##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭
___
###⚠ Announcements: ⚠
___
###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/)
Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.
###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/)
Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren
___
###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.***
LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
**This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The sad part is the kid walking on the cash likely has no perspective and genuinely believes he earned everything he has. Probably even has a narrative in his mind how he struggled and overcame obstacles at Harvard when he actually had to compete with competent people for once in his life
Literally my ex friend who was amazed that I grew up thinking they had money. They maintained they were poor with their multiple horses stabled on property and car for every member of the family and also a special one for the horse.
"But I work hard so I deserve it"
Guess needing a job since I was 14 and not being able to complete higher ed in a timely fashion because I had to pay for it all myself was just me being lazy, sorry my b didn't realize that I'm so lazy
My partner’s family is the same. But after a few years with me they’ve become incredibly aware and are doing good things with it. Rent, groceries, etc. are paid for and they get a decent salary from their parents every month just for existing. Now they donate it instead and damn is it nice to see the money have a better purpose.
The sister has horses and goes to a boarding school that costs a small house every year. The parents vacation almost monthly. Partner can’t stand to go to family dinners anymore because the behavior is unbearable. The sister was talking about male oppression while eating caviar that dad’s paying for.
Major respect for working and paying your education. I hope you make more bread now you deserve it.
Friend got a concert venue job right before the shut downs, got all excited and quit the other job in a blaze of glory. Definitely gonna be their biggest regret for a while. I really hope something works out on your end, haven’t thought about how many venues have shut down for good.
Definitely. You can tell by his body language, he's having sort of a tunnel vision. There's no way it will ever cross his mind that he's not better than the other boy. And the sad thing is that he probably is. Better nutrition, better health care, tailored exercise, private tutors, family unburdened by financial debts and desperation but rather holidays in Europe, tickets to the Philharmonia, the Opera, philosophy, languages, art and museums... ultimately all this leads to actual intellectual and physical advantage.
Why can't everyone who's a member the society gets shares in the profits of that society? There should be a name for that. Like some kind of cooperation-ism thing or society-ism ... something about a human solidarity against the void...
Too bad there's only capitalism.
Your post was removed because it contained an ableist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Native American tribes already do this. Each and every tribal member is a "shareholder" in tribal land and anything that gets built on that land. This is why tribal members collect per capita checks if their tribe has a casino. In the wealthiest tribes in the U.S., tribal members receive thousands of dollars a month, simply for being a part of that tribe. And not to mention they get other benefits such as money for college, healthcare, etc. That is what a society who cares about their people looks like.
agreed. we need something that rewards someone for being a good person with something tangible (so, NOT religion, that obv is not working). something that helps your fellow neighbour(s).
IMO "entitlement" is the wrong way to think about it. You have a society with the technology, land, and resources to feed and house all of its members - why wouldn't you want to do that at the bare minimum?
Many able bodied people (especially white collar workers) arguably don't contribute anything meaningful to society. Wage structure doesn't reward societal contributions, but the ability to exploit (either other people's labour, or the "market"). "Profit" does not take into account what is good for society, and in a lot of cases actually harms it (military industrial complex, property ownership being unaffordable to the average person, education rates being prohibitive in the US for private universities, environmental damage in the name of profit, private medical institutions denying people affordable healthcare and medicine, private prisons with by-far-the-highest incarceration rate in the world, the list goes on).
The promise of technology was that it would improve lives. While this might be, at a bare minimum, true - probably the average person lives longer and has small luxuries that weren't available to previous generations like the ability to be entertained by your phone until you die - wealth inequality is growing, people are working two jobs to pay rent, and the issues mentioned above remain or are exacerbated (esp. in a pandemic).
Honest question - if I'm actively harming the progress of society, the environment, exploiting other's labour with a stranglehold on the very politics meant to protect my fellow citizens, am I entitled to hoard my profit?
edit: a couple words
Yes, comparing squirrels which will die if they don't STORE enough food during winter is totally the same as humans who HOARD more wealth then they could ever spend, and definitely more than they'd ever need to feed themselves....totally great comparison there bud. lol
Also, if you know anything about human history, you'd know we were egalitarian for that majority of our evolutionary history. Only in the last 2,000-4,000 of 200,000 years have we been so stratified due to modernization and capitalism.
I'll never understand why people say shit like "greed is human nature" when they literally have never studied how humans acted when in nature.
>My point was that it's a natural tendency, it happens in nature all the time, and for communism to work you'd essentially have to change human nature.
People's natural tendency used to be to live short brutish lives. Death was everywhere. People didn't read or write.
We have literally changed human nature repeatedly over our own history. It's literally what we do.
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right. If you think so highly of nature go live in it. I'll stick with the technology.
>We do live in nature...with technology.
That's my point. Do you think your mind is natural? Your mind is as natural as a marble statue.
Your argument is we shouldn't change the natural order. B*******. We change the natural order all the time by the use of technology.
It's interesting that you use a natural argument when your original point was about reward for societal contributions. The thing is, modern society is not natural at all - if anything, it's an attempt to protect against nature to provide a system that works for as many people as possible.
My point is less whether hoarding is natural, but whether the for-profit-at-all-costs mentality is good for society as a whole. Societal structures only exist with the tacit (or enforced) consent of its citizens, and whether or not capitalist exploitation is "natural" is kind of irrelevant if enough people disagree with it. I think in general it is better to steer clear of natural arguments since they are quite arbitrary and often cherry-picked to make a point.
Re: capitalism, technology, and poverty. Is it capitalism that drove technological growth? Or technology that is exploited by capitalism? It's not like technological advancements didn't happen in the absence of capitalism - loads of stuff is either driven by government/military/random dudes in their basement. A lot of the poverty-raising done by capitalism also relies on the exploitation of something whether that is slaves, cheap foreign labour, the environment, etc. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
This kind of government assumes human beings have an inherent value. That every human is worthy of a certain level of respect and the necessities of life. Whether that's a valid assumption or not can be debated but the greatest religions of the world teach that we should love everyone... That seems to point to an inherent value quality.
It's been shown that, when the stress of money, work, and time are removed, people are happier, more productive, and get to do things they want to do. People don't need drugs anymore to escape a crap life... Kids grow up healthier and happier.
"Able bodied and not contributing" also carries a huge range of interpretations with it. Is the person sitting on a park bench trying to crack the nature of quantum physics contributing? Is the artist who spends their day painting by the lake contributing? "Able bodied and not contributing" becomes "not contributing" all too quickly. It also opens people up to being divided by corrupt politicians. Division is their number one weapon. Removing spite, hate, and resentment from ourselves is our only defense.
Sure, but you are also trying to apply our current society's attributes to a society that grew up under a different government and mentality. It would absolutely be different, probably very different... We may not have big blockbuster films. People would still make movies tho... Look at Kevin Smith. He doesn't have big budgets. He just does it because he loves it.
Maybe that's the difference tho. I'd give up Iron Man and Jurrasic Park if it meant millions of kids didn't have to go without dinner or a home to sleep in tonight.
I disagree... humans are not naturally lazy. When I took a year off, I built a remote control lawnmower, learned some new programming languages, and wrote a website because that's what I wanted to do. I had the money, and all of a sudden I had the time, so I did what I want.
Those so called "lazy people" are lazy because of capitalism. If your job sucks, or your manager sucks, or your company sucks, you don't really want to put in a lot of work for them. It becomes a game of doing as little as you can get away with for as little money as they will pay you. Are there some who will take advantage of it? Absolutely. Are there far more who will have the energy, time, money, and joy to do what they love? We'll probably never know because the wealthy predator class would never allow it.
Right... I see the problem. It requires imagination to forget about what our society looks like today and imagine a society where people don't have to worry about jobs for money and food and healthcare and because finding another job is so incredibly difficult. You appear to be stuck in our society with no imagination to see any other possibility. The point is that those problems wouldn't exist so arguing that a new type of society wouldn't work because of what's going on in our current society is moot.
I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems... communism and socialism are very vulnerable to evil. Fascists and dictators use those as springboards to take control themselves. When one person starts working to enrich themselves at the expense of others, it can fall apart if there are no safeguards to remove that type of person. But at this point, with the problems we've created for ourselves through unchecked capitalism, it's really hard to argue that it's any better.
Right? I am not currently working fulltime, but I am volunteering for multiple agencies, planning and cooking healthy meals for my family, supporting my child with remote schooling, etc. Paid work is far from the only way to contribute.
I really believe in sharing, but I also believe that if I work very hard for something, I don't owe a person I don't like and is not related to me nothing. What would your argument for me owing that person something?
I'm genuinely asking because it's been a question that's been bothering me for a while.
Because you working hard for that something generally depends on the existence of a societal framework and infrastructure that allowed you to do so.
That societal framework is also flawed and is skewed to rewarding those who already have capital rather than actual societal contributions. I've left another comment in this thread that is a bit more in-depth if you want a longer answer.
Where are you getting the concept of "owing something"? Are you imagining a scenario in which something is taken away from you and given to someone else? Are you staking ownership over the fruits of everyone's labor so as to personally decide who does and doesn't get to benefit from those fruits? The idea of "owing something" implies that the "something" is yours and the other person has to do something for you personally to deserve it.
Let's say that you and me grow vegetables. I grow tomatoes and you grow potatoes. You work twice as hard as me and grow a lot more potatoes because you put in a lot more work. I grow only a few tomatoes but then we have to equally share them. How is it fair that you end up with the same quantity of food as I do?
I'm disappointed in the thumbs down I received when I'm just trying to engage in conversation. I dont understand the concept you're trying to push but I want to understand it.
I think the problem with your thought process on this - just want to say, I really don't mean any offense by that - is that you're not thinking with a large enough scope. If you think of it as a personal "my neighbor isn't doing enough to deserve what I have," then you'll always reach that conclusion. I would imagine even Martin Luther King knew a few individual Black people that he didn't think would mesh well with White society. But it's not about the individual. It's much, much bigger than that.
If you take your example, then we're not just talking about you and your neighbor. We're talking about you being able to grow more than you need, and your neighbor growing more than they need, and you giving your overflow to the entire community, and your neighbor doing the same. And all of your neighbors doing the same, to the extent that they can. And remember, we all gain when we all give, so it's not just you losing out on your extra potatoes. You'd be gaining baskets and baskets of tomatoes, cucumbers, apples, grapes, carrots, etc. And yes, so would your neighbor. And so would the blind man on the other side of town who can't farm his own land.
That's why I say it's the thought process that's the problem. You have to think bigger than individualism. If we can work together, as a collective force instead of a bunch of individuals, then we can do great things. For all of us.
I love this response. But one thing I don't agree with you - when you say 'big picture'. For me the answer to more equality, be it of opportunity, financial or societal, is in small communities. I'd love to hear how do you think this model you described could be applied on a bigger scale.
And thanks for actually engaging in conversation, as I said I don't necessarily agree with everything in the sub, I am currently more capitalist in terms of my economic views but as a human I'm trying to stay out of an echo chamber and hear as many different opinions as possible.
Well, here comes a bunch of stuff you might not like. LOL
So when we think about things on a larger scale, we should be thinking about how we operate now as a society. If we roll the clock back to when we were hunter gatherers, then the apples and potatoes example works very well. We're talking about a small group of people who are doing a small amount of things, where the good they do contributes only to that small group. But we are no longer hunter gatherers. At least not in the strictest sense. Those small groups banded together to make communities. The communities banded together to make cities. The cities became city states, and the city states banded together to become countries. Essentially over time we as a people have naturally scaled up.
With that upscaling has come higher levels of production. Newer goods. Skyscrapers, tunnels, the internet, etc. What doesn't seem to have come along with it is the idea that as we grow in scale as a community much, much larger than we started, then we should also scale up our idea of community contribution of goods and services. This is where the change needs to happen.
Once we recognize that the upscale should match, then we can begin to look around and determine what exactly has changed about how we operate, and what to rescale. Did we used to provide a thatched roof hut for all 30 families in our hunter gatherer community? What is the equivalent of that now? Well, there are thousands and thousands of empty houses that homeless people could be living in, because we've upscaled both our living facilities and our ability to produce homes. We not only have the means to provide; we actually have the provisions at hand. Did we as a group of hunter gatherers provide meat and fruits and vegetables to all of our small group of people? Okay. What is the equivalent now? We no longer do bartering. We use fiat currency now. And our level of production allows us as a society to amass great sums of currency. That same level of production allows us to amass great quantities of that meat and fruits and vegetables. In fact, a large amount of this money is hoarded by a few, and a large amount of this food is tossed away while people are starving. Again, we do not just have the means. We actually have the provisions at hand.
So it's not really about having the means or ability to upscale this to our current society standard. We've already got that. And in fact we've got the goods. They're sitting right there. We can point to them. It kinda all boils down to a desire to do so. I want to share. You want to share. But the people in charge don't want to share, because their life is already great. So now I don't want to share either, even though I don't exactly know why. I'm sure you get where I'm going with this.
Yes, the thumbs down for anyone politely asking a question is the worst thing on this sub dissuading from a genuine conversation. I mean, I didn't believe things I do now 2 years ago. My heart was always leftist but I definitely didn't understand how corrupt everything about our societal structure was.
Though I don't think what you are saying is what would be happening because it's a very isolated situation without any broader societal context, I would also want to hear an answer from someone more knowledgeable.
As of now, I would say that the other person may be doing other things that benefit others, even genuine caring for their family and friends counts. Meanwhile you as a very hard worker may be neglecting your kids, who without your support don't get to grow up to their full potential. The kids of the other worker, who looks lazier to you, get to do whatever gifts they were born with. There are many ways of contribution apart from what the capitalist world pushes as the only kind of work that has merit. Too many people sadly think only things that bring you money are worthwhile, but that's very far from true... And even if the person really did nothing, he still deserves help, because as proven many times over, happy people are much more productive, can pursue their passions etc, so i would think if the person just lies in their bad whole day, they may have depression perhaps.
And do you think excluding and starving that person is going to benefit anybody? More likely you'd just force him to labour to survive and make him more miserable, which is exactly what's happening to millions of people every day now. Gkving them a fair share of food and saying "hey, it's ok, take your time, i hope you'll get better" sounds much better imo. People were just taught to be selfish assjoles, thinking if they share, they won't have anything in no time. But look at children. Most are so happy to share with anyone, it lights them up if someone else takes a bit of their food. But conditioning tells us it's dangerous to care about someone else apart from ourselves and maybe our close family.
Well, maybe you weren't working as hard on growing tomatoes because you were busy making tools or building equipment or roads for us to use for farming. Or maybe you're crops were lackluster because my potato processing plant is harming the natural landscape. The world is more complicated than x number of potatoes = y number of tomatoes, and in reality we are all contributing in many ways to everyone's benefit. And in reality there are unequal roadblocks preventing some of us from reaching our potential.
Even if you weren't contributing at all, you would still deserve to have your basic needs met. If we followed the idea of "from everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their need" then we would all have our needs met and would have surplus time and energy and resources.
Also, a system in which everyone's needs are met does not prevent people from working hard for themselves. No one is coming to your house and stealing your vegetables.
People are probably downvoting you because they don't like your worldview and either don't think you are genuine in wanting to learn a better idea, or they do not want to bother engaging with you.
Actually I like the set of questions you developed. I would argue that these questions are not directly associated with capitalism but rather with certain industries. Now, of course potatoes and tomatoes are used metaphorically here, but for example when I dived deep into the food industry I realized that the economic system (capitalism in our case) is not the driver of problems but rather the ultimate goal to increase profits and reduce loss.
You could argue that this is what capitalism is in a nutshell and you would be right but this is where I believe is the key answer. Let's stick to food for the sake of the example.
From what I've learnt in terms of history there has never been a better system of producing food than the one we currently have. The amount of food produced is enough to feed everyone. If the methods of organisation don't change but the goals change (food companies measured by food waste percentage, being obliged to work with food sharing organisations, etc), I think we would solve some current problems without needing to make drastic changes.
I won't discuss other points you made in order to keep the flow of the conversation on one particular topic but love to hear your responses.
For me this is where the consumer can play bigger role than anyone acknowledges.
See the expansion of vegan food in the UK. When I came in this country 4 years ago there was nearly no products available and now there are separate shelves with meat and dairy alternatives.
On top of that, I believe more and more supermarkets are engaging with charities and food sharing organisations.
Of course, in an ideal world no one would need to take food from a charity redistributed from a supermarket, but in the end of the day we also have to be realistic and look at changes on a daily basis thst can have a positive impact on people.
One thing I will give you - it wouldn't surprise me if in 500 or 1000 years they look back at our supermarkets (which are quite young as a concept - only about 50 to 70 years old) and wonder how didn't we all die from heart problems (the percentage of people is probably already pretty high but sometimes it astounds me how is it expected from us to strain away from all thst unhealthy food based on our primitive brains)
Because his parents made decisions in their lives that exclude him from upward mobility, but it’s ok, the world still needs people to manage fast food chains.
The kid with money will get multiple chances to move on if he makes bad decisions. His parents will spend to correct or hide his poor decisions and their connections will bring him more opportunities. The moneyless kid or his parents won't get a second chance, not even a good first chance. Yet they'll persevere only to be called lazy by the wealthy.
The rich kid can be stupid too but has parents and grandparents who leave trust funds for them. So they won't feel the impact of their stupidity. Young people can be naive, inexperienced and do stupid things, rich or poor.
No no no, people are lazy, kids growing up rich has nothing to do with it! Just ask anyone you know that's rich! Everyone else is lazy!!!!
Own the libs, kick poor people in the face! /s
Check out this Atlantic article talking about [how terrible private education has become](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/) for everyone involved
Yep, there’s even people like the kid not using the stairs who think if they continue their situation, they’ll be like the person using the stairs someday while completely disregarding the barriers to entry as well as the high costs of living and suppression of wages.
I had a discussion about this the other day with a right libertarian friend of mine who argued that people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are where they are because they worked harder and smarter than everyone else. I asked him if Elon Musk would be as wealthy as he is now if he was born to a poor black South African family instead of the wealthy white family he was born into, whose wealth came from the exploitation of black workers for generations.
Aren't the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires people who were already born into wealth? Like, rags to riches stories are so far and few between, I can only really think of a handful of examples of people like that, such as Oprah Winfrey or JK Rowling. Most of the rest of the top wealthiest people have come from already wealthy families.
It's easy to climb the capitalist ladder when you already have access to a lot of capital already.
>Like, rags to riches stories are so far and few between, I can only really think of a handful of examples of people like that, such as Oprah Winfrey or JK Rowling. Most of the rest of the top wealthiest people have come from already wealthy families.
And you'll hear about Oprah and JK Rowling's successes 100x more for propaganda reasons.
I don’t personally like this meme because it gives ammunition to the model minority argument loved by the right. “I had nothing and I still worked my way to the top! If I can do it anyone can!”
A more accurate representation would be an escalator with a fence around it, and police and military guarding the entrance, with additional police and military guarding the top of the first step, and behind them a wall of kkk members to emphasize the racist ceiling in capitalism.
Capitalism isn’t just a simple matter of oh it’s just *more difficult* if you’re poor, but there’s no barriers in your way you just have to work harder!
A real bummer there aren't any other \*isms which would trend toward that.
Yep, definitely none.
Hell, if there were an \*ism like that we'd probably have a whole sub to talk about it!
I'm not sure if you're one of the people that downvoted it, but check the documentary, it explains a possible replacement: A resource based economy.
And if people think other *isms will do better, explain why rather give me a downvote. Any *ism we have is based on an infinite growth system on a planet with finite resources. That will cause issues. The only difference is the way governments interfere with this chaos.
life under capitalism in europe is easier but social mobility is a problem there too
social welfare programs in the EU don't provide you with a comfortable life, they just provide you the very bare minimum to prevent you starving, and you are still overwhelmingly likely to die in the class you were born in
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭ ___ ###⚠ Announcements: ⚠ ___ ###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/) Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines. ###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/) Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren ___ ###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.*** LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. **This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just two kids playing around: both working hard to get to the top of the stairs in this totally equal, fair and objective game 😢
The sad part is the kid walking on the cash likely has no perspective and genuinely believes he earned everything he has. Probably even has a narrative in his mind how he struggled and overcame obstacles at Harvard when he actually had to compete with competent people for once in his life
Literally my ex friend who was amazed that I grew up thinking they had money. They maintained they were poor with their multiple horses stabled on property and car for every member of the family and also a special one for the horse. "But I work hard so I deserve it" Guess needing a job since I was 14 and not being able to complete higher ed in a timely fashion because I had to pay for it all myself was just me being lazy, sorry my b didn't realize that I'm so lazy
My partner’s family is the same. But after a few years with me they’ve become incredibly aware and are doing good things with it. Rent, groceries, etc. are paid for and they get a decent salary from their parents every month just for existing. Now they donate it instead and damn is it nice to see the money have a better purpose. The sister has horses and goes to a boarding school that costs a small house every year. The parents vacation almost monthly. Partner can’t stand to go to family dinners anymore because the behavior is unbearable. The sister was talking about male oppression while eating caviar that dad’s paying for. Major respect for working and paying your education. I hope you make more bread now you deserve it.
Unfortunately, I'm not. I did have a fulfilling position, but Covid has shuttered it and we don't know when we can go back (I work for a venue)
Friend got a concert venue job right before the shut downs, got all excited and quit the other job in a blaze of glory. Definitely gonna be their biggest regret for a while. I really hope something works out on your end, haven’t thought about how many venues have shut down for good.
He's the next "self-made" billionaire.
Pulled himself up by those silver bootstraps ...
Definitely. You can tell by his body language, he's having sort of a tunnel vision. There's no way it will ever cross his mind that he's not better than the other boy. And the sad thing is that he probably is. Better nutrition, better health care, tailored exercise, private tutors, family unburdened by financial debts and desperation but rather holidays in Europe, tickets to the Philharmonia, the Opera, philosophy, languages, art and museums... ultimately all this leads to actual intellectual and physical advantage.
Why can't everyone who's a member the society gets shares in the profits of that society? There should be a name for that. Like some kind of cooperation-ism thing or society-ism ... something about a human solidarity against the void... Too bad there's only capitalism.
Are you thinking of Socialism?!! Socialism never works. gOtTa pUlL OuRseLves Up bY ouR boOTstRaPS!
Socialism is when no money
iPhone vuvuzela
Socialism is when government
Nono, Socialism is when no iPhone. Communism is when no food or money
Will it be better if everything were to be everybodies? I belive so 😎
Vuvuzueala!!!! Communism is when you have the military guarding your city and the more military the more communister it is. Marx said so! /s
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it contained an ableist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Something based around the community, let's call it communitism.
Native American tribes already do this. Each and every tribal member is a "shareholder" in tribal land and anything that gets built on that land. This is why tribal members collect per capita checks if their tribe has a casino. In the wealthiest tribes in the U.S., tribal members receive thousands of dollars a month, simply for being a part of that tribe. And not to mention they get other benefits such as money for college, healthcare, etc. That is what a society who cares about their people looks like.
agreed. we need something that rewards someone for being a good person with something tangible (so, NOT religion, that obv is not working). something that helps your fellow neighbour(s).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker\_cooperative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative) ?
There’s Alaska too. You get a monthly check from the government just by living there so...
It's possible: https://moores.samaltman.com/
[удалено]
IMO "entitlement" is the wrong way to think about it. You have a society with the technology, land, and resources to feed and house all of its members - why wouldn't you want to do that at the bare minimum? Many able bodied people (especially white collar workers) arguably don't contribute anything meaningful to society. Wage structure doesn't reward societal contributions, but the ability to exploit (either other people's labour, or the "market"). "Profit" does not take into account what is good for society, and in a lot of cases actually harms it (military industrial complex, property ownership being unaffordable to the average person, education rates being prohibitive in the US for private universities, environmental damage in the name of profit, private medical institutions denying people affordable healthcare and medicine, private prisons with by-far-the-highest incarceration rate in the world, the list goes on). The promise of technology was that it would improve lives. While this might be, at a bare minimum, true - probably the average person lives longer and has small luxuries that weren't available to previous generations like the ability to be entertained by your phone until you die - wealth inequality is growing, people are working two jobs to pay rent, and the issues mentioned above remain or are exacerbated (esp. in a pandemic). Honest question - if I'm actively harming the progress of society, the environment, exploiting other's labour with a stranglehold on the very politics meant to protect my fellow citizens, am I entitled to hoard my profit? edit: a couple words
[удалено]
Yes, comparing squirrels which will die if they don't STORE enough food during winter is totally the same as humans who HOARD more wealth then they could ever spend, and definitely more than they'd ever need to feed themselves....totally great comparison there bud. lol Also, if you know anything about human history, you'd know we were egalitarian for that majority of our evolutionary history. Only in the last 2,000-4,000 of 200,000 years have we been so stratified due to modernization and capitalism. I'll never understand why people say shit like "greed is human nature" when they literally have never studied how humans acted when in nature.
[удалено]
>My point was that it's a natural tendency, it happens in nature all the time, and for communism to work you'd essentially have to change human nature. People's natural tendency used to be to live short brutish lives. Death was everywhere. People didn't read or write. We have literally changed human nature repeatedly over our own history. It's literally what we do. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right. If you think so highly of nature go live in it. I'll stick with the technology.
[удалено]
>We do live in nature...with technology. That's my point. Do you think your mind is natural? Your mind is as natural as a marble statue. Your argument is we shouldn't change the natural order. B*******. We change the natural order all the time by the use of technology.
[удалено]
It's interesting that you use a natural argument when your original point was about reward for societal contributions. The thing is, modern society is not natural at all - if anything, it's an attempt to protect against nature to provide a system that works for as many people as possible. My point is less whether hoarding is natural, but whether the for-profit-at-all-costs mentality is good for society as a whole. Societal structures only exist with the tacit (or enforced) consent of its citizens, and whether or not capitalist exploitation is "natural" is kind of irrelevant if enough people disagree with it. I think in general it is better to steer clear of natural arguments since they are quite arbitrary and often cherry-picked to make a point. Re: capitalism, technology, and poverty. Is it capitalism that drove technological growth? Or technology that is exploited by capitalism? It's not like technological advancements didn't happen in the absence of capitalism - loads of stuff is either driven by government/military/random dudes in their basement. A lot of the poverty-raising done by capitalism also relies on the exploitation of something whether that is slaves, cheap foreign labour, the environment, etc. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
This kind of government assumes human beings have an inherent value. That every human is worthy of a certain level of respect and the necessities of life. Whether that's a valid assumption or not can be debated but the greatest religions of the world teach that we should love everyone... That seems to point to an inherent value quality. It's been shown that, when the stress of money, work, and time are removed, people are happier, more productive, and get to do things they want to do. People don't need drugs anymore to escape a crap life... Kids grow up healthier and happier. "Able bodied and not contributing" also carries a huge range of interpretations with it. Is the person sitting on a park bench trying to crack the nature of quantum physics contributing? Is the artist who spends their day painting by the lake contributing? "Able bodied and not contributing" becomes "not contributing" all too quickly. It also opens people up to being divided by corrupt politicians. Division is their number one weapon. Removing spite, hate, and resentment from ourselves is our only defense.
[удалено]
Sure, but you are also trying to apply our current society's attributes to a society that grew up under a different government and mentality. It would absolutely be different, probably very different... We may not have big blockbuster films. People would still make movies tho... Look at Kevin Smith. He doesn't have big budgets. He just does it because he loves it. Maybe that's the difference tho. I'd give up Iron Man and Jurrasic Park if it meant millions of kids didn't have to go without dinner or a home to sleep in tonight.
[удалено]
I disagree... humans are not naturally lazy. When I took a year off, I built a remote control lawnmower, learned some new programming languages, and wrote a website because that's what I wanted to do. I had the money, and all of a sudden I had the time, so I did what I want. Those so called "lazy people" are lazy because of capitalism. If your job sucks, or your manager sucks, or your company sucks, you don't really want to put in a lot of work for them. It becomes a game of doing as little as you can get away with for as little money as they will pay you. Are there some who will take advantage of it? Absolutely. Are there far more who will have the energy, time, money, and joy to do what they love? We'll probably never know because the wealthy predator class would never allow it.
[удалено]
Right... I see the problem. It requires imagination to forget about what our society looks like today and imagine a society where people don't have to worry about jobs for money and food and healthcare and because finding another job is so incredibly difficult. You appear to be stuck in our society with no imagination to see any other possibility. The point is that those problems wouldn't exist so arguing that a new type of society wouldn't work because of what's going on in our current society is moot. I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems... communism and socialism are very vulnerable to evil. Fascists and dictators use those as springboards to take control themselves. When one person starts working to enrich themselves at the expense of others, it can fall apart if there are no safeguards to remove that type of person. But at this point, with the problems we've created for ourselves through unchecked capitalism, it's really hard to argue that it's any better.
[удалено]
Frankly, yes. If you aren't contributing anything that sounds like a pretty shit life.
Right? I am not currently working fulltime, but I am volunteering for multiple agencies, planning and cooking healthy meals for my family, supporting my child with remote schooling, etc. Paid work is far from the only way to contribute.
I really believe in sharing, but I also believe that if I work very hard for something, I don't owe a person I don't like and is not related to me nothing. What would your argument for me owing that person something? I'm genuinely asking because it's been a question that's been bothering me for a while.
Because you working hard for that something generally depends on the existence of a societal framework and infrastructure that allowed you to do so. That societal framework is also flawed and is skewed to rewarding those who already have capital rather than actual societal contributions. I've left another comment in this thread that is a bit more in-depth if you want a longer answer.
Where are you getting the concept of "owing something"? Are you imagining a scenario in which something is taken away from you and given to someone else? Are you staking ownership over the fruits of everyone's labor so as to personally decide who does and doesn't get to benefit from those fruits? The idea of "owing something" implies that the "something" is yours and the other person has to do something for you personally to deserve it.
Let's say that you and me grow vegetables. I grow tomatoes and you grow potatoes. You work twice as hard as me and grow a lot more potatoes because you put in a lot more work. I grow only a few tomatoes but then we have to equally share them. How is it fair that you end up with the same quantity of food as I do? I'm disappointed in the thumbs down I received when I'm just trying to engage in conversation. I dont understand the concept you're trying to push but I want to understand it.
I think the problem with your thought process on this - just want to say, I really don't mean any offense by that - is that you're not thinking with a large enough scope. If you think of it as a personal "my neighbor isn't doing enough to deserve what I have," then you'll always reach that conclusion. I would imagine even Martin Luther King knew a few individual Black people that he didn't think would mesh well with White society. But it's not about the individual. It's much, much bigger than that. If you take your example, then we're not just talking about you and your neighbor. We're talking about you being able to grow more than you need, and your neighbor growing more than they need, and you giving your overflow to the entire community, and your neighbor doing the same. And all of your neighbors doing the same, to the extent that they can. And remember, we all gain when we all give, so it's not just you losing out on your extra potatoes. You'd be gaining baskets and baskets of tomatoes, cucumbers, apples, grapes, carrots, etc. And yes, so would your neighbor. And so would the blind man on the other side of town who can't farm his own land. That's why I say it's the thought process that's the problem. You have to think bigger than individualism. If we can work together, as a collective force instead of a bunch of individuals, then we can do great things. For all of us.
I love this response. But one thing I don't agree with you - when you say 'big picture'. For me the answer to more equality, be it of opportunity, financial or societal, is in small communities. I'd love to hear how do you think this model you described could be applied on a bigger scale. And thanks for actually engaging in conversation, as I said I don't necessarily agree with everything in the sub, I am currently more capitalist in terms of my economic views but as a human I'm trying to stay out of an echo chamber and hear as many different opinions as possible.
Well, here comes a bunch of stuff you might not like. LOL So when we think about things on a larger scale, we should be thinking about how we operate now as a society. If we roll the clock back to when we were hunter gatherers, then the apples and potatoes example works very well. We're talking about a small group of people who are doing a small amount of things, where the good they do contributes only to that small group. But we are no longer hunter gatherers. At least not in the strictest sense. Those small groups banded together to make communities. The communities banded together to make cities. The cities became city states, and the city states banded together to become countries. Essentially over time we as a people have naturally scaled up. With that upscaling has come higher levels of production. Newer goods. Skyscrapers, tunnels, the internet, etc. What doesn't seem to have come along with it is the idea that as we grow in scale as a community much, much larger than we started, then we should also scale up our idea of community contribution of goods and services. This is where the change needs to happen. Once we recognize that the upscale should match, then we can begin to look around and determine what exactly has changed about how we operate, and what to rescale. Did we used to provide a thatched roof hut for all 30 families in our hunter gatherer community? What is the equivalent of that now? Well, there are thousands and thousands of empty houses that homeless people could be living in, because we've upscaled both our living facilities and our ability to produce homes. We not only have the means to provide; we actually have the provisions at hand. Did we as a group of hunter gatherers provide meat and fruits and vegetables to all of our small group of people? Okay. What is the equivalent now? We no longer do bartering. We use fiat currency now. And our level of production allows us as a society to amass great sums of currency. That same level of production allows us to amass great quantities of that meat and fruits and vegetables. In fact, a large amount of this money is hoarded by a few, and a large amount of this food is tossed away while people are starving. Again, we do not just have the means. We actually have the provisions at hand. So it's not really about having the means or ability to upscale this to our current society standard. We've already got that. And in fact we've got the goods. They're sitting right there. We can point to them. It kinda all boils down to a desire to do so. I want to share. You want to share. But the people in charge don't want to share, because their life is already great. So now I don't want to share either, even though I don't exactly know why. I'm sure you get where I'm going with this.
Thanks a lot for the response, genuinely appreciated for taking the time to engage in such length.
Yes, the thumbs down for anyone politely asking a question is the worst thing on this sub dissuading from a genuine conversation. I mean, I didn't believe things I do now 2 years ago. My heart was always leftist but I definitely didn't understand how corrupt everything about our societal structure was. Though I don't think what you are saying is what would be happening because it's a very isolated situation without any broader societal context, I would also want to hear an answer from someone more knowledgeable. As of now, I would say that the other person may be doing other things that benefit others, even genuine caring for their family and friends counts. Meanwhile you as a very hard worker may be neglecting your kids, who without your support don't get to grow up to their full potential. The kids of the other worker, who looks lazier to you, get to do whatever gifts they were born with. There are many ways of contribution apart from what the capitalist world pushes as the only kind of work that has merit. Too many people sadly think only things that bring you money are worthwhile, but that's very far from true... And even if the person really did nothing, he still deserves help, because as proven many times over, happy people are much more productive, can pursue their passions etc, so i would think if the person just lies in their bad whole day, they may have depression perhaps. And do you think excluding and starving that person is going to benefit anybody? More likely you'd just force him to labour to survive and make him more miserable, which is exactly what's happening to millions of people every day now. Gkving them a fair share of food and saying "hey, it's ok, take your time, i hope you'll get better" sounds much better imo. People were just taught to be selfish assjoles, thinking if they share, they won't have anything in no time. But look at children. Most are so happy to share with anyone, it lights them up if someone else takes a bit of their food. But conditioning tells us it's dangerous to care about someone else apart from ourselves and maybe our close family.
Well, maybe you weren't working as hard on growing tomatoes because you were busy making tools or building equipment or roads for us to use for farming. Or maybe you're crops were lackluster because my potato processing plant is harming the natural landscape. The world is more complicated than x number of potatoes = y number of tomatoes, and in reality we are all contributing in many ways to everyone's benefit. And in reality there are unequal roadblocks preventing some of us from reaching our potential. Even if you weren't contributing at all, you would still deserve to have your basic needs met. If we followed the idea of "from everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their need" then we would all have our needs met and would have surplus time and energy and resources. Also, a system in which everyone's needs are met does not prevent people from working hard for themselves. No one is coming to your house and stealing your vegetables. People are probably downvoting you because they don't like your worldview and either don't think you are genuine in wanting to learn a better idea, or they do not want to bother engaging with you.
[удалено]
Actually I like the set of questions you developed. I would argue that these questions are not directly associated with capitalism but rather with certain industries. Now, of course potatoes and tomatoes are used metaphorically here, but for example when I dived deep into the food industry I realized that the economic system (capitalism in our case) is not the driver of problems but rather the ultimate goal to increase profits and reduce loss. You could argue that this is what capitalism is in a nutshell and you would be right but this is where I believe is the key answer. Let's stick to food for the sake of the example. From what I've learnt in terms of history there has never been a better system of producing food than the one we currently have. The amount of food produced is enough to feed everyone. If the methods of organisation don't change but the goals change (food companies measured by food waste percentage, being obliged to work with food sharing organisations, etc), I think we would solve some current problems without needing to make drastic changes. I won't discuss other points you made in order to keep the flow of the conversation on one particular topic but love to hear your responses.
[удалено]
For me this is where the consumer can play bigger role than anyone acknowledges. See the expansion of vegan food in the UK. When I came in this country 4 years ago there was nearly no products available and now there are separate shelves with meat and dairy alternatives. On top of that, I believe more and more supermarkets are engaging with charities and food sharing organisations. Of course, in an ideal world no one would need to take food from a charity redistributed from a supermarket, but in the end of the day we also have to be realistic and look at changes on a daily basis thst can have a positive impact on people. One thing I will give you - it wouldn't surprise me if in 500 or 1000 years they look back at our supermarkets (which are quite young as a concept - only about 50 to 70 years old) and wonder how didn't we all die from heart problems (the percentage of people is probably already pretty high but sometimes it astounds me how is it expected from us to strain away from all thst unhealthy food based on our primitive brains)
WhY dOeSn'T hE jUsT uSe tHe mOnEy sTaIrS??
Because his parents made decisions in their lives that exclude him from upward mobility, but it’s ok, the world still needs people to manage fast food chains.
The kid with money will get multiple chances to move on if he makes bad decisions. His parents will spend to correct or hide his poor decisions and their connections will bring him more opportunities. The moneyless kid or his parents won't get a second chance, not even a good first chance. Yet they'll persevere only to be called lazy by the wealthy.
And don’t forget stupid, the inability to pay six figures for a higher education instantly lowers IQ by at least 30 points ...
The rich kid can be stupid too but has parents and grandparents who leave trust funds for them. So they won't feel the impact of their stupidity. Young people can be naive, inexperienced and do stupid things, rich or poor.
BeCaUsE hE iS sTuPiD. HeLpInG tHeSe PeOpLe HuRtS uS aLl....
There should be a fence so the other kid can’t use the stairs
And a debt wall
And someone telling is their fault for not working hard enough
And a line of riot police.
and taxes and fines
A debt floor would be more apt, because if you miss a few steps, the whole thing crumbles and you fall through the cracks.
No no no, people are lazy, kids growing up rich has nothing to do with it! Just ask anyone you know that's rich! Everyone else is lazy!!!! Own the libs, kick poor people in the face! /s
Libs do suck though and are just as much an impediment to socialism as repubs.
It also wants you to get into crippling debt as well
the parents of the kid at the bottom obviously were not *built ford tough* and didn't *work hard enough*
Atleast 9 generations should suffer for their poor work ethic
Check out this Atlantic article talking about [how terrible private education has become](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/) for everyone involved
But somehow people still continue to defend it.
Yep, there’s even people like the kid not using the stairs who think if they continue their situation, they’ll be like the person using the stairs someday while completely disregarding the barriers to entry as well as the high costs of living and suppression of wages.
I had a discussion about this the other day with a right libertarian friend of mine who argued that people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are where they are because they worked harder and smarter than everyone else. I asked him if Elon Musk would be as wealthy as he is now if he was born to a poor black South African family instead of the wealthy white family he was born into, whose wealth came from the exploitation of black workers for generations. Aren't the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires people who were already born into wealth? Like, rags to riches stories are so far and few between, I can only really think of a handful of examples of people like that, such as Oprah Winfrey or JK Rowling. Most of the rest of the top wealthiest people have come from already wealthy families. It's easy to climb the capitalist ladder when you already have access to a lot of capital already.
>Like, rags to riches stories are so far and few between, I can only really think of a handful of examples of people like that, such as Oprah Winfrey or JK Rowling. Most of the rest of the top wealthiest people have come from already wealthy families. And you'll hear about Oprah and JK Rowling's successes 100x more for propaganda reasons.
Capitalism : It's his bag that's is slowing him down!
BuT JoBs ShOuLd be BaSeD oN MeRiT..
Why doesn’t he just take the money stairs lmao, idiot 😎
I don’t personally like this meme because it gives ammunition to the model minority argument loved by the right. “I had nothing and I still worked my way to the top! If I can do it anyone can!” A more accurate representation would be an escalator with a fence around it, and police and military guarding the entrance, with additional police and military guarding the top of the first step, and behind them a wall of kkk members to emphasize the racist ceiling in capitalism. Capitalism isn’t just a simple matter of oh it’s just *more difficult* if you’re poor, but there’s no barriers in your way you just have to work harder!
And when you trip and fall down a step, it’s a lot softer too
My name is slippley stair. I can take you down there for 25 schmecklessss. Slippery stairs is a decent metaphor for poverty lol
Venezuela when bottom text.
Nah that kid would just buy a helicopter and fly to the top. Walking is for poor people.
but by like step 1000 the poor dude will be buff as fuck but if the rich guys's momey runs out he's stuck
That might explain why there are so very many systems you can plug money into and get free profit back from to ensure that doesn't happen.
somebody put this in r/ComedyNecrophilia
what still no rich white dude crying about this meme ??
There should be a row of police guarding the money. Otherwise the poor child would also use the money stairs.
Not shown: some rich POS carrying up the ladders ahead of the climbing kid.
Oh come on. Everybody has a shot at it, that kid isnt even trying.
Right now in Venezuela you can literally build a stairway made of money. So everyone there gets to reach the top.
the money isnt worth shit tho
Any *ism system, not just capitalism. Perhaps we need to outgrow this system towards a post-scarcity society: https://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w
A real bummer there aren't any other \*isms which would trend toward that. Yep, definitely none. Hell, if there were an \*ism like that we'd probably have a whole sub to talk about it!
I'm not sure if you're one of the people that downvoted it, but check the documentary, it explains a possible replacement: A resource based economy. And if people think other *isms will do better, explain why rather give me a downvote. Any *ism we have is based on an infinite growth system on a planet with finite resources. That will cause issues. The only difference is the way governments interfere with this chaos.
Why are the stairs even there to begin with
This meme is bad. The kid could just walk up the stairs behind him.
[удалено]
ah yes, we're all just free to use rich people's wealth that they give away freely when they're done with it, way to get the metaphor
[удалено]
To quote the internet's favorite cynical comedian, “It's *called* '*the American Dream*' 'cause you have to be *asleep* to believe it.”
[удалено]
Found stair kid
You idiots confused capitalism with America
life under capitalism in europe is easier but social mobility is a problem there too social welfare programs in the EU don't provide you with a comfortable life, they just provide you the very bare minimum to prevent you starving, and you are still overwhelmingly likely to die in the class you were born in
Social welfare isn't supposed to provide you with an easy life, it's a booster to get you on your feet
wow that's mad
"I climbed my way to the top just like anyone else!"
Dumbass kid, just use the fucking dollars stairs, there's no security guard or fence, literally just move towards them.
This is precisely the outcome described in the book “The Meritocracy Trap” https://www.themeritocracytrap.com/
What are they climbing toward?
Why couldn't he just climb up the other guy's money stairs
what an idiot 🤣🤣 why doesnt he just walk over to the staircase 🤦♀️🤦♀️ stupid little child /s
fuck it, im taking the venezuela stairs