This isn't so much news as it is a terminal diagnosis.
Healthy systems don't allocate all their resources in one extremely tightly concentrated place.
But a disease might, or a computer virus.
To state the obvious.
But a disease might, or a computer virus.
To state the obvious.
The disease has even captured our body's defenses. Any suggestion that we might reallocate these resources in a healthier, more sustainable, way brings out the white* blood cells to tell you that you are being a SOCIALIST.
*They are mostly white, these blood cells.
*They are mostly white, these blood cells.
We are reminded that SOCIALISM will ALWAYS result in CORRUPTION and POVERTY.
Yes. Can you imagine what it might be like if we had a corrupt system where more and more people struggled with poverty for lack of resource. Can you. Try to imagine.
Yes. Can you imagine what it might be like if we had a corrupt system where more and more people struggled with poverty for lack of resource. Can you. Try to imagine.
Socialism and capitalism are tools.
Corruption is using a tool for the wrong purpose.
Tyranny is using a tool to harm.
It's not about the tool. It's about applicability and intention.
Corruption is using a tool for the wrong purpose.
Tyranny is using a tool to harm.
It's not about the tool. It's about applicability and intention.
What if we stopped focusing on which tool we use and more started focusing on what we're doing with the tool we have, and what our intentions are with that tool?
Capitalism is being used for inapt purposes.
It's being used to deliberately harm.
Careful with that ax, Eugene.
Capitalism is being used for inapt purposes.
It's being used to deliberately harm.
Careful with that ax, Eugene.
Our present situation isn't healthy or sustainable. It's even bad for the 3 people with as much as the bottom 50%. It's sick.
Refusing a corrective change for fear it might lead to corruption is like refusing to leave a burning building because it's hot outside.
Refusing a corrective change for fear it might lead to corruption is like refusing to leave a burning building because it's hot outside.
I've already written a really long thread on a parallel theeme, so I'll stop this one here.
But if you love long threads, bon freaking appitit:
But if you love long threads, bon freaking appitit:
*theeeme*
I see this sort of thing every day.
3 people don't get wealth equal to the bottom 50% without violent appropriation.
3 people with wealth equal to the bottom 50% IS forceful redistribution.
3 people don't get wealth equal to the bottom 50% without violent appropriation.
3 people with wealth equal to the bottom 50% IS forceful redistribution.
And still people will insist that what I'm saying is pro-socialist and anti-capitalist.
It's anti 'ist.'
Don't make the tool the important thing. Make people the important thing. Focus on what each tool should be used for. Use that tool for that. Don't use it for other things.
It's anti 'ist.'
Don't make the tool the important thing. Make people the important thing. Focus on what each tool should be used for. Use that tool for that. Don't use it for other things.
EVERY tool can lead to tyranny and oppression or good results.
EVERY tool can lead to violent appropriation and forceful redistribution.
Or to healthy appropriation and peaceful redistribution.
The question isn't the tools we use, but what they are apt for and why we use them.
EVERY tool can lead to violent appropriation and forceful redistribution.
Or to healthy appropriation and peaceful redistribution.
The question isn't the tools we use, but what they are apt for and why we use them.
The reason people WILL read this thread as anti-capitalist is because they have determined that the most important thing is to always use their favorite tool all the time for everything.
I think say the most important thing is to choose wise values and priorities.
I think say the most important thing is to choose wise values and priorities.
We should decide that we all belong to each other.
We should decide life is not something you must earn.
We should decide violence does not redeem.
We should decide that every human being is a unique and irreplaceable piece of art, and that only barbarians deface heart.
We should decide life is not something you must earn.
We should decide violence does not redeem.
We should decide that every human being is a unique and irreplaceable piece of art, and that only barbarians deface heart.
Then we should use whatever tools are applicable to each various circumstance that arises, to enact strategies and achieve goals based on these values.
And our measurement for success should be tied to those values.
And our measurement for success should be tied to those values.
I said I was going to cut this thread short. I lied. Sorry about that.
That's one question.
Another is "Do the circumstances of their employment honor their intrinsic value as human beings?"
Another is "How do we think about employment relative to human worth and value?"
Employment is also a tool.
Another is "Do the circumstances of their employment honor their intrinsic value as human beings?"
Another is "How do we think about employment relative to human worth and value?"
Employment is also a tool.
We could also ask, "In what way does that concentration of wealth IMPROVE employment, and create a society that honors the intrinsic value of people?"
Employment by itself is not de facto positive.
How many children were employed by factories in 1897?
Employment by itself is not de facto positive.
How many children were employed by factories in 1897?
To look at global improvements in quality of life and assume that capitalism is the only driver is as extraordinary a claim as to assume that it has played no role.
When use of your favorite tool is top priority, you miss both the harm your tool does, and the good the other tools do.
When you prioritize a tool over the intrinsic value of humans, you arrive at conclusions like “having children isn’t a right.”
When you prioritize a tool over the intrinsic value of humans, you arrive at conclusions like “having children isn’t a right.”
The question I’d much rather be asking is, “how do we define value?”
The tool absolutely matters. Capitalism is a useful tool. It’s fast and powerful and efficient and dangerous. It’s like a chainsaw. Right now we want to use the chainsaw for everything. That’s a problem.
Try using a chainsaw for surgery.
Try using a chainsaw for surgery.
Wanting to put safety features on a chainsaw is not an anti-chainsaw position.
Not wanting to use a chainsaw for surgery is not an anti-chance position.
When somebody is using the chainsaw to carve people up, it is not anti-chainsaw to point that out.
Not wanting to use a chainsaw for surgery is not an anti-chance position.
When somebody is using the chainsaw to carve people up, it is not anti-chainsaw to point that out.
“Do you prefer chainsaws or computers?” is a weird question.
“Do you prefer capitalism or socialism?” is not less weird.
“Do you prefer capitalism or socialism?” is not less weird.
We need to stop asking “Are chainsaws good or bad?” and start asking “What are chainsaws good and bad FOR?”
But even before that, we should decide what it is we want to accomplish.
But even before that, we should decide what it is we want to accomplish.
I’d rather argue our values than our tools.
And right now our values give three people as much wealth as the bottom 50%
and healthy systems don’t do that. That’s just an observation of the natural world.
And right now our values give three people as much wealth as the bottom 50%
and healthy systems don’t do that. That’s just an observation of the natural world.
As I said in the OP, this sort of wealth gap is a terminal diagnosis. Something’s going to have to die. If it’s not going to be our worldview, then it’s going to be us.
