Tax the rich
Tax the rich
It’s an addiction in the most literal sense of the word. Going after money is the most default of all possible goals, so it’s a way to avoid facing choices in life.
Money’s numerical, which means you can always in theory make a decision without having to think or feel. Bigger number = better choice.
Just like cocaine or video games or jerking off, it’s a way to get dopamine flowing without figuring anything out.
I’ve found that any time I actually emerge from poverty, I encounter a deep existential dread that’s basically covered up by the struggle. Because I don’t know what my next goal is after getting out of the pit.
So my subconscious finds a way to just fall back into the pit.
One solution to this is to view “more money” with the same urgency no matter how financially secure I am.
I don’t seem to be capable of that. I know it would be handy in some ways to be driven to always rise on the money ladder, but the thought of trying to awaken and cultivate that pattern in myself feels like more of a cost than a benefit.
save the world. good goal.
might not fix your anxiety,but will give you something fun to do.
Best explanation for the difference between a million and a billion: a million seconds is 12 days, billion seconds is 31 years.
While we are angry at the guys who maybe stole a few months, there are people who have stole centuries and millenias. The warner CEO is closer to being homeless, than being a billionaire (though neither is realistic).
She’s a rich girl, she don’t try to hide it. Diamonds on the soles of her shoes.
He’s a poor boy, empty as a pocket. Empty as a pocket, with nothing to lose.
Tanana-nay.
Diamonds on the souls of her shoes.
So I gotta ask, because I’ve always noticed this about the song:
In the first chorus, is the electric guitar that plays between the brass lines, two chords, tuned slightly higher than the rest of the band? It sounds different than the second chorus.
Once the violence starts, it won’t stay focused on what “you” want. That’s the problem.
Conservatives are snatching up every lower post they can, and democrats and progressives need to be doing the same. By solidifying bottom up representation, you have increasing influence over higher decisions. The left kneecaps itself and needs to stop. Fantasy about guillotines is a distraction.
Once the violence starts
You being privileged enough to not be personally impacted by it (yet, or enough to be willing to give up that privilege) doesn't mean the violence isn't already here, being inflicted on billions of people, costing millions of lives, all to enrich a tiny percent of the population that already has almost all of the power and resources, meanwhile you're happy to sit there and criticise those who react to this oppression in self defence.
What you are, is part of the problem.
How about police violence? That’s an american problem, but it’s getting worse and nothing is stopping it.
Laws don’t affect them. How do you want to solve it?
It’s almost as if the ruling class built systems of opression and now people ask to politely use those to fight back?
The fuck are we talking about? Protest only if it doesn’t inconvenience the rich? Vote, because that’s exactly how we got here in the first place? Tax the owners instead of dropping the hammer for every life the corporation ruined?
Yeah, don’t be too barbaric, violence will definitely go wrong.
It will be, one way or the other.
Status quo will be broken soon, and we will see who will keep standing.
I think it’ll be the ones with the military industrial complex, the financial institutions, and the globalized food networks.
Thus I want to change the system non violently.
He can give himself a 25% raise worth several tens of millions of dollars which he made thanks to the hard work of the employees at WB, but these employees get next to nothing during a time where every basic needs like food and shelter are increasingly expensive.
A big part of that money should go to the employees.
I understood it to be mocking the headline’s passive tone. The CEO is the one with much of the power to increase their own pay in a company, but the article is talking about it like some unknown magical entity just gifted this guy with $50 million.
And I think it’s also combined with the general sentiment that anyone making that much is stealing from workers.
The only issue with that is there is a corporate board and shareholders, the latter may or may not be decision makers.
Pay packages like these — when entertainment companies have been walloped by the shift to streaming from traditional television — played a major role in the union strikes. “They plead poverty, that they’re losing money left and right when giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their C.E.O.s,” Fran Drescher, the president of the actors’ union, said at July rally. “It is disgusting.”
Most of the big media companies slashed costs in 2023, laying off thousands of people and announcing plans to make fewer movies and television shows. But Mr. Zaslav and his lieutenants have been particularly aggressive, even shelving nearly finished content like “Batgirl” and “Coyote vs. Acme.” www.nytimes.com/…/david-zaslav-pay-package.html
From a communist lens, the money to give the CEO a raise is the value of labor that workers provided, taken by the CEO instead of shared among the workers who provided it.
So (from that lens) the money going to the CEO is being stolen from the workers, the money is the car in the analogy. But the headline is framing the situation as “X got this thing worth a lot” without considering where the value came from.
Workers whose labor value have been stolen are like a person whose car was stolen, waking up to a positively-framed article about someone else receiving the stolen goods.