obsessed with how fixable society is, on a structural level.
obsessed with how all you need to do is throw money at public education and eliminate most standardized testing and you will start getting smarter, more engaged, kinder adults. obsessed with how giving people safe housing, reliable access to good food, and decent wages dramatically reduces drug overdoses and gun violence. obsessed with how much people actually want to get together and fix infrastructure, invent new ways of helping each other, and create global ways of living sustainably once you give them livable pay to do so. obsessed with how tracking diseases, developing medicines, and improving public health becomes so much easier when you just make healthcare free at point of use.
obsessed with how easy it all becomes, if we can just figure out how to wrench the wealth out of the hands of the hoarders.
i’ve lived in four different cities in my adult life and talked to literally tens of thousands of people about politics and the change they want to see in the world and the overwhelming majority of them wanted life to be better, happier, easier for everyone, and dreamed of that world. the only people who didn’t think that way were A) really obviously in need of mental/medical care, or B) rich.
wanting universal free healthcare, well-funded public education, and social support for all people is the most unbelievably normie opinion that exists, even among people who have lots of bad or misguided opinions about other things. when you feel alone, know that the reason you feel that way is billions of dollars are being spent to obscure the fact that you are in the majority.
discussions about sustainability largely have to be in the realm of production, not consumption. while curbing wasteful consumption habits is important, issues of unsustainable goods can only be solved by literally producing less of them. this approach immediately resolves most issues with individualist, moral ‘consumer activism’ - for instance, it doesn’t matter if you personally eat meat or not, but, factually, we need to significantly reduce the size of the animal agriculture industry if we want the earth to remain habitable. whenever you discuss this, a million scratched satisfascists start acting as though we intend to just take away their treats and replace them with nothing - as if the removal of personal automobiles doesn’t go hand in hand with the redesigning of cities around walking and public transit, as if the removal of one method of production doesn’t mean its replacement by another. the two main errors here, of the treatlerites, and of those who forget that socialism is supported by the people only because it improves their real conditions, should both be avoided.
1/ When discussing Universal Basic Income, inevitably the retort comes: “So you just want people to not have to work, is that it?” Accompanied by a smug smirk, expecting me to backpedal and hem and haw, say “Of course not, that’s silly.” Except…yes. Yes, I do. 1/11
2/ People shouldn’t HAVE to work. People should WANT to work. Sharing in the labor of building and maintaining a society because it benefits everyone should be desirable, not forced. It shouldn’t be something we do because we’ll die otherwise. 2/11
3/ Imagine a society where survival didn’t depend on a job. Imagine how that would alter the fabric of…everything. Imagine if you could leave a job without fearing the loss of income or health care. Imagine the power of the worker in that society. 3/11
4/ If a person could survive without a job, imagine what employers would be like. They’d have to treat their workers fairly, and make themselves attractive to entice workers. They’d have to offer a better option than other employers, and make people want to participate. 4/11
5/ Places that have offered UBI have seen the results: most people do want to work. The people who choose not to are generally young parents, students, people with disabilities and the elderly. people have a desire to contribute, for our lives to have purpose and to be useful. 5/11
6/ And before you say it, yes, some people will take advantage. That is true for absolutely everything ever. You think people don’t take advantage of the economy we have? Like, say, the 1% who grow wealthier while their employees have to work three jobs and use food stamps? 6/11
7/ They can only do that, by the way, because people are so terrified of losing a job and the destruction that would follow that they tolerate mistreatment, disempowerment, the destruction of their unions, healthcare, retirements and even their bodies to avoid it. 7/11
8/ That would not be the case if everyone were guaranteed a baseline survival income. Your boss couldn’t treat you like shit because he knows you can’t leave. You CAN leave, and you will. 8/11
9/ What if desperation didn’t motivate everything? Imagine the impact on health, relationships, parenting, well-being, crime, violence, progress. When you aren’t desperately scrabbling for the rent, you can spare a neuron to contemplate long-term problems. 9/11
10/ Imagine a society where terror of destitution wasn’t a constant thrum underneath everyone’s existence. Imagine the creative works that society could produce. Imagine the children it could raise, the elderly it could care for. Imagine the inventions it could produce. 10/11
11/ Now, imagine knowing all this and thinking “NOPE. We can’t have all that, because someone I don’t like might benefit from it. So to avoid that, the rest of you can all hang.” And there you have modern conservative thinking. 11/11
[end id]
rebageling my most viral Hellsite moment because I just reproduced it on Bluesky, if you wanna come hang there with the cool kids.
Occasionally forget people genuinely think capitalism is thousands of years old
One time I was talking about Robin Hood with some coworkers and one guy was like “he was bad because the people he helped learned to expect handouts” and I wanted to be like… okay can you explain how that flawed capitalist propaganda applies to feudalism
reminder that capitalism was literally invented in the 16th century
That’s an exaggeration. What was invented in the 16th century was mercantilism. Capitalism really dates for the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the rise of industry and cash crops over artisans and merchants. Vulture capitalism, with the notion that companies have no duties other than generating profit, is even younger.
Capitalism is only 200 years old and I have to say, they have not been an impressive 200 years
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that most people don’t know the formal definition of capitalism. We all know the word, we’ve all seen the jokes, but very few people bother to actually define it unless they’re talking about political theory and philosophy, so it’s easy to end up with the impression that Capitalism = Money Can Be Exchanged For Goods And Services.
Capitalism is the economic system where most of the means of production (i.e. everything people need to have to make the stuff that everyone wants) are owned by private individuals or corporations, who then hire people to provide the labor necessary to produce things, with the intent of selling the output at a profit. It’s the difference between “you’re a carpenter and you make a chair and you sell it” and “you’re Richard Q. Richington who owns a chair factory, and you pay people to sell the chairs you paid other people to make and then all the excess money goes back to you.” There have been Richard Q. Richingtons on and off throughout history, but that being the norm for every single industry is a pretty recent development.
An alarming amount of people seem to think capitalism = all trade, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
I think the reason a lot of leftists struggle with disability justice is that they haven’t moved past the concept that discrimination isn’t bad because it’s objectively “wrong.” yes, sexists are objectively wrong when they try to claim women are dumber than men. yes, antisemites are objectively wrong that jewish people are inherently greedy and run the state. yes, racists are wrong when they try to claim that white people are the superior race. and so on.
but then with disabled people, there are a lot of objective truths to the discrimination we face. people with IDs/LDs do fall behind and struggle with certain concepts. physically disabled people are often weaker and less capable of performing demanding tasks than able bodied people. many of us with mental illnesses are more reckless and less responsible. a lot of us are dependent on others and do not contribute much “worth”.
and guess what? disabled people still deserve a place in the world. disabled people still deserve the supports they need. because they are people, and that should be enough to support them and believe they deserve a place at the table.
if your only rebuttal against discrimination is its objective inaccuracies, you are meeting bigots where they are at. you are validating the very concept that if and when people are truly incapable of being equal to the majority, that means they are worth less. this causes some leftists to then try to deny the objective realities of disabled people and/or become ableist themselves.
your rallying behind marginalized groups should start and end with the fact that people are completely worthy of life and equity, because they are fellow human beings and that should, frankly, be enough.
Not socialist in a “I won’t have to work” type of way but socialist in a “I’ll still be working but I won’t be worried I won’t make the rent” type of way. In a “billions won’t be hoarded by one person” type of way. In a “janitors, fast-food workers, child care workers, preschool teachers, hotel clerks, personal care and home health aides, and grocery store cashiers, will live comfortably” type of way. In a “the sick and elderly will be cared for” type of way. In a “no child should work” type of way.
In a “disabled people live comfortably even and especially if they can’t work” type of way.
In a “I would have the option to not work but I think I’d like to without a gun to my head” type of way
I’m up to the “I dunno maybe children working 13 hour shifts is bad, guys” part of Capital and it feels important to inform people that haven’t read it yet that capitalists in the 19th century were not by any means wringing their hands and twirling their mustaches about employing children to squeeze out profits, they were hiring “experts” to write newspaper articles for them, explaining how “well, the socialists have these big demands about an 8-hour work day, and taking Saturdays off, but it’s actually just so complicated, it’s too complicated for most people to understand, we just NEED to hire children for night shifts because the stamina of their strong, youthful bodies is the only way we can survive as a business! It’s science, you see. Economics doesn’t work like that, just ask our economics professors at Oxford. You CAN’T turn a profit only working people 8 hours! Trust the experts, they know. It’s just so complicated…”
That exact infuriating cadence that you read in New York Times articles, in the Atlantic Monthly, in the WaPo and all the other bourgeois rags where “everything is so complicated, and it’s actually a lot more complicated than you think..” that has been around since the beginning. It is nothing new. So the next time you see some op-ed from Matt Yglesias or any of those other guys huffing their own farts about how “complicated” everything is, and how “unrealistic” a 30-hour work week is, remember that Marx was dealing with that exact class of “intellectuals” “explaining” how working 13 hours at age 10 was “vital” to the “moral fibre” of those poor kids.
i love you USPS I love you NASA i love you taxpayer funded services that actually contribute positively to society i love you libraries i love you public transport
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
