816
Donald Duck says eat the rich rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
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 16 May 2024
816 points (100.0% liked)
196
16238 readers
1897 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's worth noting that this applies to most people, not just the ones "at the top".
Huh, I wonder if Capitalism is a systemic issue and perhaps incentivizes greed
I don't know about you, but I'm not about to be the guy to say that people are only greedy under capitalism.
No, but there's a big difference between a societal paradigm that overrides natural human compassion with, well, the exact opposite and then incentivizes the entire population to participate, or a society in which greed is greed rather than some overarching be-all end-all goal.
I agree with this, that capitalism as a philosophy promotes greed as a virtue. No doubt this influences the people that don't stop to question it - which I'm sure is a larger portion of the population than I would like to admit.
However, I also think that greed is something that has always and will always exist in society. Consumerism is a modern invention, by virtue of industrialization allowing us to consume, but people have always wanted more money, more power, more things.
So proud of you and your reading comprehension
Thank you, I'm likewise proud of you for your ability to patronize.
You think THAT'S patronizing? Then check THIS out:
Capitalism incentivizes greed ≠ greed doesn't exist outside of capitalism.
pats on head and speaks very slowly
Do you understand now or do you want me to get out the puppets?
I could explain my point, but I can tell you're more interested in role-playing as a daycare worker, so I won't interrupt your fun.
No need. There's literally no possible meaning of "don't say greed doesn't exist outside of capitalism" (when nobody has claimed anything of the sort) that is a good point rather than a ridiculous strawman, so best skip it.
But most people don't directly benefit from, and are directly involved in, the systems that encourage such behaviour, like the ones at the top are.
Most people are just grinding away selling their labour to survive while convinced by the wealthy-owned media and trillion dollar marketing industrial complex that they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who just need to consume more to make their lives better.
*Insert "we are not the same" meme here*
I don't disagree, I've spent my whole life firmly in the working class. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people focused on having more, regardless of where they're at.
Like, obviously many people are struggling. I know that. I've been there. I'm not talking about that.
I guess my point is best illustrated by Buddhism's second "Noble Truth": that suffering is caused by desire. This is a pretty decently established philosophy, and didn't spring into existence after the advent of Adam Smith - is what I'm saying.
The point is that the "desire" is entirely artificial and enforced on us as society by those who profit from doing so (and their trillion dollar industries dedicated to this task), not that some people are struggling, because all of us but a tiny miniscule percent of humanity, are struggling (including the non-existent "middle class", another lie there to maintain division in the working class, and the illusion of "aspiration"), we're just made to believe it's normal and part of human nature, when it is anything but.
Whatever "truth" Buddhism has is honestly irrelevant, especially because it predates Adam Smith and the levels of unprecedented social engineering and indoctrination we're subjected to in the name of capitalism by so long, its idea of "desire" is completely detached from yours, but even if it wasn't, all that "truth" is is victim blaming, and shifting responsibility for systemic issues on to individuals, which is a classic tactic employed by those in charge (be it kings, feudal lords, "gods" prophets and whatever other religious figurehead, or capitalists) because it serves them and only them, for us to be pointing fingers at one another (while ignoring literally all of the environmental factors they impose on us) instead of at them.
I honestly disagree, I think Buddhism - while not perfect - holds just as much truth then as now.
I agree it's unethical for companies to push us to consume, but it feels like you're implying we have no agency in it. Rejecting consumerism is a great first step on the path to happiness, in my opinion - and isn't limited to the ultra-wealthy by any means.
I never said or even implied we have no agency, but I'm also not deluded enough to think we have free choice under capitalism. We are not only literally indoctrinated from birth and essentially brainwashed our entire lives from that point in to consumerism and "keeping up with the Joneses", but we are also entirely dependant on participation in the system for survival because it is designed that way. You wanting to think you're somehow above it (even if you have learned to identify some of the propaganda and try to avoid it, which is simply impossible to do), or wanting to blame those who aren't "above it" for the system instead of those actively implementing and profiting directly from it, doesn't change that.
Freedom, and specifically freedom of choice, is capitalism's biggest con.