this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
456 points (92.9% liked)

Political Memes

9868 readers
1918 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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
[–] doomcanoe@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Alright, then show me the proof. Quote the line where you, or anyone, demonstrated that money is an essential element for something to be created. Just one example where a sufficently motivated person or group in a moneyless society couldn't create something without money.

Because it’s not a phone, and it’s not a canal. So what exactly have I missed where money itself is the magic ingredient? How many dollar bills does it take to make a meal? Not to pay someone for it. Literally, how many do you have to chew and swallow to survive?

edit: oh, and to anwswer your edit that I missed,

So you never said it (money) doesn’t do anything. Just that it can be removed from the picture with no result. (?!)

Not quite "no result". But money is the only part of the current process to create a phone that can be removed and still have the same phone. Given the same manufacturing process, the same components, and the same labor, with an entierly different incentive system, you would get the same phone.

Does that mean we would have built the same device? Obviously not, the incentive system had an impact, for better or worse, on the decisions made to make the phone the way it is. But if we went post scarcity tomorrow, and money was abolished, would we sudddnly be unable to make the same phone?

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The only thing you can remove from the process and still get the same result is capital...

people want to be paid for their labor.

You willfully missed the memo, but this was /thread.

You keep moving the goalposts. First you say your points stand unless we disprove them (as if that’s the way it works). Now we have to prove this new statement you -and no one else - have said, that money is the only way something gets created.

Really, just stop struggling. You made the point that capital can be removed with no effect, and that’s just plain bullshit. The rest is you dancing around trying to shift the goalposts.

[–] doomcanoe@piefed.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Oh Jiminy Christmas, you really are dense.

I literally acknowledged in my first comment that payment in the form of capital is a perfectly fine incentive under the current system. So no, those quotes don’t “refute my point.” And nowhere in that thread did anyone refute my actual point.

So my point, that capital isn’t essential to creation, still stands. You even admitted as much to other commenters when you said:

It’s (capital) not the only way things can ever get done under any circumstances.

So yes, exactly. Thank you for proving my argument for me.

And yes, if you wanted to refute me, you’d have to prove money is the only way something gets created. Otherwise, it’s not essential. Basic logic.

Did you have to refute it? Nope, I sure as hell didn't say you did. You could’ve let it stand, ignored it, or even agreed. Instead, you went with:

Anyway, you haven’t made any points that stand here.

Followed by:

Your refutation is there in black and white, and not just from me.

So which is it? Did you actually refute me, or are you just bluffing because you’ve got nothing?

And nice try with the strawman, but I never said capital can be “removed with no effect.” I said it can be removed while still being possible to get the same outcome. We would obviously have to change how we managed the distribution of goods, and decide if there even was an incentive to continue creating the specific "thing". (And if I can't correct your misusage of "irony", you sure as hell don't get to tell me what I meant. None of this "rules for thee, not for me" BS you're trying to pull.)

I have even repeatedly clarified as much when you asked if it could be removed with "no result":

Not quite “no result.” But money is the only part of the current process to create a phone that can be removed and still have the same phone…
Would we have built the exact same device without capital based economy up until now? Obviously not. But if money vanished tomorrow in a post-scarcity world, would we suddenly be incapable of making the same phone? Again, obviously not.

At this point, it’s clear, you’re not debating, you’re just nursing a chip on your shoulder and lashing out at anyone who questions your golden cow.

Have a good one. (<-That was ironic)