you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -32 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Isn't it funny how people who "have things" are less likely to be all that interested in leftism. And those who don't have "things" look at them, want more leftism because they want want the "things" the people who have "things" and they don't have.

And neither side understands the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 20 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

    That leftism is a product of ressentiment from people who don't have "things" against people who have "things", I guess. ContraPoints-level take tbh.

    I hate billionaires, not because I want to be a miserable sociopath with too much money, but because they are largely the reason that any kind of improvement to our planet and species is being blocked. I support socialized healthcare, not because I envy those who have the money to pay for life-saving healthcare, but because I don't want to fucking die, etc. etc.

    There certainly are people like BadEmpanada, who oppose unions and welfare so that "first-worlders can suffer", but they definitely don't reflect what leftism is in general.

    BE

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    I agree, and I’d add it’s not even a specifically left wing impulse either. The Roman Republic of all institutions was deeply concerned with the idea that republics shouldn’t have private princes as well as kings. The fact the Roman Republic failed to contain its oligarchy to the point of fundamental destabilisation into arbitrary power is evidence people ought to pay attention to left wingers when they say the same thing about billionaires and the concentration of wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    They don't understand either side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Isn't it funny how people who "have food" are less likely to be all that interested in leftism. And those who don't have "food" look at them, want more leftism because they want want the "food" the people who have "food" and they don't have.

    It's still garbled, but makes a better point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Your edit makes a good insinuation "they're just things" people think objects are frivolous things that tie you down because they've never experienced genuine lack.

    Not like lack of toys, but the bear necessities of survival.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    The basic necessities should just be provided, by that I mean food and shelter and basic medical care. If people want to live luxuriously that's fantatic, going and toiling, innovating or improving their situation in someway should be encouraged; but no one should ever be shelterless and hungry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments