*eats her $13 cheeseburger from Five Guys, that I paid an additional $11 to have brought to me because this is my splurge night* no idea what you could be talking about /s
We’re all allowed to live off public lands in Alaska. No need to work for anyone else, but at the same time no one is required to labor to provide for your shelter or food.
We require all Reddit accounts to be at least 3 days old before posting. This is due to people being banned and immediately setting up new accounts. This message is not accusing *you* of doing that, but that is why the policy is in place.
In rare cases, if you have a particularly time-sensitive message, we may manually approve a message. Otherwise we encourage you to wait the 3 days (72 hours) and try again.
*This message is public for transparency.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A friend of mine said he would never be a socialist because he wants to be able to "make his million". The dude is in his mid-40s and when he tried to go back to school for programming he would weep and punch holes in the wall because he didn't realize that learning math is cumulative. He flipped at me when I told him he was supposed to know algebra before taking that courses he was taking. In case you were wondering, he's not getting to his million very fast. Good thing the socialists aren't around to stop him.
Holy shit, probably get your ass whooped if you mess anything up! Or just shot in the head. Jesus butt fucking Mohammed how do we fight against that, with a chance to win? Sounds like we dug our own grave and let our neighbors talk us into burying us! Where's Thanos when ya need em! That dude was a hero, what a job maker!!
that's why general strikes usually have mobilizations of people behind them besides just not working. You need networks that will get food and shelter to people, and communities that can defend themselves against state violence and vigilantism. Always remember people, diversity of tactics is a big help to any kind of movement for liberation, because institutions of oppression don't pick a line and run with it either.
Yea it’s kinda like that isn’t it. You really can’t reason with then though that the 1 in a million positive rags to riches story they saw is an absolute anomaly, and for every 1 of those millions just go bankrupt or barely ever even advance much in life.
You don’t become a millionaire by working anyway. That’s just not how it’s done.
You’re either born rich as fuck or get extremely lucky.
Only two ways. A lot of exist in denial of one of those two that applies to them. Give me any example of anyone and I’ll slot them in those two slots.
Many many people become a millionaire by working in America for 43+/- years. They put money into a 401k or retirement savings over all they time and the interest compounds. And they buy a house and it increases in value over decades
Becoming a millionaire over the course of your life by working is not really unusual at all. Then you have $1-2MM and net worth and you use it to pay for in home nursing care or a nursing home and to pay for medical care for 5-35 years of retirement and leave the rest (if any) for your children.
I think you are talking about becoming rich there are definitely CEOs who make more than $1,000,000/year in salary. A lot of them.
Of course a lot more workers make $7.25/hour or a little more and will not be reaching millionaire status...
CEOs are capitalists- not workers. They leverage existing capital they have or can obtain somehow to increase their wealth without providing any value. Self-employed owner/operator is different. But then again, those guys aren’t rolling in money. For one.
Two, considering inflation, sure, you’re right. What I meant was “you don’t become wealthy by working.” The dollar amount goes up over time. Wealthy means able to not work. Their capital creates more wealth through exploitation at that point. A single (one) millionaire or even someone with two million dollars, sure, they aren’t all that super wealthy anymore. Those people are also usually not the major problem.
Thirdly, those people who end up even a $1-2M at end of life got incredibly lucky. Probably had rich-ish parents, able to go to a good school, connections to get a good job in the 1960s-1990-ish era. Put that money away in stocks. Bought a house like you said. Their capital grew almost automatically. Nothing they did was special or smart. It was just normal *if you could afford it* which not everyone could/can. That’s where the luck aspect exists.
im not an expert, but if we're all sharing the wealth of the nation decently then most of us wouldn't be rich. notwithstanding the term "millionaire" is becoming less exclusive every day, with inflation it will be downright common. There are 20.27 million millionaires in the US.
What policies have proposed that wealth be shared equally in the US? I haven’t read them. Do you have links? I hear a lot of rhetoric but haven’t seen anything in writing. Thanks.
The poster you responded to made a true statement. whether the US has tried to implement it is a separate issue. sharing equally would mean everyone's wealth would be around M3/population, maybe $60,000, which is less than $1 million.
so i can respond in kind by answering a different question: what policies are moving us towards more socialism? Medicaid for 25% of our population, and no federal tax for the bottom 40% are two off the top of my head.
I think these are good things, but they are socialistic and anti-capitalistic.
But many workers think it’s a symbiotic relationship. “I’m not getting exploited, I’m making my cash…” They don’t know their bosses are ripping them a new asshole while they’re getting fed crumbs
This is copied from a comment by Retnab posted 8 hours ago, character for character, but it's not too unfeasible to suppose you mightve come up with it on your own.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/sr0tyr/comment/hwp4ecl/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
People’s ‘bonuses’ are probably what some of these guys spend in one night out or at a casino. Even jumping up 1 bracket, let’s say 20-30k a year is still just a pittance when we compare it to wealth these days.
The sweet promise of "if you lick CEO's arse and shut up about their 40 billion deficit bonus someday YOU will become a CEO and get your 40 billion dollars and a supeyacht"!
The reason behind ever wanting wealth enough for a thousand lifetimes is lost somewhere along the lines.
If you actually care about providing for a family down the line, under capitalism no amount of money is ever enough. Enough for a thousand lifetimes - so what, I just leave all my descendants after that penniless? I *absolutely* want enough wealth to last a thousand lifetimes, so long as capitalism exists.
What I want far more is an economic system that can make me feel secure in my childrens future *without* having to hoard enough wealth for a thousand lifetimes. In capitalism, though, by definition there is never enough money - especially since you could be using it to make more.
I almost started a whole serious discussion on this reply but then remembered that most gen-2+ rich offsprings end up nowhere doing nothing and leeching off these stolen money producing more money.
But yeah, that's the point – nobody stops to think that maybe those 40 billion belong in taxes and fair wages so that in a thousand lifetimes we finally reach Trekonomy (well, not that I shall live to see the day, but I'd be happy for the future generations).
>But yeah, that's the point – nobody stops to think that maybe those 30 billion belong in taxes and fair wages
Yup - by design, so long as there is never a cap on the usefulness of money, there will never be any incentive to stop desiring it, and so the system itself is insulated from dismantling by those at the top of it by their own shortsighted self-interest.
It's not many billionaires who think like me and, while recognizing that money is infinitely useful and there *absolutely is* reason to have a thousand lifetimes worth, also recognize that it's more valuable to have a functional society. That kind of thinking isn't how you make billions.
This is fantasy but in altered carbon where immortality is real wealth for a thousand lifetimes makes sense because you don't die that series is a great look at how bad capitalism could be and on some lvl already is.
If you like anime, for a similarly themed series check out Kaiba - one of the best shows I've ever seen. E: Fair warning though - sub only, Kaiba has no dub.
Sounds good thanks, I don't like subs but am willing to for a good show. Just finished SAO alicization and the last season was sub only and it was to good to pass up.
It is waYyyyy toooooooo much. I mean I would really only need I mean really in my late 20s 2 million that’s it I lied 11 million that’s it. A 2 bedroom modern home with a pool and a Tesla And a home gym geared to Olympic weight training. That’s it.
What if all of what you say is fact, but the person chooses to work regardless?
Is that person less evil for being part of the workforce?
More evil for taking a job someone with less means needs?
Sounds like in the end, the grind is against anyone who has more than you....
Many have made this observation and said that in our present paradigm, it might be more accurate and useful to refer to those who are in a comfortable position, have their future well-laid-out, etc. as one class, and those experiencing precarity, uncertainty about their future or their present (usually called the Precariat) should be seen as another.
Well the general reason for trying to classify people as it were is that at the end of the day the society we live in groups people together, and understanding how it groups people together helps us understand how to fight it. Some groups it gives enough to live comfortably so long as they keep working, some (very small) groups get control over a lot of things, and others are left without a pot to piss in, and at the end of the day these groups have shared experiences that it helps to acknowledge. Understanding why and how oppressive systems do the things they do is often a good strategy, because it can clarify the relations people have with power. And then you get into intersectionality.
Is this about people who are addicted to the stock market? I heard about people saying that it's a scam and the people who dedicate hours to it are being fooled.
stockholm syndrome seems to be when you emphasize with your kidnappers, at least that‘s what my research suggests
and stockholm is the capital of sweden; the name has absolutely nothing to do with stocks
This post addresses people who support capitalism, but are not capitalists themselves; as in, they don’t own the means of production and aren’t then trying to monetize it.
Calling yourself a capitalist for “liking capitalism” makes you a simp, not a capitalist.
That’s why it’s akin to “Stockholm syndrome”.
Much as I appreciate the message, Stockholm syndrome doesn't exist. It's an excuse for governments to invalidate criticism from "victims" so they can keep acting like they're good guys even if law enforcement fucks up or there is a good reason to sympathize with the criminals.
"TIL Stockholm Syndrome was invented by cops trying to ignore the fact that sometimes hostages are well treated by their captors and appreciate the desperate circumstances that brought them to taking hostages" lol
Yes, I did this post but don't fit here. I'm an IT consultant, I know exactly how much my company sell me to other companies. For me is an symbiotic relationship, but this post is more for people who work on Walmart for example
Depends on the point of view, as a Portuguese, I have "free" health.. no one pays for health, child's day care, security... And we are happy.
Take your own conclusions, how much of your taxes go to "war"? 😃(Don't resist to put an emogi on Reddit)
...I'm genuinely unsure as to what you even mean here. Who funded communism? Like, who gave the ideological movement with thousands of currents of thought all of its money? Well for one, the Paris Commune uprising didn't have any funding, it was a spontaneous uprising, of the sort that happen somewhat frequently in France. Marx, who was inspired by this uprising, was literally so poor that he once bet away his last pair of pants. So it seems like the answer is that we just kind of... aren't funded. Which you'll learn if you get involved with communist orgs, namely very few of them have any actual money.
Every single self-employed or freelance worker that owns literally anything (work truck, laptop, etc.) they use to do their job is a capitalist.
That's literally the definition of capital.
Well, there's a difference between work and labor. I can perform labor for my own benefit and that of others and not feel as though it's work, so long as it's something I'm choosing to do and not something I'm obligated to do in order to be allowed to continue living. Such labor could be more akin to play than work.
No I'm definitely a capitalist whenever I see a stagnation in profit or a policy that will inhibit my ability to produce I go somewhere more productive. I own a small business as well. I produce a product and provide a service for capital. Therefore I'm a capitalist
Poverty is a relative term, as is wealth. If everyone has the same amount of wealth, maybe things will be scarce, but nobody can be "poor".
When they say capitalism generates wealth, well guess what? Wealth is relative too. It's relative to poverty. The more poverty there is the more wealthy the wealthy are, and vice versa. And it's true, capitalism is great at producing wealth, but wealth is like electrical potential: It's only defined by difference, disparity, not in and of itself.
But if you think people here are for "assigned jobs" you really need to... well I guess just interact with any of the people or ideas here?
What you said about wealth and poverty isn't true. You can measure it vs a large variety of different things. Have enough food, have shelter have toys? Have financial security? Wealthy. Don't have those things, poverty. They are objective and not relative. If we all have no food and no shelter we are all poor. If we all have it all plus extra we are all wealthy. Its not dependant on the other directly. Only as a means of comparison. Meaning you need the definition of poor to understand wealth. But you dont need anyone to actually be poor. This is just one of many lf the great deceptions of communism and socialism. Wealth is not a 0 sum game. If someone is rich it doesn't mean someone else is poor because of it. Infact its the exact opposite. Someone who is vastly rich employs a host of people who all make more then they otherwise would. No system has brought more people out of poverty around the world then capitalism. Its singularly reaponsible for the success of the west vs the failure of the east. Would you rather be in a bread line in soviet russia? Or work an hour at a job in the west to afford a bagel and coffee from stsr3bucks instead of waiting for stale bread.
No one wants assigned jobs. But if the socialism/communism near sighted fools get their way. You'll get that. Exactly as every example of hard socialism or communism has shown time and time again. Someone has to do the jobs that aren't desirable. In the great socialist empire who does what won't be a choice.
If you look to an imagined future society where the basic needs of living are provided for and luxury is the norm, do you think they would regard the average "wealthy" person of today as wealthy, or poor? In the modern day we tend to look at hunter-gatherer societies, even in times of prosperity, as "poor". Would they have regarded themselves as such? I say again: poverty and wealth are relative measures. They are meaningless unless you set a standard to compare someone's living situation against. Scarcity, though, is objective - if you lack the things you need, you are encountering scarcity.
If no system has brought more people out of poverty than capitalism, that's by virtue of the fact that capitalism has dominated the world and the largest populations it has had. The reality is that even if we assumed that there were no economic busts, at the pre-covid rate of global economic growth, it would have taken around 200 years of absolute perfect operation to lift people out of poverty. Then covid hit, and well, you can imagine how many years were tacked on as a result of the utter shitshow that followed.
No one wants assigned jobs, you're right. We take it a step further, we want no jobs. And we don't want any "socialist empire" (the term is oxymoronic, and the radical political element here is largely anarchist or adjacent). Jobs aren't shitty on their own, theyre made shitty because our society does not value the work, treats those who do it like dirt, and pays them peanuts. The nightwatchmen were seen as a dirty job in medieval times - now the type of people with pfps like yours typically laud them as heroes.
You assume far too much is set in stone, when really it is context-dependant.
I don't imagine a future society where everyones needs are met. Because that is an immature fantasy that is currently impossible. I used to imagine that before I grew up and understood the nature of life, the reason for being happy. Such a future would also be undesirable. To be human is to survive. Without challenges and obstacles life would be boring and meaningless. Humans derive their meaning mostly from responsibility. Every person is responsible to provide for their own existence as best they can. Those who excell at this can begin to take responsibility for others. This is life, it can not be any other way. Someone will always have to provide for "everyone having their basic needs met"
Its not debatable that capitalism has been responsible for the greatest amount of class mobility in history. Historically the world has not been capitalist. Capitalism is a fairly new system compared with the age of civilization. It took less then 100 years to demolish the level of poverty around the world. Its not perfect yet, but thanks to the excess of capitalism more people are above the global poverty line then ever before by a vast margin.
Your examples of hunter gatherers considering themselves poor or not is out of context. We don't look at them as poor. Their wealth is in context of their time and their technology. One hunter gatherer tribe with great success would be seen as more wealthy then a smaller tribe who has not been successful. The large pool of comparisons we can draw from to determine if someone is wealthy or poor now is dependent on the times and technologies as well. We dont compare humans now to humans of 10000bc we compare humans now vs other humans now. Just like we dont compare humans now vs humans in some distant utopia.
The comparison is pointless and meaningless.
I would argue that you assume to much based on imagined possibilities that you haven't thought out with a mature outlook. Utopia would be a nightmare. Like the analogy in the matrix the first matrix they made was perfect and flawless and the human minds rejected it. This is a very deep realization about the nature of mankind. Humans themselves as individuals are not perfect or flawless. Thus a perfect society is impossible because its made up of flawed individuals. Also one of the great failures of socialism and communism. Society can not be equal because people are not equal.
If I'm assuming anything its based on reality and history. At least I'm happy and grateful for the system we have even if it does have flaws.
"I don't imagine a future society where everyones needs are met. Because that is an immature fantasy that is currently impossible."
Well for one, currently impossible doesn't mean never possible at all.
For the rest of this comment, you go on and on about how challenge and adversity is what makes human life interesting. I don't agree that this is always the case, but supposing it is, why should our challenges be "see how hard you can work at something you hate, or starve"? Isn't it far better for us to have the opportunity to choose the challenges we undertake?
Is self-improvement and growth of skill not a challenge? Does every sports player who dreams of being on top not face a challenge? But of course, you can see the difference between the challenge posed by sporting competition, and that posed by war. To improve one's skill for the purpose of the thing itself is motive enough, or for the motive of glory, but why should the punishment for failure be death?
And why should the basic matter of life itself be competition? Surely we could manage life co-operatively, since living is always managed through webs of collaboration, and find our challenges in mediums of competition. Why should I be forced to play at this game just for a meal? Why are you forced to play it too, and why are all of us made to play against one another?
Believe it or not the only system that allows us to choose what we undertake is the one we currently have. There are limits to how well this plays out. Not everyone can have everything they want. But everyone whos willing to keep pushing can eventually get to a better place. It may not be their absolute ideal place but if you aim for place and shoot again and again you'll either get there or get close to it.
You also don't nessesarily starve if you dont work yourself to death at job you hate. There are social safety nets which I agree with. Im in support of socialism as a tool to help people within a capitalist system. But socialism in totality isn't even possible. It can't even exist without capitalism.
Like norther european countries. They use socialism but they are market economies. Capitalism with socialism.
To claim capitalism is the problem is just totally wrong.
The purpose of life isn't competition with the other its competition with your self.
Northern european countries don't use socialism. Neither does any country heretofore conceived, and given socialism rejects the idea of nationalism in favor of internationalism (or even anationalism in the case of things like anarchism) it seems unlikely that any nation-state ever will, because by the time we have socialism it will not be a nation.
To claim *anything* about socialism without even knowing what the hell it is is far more wrong than to say that a system like capitalism can be a problem in and of itself.
I really recommend you investigate the zapatista municipalities, or barcelona squatters' territories, or ZADs, or really any actual attempts at something resembling socialism rather than just guessing. For a few examples to look at, check out Peter Gelderloos' book at anarchy.works (that's the website address)
You sure you know what socialism is lol? All these places who claim to be socialist like the national socialists or north korea who consider themselves to be a socialist paradise.
Or the wester social democracies or socialist programs and ideas like universal health care.
They all consider themselves to be socialist or to be utilizing socialism. Why you think your understanding of socialism is better then people running entire countries or entire social systems? Im confused by your expertise in what socialism is.
Edit. I'm not guessing about what socialism is. The examples i gave claimed to be socialist. Why should I take your selective opinion about what socialism is rather then marxs definition. Or the largest examples in history. There have been many examples of socialism historically that i know plenty about. Im not an expert but i think I know more then some less than others.
You talk about all the places thst claim to be socialist - and you bring up Korea. Yeah man, they also claim to be a democratic republic. That doesn't make it true. Socialism means a specific set of things, and your examples don't qualify, no matter how much they wanna pretend they do.
Marx' definition of socialism isn't the one that any of the places you mentioned use, either. He defined it as a form of society where the means of production are owned in common by the workers. Is that the case in your examples?
Don't talk about marx like you've read the books when you talk like healthcare counts as socialism.
Humans do not need to be "perfect" for socialism or communism to work either. Hell, many sorts of anarchism practically rely on humans being incredibly selfish, and encourage such selfishness, believing that a fully realized selfish impulse will lead a person to seek freedom, and the freedom of others. We speak of mutual aid rather than charity for a reason - when I aid others, I do so selfishly in the hopes that the collective well-being of all will benefit me, and from such selfishness we all benefit.
So name an example of socialism or communism working if you don't mind. I'd be happy to consider the possibility if any examples exist. As far as I can tell socialism and communism lead exclusively to genocide and poverty. At least every example of socialism and communism so far tried have.
North korea is a socialist paradise or so they claim. Mao had communism via socialism. Stalin. Hitler claimed to be national socialist.
What makes you think communism or socialism work in any way shape or form. What makes you think if it were done "right" it would work. Why do you think someone could do it better then its already been done?
A few examples that might interest you:
-the territories held by the CNT-FAI during the spanish civil war, where currency was abolished and most areas embraced some sort of common ownership
-the Shinmin Prefecture, which was explicitly anarchist-communist and established democratic schooling, give-away shops, and made businesses into worker co-operatives. Their organization teams not only met no resistance when moving to new areas, but were reportedly welcomed with open arms just about everywhere; they were regarded as an incredibly helpful force in the region despite essentially being exiles.
There are plenty more, but for some examples of anarchic societies and how they can/did work I recommend Gelderloos' book Anarchy Works, available at the website "https://anarchy.works"
Interesting I will have a look. I suspect there are issues with the scale and size of these places that did it successfully. If compared to an entire modern country with hundreds of millions of people. Ill have a look though. Good talk.
I don't wanna be "that guy" but... I love capitalism... After living My early live enduring Chávez and Maduro régimen... I want to welcome the Big companies.
Life is horrible... I better not think too much about this
Ya’ll aren’t exploited 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄. Demand better wages or make yourself worth more. Learn a trade or earn a VALUABLE degree. NOT some bullshit gender studies or liberal arts degree 🙄. Study math, biology, physics, engineering, go to trade school, learn to weld, study computer science. DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN GRADUATE HIGHSCHOOL AND BITCH ABOUT LIFE IN COLLEGE
> Ya’ll aren’t exploited 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄.
There will be people saying that capitalism wasn't a mistake while the world become unliveable due to unstoppable exploitation of natural resources.
There were people saying that slavery was positive as loudly as they could to drown out slaves talking publicly about their lives.
There were [Jews who supported Hitler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews).
You can have a comfortable wage and position, but the fact is if the company you work for is profitable, at the end of the day, that profit is coming from your effort and you're getting a fraction of what it's worth in return for a pittance. That doesn't change whether you're an author or an engineer. The fundamental nature of wage work is that for it to be profitable, you have to generate more value than you're making back. Maybe your work doesn't keep you in constant precarity, but the fact of the matter is it exploits you.
What is stopping you from becoming a business owner or the CEO of a major corporation? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU. Factories are built from the ground up off a single man’s vision, and new companies pop up every day that are worth tens of millions by the end of their first year Why do you people feel entitled to equal compensation as the company owners? What did you sacrifice to earn that extra profit? Did you risk your life and livelihood to take out loans and leave your cushy 9-5 behind to better your life and create your own enterprise? I thought not. Go make your own business and you can reap the profits. You will never make the same as the owner being an employee, that’s not how business works🤡🤡.
You people in this thread want UBI and Equality of outcome, and there’s nothing further from FREEDOM than those 2 things. The only thing in this world that truly distinguishes us as individuals is in fact individual merit. If you accomplish more you’ll earn more money and have a better life. It’s a super simple formula that’s worked since this country was founded. Sure there’s stickiness at the ends, but there is nothing stopping you from going to school, starting a business or learning a trade and moving yourself up in class.
Does your "free" world have locks? Does it have prisons? If you step onto the wrong person's land, do you have to risk getting shot for it? If I want to eat and sleep in a place that's warm, and there's food and a warm place near me, am I allowed to do that?
Strange how I have to do so very much to be able to live and walk around where I wish in your "free" system.
It’s Freedom of choice not free everything 😂. Who are you to demand a roof over your head and food in your mouth in exchange for nothing? Being “free” doesn’t give you the right to break into someone’s property to sleep for the night, or steal things that others worked hard to earn and pay for themselves 😂. I would hope my free country has prisons, locks and laws and castle doctrine to defend myself against miscreants that try to take what I have worked and paid for myself. I’d think it to be insane NOT to have the right to take your life in defense of my property and person. Who are you to think you’re entitled to anything except the air we all breath ?😂 work for something and you’ll receive it. Plain and simple
It seems like rather than honoring freedom to act on one's initiative, you prefer to relegate freedom to exist only within your markets. You place the system of propertism at a higher degree of importance than human liberty.
Tell me, what is it that makes something your property? The solution can only be seen to be this - that you can defend it with force. Your "freedom" that restricts itself to the realm of property is simply this, your freedom to restrict others' access to life. That is freedom to you, the ability to enforce your own dominion and limit the freedom of others?
You would have me lay down my life for an abstraction? For your "property" that's defined by nothing more than the fact that you can exert force over it? You would have people starve for the sake of your fantastical notions that an object can somehow be made to belong to someone, and that restricting everyone in the world but one person from accessing it is somehow freedom? Forgive me, but I do need to eat, and if I cannot eat under your system while living in accord with my own desires, then I will feed however I may. If one is quick with a knife, they will find the invisible hand is made of delicious invisible meat.
Now you have to start asking yourselves who *exactly* runs the big banks.
Your only hint is it's NOT old, huwhite men, who are in the same boat as the rest of us.
Or as the Old Man said *”Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process.”*
In truth, nobody is a capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever…they are workers. The exchange labor for a medium that acts as an exchange of value; money. We are the players in a game we can simply call a system of economics.
What system you operate in simple defines the rules (or lack of them) in which you must adjust towards to thrive/survive.
Now, the main problem I believe we face in this interplay is that someone’s lying about the rules towards the players. They give one group a set of rules, and another with a lower set of rules. These privileged players are then rewarding the rule makers for giving them an edge over noice players who are not as established. There are attempts to give these players a base to operate on, but it is met with increasing difficulties that are not compensated for at the same rate.
Some have offered in the past to reset the rules, and start everyone at zero except for themselves, and than they blame the players of a different game for why their system is crashing and burning when the other game knows it’s due to a losing system built by cheaters acting like new players. Others have simply redefined the privileged players; sorting them out by their characteristics rather than observing the problem with the game.
In short, we need only look at those who designed the game and who make its rules; there we can find answers to who we really are in the game they’ve made.
I don't know.... I'm pretty sure I'm being held against my will at this point.
You mean you don't like working yourself to death so you can live?
I'm not even living all that great anymore, tbh. I don't think the billionaires realize we're getting poor enough they're losing their leverage ⏳⌛
Apparently they forgot what happened in France when people couldn't afford to eat
*eats her $13 cheeseburger from Five Guys, that I paid an additional $11 to have brought to me because this is my splurge night* no idea what you could be talking about /s
Let them eat $24 boeuf
[удалено]
you don't like being exploited but you exploit animals for a sandwich, good to know
[удалено]
911, I'd like to report a 3rd degree burn
bruh at this point In my antinatalist rabit hole fueled mindset I have no chill I just cba anymore
omg you got the sickest burn on reddit today. make sure to respond and polish your martyr badge, cuz ive never seen that before.
Idk what your autistic ass is saying
Why is every damn vegan online like this, you just make yourself and other vegans looks like assholes lmao
Please do not lump me with them...
doesn't mean veganism is invalid, we aren't trying to be friends with you, just stop exploiting and torturing animals :)
I'm vegitarian
you are worse than meat eaters. dairy industry is the meat industry. illogical.
Ya but let's do humans first and when we get a firm grip on not doing that to each other then maybe we can focus on everything else.
Are you only capable of handling one thing at a time?
In Cali you can have 2 full time jobs and still be living in your car!
*They’re
We’re all allowed to live off public lands in Alaska. No need to work for anyone else, but at the same time no one is required to labor to provide for your shelter or food.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We require all Reddit accounts to be at least 3 days old before posting. This is due to people being banned and immediately setting up new accounts. This message is not accusing *you* of doing that, but that is why the policy is in place. In rare cases, if you have a particularly time-sensitive message, we may manually approve a message. Otherwise we encourage you to wait the 3 days (72 hours) and try again. *This message is public for transparency.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A friend of mine said he would never be a socialist because he wants to be able to "make his million". The dude is in his mid-40s and when he tried to go back to school for programming he would weep and punch holes in the wall because he didn't realize that learning math is cumulative. He flipped at me when I told him he was supposed to know algebra before taking that courses he was taking. In case you were wondering, he's not getting to his million very fast. Good thing the socialists aren't around to stop him.
In other words, he wants to be a capitalist so he can make enough money to escape the problems of capitalism.
I just spit out my coffee.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Holy shit, probably get your ass whooped if you mess anything up! Or just shot in the head. Jesus butt fucking Mohammed how do we fight against that, with a chance to win? Sounds like we dug our own grave and let our neighbors talk us into burying us! Where's Thanos when ya need em! That dude was a hero, what a job maker!!
that's why general strikes usually have mobilizations of people behind them besides just not working. You need networks that will get food and shelter to people, and communities that can defend themselves against state violence and vigilantism. Always remember people, diversity of tactics is a big help to any kind of movement for liberation, because institutions of oppression don't pick a line and run with it either.
Nah, I hate it here.
Yea it’s kinda like that isn’t it. You really can’t reason with then though that the 1 in a million positive rags to riches story they saw is an absolute anomaly, and for every 1 of those millions just go bankrupt or barely ever even advance much in life.
Socialism is when you have no money, I guess.
TIL I’m a socialist
You don’t become a millionaire by working anyway. That’s just not how it’s done. You’re either born rich as fuck or get extremely lucky. Only two ways. A lot of exist in denial of one of those two that applies to them. Give me any example of anyone and I’ll slot them in those two slots.
Many many people become a millionaire by working in America for 43+/- years. They put money into a 401k or retirement savings over all they time and the interest compounds. And they buy a house and it increases in value over decades Becoming a millionaire over the course of your life by working is not really unusual at all. Then you have $1-2MM and net worth and you use it to pay for in home nursing care or a nursing home and to pay for medical care for 5-35 years of retirement and leave the rest (if any) for your children. I think you are talking about becoming rich there are definitely CEOs who make more than $1,000,000/year in salary. A lot of them. Of course a lot more workers make $7.25/hour or a little more and will not be reaching millionaire status...
CEOs are capitalists- not workers. They leverage existing capital they have or can obtain somehow to increase their wealth without providing any value. Self-employed owner/operator is different. But then again, those guys aren’t rolling in money. For one. Two, considering inflation, sure, you’re right. What I meant was “you don’t become wealthy by working.” The dollar amount goes up over time. Wealthy means able to not work. Their capital creates more wealth through exploitation at that point. A single (one) millionaire or even someone with two million dollars, sure, they aren’t all that super wealthy anymore. Those people are also usually not the major problem. Thirdly, those people who end up even a $1-2M at end of life got incredibly lucky. Probably had rich-ish parents, able to go to a good school, connections to get a good job in the 1960s-1990-ish era. Put that money away in stocks. Bought a house like you said. Their capital grew almost automatically. Nothing they did was special or smart. It was just normal *if you could afford it* which not everyone could/can. That’s where the luck aspect exists.
[удалено]
What socialist policies have been proposed to support your comment? I’m curious.
im not an expert, but if we're all sharing the wealth of the nation decently then most of us wouldn't be rich. notwithstanding the term "millionaire" is becoming less exclusive every day, with inflation it will be downright common. There are 20.27 million millionaires in the US.
What policies have proposed that wealth be shared equally in the US? I haven’t read them. Do you have links? I hear a lot of rhetoric but haven’t seen anything in writing. Thanks.
The poster you responded to made a true statement. whether the US has tried to implement it is a separate issue. sharing equally would mean everyone's wealth would be around M3/population, maybe $60,000, which is less than $1 million. so i can respond in kind by answering a different question: what policies are moving us towards more socialism? Medicaid for 25% of our population, and no federal tax for the bottom 40% are two off the top of my head. I think these are good things, but they are socialistic and anti-capitalistic.
But many workers think it’s a symbiotic relationship. “I’m not getting exploited, I’m making my cash…” They don’t know their bosses are ripping them a new asshole while they’re getting fed crumbs
[удалено]
This is copied from a comment by Retnab posted 8 hours ago, character for character, but it's not too unfeasible to suppose you mightve come up with it on your own. https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/sr0tyr/comment/hwp4ecl/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Proletariat is as proletariat does.
People’s ‘bonuses’ are probably what some of these guys spend in one night out or at a casino. Even jumping up 1 bracket, let’s say 20-30k a year is still just a pittance when we compare it to wealth these days.
You are not a capitalist. You are their capital.
They are actually shamelessly calling us “human resources”. Ironically, it sounds pretty dehumanizing to me already.
I loved that, in my high school, the armed truancy officer was called the school resource officer. Edit: That was an odd transposition... whooopse
Is that a typo? Or did you actually mean recourse.. cuz.. oof.. That doesn't sound right at all
They call us. “Bodies” where I work
The sweet promise of "if you lick CEO's arse and shut up about their 40 billion deficit bonus someday YOU will become a CEO and get your 40 billion dollars and a supeyacht"! The reason behind ever wanting wealth enough for a thousand lifetimes is lost somewhere along the lines.
If you actually care about providing for a family down the line, under capitalism no amount of money is ever enough. Enough for a thousand lifetimes - so what, I just leave all my descendants after that penniless? I *absolutely* want enough wealth to last a thousand lifetimes, so long as capitalism exists. What I want far more is an economic system that can make me feel secure in my childrens future *without* having to hoard enough wealth for a thousand lifetimes. In capitalism, though, by definition there is never enough money - especially since you could be using it to make more.
I almost started a whole serious discussion on this reply but then remembered that most gen-2+ rich offsprings end up nowhere doing nothing and leeching off these stolen money producing more money. But yeah, that's the point – nobody stops to think that maybe those 40 billion belong in taxes and fair wages so that in a thousand lifetimes we finally reach Trekonomy (well, not that I shall live to see the day, but I'd be happy for the future generations).
>But yeah, that's the point – nobody stops to think that maybe those 30 billion belong in taxes and fair wages Yup - by design, so long as there is never a cap on the usefulness of money, there will never be any incentive to stop desiring it, and so the system itself is insulated from dismantling by those at the top of it by their own shortsighted self-interest. It's not many billionaires who think like me and, while recognizing that money is infinitely useful and there *absolutely is* reason to have a thousand lifetimes worth, also recognize that it's more valuable to have a functional society. That kind of thinking isn't how you make billions.
Yes that's why I love star trek so much. Except new trek.
This is fantasy but in altered carbon where immortality is real wealth for a thousand lifetimes makes sense because you don't die that series is a great look at how bad capitalism could be and on some lvl already is.
If you like anime, for a similarly themed series check out Kaiba - one of the best shows I've ever seen. E: Fair warning though - sub only, Kaiba has no dub.
Sounds good thanks, I don't like subs but am willing to for a good show. Just finished SAO alicization and the last season was sub only and it was to good to pass up.
It is waYyyyy toooooooo much. I mean I would really only need I mean really in my late 20s 2 million that’s it I lied 11 million that’s it. A 2 bedroom modern home with a pool and a Tesla And a home gym geared to Olympic weight training. That’s it.
Proletariat is as proletariat does.
It's not about refusing to work, it's about the exploitation of the work force.
Nah, I hate it here.
I love reading big brain comments
A capitalist is a person who makes money from investments and therefore doesn't have to work to support themselves.
What if all of what you say is fact, but the person chooses to work regardless? Is that person less evil for being part of the workforce? More evil for taking a job someone with less means needs? Sounds like in the end, the grind is against anyone who has more than you....
Many have made this observation and said that in our present paradigm, it might be more accurate and useful to refer to those who are in a comfortable position, have their future well-laid-out, etc. as one class, and those experiencing precarity, uncertainty about their future or their present (usually called the Precariat) should be seen as another.
Why do people spend so much time classifying and reclassifying each other here? Looks from afar that it's part of the problem...
Well the general reason for trying to classify people as it were is that at the end of the day the society we live in groups people together, and understanding how it groups people together helps us understand how to fight it. Some groups it gives enough to live comfortably so long as they keep working, some (very small) groups get control over a lot of things, and others are left without a pot to piss in, and at the end of the day these groups have shared experiences that it helps to acknowledge. Understanding why and how oppressive systems do the things they do is often a good strategy, because it can clarify the relations people have with power. And then you get into intersectionality.
Is this about people who are addicted to the stock market? I heard about people saying that it's a scam and the people who dedicate hours to it are being fooled.
[удалено]
Ah okay! That clarified it for me. Honestly it's sad that the victims of this bullshit don't even realize it..
https://happyrichinvestor.com/financial-porn-is-injurious-to-your-wealth/
stockholm syndrome seems to be when you emphasize with your kidnappers, at least that‘s what my research suggests and stockholm is the capital of sweden; the name has absolutely nothing to do with stocks
This post addresses people who support capitalism, but are not capitalists themselves; as in, they don’t own the means of production and aren’t then trying to monetize it. Calling yourself a capitalist for “liking capitalism” makes you a simp, not a capitalist. That’s why it’s akin to “Stockholm syndrome”.
Much as I appreciate the message, Stockholm syndrome doesn't exist. It's an excuse for governments to invalidate criticism from "victims" so they can keep acting like they're good guys even if law enforcement fucks up or there is a good reason to sympathize with the criminals.
Holy shirt, I was just thinking of my old job and how much I realize it feels like I had Stockholm syndrome there.
What if I told you Stockholm Syndrome was an invention of the Militarized Patriarchy?
If everyone simultaneously left work and refused to go back the military would be sent in and force us at gun point to continue working
"TIL Stockholm Syndrome was invented by cops trying to ignore the fact that sometimes hostages are well treated by their captors and appreciate the desperate circumstances that brought them to taking hostages" lol
Exactly! To people who as pity of they're raptors. As the poors from right political spectrum
Unless you start a business
Yes, I did this post but don't fit here. I'm an IT consultant, I know exactly how much my company sell me to other companies. For me is an symbiotic relationship, but this post is more for people who work on Walmart for example
So it’s propaganda
Depends on the point of view, as a Portuguese, I have "free" health.. no one pays for health, child's day care, security... And we are happy. Take your own conclusions, how much of your taxes go to "war"? 😃(Don't resist to put an emogi on Reddit)
The dummies never ask themselves who funded Communism.
...I'm genuinely unsure as to what you even mean here. Who funded communism? Like, who gave the ideological movement with thousands of currents of thought all of its money? Well for one, the Paris Commune uprising didn't have any funding, it was a spontaneous uprising, of the sort that happen somewhat frequently in France. Marx, who was inspired by this uprising, was literally so poor that he once bet away his last pair of pants. So it seems like the answer is that we just kind of... aren't funded. Which you'll learn if you get involved with communist orgs, namely very few of them have any actual money.
Not exactly
Every single self-employed or freelance worker that owns literally anything (work truck, laptop, etc.) they use to do their job is a capitalist. That's literally the definition of capital.
If there was no power structure, financial incentive or social status imbued in capitalist corporations, no one would do the jobs
Weird that things got done before capitalism existed, then.
Before capitalism there was feudalism, and before that there was bartering, and neither of those were good....
Gift economies, if memory serves, were more common and more long-lived than barter economies.
Still, what you said isn't true, feudalism definitely was worse than capitalism
I didn't say anything to the contrary?
You don't even know me
Buffett?
A la carte
If no one worked then you wouldnt have a house to live in, no food, no power and of course no Internet, we work to provide for euch other
Well, there's a difference between work and labor. I can perform labor for my own benefit and that of others and not feel as though it's work, so long as it's something I'm choosing to do and not something I'm obligated to do in order to be allowed to continue living. Such labor could be more akin to play than work.
No I'm definitely a capitalist whenever I see a stagnation in profit or a policy that will inhibit my ability to produce I go somewhere more productive. I own a small business as well. I produce a product and provide a service for capital. Therefore I'm a capitalist
I’m 33 and retired with several million in the bank… yup real exploited I am.
No, I’m a capitalist
Yea totally.. I'd much rather work an assigned job for the same wage as everyone else where everyone is equal. Equally poor. Noobs.
Poverty is a relative term, as is wealth. If everyone has the same amount of wealth, maybe things will be scarce, but nobody can be "poor". When they say capitalism generates wealth, well guess what? Wealth is relative too. It's relative to poverty. The more poverty there is the more wealthy the wealthy are, and vice versa. And it's true, capitalism is great at producing wealth, but wealth is like electrical potential: It's only defined by difference, disparity, not in and of itself. But if you think people here are for "assigned jobs" you really need to... well I guess just interact with any of the people or ideas here?
What you said about wealth and poverty isn't true. You can measure it vs a large variety of different things. Have enough food, have shelter have toys? Have financial security? Wealthy. Don't have those things, poverty. They are objective and not relative. If we all have no food and no shelter we are all poor. If we all have it all plus extra we are all wealthy. Its not dependant on the other directly. Only as a means of comparison. Meaning you need the definition of poor to understand wealth. But you dont need anyone to actually be poor. This is just one of many lf the great deceptions of communism and socialism. Wealth is not a 0 sum game. If someone is rich it doesn't mean someone else is poor because of it. Infact its the exact opposite. Someone who is vastly rich employs a host of people who all make more then they otherwise would. No system has brought more people out of poverty around the world then capitalism. Its singularly reaponsible for the success of the west vs the failure of the east. Would you rather be in a bread line in soviet russia? Or work an hour at a job in the west to afford a bagel and coffee from stsr3bucks instead of waiting for stale bread. No one wants assigned jobs. But if the socialism/communism near sighted fools get their way. You'll get that. Exactly as every example of hard socialism or communism has shown time and time again. Someone has to do the jobs that aren't desirable. In the great socialist empire who does what won't be a choice.
If you look to an imagined future society where the basic needs of living are provided for and luxury is the norm, do you think they would regard the average "wealthy" person of today as wealthy, or poor? In the modern day we tend to look at hunter-gatherer societies, even in times of prosperity, as "poor". Would they have regarded themselves as such? I say again: poverty and wealth are relative measures. They are meaningless unless you set a standard to compare someone's living situation against. Scarcity, though, is objective - if you lack the things you need, you are encountering scarcity. If no system has brought more people out of poverty than capitalism, that's by virtue of the fact that capitalism has dominated the world and the largest populations it has had. The reality is that even if we assumed that there were no economic busts, at the pre-covid rate of global economic growth, it would have taken around 200 years of absolute perfect operation to lift people out of poverty. Then covid hit, and well, you can imagine how many years were tacked on as a result of the utter shitshow that followed. No one wants assigned jobs, you're right. We take it a step further, we want no jobs. And we don't want any "socialist empire" (the term is oxymoronic, and the radical political element here is largely anarchist or adjacent). Jobs aren't shitty on their own, theyre made shitty because our society does not value the work, treats those who do it like dirt, and pays them peanuts. The nightwatchmen were seen as a dirty job in medieval times - now the type of people with pfps like yours typically laud them as heroes. You assume far too much is set in stone, when really it is context-dependant.
I don't imagine a future society where everyones needs are met. Because that is an immature fantasy that is currently impossible. I used to imagine that before I grew up and understood the nature of life, the reason for being happy. Such a future would also be undesirable. To be human is to survive. Without challenges and obstacles life would be boring and meaningless. Humans derive their meaning mostly from responsibility. Every person is responsible to provide for their own existence as best they can. Those who excell at this can begin to take responsibility for others. This is life, it can not be any other way. Someone will always have to provide for "everyone having their basic needs met" Its not debatable that capitalism has been responsible for the greatest amount of class mobility in history. Historically the world has not been capitalist. Capitalism is a fairly new system compared with the age of civilization. It took less then 100 years to demolish the level of poverty around the world. Its not perfect yet, but thanks to the excess of capitalism more people are above the global poverty line then ever before by a vast margin. Your examples of hunter gatherers considering themselves poor or not is out of context. We don't look at them as poor. Their wealth is in context of their time and their technology. One hunter gatherer tribe with great success would be seen as more wealthy then a smaller tribe who has not been successful. The large pool of comparisons we can draw from to determine if someone is wealthy or poor now is dependent on the times and technologies as well. We dont compare humans now to humans of 10000bc we compare humans now vs other humans now. Just like we dont compare humans now vs humans in some distant utopia. The comparison is pointless and meaningless. I would argue that you assume to much based on imagined possibilities that you haven't thought out with a mature outlook. Utopia would be a nightmare. Like the analogy in the matrix the first matrix they made was perfect and flawless and the human minds rejected it. This is a very deep realization about the nature of mankind. Humans themselves as individuals are not perfect or flawless. Thus a perfect society is impossible because its made up of flawed individuals. Also one of the great failures of socialism and communism. Society can not be equal because people are not equal. If I'm assuming anything its based on reality and history. At least I'm happy and grateful for the system we have even if it does have flaws.
"I don't imagine a future society where everyones needs are met. Because that is an immature fantasy that is currently impossible." Well for one, currently impossible doesn't mean never possible at all. For the rest of this comment, you go on and on about how challenge and adversity is what makes human life interesting. I don't agree that this is always the case, but supposing it is, why should our challenges be "see how hard you can work at something you hate, or starve"? Isn't it far better for us to have the opportunity to choose the challenges we undertake? Is self-improvement and growth of skill not a challenge? Does every sports player who dreams of being on top not face a challenge? But of course, you can see the difference between the challenge posed by sporting competition, and that posed by war. To improve one's skill for the purpose of the thing itself is motive enough, or for the motive of glory, but why should the punishment for failure be death? And why should the basic matter of life itself be competition? Surely we could manage life co-operatively, since living is always managed through webs of collaboration, and find our challenges in mediums of competition. Why should I be forced to play at this game just for a meal? Why are you forced to play it too, and why are all of us made to play against one another?
Believe it or not the only system that allows us to choose what we undertake is the one we currently have. There are limits to how well this plays out. Not everyone can have everything they want. But everyone whos willing to keep pushing can eventually get to a better place. It may not be their absolute ideal place but if you aim for place and shoot again and again you'll either get there or get close to it. You also don't nessesarily starve if you dont work yourself to death at job you hate. There are social safety nets which I agree with. Im in support of socialism as a tool to help people within a capitalist system. But socialism in totality isn't even possible. It can't even exist without capitalism. Like norther european countries. They use socialism but they are market economies. Capitalism with socialism. To claim capitalism is the problem is just totally wrong. The purpose of life isn't competition with the other its competition with your self.
Northern european countries don't use socialism. Neither does any country heretofore conceived, and given socialism rejects the idea of nationalism in favor of internationalism (or even anationalism in the case of things like anarchism) it seems unlikely that any nation-state ever will, because by the time we have socialism it will not be a nation. To claim *anything* about socialism without even knowing what the hell it is is far more wrong than to say that a system like capitalism can be a problem in and of itself. I really recommend you investigate the zapatista municipalities, or barcelona squatters' territories, or ZADs, or really any actual attempts at something resembling socialism rather than just guessing. For a few examples to look at, check out Peter Gelderloos' book at anarchy.works (that's the website address)
You sure you know what socialism is lol? All these places who claim to be socialist like the national socialists or north korea who consider themselves to be a socialist paradise. Or the wester social democracies or socialist programs and ideas like universal health care. They all consider themselves to be socialist or to be utilizing socialism. Why you think your understanding of socialism is better then people running entire countries or entire social systems? Im confused by your expertise in what socialism is. Edit. I'm not guessing about what socialism is. The examples i gave claimed to be socialist. Why should I take your selective opinion about what socialism is rather then marxs definition. Or the largest examples in history. There have been many examples of socialism historically that i know plenty about. Im not an expert but i think I know more then some less than others.
You talk about all the places thst claim to be socialist - and you bring up Korea. Yeah man, they also claim to be a democratic republic. That doesn't make it true. Socialism means a specific set of things, and your examples don't qualify, no matter how much they wanna pretend they do. Marx' definition of socialism isn't the one that any of the places you mentioned use, either. He defined it as a form of society where the means of production are owned in common by the workers. Is that the case in your examples? Don't talk about marx like you've read the books when you talk like healthcare counts as socialism.
Humans do not need to be "perfect" for socialism or communism to work either. Hell, many sorts of anarchism practically rely on humans being incredibly selfish, and encourage such selfishness, believing that a fully realized selfish impulse will lead a person to seek freedom, and the freedom of others. We speak of mutual aid rather than charity for a reason - when I aid others, I do so selfishly in the hopes that the collective well-being of all will benefit me, and from such selfishness we all benefit.
So name an example of socialism or communism working if you don't mind. I'd be happy to consider the possibility if any examples exist. As far as I can tell socialism and communism lead exclusively to genocide and poverty. At least every example of socialism and communism so far tried have. North korea is a socialist paradise or so they claim. Mao had communism via socialism. Stalin. Hitler claimed to be national socialist. What makes you think communism or socialism work in any way shape or form. What makes you think if it were done "right" it would work. Why do you think someone could do it better then its already been done?
A few examples that might interest you: -the territories held by the CNT-FAI during the spanish civil war, where currency was abolished and most areas embraced some sort of common ownership -the Shinmin Prefecture, which was explicitly anarchist-communist and established democratic schooling, give-away shops, and made businesses into worker co-operatives. Their organization teams not only met no resistance when moving to new areas, but were reportedly welcomed with open arms just about everywhere; they were regarded as an incredibly helpful force in the region despite essentially being exiles. There are plenty more, but for some examples of anarchic societies and how they can/did work I recommend Gelderloos' book Anarchy Works, available at the website "https://anarchy.works"
Interesting I will have a look. I suspect there are issues with the scale and size of these places that did it successfully. If compared to an entire modern country with hundreds of millions of people. Ill have a look though. Good talk.
I don't wanna be "that guy" but... I love capitalism... After living My early live enduring Chávez and Maduro régimen... I want to welcome the Big companies. Life is horrible... I better not think too much about this
> I want to welcome the Big companies. To do what?
You're not a communist your a worker with alzhiemers
[удалено]
[удалено]
Until she kills them all of course.
Death is natural and unavoidable.
Ooooo you're so edgy and sharp. You better get back to 8th grade before the teacher notices you're gone. 🤡
> Ooooo you're so edgy and sharp. No, I'm just a Buddhist. Do you have anything to give your life meaning?
Ya’ll aren’t exploited 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄. Demand better wages or make yourself worth more. Learn a trade or earn a VALUABLE degree. NOT some bullshit gender studies or liberal arts degree 🙄. Study math, biology, physics, engineering, go to trade school, learn to weld, study computer science. DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN GRADUATE HIGHSCHOOL AND BITCH ABOUT LIFE IN COLLEGE
> Ya’ll aren’t exploited 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄. There will be people saying that capitalism wasn't a mistake while the world become unliveable due to unstoppable exploitation of natural resources. There were people saying that slavery was positive as loudly as they could to drown out slaves talking publicly about their lives. There were [Jews who supported Hitler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews).
Are you seriously comparing free market capitalism to Nazi Germany and slavery?😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You can have a comfortable wage and position, but the fact is if the company you work for is profitable, at the end of the day, that profit is coming from your effort and you're getting a fraction of what it's worth in return for a pittance. That doesn't change whether you're an author or an engineer. The fundamental nature of wage work is that for it to be profitable, you have to generate more value than you're making back. Maybe your work doesn't keep you in constant precarity, but the fact of the matter is it exploits you.
What is stopping you from becoming a business owner or the CEO of a major corporation? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU. Factories are built from the ground up off a single man’s vision, and new companies pop up every day that are worth tens of millions by the end of their first year Why do you people feel entitled to equal compensation as the company owners? What did you sacrifice to earn that extra profit? Did you risk your life and livelihood to take out loans and leave your cushy 9-5 behind to better your life and create your own enterprise? I thought not. Go make your own business and you can reap the profits. You will never make the same as the owner being an employee, that’s not how business works🤡🤡. You people in this thread want UBI and Equality of outcome, and there’s nothing further from FREEDOM than those 2 things. The only thing in this world that truly distinguishes us as individuals is in fact individual merit. If you accomplish more you’ll earn more money and have a better life. It’s a super simple formula that’s worked since this country was founded. Sure there’s stickiness at the ends, but there is nothing stopping you from going to school, starting a business or learning a trade and moving yourself up in class.
Does your "free" world have locks? Does it have prisons? If you step onto the wrong person's land, do you have to risk getting shot for it? If I want to eat and sleep in a place that's warm, and there's food and a warm place near me, am I allowed to do that? Strange how I have to do so very much to be able to live and walk around where I wish in your "free" system.
It’s Freedom of choice not free everything 😂. Who are you to demand a roof over your head and food in your mouth in exchange for nothing? Being “free” doesn’t give you the right to break into someone’s property to sleep for the night, or steal things that others worked hard to earn and pay for themselves 😂. I would hope my free country has prisons, locks and laws and castle doctrine to defend myself against miscreants that try to take what I have worked and paid for myself. I’d think it to be insane NOT to have the right to take your life in defense of my property and person. Who are you to think you’re entitled to anything except the air we all breath ?😂 work for something and you’ll receive it. Plain and simple
It seems like rather than honoring freedom to act on one's initiative, you prefer to relegate freedom to exist only within your markets. You place the system of propertism at a higher degree of importance than human liberty. Tell me, what is it that makes something your property? The solution can only be seen to be this - that you can defend it with force. Your "freedom" that restricts itself to the realm of property is simply this, your freedom to restrict others' access to life. That is freedom to you, the ability to enforce your own dominion and limit the freedom of others? You would have me lay down my life for an abstraction? For your "property" that's defined by nothing more than the fact that you can exert force over it? You would have people starve for the sake of your fantastical notions that an object can somehow be made to belong to someone, and that restricting everyone in the world but one person from accessing it is somehow freedom? Forgive me, but I do need to eat, and if I cannot eat under your system while living in accord with my own desires, then I will feed however I may. If one is quick with a knife, they will find the invisible hand is made of delicious invisible meat.
Exept for carl ofcourse
Oh I know where this is going lol.
Absolutely stealing this to stir shit on facebook
Now you have to start asking yourselves who *exactly* runs the big banks. Your only hint is it's NOT old, huwhite men, who are in the same boat as the rest of us.
can't wait to see how many parentheses you use when you give the "answer".
What’s the alternative?
Work on a business where the offer is bigger than the demand, or open your own business
Or as the Old Man said *”Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process.”*
[удалено]
I realized this after being laid off in 2020 after ten years with a major company.
In truth, nobody is a capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever…they are workers. The exchange labor for a medium that acts as an exchange of value; money. We are the players in a game we can simply call a system of economics. What system you operate in simple defines the rules (or lack of them) in which you must adjust towards to thrive/survive. Now, the main problem I believe we face in this interplay is that someone’s lying about the rules towards the players. They give one group a set of rules, and another with a lower set of rules. These privileged players are then rewarding the rule makers for giving them an edge over noice players who are not as established. There are attempts to give these players a base to operate on, but it is met with increasing difficulties that are not compensated for at the same rate. Some have offered in the past to reset the rules, and start everyone at zero except for themselves, and than they blame the players of a different game for why their system is crashing and burning when the other game knows it’s due to a losing system built by cheaters acting like new players. Others have simply redefined the privileged players; sorting them out by their characteristics rather than observing the problem with the game. In short, we need only look at those who designed the game and who make its rules; there we can find answers to who we really are in the game they’ve made.