this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
1251 points (93.2% liked)

Political Memes

5487 readers
3119 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think the alternative is finding and defending your own space and possessions from others who have weapons and would take it from you, growing or hunting everything you require for survival, relying on whatever gifts other may give you or on trading whatever excesses you have accumulated for other needs.

Money has made this difficult job much much more efficient, leading to a vast excess of wealth accumulation*. Everybody can focus on what they can offer, in exchange for tokens of value. Those tokens of value are then exchanged for the goods and services that they didn't otherwise need to create on their own.

*The problem is that the accumulation is focused on the people and their heirs, mostly, who've acquired tangible assets. Although a lot of the wealth has been reinvested in improvements. We have GPS guided robotic harvesters now, for example and not as many people need to toil just to live.

There is no system through which to redistribute this wealth once it's locked into some dynastic family's coffers. There are many governments that could and should be tasked with improving the place constantly, however they typically suck at the job.

I think the solution now is the same as it has always been. When the masses are too pissed off they'll either stop reproducing, decline in population, leaving the production capabilities of the wealthy in decline, or they'll fight back in a revolt.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

think the alternative is finding and defending your own space and possessions from others

Surely there must be a middle way.

I don't mind renting land from the state. I pay my property tax and income tax and in return get protection from the police and military and health care and more, basically a whole society to live in.

The problem is that the landlords set themselves as the middleman who rent the land from the state and sublet it to the people. I don't remember any of my landlords defending me or my belongings from wilderbeasts or other people. They're just middlemen who have increased the potential pricing of all the land so that it is no longer affordable for everyone to rent directly from the state. They can only do this because they have enough capital to get their hands on the land in the first place, or by inheritance. The price of the land is artificial. It's not about how much it's worth for anyone living there. No, the price is only about how much can theoretically be leeched off the people needing to live on that land

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Landlords aren't renting land from the state, they own the land, the state is just collecting a protection fee from them since landlords generally don't have an army to defend them and their property from attackers.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Saying landlords are renting and then subletting makes it sound like they're double dipping, just a passive middle man contributing nothing. They're not renting from the state, they're the owners who take on all the risk and other costs associating with full ownership. They pay for maintenance, they're subject to value changes in real estate markets. They bear the cost if someone builds a dump next door and tanks their value. Their asset is very un-liquid. The tenant can walk away from the property somewhat easily, but the landlord has to find a buyer.

Of course, some landlords actually do nothing. As long as we have a healthy competitive market where people can relatively easily build new housing, this competition would punish landlords who don't provide a good product. Unfortunately in a lot of the US building new housing is very difficult due to NIMBYism, zoning restrictions, and sometimes too harsh environmental or historical review.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd argue one impressive thing about our current global system is it's possible to make some improvements without total revolution. Will it be enough to, say, avoid climate catastrophe or nuclear disaster? I don't know. But democracy is a pretty good invention when the alternative is either no change or armed conflict.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

!remindme 10 years

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

something something the industrial revolution

[–] Mango@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Give me the alternative. At least that way I have a chance and my opponents aren't an army of police who just wanna make me a wage slave in their system. Give me the alternative every single time. I'll take protecting myself 10 times out of ten over being exploited by people who are pretending to protect everyone.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd already be dead. That's a bad bet.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Or I would be fine. Give me 'fine or dead' every time over 'suffocated and alive'.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Shit take, the average person only used to have to do 20 hours a week of labour to feed their family

Money didn't make labour "more efficient"

[–] Daemnyz@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This only works when you divide the time spent working over the year. As a medival peasant you worked your ass off in spring or whenever you sow your fields, kept it up while it grew, which was somewhat normal working times by todays standard, and toiled for double digit hours in harvesting season again. After that was time to do literally nothing. When you look at seasonal holidays in many european countries, they are mostly at the end of harvesting seasons, when you could easily be blackout drunk for a week because there was nothing else to be done. I personally don't mind regular working hours when the alternative is half a year of 15 hour shifts and half a year of more or less no work.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Was it 7 days on of 15 hours? Because if it was only 6 and I had that one day break once a week and eventually got 6 months off later I would definitely want to do that.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can easily have medieval levels of quality of life working like 1 hour a week today. No one, not even kings a few hundred years ago had modern quality of life even with vast amounts of wealth extracted from whole continents of peasants. Modern money and economic systems allow for global trade and innovation that makes things Napolean couldn't dream of into boring every day stuff for you and me.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Keep defending the need for multiple people to work multiple jobs to sustain a small family

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And lived to the ripe old age of nineteen🤣

"People had it better before modern society" is one of the dumbest beliefs.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The reason average life expectancy used to be so low, is because infant mortality was ridiculously high.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You’re also missing the distribution of those life expectancies. While everyone is crapping on the wealthy, who do you think was able to live to a ripe old age? Who do you think was more likely to die at birth or as a kid, or young adult?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah I know, but the overall point still stands. Life was not better back then. That's not a gotcha, it's a technicality.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Are we going to let this perverse society take every improvement we make and make us pay for it? We all work for the common good and we have the right to reap the benefits, not be forced to adapt to a system that exploits us just because someone sometime ago invented penicillin and so that good must be offset by an equal sacrifice?

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's... How life works. In literally every society on the planet right now that's how things work. If you want something someone else did you have to give in kind. Medicine, clothing, food. No matter what the system undo t get the fruits of others labor for nothing.

People with your take are always thinking they can exist in a society where everyone else provides and u get to do nothing and relax ...cuz reasons apparently.

[–] xxcarpaii@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't get the same takeaway from their message. I don't think it's that we should do nothing and get everything, rather we should do things and get a reasonable return for having done them.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You don't ever get guaranteed all the resources you need to exist. Saying otherwise is literally in the op post. Pretty clear to me.