1756
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
1756 points (99.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
9087 readers
2897 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not 'capitalism'. Those issues are handled exclusively by socialist policies. At no point does a capitalist economy worry about human or environmental needs. There is no place for them in the formula for profit. Even the countries balanced the closest to the middle between capitalism and socialism only invest into the environment when it's profitable, or otherwise beneficial for the state (e.g., one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy being independence, and not environmental impact). And the main reason for that is so many people are aware of the ongoing climate catastrophe that governments can no longer easily ignore them.
In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to say that some capitalist policies make sense, or to say that some socialist policies don't work well. But this is the first time I encounter someone saying capitalism is fine if social needs are satisfied first. So basically, capitalism is fine if it coexists with socialism? I can agree, but that's definitely not capitalism anymore. That's the same thing as a mix of capitalism ans socialism suggested by other people here.