It's like Lemmy and Reddit, people want the promise of more content.
In theory Lemmy could be the more active network. What does it take to make that real?
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
442 points (98.5% liked)
Memes
53486 readers
832 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't follow how this relates to the meme
Workers can prefer to live in a capitalist society if they end up with owning more, or just hope so. So they can be capitalist despite not owning capital. Of course that ignores the distinction between the role as capitalist and the believe.
In general, people don't value being in control. If they would, people would have moved to Lemmy.
There is still the opportunity that those who care actively push Lemmy beyond its natural growth to make it competitive with Reddit. But at what cost? Then people would choose Lemmy, but not by conviction.
Similarly, people could stop being capitalists by being able to work in a country with a better offer. But that wouldn't make them anti-capitalist.
You're confusing capitalists, ie capital owners, with liberals, those who are pro-capitalism. As for Lemmy, its growth is tied to recognition and Reddit's decay, the established community on Reddit is itself the draw.
I would say only a subset of liberals accept raw Capitalism. Liberals need free markets which is a contradiction with Capitalism.
To have less capitalistic structures, people would have to support something with no immedite benefits. Just waiting for Capitalism's decline is like waiting for Reddit's decline. It's always there but never so much that the majority switches. Something is missing that people act on their own.
liberalism is defined by its adherence to capitalism; if you're not a capitalist, then you're also not a liberal.
Liberalism requires individual freedom, including free markets. Capitalism ends with monopolies that destroy free markets.
It is not the same. Liberal societies must want regulated markets.
Liberalism is the ideological aspect of capitalism. "Raw capitalism" doesn'r really mean anything.
To move onto socialism, we need to overthrow the state, replace it with a socialist one, and establish public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba have already done this, as did the former USSR.
For liberalism, see sibling comment.
we need to overthrow the state
Capitalism is making sure that there is not much of a we.
Capitalism with monopoly is still capitalism, Liberalism being a failed ideology does not mean it ceases to be Liberalism as it fails. There's absolutely a we within capitalism, the working classes are a we.
How would socialism prevent power from accumulating? Liberals could probably do the same with capital.
There should be a working class we in capitalism but I don't see it. Why do you think that it exists and that it is not dispersed?
What do you mean "power accumulating?" This sounds like you're talking about magic or something. Capitalists use capital for their plunder, I don't see what you mean by linking that to socialism. As for the working class "we," are you asking why we aren't organized? That takes time and effort.
... the 'temporarily embarassed millionaire' has 'aspirational' capital, in a fanciful, idealized future.
AKA, 'The American Dream'
Its a kind of faith-based magical thinking, delusion.
Which, as George Carlin let us all know, I think over a decade ago now...
... 'you have to be asleep, to believe.'
That's why terms like liberal are useful.
And terms like bootlicker
Sure.
ime that only makes liberals even more confused
Then we explain it to them until they get it. It's not hard to explain that capitalists are those who own capital, and liberals are those that support capitalism.
They are often just married to the notion that their principals of liberalism are not mutually exclusive with subjecting capital to public ownership.
I personally find dealing with that separate issue goes nowhere real fast with the average person and alienating them isn’t helpful either so I take what I can get.
People license themselves into believing that that which benefits them is good. They aren't married to the ideas, they willingly choose to believe them until their material conditions prove them inaccurate through their new lived experience. Red Sails has a series on "brainwashing" that I consider critical reading for anyone wanting to agitate, especially Roderic Day's Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."
Ok dummy, but I get paid in capital /s
I had a fuckwit self-professed 'communist' co-worker many years ago that tried to tell me that my education and skills was my capital. :|
I don't think anyone would let me use my skills as collateral to take out a big ass loan to buy some new skills while I rent out my skills for others to use while I sit on my ass getting richer just because I own my own skills.
This made me laugh
Like I said, he was a fuckwit.
under very specific context I can understand conflating assets with capital. but I doubt that's the case
"b-but i have money" Has savings and stockshares that would last a year or two without work
Funny but true