• darq
    link
    fedilink
    1382 years ago

    Remember, we know how to address many of the world’s problems, including poverty, homelessness, and climate change.

    But those with capital in society choose not to.

      • twelve20two
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        And make sure their propaganda gets pushed as truth and that any opposition to it will lead to genocide and prison camps

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        20
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Like the one recent CEO saying the quiet part aloud by saying government should promote higher unemployment, since in the high employment environment employees aren’t desperate and have more demands costing him money. That employees arent feeling enough pain and despair in economy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          102 years ago

          To be fair, this isn’t that far away from the economic theory underlying using interest rates to manage inflation - it’s just phrased in a different way.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            52 years ago

            That’s the problem with fractional reserve banking it’s making up money for those who lend theirs. It’s about extracting value from those who work for those who accumulate. It’s not a tbf, it’s a this is also an issue in every area of our society.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Ok we can all clearly see there’s a problem, what action should we take to effectively solve it?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        I recently heard it phrased like this:

        Capitalism is built on hierarchy, which means someone fundamentally NEEDS to be at the bottom. There is no way around it, someone needs to suffer.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          I don’t think that this is really true.

          If someone has “more” then yes of course someone needs to have “less”, merely by definition.

          The question is really whether those with less are living below the poverty line or living comfortably. I guess it’s a question of semantics whether “capitalism” requires people to be living below the poverty line but I don’t think it does. It’s just shitty regulations which allow wealth to become as concentrated as it has.

          Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it’s been implemented it’s suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Socialism in principle sounds great, but most times it’s been implemented it’s suffered from the same problem as capitalism - the people with power are greedy and use their power to manipulate and oppress the populace.

            This is true, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is self-contradictory and impossible IMHO. Because as soon as a member of the proletariat is a dictator, they are now no longer a member of the proletariat.

            Now you don’t need a dictator, you can enact socialist policies democratically. This is very slow and kind of difficult, because the capitalists will lobby and fight so hard against it, and you need to maintain public support.

            • @[email protected]M
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              That isnt what dictatorship of the proletariat means. It means that the former bourgeoisie are temporarily politically disenfranchised from proletarian democracy

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              German politics and energy consumption aside, I think they have the best base of knowledge for what your proposed economic model has in store for them and their allies. They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom. There was a freaking wall dividing their country over that.

              Don’t shitpost on good discussion please.

              • @[email protected]M
                link
                fedilink
                22 years ago

                They had that model forced upon them, and fought for change and economic freedom.

                East germans, especially women and lgbt people, lost a lot of practical rights during reunification

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          Conservatism is built on hierarchy. Capitalism just says markets work and investment is gambling. You can do that and still keep everyone fed / clothed / sheltered, specifically because markets work, and can make food / clothes / shelter more plentiful. Some people having more doesn’t require private space station versus duplex cardboard box.

          Conservatives only say market failure demands misery and successful gambling means unchecked power because that’s what they always say. That’s their only conclusion, applied to literally everything. That’s how conservatives think things work. The entire tribal worldview boils down to “well somebody’s gotta be king.” Just a fractal pyramid of militaries over empire, rulers over courts, owners over workers, and patriarchs over families. If you’re at the bottom you’re lucky to be alive, and how dare you question your betters.

          The unspoken assumption is that change is impossible. This is genuinely how they think everything works. Like the universe itself dictates a steep gradient, and the only way things could be different is by shuffling around who goes where. So if someone is suffering, they must have fucked up to deserve it, and if you want to help them, you’re putting someone else in their place.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        172 years ago

        Now imagine if you lived in a society where someone gave a shit about your problems. And maybe they even have the skills and resources to fix them more efficiently than you would. Or not, does it matter, theyre willing to help.

      • darq
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Who is “us”? Unless you’re politically well connected or have nine figures in the bank, you aren’t wielding significant power to make systemic changes.

          • darq
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            Unless you’re politically well connected or have nine figures in the bank, you aren’t wielding significant power to make systemic changes.

              • darq
                link
                fedilink
                32 years ago

                You know that UBI is cheaper than policing the problems that runaway wealth disparity causes, right? UBI also means that employers cannot easily exploit workers with the threat of destitution, meaning that wages, including yours, go up. It also makes society more pleasant as people with prospects turn to drugs or crime less frequently.

                The only people UBI doesn’t benefit, is the absurdly wealthy. Your myopic worldview has you voting against your own interests.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  No, I don’t know any of that.

                  Maybe you’d like to explain who and why people would choose to work when they entirely don’t have to?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    42 years ago

                    Same reason people have hobbies… they like doing things.

                    What your concern really should be is, who would work for an asshole like you when they don’t have to. The answer is they won’t, get fucked.

                  • darq
                    link
                    fedilink
                    22 years ago

                    Maybe you’d like to explain who and why people would choose to work when they entirely don’t have to?

                    Two reasons:

                    1. UBI provides a baseline level of income to keep people out of poverty. But people tend to want more than just the basics, and deciding to work provides additional income for luxuries.
                    2. People, in general, are inherently motivated to create, and will do so without the threat of death on the streets. Meaning people will still voluntarily work, only they will do so on their terms.

                    But also, with the increasing levels of automation possible, human labour is needed less and less to fulfil our needs. We need to decouple being able to live from employment. Because the path we are currently on involves artificially increasing consumption and creating meaningless jobs to justify paying people enough money to live.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        You, like the vast majority of people, are (almost certainly) not included in “those with capital”

    • elouboub
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      But those with capital in society choose not to.

      That’s a good 80% of the population

      • darq
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        Except that’s just false. I actually cannot fathom where you pulled that estimate from.

        • elouboub
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          You can argue that national poverty lines are made to be kept under a certain percentage, sure, then we can ignore that. Globally, yes, the majority doesn’t have capital (as in financial capital), but per country, there are stark differences. More things to consider

          Especially GNI PPP: if you live in Europe, North America, Australia, China, Japan, and a few other countries, there’s a good chance you belong to the global 20% of high income earners. The minimum wage in your country will probably be higher than what a low income family earns in a year

          For the current 2024 fiscal year, low-income economies are defined as those with a GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method, of $1,135 or less in 2022; lower middle-income economies are those with a GNI per capita between $1,136 and $4,465; upper middle-income economies are those with a GNI per capita between $4,466 and $13,845; high-income economies are those with a GNI per capita of $13,846 or more.

          https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups

          Can you fathom?

          • darq
            link
            fedilink
            52 years ago

            We are talking about people who have the capital in society to make actual systemic changes to society. Such as restructuring our economy to value lives, wellbeing, and sustainability over profit.

            Quite obviously 80% of people do not have that capital.

            You are cherrypicking statistics, seemingly to deliberately miss the point.

            Global comparisons of income mean exactly nothing to the quality of life of people living within their country.

            Even people deemed in that global top 20% are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and are unable to leverage that to make changes.

            • i_understand
              link
              fedilink
              02 years ago

              At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there were an estimated 200 million people and virtually 100% poverty.

              Now there are over 8.5 billion people and yet we’ve managed to reduce both poverty and hunger to the lowest levels in history. Along with the lowest rates of people dying due to war.

              socialism didn’t do that.

              • darq
                link
                fedilink
                52 years ago

                Completely irrelevant to what I wrote. My comment has nothing to do with socialism.

                Not to mention fallaciously attributing technological innovations to capitalism as if they could not occur under other economic systems.

                • i_understand
                  link
                  fedilink
                  02 years ago

                  So in your fantasy world we would be at 8.5 billion people along with low poverty, hunger, and deaths from war… but replacing capitalism with socialism.

                  Likely you fantasize no income and instead it would be the whole “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” thing, right?

                  Unfortunately for your fantasy… the result of socialism has always been the deaths of millions of people through starvation and murder (followed by collapse and/or acceptance of capitalism)

                  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
                    link
                    fedilink
                    12 years ago

                    Are you confusing socialism with communism again? And are you confusing authoritarian dictatorships with communism?

                  • darq
                    link
                    fedilink
                    32 years ago

                    Are you a bot, or just responding to the wrong person? Because that’s the second comment in a row that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

                • i_understand
                  link
                  fedilink
                  02 years ago

                  Socialism has resulted in the deaths of millions of people through starvation and murder.

                  There are no redeeming qualities of socialism.

                  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
                    link
                    fedilink
                    12 years ago

                    No, that’s a complete lie. It has never resulted in the death of anyone, but rather has saved millions of lives and improved their - and our - standards of living.

                    But then, you don’t actually know what socialism is, so you just make up lies for the evil boogyman hiding in your closet.

        • elouboub
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          So because somebody has a lot, you have nothing? Because somebody has a house worth 5M and don’t have a house, means you have no dwelling? Because somebody earns 10x what you have, you have no income?

          “They have more capital than I do, therefore I have none”.

          “A person with more capital than I chose to vote and lobby, that means my vote is null and void and so are my efforts”.

          “There’s no point in doing anything ever if somebody else is better at it”.

          • @[email protected]M
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            It literally does, according to the person who coined the term and socialist political economic theory up to the present.

            Have you read any marx? Any marx whatsoever?

            • elouboub
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              Capital was coined by Marx? Say what?

              First recorded in 1175–1225; Middle English; (adjective) from Anglo-French or directly from Latin capitālis “of the head” (capit-, stem of caput “head” + -ālis adjective suffix; see -al1); (noun) from Medieval Latin capitāle “wealth,” noun use of neuter of the adjective capitālis

              https://www.dictionary.com/browse/capital

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Remember that politics can be changed with votes. Tax them to finance change.

      It’s difficult, but blaming billionaires takes away our agency.

      • darq
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Remember that politics can be changed with votes. Tax them to finance change.

        I agree the wealthy need to pay a lot more in tax than they currently do.

        They also have disproportionate control over the electoral process in many countries, and most political parties are not even considering taxing them to the extent that they need to be taxed. Nor are most political parties challenging our capitalist society in any significant sense.

        Voting is important, but don’t expect voting alone to solve our problems.

        It’s difficult, but blaming billionaires takes away our agency.

        No it does not. Sod off with that. Correctly identifying a major contributor to an issue does not take away agency.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              02 years ago

              How about direct action to make citizens vote in a coordinated way?

              But you must have other direct actions in mind. Which ones?

              • darq
                link
                fedilink
                32 years ago

                Voting. Strikes. Mass protest. More, if ultimately required.

                  • darq
                    link
                    fedilink
                    12 years ago

                    Because voting alone doesn’t work, as evidenced by the fact that it hasn’t worked over decades of us trying, you stupid wanker.