🌸

but like, on some level you realize that the critique you're making also condemns the current capitalist system, right? you realize that under capitalism, as it exists right now, rich bougie trust fund kids are goofing off and wasting their time on frivolous distractions while the majority of people have to work, and the products created by the working class are overwhelmingly being consumed by that bourgeoisie leisure class rather than the people who created it?

do you agree with me that this is a bad thing, and trust fund kids should have to get a job like everyone else does?

@siryouarebeingmocked

@syabm

the majority of people in Russia say things were better during socialism. is this because they miss being enslaved? or they miss living in leisure while the slaves did all the work?

no, the average person in Russia who misses socialism is a working class person who misses when working class people had some stability. your claim that "socialism requires slavery" is completely detached from reality. socialism requires incentives around labor, but so does every system. given that i am not a r/antiwork cornball radlib, the point of contention here is not whether there should be incentives around labor (there should) but whether the product of people's labor should go to wealthy people who don't work.

No you're not getting it. I'll try again. The problem isn't with rich people who fuck off on their yachts or whatever.

the key part you're missing is "without working a day in their life"- if a brain surgeon does incredible work they've earned a break and a boat trip. if they've made their lIving off grandads stock investments though, then I have an issue.

All in trying to express is that (and I'm not trying to run defense for globalist investment firms) there are consequences to a state powerful enough to tell people that they can't get filthy stinking rich of the stock market. Would your ideological opponent wield that power in the way you want?

On the inheritance point, is it not my right to pass down wealth to my children? There's already a death tax, which is one of the most anti-human concepts I've ever heard of. It's a concept that could have only been thought of in Hell.

I certainly don't want the current state to have more power, and I don't want the next state to have more power than the current state. but I would like it if the state that replaces the current state used a similar degree of power towards helping the public that the current state uses hurting the public. I would like a new state that puts the same effort into prosecuting the epstein class that the current state uses to protect it.

On the inheritance point, is it not my right to pass down wealth to my children? There's already a death tax, which is one of the most anti-human concepts I've ever heard of. It's a concept that could have only been thought of in Hell.

if someone works hard so that their child works less hard, that's one thing, once you talk about generations upon generations inheriting daddy's corporation, that's another. set the threshold when the estate tax kicks in high enough, and apply it to inheritance of companies other people work at or property other people (tenants specifically) live on rather than personal property, so it doesn't affect regular people, and i don't see the issue. unless you're against all forms of taxation, in which case, lol.

All in trying to express is that (and I'm not trying to run defense for globalist investment firms) there are consequences to a state powerful enough to tell people that they can't get filthy stinking rich of the stock market. Would your ideological opponent wield that power in the way you want?

there are also consequences to a state powerful enough to enforce the contracts of ownership which allow someone to get stinking rich off the stock market in the first place. classical liberal theorists understood this:

"Commerce . . . can seldom flourish . . . [where] the faith of contracts is not supported by the law, and . . . [where] the state is not supposed to be regularly employed in enforcing the payment of debts from all those who are able to pay."

—Adam Smith

I am not proposing a more powerful state, I am proposing a new state which wields a similar level of power for the working class instead of the investing class. a state which changes the current property relation is not inherently "more powerful" than one that enforces it via, for example, sending cops to enforce evictions.

you might say that it's wrong to ever disrupt current property relations- but the current system itself came about when classical liberal revolutions overthrew the property relations of the feudal aristocracy. as property relations were changed before, they can be changed again.

you may not be trying to run defense for massive investment firms, but that's what you're doing.

but like, on some level you realize that the critique you're making also condemns the current capitalist system, right? you realize that under capitalism, as it exists right now, rich bougie trust fund kids are goofing off and wasting their time on frivolous distractions while the majority of people have to work, and the products created by the working class are overwhelmingly being consumed by that bourgeoisie leisure class rather than the people who created it?

do you agree with me that this is a bad thing, and trust fund kids should have to get a job like everyone else does?

@siryouarebeingmocked

@syabm

the majority of people in Russia say things were better during socialism. is this because they miss being enslaved? or they miss living in leisure while the slaves did all the work?

no, the average person in Russia who misses socialism is a working class person who misses when working class people had some stability. your claim that "socialism requires slavery" is completely detached from reality. socialism requires incentives around labor, but so does every system. given that i am not a r/antiwork cornball radlib, the point of contention here is not whether there should be incentives around labor (there should) but whether the product of people's labor should go to wealthy people who don't work.

No you're not getting it. I'll try again. The problem isn't with rich people who fuck off on their yachts or whatever.

the key part you're missing is "without working a day in their life"- if a brain surgeon does incredible work they've earned a break and a boat trip. if they've made their lIving off grandads stock investments though, then I have an issue.

but like, on some level you realize that the critique you're making also condemns the current capitalist system, right? you realize that under capitalism, as it exists right now, rich bougie trust fund kids are goofing off and wasting their time on frivolous distractions while the majority of people have to work, and the products created by the working class are overwhelmingly being consumed by that bourgeoisie leisure class rather than the people who created it?

do you agree with me that this is a bad thing, and trust fund kids should have to get a job like everyone else does?

@siryouarebeingmocked

@syabm

The recent opening of a new solar farm in Haeju, South Hwanghae province, marks a turning point in North Korea’s solar energy production. This facility has the highest capacity for a single installment—10 megawatts—in the country to date and is indicative of a larger trend.

North Korea’s solar energy sector is not only expanding at a greater scale than has been seen in recent years, the approach to solar is shifting. Several large-scale solar projects are under construction or have recently been completed. However, unlike past solar projects that were principally designed to provide electricity to the facilities where they were installed, these new projects are reportedly feeding into the larger electricity grid. As North Korea works to modernize its economy, large-scale solar energy production seems to be an important part of meeting growing energy demands.

but like, on some level you realize that the critique you're making also condemns the current capitalist system, right? you realize that under capitalism, as it exists right now, rich bougie trust fund kids are goofing off and wasting their time on frivolous distractions while the majority of people have to work, and the products created by the working class are overwhelmingly being consumed by that bourgeoisie leisure class rather than the people who created it?

do you agree with me that this is a bad thing, and trust fund kids should have to get a job like everyone else does?

@siryouarebeingmocked

@syabm

What I am criticizing is that the socialist fantasy is to be that which they condemn. They all want to live a life of luxury and not have to worry about who makes the electricity, or picks up the trash.

i've criticized these people at lengths as well, and as I already pointed out, there's nothing really socialist about it. this strain of thought is completely detached from the actual historical theory or practice of socialism, as you yourself pointed out here:

I also find it silly that they think that a socialist/ communist type of system would be able to provide the life they desire. Even the propaganda slogans historically used by socialist movements have always focused on “workers of the world unite” or creating a “workers paradise” or even a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. But they don’t want to work, they desire a life of leisure.

Indeed! which is why, as an actual socialist, I have so much contempt for that strain of thought. you can search r/antiwork on my blog and find page after page of me arguing against those losers.

circling back to this:

I’m not criticizing anyone who can afford to not work. That’s basically the entire goal of anyone who wants to retire one day. And passing on your accumulated wealth and its luxury to your children is totally understandable. Some people get to that point differently than others.

certainly someone who worked hard and saved up all their life has earned a rest, but I think it gets more questionable when you talk about a spoiled brat who inherited daddy's money.

but let's take that further: what about several generations of people who don't have to work? not because their grandad worked really hard, but rather because they lucked into buying stock in ford motors on the ground floor? at what point do we say "actually maybe these people should get a job?"

I mean, change a couple words of @euronymous4e 's comment and you get:

It goes: exploited underpaid workers -> seven layers of abstraction -> the TV telling trust fund kids they're good people -> trust fund kids, relaxing in their garden.

which is a pitch perfect description of how things work under capitalism right now.

as Peter Hague indicated , capitalism has generated a class of people who have the leisure to spend their whole life painting in the garden for their own pleasure and no one else's and never working a day in their life.

as you and @euronymous4e pointed out, any system where someone spends their whole life in leisure depends on the exploited labor of someone else.

now let'sbput those two facts next to each other. let's see what happens :)

but like, on some level you realize that the critique you're making also condemns the current capitalist system, right? you realize that under capitalism, as it exists right now, rich bougie trust fund kids are goofing off and wasting their time on frivolous distractions while the majority of people have to work, and the products created by the working class are overwhelmingly being consumed by that bourgeoisie leisure class rather than the people who created it?

do you agree with me that this is a bad thing, and trust fund kids should have to get a job like everyone else does?

@siryouarebeingmocked

@syabm

What I am criticizing is that the socialist fantasy is to be that which they condemn. They all want to live a life of luxury and not have to worry about who makes the electricity, or picks up the trash.

i've criticized these people at lengths as well, and as I already pointed out, there's nothing really socialist about it. this strain of thought is completely detached from the actual historical theory or practice of socialism, as you yourself pointed out here:

I also find it silly that they think that a socialist/ communist type of system would be able to provide the life they desire. Even the propaganda slogans historically used by socialist movements have always focused on “workers of the world unite” or creating a “workers paradise” or even a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. But they don’t want to work, they desire a life of leisure.

Indeed! which is why, as an actual socialist, I have so much contempt for that strain of thought. you can search r/antiwork on my blog and find page after page of me arguing against those losers.

circling back to this:

I’m not criticizing anyone who can afford to not work. That’s basically the entire goal of anyone who wants to retire one day. And passing on your accumulated wealth and its luxury to your children is totally understandable. Some people get to that point differently than others.

certainly someone who worked hard and saved up all their life has earned a rest, but I think it gets more questionable when you talk about a spoiled brat who inherited daddy's money.

but let's take that further: what about several generations of people who don't have to work? not because their grandad worked really hard, but rather because they lucked into buying stock in ford motors on the ground floor? at what point do we say "actually maybe these people should get a job?"

The Evil Dead (1981)

Ruth Marten, “#66”