this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
456 points (92.9% liked)
Political Memes
9860 readers
2392 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
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
The only thing you can remove from the process and still get the same result is capital...
And while I get that capital does "play a role", at least insofar as incentive predicated on people's ability to function in the capitalistic society we currently inhabit goes, to imply that somehow without it people would be left to trying to "design a phone out of sticks on the ground" is extremely disingenuous.
You can't get the same product tho. And it's not the only thing.
The actual man power is only a fraction of what went into it.
Connections, property, minerals, education and many many other aspects went into it.
To design it with out capital you would need to find people who with out capital educated themselves
With out capital find individuals who have the minerals and resources
Lastly you need a way to connect all these people after you have found them
None of this requires actual money to do in theory, but now you need to find a way to justify to these people to provide their fancy rocks and knowledge into a project that doesn't actually benefit them unless a pre existing system that relied on capital existed to push development to the current state.
The fundamental flaw that gets over looked is different economic systems push towards different advancements in technology.
So to argue that a different system would be better suited is just a fallacy. You don't get capitalist products and goods in a communist system.
A system that optimizes for the worker would produce goods and services that improve the workers existence for example.
You might get some over lap but the implementation would also be so wildly different. Hell for example in a theoretical non corrupt communist system LLMs and AI systems would be lauded as amazing by everyone.
They are the ideal improvement of a system that shares resources to stream line and reduce the burden and quality of life of the working class. Since everyone would equally benifit from them and it would drive the hobbies artist out of a job but instead freeing them to make more personal art instead of art for the community.
No, you can get a better product. Capitalism is designed to focus wealth and that means that all companies that get big enough will, eventually, turn towards the “increase shareholder value at all costs” path. Apple was actually doing really well with how they did things until Tim Cook was in charge and then, when capital became more important than the actual product things started to go south. I have Apple products and they’re still very good, but they aren’t the same company that they used to be at all.
Capitalism is all about the distribution of wealth and putting it at the center of every decision. There are plenty of other ways to have a world very similar to what we have now without that poisonous way of think permeating everything we do and buy. There are more options than unfettered capitalism and Soviet-style communism.
Okay. What are they? And what are these “better products” these other systems have produced?
I often hear people say there are better alternatives to capitalism but when pressed to show evidence of them, they are obscure, extremely limited examples, or they resort to “we’ve never REALLY tried TRUE communism.”
I’d like to have alternatives. But I don’t see them, or if I see them, I don’t see them doing anything much.
Democratic socialism? Literally just use your own imagination for three seconds or google it. You haven’t even begun to try, why should I engage with you in any detail if you’re just going to plug your ears and then claim nonsense?
Capitalism is not just “money exists”, it’s the extensive privatization of all goods and services and pinky-promising that the market will protect people. It’s a naive ideology that insists on a nonsense idea that corporations will have everyone’s best interests at heart and that everyone will always be able to work. It is so full of holes, holes represented by real human beings suffering even through no fault of their own.
You can keep money, private business, and variation in salaries and still have a system with public utilities and regulations to keep businesses in check. If you need examples there are places all over the world that show that there’s not just extreme capitalism or extreme communism. No one is hiding this information from you and you clearly know how to use the internet so do that first before saying nothing is real simply because random people on a forum won’t peel your eyelids back for you while you kick and scream against them.
People want to be paid for their labor, and with no capital you aren't paying them. You just fell flat on your first purchase order for the first component.
You:
Me:
How awkward, you must have missed me making that exact point...
So sure, people want to be paid. But let’s be clear: they don’t inherently want money, they want to survive, create, and ideally thrive in the society they inhabit. Capital is just the tool we happen to use right now, it’s not essential to the concept of creation.
People created long before money existed, and they still create today without a paycheck attached. Remove capital from the picture, and as long as the work has value to those involved, it still gets made.
The real kicker? Capital often corrupts the process, pushing people to maximize profit instead of maximizing quality or true value.
Before capitalism they still used capital. Barter systems are still capital based.
Equal exchange and cohabitation hunter gather groups are still capital based.
Capital is just time. That's all it is. What ways you quantify that is meaningless and pointless and every system is just a different way to quantify time. Capitalism uses currency debt as a trade standard for time. But it's still just time.
We compound it and trade cast quantities of other people's time around this devaluing the individuals. Communism instead removes the ability to do so and tries to make it so each person's time can only be traded by them. So the only way to get cast quantities of time is by working together.
Even in a post commodity environment capital will still be the way trade with others. It would just be in time.
Money existed long before modern systems, too. Bartering an exchange of goods for other goods sucks ass. It was almost immediately swapped out for some form of money in basically every society in history. (And to be clear, 'money' doesn't just mean a coin or bill, it was often a standard, easy to exchange good the society agreed upon, such as a grain or a precious metal.)
Let me ask you, if you work for a company that makes washers (the things one pairs with bolts), and your employer offered to pay you every paycheck completely in washers, would you find that acceptable? Or would you demand something easier to work with, would you demand your services be rewarded with money instead?
I bet you don't get paid in fucking washers, you demand payment in money.
I’m not saying that capital, as a universal equivalent or barter substitute, is inherently a bad solution to the problem of trade. What I am saying is that capital is not inherently essential. It’s an imagined system, useful yes, but replaceable in countless ways.
Think about it: Sure, I wouldn't want more washers than I have use for, but I don’t inherently want money either. What I want are the things money represents. If money disappeared tomorrow and some other proxy system took its place, I’d want that instead.
And when it comes to creation, say building a phone for example, money contributes nothing to the actual process. You need materials, knowledge, labor, and coordination. The only truly non-essential element is money. It's as you said, simply a replacement for bartering.
If you disagree with my actual point, I’d love to hear the argument. But I can’t keep arguing with your point that we "need the Matrix in order to live in the Matrix", or "money in order to live in capitalism".
If that 'proxy system' was a measure of value you could easily exchange for goods and services, it would also be money. People invent money in every society because it just makes sense. Even in societies where they try to abolish money, money is instantly re-invented using some other measure because it is so damn useful for trade.
Sure, but like I alread said, money isn’t inherently bad. It has served as a practical answer to the inefficiencies of pure barter. It streamlined exchange, reduced friction, and in many cases distributed power more evenly than a sprawling barter web ever could. In that sense, money was a clever and fair solution for its time.
But whether or not money has created new problems, whether it’s outlived its usefulness, or whether a better system would come from reform or replacement, all of that is a separate debate. The central point remains: money is not essential to creation.
Building a phone requires knowledge, resources, labor, and coordination. Remove any of those and the phone can’t exist. Remove money, and the process still goes on, it may look different in how people access or exchange those inputs, but the act of creation itself doesn’t depend on capital. That’s the key distinction: the difference between a finished phone and someone tinkering with sticks isn’t money, it’s the tangible elements of production.
Naw, people like being paid for their work.
Having food is nice, having a home is nice, having a car is nice, having a vacation is nice.
People like being paid for their work.
People don't like getting paid, they like to get things with the money.
In a decommodified economy you would not need this.
If you go straight to giving people the end things, the payment is the food, home, car, vacation, etc. People like being paid for their work.
You are still thinking of it in terms of commodity production
If you include 'food', 'shelter', 'transportation' in 'commodity production', then yes, people want things like food, shelter, and transportation. People like being paid for their work.
These things should not be directly associated with work
Of course rewarding people for work is good in some sense in every economic system, just putting it in the sense of being paid just makes it very stuck in that sort of capitalist mindset.
Other economic systems can exist.
Unfortunately for humanity, food, shelter, and transportation doesn't place itself in front of you. People have to work to make/gather those things.
I would also love to live in a place where nobody had to work in order for shelter to exist. But, someone has to work to build the home.
I would love to live in a place where nobody had to work for food to exist. But someone has to grow and gather the food.
I would love to live in a place where nobody had to work for cars/trains to exist, but someone has to work to build the car.
And in those systems, people will still be working for food, shelter, transportation. People like being paid for their work.
"Source: it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
We shouldn’t confuse the use of currency with the capitalist system.
In a decommodified economy, any sort of "currency" would not even be money in the modern sense of the word.
Describe this “decommodified economy” if you could. What does that mean to you?
An economy where goods are not produced to be sold at a market.
For example a communist society (classless and moneyless) would be one such system.
Can you perhaps go back over this and explain what these words actually mean? I actually want to understand what you mean better. Because money is not identical to capitalism. And workers need to be paid for their work because they need to eat to survive. What is it that capitalism specifically is requiring here? I’ve seen one or two replies that are like “sure yeah people want to be paid but that’s capitalism’s fault too” and I genuinely don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Compensating someone for their work is a very basic concept not necessarily tied to capitalism. Even in the natural world there is very little labor that is not focused on some reward outcome. There is even compensation between species in symbiotic relationships. Compensation doesn’t seem like some weird forced artificial thing to me at all. It’s primal.
I have made things with my hands for which I was not paid. I even gathered the materials. I am bad at capitalism.
You were rewarded in some way. You got the thing you made, or if it was a gift to someone, you enhanced your relationship with that person.
If a person gets no reward of any kind for their work, they stop doing that work. As they should.
Money and capitalism come into the picture when you want to motivate people to make something they won’t necessarily get to keep or use themselves, which they cannot then give as a gift, which does not give them the pleasure of artistic expression.
So yeah people can make things without money in the limited cases where there’s another form of reward. But modern societies are scaled way past people just making the things that they themselves receive immediate benefit from. You get economies from scale by mass production, and no one needs 10,000 k kitchen knives.