- cross-posted to:
- onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
You don’t, deserve it. Life is a privilege, everyday you wake up, is one more day to be grateful for.
That’s true, but sometimes it feels like life is just a series of obstacles we have to overcome. It’s not always easy to be grateful for every day. But I guess that’s what makes life worth living!
You know the human experience wasn’t meant to be like this. I understand where this message was going. I have a slanted view because I lost all the good ones, in my life. You do you, be happy doing it.
Well, l don’t earn a living since I don’t feel pressurised. But I ought to do something worthwhile just to feel that I am alive !!
The main thing is to remember what is worthwhile is not necessarily something that is imposed by mass culture, tv or the Internet.
You don’t deserve to be alive in this kingdom, but the catch is there is nowhere to live that is not owned.
Thank you. I have been saying this for years (more than a decade now).
Feminism fought for the independence of women from abusive husbands/partners, by making them earn their own money, so they can be free. I would not say that the majority of the population feels particularly free today, because the economic situation strangles them. There is a new dependency created in stead of the old one: The dependency from the employer. Especially with at-will employment, a manager or higher-up can fire you at any moment, which can cause homelessness and despair. These are not good things that we want to have.
The logical consequence of fighting for freedom and equality is to fight for economic equality: People should be able to eat and sleep in peace, without having to worry about their circumstances tomorrow. “Equality” does not mean that everybody has the same amount, but that everybody has the chances they need to succeed in life.
We need a universal basic income, or any equivalent of it such as handouts in various forms.
Or, hear me out, we create a socialist government that make food, water and housing human rights and that works towards a communist world where everyone gets what they need and give what they can.
Lol, it’ll totally work this time around, pinkie promise.
Lolol, lets compare that to capitalism numbers. Don’t forget to compare suffering too, since everyone seems to overlook quality of life, injuries, and slavery, in favor of just one sliver of the many metrics of deaths. So, don’t forget to calculate the indirect deaths caused by capitalism too lol
No but see slavery isn’t killing so its fine.
Lol, the suffering too, huh. That’s adorable.
When you’re definitely on the side of humanity
Thats more a government thing than a communist thing.
You coukd skip the government part and use other organizational systems in a constant experiment to find the full communism faster…
USAID’s cancelation is calling…
Somebody only read the article title… Give the actual text a look to see it boldly claims the connection to political system is not strongly linked.
Socialism has worked incredibly well in uplifting the lives of the working classes. In countries like Russia and China, life expectancies doubled. The incredible improvements in living conditions, democratization, and orienting society towards satisfying the needs of the many instead of profits for the few resulted in the greatest eradications of poverty in history. Socialism has worked, continues to work, and will increasingly work as time goes on, until it is eventually replaced by communism.
Fascists and capitalists, slavers and landlords and other leaches were indeed killed and oppressed by the communists. It’s better than the daily genocide and violence of capitalism and imperialism.
It really says a lot about Wikipedia that it has an article for that but not an equivalent for capitalism caused disasters. Like say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster.
Or the toxic wastes that lead to the creation of the epa in America
Yep, how you frame and present information has a dramatic impact on how it is interpreted, and in liberal, western-dominated spheres communism is demonized while the excesses of capitalism are minimized.
People are too happy to overlook systematic issues with capitalism just because they think they’ll be one of the lucky ones on top getting to make the inhumane decisions, all in the name of getting another dollar
This is gradually fading as capitalism crumbles.
Amazing how we have social darwinists even here
I dont belong on this planet. That’s why I have to rent space until I mercifully pass away. Giving birth is child abuse and the most selfish act possible.
Some people really enjoy someone else being worse off than them.
Removed by mod
Giving birth is child abuse and the most selfish act possible.
Hard disagree. 🤷♂️ Surely depends on who you are and your means of providing for the child, both materialistically and emotionally. That’s just my opinion.
In some countries you are a disease away of financial bankruptcy. Good luck being able to 100% guarantee a living.
Furthermore, this is the first generation that is worse off than the previous one, and its a trend that seems will continue.
In the lucky event of being part of the select 3% that has financial security, no luxury can shield you from the pain the rest of the people is suffering.
Maybe I’m a pessimist, but introducing a child into this roulette is not the kindest if you think about it.
In some countries you are a disease away of financial bankruptcy. Good luck being able to 100% guarantee a living.
Yup, but far from everywhere.
Furthermore, this is the first generation that is worse off than the previous one
Strong doubt 🤨 Which generation are we talking about? Lots of wars and plagues and stuff in history have made a generation of people worse off than their parents. That obviously didn’t stop us from procreating.
Maybe I’m a pessimist, but introducing a child into this roulette is not the kindest if you think about it.
Definitely are, or maybe more accurately a perspectivist, if that’s a thing. There are lots of countries and societies where bringing children up is not a “roulette” or “child abuse”. Everyone I know has good means and nothing but love for their children, in spite of (sometimes harsh) difficulties.
And we are more emotionally aware of ourselves and our children in this generation than ever before. For the first time, a generation of parents are raising themselves and their children simultaneously. It’s very emotionally and mentally taxing but it’s a very good step in the right direction. We are listening to our kids and understanding their needs.
Have a good day, try not to generalize a (personal?) bad situation. ❤️
While I agree with most of what you said, I cannot disregard how a swift change in politics can be introduced to satisfy the wims of the billonaires. We have recent and astounding examples (USA). Sadly I don’t trust humanity anymore. I don’t have a choice but to try to live my life the best I can, but I won’t force anyone else into existence.
Have a good one you too my friend!
I on the other hand also agree with you now, that a swift change in politics can definitely upend an entire nation and affect several generations to come.
But when we have children, we go into it with a lot of risk. The child might be born with disorders, develop crippling phobias, be bullied, get cancer. We never know what might happen. I might get run over by a car on my way to work tomorrow. But I can’t live my life thinking “what if” all the time. We have to keep going and have to keep fighting for a better life. Or work to maintain a good life we might already have.
Or at least that’s a drive that a lot of humans have. It’s in the nature of the majority of people I would guess. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here, because our ancestors would’ve already cut the chain. Life is fuckin’ hard, quite frankly. And if that drive wouldn’t be there, it wouldn’t be worth it. 😅 Sharing it with people you love is what makes it worthwhile IMO.
Thanks for a good talk 😊
You know, when i originally read this, the way i interpreted it was that he was saying that if you need to earn money to live you don’t deserve to live.
I much prefer the version that is an indictment of the phrase “earn a living” as implying you don’t deserve to live if you aren’t “working” in the modern sense of earning money at a modern job vs doing what’s necessary to stay alive like all nature’s critters.
“If you don’t earn money, you don’t deserve to live.”
This is how I interpreted it and it definitely feels true, that’s how capitalism treats us.
For clarification, I initially read it to mean that anybody “poor enough” to have to work to earn money does not deserve to live. I.e., rich people are human, everybody else is subhuman.
Your interpretation I saw a few moments later, and that the post was criticizing that phrase. Basically, the polar opposite of my first impression.
Ah yes it can be interpreted multiple ways, I see your perspective 1) there are people who don’t need to work in order to earn money, they are the highest class of humans.
-
Then there are people who have to work to earn money, they are considered pitiful but still essential cogs in our economy,
-
then there are people who do not earn money and they are the ones who capitalism deems worthless.
-
Our society (with US at the forefront) is built on contradictions. On one hand, capitalism says you don’t deserve anything, you have to earn it. On the other hand, consumerism says you deserve every new gadget, luxury, treat.
I believe both are false: everyone deserves a reasonable standard of living (UBI?), nobody inherently deserves more than that but it should be possible to earn it. And we should acknowledge that earning something is not a matter of moral superiority, but a combination of some effort and some luck.
Everyone deserves survival of the fittest
Okay congrats, you have now been wiped out by a society that prioritizes collective well-being and is therefore able to field a larger, healthier army with more advanced technology.
Reminds me of my Stellaris campaigns playing as aggressive egalitarian democracies, like the United Nations of Earth xd
I gotta get stellaris, it sounds fun
I’ve been told there are mods that add cool things like soviet republic-style government.
Based
Capitalism is sold by liberalism as a grand system where everyone is on equal footing as buyers and sellers of goods and services, including labor. Consumerism is pushed by capitalists to increase the purchase of commodities beyond what would naturally happen (no need for a new phone every year), a sign of capitalism’s inefficiencies.
Earning more through labor isn’t wrong, but the problem is that the system is built off of the theft of value created by workers, and parasitic capitalists sitting at the top siphoning off vast amounts of material wealth. Every sale of a commodity continues this vast siphon from the working classes to the capitalist class. UBI doesn’t fix this, what would fix it is moving onto socialism, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, the working classes are in control, and production and distribution are aimed at satisfying needs, rather than private profits.
Evolution makes approving noises
Because society is social darwinism, got it.
Deserving to live and surviving are not the same. In the natural condition if you don’t gather or hunt, you have no food. You die. You do not deserve anything.
Even in society you are not entitled to others working for you. However, in a civilised society we should provide for those incapable to provide for themself due to ethics.
Hey, you! The zebra on the right! Get in my belly, I deserve to live!
I think it would incredibly more desirable for society to have a firm social safety net (housing, food, healthcare). We have the technology and means to do so without breaking a sweat.
If we try it and society stagnates, we can always tweak it to incentivize certain types of work. Myself, I believe society would see vast improvements when people aren’t surviving and living in shambles. I believe many of our current issues would be quickly solved once we are broadly able to slow down and think for a moment.
Deserving or not deserving doesn’t really factor into the equation. We need to create and build a world worth living in. I want to live in a world where people are more free, healthy, and safe - where work is directly benefiting our communities instead of people being forced to slave in hostile work environments to barely make it.
In general I agree. People should be able to make informed life choices without pressure. However, I don’t think universal basic income is the solution (see below). In Germany we have no public university fees and you can get Bafög; which is a far from ideal conditional income enough to cover housing and food while you study. You have to pay a part back once you are done, but far from all (at most 50%; often less than that). I wouldn’t mind a study UBI.
I am for social security and social services that allow you to make an informed choice of what you want to do. Beyond that I am for “you have to work”. But I am looking at “work” from an European perspective with all the protection laws in place and not an American perspective.
The main problem with UBI (Universal Basic Income) is that while tests showed benefits (highly depending on countries), financing UBI is difficult. So far no larger country has completely adapted UBI at least partly due to that reason. Also, no study was long enough to see the “people are less incentivised to work” issue.
Thanks for your response and engagement. I appreciated hearing your perspective as a German/European in contrast to my perspective as an American.
That’s basically the core difference between the 2 political parties in the US currently. One essentially believes humans have a right to be alive, and the other does not. All the other policy differences kind of stem from that.
They don’t actually disagree, though. Both operate under the direct control of the wealthiest in the country, the capitalist class, and work to ensure imperialism persists and that their private owners continue making immense amounts of money.
It means by default you have to contribute to the society that you live in. And this is required in order for there to be a functional society to live in. It’s not an arbitrary rule, just a logical requirement.
Not true in capitalism, capitalists don’t contribute but instead serve as elaborate parasites plundering the wealth created by the working classes.
Capitalism is just a way to organize work. Yeah, it’s a plenty unfair one. But we are just using money as a means to trade work for food/products/shelter/services. It ends up driving the society - getting people to make society work, and to enjoy the benefits of it.
Unless you’re one of the billions capitalism has decided it’s more profitable to slaughter, starve or plunge into a lifetime of poverty making t shirts and truck tires. Then you don’t get to enjoy shit.
Trade isn’t capitalism, though. Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Capitalists essentially cast money out into the system, siphon the fruits of labor, and then repeat this process endlessly. Everyone does not enjoy the benefits of it, especially not those in the global south that are crushed by imperialism and unequal exchange.
Capitalism is a form of trading. It is providing a service / lending resources, for a fee. It’s part of the notion that we use money to buy and sell anything and the economy works because everyone tries to make a buck and implicitly drive efficiency for society. It certainly has got out of whack now and needs some serious regulatory fixes. But for most people, they work to get money to buy what they need and as a result, they provide services, products, etc for others to buy what they need. It goes in a circle, and we end up helping each other. Yes, the rich siphon money off the top, but they don’t really affect the use or need of resources significantly. Their billions are just a number on a computer in a bank somewhere.
You‘re not even trying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
Says ‘you’re not even trying’ then just copies from Wikipedia.
Maybe try thinking for yourself?
No, you’re confusing trade itself for capitalism, and severely downplaying the immense siphoning of material wealth that goes on, especially at an international scale. Capitalists steal the value created by workers, workers are not on an even playing field with capitalists. They sell the only commodity they can, their labor power, while capitalists leverage their ownership of capital to fix labor prices around subsistence wages.
Regulation can’t fix capitalism or save it from the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. We need to move onto socialism, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and production and distribution are oriented towards satisfying needs rather than profits.
The siphoning of material wealth occurs everywhere, including China, former Soviet union, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. It’s not a capitalism thing, it’s a human thing.
Not necessarily. Capitalism functions by the following circuit:
M-C…P…C’-M’
Money is used to buy commodities, such as machinery, raw materials, and labor power, then production happens, then higher value commodities are the result of said production and sold for greater sums of money. M’ is fed back into this system, and M’’ is output at the end, over and over. The increase in value comes from unpaid labor, ie wages that don’t actually cover all of the value created, because capitalists cannot profit otherwise.
Socialist systems don’t have equal pay for everyone (that isn’t the goal to begin with), but also don’t have this system of capital ownership as the principle aspect of their economies and as such private ownership is phased out over time in these countries.
society
One small problem, we don’t actually have one of those
Earning a living implies that you’re not using passive income to mooch off people. It’s contrasted to land lords and nobility who were simply entitled to money.
I mean…ya…but this “quote” doesn’t appear to me to be talking about the wealthy…but rather addressing the notion that poor people and the unemployed have no value if they don’t have employment/can’t find better employment.
Could be wrong.
Word smiths decided that “earning a living” implies anything other than you work for you’re money. And I 100% support caring for anything who cannot work. But i’m not desperate enough for “likes” that i’ll read into something that isn’t there
mooch is a great word.
You don’t deserve to be alive though, and it applies to everyone, even animals, if you don’t do the bare minimum you’ll die hot, cold, thirsty or hungry.
Yet I am to believe that Elon Musk deserves to be alive by a factor of several million times more than the people who grow my food?
Elon doesn’t work, though, so he doesn’t deserve to be alive. It’s not about money, it’s about effort to contribute to society. My favorite saying is “community is uncomfortable,” because it portrays the work that it takes to be there for your fellow person. Even someone with a disability or other issue that prevents them from doing traditional work is already working plenty just to get through the day. Elon is the exact opposite of that.
No, that is not what the commenter above said, in any way.
Good thing most of us don’t live like animals or think like you: we live in a society.
Even in the US, at least some effort is made to not let the disabled who can’t care for themselves or financially support themselves die in the street. https://legalclarity.org/what-does-ward-of-the-state-mean-for-adults/
The appointment of a state or public guardian is a measure of last resort, as courts prefer to appoint a family member whenever possible. State wardship occurs when the incapacitated adult has no spouse, willing family members, or a previously designated agent to take on the responsibility.
Fair enough to support disabled people or those who definitely can’t work by themselves.
But if we’ve all got oars on a boat and some people just choose not to paddle then they can get off the boat. I bet there’s a lot more rich people and trust fund babies not paddling than there are lazy poor people though.
That’s a really nice society you got there /s
When you realise that we already produce (and throw away) enough food to feed the whole planet, then its evident that scarcity is fabricated.
You mention animals, I would’ve thought we are better than them… Or at least we should try.
The anti-natalist folks and the pro-natalist folks are clearly in some kind of competition to produce the shittiest ideology imaginable.
Congrats for putting points on your side of the board.
If only i wasn’t alive, then you wouldn’t have to read what I type.
While I agree with the sentiment I also think that it’s best for society if everyone contributes while realizing that some are able to contribute more than others. Essentially no freeloaders.
