• Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, it’s monopoly capitalism. A certain Mr. Marx from Germany had a few things to say about it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      One consequence of monopoly capitalism is businesses pursuing growth in revenue more aggressively than growth in user base.

      When the market is saturated, all you can do to pursue growth is to increase unit margin. This eventually leads to production of “fictitious capital” as a stand in for real capital (as paper assets cost virtually nothing to produce).

      Das Kapital goes into lengthy detail about this process. Specifically, the “how much does it cost to make a coat” chapter gets into it in (exhaustive) detail.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      id argue enshittification is a consequence of monopoly capitalism, and not a separate thing.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sure. But it’s a consequence of monopolisation. Once you break up the monopolies, enshittification will no longer be economically viable.

        • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Monopolization becomes inevitable in a capitalist economy since the wealthy are still the ones with power, and they will always seek to increase their wealth by any means necessary.

          Even in a heavilly regulated form of capitalism, the wealthy will do everything in their power to slowly strip regulations over a period of time where they think people won’t notice and attempt to move public opinion towards the wealthy class’s benefit via propaganda.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          “You’re not talking about Sprite, but about sugary soft drinks” <- that’s you

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              2 months ago

              I was giving a name to a specific feature of capitalism and you were all “umm actually”-ing me that I’m talking about capitalism.

              That’s like:

              Me: “I really like this chocolate croissant” You: “Actually, you’re talking about a pastry 🤓”

                  • irmoz@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    By talking about the effect (enshittification) instead of the cause (capitalism). One could read your initial comment and conclude that the only problem is enshittification, and not even think about capitalism as the cause, since you didn’t mention it.