40
Spooooookyyyyy Scaaaaaaaarrryyyy
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
40 points (84.5% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
39983 readers
1155 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It means that between communism and capitalism there's exactly one option that says being paid for labor someone else did is fine and one that doesn't
... Both of them though?
One based on investments, the other based on being unable to work. From each according to their abilities and all that.
Not that it's a bad thing. To some degree we already do it in most sane capitalist countries too.
"To each according to their need" doesn't necessarily mean pay, you could just provide housing and food directly to people who can't otherwise afford it. Passive income necessarily requires exploitation and accounts for neither need nor ability.
Housing and food is essentially pay too, in a way.
What I'm saying is that there are people who get to live off others' work in that system too. It's just a much more just system, because we're basing it off who can vs who can't work, rather than who has money vs who doesn't.
You could also make the case that passive income doesn't necessarily require exploitation. One could work 80 hour weeks for 20 years with the goal of retiring earlier. In effect, that person is doing their future work in advance, and then in one way or another, earns income off it. If you just kept the extra money as cash, it would inflate away.
However, such "fair" passive income wouldn't be 8-10% a year in growth like you can currently get passively long term, it would be in line with inflation, to make it so that your 80 hours of work today are still worth 80 hours of work in 20 years.
I would argue that government bonds (in an actually ethical government, not something like the US...) are pretty close to exploitation-free passive income under the capitalist system. The rate is not high and the government uses it to fund social programs, infrastructure, etc. In return, the extra work you did to make more money, retains its value over time.
But this is just a theoretical way under the capitalist system to get SOME passive income to help you retire with more comfort than the state pension. Unfortunately, since exploitation IS allowed and is much more profitable, this is not actually what most people are doing for passive income.
Housing and food are viewed that way in our capitalist society specifically because it supports the central idea that the poor deserve to be homeless and starving, this view is actively reinforced in our media, I see no reason to do anything other than attack it. Saving for the future is not passive income. If it pays interest someone somewhere is getting fucked for it.
Housing and food require someone else's labor to produce if you don't do it on your own, hence receiving it for free is still a type of pay. Not unlike disability benefits, social housing, etc.
You can't save for the future long term without some kind of interest because all your money loses its value. So you can lend it to your government for social programs, or you can lend it out to companies and communities looking to finance solar panels (e.g through solcor), or you can invest it in a REIT buying up residential housing en masse. Up to you if you see those as equally abusive or not
Housing and food are necessary for survival and easily provided communally, we go out of our way to keep houses empty and lock dumpsters full of food until it all rots rather than give it away. The labor is already done and the fruits of it are thrown away or locked up because profit motive says so. Your money only loses value over time because of inflation, inflation only happens because we insist on constantly printing more money. None of the shit you're talking about is natural or unavoidable, it's all deliberate and definitionally exploitative.
Oh you must be American.
Empty homes aren't common where I come from, but construction and maintenance still require someone's labour. Food that's past expiry date but not spoiled is sold at a deep discount or donated to the food bank. It still requires someone's labour to grow the food.
Someone still has to put in the work. That means if you don't work, even in a hypothetical communist country, someone else still has to work to provide you with your necessities. Until we can truly automate everything, at least.
Inflation means the rich can't hoard the money in their bank accounts and it has to be circulated in some manner to retain value. Covid and the Russian and Epstein-Trump wars of aggression aside, salary growth has generally matched or outpaced inflation where I come from. If that's not the case for you, you need unions and better control of your politicians. Mild inflation benefits the working class, not the rich... In a healthy society.
Inflation does absolutely nothing to prevent rich people from hoarding money or forcing it to actually circulate, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Regular inflation is this, but at a much slower pace. Still means if you're rich, you HAVE to invest your money somewhere, or it loses all of its value over time. And all the investments that actually make a good amount of money over the long term involve lending your money to someone else to be able to do something productive so both parties can benefit.
If you're not rich, you just get raises and things get cheaper over time in comparison to the national average salary which rises faster than inflation or at least at the same rate. People today can afford more things than people 20 years ago. Unless you live in the US or some other similar shithole country. If you do, it's not inflation that's keeping you down, it's the absolute lack of any kind of respect for the working class. Yes, in that environment, inflation is bad for workers. That's why you need unions and strong labour laws.
As long as there's currency, you want inflation. You also want to not live in a country where workers don't get raises that outpace inflation. That's the thing you have an issue with, it's completely separate from inflation.
Anything's possible when you make shit up
Ah okay, seems you haven't ever been outside of the US and don't know how actually functional economic models work.
There is nowhere on earth where your ideas about inflation are anything other than fucking moronic, log off and read a book
Mate, I've probably read more books than you, but that doesn't change the simple fact that if you're rich and the economy is inflating, your money loses its value when stored as literal cash with no yields, whereas if there's no inflation, it's safe to keep it as cash and it'll never lose value. Conversely, the working class usually is not sitting on a ton of cash that would lose value over time... And often have loans which become less impactful with inflation since salaries rise, but the loan principal does not. If your salary goes up 2x over 15 years but your mortgage stays the same, that means your life gets easier over time.
This is really basic economics, you don't even need to take a course to figure it out.
In reality there are options other than "cash no yield" and "circulating in a way that helps anyone else", and reality is something that basic economics famously does not account for at all. Keep reading.
I mean if you can't even grasp basic economics then how are you going to understand actual reality?