• nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, it is not. It is brutal in many ways. But that it is not. Neither is socialomswor communism.

    Pyramid schemes are zero-sum. I steal and gain, you lose. Capitalism and even communism are not zero-sum games. They are net-positive. They involve people making goods and services for others.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pyramid schemes don’t have to be zero-sum. All you need are assholes at the top trying to suck up as many resources as they can. Imagine the shape that makes.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you can say is a pyramid scheme in the way you can’t really make money if you are making money for someone upper on the ladder, even if are an independent business owner, you still have loans to pay or equipment that is sold by a corporation.

    • Ysysel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If we take into consideration the destruction of the ecosystems necessary to sustain human life, capitalism is a net-negative.

      • infotainment@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the tragedy of the commons, and you’ll find it’s true for basically every possible societal organization.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          the tragedy of the commons was a bit of British aristocrat propaganda to take the land peasants worked…

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They draw the box around the part that is a net positive.

        The destruction of the Commons is not accounted for.

        The impacts outside their box are not accounted for.

      • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Incredible that you can say that seriously. Human development and civilization causes ecosystem destruction. The particular economic system may affect the specifics of how this happens not whether or not it does.

        • Ysysel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Capitalism means always looking for more profits. Endless efforts of private owners to expand and increase their profits leads to the perpetual circle of suproduction and overconsumption which destroy ressources and ecosystems.

          This particular system is the main reason it’s happening.

          • havokdj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you honestly think a communist or socialist society which is wealthy would be any healthier for the environment than a capitalist one that is also wealthy?

            We have been destroying the planet long before economy was a concept.

            • Ysysel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A socialist or communist society could be healthier. Not saying it automatically would be. The only people theorizing a sustainable economy are on the (far) left though.

              And the last 50 years proved that sustainability is impossible in a capitalist system. It hinders profits, and the basis of capitalism is: always more profits.