• 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
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What I wrote is completely germane, you just can't admit it or argue against what I'm saying because then it would be harder for you to gaslight people into voting for socialism.

              • 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.