Everybody should have access to clean water. I mean everybody. If I was the President I'd happily enforce that with all powers available.
Then I'd start working my way up the hierarchy of needs...
Elon could single-handedly end world hunger. But he doesn’t.
Well, billionaires should not exist. But ending world hunger takes way more than just money. There is enough food already, it's just not evenly distributed. And even in areas where we send aid, local power plays and corruption prevent the fair distribution. Ending world hunger is a hugely complex issue, unfortunately. Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't try or try different approaches. It's just not as simple as saying "feeding all hungry people costs x money, and some billionaire could pay for that"
Yes, but he’s a genius at business and logistics, and several forms of transportation. It should be easy for him to solve those problems, right? (Some /s in there)
In any case, he could hire people to solve those problems if he wanted to. He’s certainly got the resources. Then again, if he approached it like his other ventures, trying to run things himself, he may only make it worse for everyone whilst doubling his own net worth.
One huge issue are the situations that cause people to remain hungry. They are caused by war and widespread poverty. That's not something an immature asshole like Musk is going to solve. After all, he is part of the problem.
Elon can't even save twitter. What makes you think he is single-handedly capable of ending world hunger.
Not with any skills he has – he’s an idiot. I just mean the money he has. He could donate billions and billions to organisations that can, and still be the richest person on the planet.
Wow, I did not know that. He could definitely drop the percentage he takes from Indy developers. I always thought his 30%, was scummy. Now moreso.
From all developers honestly but just from indies would be great considering they already have it in their contract that the % goes down after X$ of sales (which benefits larger devs).
Valve makes enough money to pay their employees more than the competition while also having surplus to have tons of side projects that will lead to nothing and making the boss a billionaire... I don't mind the first two, but that last bit means money coming out of our pockets and going towards buying yachts...
(Disclaimer: I hate all billionaires, this applies to all platforms, we overpay for games [and most other things] in general because there's billionaires at the top of the creation/distribution chain)
never beileve billionaires when they act like they need more money
People can have mega yachts precisely because others don’t get 3 meals a day. That’s how the system is designed to work.
Not because the capital spared from denied meals (or production thereof) are going directly towards yachts, but because the capitalist mode of production requires the threat of starvation to force us into unfavourable compensation for our labour.
Really, we could easily do both at this point (and more), but since greed knows no limits, there is also no limit to what pain the capitalist class will impose on us in order to extract surplus value.
We already produce enough food for a billion more people than what exists, but still around a billion live in starvation to deter the rest of us.
Clean water and a freaking shitter too!
Before anyone can have VR or a sports car.
Zuckerfuck: But in the meta verse, you can poop, pee, and sleep anywhere your heart desires!
I think Fuckerberg is a better name for him.
As far as you can afford it *
Sports cars are dumb. VR I tried but didn't care for it.
Honestly I don't think sports cars should be legal, they're so inefficient.
I'll take your word for it. In all honesty whenever I see some douchebag with a sports car who makes the engine roar all I can think of is that this is the mating cry of a man with a tiny penis.
And shelter.
A well functional and hygienic three set bathroom is also essential. That is a shitter, a bathtub/shower and sink. You probably knew that of course.
It does make total sense.
Bezos needed to de-construct a bridge in the Netherlands because his new build yacht wouldn't go through. Fokker paid for it too, probably a fraction of that floating monstrosity. We did not like it one bit but the city of Rotterdam pulled their pants down and bended over.
Did he pay for it to be rebuilt taller or is there just not a bridge now?
All I can find is articles about how they did NOT tear down the bridge because the locals were obviously outraged. The city would have done it.
They ended up not needing to deconstruct the bridge.
It's a historic railroad bridge that has not been used for a while, steel construction, and it has been taken apart and put together many times before, sometimes for maintenance. IIRC the current mayor promised the people not to do it again, and then came Bezos, and then they didn't take it apart, they installed the yacht's masts downstream instead.
I'm pretty sure the people of Rotterdam got pissed and it didn't happen?
Don't forget healthcare as well!
Cooking Mama has an ideal outcome - Great
Cooking Mama's idea of getting there was whatever the fuck the USSR was doing... - Not Great
Just Tax the rich while maintaining a strong democracy, it's not hard.
you don’t get to communism through “social democracy” XD
any concessions given by the rich in bourgeois “democracies” are funded by outsourcing some of the exploitation to the imperial periphery/global south
You definitely don't get to a public owned means of production and redistribution of goods through Autocracy for vwry obvious reasons.
The rich need not make concessions when the poor can help write the laws.
1st of all, great whataboutism 👍
but I will indulge you:
Autocracy?! That’s not what that word means. Tsarism was autocracy, Chiang Kai-shek was basically an autocrat.
What you are talking about is a revisionist degenerated workers state (or bourgeois state of a new type in the case of contemporary China) in which the bureaucracy grew too strong to a quasi caste-like status above the rest of the population. There were attempts to correct this in both the USSR (workers/left/united opposition) and in the PRC (Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) but both were crushed
So it’s definitely smth we should learn from, to not repeat those mistakes. But that does not mean turning to the snake oil that is social democracy/democratic socialism which believe that somehow we can magically convince the ruling classes of systemic change and that they will give up power voluntarily. (And even if you manage somehow to wrestle significant concessions, they will either be rolled back after 30yrs or you’ll get the bullet in a fascist coup)
EDIT: Even under bureaucratic state socialism, there still was collective rule. Yes cults of personality were established around key figures (e.g. Stalin and Mao) but you can look up CIA documents where they dismiss that Stalin had abolished collective leadership (though ofc he still was the figurehead of the bureaucracy and the dominant force). Mao had an even stronger cult of personality, but a far “weaker” position than Stalin and the leadership was far more collective (just an fyi: this is why Mao called for a cultural revolution, which was a grassroots movement btw. The capitalist roaders (party bureaucrats who wanted to get back to capitalism but keep their privileged party posts) where gaining more and more power and he was not in a dictatorial position to stop them at will. So he had to organize a mass students and youth movement. Ofc there were excesses and errors there as well)
And despite the corrupt character AES brought forth massive progress in all fields of society. Free education up to university for everyone who didn’t slack at school. Millions of emancipated people learned to read for the first time ever. Massive scientific progress. Access to culture for millions. Making things like theatre, operas, ballet, cinema and chess accessible (and affordable !) for the masses. Making sure everyone had a place to work, sleep, smth to eat and clean water. Giving women the right to work, vote, choose whom or even if to marry, to go through life unveiled and just generally choose their own lives.(but this is one of the errors again. Patriarchal social structures were still kept and social conservatism took hold, which is why women rarely if ever had the rly high positions and were barred from the military f.e.) Making sure every child had a place at a crib or kindergarten. Making good quality healthcare accessible to all free of charge. Including vaccinating even the furthest regions, that had never even seen a doctor before.
This might not seem all that impressive to the priviliged liberal, but you have to look at the state the regions where in before: semi-feudalism at best (and/or bombed into the 3rd world after WW2)
Ofc there were excesses and mistakes, as already stated. But that does not negate their achievements.
TL;DR: dismissing state socialism as “something that didn’t work for the people” is disingenuous and disregards the fact that it did work and that, despite its flaws, it worked for hundreds of millions of people.
We should not demonize previous socialist experiments, neither should we glorify them, but constructively learn from their mistakes when striving for a class-, state-, and moneyless society (aka communism, which is materially possible in todays world and not an idealist utopia, but a historic necessity if humanity is to progress as a species and not devolve into barbarism/fascism)
good short clips of Parenti talking if anyone’s interested (he put it rly well imo)
Wow we get it, you would suck a dictator's cock. Say more with less, dictator cocksucker.
👍
👋 bye, toxic and close-minded bad faith .world lib
apparently nuance is smth those ppl can’t fathom
You know 'dictator' has a different meaning in socialist rhetoric. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is tongue-in-cheek, as in, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the reverse of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is the system we live under. A CIA document even mentioned the misconception of the Western world in regards to the USSR's dictatorship.
The core issue is that it actually is impossible to maintain full democracy under capitalism. Even under perfect direct democracy with no lobbies and full representation those with the means to promote their voice louder will do so.
And if you have big money (which some will, because the more money you already have, the easier it becomes to hoard even more), you can fund projects that will have to promote you in return, skewing the voting process.
In reality though, political lobbying, corruption, etc. are omnipresent, and extremely hard to combat, because it's in the logic of capitalism to accumulate wealth at all costs, legal or otherwise.
Now, I'm not saying socialist societies are totally devoid of corruption and self-interest, but they at least have mechanisms in place to curb it.
Capitalism is not aimed at increasing people's wellbeing, it's aimed at pursuing profit, and people's wellbeing is fundamentally secondary. If putting people in worse conditions increases profits, this will eventually be done. Socialism, on the other hand, declares people's equality and wellbeing as the core priorities. Resources should be spent in a way that benefits most people.
population control, unconventional but effective, I like it.
It's so unconventional it's the convention
And a place to sleep.
More than just a place to sleep; a place to call your own. And every place I've rented did not feel like my own; most corporate rental contracts make it very clear that this is their property, don't you dare make it feel like home, you only get to temporarily reside there by the grace of their good will (and by paying out your nose, ears, eyes, and ass for the privilege).
I eat my breakfast from a bowl. Checkmate yachters!
If you're working 40 hours a week and you STILL can't afford basics like food, shelter and healthcare, then your economy (and your employer) sucks.
Is this true even if a person on an island spends their whole life building a wooden mega yacht for themself?
If someone can manage to build themselves a mega yacht from scratch they can keep it
Phew. I could sense people sharpening their pitch forks. This my yacht and I’m keeping it.
Hmm, so we could say the real problem is when someone has wealth disproportionately larger than what they contributed to the world?
The system which produces mega yachts also has the best record for feeding people.
The hammer and sickle on the chalkboard there is a flag under which tens of millions of people starved in the last century.
CIA document
considering most of the world is capitalist and a lot of the world live with food scarcity i don't think capitalism is doing very well.
Well then explain to me why the biggest capitalist system in the world, the USA, can feed the vast majority of people in their borders. No one here lives with food scarcity… right? Surely they don’t throw a ton of food away either. And homelessness shouldn’t be an issue either with this incredible system. Right?
The black book of communism is utter shit.
I've seen this episode, at first after the revolution there's three full plates of food. The party is doing well in power, then they consolidate power, the food portions get smaller as party elites get richer and more powerful.
Eventually it's just three plastic replicas of food, as they acknowledge everyone eats differently. Eventually it's just a badge or picture of the plates of food. By that time class based Capitalism has been restarted by the new party oligarchs, they even have more control and oversight than the current Capitalists.
What I mean is, you can't "should" us to a new and better system. You have to fully understand the current one, its weaknesses and strengths and the minds/views/motivations of every class and type in it before you can come up with something that is entirely and peacefully transition motivated, and has a better option to transition to... What's more the whole journey has to appeal to human nature and satisfy some if not all those needs... Even if you don't personally share all those needs... And you have to be realistic about such.
Rules for Rulers comes as close as I've seen on this:
Or, you know, we could spend slightly more on existing food programs and relax eligibility requirements...
We don't have to put Stalin in charge to better fund SNAP or free school lunches
You say we could.
Why haven’t we ?
Please specify the "We"
The general answer is political and scientific illiteracy combined with corruption in politics (such as money or a party with too much power).
Thats what they said, no?
Cool, glad it got resolved so simply and neatly, good job everyone! 👍
P.S remember when the Black Panthers had to enforce the right to have a free breakfast program, by patrolling the streets with guns? They we're Maoist by the way (Maoism dictates using the community to set up community services). Glad things are so much simpler now. Operating on kind comments, thoughts and prayers 🙏
I don't understand why, when confronted with the idea that we should eliminate hunger, you equated that with communist revolution
That's just how far I've given up on reformist Capitalism and establishment corruption.
...but also on well meaning idealism that has little meaningful to offer.
You know what would be great, an honest, true, and transparent political system, and maximum wealth limits.
...like we can express good intentions and desires all day. That's cool, but there are hard problems in the way, and at some point utopianism is a distraction from realism and genuine analysis of what those hard problems are.
Your idea to end establishment corruption is to give full authority and remove all accountability for the Establishment, such as Mao ZeDong did?
No dumb ass, nor did I ever say that by pointing out that the Black Panthers were Maoist in their food distribution program (see their Wikipedia page for details).
They murdered Fred, while he was sleeping next to his pregnant girlfriend. Then blamed him.
Does this also apply to say, smartphones?
There's quite a chasm between a $100 million boat and a $100 device...
Somehow, all these pleas on behalf of the downtrodden never include us actually making any sacrifices or change, just the rich.
Weird how it's easy to agitate for change when it involves zero sacrifice on your part.
Ok... if i give up my phone, i feed a family for a week. If bezo gives up a yacht, he feeds 1,000 familes for life. See the problem here?
Except there are many more non billionaires than billionaires. There are some 750ish billionaires in the US.
Median American has a net worth of about 200k. So, 5,000 median Americans gets you about a billion.
Divide the American population (~333 million) and lo and behold, worth about 66,666 billionaires.
So, in other words, blaming billionaires is easy but really...
Yes, which is why step taxation was implemented... the richer you are the more you're expected to return back to society.
Yes and the billionaires, while still having loopholes, still give back way more to society than we do.
Unsure what point you're trying to make.
What they give back is miniscule in what they take.
What is the point you're trying to make?
There are many more non billionaires than billionaires. There are some 750ish billionaires in the US.
Median American has a net worth of about 200k. So, 5,000 median Americans gets you about a billion.
Divide the American population (~333 million) and lo and behold, worth about 66,666 billionaires.
So, in other words, blaming billionaires is easy but really...
Did you just repeat your comment? Maybe you should get your handler to spend more money on your LLM model.
That's bullshit. Same argument corporations try to push on us about climate change. Fish rots from the head down. Obviously there will be sacrifices we have to make. But to preach "what will YOU be giving up, huh??" when megacorps and gazillionaires hoard literal mountains of wealth to the detriment of the planet and all others while they purposely stand in the way of any progress or change that might affect their bottom line? Bootlicking at worst, misguided liberal soapbox bullshit at best.
Lol, I love "bootlicking" on Lemmy, as far as I can tell it's used the same way trump uses rigged, that is to say "I don't like it!"
I mean, on climate change, farming is one of the biggest contributors and as fat as the fat cats are, the 333 million non billionaire Americans eat a boatload more beef than the 750ish billionaires. Meanwhile, in terms of say, children losing their limbs mining the cobalt for our phones, the 333 million are way more responsible. Same story for sweatshops. Same for air travel, oil consumption etc.
But man, actual change on our part would be hard. Way easier to rail about billionaires online and feel snugly superior rather than actually doing the work.
Oh wow has Lemmy gotten big enough that now people bring it up in every comeback post the way people do with Reddit? Awesome. That's gonna so fun.
Call it whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that you complaining about Americans eating beef will change nothing, while enacting policies punishing the corporations producing the bulk the waste on Earth will. But hey, I'll bite, I don't eat meat, and I don't drive a car, since I work from home. So what else should I do to make you happy? Not have a smartphone, because smartphone bad? I've had the same one since high school, but sure, I'll stop using that too. Now, what? Absolutely jack shit. I'm not feeling "snugly superior". What I'm feeling is tired of randos, probably in my own damn tax bracket, defending the corporations and billionaires literally producing everything being consumed. Good luck convincing those 333 million Americans you googled to stop eating meat and dairy, which they have been convinced is necessary to live due to misinformation campaigns. Good luck convincing them driving the cars that those companies have and continue to lobby infrastructure for. Good luck convincing each and every single individual to basically halt their entire life as it currently is, one by one. Those Americans who have a very rich history of listening to others. That will be much, MUCH easier than targeting the corporations, and DEFINITELY much more effective.
You came to try to shame me and apparently all of America for refusing to do the work, because you interpreted me saying "corporations and billionaires are a bigger problem" (because they are) as "we shouldn't take any individual responsibility". But I'm the one being snugly superior lmao. Dunno why, but this is always argument people with your viewpoint make. Nobody said we shouldn't take individual responsibility. On the contrary, I think we should all stop driving cars, and cut back on the insanely bloated levels of consumption in this country, alone. But I can only do so much. I can't do shit about what you or every other person in this country is doing. And when people call for changes, especially involving policies for the some of the biggest polluters on the planet in a country whose politicians frequently block any such change, sauntering into the room and going "oh wow but you have a phone lol" doesn't amount to anything but bootlicking. Because you're not advocating for anything; nobody is arguing against personal responsibility. But when will it be their responsibility? They didn't ask for your help, and they certainly don't need it. So if it ain't bootlicking, it's just fucking pointless.
Oh wow has Lemmy gotten big enough that now people bring it up in every comeback post the way people do with Reddit? Awesome. That's gonna so fun.
I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
I figured.
farming is one of the biggest contributors
all of agriculture makes up about 20% of our ghg emissions.
Which is pretty huge and mostly discretionary.
we need to eat. lets dismantle the fucking prisons, banks, and armies first.
We don't need to eat beef.
And banks have been instrumental in one of the largest rises in human living standards in history so dismantling them seems pretty cruel to those who don't yet live as well as we do.
And banks have been instrumental in one of the largest rises in human living standards in history so dismantling them seems pretty cruel to those who don’t yet live as well as we do.
i don't see any reason we can't help people without banks.
Way easier to rail about billionaires online and feel snugly superior rather than actually doing the work.
did you try abstaining from beef? the meat industry grows every year. did you try abstaining from smartphones? sweatshops? air travel? your decisions made no difference.
I do abstain from beef. Which is difficult as hell as I rock weights at the gym and beef is incredibly protein efficient. But it's the least I can do. So I eat a boatload of chickpeas and chicken.
My smartphone is a shitty ancieng refurbished one as that's the most ethical I could find.
I haven't bought sweatshop clothes in years. So yeah, my fashion sucks as it's mostly thrift shop but I dont feel evil. (Though, my boxers are falling apart and it's getting kind of desperate. Sadly, because other people don't give a shit there are very few ethical underwear options.) Similarly, every piece of non electric furniture in my place is second hand, except for my bed frame.
Gave up on cars more than a decade ago. Finally got a second hand one but bike, bus and train almost everywhere.
I've taken a 30 - 40% pay cut to work in the non profit sector. Which makes it unlikely I'll ever buy a house but my work helps put kids through school.
My individual decisions don't make a difference but it's like voting. If others lived similarly, the world would be significantly better. We can all do better, it's just harder than whining about billionaires online.
whining about billionaires online
is just as effective. if you want to change things that are wrong, you need to go to where they are and stop them.
Why are Americans eating so much beef?
Advertising, paid for by the rich.
Subsidization, this would have been lobbied for by the rich.
Health advice. Being British, if I told my doctor I ate beef daily they'd strongly advice against my daily beef eating. In America health care is a for profit system, its not profitable to have healthy citizens.
There's probably a bunch more but case and point the issue is out of the hands of most working class American's.
Weird gotcha. What is this the early 2000s when smartphones were rich people toys?
Late 80s !
Globally, they still are. Almost half the world doesn't have one. And children still lose their limbs mining the cobalt etc.
I guess the question could be better phrased as "and what are you personally giving up to ensure that as many people as possible are fed?"
Yea I assumed that your main point was some kind of sacrifice, not the smartphones themselves. If it weren't for the smartphones you'd be phrasing your gotcha around TVs, or washing machines, or fridges, or indoor plumbing. I've seen this very conservative argument before.
Progressivism and leftism aren't some kind of ascetic christianity and nobody needs a morality preacher. Social progress is not about individual morality. And it's not a zero sum game either.
There is enough food production and wealth in the world to eliminate hunger and extreme poverty already. I could be a selfish asshole not willing to part with my sneaker collection and that would still be the case.
Maybe there is a future where carrying around a smartphone isn't necessary because we've rebuilt human connection in communities. The damn things are addictive misery machines under capitalism anyway. But that's very different from going around wagging the finger at people that say "we could feed the hungry".
Indoor plumbing has actually done wonders in the developing world.
It's weird though, when the argument is billionaires should give up their stuff, that's fine but when it's we who might have to make sacrifices, that's morality preaching? Seems incredibly conveniently selective.
I get that no one likes thinking of themselves as complicit but that seems a pretty poor foundation for ideology.
Nobody is talking about billionaires "giving up their stuff" or making a "sacrifice". This is about wresting ownership of the means of production away from the capitalists. I don't know exactly what you mean by "complicity" in this particular discussion, you'll have to clarify.
However also, for many many people smartphones are their only way to access the internet, and it's the primary device for computing in poorer nations I believe
If there's one "essential" electronic device these days, it's the smartphone.
Yeah not as much in the rich world.
There are some folks sure but for the majority of people wasting time on Lemmy, I doubt that's the case. And yes, we can make up a heartbreaking example and just as easily I could point to a billionaire like Bill Gates who has done more to improve the world than most governments achieve. Or, as much as I dislike him, Elon Musk or more accurately, Statlink, without which Kyiev would have fallen months, maybe years ago.
The point though is that it's super easy to rail about billionaires but in reality serious change comes from the people. We're the ones who make sweatshops a thing, who eat so much beef that it's a huge contributor to global warning, who fly and drive everywhere for vacations etc. But that would take self reflection and maybe cause an ounce od shame so instead, "boooo billionaires."
You think that there aren't people who might need a Smartphone for work or medical emergencies? That is a non-zero number, so no. However should we have everyone's base needs met before others get past a certain point before luxury goods? Yes. Should we be able to do that now AND have luxury goods? Also Yes. Is it alright for people to have a Billion Dollars before that? Definitely No.
Or any matter of things on a global scale instead of national.
I'm a citizen of the Earth before I'm the citizen of any Nation, but it's hard to remember that.
This probably does apply to smart phones, TV, consumer computers. Its hard to look at socialism and answer the question of what would it look like but at a guess: planned obsolescence would be out the window. No one is upgrading to an ai powered refrigerator because their old one is broke. No one is buying the newest smart phone because they're older model died(Hyperbole), Yet we live in a system of yearly releases of similar tech that we mindlessly consume. This consumption is a by product of the capitalist system. Purely manufactured to make money.
So in my imagined full communist world. We have phone. Phones that last longer, they are geared to be easily upgraded, dissembleable and actually future proofed unlike what we have now.
Everybody should have access to clean water. I mean everybody. If I was the President I'd happily enforce that with all powers available.
Then I'd start working my way up the hierarchy of needs...
Elon could single-handedly end world hunger. But he doesn’t.
Well, billionaires should not exist. But ending world hunger takes way more than just money. There is enough food already, it's just not evenly distributed. And even in areas where we send aid, local power plays and corruption prevent the fair distribution. Ending world hunger is a hugely complex issue, unfortunately. Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't try or try different approaches. It's just not as simple as saying "feeding all hungry people costs x money, and some billionaire could pay for that"
Yes, but he’s a genius at business and logistics, and several forms of transportation. It should be easy for him to solve those problems, right? (Some /s in there)
In any case, he could hire people to solve those problems if he wanted to. He’s certainly got the resources. Then again, if he approached it like his other ventures, trying to run things himself, he may only make it worse for everyone whilst doubling his own net worth.
One huge issue are the situations that cause people to remain hungry. They are caused by war and widespread poverty. That's not something an immature asshole like Musk is going to solve. After all, he is part of the problem.
Elon can't even save twitter. What makes you think he is single-handedly capable of ending world hunger.
Not with any skills he has – he’s an idiot. I just mean the money he has. He could donate billions and billions to organisations that can, and still be the richest person on the planet.
One yacht? That's amateur numbers!
https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/gabe-newell-luxury-yachts.php
Oh yummy! Confusion.
Wow, I did not know that. He could definitely drop the percentage he takes from Indy developers. I always thought his 30%, was scummy. Now moreso.
From all developers honestly but just from indies would be great considering they already have it in their contract that the % goes down after X$ of sales (which benefits larger devs).
Valve makes enough money to pay their employees more than the competition while also having surplus to have tons of side projects that will lead to nothing and making the boss a billionaire... I don't mind the first two, but that last bit means money coming out of our pockets and going towards buying yachts...
(Disclaimer: I hate all billionaires, this applies to all platforms, we overpay for games [and most other things] in general because there's billionaires at the top of the creation/distribution chain)
never beileve billionaires when they act like they need more money
People can have mega yachts precisely because others don’t get 3 meals a day. That’s how the system is designed to work.
Not because the capital spared from denied meals (or production thereof) are going directly towards yachts, but because the capitalist mode of production requires the threat of starvation to force us into unfavourable compensation for our labour.
Really, we could easily do both at this point (and more), but since greed knows no limits, there is also no limit to what pain the capitalist class will impose on us in order to extract surplus value.
We already produce enough food for a billion more people than what exists, but still around a billion live in starvation to deter the rest of us.
Clean water and a freaking shitter too!
Before anyone can have VR or a sports car.
Zuckerfuck: But in the meta verse, you can poop, pee, and sleep anywhere your heart desires!
I think Fuckerberg is a better name for him.
As far as you can afford it *
Sports cars are dumb. VR I tried but didn't care for it.
Honestly I don't think sports cars should be legal, they're so inefficient.
I'll take your word for it. In all honesty whenever I see some douchebag with a sports car who makes the engine roar all I can think of is that this is the mating cry of a man with a tiny penis.
And shelter.
A well functional and hygienic three set bathroom is also essential. That is a shitter, a bathtub/shower and sink. You probably knew that of course.
It does make total sense.
Bezos needed to de-construct a bridge in the Netherlands because his new build yacht wouldn't go through. Fokker paid for it too, probably a fraction of that floating monstrosity. We did not like it one bit but the city of Rotterdam pulled their pants down and bended over.
Did he pay for it to be rebuilt taller or is there just not a bridge now?
All I can find is articles about how they did NOT tear down the bridge because the locals were obviously outraged. The city would have done it.
They ended up not needing to deconstruct the bridge.
It's a historic railroad bridge that has not been used for a while, steel construction, and it has been taken apart and put together many times before, sometimes for maintenance. IIRC the current mayor promised the people not to do it again, and then came Bezos, and then they didn't take it apart, they installed the yacht's masts downstream instead.
This is the bridge in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Hef
I'm pretty sure the people of Rotterdam got pissed and it didn't happen?
Don't forget healthcare as well!
Cooking Mama has an ideal outcome - Great
Cooking Mama's idea of getting there was whatever the fuck the USSR was doing... - Not Great
Just Tax the rich while maintaining a strong democracy, it's not hard.
you don’t get to communism through “social democracy” XD
any concessions given by the rich in bourgeois “democracies” are funded by outsourcing some of the exploitation to the imperial periphery/global south
You definitely don't get to a public owned means of production and redistribution of goods through Autocracy for vwry obvious reasons.
The rich need not make concessions when the poor can help write the laws.
1st of all, great whataboutism 👍
but I will indulge you:
Autocracy?! That’s not what that word means. Tsarism was autocracy, Chiang Kai-shek was basically an autocrat.
What you are talking about is a revisionist degenerated workers state (or bourgeois state of a new type in the case of contemporary China) in which the bureaucracy grew too strong to a quasi caste-like status above the rest of the population. There were attempts to correct this in both the USSR (workers/left/united opposition) and in the PRC (Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) but both were crushed
So it’s definitely smth we should learn from, to not repeat those mistakes. But that does not mean turning to the snake oil that is social democracy/democratic socialism which believe that somehow we can magically convince the ruling classes of systemic change and that they will give up power voluntarily. (And even if you manage somehow to wrestle significant concessions, they will either be rolled back after 30yrs or you’ll get the bullet in a fascist coup)
EDIT: Even under bureaucratic state socialism, there still was collective rule. Yes cults of personality were established around key figures (e.g. Stalin and Mao) but you can look up CIA documents where they dismiss that Stalin had abolished collective leadership (though ofc he still was the figurehead of the bureaucracy and the dominant force). Mao had an even stronger cult of personality, but a far “weaker” position than Stalin and the leadership was far more collective (just an fyi: this is why Mao called for a cultural revolution, which was a grassroots movement btw. The capitalist roaders (party bureaucrats who wanted to get back to capitalism but keep their privileged party posts) where gaining more and more power and he was not in a dictatorial position to stop them at will. So he had to organize a mass students and youth movement. Ofc there were excesses and errors there as well)
And despite the corrupt character AES brought forth massive progress in all fields of society. Free education up to university for everyone who didn’t slack at school. Millions of emancipated people learned to read for the first time ever. Massive scientific progress. Access to culture for millions. Making things like theatre, operas, ballet, cinema and chess accessible (and affordable !) for the masses. Making sure everyone had a place to work, sleep, smth to eat and clean water. Giving women the right to work, vote, choose whom or even if to marry, to go through life unveiled and just generally choose their own lives.(but this is one of the errors again. Patriarchal social structures were still kept and social conservatism took hold, which is why women rarely if ever had the rly high positions and were barred from the military f.e.) Making sure every child had a place at a crib or kindergarten. Making good quality healthcare accessible to all free of charge. Including vaccinating even the furthest regions, that had never even seen a doctor before.
This might not seem all that impressive to the priviliged liberal, but you have to look at the state the regions where in before: semi-feudalism at best (and/or bombed into the 3rd world after WW2)
Ofc there were excesses and mistakes, as already stated. But that does not negate their achievements.
TL;DR: dismissing state socialism as “something that didn’t work for the people” is disingenuous and disregards the fact that it did work and that, despite its flaws, it worked for hundreds of millions of people. We should not demonize previous socialist experiments, neither should we glorify them, but constructively learn from their mistakes when striving for a class-, state-, and moneyless society (aka communism, which is materially possible in todays world and not an idealist utopia, but a historic necessity if humanity is to progress as a species and not devolve into barbarism/fascism)
good short clips of Parenti talking if anyone’s interested (he put it rly well imo)
https://youtu.be/JSpVB_XXXBQ?si=NdbBBRJfhglQo1ez
https://youtu.be/npkeecCErQc?si=oAh8jj_WYCAtoUKB
https://youtu.be/BeVs6t3vdjQ?si=1obub_-e-vLi9ubG
and also a rly good Parentiwave edit https://youtu.be/3-PHYj1vb-w?si=0WTNxg43xIAdnFck
Wow we get it, you would suck a dictator's cock. Say more with less, dictator cocksucker.
👍
👋 bye, toxic and close-minded bad faith .world lib
apparently nuance is smth those ppl can’t fathom
You know 'dictator' has a different meaning in socialist rhetoric. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is tongue-in-cheek, as in, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the reverse of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is the system we live under. A CIA document even mentioned the misconception of the Western world in regards to the USSR's dictatorship.
ping bc of the edit I made in my previous comment
The core issue is that it actually is impossible to maintain full democracy under capitalism. Even under perfect direct democracy with no lobbies and full representation those with the means to promote their voice louder will do so.
And if you have big money (which some will, because the more money you already have, the easier it becomes to hoard even more), you can fund projects that will have to promote you in return, skewing the voting process.
In reality though, political lobbying, corruption, etc. are omnipresent, and extremely hard to combat, because it's in the logic of capitalism to accumulate wealth at all costs, legal or otherwise.
Now, I'm not saying socialist societies are totally devoid of corruption and self-interest, but they at least have mechanisms in place to curb it.
Capitalism is not aimed at increasing people's wellbeing, it's aimed at pursuing profit, and people's wellbeing is fundamentally secondary. If putting people in worse conditions increases profits, this will eventually be done. Socialism, on the other hand, declares people's equality and wellbeing as the core priorities. Resources should be spent in a way that benefits most people.
Money hoarding is obscene. And worshipping money hoarders is gross.
So long as I can still choose to skip breakfast when I want.
Did they fucking stutter? Now chow down that breakfast
But what about second breakfast?
My man.
As someone who frequently skips meals i plore you to ask.
“Why am i skipping these meals?”
If you woke up, not by technological but by biological clock and had no rush to get things done or go anywhere…
grabs guillotine
MAMA WILL FIX IT. 😡🔥
population control, unconventional but effective, I like it.
It's so unconventional it's the convention
And a place to sleep.
More than just a place to sleep; a place to call your own. And every place I've rented did not feel like my own; most corporate rental contracts make it very clear that this is their property, don't you dare make it feel like home, you only get to temporarily reside there by the grace of their good will (and by paying out your nose, ears, eyes, and ass for the privilege).
I eat my breakfast from a bowl. Checkmate yachters!
If you're working 40 hours a week and you STILL can't afford basics like food, shelter and healthcare, then your economy (and your employer) sucks.
Is this true even if a person on an island spends their whole life building a wooden mega yacht for themself?
If someone can manage to build themselves a mega yacht from scratch they can keep it
Phew. I could sense people sharpening their pitch forks. This my yacht and I’m keeping it.
Hmm, so we could say the real problem is when someone has wealth disproportionately larger than what they contributed to the world?
That makes sense to me
nah we should let the poors die then sell their body parts
Makes sense. But what about couples and families?
The system which produces mega yachts also has the best record for feeding people.
The hammer and sickle on the chalkboard there is a flag under which tens of millions of people starved in the last century.
CIA document
considering most of the world is capitalist and a lot of the world live with food scarcity i don't think capitalism is doing very well.
Well then explain to me why the biggest capitalist system in the world, the USA, can feed the vast majority of people in their borders. No one here lives with food scarcity… right? Surely they don’t throw a ton of food away either. And homelessness shouldn’t be an issue either with this incredible system. Right?
The black book of communism is utter shit.
I've seen this episode, at first after the revolution there's three full plates of food. The party is doing well in power, then they consolidate power, the food portions get smaller as party elites get richer and more powerful.
Eventually it's just three plastic replicas of food, as they acknowledge everyone eats differently. Eventually it's just a badge or picture of the plates of food. By that time class based Capitalism has been restarted by the new party oligarchs, they even have more control and oversight than the current Capitalists.
What I mean is, you can't "should" us to a new and better system. You have to fully understand the current one, its weaknesses and strengths and the minds/views/motivations of every class and type in it before you can come up with something that is entirely and peacefully transition motivated, and has a better option to transition to... What's more the whole journey has to appeal to human nature and satisfy some if not all those needs... Even if you don't personally share all those needs... And you have to be realistic about such.
Rules for Rulers comes as close as I've seen on this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Or, you know, we could spend slightly more on existing food programs and relax eligibility requirements...
We don't have to put Stalin in charge to better fund SNAP or free school lunches
You say we could.
Why haven’t we ?
Please specify the "We"
The general answer is political and scientific illiteracy combined with corruption in politics (such as money or a party with too much power).
Thats what they said, no?
Cool, glad it got resolved so simply and neatly, good job everyone! 👍
P.S remember when the Black Panthers had to enforce the right to have a free breakfast program, by patrolling the streets with guns? They we're Maoist by the way (Maoism dictates using the community to set up community services). Glad things are so much simpler now. Operating on kind comments, thoughts and prayers 🙏
I don't understand why, when confronted with the idea that we should eliminate hunger, you equated that with communist revolution
That's just how far I've given up on reformist Capitalism and establishment corruption.
...but also on well meaning idealism that has little meaningful to offer.
You know what would be great, an honest, true, and transparent political system, and maximum wealth limits.
...like we can express good intentions and desires all day. That's cool, but there are hard problems in the way, and at some point utopianism is a distraction from realism and genuine analysis of what those hard problems are.
Your idea to end establishment corruption is to give full authority and remove all accountability for the Establishment, such as Mao ZeDong did?
No dumb ass, nor did I ever say that by pointing out that the Black Panthers were Maoist in their food distribution program (see their Wikipedia page for details).
They murdered Fred, while he was sleeping next to his pregnant girlfriend. Then blamed him.
Does this also apply to say, smartphones?
There's quite a chasm between a $100 million boat and a $100 device...
Somehow, all these pleas on behalf of the downtrodden never include us actually making any sacrifices or change, just the rich.
Weird how it's easy to agitate for change when it involves zero sacrifice on your part.
Ok... if i give up my phone, i feed a family for a week. If bezo gives up a yacht, he feeds 1,000 familes for life. See the problem here?
Except there are many more non billionaires than billionaires. There are some 750ish billionaires in the US.
Median American has a net worth of about 200k. So, 5,000 median Americans gets you about a billion.
Divide the American population (~333 million) and lo and behold, worth about 66,666 billionaires.
So, in other words, blaming billionaires is easy but really...
Yes, which is why step taxation was implemented... the richer you are the more you're expected to return back to society.
Yes and the billionaires, while still having loopholes, still give back way more to society than we do.
Unsure what point you're trying to make.
What they give back is miniscule in what they take.
What is the point you're trying to make?
There are many more non billionaires than billionaires. There are some 750ish billionaires in the US.
Median American has a net worth of about 200k. So, 5,000 median Americans gets you about a billion.
Divide the American population (~333 million) and lo and behold, worth about 66,666 billionaires.
So, in other words, blaming billionaires is easy but really...
Did you just repeat your comment? Maybe you should get your handler to spend more money on your LLM model.
That's bullshit. Same argument corporations try to push on us about climate change. Fish rots from the head down. Obviously there will be sacrifices we have to make. But to preach "what will YOU be giving up, huh??" when megacorps and gazillionaires hoard literal mountains of wealth to the detriment of the planet and all others while they purposely stand in the way of any progress or change that might affect their bottom line? Bootlicking at worst, misguided liberal soapbox bullshit at best.
Lol, I love "bootlicking" on Lemmy, as far as I can tell it's used the same way trump uses rigged, that is to say "I don't like it!"
I mean, on climate change, farming is one of the biggest contributors and as fat as the fat cats are, the 333 million non billionaire Americans eat a boatload more beef than the 750ish billionaires. Meanwhile, in terms of say, children losing their limbs mining the cobalt for our phones, the 333 million are way more responsible. Same story for sweatshops. Same for air travel, oil consumption etc.
But man, actual change on our part would be hard. Way easier to rail about billionaires online and feel snugly superior rather than actually doing the work.
Oh wow has Lemmy gotten big enough that now people bring it up in every comeback post the way people do with Reddit? Awesome. That's gonna so fun.
Call it whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that you complaining about Americans eating beef will change nothing, while enacting policies punishing the corporations producing the bulk the waste on Earth will. But hey, I'll bite, I don't eat meat, and I don't drive a car, since I work from home. So what else should I do to make you happy? Not have a smartphone, because smartphone bad? I've had the same one since high school, but sure, I'll stop using that too. Now, what? Absolutely jack shit. I'm not feeling "snugly superior". What I'm feeling is tired of randos, probably in my own damn tax bracket, defending the corporations and billionaires literally producing everything being consumed. Good luck convincing those 333 million Americans you googled to stop eating meat and dairy, which they have been convinced is necessary to live due to misinformation campaigns. Good luck convincing them driving the cars that those companies have and continue to lobby infrastructure for. Good luck convincing each and every single individual to basically halt their entire life as it currently is, one by one. Those Americans who have a very rich history of listening to others. That will be much, MUCH easier than targeting the corporations, and DEFINITELY much more effective.
You came to try to shame me and apparently all of America for refusing to do the work, because you interpreted me saying "corporations and billionaires are a bigger problem" (because they are) as "we shouldn't take any individual responsibility". But I'm the one being snugly superior lmao. Dunno why, but this is always argument people with your viewpoint make. Nobody said we shouldn't take individual responsibility. On the contrary, I think we should all stop driving cars, and cut back on the insanely bloated levels of consumption in this country, alone. But I can only do so much. I can't do shit about what you or every other person in this country is doing. And when people call for changes, especially involving policies for the some of the biggest polluters on the planet in a country whose politicians frequently block any such change, sauntering into the room and going "oh wow but you have a phone lol" doesn't amount to anything but bootlicking. Because you're not advocating for anything; nobody is arguing against personal responsibility. But when will it be their responsibility? They didn't ask for your help, and they certainly don't need it. So if it ain't bootlicking, it's just fucking pointless.
I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
I figured.
all of agriculture makes up about 20% of our ghg emissions.
Which is pretty huge and mostly discretionary.
we need to eat. lets dismantle the fucking prisons, banks, and armies first.
We don't need to eat beef.
And banks have been instrumental in one of the largest rises in human living standards in history so dismantling them seems pretty cruel to those who don't yet live as well as we do.
i don't see any reason we can't help people without banks.
probably not but it's really small potatoes compared to the systems that actively kill people instead of feeding them.
did you try abstaining from beef? the meat industry grows every year. did you try abstaining from smartphones? sweatshops? air travel? your decisions made no difference.
I do abstain from beef. Which is difficult as hell as I rock weights at the gym and beef is incredibly protein efficient. But it's the least I can do. So I eat a boatload of chickpeas and chicken.
My smartphone is a shitty ancieng refurbished one as that's the most ethical I could find.
I haven't bought sweatshop clothes in years. So yeah, my fashion sucks as it's mostly thrift shop but I dont feel evil. (Though, my boxers are falling apart and it's getting kind of desperate. Sadly, because other people don't give a shit there are very few ethical underwear options.) Similarly, every piece of non electric furniture in my place is second hand, except for my bed frame.
Gave up on cars more than a decade ago. Finally got a second hand one but bike, bus and train almost everywhere.
I've taken a 30 - 40% pay cut to work in the non profit sector. Which makes it unlikely I'll ever buy a house but my work helps put kids through school.
My individual decisions don't make a difference but it's like voting. If others lived similarly, the world would be significantly better. We can all do better, it's just harder than whining about billionaires online.
is just as effective. if you want to change things that are wrong, you need to go to where they are and stop them.
Why are Americans eating so much beef?
Advertising, paid for by the rich.
Subsidization, this would have been lobbied for by the rich.
Health advice. Being British, if I told my doctor I ate beef daily they'd strongly advice against my daily beef eating. In America health care is a for profit system, its not profitable to have healthy citizens.
There's probably a bunch more but case and point the issue is out of the hands of most working class American's.
Weird gotcha. What is this the early 2000s when smartphones were rich people toys?
Late 80s !
Globally, they still are. Almost half the world doesn't have one. And children still lose their limbs mining the cobalt etc.
I guess the question could be better phrased as "and what are you personally giving up to ensure that as many people as possible are fed?"
Yea I assumed that your main point was some kind of sacrifice, not the smartphones themselves. If it weren't for the smartphones you'd be phrasing your gotcha around TVs, or washing machines, or fridges, or indoor plumbing. I've seen this very conservative argument before.
Progressivism and leftism aren't some kind of ascetic christianity and nobody needs a morality preacher. Social progress is not about individual morality. And it's not a zero sum game either.
There is enough food production and wealth in the world to eliminate hunger and extreme poverty already. I could be a selfish asshole not willing to part with my sneaker collection and that would still be the case.
Maybe there is a future where carrying around a smartphone isn't necessary because we've rebuilt human connection in communities. The damn things are addictive misery machines under capitalism anyway. But that's very different from going around wagging the finger at people that say "we could feed the hungry".
Indoor plumbing has actually done wonders in the developing world.
It's weird though, when the argument is billionaires should give up their stuff, that's fine but when it's we who might have to make sacrifices, that's morality preaching? Seems incredibly conveniently selective.
I get that no one likes thinking of themselves as complicit but that seems a pretty poor foundation for ideology.
Nobody is talking about billionaires "giving up their stuff" or making a "sacrifice". This is about wresting ownership of the means of production away from the capitalists. I don't know exactly what you mean by "complicity" in this particular discussion, you'll have to clarify.
However also, for many many people smartphones are their only way to access the internet, and it's the primary device for computing in poorer nations I believe
If there's one "essential" electronic device these days, it's the smartphone.
Yeah not as much in the rich world.
There are some folks sure but for the majority of people wasting time on Lemmy, I doubt that's the case. And yes, we can make up a heartbreaking example and just as easily I could point to a billionaire like Bill Gates who has done more to improve the world than most governments achieve. Or, as much as I dislike him, Elon Musk or more accurately, Statlink, without which Kyiev would have fallen months, maybe years ago.
The point though is that it's super easy to rail about billionaires but in reality serious change comes from the people. We're the ones who make sweatshops a thing, who eat so much beef that it's a huge contributor to global warning, who fly and drive everywhere for vacations etc. But that would take self reflection and maybe cause an ounce od shame so instead, "boooo billionaires."
You think that there aren't people who might need a Smartphone for work or medical emergencies? That is a non-zero number, so no. However should we have everyone's base needs met before others get past a certain point before luxury goods? Yes. Should we be able to do that now AND have luxury goods? Also Yes. Is it alright for people to have a Billion Dollars before that? Definitely No.
Or any matter of things on a global scale instead of national.
I'm a citizen of the Earth before I'm the citizen of any Nation, but it's hard to remember that.
This probably does apply to smart phones, TV, consumer computers. Its hard to look at socialism and answer the question of what would it look like but at a guess: planned obsolescence would be out the window. No one is upgrading to an ai powered refrigerator because their old one is broke. No one is buying the newest smart phone because they're older model died(Hyperbole), Yet we live in a system of yearly releases of similar tech that we mindlessly consume. This consumption is a by product of the capitalist system. Purely manufactured to make money.
So in my imagined full communist world. We have phone. Phones that last longer, they are geared to be easily upgraded, dissembleable and actually future proofed unlike what we have now.