minor goof. It's the difference between eating bread and eating fire.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me. The smartypants part was that you "um-actually"d me. Not that you stated something too "intellectual".
I never said "that's because of enshittification". I said "that's enshittification". My statement didn't contain any description of causal effects.