3 ms·

Because our moral values are wrong. We should be celebrating richness, not poverty. Unfortunately, victimhood is trendy these days and I feel most of it can be

Because our moral values are wrong. We should be celebrating richness, not poverty. Unfortunately, victimhood is trendy these days and I feel most of it can be traced back to marxism. Why should we celebrate richness? If you're richer than your peers you did something that society considered valuable. Money is the ultimate form of direct democracy. Now, we can argue that people in Wall Street are screwing up people left and right, that governments can print off money and that governments can force people to give them money. These are serious issues and I'm the first one to say something should be done about these - but still, the people in Wall Street are providing financial services that businesses find useful. And those businesses provide useful services to people, so the richness of Wall Street can be traced back to useful services. Governments printing money affects the market via inflation. Nothing much can be done about governments taking money from people under the threat of incarceration (unless you have an army), but the government is, in most countries, a form of indirect democracy - so the government still end up providing some value to end users with the money they forcefully took. Sure, part of it get burned in the inefficiency of centralisation and bureaucracy but most of it keeps going around (eg. by paying contractors to fix the roads). Therefore, I think becoming rich can absolutely become a moral value and I think the world would be better that way. In the words of the working class hero 50 cent: Get rich or die tryin'.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
That's an antique notion that died in the '80s? Once the rules changed, the rich started skimming from every transaction (money tranfers, dividends, security exchanges, and on and on) until they have almost all the money. The rest of us serve at their pleasure. That's not how it was supposed to work. You were supposed to succeed from being part of the generation of wealth. Not just sitting and skimming while everybody else works. And then passing it on to your heirs. I wish it worked as you describe. That's where we need to get back to.
pjc50 5y ago
> If you're richer than your peers you did something that society considered valuable Get born of the right parents? Meet the right oligarch?
orthecreedence 5y ago
> Unfortunately, victimhood is trendy these days and I feel most of it can be traced back to marxism. What part of Marx's analysis of capitalism do you think caused people to adopt a victim mentality? > Now, we can argue that people in Wall Street are screwing up people left and right, that governments can print off money and that governments can force people to give them money. These are serious issues and I'm the first one to say something should be done about these Why? By your metric, these people are creating value. Shouldn't that be celebrated?
- Kranar 5y ago
  >What part of Marx's analysis of capitalism do you think caused people to adopt a victim mentality? Not Marx's analysis of capitalism, but rather Marx's creed from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. This became the slogan of the Marxist movement which rejected the prior socialist creed of to each according to their contribution. If people's reward is independent of their contribution and instead a function of their needs then it incentivizes presenting oneself as the least capable, since those who do so are the ones for whom the least will be asked of. Adopting a victim mentality and presenting oneself as a victim of some kind is a fairly inexpensive way to maximize the receipt of ones needs while minimizing ones contribution.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    100% true
  - orthecreedence 5y ago
    > This became the slogan of the Marxist movement which rejected the prior socialist creed of to each according to their contribution. So from my point of view, that slogan is a completely simplified description of what a communist society might look like. From what I know it was coined before Marx even wrote Kapital, which is the underlying basis of Marxism. > If people's reward is independent of their contribution and instead a function of their needs then it incentivizes presenting oneself as the least capable I can agree with that. However I think there are other interpretations of the phrase that might be more generous. In general, I think of a socialist mode of production as one in which production is for-use as opposed to for-profit/sale/exchange. Capitalists will say for-use/for-exchange are the same, socialists argue the two are distinct groups (with some obvious overlap). This is entirely compatible with some people being paid more than others. > Adopting a victim mentality and presenting oneself as a victim of some kind is a fairly inexpensive way to maximize the receipt of ones needs while minimizing ones contribution. We have that in increasing amounts today and our society looks about as far from a Marxist vision as anyone could imagine. So whether a society is based in Marxism or Liberalism seems to have very little bearing on victim mentality. You could argue the victim mentality comes from academia and their bizarre interpretation of Marxism (ie "cultural Marxism") but the two things are similar in name only. I think of Marxism as a critique of capitalism and absentee property norms. I don't think it has much intersection with people trying to get things for free by playing the victim.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I would suggest reading the book "The Value of Everything" by Mariana Mazzucato so that you can better understand the difference between wealth creation and wealth extraction.
tasty_freeze 5y ago
If you are well off, it is comforting to believe that your wealth came from smartness and hard work, and that people who have less than you are dumb and/or lazy. That way you can ignore structural inequality and don't need to consider doing anything to correct it. It is the same false moral back-patting of "I'm colorblind and don't see race," which usually really means "By pretending to not see race, I have an excuse for not recognizing race-based injustices."

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

That's an antique notion that died in the '80s? Once the rules changed, the rich started skimming from every transaction (money tranfers, dividends, security exchanges, and on and on) until they have almost all the money. The rest of us serve at their pleasure. That's not how it was supposed to work. You were supposed to succeed from being part of the generation of wealth. Not just sitting and skimming while everybody else works. And then passing it on to your heirs. I wish it worked as you describe. That's where we need to get back to.

pjc50 5y ago

> If you're richer than your peers you did something that society considered valuable Get born of the right parents? Meet the right oligarch?

orthecreedence 5y ago

> Unfortunately, victimhood is trendy these days and I feel most of it can be traced back to marxism. What part of Marx's analysis of capitalism do you think caused people to adopt a victim mentality? > Now, we can argue that people in Wall Street are screwing up people left and right, that governments can print off money and that governments can force people to give them money. These are serious issues and I'm the first one to say something should be done about these Why? By your metric, these people are creating value. Shouldn't that be celebrated?

Kranar 5y ago
>What part of Marx's analysis of capitalism do you think caused people to adopt a victim mentality? Not Marx's analysis of capitalism, but rather Marx's creed from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. This became the slogan of the Marxist movement which rejected the prior socialist creed of to each according to their contribution. If people's reward is independent of their contribution and instead a function of their needs then it incentivizes presenting oneself as the least capable, since those who do so are the ones for whom the least will be asked of. Adopting a victim mentality and presenting oneself as a victim of some kind is a fairly inexpensive way to maximize the receipt of ones needs while minimizing ones contribution.
- germandiago 5y ago
  100% true
- orthecreedence 5y ago
  > This became the slogan of the Marxist movement which rejected the prior socialist creed of to each according to their contribution. So from my point of view, that slogan is a completely simplified description of what a communist society might look like. From what I know it was coined before Marx even wrote Kapital, which is the underlying basis of Marxism. > If people's reward is independent of their contribution and instead a function of their needs then it incentivizes presenting oneself as the least capable I can agree with that. However I think there are other interpretations of the phrase that might be more generous. In general, I think of a socialist mode of production as one in which production is for-use as opposed to for-profit/sale/exchange. Capitalists will say for-use/for-exchange are the same, socialists argue the two are distinct groups (with some obvious overlap). This is entirely compatible with some people being paid more than others. > Adopting a victim mentality and presenting oneself as a victim of some kind is a fairly inexpensive way to maximize the receipt of ones needs while minimizing ones contribution. We have that in increasing amounts today and our society looks about as far from a Marxist vision as anyone could imagine. So whether a society is based in Marxism or Liberalism seems to have very little bearing on victim mentality. You could argue the victim mentality comes from academia and their bizarre interpretation of Marxism (ie "cultural Marxism") but the two things are similar in name only. I think of Marxism as a critique of capitalism and absentee property norms. I don't think it has much intersection with people trying to get things for free by playing the victim.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

I would suggest reading the book "The Value of Everything" by Mariana Mazzucato so that you can better understand the difference between wealth creation and wealth extraction.

tasty_freeze 5y ago

If you are well off, it is comforting to believe that your wealth came from smartness and hard work, and that people who have less than you are dumb and/or lazy. That way you can ignore structural inequality and don't need to consider doing anything to correct it. It is the same false moral back-patting of "I'm colorblind and don't see race," which usually really means "By pretending to not see race, I have an excuse for not recognizing race-based injustices."