• Scrubbles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      462 months ago

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

      • @Bobmighty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        42 months ago

        Billionaires are like everyone else. That’s the reason I don’t look up to any. They’re just as human as I am. No amount of money can ever make them anything else or anything more. They have access to an absurd degree, and they can afford far, FAR more, but they will never escape their base human nature. Almost anyone can be a billionaire. Some current billionaires prove that every moment they open their mouths.

      • @GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        112 months 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.

    • @hostops@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      -72 months ago

      I believe your comments is just a paraphrase of: “They are being stupid”

      In my opinion this is a very toxic way of thinking and does not try to understand the arguments “the other side” presents.

      • @MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        82 months ago

        I don’t think it’s that bad-faith. I myself still find it positively mind-blowing to comprehend when the data is right in front of me.

        Someone might equate wealth to hard work, but it hasn’t really hit them, the real literal difference between 1 million dollars, and 1 billion, and then the news is talking about “trillionaires.”

        There’s just no way to earn a billion dollars, to yourself, through honest work and by not exploiting others. And I think a lot of folks really don’t realize this. They know that’s a lot, but they might change their mind and realize how outrageous it is, when you present them with something like:

        “Joe, you could get 3 more promotions and work 80 hours a week for 13 lifetimes and still not earn that much. Do you really think this is just petty jealousy at play?”

        They might just change their mind.

        But a lot of folks grew up in a time or place where people who ran the company started at the bottom, and it really needs to hit them hard that this just isn’t reality anymore.

  • FiveMacs
    link
    fedilink
    892 months 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.

      • massive_bereavement
        link
        fedilink
        302 months 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.

    • @LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      23
      edit-2
      2 months 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.

        • @LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          14
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          One place to start is this article from the Stanford Encyclopaedia on Philosophy: Conservatism.

          It’s a lengthy read, but enlightening.

          One highlight from the summary:

          Most commentators regard conservatism as a modern political philosophy, even though it exhibits the standpoint of paternalism or authority, rather than freedom. As John Gray writes, while liberalism is the dominant political theory of the modern age, conservatism, despite appealing to tradition, is also a response to the challenges of modernity. The roots of all three standpoints “may be traced back to the crises of seventeenth-century England, but [they] crystallised into definite traditions of thought and practice only [after] the French Revolution” (Gray 1995: 78)

          I recommend reading the sources linked in that article, as well.

          eta: It’s worth noting that societies worldwide often see a resurgence in conservatism in response to social change, crises, and civil rights movements, which are without fail a fear response to threats to the social hierarchy. We can see this in real time.

  • @juliebean@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    432 months 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

  • @AliSaket@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    332 months 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.

    • @Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The idea of meritocracy is such a bullshit lie it’s laughable. We need it so our children don’t live in a world without hope but much like santa claus they should shed the idea around the time of college. There are merit based reward systems. Ladder climbing is real. Only, many of them are corrupted by politics and mismanagement. Even if you succeed in an isolated merit based system it’s only to incentivize more production and you will never reach the level of CEO or what ever.

      What we should teach young adults is that life is a lottery inside a lottery inside a lottery. Success is about increasing your odds by taking as many smart bets as you can. Bets where the reward is great and where you don’t have much at stake if you lose. Betting with other people’s money is the most efficient way of extracting value. The meritocracy isn’t real, so neither is the morals around it. If you want nothing but an easy life this is how you do it. If your can’t in good conscious gamble with other people’s livelihoods we will see you on the ladder.

  • @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    332 months 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.

    • @MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      52 months ago

      I think decentralization of power is a nice feature too. Billionaires are power centers outside of the government, judiciary, or military. They exist as a result of lax control on the markets by the government. In countries without capitalism and property rights, the billionaires are the government and the judiciary and the military. So, even though it might seem like nationalizing their wealth would decrease inequality, if there aren’t good safeguards for decentralizing government power, it would result in a less equal society.

      Part of the existence of billionaires is the ability to actually determine which money is theirs. In autocratic governments, you can’t really say who owns what because you never know what the government might decide to take.

      I don’t defend billionaires, I think power should be spread more fairly, but eliminating them via the government needs to be done wisely in order to maintain decentralization.

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        62 months ago

        Maintaining decentralization just allows for more centralization as markets coalesce into monopolist syndicates, better to centralize, make public property, and democratize.

        • @MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The main argument is that that would not less to democratic control. Are there any historical examples where you have both democracy and violation of private property rights?

          • Cowbee [he/they]
            link
            fedilink
            5
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Cuba, the PRC, USSR, etc. All had large democratization of the economy compared to the fascist slaver system under Batista, the Nationalist Kuomintang, and the brutal Tsarist regime. Centralization doesn’t inherently mean democratic control, but you can’t have meaningful democratic input without control, and thus democratic output.

            Again, decentralized market systems naturally result in the “better” firms monopolizing and outcompeting, this isn’t something that can be meaningfully fought.

            AES states have by no means been perfect democratic wonderlands, of course, but they have brought large democratization with respect to the level of development of the productive forces. I highly recommend reading the essay Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” It takes 20 minutes and contextualizes the benefits and struggles of AES states. Socialism is often judged through a false, idealist lens, rather than an analysis of the actual material conditions and structures.

            • @MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              12 months ago

              It was an interesting read and reminded me that democratic socialists arguing for restricted capitalism and communists are often arguing for similar goals with differing language.

              • Cowbee [he/they]
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Sort of. Communists don’t want restricted Capitalism, they want to progress from Capitalism to Socialism.

      • Pandantic [they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        In countries without capitalism and property rights, the billionaires are the government and the judiciary and the military.

        In the US, they just have solidified a really good means of controlling it… I mean, the amount we don’t tax them, the super PACs we let them contribute to, and the control they have over our media are definitely forms of control that may not be “as bad” as other systems (arguably) but it seems like it’s really similar.

  • Cowbee [he/they]
    link
    fedilink
    31
    edit-2
    2 months 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.

    • @Wojwo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      62 months ago

      Pretty sure they’d take everything you just wrote and say, “that sounds like critical race theory, which Jesus said was bad.”

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        132 months ago

        Sure. The de-industrialization of America has been devastating for class awareness.

        • sunzu2
          link
          fedilink
          02 months ago

          What de industrialization?

          US is second largest industrial output and it has been rising.

          Unless you mean jobs after NAFTA and code changes… Which is true but manufacturing employment is on the rise post covid reforms

          • Cowbee [he/they]
            link
            fedilink
            172 months ago

            The US shifted the vast majority of its production overseas, which is why it’s seen as a “service economy.”

            • sunzu2
              link
              fedilink
              02 months ago

              US did offshore no doubt but it was not a vast majority. You can check the numbers, there was some decline in employment but US has high tech factories and industrial base is now growing quickly even with job growth since covid.

              The reason it is largely a service economy is due to growth in service sector after industrialization. Once people got all their needs with goods met, they started buying service.

              Think about all the food joints we have now for example. This is fairly recent thing. Sure food out always existed but not like this.

              Also, people have god walkers, people buy insurance etc all this is kinda recent in big picture thing

              • Cowbee [he/they]
                link
                fedilink
                132 months ago

                I am aware of the process, the US produces the vast majority of its commodities oversees before “finishing” or “assembling” in the US. It’s Imperialism in action, where it hyper-exploits the Global South for super-profits.

                • sunzu2
                  link
                  fedilink
                  02 months ago

                  Right but we started this here with claim that US de industrialized which I saying is not accurate and it is a common misconception thrown around.

    • Random123
      link
      fedilink
      32 months ago

      It doesnt even require that much reading of such subjects. All it takes is to not be brainwashed by media and politicians.

      Critical thought and self awareness is all it takes

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        252 months ago

        I’m sorry, but I entirely disagree. Dialectical and Historical Materialism are incredibly far-removed from standard American discourse and takes quite a bit to understand, oversimplifying it is dangerous. If all it took to be a Marxist-Leninist was critical thought and self-awareness, the US would have had a proletarian revolution already.

      • @GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        122 months ago

        Usually it’s my friend Cowbee here who tells people to read things, but here I will:

        https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

        “Brainwashing” is a reactionary myth (that originally comes from orientalist stories of Chinese hypnosis that were used to explain-away defectors in the Korean war) that is used to position the believer in a position superior to the masses (“sheeple”), and which only knows how to treat the latter condescendingly as blind followers of this or that, which is not how you do mass organizing if you want to succeed.

  • @NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    2 months 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
    link
    23
    edit-2
    2 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 months 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 [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      172 months 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.

  • @Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    192 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    182 months 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
    • @CanadaPlus
      link
      3
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I like how these pretty neatly map to the three I gave for defending billionaires, even though they’re worded very differently and probably thought of completely independently. We even ordered them the same way.

      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.

      I suppose the 1000x smarter thing isn’t the only propaganda reason given, but I’d say meritocracy is by far more pronounced than inherent property rights or red-baiting in today’s mainstream media. People who go with the latter two tend to learn it through personal connections.

  • deaf_fish
    link
    fedilink
    162 months 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”

    • @rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Because the average person doesn’t have any real time to think deeply about politics.

      Because the economic elites have engineered it that way.

      They flooded the workplace with double the workers (both men and women), thereby depressing wages and forcing both parents to become wage earners to survive. Then, with both parents working outside the house, childcare and chores sucked up all available free time, and even more household costs went towards outside help (daycares, etc.).

      Then they began a tradition of kicking children out of the house when they became adults, thereby putting strain on infrastructure and increasing the demand for housing.

      Then they began a push for higher education, thereby saddling young adults with ridiculous amounts of debt at the point of their lives when they could least afford to shoulder said debt.

      All this makes us extremely time poor and resource poor, such that we cannot afford the head space to consider anything beyond where we put the next step or two that we make. As a society, the common man becomes far too busy just treading water to be concerned about in which direction they should swim.

      As such, most people take massive amounts of cognitive shortcuts, relying far too much on things spoon-fed to them from the very news sources that should be unbiased and impartial, but which are nearly always owned by the Parasite Class, which favour deeply regressive conservative policies that benefit only themselves at the expense of the common person.

      And most people don’t think deeply not because they cannot be bothered to think for themselves, but rather because they have far too much on their plate to afford to do so. They quite literally would mentally burn out if they were to do so.

      • @lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        02 months ago

        It’s impressive that someone engineered the last century of economic history. That’s some Palpatine level engineering!