• psion1369@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have read many comments here about how horrible it is that the rich get everything and we need to make the opportunities equal for everyone, I think they are missing the point of the comic. At the end, Richard’s view has been filtered through the things he was given as something that happens to everyone. Nobody told him that he was given privileges that Paula doesn’t have access to. To him, everybody has access.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yep, which is why over the course of history Marxism took hold of the Socialist movement, rather than previous Utopian Socialists who believed they could simply “convince people” of Socialism being better, and reality would form around that, like the Owenites.

      Marx added that the ideas people have come from their Material Conditions, which is a core concept to Dialectical Materialism.

      • psion1369@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        So what you are saying, in plenty of words, is that because the dude has the material privileges he thinks that the world has the same access to them too?

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not quite. That’s one part of it, but not necessarily.

          People hold ideas based on the physical reality they experience. People who grow up in wealthy environments are more accepting of worldviews that either justify or rationalize this, ie the myth of “meritocracy.” They can believe that others do not enjoy the same access, but can believe that hard work can get anyone where they are, as an example.

          This has further implications. Fascism, for example, isn’t spread because it’s an “appealing idea,” but as a response to decay of Capitalism, typically. Anlyzing the mechanics of why certain types of ideas become broadly accepted based on change in material reality is useful for preventing dangerous ideas as well.

          • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            The concept of noblesse oblige really needs to be restored and expanded. Most of us have advantages we don’t understand. It’s why charity and compassion is so important.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              Noblesse oblige is unnecessary if you work to eradicate Class society in the first place. Convincing Capitalists to work against the forces of Profit to be nicer people will never work, that’s why Utopian Socialists all failed.

          • ameancow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I wish we could make a population with even the basic reading comprehension to understand these facts and then people might start taking advantage of our most powerful tool, democratic voting, to make real changes to how wealth is distributed.

            But to this day when you suggest such a thing, people will default to images in their mind of everyone being forced to wear grey jumpsuits and stand in line for hours for a potato. We have the technological and productive means now to socialize many elements of our lives that would give everyone access to more resources and benefits and lower poverty and needless suffering, which helps everyone, even those already privileged.

            But the capitalist narrative will push back on these ideas to its last, dying gasp, even as the world starts to burn and people lose everything, we will still see people arguing for “job creators” and how the wealthy are responsible for all our comforts, and that the socialist alternative will mean people will never own anything… as capitalism takes people’s ownership of everything.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I wish we could make a population with even the basic reading comprehension to understand these facts and then people might start taking advantage of our most powerful tool, democratic voting, to make real changes to how wealth is distributed.

              That’s why Leftists abandoned electoralism a long, long time ago. The system is deliberately designed against significant change in Class society, ergo Leftist theory is centered around organization and building dual power.

              But to this day when you suggest such a thing, people will default to images in their mind of everyone being forced to wear grey jumpsuits and stand in line for hours for a potato. We have the technological and productive means now to socialize many elements of our lives that would give everyone access to more resources and benefits and lower poverty and needless suffering, which helps everyone, even those already privileged.

              People’s ideas are generally a product of their Material Conditions. Socialism may be correct, but people’s class-interests largely influence what ideas people accept.

              But the capitalist narrative will push back on these ideas to its last, dying gasp, even as the world starts to burn and people lose everything, we will still see people arguing for “job creators” and how the wealthy are responsible for all our comforts, and that the socialist alternative will mean people will never own anything… as capitalism takes people’s ownership of everything.

              There is a rising Leftist current as a response to Capitalism’s decay, what remains is organizing that response and building up dual power.

    • randoot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I absolutely agree with this comic, and in a lot of ways I was the kid on the left.

      I struggle with the solution though. Isn’t it the purpose of all life about giving your offspring a better chance?

      When we give the kid on the right more opportunity, the left side will keep increasing their investment until it’s lopsided in their favor again.

      Maybe it’s not about trying to reach some theoretical absolute equity, but keeping the distribution at a healthy balance so that one side is not completely locked out of the game. That’s healthier for the whole community too since healthy competition ensures there’s progress.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Isn’t it the purpose of all life about giving your offspring a better chance?

        A better chance at what? Becoming a member of the parasite class?

      • nifty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Isn’t it the purpose of all life about giving your offspring a better chance?

        Yeap, but doesn’t mean you willfully or otherwise create a worse situation for someone else

        Maybe it’s not about trying to reach some theoretical absolute equity, but keeping the distribution at a healthy balance so that one side is not completely locked out of the game. That’s healthier for the whole community too since healthy competition ensures there’s progress.

        Equity is an ideal we may never reach, but the point is we keep trying to reach it. There’s no such thing as a “healthy distribution” of exploitable working class.

        The economic models built on exploitation of cheap labor are a relic of the past, and humanity does not need them to ensure future intellectual or cultural growth. We can have capitalism and social welfare together. We can even have Veblen goods without essentially making slaves of other people.

      • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s about humility and gratitude. Don’t refuse to build on your advantages, just do what you can to pay it forward and outward.

      • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The solution cannot be only based on providing more opportunities to achieve equity of chance. To me, (financial/professional) success cannot and should not be the thing to strive for solely. We cannot all be attorneys and doctors and high achievers. We cannot expect a good life for all if everyone strives to be in the top 10% of society and this is the prerequisite for a good life and success, because by definition, this leaves 90% out.

        So if you really want to have a good life for all, we need to stop the idea that you need to attain some artificial definition of professional success in order to have a good life, and provide a livable, worthy life for everyone - especially if they put in the time to work and contribute to society. If a person is working 40 hours a week, i.e. gives up 40 hours of their life and free time, why should it matter whether they work as a cashier, collect trash, or work as an attorney. In every case, they have a crucial role in society.

        • randoot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well the first naive argument against that would be, why would anyone work hard to become an attorney if it doesn’t pay more than anything else? Why spend years in school if it’s not going to get you ahead?

          I guess in the star trek universe you do it because you like it?

          I want to believe maybe that might work?

          • vonxylofon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            These jobs should be rewarded more, but lower-skill jobs should still provide for a decent life, which they don’t. Having to work two jobs is a failure of the system, not the individual.

          • beetsnuami@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            why would anyone work hard to become an attorney

            Do you really think becoming an attorney is harder than, say, cleaning toilets 40h/week? I finished my master‘s degree in physics recently. Has it been stressful? Sure. But I could mostly choose my own rhythm to work, had a healthy balance of exercise and leisure, and had coffee breaks all the time. I know a carpenter and some farm workers, and I would have chosen uni over their work at any time. And chances are, once I get a „real job“ it will still be less hard than working on a field.

            Wages are mostly a measure for how replaceable you are, not for how hard the work is.

          • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            Having worked in both low end and high end job I have two answers to that. The first is social status. No matter how much you earn, you will always be seen as more intelligent and more “worthy” because you have a higher status job. I think for a lot of people it’s this admiration that would be enough. The second answer is physical reasons. My sister’s back has been shit since she was 30 because of her endless standing in a barista job. Some jobs are insanely hard and just the comfort of being able to take a coffee break and a chat and sit at your desk is absolutely worth striving for. (There are people who enjoy manual and physical labor, but then again, why punish them financially, if they are willing to do the “harder” jobs?)

            And yes, a third answer would be the urge to learn more and be more.engaged mentally. But wanting to do that and that having to do that to achieve success are two very different prerequisites.

          • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It’s fine to reward those who’ve spent more time and effort more - as long as we remember and acknowledge that we need everybody else to make society work too, and the baseline of even the lowliest workers is reasonably comfortable.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          So if you really want to have a good life for all, we need to stop the idea that you need to attain some artificial definition of professional success in order to have a good life, and provide a livable, worthy life for everyone - especially if they put in the time to work and contribute to society. If a person is working 40 hours a week, i.e. gives up 40 hours of their life and free time, why should it matter whether they work as a cashier, collect trash, or work as an attorney. In every case, they have a crucial role in society.

          What method are you proposing to establish this?

          • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m not a political and social science think tank, so I cannot propose anything. I doubt there is one method or approach to just establish this.

            I mean I could tell you that I would “just” pay everyone basically the same, have “free” housing standardized for everyone and have them relocate to not further than 15 mins from their work, demolish single family houses, have students paid for studying, have parents paid for parenting, provide “free” necessities and basic foods, and get rid of bullshit jobs and companies that make products for empty consumption. But I mean, “just”. That’s obviously a thought experiment that happens by a complete layman and I doubt that I could win people for this, let alone in a democratic way.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not a political and social science think tank, so I cannot propose anything. I doubt there is one method or approach to just establish this.

              That’s fine, I am more asking a question to get you to think about method as well. Lots of people agree on goals, but methods of getting there are diverse, and many of them are fantasy, which makes the goals pointless.

              I mean I could tell you that I would “just” pay everyone basically the same

              People have unequal abilities and unequal needs. People shouldn’t be paid the same, the whole of production should be in service of fulfilling the needs of the whole of society.

              have “free” housing standardized for everyone and have them relocate to not further than 15 mins from their work, demolish single family houses, have students paid for studying, have parents paid for parenting, provide “free” necessities and basic foods, and get rid of bullshit jobs and companies that make products for empty consumption. But I mean, “just”. That’s obviously a thought experiment that happens by a complete layman and I doubt that I could win people for this, let alone in a democratic way.

              You’ll find that many people agree with you on this, but if you can’t achieve this electorally, your option becomes Revolutionary in nature.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 months ago

    Needs extra last panel where Richard tells Paula “if you don’t like your job just get another one you like”

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I hate to be that guy, but the title is “on a plate” but it actually says “on plate” in the word bubble. I can’t unsee it.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        3 months ago

        But the entire society is conditioned to do it.

        We are shown celebrities before we learn to speak. All around us are those recognizable idiots who rarely have benefited humanity in any meaningful way but have very, very marketable faces. All to make us poor pay for their luxuries.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      "If you wish to make an apple pie a man from scratch, you must first invent the universe. ~Carl Sagan

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Although we should always strive for it, I don’t think we have it in us. But I hope I’m wrong.

      • Pissipissini Johnson 🩵! :D@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think we do, because I’ve been going around convincing people on these forums to act more like it, using Euclidean geometry principles.

        People will often worship shapes you give them and use them to change their minds about things.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The alternative is fascism, nuclear apocalypse, or death from climate change (perhaps all 3). It’s up to us to avoid that path and move towards Socialism.

  • Dentzy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is one of the best visualizations of this issue. I regularly think back at this comic, awesome!!

    And, again, this does not negate the fact that Richard worked hard to get his degree and worked his company’s ranks. It should not be about pushing down the Richards of the world, it should be about pulling up the Paulas, and strive for a world were everyone is a Richard [relating to the comic, not all white men or we would be doomed ':) ]

    • Sidhean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Based take. I love how this comic depicts problems and privilege and you put it really well. I’m sick of people tearing down Richard.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Careful, thinking like that will get you branded as a communist! /S

      We need to make things more equitable for people.

      Instead we are left with this:

      • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        Didn’t Elon Musk spend $45 billion on Twitter after promising to end world hunger if someone gave him a plan to do so? I think that would be a few years’ worth of ending global hunger if the estimate of $8-10 billion per year is even remotely still accurate.

        There is more than enough money, food, and shelter in the world. But the rich are using the money they got by exploiting people to buy media companies, yachts, islands, and space rockets.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The problem with ending world hunger is, food abundance allows for more people. If you want to end world hunger, you need to start with healthcare and contraceptives and education, which is more expensive and less “flashy” than just saying “I bought a lifetime supply of rice for poor people in X area”.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The problem with ending world hunger is, food abundance allows for more people.

            That is a garbage take… as is all right-wing “overpopulation” bullshittery.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              It’s not, there is some nuance here.

              The right-wing take is that we should use this potential crisis to lockdown borders, deny aid to others, and have it as an excuse why you don’t have to do anything to fight climate change, becuase people in (pick whatever the current scary country is) are breeding out of control, and coming here and ruining things for us.

              The left wing take is to promote healthcare, education, and contraceptive use, while providing aid, making those benefits available to everyone, and empowering yourself and others to act.

              The facts about population dynamics is not a right or left wing thing. What you think is the solution to the situation is.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s not, there is some nuance here.

                Not really. The problem is fundamentally not one of population, but one of consumption. Specifically, the consumption of a small minority of rich people and the capitalist mode of production that keeps them rich. There may be no such thing as “overpopulation,” but there is most definitely such a thing as overconsumption.

                The last time I checked, it would take the resources of four earths if everyone on the planet consumed resources at the rate the average USian does, and keep in mind that this metric - average US consumption - is heavily skewed by the batshit insane consumption of the priveleged classes in the US.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Ελληνικά
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Ah yes, the US is the reason why other countries can’t grow enough food.

                  Yes there is nuance here. It’s idiotic to think that the interaction between population density, climate change, agricultural technology, supply line disruptions, international relationships and literally everything else, impacting the ability to provide food in a specific location on the planet is a black and white issue.

                  Shit, I should of realized it was you. The naive dogshit logic should have tipped me off.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        The only reason there’s “not enough resources” is because someone is always trying to make money off them. There’s plenty of resources, their distribution just won’t make anyone rich if we share and share alike.

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          And the pandemic showed that when people value their lives and time properly, minimal wages aren’t enough, which is why the supply of restaurant, hotel and grocery workers was so low. The ceos blamed $1000 checks though while keeping wages lower that needed and raking in profits.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nah, I think it could be done if billionaires didn’t hoard all the wealth. The wealth of some of these people is enough to live confortably for several lifetimes.

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Even at 10 million dollars for a lifetime (which is way more than I’ll make in a lifetime) 1 billion is 100 lifetimes’ worth.

  • Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I once had a machine shop teacher that has a qoute that still lives rent free in my brain.

    “I feel bad for the people who grew up rich because they dont know how to do anything themselves and dont know how to fix anything!”

    Its pretty true life advice, i wouldnt change the way a grew up even a little bit. Not having alot growing up made me happy to have the small things and take care of the things i already owned. You can be rich with money but the poorest with skills and intelligence and that makes you more sad then ill ever be.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The rich have it better, I feel like that’s just cope.

      Money buys time and convenience. Mr.Rich has no interest in fixing his dishwasher, he pays “the help” to do that and he gets the “bonus” of feeling better than someone else when “the help” comes to fix it. He can then go on a run or sit around doing whatever the hell he wants, not having to worry about fixing anything. He bought the time we lose fixing things.

      I’ve been “the help” and was literally called as such when a little girl said hi to me and her mother said “dont talk to the help.” We’re so below them and they enjoy that.

  • LordGimp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Natives had it right. There is no privilege when the tribe raises a child. Western nepotism has been a plague on this earth for thousands of years.