We have so many houses going unused. We have food and resources for everybody, but we’ve set up a system that arbitrarily concentrates most of it on a few people! Young children, with no understanding why society is this way, are suffering and dying because they live in a world that collectively agrees to let this happen unnecessarily
Fuck, I’m stoned but you know I’m right
Edit: and the sad thought hits me: the first step is realizing the system doesn’t have to be this way, the second step is realizing it isn’t going to change, at least not any time soon
There is a reason, well, at least two reasons. First is greed the second is the greedy ones also enjoy the cruelty.
If not the cruelty they are often convinced (or have convinced themselves) that poverty is deserved, like their opulence is.
Just today there was a post on how most Americans believe poverty is the result of individual choices.
To put in the words of someone I truly hate, someone I deeply despise, someone who used to be part of my friends discord group but is thankfully gone now:
“You can’t have winners without there being losers”.
This. This is how such people see the world, and in their eyes, perfectly justify inequality.
Probably throw in a bit of “just world” delusion in the mix, to make things worse.
Every year capitalists kill 10 million people by withholding food, medicine, and clean water. All because it isn’t profitable to them personally.
This. This is the reality and the root cause of a lot of the issues regarding homelessness, starvation and preventable illness in the world.
Aggressive capitalists value money more than anyone’s, and everyone’s life.
They will let you die to bump their profits a fraction of a percent.
The less organized and fragmented the populous, the easier it is for the rich to take advantage of us.
Reality is rather complicated
The world is how it is until it doesn’t matter. Suffering is only temporary. Enjoy the time that you have. Can’t take anything with you.
Take anything with you where? Dead is dead, and there’s nothing after.
Then explain the tombs of Egyptian Pharoahs?
They thought you could take it with you. But they were wrong
You can’t take anything with you, because the British will rob your tomb and take your stuff back to Britain.
That too
I can tell you right now why nothing happens. Because those of us who have housing and a solid life are terrified it will be taken away if others are given what they worked for (I realize this to be false, however it’s a very common sentiment among 30-40 year olds who own homes or property of any kind).
So, they keep voting for farther and farther right politicians because the left wants to “take your guns, land, and make you live under communism!” This is a non-exaggerated thought process of how a lot of people think.
Fuck that i only have a house so i don’t have to pay someone else’s mortgage.
You’re right, but it’s worse. That sentiment isn’t just why our cohort votes right - it’s why our cohort is unwilling to change the status quo. It’s scary, when you have a kid and rent and a partner and aging parents and just a fuckton on your plate, and even if your morals are all in the right place you have to choose between even protesting, potentially being jailed or worse, or just biding time to vote. And that’s ignoring even any actual radical expression. Revolution is a young man’s game.
A quick look at the Wikipedia article The world’s billionaires will reveal that billionaires have an estimated aggregate net worth of 16 trillion. That’s more than 2,000 dollars for every single human being on this planet. Maybe not as individuals, but as a collective, they literally have the possibility of ending world hunger. And that’s only the richest three thousand or so.
If the world taxed them all only half their wealth (keeping them billionaires) and took the results and invested it in a trust, it could be generating 80 billion a year from only a 1% return. That’s enough to solve world hunger every year twice.
The world doesn’t have a resource problem. It has a billionaire problem.
I recommend a good read: Poverty, by America - Matthew Desmond – Princeton (2023)
~~We imagine that their sufferings are one thing and our life another. – Leo Tolstoy
The passage of Proposition 13 inspired a nationwide revolt that led to Reagan’s 1981 cutting spree. It was a white-led revolt. Only 2 groups opposed Proposition 13: public sector employees and African Americans. Massive tax cuts fundamentally reshaped the agendas of the nation’s 2 major political parties and resulted in the rise of private fortunes alongside public poverty. This was a response to white people being ordered to share public goods with Black people. ~~
How to fix?
In the USA:
We just have to stop spending so much on the rich. Support policies that disrupt poverty, not accommodate it. In 2020, the gap separately everyone in America below the poverty line and the poverty line itself amounted to $177 billion. That’s less that 1% of our GDP.
I’m calling for the rich to pay their taxes. Rebalance our social net. Return to a time when America made bigger investments in the general welfare.
“We need to ask if our consciousness and imagination have been so assaulted and coopted that we have been robbed of the courage or power to think an alternative thought.” - theologian Walter Bruggemann
Make sure all women have access to the best contraception and healthcare, and more pregnancies become intentional and safer. Provide new mothers with paid parental leave and free childcare. A country as wealthy as ours could put our money where our mouth is and support life. But from the poor, we just seem to take and take.~~
Let’s choose businesses that are doing right by their workers and the planet.
Doing the right thing is often highly inconvenient, time-consuming, even costly. That’s the price for our restored humanity.
Prosperity without poverty carries a different feeling. We’d be more free. A nation invested in ending poverty is a nation that is truly committed to freedom.
The worst part is: the wealthiest few of them could each, individually, if they wanted to, end world hunger permanently with their current wealth. Estimates I’ve read range $40b per year or something like $250-300b just once to set up sustainable long-term solutions globally.
Musk, Zuckerberg, or Bezos could end hunger globally and permanently. Any one of them, individually, could do it. If the richest 10 billionaires all pitched in a portion, they’d all recoup everything they spent within a couple years at worst. If the richest 100 did, many of them wouldn’t even notice the expenditure.
But it would only take 1 of them.
Not my line- but you can have billionaires or you can have democracy.
It’s because guaranteeing positive rights requires cooperation or coercion. And it turns out we’re not great at cooperation.
It turns out capitalism actively disincentives cooperation. Cooperation is how humanity became the dominant life form. We’re fucking great at it when we don’t have a bunch of leeches siphoning off our surplus value and using that wealth to turn us against each other.
At a small scale, sure. When you reach the size of a country, not so much.
Maybe. We’ve also never had a classless country, so we don’t know for certain how very large groups of humans interact when we are free from the exploitation, division, and oppression that is inherent to class structures.
Why have we never had a classless country?
Because countries didn’t exist when humanity’s mode of production was primitive communism, and then since the agricultural revolution the means of production has always been held by individuals, which necessarily creates at least two classes, those who have, and those who have not.
There have been a few attempts by the people to seize the means of production, but they have always existed within the context of a global class system that prevents any attempt at a truly classless society. (IE, a strong centralized state is necessary to survive reactionary attempts to take back control, but a strong state creates a class system of those who have control vs those who don’t.)
Most Marxists actually acknowledge that after a socialist revolution you will still have class contradictions that society will have to work through, like the potential abuses a strong state can inflict. We generally agree though, that the key first step to creating a classless society is getting the means of production out of the hands of private individuals.
Seems to me if it was our natural tendency to treat everyone in the world the same way we’d treat our family, then it would have prevailed in some capacity, somewhere, after all this time.
Instead, it seems like we’re good at participating in that kind of communism you mentioned within smaller groups, and those groups can cooperate with other groups in increasingly less familial ways as this network of groups grow larger and larger.
I don’t see any evidence that our natural tendency is towards communism.
Right, and my point is that it’s not surprising that you don’t see that evidence (assuming you live in the US or elsewhere in the imperial core), given the effects that class dynamics have on social behavior. By its very nature capitalism alienates people and turns them into individualist consumers. If you travel to more communally-minded places, it’s clear that human nature is very much place- and context- dependent.
It also requires empathy over group belonging
“Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich,”
As an example of how stupid our global civilization is … Africa has more than enough wealth and natural resources to produce all the food and water it needs to feed its own people without any outside influence or control. Unfortunately, first world countries have such a stranglehold on African nations and governments that they are forever beholden to foreign aid and manipulation that they will never be able to pay off their debts … which means African will forever pay first world countries and never be capable of standing on their own.
Also, I’ve been sober from alcohol and drugs for close to 30 years now … and I’m perfectly aware of all this and think about this stuff all the time. We don’t need mind altering drugs to understand how stupid, greedy and corrupt our world is, has always been and will always be until we destroy ourselves and free this planet of our own stupidity.
Also, I’ve been sober from alcohol and drugs for close to 30 years now … and I’m perfectly aware of all this and think about this stuff all the time. We don’t need mind altering drugs to understand how stupid, greedy and corrupt our world is, has always been and will always be until we destroy ourselves and free this planet of our own stupidity.
You have to remember that most people, especially Americans, are brainwashed from birth to believe that the current order of the affairs is the best and only way to operate a society, and that anything else is, ahem, communism, which is the worst possible thing there is. For many, psychedelics has been the most impactful way for an individual to actually think outside the box on a visceral level since their conditioning since birth has been one of “this is the only way to think, so hop on board lest you be cast out of society.” It’s the entire reason why these substances are illegal, can’t have people thinking for themselves out of lockstep with the prescribed mentality.
youd think that but ik plenty of ppl that do psychs and still are republican/trump supporters, if anything they doubled down harder, it can go both ways
Reagan pretty much shut down progressivism in the eighties and its only in the new millenium we have seen it come back to a level it could be implemented again. We would be in much better shape if we did not have reaganomics that looked better than it was due to the energy crises no longer being a thing.
Yes this is the world. It fucked and we hope to change it. Even thought you were stoned it makes sense. Feel and house people
I’d prefer to feed them but I’m sure we can find volunteers to feel them too.
Rich want to be richer. Isn’t that a good enough reason?
Fuckin’ socialists, putting the right of poor children to go to school above the right of billionaires to buy another mega yacht.
Actually, it’s because of capitalism. It’s not a good reason but it is the reason. Everybody knows that we throw away food every single day that could literally feed the whole planet twice over. Everyone knows that we can manage to put everyone under a roof. The billionares sure as hell know this but they want to keep the status quo because they know as long as nobody actually does anything about it, they’ll always be the 1% with everything—and so the rat race continues.
There’s a reason they call it the tragedy of the commons.
Edit: The full paper is available online if anyone is interested. Here’s a copy from a university in Michigan. https://pages.mtu.edu/~asmayer/rural_sustain/governance/Hardin 1968.pdf
Never seen Wikipedia article shill capitalist propaganda this hard…
Jfc
The fuck you on about?
The Wikipedia article starts with two paragraphs accurately defining the term, then in the third paragraph above the drop-downs mentions the criticisms. Then two drop-down sections, Solutions and Criticisms, are almost entirely given over to all the ways various people have refuted this.
What do you want, a big flashing red banner at the top that says “This Concept is Bullshit”? I don’t think you understand how Wikipedia works.
I’ll allow it, but only if we can somehow put the same flashing red banner on top of politicians in real life.
I can see thinking the tragedy of the commons is capitalist propaganda if you think there is a hard line between people and corporations.
The North Sea fishing industry didn’t collapse because too many of the proletariat wanted to do a lot of fishing, it collapsed because thousands of people organized into dozens of groups that systematically overstrained the ecosystem. Because those groups wanted to make more profit for a small group of hundreds of people. Everyone involved was acting in their rational best interest with no oversight or regulation guarding the big picture view and it caused everyone involved to destroy their livelihoods. Other than the ones at the top who’s livelihood is/was consolidating profit of course.
The tragedy of the commons isn’t about how it’s an individual’s fault or responsibility. It’s about how larger groups need disinterested guardrails for long term higher quality of life.
The paper this article talks about was authored by an evolutionary biologist that wanted to talk about environmental science problems and social responsibility. Ignoring the concepts of personal property and ownership and stuff, think about this for a minute. 81% of Americans own a yard, but how many of them do you see growing crops in that space? How much more effectively COULD that land be utilized towards the common good if it were managed in some way? Or from the other side: the Alaskan government had to step in and put a halt on Bering Sea crab harvests for a few years because the numbers were critically low. Do you think all of the individual fishermen who are reliant on that income would have voluntarily stopped? Would they even have known the crab population was dwindling?
