this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
1152 points (97.4% liked)

memes

10335 readers
1691 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 81 points 7 months ago (4 children)

As someone who's self employed, I feel like self employment is a form of rebellion against this system.

My dad teases me that his socialist son is now a capitalist because I give music lessons and host events. I'm pretty sure I'm not because I don't profit from the labor of someone else, I do all the work and anyone who helps me isn't existentially tied to me.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 55 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Sounds like your dad has fuck all for a grasp on what socialism is

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 32 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yup. The good part about it is that if I know the trip wire words to avoid, I can get him to agree on some really progressive things.

Like I got him to agree that history is uncomfortable and that victors tend to write history, so we should be critical in how we learn it and teach it. We should consider the perspectives of who "the losers" are to get a true grasp of what actually happened, and that the society you grow up in will shape your world view. Our history classes should confront these issues and teach events with consideration of different groups of people and how they were affected, even if it may make us uncomfortable.

Hmmm what does that sound like?

[–] blackluster117@possumpat.io 8 points 7 months ago

Sounds like The Great Replacement^TM^. BETSY, GET ME MY GUN!

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So many people and absolutely incapable of defining socialism or capitalism.

Every damn one of them has an opinion on both.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We want them both at the same time. We want to be winners, but we imagine that if we were, we would be fair, thereby creating a utopia.

People associate those words with their fantasies, not with the ideological tenets that actually define them.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The way should be socialism and collective help for the poor, free market capitalism and taking risks for the rich. The point is, the more you have, the less the system should help you. In many places, it's the other way around.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Socialism isn't public safety nets. You're referring to Social Democracy, ie Capitalism with strong safety nets, not collective ownership of the Means of Production.

[–] Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Socialism=communism. Communism=red. Red looks like blood. Blood means someone might die. Socialism bad cuz it means dead people.

That's usually how conservatives who I have talked to look at it. 💀

So many lost causes...

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 4 points 7 months ago

Oof.... Who's gonna tell (U.S) conservatives what their primary party color is?

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 0 points 7 months ago

A boomer!? (presumably) There's a shock...

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

There is no badge for not hiring people. Its better to hire someone and treat them better than another employer than pretend like you are virtuous and not "profiting from their labor".

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

An interesting thought. A kind of harm reduction. Alternately (or perhaps coinciding) I'm very interested in workers co-ops where the distinction between employee/er kinda goes away. You can still have managers and people setting the quarterly goals or whatever, but they aren't "above" you, except maybe in their skill at managing people.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

I am all in favor of any work relationship that is consensual. I just dont like it when people keep wanting to make laws that "protect employees" when they are actually harming everyone instead.

[–] demosthememes@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mark Cuban put his money where his mouth is. He made 300 millionaires out of the 330 employees in one of his earlier companies by giving them stock ownership.
Workers paid by the hour are ‘always going to fall behind, - Cuban

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wow when the billionaires are worried about income inequality you know the shit has gone too far. It's like it's not even fun for them anymore.

Thought provoking article. Thank you got sharing. I certainly don't agree with everything said, but it's interesting to hear a different view.

[–] demosthememes@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I remembered that Cuban was on record for saying & doing this & that link was the easiest to source from because so many people know who he is. I wanted to highlight the deed itself. More recently, was the open letter written by over 250 billionaires & multi-millionaires pleading to be taxed more than they currently are.
As you say, you know it's almost pitchfork levels when the letter, which was read at WEF in Davos, says

“Our request is simple: we ask you to tax us, the very richest in society. This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations’ economic growth. But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future.”

According to the article, "Imposing a 2% tax on the world’s billionaires alone would raise almost $250 billion annually"
Question is, why are governments so reluctant to grant them this?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

It's better entirely to set up a worker co-operative and cease exploitation.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago

I'm pretty sure I'm not because I don't profit from the labor of someone else, I do all the work and anyone who helps me isn't existentially tied to me.

Idk, I'm in a similar boat. I work at a state-run hospital, but I also own a company with my wife and friend and we do all the labour together. I think sometimes to deal with the work load I have a "home me" and a "work me".

Home me is chill, just wants to relax and have a good time.

Work me..... He's a scoundrel who doesn't work nearly hard enough to afford "home me" more leisure time. You can't trust him, gotta watch him like a hawk. I'm going to wring that guy dry until I can retire off his sweat.

So it makes an odd amount of sense to me, but I've constructed an odd coping mechanism i think.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Self-employment is detrimental to people. Because it has the workers support all the risks. It's not the solution.