▲ 1814 ▼ How to move a sofa (sh.itjust.works) submitted 1 week ago by chicken@sh.itjust.works to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 350 comments fedilink hide all child comments Know a guy.
[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago (2 children) "What if we had a system where people could get the assistance they need. We could call it... Communityism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (2 children) But see, it's not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it! We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it's transactions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. Capitalism has nothing to do with transactions. Capitalism would be if the truck was owed by Benny, who would not show up, not fill it up with gas, not repair it, but would still receive half of pizza and 2/3 of beer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago You are correct that I was not describing capitalism. I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it's something else. And I'm not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they're the one that did the moving. The others are just employees. permalink fedilink source parent [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. I get the rest of the comment dude, its the last sentence that is problematic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* the last sentence is a joke... because what is being described is socialism. How is that problematic? lol wat? permalink fedilink source parent [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) It's not really capitalism without the involvement of capital, is it? It's more akin to a trade-and-barter-economy/society, where everyone involved should have a high level of faith in others permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago TIL, thx permalink fedilink source parent [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) How do you think Kevin paid for the truck? With pizzas? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Sorry if it wasn't clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn't auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don't necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago No, the truck is his capital. That's his means of production — presumably, not just of free pizzas in exchange for moving furniture, but even then, every dollar he saves by not having to pay for dinner could go towards paying off his car loan. On top of that he's saving on taxes because no money was ever exchanged for this transaction. Everything about this scenario is 100% capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Is it not what anarchy is really about? Low-level self organization. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (2 children) But see, it's not fair if people just get what they need! You need to make sure people are paying for it! We can make it part of the system that each person gets help according to their needs, but each person also gives help according to their abilities. Yes yes. This is now definitely capitalism because it's transactions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. Capitalism has nothing to do with transactions. Capitalism would be if the truck was owed by Benny, who would not show up, not fill it up with gas, not repair it, but would still receive half of pizza and 2/3 of beer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago You are correct that I was not describing capitalism. I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it's something else. And I'm not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they're the one that did the moving. The others are just employees. permalink fedilink source parent [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. I get the rest of the comment dude, its the last sentence that is problematic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* the last sentence is a joke... because what is being described is socialism. How is that problematic? lol wat? permalink fedilink source parent [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) It's not really capitalism without the involvement of capital, is it? It's more akin to a trade-and-barter-economy/society, where everyone involved should have a high level of faith in others permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago TIL, thx permalink fedilink source parent [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) How do you think Kevin paid for the truck? With pizzas? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Sorry if it wasn't clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn't auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don't necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago No, the truck is his capital. That's his means of production — presumably, not just of free pizzas in exchange for moving furniture, but even then, every dollar he saves by not having to pay for dinner could go towards paying off his car loan. On top of that he's saving on taxes because no money was ever exchanged for this transaction. Everything about this scenario is 100% capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. Capitalism has nothing to do with transactions. Capitalism would be if the truck was owed by Benny, who would not show up, not fill it up with gas, not repair it, but would still receive half of pizza and 2/3 of beer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago You are correct that I was not describing capitalism. I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it's something else. And I'm not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they're the one that did the moving. The others are just employees. permalink fedilink source parent [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. I get the rest of the comment dude, its the last sentence that is problematic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* the last sentence is a joke... because what is being described is socialism. How is that problematic? lol wat? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago You are correct that I was not describing capitalism. I was participating in the silly by creeping closer to full communism and still saying it's something else. And I'm not sure why Benny would only get half and 2/3s respectively. They owned the truck, so they're the one that did the moving. The others are just employees. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. I get the rest of the comment dude, its the last sentence that is problematic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* the last sentence is a joke... because what is being described is socialism. How is that problematic? lol wat? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) This is now definitely capitalism because it’s transactions. I get the rest of the comment dude, its the last sentence that is problematic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* the last sentence is a joke... because what is being described is socialism. How is that problematic? lol wat? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tutter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago* the last sentence is a joke... because what is being described is socialism. How is that problematic? lol wat? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) It's not really capitalism without the involvement of capital, is it? It's more akin to a trade-and-barter-economy/society, where everyone involved should have a high level of faith in others permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago TIL, thx permalink fedilink source parent [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) How do you think Kevin paid for the truck? With pizzas? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Sorry if it wasn't clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn't auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don't necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago No, the truck is his capital. That's his means of production — presumably, not just of free pizzas in exchange for moving furniture, but even then, every dollar he saves by not having to pay for dinner could go towards paying off his car loan. On top of that he's saving on taxes because no money was ever exchanged for this transaction. Everything about this scenario is 100% capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm pretty sure they were referring to From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs which most definitely is not capitalism lol, it's a joke permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago TIL, thx permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) How do you think Kevin paid for the truck? With pizzas? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Sorry if it wasn't clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn't auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don't necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago No, the truck is his capital. That's his means of production — presumably, not just of free pizzas in exchange for moving furniture, but even then, every dollar he saves by not having to pay for dinner could go towards paying off his car loan. On top of that he's saving on taxes because no money was ever exchanged for this transaction. Everything about this scenario is 100% capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) Sorry if it wasn't clear, but money != Capital, not necessarily. You can have money to exchange for goods, but as long as your money doesn't auto-accumulate via interest, dividends etc, you don't necessarily have capital. Of course this is mainly a discussion on definitions then permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago No, the truck is his capital. That's his means of production — presumably, not just of free pizzas in exchange for moving furniture, but even then, every dollar he saves by not having to pay for dinner could go towards paying off his car loan. On top of that he's saving on taxes because no money was ever exchanged for this transaction. Everything about this scenario is 100% capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago No, the truck is his capital. That's his means of production — presumably, not just of free pizzas in exchange for moving furniture, but even then, every dollar he saves by not having to pay for dinner could go towards paying off his car loan. On top of that he's saving on taxes because no money was ever exchanged for this transaction. Everything about this scenario is 100% capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago Is it not what anarchy is really about? Low-level self organization. permalink fedilink source parent
