this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
1064 points (100.0% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

1934 readers
546 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

This reminds me of a government scheme some ten years ago or so. Workfair it was called, or something.

In short, someone claiming job seekers allowance would be required to work something like 10 hours a week for a company such as Tesco, or Poundland in order to be eligible for their welfare payments. On the face of it, fair enough. The person gets some work experience and the possibility of being hired.

Except all it really did was provide free labour to companies whose profits were in the billions. And that labour was paid by the tax payer.

And no one in the government at the time either saw how bad that might look, or more likely, cared.

I still think about that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And the Walton family sponsored the no kings protest!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a somewhat misleading summary

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-walmart-heiress-nyt-protest-ad/

While Walton inherited a 1.9% stake in Walmart following her husband's 2005 death, according to Forbes, a spokesperson for Walmart told Snopes via email that Walton has no involvement in the business.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tell that to her 20b net worth

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's irrelevant to the point that "The walton family sponsored" is misleading when it looks like it was just one person who's only a member of the family by marriage, with no current involvement in the business, and when walmart itself explicitly distanced itself from her on this topic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I literally didn't say Walmart did I?

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

You said "Walton family", which is technically correct but misleading because it's only one person. The statement made by walmart is more representative of the family majority.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Yes split hairs to defend the billionaires

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You could admit you weren't entirely correct. It's okay.

And you're doing the work of billionaires here by discouraging people from protesting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I was actually correct, a member of the Walton family is bankrolling a protest named "No kings" literally the oligarchy funding protests.

Protest away, it's definitely not all part of project 2025 👍

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

"technically correct, the best kind of correct" is a joke and not an aspiration.

What do you suggest? Staying home and doing nothing?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Bro you're the one claiming I was wrong, I didn't make this into a whole back and forth, you did.

The technically correct joke is when someone comes in and nit picks something, exactly what you're doing.

I do not see how the protests have actually accomplished anything over the past two decades I've been paying attention.

The protests against the war in the middle east, we didn't pull out until Biden

Occupy Wallstreet, literally nothing happened

Black Lives Matter, literally nothing happened

First trump admin lots of protests, literally nothing happened

Defund the police, hey it's like they have more money now somehow

All the trump 2 protests, what has actually been accomplished?

I do think protests can work, but these are all too disjointed with no real end goal in sight and I find it mighty suspicious when some of them are funded by billionaires yes.

The same billionaires who happily keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they loot the treasury and slide us further toward facism.

What we need is an actual movement united in a common goal and working in lock step, something the proud boys et all figured out on the right years ago and clearly actually worked for them

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

What we need is an actual movement united in a common goal and working in lock step

Well at least we agree on this.

I often feel like the protests are performative, and never move onto the next steps of "we're withholding our labor until things improve" or what have you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

This is one of the reasons I am so angry with the dnc, the ones who ostensibly should be harnessing the clear energy that exists for good instead just does fuck all and then when the next election comes around holds it over our heads like "we'll seriously do it this time guys for real"

Protests, to me, show there is energy there to be harnessed, the protest itself isn't going to solve anything.

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

All those 'protests' are coordinated by the oligarchy as pressure release values because they know the public is at a tipping point for rejecting both right wing parties and their policies, preventing organic protests from rising and creating a threat to their existence. They allow voters to blow some steam while giving the illusion they are participating in democracy.

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

"All civil unrest is actually corporate psyops" is certainly a take.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

If that's what you took out of my comment, you need to reevaluate it. Need. He's no King protests are neutering actual protest

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

They unironically live in NWA and refuse to acknowledge the humor. They’re not human.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Trickle down economics ... give more money to the ultra rich and eventually some money goes down to the people at the bottom of the economic system

The problem they've discovered after 50 years of this system is that there just isn't enough money in the universe to send to the top and allow enough of it to flow down to the bottom.

A billion dollars only allows a dollar to get to a person living on the street ... so we have to send billions, trillions, gajillions of dollars to the super-ultra-giga rich to get enough money to average people.

This is the problem of trickle down economics .... we just haven't given enough money to the top yet

We have to give the rich more! ... in order to save the poor ... do it for the poor!

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is just patently false. I mean,

The problem they've discovered after 50 years of this system is that there just isn't enough money in the universe to send to the top and allow enough of it to flow down to the bottom.

That couldn't be less true. No one "discovered" anything. Economists knew this was true 50 years ago. They knew when trickle-down was being developed. It's actually really obvious, especially if you have any relevant data whatsoever. The ones with scruples pointed it out many times, the ones without hopped on the gravy train.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I agree with you, but they knew this more then 50 years ago.

Horse and Sparrow Economics

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

They have to pour a steady stream of gold coins to the top of a billionaires penthouse to try to fill it enough so that a few coins can fall out and land on the street below

/s /sarcasm /imbeingsarcastic

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I verified the number because it doesn't sound quite right. Walmart makes profit of roughly $20B yearly, per day that is $55M, the family owns around half.

So they make like $25M per day.

That is still insane amount of money, and probably also they do some tricks to lower the profit and hide the money through some loopholes, like all the millionaires/billionaires.

Nobody needs that kind of money, so they should be taxed like hell, but not in this world

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Most people on earth will never see $100,000 a year, and almost all Americans will never see $200,000 a year.

Even making $1,000,000 a year is fucking incredible and life-changing and lets you go anywhere and do almost anything you want.

Anything over that is just dick measuring money.

They are making $25,000,000 PER DAY.

A million dollars is chump change to them.

More money than we’ll ever see in our lives is chump change to them.

Currency is just quantified social power.

If someone has essentially infinite social power compared to everyone around them, there is no world in which their interests don’t directly and explicitly involve (at the very least) keeping that power.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

but not in this world

That is until people take measures into their own hands

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (7 children)

It could

If it were done right. Just as Communism really really would end poverty and save the world and bring equality for all if juuuust done right.

I gettit, capitalism as done now (especially in the US) is a joke where the rich leech the poor and destroy the world

Tax the shit out of them. Leave capitalism be, but put up taxes in brackets that hits 100% after 10M net worth. This way, you still have the raw resource making power of captialism, but the richest anyone can get is 10 million networth.

Similarly for companies, once they get bigger, taxes go up untill it hits, say, a billion in net worth.

No company shall be too big to fail, too big to not steal, lie, and cheat, too big to be a net positive for humanity

This way governments end up with huge tax incomes. Use that tax for free healthcare for all, same with education, housing, public transportation, all free, even universal income

I think that'll work a whole lot better than "let's try communism" which simply won't happen and it would destroy us all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

For all their warts, the socialist nations did actually improve the economic standing of their workers compared to before socialism was introduced. Does the reduced homelessness, better education, and free health care warrant the authoritarian measures needed to deal with attacks from America (cf the cold war, the Pinochet coup, the wholesale economic blockade of Cuba, the bombing (20% of the population, dead) and economic blockade of North Korea, and so on)? I don't know. But the idea that you have to get socialism juuuust right to enjoy its benefits is a false one. Cuba manages to achieve an average lifespan similar to (some years even higher than) America's despite the blockade.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

You're confusing capitalism and commerce.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Communism really really would end poverty

Name communism that didn't significantly reduced poverty

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

What I hear out of all that is I don't mind the exploitive nature of capitalism as long as it doesn't exploit me.

All those words and you could have just said I don't understand socialism or communism

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

No, energy sources end poverty. There was plenty of capitalism before even coal, but lots of poverty.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism can end poverty for sure and was definitely a step up from feudalism.. it just happens to also birth a whole slew of contradictions within the social fabric.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism can end poverty for sure

much in the same way that hand-grenades cure cancer, yes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Wait do people actually claim that?

Like I guess it does, for the rich assholes. But it sure seems to make a lot more for the other people

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

Libertarians and neoliberals unironically believe that "a rising tide lifts all boats"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I heard that recently and thought to myself 'yea I don't have a fucking boat' and realized that is the true meaning of this phrase. People who own boats already are gonna do great. People who don't will drown.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I think that's a reasonable and accurate response to people using this thought terminating cliche

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 days ago (6 children)

A rising tide does lift all boats. Giving all your money to a couple uber rich people is not a rising tide, though.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Libertarians don't, and it's one of the few things Neoliberals are actually right about.

"A rising tide lifts all boats" refers to the fact that giving money to the people on the bottom of the financial pyramid who needs it the most will benefit everybody. Unlike just shoveling it at the already rich, which is what capitalism is designed for.

Infuriatingly, almost none of the Dem leadership actually follow through on this mantra with actual policy, beholden to the rich capitalists as they are.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

So for one minute of profit they could pay 350 people $25/h for a full day. 21000 people with a full hours profit!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (12 children)

I cannot take seriously any claim of the ultra wealthy “making” x number of dollars per minute/hour/day. That’s just not how wealth works.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (5 children)

I agree entirely. The rich don't "make" any money. They siphon it from the poor.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is whats called a breakdown... if their yearly income is X, then you can find out what their hourly and daily incomes are through rather basic math.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

I get it, you have no concept of economics and refuse to learn.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›