4 ms·
Get back to your Jira tickets. You have standup in 10 minutes and you better be able to justify your daily wage. --Your boss
by 21723 5y ago
Get back to your Jira tickets. You have standup in 10 minutes and you better be able to justify your daily wage.
--Your boss
- boringg 5y agoEveryone answers to someone - nobody is immune even if it looks like they are.
- 21723 5y agoArguably true, also irrelevant. I hope someone is paying you handsomely to post pro-corporate cappie nonsense here, because if you're doing it for free, that's just sad. For a serious response to what you said about modern medicine and the role of corporations in it... technological growth is possible under socialist as well as capitalist systems. It wasn't clear until the 1980s who was ahead and, on that, the reason the US "won" the Cold War (although we really didn't; we just lost less) is not that capitalism is superior--to be clear, the USSR was also deeply flawed, and Stalin was a paranoid butcher for whose actions there is no excuse--but that capitalism was a sea empire and the USSR was a land empire, and modern conflict is unfavorable to land empires. That's it. Land empires have to integrate people. Sea empires can point their cannons and say, "Give me money or die." The USSR had to integrate hundreds of different ethnicities. Capitalism just had to overthrow a few democratically-elected socialists and install dictators (see: Salvador and Allende). Capitalism was playing on easy mode; the USSR was playing on hard mode, and eventually fell after a severe mistake (Afghanistan) led to extreme internal dissent and resurgent nationalism. Had it been the other way around--a capitalist land empire against a socialist sea empire--it would have been the socialists who were wealthy enough to build modern medicine.
- boringg 5y agoHow is what you are spouting off about communism vs capitalism related to my comment "everyone answers to someone". That comment works for capitalism, socialism, communism ... every system.