• @foxfox
    link
    English
    22
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

  • blazera
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    They do a lot to make not working less appealing, specifically as an employee. Absolutely no fruit trees allowed in public. Its illegal to exist outside long term. Lots of address requirements. Its illegal to sell a lot of homemade things(in my state at least you can only sell food if it was not prepared whatsoever. I can sell you a tomato i grew, but if i try to sell you tomato soup thats illegal), and its illegal to exist outside to sell.

  • @Udonezo
    link
    English
    21
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because muh economy. Capitalism will always “push the bill” on what they can do. shite gov doesn’t/wouldn’t keep up with regulations to aide the working class.

    My question is what’s the point in eternal growth? Why would one cut employees but boost executives? Money corrupts? Or is it them “getting theirs”

    • @Cruxifux
      link
      English
      121 year ago

      I hate that term “eternal growth” and similar phrases, because it makes it seem like society as a whole grows eternally. It’s just larger increments for the ruling class. That’s it. The general public gets fucked for the ruling class.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -71 year ago

      The answers to your questions are money, money, yes, and yes. Most people would do the same if in that position.

      I guess we could scrap the current system and adopt a new on that will no doubt evolve into essentially the same thing.

      Human nature/behavior will not change because of a shift in political or economic philosophy. It’s well documented.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -221 year ago

      But you can definitely achieve these things. I’m not rich nor do I hold a college degree and I do it. I dislike my job as much as the next person but this is the world we live in. Would you rather 1984?

      • Zorque
        link
        fedilink
        241 year ago

        If those were the only two options, obviously not. But I think you know damn well that’s not reality.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              Even that would devolve into a hierarchy. Someone will want power. It’s happened before.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                Where and when? All the instances I have heard about have been attacked by external powers, not taken over from within.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Sure but there was always someone (or a sect of someone’s) “in charge” calling the shots.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Raising minimum wage or putting a social safety net in place so we have no working homeless or unfed children.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I don’t disagree but this is a band-aid. I am not sure that there is a political or economic philosophy in place today (at least in the US) prepared or willing to deal with homeless or hunger properly. We get a lot of politispeak about doing this or that that effectively translates to nothing.

  • WabiSabiPapi
    link
    English
    14
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    capitalism has always carried the implied threat of starvation for those unable or unwilling to labor in order to enrich the capital owning class.

    this sort of vapid whitewashing/revisionism is just ‘maga’ for neoliberals, and is entirely devoid of substance.

    show me a period of prosperity under capitalism and I’ll show you a marginalized population subjugated.

    • Bipta
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There used to be a counter to the “stick” of starvation, which was the “carrot” of comfort.

      The need to eat isn’t some human invention and we can’t fault capitalism for that. We can complain that food should be distributed to the poor but there are many more needs that must be addressed for life. We can also complain that capitalism has expanded so far that living outside of it is no longer possible. What we cannot do is blame capitalism for the existence of human needs.

      Calling the posted image “vapid whitewashing” ignores the nature of reality and suggests a failure to adequately consider and understand the real nature of the human condition. Calling it MAGA for neoliberals is straight up stupidity.

  • @_wintermute
    link
    English
    101 year ago

    Because we live in a society where we literally need currency to survive. We pay to live and live to work to give our production to billionaires.

    More unions is a step closer to being able to general strike.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    It has become a gatcha game, you put time in and you might get something worthwhile out of it, or you might get more poverty

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -61 year ago

    People can still have a home, family, stability. I and many of my peers manage it and we are by no means rich.