• superkret@feddit.org
    591·
    2 months ago

    All you gotta do is pedal hard enough to break the chain and ride straight up the wall.
    You can make it if you just believe in yourself!

    (although in reality that wall is 10 miles high)

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      41·
      2 months ago

      It not a massive gap like that, but it’s tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.

    • Aniki@feddit.org
      2·
      2 months ago

      You can make it if you just believe in yourself!

      At some point one has to ask oneself not whether one can, but whether one should. Is it really worth it trying everything and giving your all for a company which will probably ditch you in the end, after all? I don’t think so. Don’t put in more effort than you expect to get as a result.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      311·
      2 months ago

      they live like gods

      Miserable gods, like the ones in ancient Mesopotamia.

      The richest and most powerful of them seem preoccupied with trying to escape the world that they currently rule, whether through space colonialism or “waking up from the simulation” or the like.

      • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
        271·
        2 months ago

        Completely true of the public-facing capitalists, who effectively serve as PR for their class.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          241·
          2 months ago

          You may be on to something there, though some of the quieter ones I have names for, like the Mercers or the Waltons, do seem miserable from what I know about them.

          Still, if those are outliers, unless the quiet capitalists are secretly richer than their loudest and most obnoxious counterparts, I can’t help but wonder why the richest among them are also the loudest and most miserable.

      • Naz@sh.itjust.works
        121·
        2 months ago

        they live like miserable gods preoccupied with escaping from reality

        It’s because they realize something as they age: For all their wealth, they are still mortal, their physical bodies will decline, and their egotistical, narcissistic lifetime will ultimately amount to absolutely nothing as they rot in the ground and cease existing like everyone else.

        Mortality puts things into perspective for those people because they’re driven by a philosophical imperative that’s borderline pathological in nature:

        Donald Trump watched the video of himself almost getting headshot on repeat, 9 times a day. Some said it was PTSD, but that’s assuming a lot.

        Elon Musk is quoted as saying in The Atlantic that he’s “rigged for war”.

        Well, what war? War against who? Against what?

        "Escaping from the matrix seems like “a war against reality itself”.

        We can only be so lucky that none of those fucks will ever attain apotheosis or immortality no matter how hard they try.

        Maybe that’s why they’re so bent on destroying the planet – if they can’t have it, so can’t you.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        41·
        2 months ago

        There was a quote from one of them the other day talking about being unable to sleep well because he’s constantly afraid of people coming after him for what he’s got. If only there were a way to remove that target from your back…

      • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
        41·
        2 months ago

        The majority of capitalists pay people to do that, they’ve never worked.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 months ago

          Apparently as long as you have someone else do the immoral things on your behalf, its all gravy. Free will and all right? They could have just not done the evil things that I paid them to do.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    261·
    2 months ago

    Here’s how you hustlegrind to trick more people to pedal unicycles and hold up bowls for you. Passive income is a lifehack! morshupls

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.comEnglish
    251·
    2 months ago

    now you have to use your own unicycle and smart phone app at the same time but you can’t use the smart phone while on the unicycle.

    and while you must smile you are not allowed to sing.

  • johny@feddit.orgEnglish
    196·
    2 months ago

    And the way to change it is to Vote Vote Vote! Vote for the Democrats! This time they are really gonna do it.

    • Asetru@feddit.org
      1211·
      2 months ago

      If the leftish faction won every time, politics as a whole would shift left. So unironically, yes, vote.

      • Surreal@programming.dev
        131·
        2 months ago

        If lobbying and campaign donation stay legal, no matter which politicians you vote, the result will stay the same. The rich and corps can easily buy out any politicians they want

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          102·
          2 months ago

          Even then, if a Communist or Socialist party took power, the other mechanisms of the State will work against it. Allende proved this.

      • johny@feddit.orgEnglish
        135·
        2 months ago

        Yes, and don’t forget to donate to be extra sure. Donate that little money you safe from your three sharing economy jobs (after you payed your rent to Blackstone) to the Democrats, so they can pay a consultant ghoul a six figure salary to think of a new way to market genocide denial.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        103·
        2 months ago

        Not true, nor can the DNC be considered leftish. The DNC will always act in the interests of their donors and economic interests, hence their unceasing support for genocide despite genocide being unpopular.

  • jack@monero.town
    175·
    2 months ago

    Memes should be entertaining and/or funny. This one is neither :(

  • calabast@lemm.ee
    142·
    2 months ago

    I agree with this image, and I’m quite curious to see what “rich” tastes like… But I feel like the mechanics of this picture took me a second or two longer than it should to understand.

    Edit: like are they balancing their unicycles on the larger cylinder? They must have really good balance to manage that for more than a second. And if that is true, what happens if they fall forwards? I see the danger if them falling backwards, but does that mean they just can’t fall forwards?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      262·
      2 months ago

      it’s illustrating how they have to work really hard in a very precarious conditions to keep the system running. Falling off is equivalent to losing your job/savings and ending up on the street.

    • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
      101·
      2 months ago

      I think ultimately it is just that they are working to turn the cylinder that moves the cog that elevates the resources upward and then they’re hoping they get some overspill.

      • calabast@lemm.ee
        71·
        2 months ago

        I do get that ultimately that is what the picture is coveying, and I agree with the message, but if the physics of it make me pause, it detracts from the message.

        • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
          61·
          2 months ago

          I guess I see what you’re saying, especially since there’s a call-out to someone falling backwards on the left side.

          If I had to guess it’s to showcase the grind can’t last forever, but I suppose it could introduce that ambiguity that causes pause.

    • ramirezmike@programming.dev
      71·
      2 months ago

      I feel like it just paints an absurd situation. They’re in a precarious situation and can lose their balance and fall forward or backward. I don’t think there’s anything weird with the physics if you accept it’s supposed to be an absurd situation.

    • ulterno@lemmy.kde.socialEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      but does that mean they just can’t fall forwards?

      To fall forwards, you would have to clip through the wall.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    9·
    2 months ago

    That looks more like feudalism.

    For Capitalism there should be multiple different money scoops, some better designed than others. There should also be a greased-up rope that leads from the unicycle-bar to the top, showing that it’s theoretically possible to rise to a different class, it’s just practically impossible.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      151·
      2 months ago

      Capitalism is a dynamic system that evolves over time. The general mechanics of the system lead to increased capital concentration over time, so late stage capitalism starts to look largely indistinguishable from feudalism.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        11·
        2 months ago

        It’s so lazy to describe capitalism backsliding towards feudalism as “late stage capitalism”. If capitalism actually had “stages”, you’d have to progress forward to reach later stages. Backsliding towards the feudalism that birthed capitalism isn’t some kind of “late stage”, it’s capitalism failing and feudalism reasserting itself.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          21·
          2 months ago

          It obviously does have stages that progress towards each other, and the reason it progresses in a certain way is due to mechanics of the system. It’s not backsliding towards anything, it’s evolving under the selection pressures encoded in its rules. Incidentally, this is what the game of monopoly illustrates. Everybody starts on even footing and over time, through competition, all the capital accumulates with a single player. This happens regardless how many times you play the game.

          It’ intellectually lazy to think that feudalism just magically reasserts itself without thinking about the process that leads to capitalism turning back into feudalism.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          91·
          2 months ago

          That tends to be a general problem with human societies, and as Cowbee points out there’s nothing about communism that makes society more prone to corruption. If anything, I’d argue it’s the opposite since you have less inequality. In general, I look at corruption as a form of inefficiency. So, a government that has corruption, but works in the interests of the majority overall is still a better scenario than one that works in the interest of a capital owning minority.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          72·
          2 months ago

          What about the Soviet system is more prone to corruption than, say, your standard Western Country? If you can answer specifically what you’re concerned about, then we can answer why the Soviet System is better, or has had advancements since the USSR such as the concept of the Mass Line to account for weaknesses.

          If you’re unfamiliar with Marxism, I can recommend some good reading to understand it. It’s incredibly easy to make up your own conclusions about Marxism if you are only aware of part of Marxism, which is a broad topic itself.

        • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          You get rid of the people who would bribe them and then you pay government officials the same as the average worker.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
        98·
        2 months ago

        The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.

        It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.

        Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          82·
          2 months ago

          The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.

          “True Communism” isn’t a thing. You don’t measure metrics by how purely they adhere to ideology, but by measurable improvements for the Working Class. There is Capitalism, Socialism (where the USSR stood), Lower-Stage Communism, and Upper-Stage Communism. Each of these phases takes time and looks different. Marxism has never been about equal pay, but the Proletariat taking control and working towards Communism. Communism cannot be instantly lept to, and even if it could, it has never been about equal pay.

          Additionally, pay was higher for doctors, engineers, professors, and other skilled workers, as is in line with Marxism. It wasn’t just Party Members.

          It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.

          In what way? In the USSR, Healthcare and Education were free, housing was cheap, public transit was highly developed, and workers had more vacation days and earlier retirement than US workers.

          Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.

          Explain what you mean by any of that gibberish.

        • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
          61·
          2 months ago

          For all the communism understanders reading this thread: communists still want unequal pay for unequal jobs. The experts and hardest workers collectively owning twice as much as the average workers is acceptable to all of us and desired by some of us.

          Our only demand is that you earn the money you generate, everyone earning the same is completely orthogonal and something anti-communists use to steer the conversation and misinform. It would be nice if we were more equal, but it’s not what we plan to further with our economic policy. We want everyone to own the means of production, and then you actually gotta do the production to turn that into money.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          61·
          2 months ago

          Top 10% owning 10% of wealth makes no sense as it means perfectly equal wealth redistribution. It is an ultimate goal, but it is not practically achievable. 20% is close enough.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            71·
            2 months ago

            It is an ultimate goal

            it isn’t though. Wealth distribution isn’t the aim of communism, just inevitable effect of it. And as such it don’t have to be exactly equal. Quoting Lenin:

            The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

            Also Marx:

            In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

            As you can see total equality is neither achievable nor desirable under socialism and meaningless under communism.

    • TC_209 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      363·
      2 months ago

      “Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top,” you think to yourself as the crimson Poverty Line flashes upwards across your field of view. “Capitalism is the only system that works.” The wind is rushing hard in your ears now; the bottom of the Money Pit is coming up fast. “Besides, they worked hard to swim in the Money Pool, they deser–.” Splat.

    • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      385·
      2 months ago

      Yes because workers owning their own workplace and directing activity democratically with no owner class siphoning profits has to work the exact same because…

      Oh wait, it doesn’t and you’re just a fucking moron

        • GenderIsOpSec [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
          131·
          2 months ago

          My grandparents were forced to cut onions in the soviet onion! they still remember this when they cry and how stalin was holding the big spoon up to them and demanding more onions! “mr stalin sir too many onions is going to cause flatulence” they screamed but stalin didnt care kitty-cri-texas

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      25·
      2 months ago

      Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top

      Therefore the best system is the one that directly rewards the most horridly destructively greedy assholes around without the slightest obligation toward the rest of society!

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          211·
          2 months ago

          Name them, Captain Smug. Tell us about whatever quaint Northern European social democratic paradise that you got excited about after reading about it on Reddit, that compartmentalizes and outsources all the suffering you don’t want to know about.

          • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
            33·
            2 months ago

            I refuse to believe that someone who calls me ‘captain smug’ is seriously interested in my opinion.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              9·
              2 months ago

              Fair enough, so without any name calling, please name some of those alternatives you mentioned.

              EDIT: you commented continously for 11 further hours after this post, without answering anyone in this thread, so i would safely assume you deserve all the name calling and more.

            • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              51·
              2 months ago

              I refuse to believe that someone who calls me ‘captain smug’ is seriously interested in my opinion.

              I’m not and would prefer you just fuck off, but since you’re still here, NAME ONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES THAT HAS A SYSTEM YOU CLAIM IS BETTER.

        • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          121·
          2 months ago

          you can either have private jackasses own everything like petty kings of their little financial fiefdoms, or you can have capital be socially owned and operated without the explicit need for next quarter profit seeking, those are your fucking choices you nerd

    • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
      263·
      2 months ago

      Politicians were paid around the middle of the income scale in the Soviet Union.

      Unless you’re talking about like the occasional free beer or taxi ride for competently administering your job, which I gotta tell you, however much you think Communist party members did it… Like, have you had a job and talked to your boss and their inter-business negotiations? Holy shit

      • supertrucker@lemmy.mlEnglish
        24·
        2 months ago

        If I’m a government official in near complete control of billions in resources, it doesn’t matter what I take home in salary, I’m essentially have the power of a billionaire, so long as I keep my bosses happy

        • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
          121·
          2 months ago

          I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you think that a random party guy in Siberia can just say “Nope, the USSR cannot get any oil now” and nothing would be done and he’d be showered in women and coke? Or… Yeah, what the fuck are you talking about?