270
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] VubDapple@lemmy.world 142 points 1 week ago

Many people do not grasp the sheer size of the disparity between the truly wealthy and everyone else.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 45 points 1 week ago

They really think billionaires are like them, the only difference is that someone else goes to Walmart for them

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Or they take capitalism as good and freedom as an axiom.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Most people will take "freedom" as an axiom, but how "freedom" is defined varies a lot. In a society where the commons are pretty much fully enclosed and you are homeless, the petite-bourgeois may very well be free, but you really aren't.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 89 points 1 week ago

I assume they think they will be able to achieve the same status in the game that's designed to literally oppress them and make them think they are cared by the billionaires.

[-] kender242@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

It's the American dream. What is the quote? We're all embarrassed potential millionaires?

[-] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 30 points 1 week ago

That's why the "hustling culture" is so important and prevalent in our society right now.
Everyone "knows" someone that made bank with either youtube, selling some pyramid-scheme product, bitcoins, some collectibles, craft beer, lottery... you name it.

Social media (and before that was TV) is selling us the idea that there's a shortcut to becoming rich, you just need to find it, hustle, and you will become one of the rich persons.

That's also why there's so much cult of wealth and billionaires.

That said, a large portion of Millennials and after them have a rather negative view of billionaires and are rather skeptical of becoming rich, or even becoming home owners.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This has been studied, and the ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires’ idea is actually wrong.

The real reason is because some people (especially conservatives, because it’s a core part of conservative ideology) believe that in order for society to work, a hierarchy must be maintained wherein the ‘deserving’ are at the top, and everyone else is in their rightful place. Any threat to the natural hierarchy will undo the societal order and bring chaos and carnage.

This is why Obama becoming president was such an affront – because his presence outside his ‘rightful place’ was an existential threat to the natural order.

This belief has its roots way back when feudalism began to fail and the moneyed classes needed to find a new way to retain their power – both capitalism and conservatism were born at that time, with ideologies shifting from birthright to ‘earned’ status, which enshrined the haves and have-nots into literally sacred structures of meritocracy and social darwinism, and colonialists specifically fostered strict adherence to the social order. It became ingrained culturally that adhering to your station, whatever it is, is crucial for society to function. That there’s honour in being a cog in the machine, and that not accepting your lot in life is a danger to everyone. (eta: this is mostly subconscious, but you can see it if you ask ‘why’ enough times of someone who idolises Musk, for example. You’ll eventually whittle them down to these themes.)

That’s a nutshell view of a complicated topic, but these people don’t believe they’ll strike gold one day. They believe people who are rich deserve to be treated as kings, for the same reason monarchist peasants did.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] juliebean@lemm.ee 43 points 1 week ago

because they prefer to dream of themselves as billionaires in potentia. it's hard to admit you've been duped, especially when society gives you so many targets to punch down on.

or, as futurama put it, link

[-] Xatolos@reddthat.com 16 points 1 week ago

A slave doesn't dream to be free, but to be a king

[-] AliSaket@mander.xyz 33 points 1 week ago

Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who's rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 week ago

Well it's similar to what Churchill said about democracy... it's a bad system but it's better than all the others.

If you can put ideology aside and think in terms of economics, in many industries capitalism offers an efficient way of determining the an optimal price and quantity to produce considering the costs and value something brings. And it's something that allows for industries to function without an excessive amount of centralized planning which will often get things wrong.

But it's like a machine in a many ways. And like any machine it requires maintenance. Things like trust-busting, progessive taxation, regulations, and occasional stimulus are necessary to keep it running smoothly.

But once you bring ideology into it, it all becomes a shitshow. Some will argue capitalism is a perfect machine and any kind of maintenance on the machine will ruin it's perfection. Others take any kind of maintenance on the machine as a sign the machine will inevitably fail and needs to be replaced entirely. But then we go back to the beginning where other systems have been tried and they're worse. Charlatans, grifters, ideologues abound pushing people in every direct except for simply taking reasonable measures to keep the machine running smoothly. There's an almost religious devotion towards arguing the either the machine is perfect or the machine is doomed to failure and not only should be replaced they should accelerate the failure so it can be replaced sooner.

Zealots from all sides demonize the mechanics that are simply keeping things running. A lot of emotional nonsense about this thing. But to an economist, it's just a machine with both strengths and weaknesses. The functioning of the machine is well understood, and the other machines that have been tried didn't really work.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

Because propaganda is effective.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Many don't even do it intentionally, they just don't grasp concepts like Historical and Dialectical Materialism, which requires reading lengthy books to fully grasp. They may be anti-Capitalist at heart, but without a solid understanding of theory they play into bourgeois hands.

There's also the fact that the ideas held by society are a reflection of the Mode of Production.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

temporarily embarrassed billionaires

Richard Nixon's head : I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!

[audience applauds]

Philip J. Fry : That'll show those poor!

Turanga Leela : You're not rich!

Philip J. Fry : But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

People who defend billionaires either have a vested interest, have actually bought that they're 1000x smarter than normal people, or have some (possibly vague) abstract moral position that overrules the basic idea of fairness. Often it's more than one.

Capitalism, as the term is commonly used, is poorly defined enough that you have to specify what it means here. Is it any kind of market? Is it large corporations? Is it every interaction being purely voluntary (somehow)? If you consider a big Soviet firm like Gosbank a "corporation", all three could also be socialist depending on who you ask.

Since this is .ml, for the classical Marxist definition that it's "private ownership of the means of production", the arguments are mainly against the proposed alternatives, or just that private vs. personal is hard to demarcate, and nobody wants to share a toothbrush.

[-] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago

I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.

Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago

I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.

Nitpicky, but that's the premise of Liberalism, not Capitalism. Capitalism emerged not because it was an idea, but an evolution in Mode of Production. Liberalism is the ideological justification.

Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.

Have you read Marx? He makes the case that due to Capitalism's tendency to centralize and form monopolist syndicates with internal planning, the next mode of production is Socialism, ie public ownership and planning of the syndicates formed by the market system.

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago
[-] Zink@programming.dev 19 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately many of us have been taught that being a good person and a good citizen equals being productive and accumulating resources. Things that are quantifiable and external to the actual person and their relationships.

Being productive and accumulating some resources can be good activities to spend time on, but they are practical necessities and not defining characteristics of existence.

[-] communism@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago
  1. Because it's in their personal interests to perpetuate capitalism
  2. Because liberal ideology is hegemonic and it is what most people have been raised to believe
  3. Plenty of other reasons why people hold the political beliefs they hold, surely it's obvious that there are many ways that someone can arrive at a belief system
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 17 points 1 week ago

Our retirement is tied to it.

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

my retirement is non-existent

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago

Because the average person doesn't have any real time to think deeply about politics. They believe whatever big media tells them. Some also can't understand how evil someone people can get.

"Surely the basic logic of how things work must be very consistent in order to have such a large and prosperous country like the USA. I don't understand it. Probably because I'm missing something not because it's fundamentally flawed"

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 week ago

Liberalism, its propaganda, and its consequences. Also a severe lack of class consciousness and knowledge of political theory.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Post apocalyptic nature of alot of media makes me think that people can more easily Imagine the fall of human civilization then we can a better world where everyone's needs are met.

To the 1%, losing all your wealth and power be an apocalypse, so it is in their best interests that everyone would be thinking the same as well. No matter how much better we all would be together otherwise.

[-] sudo42@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We’re raised by parents that must be obeyed for our own safety. Some people eventually learn to accept their parents are imperfect people and not gods. Many people do not. They look to kings and gods to protect and provide for them.

Those that have power negotiate with kings and gods. People without power attempt to use the only techniques they know to negotiate with their kings and gods: begging and/or pledging loyalty and service in exchange for scraps.

Of course this is but one of many reasons many people worship power.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

It's not because they think they can be billionaires, it's because they've been taught (and in a minority of cases this is true) that they are better off going after the crumbs that billionaires leave them than trying some other system.

Ignorance, pride, "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" syndrome.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
270 points (93.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43601 readers
1458 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS