5 ms·

It implies you are not living in a communist society, and therefore allowed a measure of control over your own life. It means you have the right to own property

It implies you are not living in a communist society, and therefore allowed a measure of control over your own life. It means you have the right to own property, while making it less likely that you'll be sent to a reeducation camp, or die of starvation. Meanwhile, if you want the Bezoses, Zuckerbergs, and Musks of this world to stop being so rich, there is actually a simple, straightforward way to achieve this: STOP GIVING THEM MONEY. Don't order crap of Amazon. Don't look at ads on social media. Don't buy that luxury electric car. It's not them taking all the money, it's us giving it to them.

beezlewax 3y ago
Lol
- twojacobtwo 3y ago
  I think your comment goes against the site's guidelines, but damned if it isn't exactly the response that the parent post deserves.
  - beezlewax 3y ago
    Yes it was an extremely lazy post so apologies on my part, but I'm a little lost for words when I see comments like the parent one.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kiba 3y ago
Sure, but not everybody's going to do that. It's a very small lever to affect causality.
micromacrofoot 3y ago
I don't use Amazon, Tesla, or Facebook and it's not working.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Right, because other people—who are also free to choose what they value—are pushing back.
  - EricDeb 3y ago
    Right and we the voters set the tax policy and the wealthiest can freely decide if they want to remain in the US.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    I don't see any push back, mostly passive acceptance, ignorance, and exploitation. Perhaps it would be worth calling attention to, and organizing some sort of procedure to elicit an opinion in a democratic manner.
rixthefox 3y ago
> don’t look at ads on social media If Google has its way, you won’t have a choice. How do you convince companies not to advertise on X or YouTube?
breadbreadbread 3y ago
> It implies you are not living in a communist society, and therefore allowed a measure of control over your own life OK red scare calm down. I think you overestimate how much control capitalism gives you. Criticizing the economy does not make you a commie. If you wanna lay down and accept oligarchy because you are afraid of communism be my guest, but I would highly suggest you fight for slightly better circumstances for yourself and your neighbors. > STOP GIVING THEM MONEY If oligarchy was limited to Bezos, Zuck, and Musk that would be easy! But billionaires kind of own everything? Our food supply is controlled by a handful of megacorps, our communication network is administered by a few others, real estate is a game for giant investment groups, health care is a fucking joke... It's impossible to elect to not participate in the economy, or at least its impractical for everyone to live off the grid. Listen I know you think that communism means the goberment controls everything (it doesnt), but at least I can vote for my gov reps. I don't get a fucking vote when Blue Cross Blue Shield is deciding where I can go to the hospital.
hobs 3y ago
Pretty sure the word you were thinking was "taxes", "taxes" is the thing that we once made rich people pay and it funded a lot of stuff so even if they made a lot of money it didn't matter as much.
EricDeb 3y ago
I mean while we're at it we should also make heroin legal and easily accessible with ads for it. There's a simple solution if a lot of people get addicted just STOP GIVING HEROIN COMPANIES MONEY
twojacobtwo 3y ago
Let's be serious. This is just one logical fallacy after another. One doesn't have to be communist to think that there needs to be some control levers on wealth inequality. Even if communism were required, communism does not necessarily lead to reeducation camps and starvation. Layered and purposefully obscured ownership structures make it nearly impossible to 'stop giving money' to the ultra wealthy. Even if everyone stopped giving money to the ultra wealthy, they're not going to stop being ultra wealthy unless they're especially stupid with their current holdings. Further, how does one stop giving money to those who partially or fully own monopolies on necessities?
- exabrial 3y ago
  The sum of free choices is a free choice. If you're freely giving your money to Jeff, then it's not Jeff's fault you're upset about it.
sapphicsnail 3y ago
The idea that we as consumers are responsible for the actions of the rich or giant companies is ludicrous. The only way to affect meaningful change is through the state.

beezlewax 3y ago

Lol

twojacobtwo 3y ago
I think your comment goes against the site's guidelines, but damned if it isn't exactly the response that the parent post deserves.
- beezlewax 3y ago
  Yes it was an extremely lazy post so apologies on my part, but I'm a little lost for words when I see comments like the parent one.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kiba 3y ago

Sure, but not everybody's going to do that. It's a very small lever to affect causality.

micromacrofoot 3y ago

I don't use Amazon, Tesla, or Facebook and it's not working.

twoodfin 3y ago
Right, because other people—who are also free to choose what they value—are pushing back.
- EricDeb 3y ago
  Right and we the voters set the tax policy and the wealthiest can freely decide if they want to remain in the US.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  I don't see any push back, mostly passive acceptance, ignorance, and exploitation. Perhaps it would be worth calling attention to, and organizing some sort of procedure to elicit an opinion in a democratic manner.

rixthefox 3y ago

> don’t look at ads on social media If Google has its way, you won’t have a choice. How do you convince companies not to advertise on X or YouTube?

breadbreadbread 3y ago

> It implies you are not living in a communist society, and therefore allowed a measure of control over your own life OK red scare calm down. I think you overestimate how much control capitalism gives you. Criticizing the economy does not make you a commie. If you wanna lay down and accept oligarchy because you are afraid of communism be my guest, but I would highly suggest you fight for slightly better circumstances for yourself and your neighbors. > STOP GIVING THEM MONEY If oligarchy was limited to Bezos, Zuck, and Musk that would be easy! But billionaires kind of own everything? Our food supply is controlled by a handful of megacorps, our communication network is administered by a few others, real estate is a game for giant investment groups, health care is a fucking joke... It's impossible to elect to not participate in the economy, or at least its impractical for everyone to live off the grid. Listen I know you think that communism means the goberment controls everything (it doesnt), but at least I can vote for my gov reps. I don't get a fucking vote when Blue Cross Blue Shield is deciding where I can go to the hospital.

hobs 3y ago

Pretty sure the word you were thinking was "taxes", "taxes" is the thing that we once made rich people pay and it funded a lot of stuff so even if they made a lot of money it didn't matter as much.

EricDeb 3y ago

I mean while we're at it we should also make heroin legal and easily accessible with ads for it. There's a simple solution if a lot of people get addicted just STOP GIVING HEROIN COMPANIES MONEY

twojacobtwo 3y ago

Let's be serious. This is just one logical fallacy after another. One doesn't have to be communist to think that there needs to be some control levers on wealth inequality. Even if communism were required, communism does not necessarily lead to reeducation camps and starvation. Layered and purposefully obscured ownership structures make it nearly impossible to 'stop giving money' to the ultra wealthy. Even if everyone stopped giving money to the ultra wealthy, they're not going to stop being ultra wealthy unless they're especially stupid with their current holdings. Further, how does one stop giving money to those who partially or fully own monopolies on necessities?

exabrial 3y ago
The sum of free choices is a free choice. If you're freely giving your money to Jeff, then it's not Jeff's fault you're upset about it.

sapphicsnail 3y ago

The idea that we as consumers are responsible for the actions of the rich or giant companies is ludicrous. The only way to affect meaningful change is through the state.