770

Merry Christmas (i.imgur.com)

submitted 10 months ago by BarterClub@sh.itjust.works to c/antiwork@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

Space Bobby knows.

[-] AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Space Bobby is tanning.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You make the same profit selling food to a starving person or a full person, but the starving person has a higher willingness to pay. The issue WOULDN'T be distribution if it wasn't for wealth and income inequality.

Wealth and income inequality can be fixed in Democratic Capitalism, you just vote for a tax that is distributed to the poorest people. We just haven't done that to the degree necessary to solve this problem.

If you think about it, for food, you would sell more if there was less inequality and you could sell to more people at the same price. So if there WAS some all powerful Food Capitalism Cartel they would be in favor of something like a wealth tax to fund a UBI.

[-] coffeeaddict@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Literally all arguments against UBI are based down to "but, but- The workers will have a leverage!"

[-] Hikermick@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

The milks about to go bad. And there it goes...

[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Dangit Bobbuh

[-] pigup@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That's my [work product]! I don't know you! 🦶🔩

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Not entirely true. The whole 3 missed meals from anarchy is kept up to keep the masses satiated.

[-] Mango@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Maybe we should blanket subsidize groceries?

[+] weeeeum@lemmy.world -14 points 10 months ago

Kind of weird that in the last 100 years nearly all the worst famines occured it communist countries.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 23 points 10 months ago

Except that’s not true? China had much worse famines before the communist revolution, and both China and the USSR never had a famine after the ones you are thinking about.

Meanwhile, we hear every 5 years that hundreds of thousands of people will die of hunger on the Horn of Africa, that millions of people are food insecure at the seat of capitalist power (the US, UK etc.). We see breadlines in the UK, families going hungry because of foodstamp cuts.

And then you see Vietnam, China, Cuba… and they have eliminated famine. Not hunger, but famine. Meaning there are no food insecure people. The USSR had done the same before it collapsed. People in the USSR had better food security than people in the US after the 50s.

You basically don’t know what you’re talking about and are just repeating propaganda points from the Cold War. It’s vibes based ideology, no facts or science.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

ROFL nothing what you said is remotely true lol

Saying people in the ussr had better food security than people in the USA in the 50s hahahahahaha

Tankies....lol

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

millions of people are food insecure at the seat of capitalist power (the US, UK etc.). We see breadlines in the UK, families going hungry because of foodstamp cuts.

There's food insecure people in China too. It's not different in that respect at all.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

There is, but when people say “eliminate hunger” or “food insecurity” in these neolib global think tanky way they mean statistically eliminate them.

China has better food security than Italy, Greece, Singapore, South Korea etc. and you’d never associate those countries with hunger or food insecurity.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

China has better food security than Italy, Greece, Singapore, South Korea etc.

I find that hard to believe. Which numbers do you base this on?

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Food_Security_Index

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Ah, fair enough then

[-] recapitated@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

I would suggest not drawing the line between capitalist corporate societies and authoritarian communist dictatorships. Not every message needs to be about government models.

I take a message like this to start a conversation about cooperation instead of greed. Conceptually, I don't see it scaling to 8 billion people.

But the great thing is that we can all individually make the choice to operate this way within our smaller communities, and offer support to those in need when we can afford to. You can even scale this concept down to your family or your team at work. Cooperation can convert certain resources away from being a fixed-sum game.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

There's a larger issue of paltering within the previous statement in that it artificially limits the time span under scrutiny and to the headline famines (rather than sum totals) to railroad a specific political inference in service of an anti-collectivist meme.

[-] recapitated@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I'm just trying to support cooperation with the idea of starting small with our friend who isn't ready to think big about it yet. I think people need to experience immersive demonstrations to understand the amplification power of cooperation.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

That's certainly commendable but it ignores the power of easily repeated lies.

There is great value in earnest discussion. It, however, requires all sides to be ingenuous. If someone's opening gambit is calculated artifice then all you are doing is giving them soapbox from which to bend pliable minds to their regressive agenda. By all means try to draw them into open discussion but only within a framework of honest representation.

[-] trafalgar225@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Thank you for the links.

[-] roscoe@startrek.website 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm not agreeing with op but for this meme it does make sense to limit the timeframe. Production and worldwide logistics have only recently given us the ability to feed everyone on earth reliably and consistently.

Two hundred years ago a surplus in Argentina couldn't easily be applied to a failed crop in Bangladesh. The world as a whole now produces more than enough food and we have the ability to transport it from anywhere to anywhere. We just don't do it. In the past hunger sometimes couldn't be avoided, now it could.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's true that the transport system is much faster and reliable now than the 1840’s but you didn't need a Prime subscription to lift a famine. Transport back then was still fast enough.

The conditions that cause famines lasted multiple seasons/years and they didn't drop in over night either. Famine struck areas slide into scarcity slowly as the price of the cheapest food available rises above what is affordable by the poorest in that society.

In some areas, such as the Irish potato famine in the 1840’s, there was still a surplus of food being exported to markets that could afford it. Aid, when it eventually arrived in Ireland came from Britain, USA, Indian Ocean, France, Canada, West Indies, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, south America, Russia, Latin America, the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Portugal and other British Dependencies. The world was much more connected back then than you may be aware.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

It does make sense to limit at least when there's socialist states if you want to compare capitalist states to socialist ones.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Only if you wanted to hide all the earlier famines that happened under capitalism under the tenuous argument that there's some overarching uniformity of development, opportunity, meteorological events, natural disaster etc etc worldwide that allows for fair comparison within the same timeframe.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

It just doesn't make sense to compate two completely different timeframes as-is.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

On the contrary. There is no cognizant reason to limit the timeframe other than to bury relevant facts unfavorable to anti-left rhetoric.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I thought the point was to compare the two. Wouldn't make sense to give one a much longer timespan in the comparison.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

That would only make sense if there was some tangible link between the occurance of famines and the passing of time. But there isn't really. There is to things like war, drought, flooding, epidemics, vermin infestation, mis-management, a country's degree of development etc etc. If you want to make some qualitative comparison between systems of government then use those not some superficial framing set to prejudice the outcome.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

But when we're comparing occurrences numerically, of course time matters into it. In comparable time and preferably situations, how many occurrences you'd have.

Skewing the comparison by using two totally different time frames seems just weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Skewing the comparison by using totally different countries with totally different situations seems weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result.

Russia and China both had an unfortunate history of famines before any pesky revolutionairies popped their heads up. Examining a longer time period reveals this highly relevant fragility. Also the facts that both of these huge countries were badly underdeveloped at the time of their revolutions: And the period you wish to limit it to had both of the world wars and the extended periods of international instability associated with them: And both countries suffered invasions and other unusual external pressures over a long period of time. These are relevant factors.

Limiting the time frame for a comparison based solely on a summation of deaths is a leading, manipulation of the study of the phenomena of famines.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Preferably you actually would use the same countries and times, if you could. I'm not sure how you think comparisons usually work lol. You'd try to keep the comparison as similar as possible.

I'm sorry but I feel like you're trying to arrive at a certain conclusion rather than doing an honest comparison.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Limiting by time period and a crude summation of deaths is a dishonest framing for any discussion regarding how one political system may be more the catalyst for famine than another. It is basic correlation vs causation. By all means make a cognizant argument that shows how these limits can promote a fair comparison of the political factors that influence a countries descent into famine. I would like to hear something from you that amounts to more than some article of capitalist (bad) faith. I feel that you will struggle to do so because you are not interested in making an earnest effort to understand famine just in weaponising contrived stats.

[-] Saltblue@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Hunger in capitalism is not about famines, it's about mass produced cheap food full of sodium, sugar and chemicals, yes people are feed but at the cost of obesity and other health problems, it's about farmers pushed to plant specific crops to the detriment of the environment and the land, pushed to buy seeds from Monsanto and punished if they dare to plant their own crops.

People still are going hungry in the world, but not we're you can see it, and you will never see it, in your bubble of lights and advertisment.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago

It’s also about famines tho…

The Irish Famine was 100% caused by capitalism. The Bengal Famine is the same. All famines today in the capitalist world are the fault of capitalist logic. When people die of hunger in Ethiopia or Eritrea, it’s capitalism killing them.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

No, people here can't even afford that garbage. It actually is more economical to buy unprocessed vegetables, beans, meats, fruits and to just cook your own food.

The only feasible way to participate in the economy is to not be dependent on it to survive.

[-] loxdogs@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

try to convince all manufactures to stop selling. If won't happen, because of huge profits that follow deficit

[-] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip -1 points 10 months ago

You're absolutely right, it's because no one is motivated to do the unenjoyable work

this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023

770 points (92.3% liked)

Antiwork

3632 readers

1 users here now

A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.

The new place for c/antiwork@lemmy.fmhy.ml

This server is no longer working, and we had to move.

Active stats from all instances

Subscribers: 2.1k

Date Created: June 21, 2023

Library copied from reddit:

The Anti-Work Library 📚

Essential Reads

Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.

The Abolition of Work by Bob Black (1985) | listen
On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber (2013) | listen
In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell (1932) | listen

c/Antiwork Rules

Tap or click to expand

1. Server Main Rules

The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/

2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments

Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.

Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.

3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved

Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.

4. Educate don’t attack

No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.

If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.

5. No Advertising

Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service

6. No factually misleading information

Content that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.

7. Headlines

If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.

8. Staff Discretion

Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.

It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.

Other Communities

c/workreform@lemmy.world

Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

BarterClub@lemmy.world

fuck@lemmy.world

BarterClub@sh.itjust.works