Guy is just a bad candidate. Whether it’s a lie or a screw up, who cares - he’s just not good. And this is the best alternative to Trump that the Republicans can produce. Vomit.

Good points. Yes I obviously agree that rules to keep capitalism less unfair could not be - almost by definition - implemented by neoliberals. Even Adam Smith declared that free and fair markets can only exist with the oversight of governments who keep the public interest as priority. BTW I’d push back on the idea though that new deal-type economies are completely dead as some countries especially those with strong labor movements still have aspects of fairness.

But your bigger point relates to growth. And I agree that this is a massive problem, probably the most important problem for humanity to deal with. But growth is not a UNIQUE characteristic of capitalism. Socialist economies also concern themselves with growth. What’s unique to capitalism is that the rewards of growth accrue to the private owners of the engines of growth. In socialist economies, growth can still be an economic objective but the rewards of growth (are supposed to) accrue to workers or society at large. Growth is not uniquely capitalist.

Anyway, this is getting a little bit off the OP’s original ask. From a definitional standpoint, I view the OP’s question about why lemmy users lean toward anti-capitalism as “why do lemmy users lean against private ownership of the means of production?” which makes sense coz we’re on a decentralized system, dislike centrally owned systems like Facebook, Reddit, etc. I don’t think s/he was asking why lemmy users are anti-growth. Although that’s an interesting issue to discuss too.

Yes it’s true that the current system has lots of rules but just because there are lots of rules doesn’t mean they’re effective. They do a poor job of limiting capitalism’s negative effects. Which is what they’re supposed to do. Quantity but not quality.

There is a difference between capitalism and capitalism-without-rules (which some might call libertarianism). Capitalism is meant to have rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy, just like, say, football has rules to make it fair and prevent anarchy. The rule makers are the government and the rule enforcers are/is the legal system (like in football, the FA makes the rules and the Referees and others enforce those rules). So while capitalism incentivizes business creation and innovation in the name of money-making, there are supposed to be checks and balances to make it fair and in the best interests of all citizens.

Capitalism today especially in the United States is practiced more like capitalism-without-rules where the government is owned by capital owners and therefore does a poor job of making rules that are fair for all and a poor job of curtailing unbridled capitalism. It also appears that the highest level of the legal system in the US is also heavily influenced by capital owners.

I suspect what the “hate” is about is the way capitalism is practiced today.

If capitalism was being practiced responsibly with checks and balances by well-functioning governments and judiciaries, then there would be less hate. This will only happen if people hold governments accountable through protest. Voting is not enough because capital can “buy” all voting options/parties. Protest has brought many civilizing changes to capitalism, especially in the US in the 60s, but the pendulum has swung back to the public not being organized enough or not caring enough to force governments to do their jobs.

Guessing the next word in a sentence because hundreds of millions of examples tell it to isn’t really that amazing.

The best and most concise explanation (and critique) of LLMs in the known universe.

The chief task in life is simply this: to identify and separate matters so that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control, and which have to do with the choices I actually control. Where then do I look for good and evil? Not to uncontrollable externals, but within myself to the choices that are my own. (Epictetus, Discourses 2.5.4–5).

I always go back to this task: is this “bad” situation something that I can control? If not, let it go - it is neither good nor bad. If yes, then how? Do the “how”. The “how” may be specific actions or they may be about controlling how I perceive the situation. If I perceive the situation negatively, work out how to perceive the situation positively. eg. Losing a job may be viewed as bad because of money issues or career issues but could be viewed positively as an opportunity to pursue passions. Perceptions are controllable so bend them to positive constructive ends.

So true. If a Google team cannot show a believable path to a $1 billion ARR business, your team’s project gets shut down. Unless it falls within strategic priorities which are pretty much just search and ads (eg. this is why Android continues to get support - because it represents mobile defense of Google’s lead in search and ads, not because the phone business on its own is worthwhile to Google).

See https://killedbygoogle.com/

FWIW I don’t think this is necessarily a bad way to run a company. Focus resources on your core competencies. But it really sucks as a user of their non-search-related products.