• ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Well, the communists who usually want to kill the billionaires would say “yes, they shouldn’t be allowed to do that, because money shouldn’t exist and she should be touring for free.” They want to abolish money entirely and run the world off “the love of the game” alone.

    To them, all voluntary transactions are inherently exploitative by virtue of “money,” if it exists someone will have more than someone else and thus a hierarchy is born, whether they’re actually exploitative in any other sense is of no consequence, simply having “more” than another in any capacity is enough.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      McCarthy called. He wants his personal privately owned red scare back.

      “Communists want to abolish money” is ridicolous. And the straw men of going from abolishing billionaires hoarding obscene wealth to “everyone should be doing everything “for free”” is the size that it could feed an entire farm.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s easy to see how that falls down though. If everyone’s in it for the love of the game then lots of people are gonna want to be up on stage, like Taylor the superstar, not cleaning the outhouses like Bob the maintenance guy.

      And people will say Bob is being exploited, of course, but Bob did choose to take that job. Of course Bob needs to eat and to pay rent and pay for health care and entertainment and to send his kids to university and all that. But let’s assume we take care of all those other things Bob needs the money for, would it still be exploitation if Bob was willing to accept some amount of money (less than what Taylor gets paid for the concert) to clean the outhouses?

      I don’t think so, and I doubt Bob would either. I think he would be unhappy if his choice to accept payment for that job were taken away. I think Bob would say the job doesn’t bother him as much as other people and that he benefits from having a stronger stomach (or a weaker sense of smell) from everyone else. Just because we find the job intolerable and disgusting doesn’t mean Bob does. And that’s one of the limitations of empathy (which is so often brought up in these discussions).

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Oh I know that, I’m not one of the “kill billionaires” guys, I’ve just unfortunately spoken to way too many of them over my 4y (or whatever) on this tankie refuge we call a reddit clone and that’s what they say. They also say “well someone is going to want to clean the shitters for free because they’ll smell otherwise” in response to what you said. They’re mostly a collection of willful ignorance and hatred. But personally I can’t imagine there’s enough coprophiliacs out there to sustain an entire waste management industry.

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yes, they’re fueled by resentment and righteous indignation. They see the world as a terrible place and demand that it be fixed for them. They also take for granted all the ways in which the world sucks so much less now than it did for most of history.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Sure, but you can’t just resent your way into the impossible becoming possible. Under no circumstances will “everyone just does what they love for free bro” ever pan out to anything more than a pipe dream. Until we get unlimited energy, food/stuff replicators, and are in a completely post-scarcity world anyway, which is just as much of a pipe dream at the moment. Just because they’re angry about X, that doesn’t excuse them for not thinking solution Y through fully, y’know?

            Couldn’t agree with you more though!

            • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Yeah exactly, but even then there will still be scarcity of land. I’ve been a lifelong Trek fan and I’ve come to see all the holes in that universe. I think even the most diehard post scarcity believers understand that not everyone gets to be Captain Picard. But what about Picard’s family wine estate or even Sisko’s family restaurant? Not everyone gets one of those either.

              The best we’ll manage is a tiny living quarters with a replicator and great public transit.

            • Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Of course we’ll never see a world where “everyone just does what they love for free bro.” However, that does not mean that we shouldn’t demand a world where resources are not hoarded by the few. Too many have too little, and too many are without. There’s no excuse for that. Yes, some of these people are misguided, but I have far more respect for them for questioning the current system than those who are fine with the way things are.