How quickly we accepted that it’s normal to pay someone to go get our groceries for us. To drive us around when public transportation is available. To run errands for us. To bring us fast food.
Covid capitalized on it.
People don’t want to give up that luxury now that they’ve had it. Even if it makes things cost 2x-3x as much.
Even when we all know its exploitive labor.
It’s true delivery and driver services have been around for hundreds of years but now instead of companies with full time employees (with benefits) , the gig employee gets paid less while taking on risk that aren’t compensated by the employer (car accidents, gas, car repairs, injury or attacks).
Gig work is a much worse thing than maybe a lot of people realize. And it’s also making more people servants to others.
It’s moving full time employees with benefits and using company property to no benefits and using their own property that they have to pay for.
Those rich fucks would off you without a second thought. They don’t understand anything beyond greed and fear.
So you propose the Final Solution to the Rich Question then? Maybe you should read a history book, and ask yourself if you are the baddy!
Read plenty of then. Find me a history where the ruling class was the oppressed? The marginalized?
Wait. You can’t.
Well, you can’t really call them the ruling class anymore when you start to round them up for the killing squads. They become the oppressed in exactly that moment.
I speak about the genozide part of the history books
In @devolution@lemmy.world’s defense, the gory French Revolution, American Revolutionary War, etc. all led to socioeconomic improvements, as far as I know. They’re not advocating for genocide, but just for the highest ruling class to be clamped down on.
The french revolution had the Jacobins with all his atrocities and so many death of innocent people as a result. It is not called Reign of Terror without a good reason. And in the end it didn’t really changed much for the lower class, because the ruling upper class only was replaced by another.
Killing whole extended families, as proposed by @devolution@lemmy.world, sounds a lot like something Adolph Hitler would do and we all know where this ended! Accepting killing people will created a spiral, with more and more who will be send to death. It happened after the french revolution, it happened during the nazi Regime, it happened in the chinese culture Revolution. When killing is accepted it becomes a normal tool, and that is always bad!
You don’t need to kill anyone, deplete their wealth and they are only people like everyone else. Create a international Court and put them to trial for their crimes against mankind, but don’t kill anyone. There are always better solutions then killing! Is the blanket of civilisation really that thin that we fall back to barbaric solutions so easily? Have we not learned from the many, many mistakes of the past?
To clarify, I’m not strongly for one nor the other side here (maybe that’ll get me in trouble already but I feel compelled to be transparent), because I deeply understand the pains and woes of the oppressed lower classes, yet I get the primitive act of violence being problematic. The problem is that there is so much power up there that they can buy even int’l courts of law out, or manage to thwart them. If killing is all that horrible (which I agree it normally is), shouldn’t we be seeing sanctions from Europe against the US in immediate reaction to Iran the way Russia was economically shot for ripping into Ukraine? Why aren’t we seeing this? Where is the tribunal? The US (just as an example) clearly has too much power for other nations to even express their concerns properly. All I see is the French government leaving Windows (which, while genuinely cool, is still a drop in the bucket relative to what more could be happening).
You know, this all makes me think of the podcast Stuff You Should Know’s Revenge: Bitter, Not Sweet episode, which explained how the only reason society even exists is because of the threat of punishment. That is why I worry that, yes, “the blanket of civilization” is possibly permanently “really that thin.” That podcast episode, specifically, is an incredible listen that I highly recommend to everyone (whether showering, driving, or doing dishes; it’s fine to listen in chunks over days).
For example, if you could be 100% sure that nothing bad would happen to you (that you weren’t fine with, at least), you might easily take others’ money or luxuries, too, as might I; the only reason we don’t is because of the threat of discovery and punishment, as morals are applied after for justification, not before (we just think that they come before). Restraint is typically superhuman. In fact, we are already doing that legally, even without tax loopholes, etc.; for example, I despise the global pyramid scheme of housing (make enough money to buy housing and then live off of charging struggling tenants when you yourself were once one of them; no landlord thinks this system is wrong?!), and am not sure I want to get involved with that even after I have enough money to buy a home or more.
But what is the alternative? The indigenous ones who correctly hated the entire economic philosophy of putting price tags on homes got killed or displaced, and their people have been suffering from high suicide rates ever since. Technology could even the playing field a bit, but the drone factories be churning and AI is increasingly monitoring our every move. It’s getting to be a really freaking scary world with no sign of stopping.
So, I’m not sure if we have the luxury of waiting for proper channels even as protesters push for them. That would be nice and ideal, of course. It may not need to come down to either, though, as I suspect that Trump may die before the end of his presidency because of health problems rather than anyone doing anything; videos have shown him potentially hiding a catheter and hinting at further, more serious problems based on his behaviors as of late. Of course, that may only lead to Vance… yuck!
Oh, and I absolutely do not endorse killing extended families; I’m also not sure that that’s what they meant.
Ok, we start with killing the rich people. Only the people with billions? or those with millions too? Even the family living in the house they have for 3 generations and that is now 1.5 million euro/dollars worth, just due to inflation and the natural price increase for maintained houses? Then what? What is the next step after killing them? Stopps the killing then? Or do we look for other problematic people? Maybe the opposition? Yeah, the people who were against the righteous act of killing all the filthy rich people must be bad people too, colaborators, traitors to the good cause… So lets kill them. Does it stopp then or do we continue? Oh, my neighbour is working in his basement on something, i am sure he wants to invent something to get rich! Lets kill him before he has the chance to infect us again with that filth. So yes, it will be a perfect and peacefull civilisation… because all the people who go against the rules will be killed. But it is all for the greater good, all for peace and harmony and equality. Nobody can have anything against that? Well, nobody who wants to life can!
That is what they said, explicitly, in their first post of this long thread. There is a very good reason why the moderator felt the need to delete the post, and I can only assume that this was part of it.
Edit: After looking in the comments moderation log I have no longer to assume. It was the part about killing children that got it removed.
I think @DarkMetatron@feddit.de is implying for us to be better than them and not stoop to killing. (I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing and am just inferring this line of thought.)
I want to believe that… But so did Michelle Obama and look where we are at now.