cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/12580687
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
517 points (96.6% liked)
Lefty Memes
4354 readers
449 users here now
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.
If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!
Rules
0. Only post socialist memes
That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such
That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)
6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Rape or assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Billionaires want all the money, fuck everyone else. Siding with billionaires means you want to be fucked over by someone who has no care for you. So siding with them makes you a traitor. There’s no allegiance to a class it’s just something that is, I find it bizarre that you assume that you can’t comprehend this.
Price tags are not money. The market value of assets appreciating does not remove a penny from anyone's wallet. Likewise, those assets becoming less valuable (e.g. Bezos's net worth dropped by over $20 billion this month) does not put money in anyone's pocket. Billionaires objectively do not cause poverty. The correlation between poverty and the number of billionaires is literally in the opposite direction--more billionaires correlates with less overall poverty.
It's not "siding with billionaires" to know the facts, and contradict ideologues who seek to replace those facts with their pet narrative.
However you justify it, it is still betraying your class. Still siding with billionaires. Stop projecting, you’re the one replacing facts with your pet narrative.
You could have just written "nuh uh!" and saved some time, since that's the essence of what you're saying here.
Everything I said was factual, and you know it.
You could have just said “I’m an idiot” it would have saved time. Obviously that’s how reduction works. No, I don’t know it. You don’t even give sources, just yeah you know it bro. Yeah, just trust me bro. I don’t trust you, so I’m not going to trust “and you know it” I’m tired of listening to some kid spout regurgitated conservative shit.
Your logic dictates that if I buy a rookie baseball card for $5, the player has a great season and now my card is worth $100, that $95 must have been taken from one or more other people, because you believe that increases in net worth cannot occur without theft.
Pointing out that this makes no sense doesn't require trust, just functioning logical thought processes.
I don’t know how you got this from what I said but that’s completely wrong. Like why are you comparing something that appreciated in value to billionaires? That’s how valuing things works along with supply and demand. The demand for a high preforming player will have their cards go up in value because the supply of the cards is limited. If you believe that that is how billionaires get their net worth then you are just plain wrong. It does require trust. If I don’t trust you, I won’t trust the shit you spew. Facts without sources are untrustworthy and more akin to opinions than facts. Don’t just make up some “logic” and pretend that that is what I was saying.
Because that's how billionaires become billionaires. They buy stuff (or pieces of it, e.g. shares of stock) and continue to own it while it appreciates in value.
This is why it's possible for a billionaire's net worth to swing up and down so wildly: net worth is a valuation, a price tag. It's NOT an amount of cash money.
First off, stop using "opinion" wrong. An assertion can either be true or false. Opinions are subjective, in another category entirely. Facts and opinions are not opposites. This is grade school stuff.
Secondly, give me an example of an assertion I made that you don't "trust". Bet I can back it up with very little Google time.
I understand what and how net worth is. When did I ever say it was an amount of cash? I said AKIN to an opinion, words mean things. No sources is akin to an opinion. So please keep telling me how words work, super helpful. I don’t care for whatever you google, I’d just have to verify the source and a quick google likely won’t give you great sources. An example okay how about “everything I said was factual, and you know it”
This seems very naive to me. In my experience, everyone wants all the money, fuck everyone else. Including my fellow working class. All of them. Every single one.
I see no sides. I see no difference in kind between billionaires, my boss, my co-workers, my neighbours, homeless people, members of the local labour club, you, me or anyone. We're all human beings and we all prioritise our own wellbeing over the wellbeing of others. Cooperation in society and ruthless greed are not mutually exclusive. Humans will cooperate when it's beneficial and also stab their fellow humans in the back, step on them and exploit them when it's beneficial.
That's ridiculous, nobody wants that.
If is there is no allegiance then there can be no traitor.
You are quite wrong. Most want enough money to be content in life. Billionaires want to sit on their dragon hoard of wealth, while shafting those on the bottom line. If you see no sides then you are very ignorant. And no difference between the homeless and billionaires. Yeah fucking right. Billionaires get to just buy companies because they can, spend shit loads on lobbying for things they want. All while homeless people are fucked in a hundred ways. Its disgusting how many anti-homeless measures are being made. Just another reason hoarding wealth fucks everyone over. Humans also rape, lie, steal, murder, etc… we work hard to jail and rehabilitate these people. So maybe we need to do it to the extremely wealth. Nobody wants to be fucked over, obviously. But that is what is happening. Again ignorance is bliss. Generations don’t exist, we just use it to generalize age groups. Classes don’t exist, yet we use them to describe wealth groups. Genders don’t exist, yet we use them to describe people. In every single case you can still be a traitor to something that groups you. I can be trans and say that all trans people (except me) are not valid, that would make me a traitor and a TERF. There are not always allegiances to ideas meant to group people. If you are not in the extremely wealthy class, then defending them is betraying what you are.
Having wealth and hoarding wealth aren't the same thing. Hoarding implies isolation and withheld access. Someone keeping money under their mattress is hoarding that money. Someone who is investing in businesses in active operation within the economy is doing the exact opposite of hoarding.
Stop misusing this term.
There’s only a few ways to become a billionaire. Get money, get more money, and get even more money. Also be born into a family with lots of money. Just because some of that money is in assets, bonds, stocks, and such doesn’t mean that they don’t hoard the wealth. Investing in businesses only makes the stock holders richer it doesn’t trickle down. You don’t have to just shove it into a bank. The extremely wealthy don’t hoard money in a big pile, they just want to see their net worth go up. So I’m not misusing the term hoarding, you just seem to not understand how the economy works.
Typically by creating something extremely popular, which in turn becomes valued at much more than it cost you to create it.
Minecraft, for example, made its creator $2 billion when he sold it to Microsoft.
Not really; statistically, 70% of generational wealth is gone by the second generation, 90% by the third. Inheritors, generally speaking, spend what they inherit, they don't hold onto it for the next generation to inherit it again. Again, opposite of hoarding.
Just because some of that money is in assets, bonds, stocks, and such doesn’t mean that they don’t hoard the wealth.
Yes, it does. The only way to hoard money is to not spend it. No billionaire has a Scrooge McDuck vault full of cash. Billionaires don't hoard--ironically, hoarding money will only ever decrease your net worth, unless your currency is in deflation, in which case you've got bigger problems.
You're acting like businesses exist in some separate reality from the rest of the population. The businesses profit by offering goods and services that the market wants. That is what makes the share price go up, and in turn makes stock holders wealthier. Buying shares all by itself doesn't do shit.
'Stockholders get wealthier when the business is having a positive impact on the economy by giving the market something it wants' isn't exactly the argument you think it is.
And spending (already-taxed) money to buy stuff that then proceeds to become more valuable, is not an act that deprives anyone else's wallet of a single penny.
You really don’t understand what I was saying do you. This is boring, I’m tired of listening to an echo chamber of shit ideas.
lol
I disagree.
All, including billionaires, want to ensure the survival of their genes. Wealth is sexually attractive. At no point does more wealth stop being attractive. So everyone wants as much money as they can get. That doesn't mean they're necessarily prepared to do what's required to get it (murder, exploitation, etc.) but they want the money.
I didn't say no difference, I said no difference in kind.
Indeed.
I disagree.
That's ridiculous. If a person defends the extremely wealthy honestly then that isn't betraying what they are, that is what they are.
I’m tired of your ignorance, maybe try reading a book or using critical thinking. Otherwise you’ll just stay a sad, ignorant person sucking billionaire dick and getting nothing in return but bing fucked over.
ROFL
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
It’s a quote from a book. Like I said maybe you should read some books.
I see you're really an expert at that there critical thinking and never jump to conclusions.
Responds with a gif, want’s critical thinking. Not to mention a gif that could be interpreted several ways. Maybe use words to avoid ambiguity.
LOL I don't want anything from you.
For a critical thinker, dealing with a stimulus that is open to interpretation should be no problem.
Maybe apply critical thinking in your life. Every day. Every moment. Rather than just talking about it.
Why are you still yapping? I stopped caring about what you say so long ago. Its quite pointless continuing.
A class traitor is someone who acts counter to their class-interests. No allegiance required.
Yet you defend a system which fucks you and the rest of the working class over.
So not actually a traitor then, I see.
I've simply pointed out the reality of the situation, I haven't stated any judgement about it.
Linguistics prescriptivism is bullshit.
(x) doubt.
Nice to see your bets so hedged. /s
But even if you were correct: Shouldn't we as a society remove the system which enables people to monopolize power, if it's "human nature" to exploit others?
I don't know what that means.
The moral judgement is irrelevant here. It makes no difference. "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. Your assumptions are unfounded.
It means claiming that someone "uses a word wrong", referring to a supposed authority on language, rather than acknowledging that a word's usage determines its' meaning
I've not made any moral judgement. I've extrapolated your view of the world and said that I don't want that.
That's simply wrong. There's a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent monopolisation of power. Notice that there are way less kings around than a few hundred years ago?
I'm claiming the same things of yours.
I haven't done that. I've pointed out that OP's use of the word "traitor" in their phrase "class traitor" has a different meaning to the ordinary use of the word "traitor". I haven't said their use is wrong.
We're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about "monopolisation" of power but I'm talking about gaining power over others. I don't know what you mean by "monopolisation" of power. (And I don't care because whatever you mean, it's clear that it isn't important.)
But not prevent the acquisition of power over others, or prevent exploitation.
No? Only in name. I find it odd when people talk about feudalism in the past tense. To me it seems like feudalism never ended.
Yes, you have
That's what monopolisation of power means.
Yes, exactly that. That's what democracy's supposed to handle.
There are distinct differences of capitalism and feudalism.
I disagree.
LOL so you believe there is "a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent" people gaining power over others? You believe there have been "a ton" of human societies with no exploitation? You have no idea what you're talking about.
LOL
Oh I see! Distinct differences! LOL
Well, you're wrong.
There have been a ton of societies which limited the amount of power individuals could amass.
Yeah. Feudal property relations are totally the same as capitalistic property relations. No difference whatsoever. Pretty much everyone is still a subsistence farmer. /s
LOL
Ah! So now you're changing your tune! Not "preventing" but "limiting". Best of luck, maybe you'll get to reality in the end.
So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?
Why are you asking me that?
Because that's what you're implying.
I'm neither saying nor implying that.
Yes you are:
I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase:
"We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.
No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation.
Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented?
You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.
Got it, you're refusing to engage.
With you only.
So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool.
LOL
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're just telling on yourself.