Yap, it did, and the same goes for almost all the tech nowadays. Although, by that I mean ideological bullshit more than anything: crapple, for example, locks you in their fancy walled garden where you’re not allowed to even fart in the wrong way; then more globally we have hardware with no schematics available, firmware that verifies that nobody dared to replace broken parts, etc. Heck, as much as I dislike most of the stuff about Soviet Union I adore their tech which (although often ripped off of western models) came with schematics out of the box.
!This comment is brought to you by an open hardware cultist :D!<
Capitalism making iPhones just makes me hate capitalism more
Comunist made your… Mmm hanger?
Hmm, interesting. Why did those workers made the iphone in the first place?
So they wouldn’t starve to death?
Individual human beings act; that is, every individual engage in conscious action toward chosen goals (Fundamental Axiom of Action)
We choose to employ scarce means according to a technological plan in the present because we expect to arrive at our goals at some future time.
But, we are all different: we don’t choose the same means and goals, and we don’t have the same set of skills and intelligence. So, in order to satisfy our self interest, we need to cooperate with others to satisfy our own goals.
So they wouldn’t starve to death?
Essentially, yes. This is only possible by social cooperation, division of labor, private property, voluntary exchange and competition, but any intromission of the State (that is, an oligarchy of politicians and public employees) is detrimental and coercive to the welfare of all the agents.
Idgaf about any of that lingo. Workers deserve the world simply by merit of being workers. So what if a rich upper class “owns” the land, capital and resources to build an iPhone, it’s not like they actually could without people designing, manufacturing and distributing them.
Workers deserve the world simply by merit of being workers.
Well, I believe anyone who owns property, by legit means (Neo-Lockean homestead principle), should have the right to have total ownership over it, without compromising the natural rights (Life, liberty and property) of others.
it’s not like they actually could without people designing, manufacturing and distributing them.
Exactly! That’s why social cooperation and division of labor is possible, by voluntary relationships and the pursue of self interest.
Idgaf about any of that lingo.
Don’t be closed-minded. I invite you to read more about libertarian ethics and the Austrian School of Economics.
Austrian school🤮 Right wing “libertarians” 🤮
Bros like “go to Austrian school” Man go tf outside mfrs out here struggling and he’s like “it’s elementary Watson just go to elite college and learn capitalism good actually”
It gives “just be born rich”
How exactly do you intend to have these values upheld and protected from a wealthy class without intermission of state. I find the idea that private property is the personal fiefdom of whoever owns it non constructive. So what if a rich person owns 3 houses. If two of them sit empty the homeless should be housed in them regardless of the personal wishes of the owner. I don’t like the idea that our society should be constructed around a system of self interest because society is built from community not competition
It can be built on self-interest, but only if people have conscious egoism.
The lack of conscious egoism is more obvious in the capitalist class. They destroy the world for their own “self-interest”. But that is a contradiction. They, as us, need the world to live. They act anti-socially and destroy the wellbeing of poorer people in their “self-interest”. But we as a species are social animals and only feel as good as the one among us that feels the worst. Homelessness, famine, destitution etc. obviously affect the people directly suffering from them most, but they also affect all of us. We can’t as individuals be truly happy and content as long as people suffer in poverty.
If we were to truly act in self-interest, in a truly conscious way, we would make sure everyone was materially served, had no needs, and could follow their dreams to the fullest. That would be the most satisfying thing for all of us individually.
For the capitalists to enjoy their positions, they have to separate themselves from the rest of humanity. And in many ways, from their own humanity itself.
Are you an Ego-Communist?
How exactly do you intend to have these values upheld and protected from a wealthy class without intermission of state.
Property is a naturally arising relationship between human beings and material things. Property rights make possible economic calculation, a wider and more productive division of labor, and therefore increasing levels of prosperity. Any intromission on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity.
The Neo-Lockean homestead principle states that the only legit ways to own property is either by
-
Mixing your labor with unowned resources;
-
Trading or being gifted it by the previous owner;
-
Producing new property.
the homeless should be housed in them regardless of the personal wishes of the owner.
The end does not justify the means. If that rich person legitimately owns 3 houses, they should have the full control of their property, as their natural right should be protected.
I don’t like the idea that our society should be constructed around a system of self interest because society is built from community not competition
Civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. A community is built by the willness of its individual members to cooperate with each other by voluntary means.
As human beings are different by nature, we are willing to form a community so that, with our own skills and intelligence, we can help ourselves by helping others. Differences are the very source of division of labor and, withing a free-market setting, lead not to conflict but cooperation.
Competition is a dynamic process of change. It’s not merely about rivalry between existing businesses but also about the discovery of new opportunities and better ways of serving consumer needs, being a part of the spontaneous order.
-
Indeed. And why did the designers design it? Why did the shippers ship it?
Because they, to pursue their own self interests, have to satisfy a certain need of a certain population (market segmentation). To do this, they must obtain the necessary factors of production, as technology, land, capital and workers.
But they don’t get those (in a free-market setting) by coercive means (like the State), they have to cooperate with the other agents of the economy, emerging the concepts of division of labor and voluntary exchange.
deleted by creator
I view this as a case of communism failing to protect its workers and capitalists squeezing the last dime towards corporate earnings. Apart from the shareholders it’s a loss loss for everyone else.
And yet, none of that happens without the capitalists. Curious. Is the world perhaps complicated, or is everyone stupid except me?
I guess when you think of it that way, CEOs are Workers too. Thanks!
How you get downvotes over capitalism 101 facts in c/communism 🤡
I think they used the clown makeup meme wrong. The statements are supposed to get more ridiculous and indefensible as the clown puts on more makeup. As if to say, “you’re a clown if you believe this.”
The statements do get more ridiculous though
Not if it’s making fun of capitalism.
Funny how I still haven’t gotten a good example of a communist government. It’s almost as if you guys have no idea what you’re talking about 🤔
All I’m asking is for literally one example. Just one. Of a current, successful communist government. I’ll wait 🤣😂
You could say the same for democratic governments before French revolution.
Funny, I can point to at least 50 Democratic and capitalist countries that run just fine and are in the top 10 best countries to live in on the earth. But you can’t name just one viable country run by a communist government?
Funny how that works 😂🤔
I said before the French revolution.
Also I doubt they are going to be “the best” after climate change (which is caused by those countries) causes them to collapse.
Why is it so hard to name one successful, current communist country?
Forget about your French revolution nonsense 😂
Because human progress is about making things that do not exist. Saying that something doesn’t exist currently does not mean it cannot exist.
Before the french revolution there were no democratic countries. back then you could say “Name one democratic country. Oh you can’t? Guess democracy doesn’t work.” and it would be just as valid as your claim now.
Fair point but communism hasn’t been effectively implemented because it’s being purposely stifled, it’s because it’s a crap system.
I guess if you take the best aspects of communism and ignore the history of how shitty it is then maybe you can theoretically imagine a successful version of it. But I don’t need to hypothesize such a scenario. There’s plenty of data and historical facts that completely prove my point
Humanity has progressed a lot in even the last 20 years. Using historical facts to prove something doesn’t work is not effective under these circumstances.
Also communism (in the classical sense) doesn’t really have a practical history, as no country on the planet has purposefully reached it.
The soviet union or china were never communist. They were both horrific state capitalist dictatorships.
And capitalism is also crap. For example look at the impending climate catastrophe.
