Well, but, there’s a reason societies that made up money did better than societies that didn’t
I’m just wondering what societies you are historically speaking about since there’s no sources for me to follow. Are we talking about native populations that were colonized? Competing societies that were conquered by warring neighbor states? What’s your definition of “did better”? If they had more military and slave labor forces due to economical conditions in which to destroy the other societies, I wouldn’t consider that a better outcome.
The rest of the statement is the same as it was back in historical context, “A lot of the rich people don’t really do that much useful, if anything. A lot of the poor people work their asses off and they’re still struggling for basic necessities.” That statement could’ve came from any century. I think you’ve put a capitalistic economic structure up on a pedestal. Would you say “plastics” are better for our society and environment since it’s dominating our lives? Disease and plagues are superior since our industry produces those side-effects? Cancer must be a positive because our society is leading to higher exposure of contaminants in which it can develop.
Nevermind, after re-reading your comment I realize you may just be confused on which “side” you are on.
There’s an inherent justice…you can kind of assume that if someone’s struggling financially it’s their own fault. Because that does happen sometimes.
Doesn’t matter that you put a competing statement in “italics”. The very simple picture is very simple and your comment further demonstrates we rationalize ourselves into inhumanity and derangement. I really don’t care if it’s their fault or the pope’s fault. Donate to your local food banks or food-drive event kids. That old can of beef stew you don’t even look at anymore can keep someone warm and alive for the night.
I’m just wondering what societies you are historically speaking about since there’s no sources for me to follow. Are we talking about native populations that were colonized? Competing societies that were conquered by warring neighbor states? What’s your definition of “did better”? If they had more military and slave labor forces due to economical conditions in which to destroy the other societies, I wouldn’t consider that a better outcome.
Spoken like someone who’s never had another society come and destroy the society where they make their home. A society that’s strong enough to defend itself is, in my opinion, better than one that’s not.
Part of the thing is that I do think that it’s possible to do both. You can have a just and democratic society, you can have socialist economy, and definitely you can have economic justice, and you can still be organized and effective enough to defend yourself against outside threats. It’s not just a choice of being Nazis or helpless farmers. But I do think it’s fair to say that a society that structures itself around large scale non-employment won’t be able to perpetuate itself in the modern world. I’m not saying that as a good or bad thing, just the geopolitical reality. You can disagree of course. I’m completely open to it if you want to make an argument for a particular more-equitable society and how it can survive, but I think you gotta be the one to explain how it’s going to survive if you want to say it’s “better.”
I think you’ve put a capitalistic economic structure up on a pedestal.
Not at all. There’s a difference between “this is what I think can survive” and “this is what I like.”
Would you say “plastics” are better for our society and environment since it’s dominating our lives? Disease and plagues are superior since our industry produces those side-effects? Cancer must be a positive because our society is leading to higher exposure of contaminants in which it can develop.
I think societies that live are better than ones that don’t. That doesn’t mean anything, pollution or crime or etc, that happens in the world is automatically good.
In fact, the impending destruction of the biosphere in a form that can sustain the current human population is one of the main indictments of capitalism. “You guys say you’ve got it all worked out, but it seems like you’re not gonna be around in 100 years based on what you’re doing to the planet right now.” To me that kind of logical argument is fine. I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to say that you need to look at how things play out in the real world though, whether they be capitalism’s strengths or its undoing flaws. Surely that’s a reasonable thing to do?
Doesn’t matter that you put a competing statement in “italics”. The very simple picture is very simple and your comment further demonstrates we rationalize ourselves into inhumanity and derangement. I really don’t care if it’s their fault or the pope’s fault.
My point is, an economic system where (if you’re able-bodied) you need to work or else you go hungry is actually reasonable, if everyone can have good and rewarding work. It’s a way of dealing with the reality that people have to do some things in order for society to function.
Why do you disagree with that statement? Again, I understand that the current economic climate isn’t that, and that safety nets need to be in place even in the most perfect version of that system that can realistically exist. Honestly, I think experiments with UBI are demonstrating that maybe I am wrong, and meeting people’s basic needs regardless of anything is a better way. I would say that maybe the current economic system is so wrong that UBI is a big improvement… but surely it seems reasonable to say that (a) following the data of what works is better than just theorizing (b) “forcing” adult able people to work in society isn’t a bad thing if you want the society to function, contingent on the jobs they’re doing actually making some sort of sense.
Donate to your local food banks or food-drive event kids. That old can of beef stew you don’t even look at anymore can keep someone warm and alive for the night.
I have done, yes. Also volunteered with a group going door-to-door, also done some volunteer work at the food bank itself.
I’m just wondering what societies you are historically speaking about since there’s no sources for me to follow. Are we talking about native populations that were colonized? Competing societies that were conquered by warring neighbor states? What’s your definition of “did better”? If they had more military and slave labor forces due to economical conditions in which to destroy the other societies, I wouldn’t consider that a better outcome.
The rest of the statement is the same as it was back in historical context, “A lot of the rich people don’t really do that much useful, if anything. A lot of the poor people work their asses off and they’re still struggling for basic necessities.” That statement could’ve came from any century. I think you’ve put a capitalistic economic structure up on a pedestal. Would you say “plastics” are better for our society and environment since it’s dominating our lives? Disease and plagues are superior since our industry produces those side-effects? Cancer must be a positive because our society is leading to higher exposure of contaminants in which it can develop.
Nevermind, after re-reading your comment I realize you may just be confused on which “side” you are on.
Doesn’t matter that you put a competing statement in “italics”. The very simple picture is very simple and your comment further demonstrates we rationalize ourselves into inhumanity and derangement. I really don’t care if it’s their fault or the pope’s fault. Donate to your local food banks or food-drive event kids. That old can of beef stew you don’t even look at anymore can keep someone warm and alive for the night.
Spoken like someone who’s never had another society come and destroy the society where they make their home. A society that’s strong enough to defend itself is, in my opinion, better than one that’s not.
Part of the thing is that I do think that it’s possible to do both. You can have a just and democratic society, you can have socialist economy, and definitely you can have economic justice, and you can still be organized and effective enough to defend yourself against outside threats. It’s not just a choice of being Nazis or helpless farmers. But I do think it’s fair to say that a society that structures itself around large scale non-employment won’t be able to perpetuate itself in the modern world. I’m not saying that as a good or bad thing, just the geopolitical reality. You can disagree of course. I’m completely open to it if you want to make an argument for a particular more-equitable society and how it can survive, but I think you gotta be the one to explain how it’s going to survive if you want to say it’s “better.”
Not at all. There’s a difference between “this is what I think can survive” and “this is what I like.”
I think societies that live are better than ones that don’t. That doesn’t mean anything, pollution or crime or etc, that happens in the world is automatically good.
In fact, the impending destruction of the biosphere in a form that can sustain the current human population is one of the main indictments of capitalism. “You guys say you’ve got it all worked out, but it seems like you’re not gonna be around in 100 years based on what you’re doing to the planet right now.” To me that kind of logical argument is fine. I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to say that you need to look at how things play out in the real world though, whether they be capitalism’s strengths or its undoing flaws. Surely that’s a reasonable thing to do?
My point is, an economic system where (if you’re able-bodied) you need to work or else you go hungry is actually reasonable, if everyone can have good and rewarding work. It’s a way of dealing with the reality that people have to do some things in order for society to function.
Why do you disagree with that statement? Again, I understand that the current economic climate isn’t that, and that safety nets need to be in place even in the most perfect version of that system that can realistically exist. Honestly, I think experiments with UBI are demonstrating that maybe I am wrong, and meeting people’s basic needs regardless of anything is a better way. I would say that maybe the current economic system is so wrong that UBI is a big improvement… but surely it seems reasonable to say that (a) following the data of what works is better than just theorizing (b) “forcing” adult able people to work in society isn’t a bad thing if you want the society to function, contingent on the jobs they’re doing actually making some sort of sense.
I have done, yes. Also volunteered with a group going door-to-door, also done some volunteer work at the food bank itself.