this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
1098 points (99.0% liked)
Work Reform
17244 readers
203 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 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 encourages a very specific kind of risk assessment. One where those who are ahead are obsessively defensive, risk averse and obsessed with controlling and mitigating any possible risk because they understand that taking the smallest risk could result in an insurmountable setback. Meanwhile those behind aren't taking reasonable or rational risks, they're gambling out of desperation. It's an ecosystem that stifles innovation without external influence.
Profit, by definition, is the differential between the product/service offered and the payment received. Not even in the most Any Rand reading of capitalism does the producer 'cater' to the consumer. The producer manipulates the consumer to their own benefit.
Which systems and can you explain why not? Even I can admit capitalism does 'promote innovation' via desperate, near suicidal gambles that occasionally work out. That's such an absurd statement! Even the most conservatist theocratic state naturally promotes innovation in many ways. It's a matter of degrees, and capitalism is about as close to top of that list as the US is to any metric outside prisons and military.
I've seen innovators get some investment and build small businesses. They do this because they think they can create a new product that consumers will want. This is the catering to the public. It's a risk as they put up their own money, time and effort. It's not desperate, its a job, but they get to run it. If it works out, they end up with a stake in a worthwhile enterprise and they can get financial rewards. And society ends up with a new product or service. They needed capital investment to get things off the ground, and they had to convince someone with money to make that investment. The person fronting the startup costs gets some financial reward if it works out. So they are motivated to invest in development costs. If the company grows and grows and tries to overcharge, another startup should be able to get some of their business by being more efficient and not as greedy. It can work if the government can enforce rules against anti-competitive behaviors, and regulations about how to treat workers.
It turns out reality is a bit different than the 5th grade textbook you keep regurgitating.
That is an incredibly naïve and reductionist perspective.
Right, we've certainly let it get out of control in the U.S. and many other western countries, to lesser degrees. But what else has been shown to work without falling into a fascist nightmare or nose diving quality of life for the majority? As they say, capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others.
Uh, you really should look at the history of quality of life during the communist transitions of both China and the USSR. The incredibly deadly, massive famines that are often pointed to as 'failures' are closer to a reversion back to the norm.
The massive poverty reduction often cited as "see capitalism works!" Is >75% China's communist conversion. Even the world bank admits this! How the hell does a nation of peasant farmers transitioning into the most industrialized and modernized nation on earth, and largely eliminating global poverty, constitute a "nose diving quality of life for the majority"!?
They being idiots with a complete lack of media, historical, political and/or mathematical literacy!
Sure, but you're picking China for its success in poverty reduction and ignoring it's authoritarian and oppressive policies. The USSR collapsed financially, so it doesn't make a good example of anything.
No system is perfect and I'm surely not saying capitalism is. They all require constant adjustment and governments that prioritize the well being of the people. This always fails because humans are assholes regardless of the governmental system.
What is your metric for "authoritarian and oppressive"? I lean towards incarceration rate and judicial+extrajudicial deaths per capita. Now do the China(authoritarian communist) vs USA(freedomian capitalist) comparison.
That's what we call cherry-picking. Post-USSR Russia has a significantly higher quality of life than pre-USSR even after the "financial collapse". I strongly encourage your to read into Mikhail Gorbachev and how his move toward democratic socialism led to the "financial collapse" and the kleptocracy that began with Boris Yeltsin.
So why do you insist on rewarding the absolute WORST of 'human nature'?!
I don't. I want to reward innovation. And avoid some again. Human nature gets in the way in all systems.
What is your metric for "innovation"? How much you wanna bet that as soon as you define it and do a real comparison your thesis falls apart again?
Your belief on "quality of life" is vapid bullshit.
Your belief on "oppressive and authoritarian" is vapid bullshit.
Do you have some other thought terminating cliche else that you're going to try and deflect with?
You sou d very sure of yourself, and yet also insecure with your harshness. It's almost like you have an attachment to your desired logical outcome, but you can't actually face any facts that explore other possibilities. I wish you the best and I'm sure you mean well, but maybe try to be a bit more open minded? Proof of innovation is all the innovation that the western capitalist countries have achieved. Much of it is irrelevant, but such is the way of science and technology - it's a trial and error process. China has specifically copied the US capitalist model to create technological innovation. But I'm guessing you'll just insult me for pointing such things out.
Would you like to provide any?
You used the word twice in your definition which is unmeasurable and vague. What is your metric for comparison?
And there's the deflection.
You are insulting yourself by confusing vapid bullshit with evidence of anything. You insult those around you with your simple minded repeating of the party line. You have demonstrated no research, a lack of basic mathmatical literacy, applied no critical thinking all while being grossly overconfident in your pre-existing conclusions based on nothing but hot air.
You are still welcome to prove me wrong but you're going to need something tangible, not just repeated Ayn Rand mantras.
Have you noticed the internet? That's western innovation. There are lots of other examples all around you from the (gmo) food you eat, the medicines you take, the media you consume. There are also many Chinese companies that are now doing very well with renewable tech and EVs - the innovation for these is came from the ownership and competition when the introduction of capitalistic concepts were allowed and encouraged in China.
That's the point. It's not a deflection. Capitalism works to encourage innovation. You call it a deflection because what - it deflects the point you are tenuously grasping to try and make? In contrast, communism fails when people just follow the system based on outdated technology because there's no incentive to find a better way. Obviously some innovation occurred in other systems, but it has to be legislated and managed specifically, whereas by rewarding investment in innovation by allowing ownership has clearly helped speed innovation. That you might argue otherwise is laughable. There are plenty of downsides to capitalism; it's hilarious that you are fighting the one clear benifit of it.
You still have not provided a metric that can be used for any basis of comparison. I can play that game too!
You mean the computing project that is built on fundamentally anarchist ideas that is currently being appropriated and destroyed by capitalist interests?
You mean the field of science pioneered by Nikolay Vladimirovich Timofeev-Ressovsky in fascist Germany and expanded on his return to the USSR?^1^
I live in a capitalist country. I can not afford medicine.
I can tell that's the media that you seem to exclusively consume, but that is far from the universal experience you think it is.
This is not the contradiction you think it is, look into it more.
It is deflecting and this is the thought terminating cliche I called before you used it.
China is communist when it's convenient for your position and capitalist when it's inconvenient? Define your terms and stop with the goalpost moving. I defined metrics for 2 of your arguments which you susequently immediately dropped and deflected to some other cliche. Your turn.
By what metric do you compare?
^1 I am intentionally misrepresenting some things here, but surprise me and demonstrate some research skills.^
It's so funny that you are the exact cliche and unsubstantiated claim generator that you project on me. Ah well, you enjoy your closed bubble, I'm not bothered enough to help you any more. I'll let you have the last word now.
Did you gloss over where I said "I can play that game too."? The point was to hold up a mirror for you.
You could've tried substantiating your claims.
You could've tried defining a metric of comparison.
Instead you accuse me of not being "open-minded" to your mindless mantras that you hold close and refuse to evaluate.