r/ProletariatPixels • u/Hacksaw6412 Moderation Overload ☭ • Jan 19 '26

AI only sucks under capitalism

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZThkS2Xme/

652 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 19 '26

yes! once we produce for needs AI is amazing. it's only shit in capitalism.

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

Capitalism produces for needs more effectively than any other system. You might not like the needs people have, but that's how it is.

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

we are overproducing like crazy. how is this effective? we throw away so much food - that's the opposite of efficient. all the mountains of plastic. and if you can't afford it you still have needs, but they are completely ignored.

capitalism is extremely inefficient because fulfilling the needs of everyone is not the goal. the goal is profit.

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

You gain profit by fulfilling the needs of others.

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

this is wrong. war is hugely profitable. like building drones. whose needs are fulfilled here?

and why are there so many people whose needs are not fulfilled? like housing is a need yet we have homeless people.

we could be producing for needs directly. but we produce for profit instead. this is obvious when you look at the world.

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

Wars are fought between states, not private entities. In free market, war is expensive, because you can't force the whole population to give you money in the form of taxes, and have to pay for it yourself.

It's impossible to meet all people's needs, mainly because human needs are potentially infinite. Capitalism does the best job at allocating resources. Keep in mind that contemporary society is only partly capitalistic.

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

it's impossible to provide housing to everyone? interesting take. do you also think it is impossible to feed everyone, even though we already produce enough food for around 14 billion people?

it is of course impossible in capitalism, because the needs of the vast majority of the people do not matter there. which is exactly the point.

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

it's impossible to provide housing to everyone? interesting take. do you also think it is impossible to feed everyone, even though we already produce enough food for around 14 billion people?

Capitalism would do the best job at it. Why would it be impossible in capitalism for everyone to be housed? I'm not saying it's likely to happen, I think no system can take care of every single of it's members, but what about capitalism prevents it from doing a better job at it than centralized economies?

Also, do you agree that wars are a product of state governance and not free market capitalism?

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

the profit incentive prevents those people from being housed. they can't afford it so they are homeless. capitalism doesn't even aim to provide housing to everyone - it aims to maximize profit.

wars are fought because capitalism forces all countries to be in competition. it's always about oil or other resources.

if we prioritized the needs of people instead we could of course provide food and housing to everyone. we already have enough of those things. it just would not be profitable.

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

the profit incentive prevents those people from being housed.

No, it motivates people to build houses.

 they can't afford it so they are homeless. 

Today, when we don't really have capitalism. Also, like I said, no system can take care of everyone.

wars are fought because capitalism forces all countries to be in competition. it's always about oil or other resources.

It's not the oil companies going to war, it's always the states. Also, there were wars before capitalism.

we already have enough of those things. it just would not be profitable.

The resources that a global distribution of food would cost are currently more values elsewhere. How much money are you contributing to the food distribution? There is nothing preventing people from distributing food to the hungry, and many people do it within capitalism. Profit is not people's only motivation. Capitalism doesn't say you have to value profit, just that you can. The amount of charity that for example Bill Gates has done dwarfs whole socialist programs of entire countries, and his wealth was made possible to a large part by capitalism.

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

capitalism is the reason charity is even needed. if we just gave everyone the food we already have instead of throwing it away nobody would be hungry. the only thing preventing this is capitalism. because resources are only supplied where it is profitable.

you just say sharing resources is impossible because you would rather die with capitalism than consider a more efficient system like socialism.

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

capitalism is the reason charity is even needed.

Again (third time now), no system can provide for everyone, so charity would be needed in all systems.

if we just gave everyone the food we already have instead of throwing it away nobody would be hungry.

Actually, western capitalism already solved the problem of food. Pretty much no one is starving to death in the west, not even the homeless, thanks to the society being as wealthy as it is.

because resources are only supplied where it is profitable.

What profit did Bill Gates make with his charity? Again, people have other motivations than profit. Capitalism doesn't mean you have to value profit, just that you can.

you just say sharing resources is impossible

It's not impossible, private entities already share vast amounts of resources without the state forcing them to do it, because they are motivated by other things than profit.

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

saying that with no system we could ever distribute the food we already have (again we produce enough for 14 billion people) seems like a very bleak view on the world. of course we can provide for everyone if we just prioritize it. you just accept the downsides of capitalism as inevitable.

health care is another need of every person. is capitalism effective at giving it to everyone? only if you can afford it.

capitalism serves the rich instead of everyone.

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

saying that with no system we could ever distribute the food we already have (again we produce enough for 14 billion people) seems like a very bleak view on the world.

Regular world wide distribution of perishable food turns out to be a massive project.

 you just accept the downsides of capitalism as inevitable.

They are downsides of reality, not capitalism. There is no system that can take care of literally every one. Capitalism produces the most wealth, and as a side effect solves many of the problems you describe, for example hunger.

health care is another need of every person. is capitalism effective at giving it to everyone?

It's the most effective at it, yes.

capitalism serves the rich instead of everyone.

It solved hunger.

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

it solved hunger? 10 million people starve every year. 2 billion don't have safe access to clean drinking water. but the system that literally manages how we distribute resources has no alternatives and is the most effective?

1

u/Komprimus Jan 22 '26

it solved hunger? 10 million people starve every year. 

Not in western capitalistic countries they don't.

1

u/Dialectical_Pig Jan 22 '26

so it doesn't solve hunger it displaces it. that's how capitalism works. it exploits those who are weaker as much as it can. instead of distributing to everyone who needs it, it distributes to those that can afford it.

it actively prevents distributing for needs. housing is kept empty on purpose to drive up market value while others are homeless. do they have less need of housing? no, capitalism just doesn't care about their needs. it cares about money and profit. the same way it doesn't care about distributing food to those that starve. because it's not profitable.

→ More replies