• Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Do rich people not understand that money= life or death for poor people but not for rich people? Therefore protecting poor people is more important? Are they stupid, lack empathy or both?

    It's both, Isn't it?

    • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It's important to recognize that the story is, first and foremost, bullshit. They're lying liars who lie.

      Chinese folks in the upper classes are living high on the hog in every sense. They're traveling. They're eating out lavishly. They're driving big imported SUVs. They're blowing fat stacks at casinos and resorts. They are having wild sex and doing tons of drugs.

      What they aren't doing is maxing their scores out on the USD leaders board. We don't have a handful of aspiring trillionaires demanding that the Hansang Index double every five years. Major media centers and industrial hubs aren't being collected and traded like baseball cards. Housing is not for speculation, it is for living in.

      That's what The Economist is agitating over. Not that Chinese elites are suffering, but that they're failing to ante up into the Blackjack table that is American Capitalism.

    • GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]
      ·
      9 months ago

      Do rich people not understand that money= life or death for poor people but not for rich people? Are they stupid?

      Show

    • huf [he/him]
      ·
      9 months ago

      i mean, if a rich person loses their money, they become a poor person, which is a fate worse than death.

      so yeah, i think they understand, they just have a different take on it. also they really really hate the poors.

      • Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]
        ·
        9 months ago

        I sort of meant that if a rich person loses a little money they're still pretty rich, if a poor person loses a little money they can't feed themselves.

      • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is what makes a socialist project so neat in my mind. The rich are the reason that poverty is so hellish. It's the imperialism, the cop violence, the homeless, the hunger, the grueling hours of labor, etc. It's all contrived, it's not like there's not enough houses or enough food - nor does it take all hands on deck to create it like it used to. Without a project people fuss around like "well, I can't change the system, I'm a victim as much as anyone else!" But then you have China doing something about it as a cohesive unit. Being poor is a dignified life and being wealthy with the fruit of your labor is a dignified life. You can give all your money to a cause you feel is worthy and still have a meal that night and a place to sleep. Your job as the torture manager at the adrenochrome factory isn't going to be filled in by someone even worse when you leave because the socialist project is going to make sure that the adrenochrome factory will become a library/community center instead. You're not gambling homelessness when you leave a job. You're not panicking when you need an ambulance because of the cost. You're not going to be tortured in a cell by a sadistic cop if you do drugs - hell you even have a dignified path away from addiction! Under socialism you would have this beautifully maximized way to actualize yourself and you get to contribute to a society that isn't maximally cynical.

        • Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name]
          ·
          9 months ago

          under capitalism if someone made robots that freed everyone from labor the only people that would benefit are the people who own the robots.