849
Divide & Conquer
(i.redd.it)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
849 points (100.0% liked)
Comic Strips
22752 readers
2492 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So let's say the guy making $19/hr and the guy making $50/hr come together to take on the really rich guy, what then? They kill the rich guy and take his money? And do what with it? Do they split it evenly, or do they end up fighting each other for it? And what happens when that money runs out? Because it will run out. You give somebody who's used to living paycheck to paycheck a few million bucks and they will spend it. And once they have the money, aren't they then the rich guy? Meaning now they would be the target of other working class people? Is the goal to become a rich asshole? Or is the goal for everyone to make $19/hr?
lol, I find it funny that you went straight to murder and not taxation or seizure of assets but OK lets go with your take.
you actually think these business can't survive without their billionaire founders/investors, nieve. Those people built the position they did through deal making, not some special big brain strat, nothing special about them really and nothing that cant be repeated by someone else, easily replaced practically speaking.
also at what point do we consider hoarding a crime, many would say that line was already crossed a while ago. how much needs to be stolen from society to warrant a death penalty. "a human life cant be messured in dolla-" yes it can and has many a time, how much does it cost to raise a child? between 250k to 500k, how many live could be raised if those billionaire stopped with their tax havens, extractive deals, crocked backroom deals, and straight up fraudulent practices. The blatant manipulation and funding of disinformation and lobbying efforts to further and further fill their pockets while closing of services to the public, some vital some not so vital, either or could easily be taken as an attack on the majority of people in the country and this is barely scratching the surface of their collective offenses.
its easy to pick on the "few" when their crimes are some commonplace yet their are always highly regarded individual like you arguing on their behalf. i think we'll go with the taxation and or seizure of assets route to make things clean but i could care less about their well being at this point cuz they've made it clear they don't give a fuck about mine.
The whole system is fucked, which includes them or their peers, and people don't want to hear it. As evidenced by the downvotes-for-disagreement rather than upvotes-for-discussion. It's not the billionaires themselves. That's a symptom of the problem. As you've outlined eliminating billionaires by whatever means, is not going fix the fundamental problem. It's nothing but short term solution Some other group will become the rich and powerful. People see that take and get angry at the wrong thing.
So they become job creators?
Well I guess those are definitely the only possible outcomes, aren't they?
No. Those aren't the only possibilities. I think there are others. So, what are they?
Obviously the problem is still relying on transactional society when we have the capability to become a post scarcity society.
We have lazy bums now under capitalism. We'd have lazy bums under socialism too, but they wouldn't be an easy mark for the ultra rich to distract the working class with. They'd be free to pursue their interests.
"Lazy bums"
Did you know a typical "hunter gatherer" worked about 20 hours a week, with the rest of the time for fucking, eating, and talking bullshit?
Even peasants in much of medieval Europe had it better. They used to get months off every year, just sat out winter.
We weren't evolved to work 80 hours a week for our lifetime. It's fucked
just to clarify, "lazy bums" doesn't apply to the guy making $4000/s while wiping his ass and furiously posting on twitter?
I just plain didn't say that. Please don't ask me to clarify your hallucinations for you.
It's not a zero sum game
The goal is to evenly distribute the wealth such that everyone has what they need to survive and then if you still have enough wealth left over (if the wealthy class were dismantled we would), you make sure everyone has enough to be comfortable. You take the business assets and you share ownership with the people working in those businesses. You establish democratic structures inside those businesses such that the workers choose who is in charge and what everyone is paid. Any amount of money an individual makes is supplemental to basic income that pays for your needs. Establish a wealth cap such that if your income exceeds it, the funds are distributed back down to the needs of society. Things like education and medicine could be entirely funded through excess earnings and a proper tax structure. A wealth cap means that oppressive amounts of liquid funds can't be used to control people or lobby governments.
These are very very basic ideas. Not at all difficult to wrap your head around. And people are angry because we are constantly being told by the boots on our necks that it won't work and that's why we won't even try. But in reality, the reason we won't try is because the wealthy will lose their massive wealth. Wealth that most of them lucked into. This has nothing to do with how hard you work or how smart you are. It has everything to do with who is in control and who is not.
I think that's a very nice idea. But I think you're going to have a very hard time getting enough people to support it.
For a very long time I considered myself a democratic socialist. I joined the Democratic Socialists of America eight years ago, but I left after just a few years. To me, democratic socialism just made so much sense. I thought, this is the solution. I was convinced that Democratic socialism, along with environmental sustainability, was the future. Boy, was I wrong. Very few people shared my view. After a while I realized it was futile.
Most people who would read this cartoon don't want to overthrow and replace the system, they just want the money. They'd prefer the $4 million, but they'd settle for the $50 /hr. You can tell them there's a better way, but your words will just fall on deaf ears. They ain't interested. They just want the money.
There won't be an awareness campaign followed by a wave of socialist political movements that sweep the parliaments and governments of the world. There won't be a glorious proletarian revolution, which sees the workers seize the means of production. A post capitalist society will one day emerge, but it will only be after capitalism has collapsed, taking the modern world down with it. Maybe on the other side of that, democratic socialism might be possible, in some small pockets of what's left of humanity. But it will only be on small scales. Democratic socialism is incompatible with empires, and other large, complex civilizations. So any democratic socialist societies that do exist will be relatively small. Not that's a bad thing. Not at all. In fact, I think it's much more sustainable. But that means no dynamic, fast growing, expansionist civilizations. Again, better, more sustainable, but much different than the world we know today.
But if this happens at all, it'll be long after I'm dead.
The "socialism only works at small scales" argument is tired, lazy, and boring.
Explain why. Be honest with me and yourself. And if you start in about "but the oil is funding that", yes exactly. That's how it should work, the USA gives away billions of dollars to capitalists every day with it's mineral riches.
Democratic socialism (or social democracy... the definitions are not crisp or distinct) is already working in several Nordic countries of millions. Together they have populations of tens of millions. We can argue definitions if you like, but they're much closer. So much closer that I'll take that as the first several steps in our journey as a society.
Even if for some weird reason democratic socialism won't 'work' at the size of hundreds of millions when it works at the scale of tens of millions, capitalism is currently falling flat in the USA and dozens of other countries, and offers much worse outcomes for 99.9% of it's population all the while.
Those countries are social democracies, not democratic socialist. Democratic socialism and social democracy are different systems. I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but they really are distinct.
Social democracy is a mostly capitalist economy with a democratic government that has a progressive tax system that funds a social welfare system and basic, universal public services. Social democracy does exist in many nations around the world today. Even the US has hada version of this model in the past.
Democratic socialism is a socialist economy with a democratic government. Most services would be provided by community or government owned non-profit organizations. Some for-profit businesses might exist but they would be worker owned. Unlike social democracy, Democratic socialism has never actually been tried. It's entirely theoretical.
Yeah, tens of millions. Not 350 million like the US. Of the top ten democracies, according to the democracy index, all have populations under 20 million, and most have populations under 10 million. Clearly, social democracy has a population limit. I believe democratic socialism would too.
Correlation does not imply causation. Show me a mechanism, with evidence. The mechanism I propose is that if a society looks even slightly too leftist the billionaire class does everything they can to destroy or sabotage it.
Also, there isn't a crisp definition or delineation between a social democracy and a democratic socialist one. Again- quibble over definitions as much as you want. A social democracy is several important steps in the right direction.
And capitalistic centrism / authoritarianism is NOT "working" globally. It's just managed to kick the can down the curb for a while.
That doesn't mean the correlation is irrelevant. The fact is, not a single one of the top ten democracies on the planet today have populations above 20 million. Not a single one. Source. I don't necessarily know why that is, but it is.
I don't think modern global capitalist civilization will peacefully transition to social democracy, or democratic socialism, whatever you want to call it. I think the capitalist global economy will continue growing until we hit some hard limits to growth, at which point it will collapse, which could be sooner than most realize. It's not going to be pleasant. Global population could decrease significantly, average life expectancy could decline, as could total global industrial output and average living standards. Who knows what will come out on the other side of that.
Explain why socialism works in large scales. What's your best example of a LARGE SCALE socialist society ever in the history of Earth? You're very favorite. Norway?
(not a trick question)
Nope.
The claim is "it doesn't work". The proof is due on behalf of the people making the claim.
I'm not making a claim. I'm asking "tell me why, specifically, this won't work but other systems do."
No, the goal is to avoid that such stupidly huge wealth inequalities to even exist
Is this a copypasta?
No.
Is it mayonnaise?
Only if mayonnaise is an instrument
The ultimate answer is to eliminate money and wage labor entirely in favor of a gift economy, as practiced in parts of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, and depicted in The Dispossessed.
That would also mean all of us would only need to work about 2 to 3 months out of the year to maintain the base needs of everyone, with the rest of the year being free time to do with as you please. The lack of profit motive would also set us up to stop the progression of climate change before it destroys humanity and most other life on earth.
Gift economies favor the rich, because the are the ones who can gift the most. A gift economy obscures the power and transactions. It replaces direct transactions with indirect ones. Money makes it transparent, flexible, and decoupled.
In a gift economy you depend on the goodwill of the rich. Meaning you have far stricter social control and restrictions on your behavior.
A gift economy also doesn’t favor redistribution in practice. You have to stay in the good graces with the rich in order to survive. That means you have to gift your best gifts to the rich to curry favor.
A gift economy encourages strong social bonds. However that means neurodivergent people, and people with below average social skills, will be disadvantaged. Narcissistic sociopaths will be more empowered than even now.
Humans are social animals. There will always be desirable and rare things. People also want to improve their living conditions. Even without money, this will remain the same.
I agree. It’s going to be a lot more personal favor and nepotism. People skills and social capital are going to dominate society. Sounds like hell.
There are other ways to do this
It fits more with a more traditional family, clan, feudal, and religion based system than contemporary individualism. That’s not inherently bad, but a huge difference.
Gift giving would be formalized, ritualized, and kept track off. For example Turkish people tend to have big marriage parties with hundreds of guests. The gifts given to the couple are carefully documented and tracked by the family. Depending on the value of the gift you and your family will receive favors, opportunities, or not be invited to the cousin‘s upcoming wedding, leading to social exclusion.
A gift economy is an economy based on favors and bribes.
Japanese culture might potentially be a good fit for this type of society. Complex manners and etiquette, prioritize group over the individual, favor of conformity and hierarchy, value specialized skills highly, also high honesty and honor.
There would be no rich in a fully libertarian socialist society, as it would be extremely difficult to accumulate wealth when there is no exploitative power over others, and where anything that isn't able to be created by an individual can only be created in a voluntary worker cooperative where everyone benefits equally.
If all basic needs are freely lent out in a library economy, and everyone participating in the 2 to 3 months of yearly work equally benefitted from it in the form of free housing, food, healthcare - and public transportation and private property is abolished (distinct from personal property), then there would be virtually no avenues for an individual to accumulate enough personal property to wield any sort of substantive power over others.
difference between private and personal property
Personal property is classified as what an individual person or family can actively use themselves.
If you begin hoarding more than you or your family can realistically use, the excess is no longer considered personal property, but private property, which may get you ejected from that community if you actively hoard under a libertarian socialist society and you refuse to stop.
Quoting someone else:
With the elimination of private property, and basic needs a human right, that would leave the gift economy on top of that, which would realistically be limited to just what individuals can create and share amongst themselves.
Also @dangling_cat@piefed.blahaj.zone
Libertarian socialist?
Either you're describing anarchism with new words or you've got some really weird views.
Like libraries are a clear no-no under libertarian ideology because it "perturbs the market". If access to something is free then you destroy competition which "breeds innovation" or some shit....
I've just never heard of a libertarian library.... It's so antithetical to the concept!
It's not new, I assure you. Libertarian Socialist is label that goes back to 1872. It's often synonymous with Anarchism, which I do consider myself to be, but I sometimes use Libertarian-Socialist since it doesn't immediately bring to mind the concept of chaos or bomb throwing that people unfamiliar with Anarchism may attribute to it.
Libertarian alone also used to refer to left-wing anarchist types, but the term was co-opted by right-wing free-market ancap type folks a while back. I'm just doing my part to reclaim it :)
I had noticed the tension between right and left wing libertarian concepts. Very interesting stuff. I suspect on Lemmy anarchist or anarchosocialist will get more love than libertarian-socialist. But that's an interesting name to use in public because it invites questions rather than fear of ANARCHY!