• darq@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    188
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • variaatio@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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.

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year 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.

      • SevFTW@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • TheSambassador@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But if we raised the bottom up enough, it wouldn't really matter if they were on the bottom. Many people would be happy if they had a stable place to live, food, healthcare, and freedom, and many don't really need or even want "more" all the time. The problem is the vast differences in wealth and ownership.

          • SevFTW@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a fair point. But in a world that values money above all else, that’s not just a divide in wealth and ownership but a divide in power.

          • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem is you can't exploit comfortable people, so the uber rich would only be super rich, and that's not good enough for them…

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year 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.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

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

            • DerKriegs@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year 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.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year 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

        • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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.

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

        In most cases, yes; but in this case in particular, with UBI increasing the buying power of the poor, those with capital would actually profit off of implementing such a service. No, this one boils down to good old fashioned classism.

      • twelve20two @slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

      • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If we could change politics by voting, we wouldn't be allowed to vote.

        We're not stretched thin to finance these changes. Taxes aren't holding us back. This is what those with true power in society and their cronies say to not do anything. This is the whole point.

        No one is only blaming "billionaires." This is you patronizing them, portraying yourself as a genius and the person you're responding to as too naive and stupid to understand how life really works.

        And no, we don't have agency. We have a deluded sense of agency where we think we can vote and change the system from within.

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are levels. Voters don't have agency. But if voters would coordinate they would have agency.

          The difference is believing in agency.

          I am aware how stupid I sound. But how else can I phrase it that there needs to be a believe in change to create change? Right now I just hope that readers ignore the stupid part.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for the upvote.

              There hasn't been internet for most of history, nor global warming, nor automation.

              The joke is that people don't want a fair revolution because the situation will be worse at first if resources are shared globally. People don't want agency because they would be responsible for all problems.

          • DerKriegs@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I love what you said about believing in agency: knowing what power is ultimately in our hands would change the world for the better.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thank you. Judging by the downvotes and objections, people deeply don't believe it. I had expected some technical issues that prevent UBI but reading those replies makes me sad.

              This is Lemmy. People on Reddit will feel even more disenfranchised. But it could be the other way round because Marxism states that capitalist democracy doesn't work and that a revolution is needed.

        • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don't like this logic because it's predicated on an nondescript "they" with unlimited shadowy power. It leads to unhelpful conspiratorial thinking bordering on the magical. It obfuscates the real problems we face, and if we don't understand them, even a violent revolution to defeat it would eventually replicate the system we destroyed because we didn't understand how it came to be in the first place.

          The reason it's hard to change the system is because the system is self-reinforcing through individuals acting in their own immediate best interests and not acting as a class, not because "they wouldn't let you change it, they'd just [rig the elections/not let you vote/kill you with a space laser]". But that's a complex answer, and it's much easier to believe in the latter and call it a day.

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

            Holy shit, what an anti-Semitic piece of shit you are. Absolutely classless.

            It doesn't matter that you think this sort of "logic" leads to conspiratorial thinking. There is a "they" and it's the ruling class. The ruling class, and its defenders, is made up of a lot of people and institutions who create, dictate, and govern the systems that keep them and their power firmly in place. Sorry that society is a bit more complicated than you want it to be. Reality is a hard pill to bite sometimes for you racists.

            And if you knew anything about anything, you'd know that democratically elected leaders are toppled by their ruling classes and/or outside forces (i.e. US) when something doesn't go in the interest of the ruling class. To think somehow the US is immune from this is absolutely delusional thinking. Not surprising you're into Western exceptionalism with your views on race.

            And again, I just want to reiterate how much of a bottom barrel racist scum you are.

            • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have no idea who you are talking to. Did you respond to the right comment? None of this makes sense as a response to anything I just said.

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

                It makes perfect sense. What are you confused about? Are you going to try to "it's just an OK hand symbol" your way out of this? What else would "space lasers" mean in the way you meant it?

                • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My entire post was warning against gesturing towards a vague power controlling everything because it leads to conspiracism. One major example of that conspiracism is antisemitism. I have literally no idea how you can read my comment and come back thinking I'm arguing in favor of antisemitism. Yes, the space laser thing was a jab at the infamous "Jewish space laser" conspiracy, and I was explicitly saying avoid that kind of thinking.

                  The problem with our society isn't that there's a nonspecific ruling class directly dictating everything. There doesn't need to be. We proletariat as a class are fractured instead of united. There's no need to rig elections or prevent us from voting because we don't act as a threat against power in the first place. The system amorally chugs along unimpeded as we go about our individual lives instead of acting together. Our daily compliance is what sustains it, and the system is designed to punish noncompliance automatically.

                  The scary truth isn't that there's a puppetmaster pulling our strings, it's that there's nobody at the wheel at all.

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It's not just a matter of reversing power.

          Billionaires lead. Regular citizens would massively have to change their lives if they want to change that.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year 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.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

                • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why strikes and mass protests? Vote accordingly and let the law drive the change.

                  • darq@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year 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.

    • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because most of us have our own problems and don't feel responsible for the lives of others.

      • Girru00@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

          • Girru00@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It actually is. We all have problems. Humanity formed society to solve problems. Society has been hijacked (for a loooong time in many different ways) to extract value from others. Some people want to combat that.

            Some "have their own problems to deal with"

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          "Us" the people who pay taxes and are hypothetically responsible for paying for UBI.

          • darq@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year 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@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year 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.

                • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year 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?

                  • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year 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@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year 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.

    • elouboub@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      But those with capital in society choose not to.

      That's a good 80% of the population

        • elouboub@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year 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".

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year 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@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year 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

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • elouboub@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year 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@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year 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@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year 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@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year 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@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year 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)

                  • darq@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year 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@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

                  There are no redeeming qualities of socialism.

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