That’s like saying “the problem with cancer isn’t the unrestrained tumor growth, it’s the depletion of resources for the rest of the body”—the two go hand in hand.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
84 points (85.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
31106 readers
791 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Even if it didn't enable them to accumulate more wealth, depriving many so one can live in excess is still immoral.
This hardly qualifies as a showerthought. Better moderation, please.
There is just a whole problem with business relationships now. The side with leverage just dictates and we see it massively as consumers but its also happening business to business. When both sides have leverage in a business they are both apt to try to get the upper hand. Its crazy. We have a monopoly economy now.
It's both, pal. Both are bad, 'cause the former enables the later.
It's both. The mere fact that there are people with billions of dollars to throw around means a large amount of the world's productive capacity is spent catering to the whims of billionaires when it could instead be spent on useful things for ordinary people. And because money is inseparable from politics, billionaires can more or less directly bend government policies to their will, greatly hindering anyone else from having a real say in government policy.
If the needs and desires of the many were satiated and society was arranged to prioritize each individuals well being/contentedness it wouldn't matter if one individual had more.
That's a really big "if", especially when you consider how billionaires actively use their influence to maintain an underclass by fighting against government policies that would help lower-class people become middle-class.
use their influence to maintain an underclass by fighting against government policies that would help lower-class people become middle-class.
See deprive people of their health and livelihood
Sorry but simply having our needs met is not enough. You are letting one class determine how everyone else works. People want self-determination and that should be extended to all people, not just billionaires.
in my head these are the same things but im glad you were able to arrive at this conclusion nevertheless
That's really deep /s
We are not a post-scarcity society, so wealth is still a zero-sum game. For someone to have more, someone else has to have less.
The accumulating wealth is the problem, until we (if ever) achieve post-scarcity.
Depends on what we are talking about. Wealth in the form of oil? Maybe. Wealth in the form of housing, no.
The things people need to have a fulfilling life are in abundance. Sure, we all can't drive humers and fly private jets.
Since you're thinking about these things, you might also want to think about why individuals should be able to dictate what happens in the economy at all? Billionaires can't exist without owning large swaths of the economy, and by owning large swaths of the economy they directly and dictatorially control a major part of the lives of thousands of people. More than Lords of old.
Why shouldn't the economy be democratized? Why shouldn't workers decide what to work on, and how to organize their work? Why shouldn't the economy be cooperative instead of competitive, do we need winners and losers? Why can't we just share our techniques and resources? Wouldn't we all be better off?
This is the way things have always been. Going all the way back to the days of Bronze Age kings who post the laws in the town square and everything was punishable by death or dismemberment.
But in a lot of ways we’re a lot better off than the poor people were back then. Look at all the electric appliances, heating and cooling, transportation, fresh produce and spices from all over the world, fresh meat and bread… Even if you’re working at Starbucks and can barely afford to pay rent on your 1 bedroom apartment you still have a ton of luxuries a Bronze Age king could only dream of.
Now am I saying things are great and that we should stop complaining? No. Of course not. But we shouldn’t let our desire for change prevent us from appreciating what we have. That road leads into the dark tunnel of depression and mental health crisis.
People use all kinds of clichés to try to deliver this last message. “Touch grass” is a popular one. The problem with them is how trite and condescending they are. That’s not what I’m about. If you are suffering because of these broader issues then my wish for you is to find some joy in something simple that you have right now.
It’s easy to look at a guy like Elon Musk and just boil over with rage. Here’s the dirty secret about him (and other billionaires like him): he’s not happy. He’s addicted to winning. It’s a totally self destroying compulsion. Same goes for Jeff Bezos. You can see it in the failure of their relationships. They’re like real life Walter White.
Not universally, and not always. Even in the Western tradition there were free self governing cities.
I don't have the time and energy to elaborate and have the inevitable subsequent debate, but it's defeatist and unhelpful to say that hierarchy and oppression have always defined human existence. We need to demand more.
Nowhere did I say we shouldn’t demand more. You can be angry and wanting for change without letting those feelings overwhelm you and driving you to despair. If you are arguing that people really should be depressed and suicidal because of things in the world outside them which they cannot change alone then you are wrong. No one should be letting the news affect them so deeply as that.
We can agree on that, certainly. The line between mental self-preservation and complicity in a harmful system can be thin, but you're generally right.
I think the answer is we still use some dated heuristics. Some time in the 1800s when industrialization started to manifest people decided on the right and wrong ways to do things. People then added on and kept adding on. Unfortunately for us this process is only additive and we never take away or reconsider large over arching norms that don't fit with all the advancement we've achieved.
Billionaires are billionaires because there are few who are billionaires. If everyone was a billionaire then nobody would see billionaires in awe but would see billion billionaires in awe. This is just a consequence of our social behaviour as being different always has a different response.
What I am saying is, billionaires are billionaires because not everyone is a billionaire and everyone is low compared to them.
!Note: I am not talking about "depriving people" topic. That's different. !<