this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
119 points (95.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43989 readers
586 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think what we are getting to is the semantics of it. Theoretically, it should be possible to be a billionaire without stealing and exploitation. I think that in reality though, a billion dollars is so much money that's its hard to see how a single person can amass that much wealth without being exploitative, intentionally or not. Even if you were given that much money, holding onto it would require investing into a system that is rife with exploitation.
I'll admit that I'm by no means an expert on billionaires and there might exist some that made their fortune without exploitation. And I'm including indirect exploitation here. Maybe that's another point of semantics, but its one that I feel very much matters in this context.
I don't think this is semantic though. The initial post said that "Nobody earns a billion dollars. It can only be stolen and exploited from other peoples' labor."
That statement does not read as "they were at least involved indirectly in some behavior at some point in their life that was in some way unethical." It is purporting a direct relationship between their achieving a billion dollars and an active exploitation of others direct labor. That is why I pushed back against it.
And here is my issue with including indirect exploitation in the consideration. It vastly waters down culpability. A billionaire is just as guilty of indirect exploitation as you or me or the Pope. There is literally no action at all that one can take that I couldn't make some argument for being a form of indirect exploitation. So when you say that billionaires are exploitative for indirect exploitation reasons, it seems churlish. It loses all meaning because it's basically tautologically true. Why should I care about it if the person telling me that the billionaire is exploiting people is actively and continuously engaging in the exact same type of exploitation?
Because a billionaire isn't "just as guilty" in an exploitative system. They are more guilty because they benefit more and they have more power due to their capital. If you can't see that, then I guess we won't ever agree.
Do you have a job? If so, you should know how hard it is to earn money. The level of effort required to even get minimum wage is usually astounding. And maybe you went to school and learned to do more skilled jobs, so you don't have to work as hard as a minimum wage laborer. Maybe you can justify it as being smarter or more skilled and that's fine. But do you think someone that "earned" a billion dollars actually worked ten thousand times harder than someone who earns 100k. Or a thousand times harder than someone that earned a million dollars. Or are that much smarter or more skilled?
In your original example, you talk about how and individual could make a game that could get 300 million in sales while ignoring that vast amount of effort it realistically takes to do so. Way more effort than a single individual person can do. Getting to those kinds of sales would take the effort of many people, so if a single person benefits more than the others involved in that effort, then they did so by exploitation of their labor.
But if becoming a billionaire is truly just luck, then what are they to do? If I gave you a billion dollars right now, out of the blue, no strings attached, are you now morally bankrupt because you're a billionaire?
What if you leverage your power and capital to affect positive change (like Bill Gates for instance)? Do you still deserve the guillotine?
If you bankrupt yourself by giving every American a one time 4 dollar payout ($4 ร 300mil Americans), are you now clean, or did you waste your chance to make a meaningful difference with your power and capital?
What exactly would you have to see Notch do now or have done in the past to make him not the villain in this narrative? What can he or could he have done to be morally in the right?
I'm not calling to break out the guillotine. Just the acknowledgment that the system is flawed and support initiatives to minimize exploitation and pay their labor fairly where they can. At the very least stop using their capital to support initiatives that only support growing their own capital at the expense of others.
But we're talking about this in the context of a thread that started with the claim that all billionaires are morally bankrupt (paraphrasing).
I agree with you that the system is flawed, but if the stance you're taking is that there is literally no set of actions before or after becoming a billionaire that someone could take that makes them not morally bankrupt, then maybe the initial position is flawed at best and useless at worst?
Not to repeat myself again, but I agree that labor should be fairly compensated and that systems need to be fixed to reduce inequality, and I am in no way shape or form stating otherwise. I feel like this conversation keeps going in loops, where I say that it's self defeating to state falsehoods in defense of advocating for systemic change, and you countering with "but there needs to be systemic changes!"
We're on the same page in that regard. I have exactly one point, and it's that if we agree that the statement that all billionaires are necessarily morally bankrupt is false, then we should stop using it to support our advocacy, as it is merely an additional reason to dismiss said advocacy.
The claim was that billionaires shouldn't exist and that to get that amount of money requires exploitation. You are the one taking that to mean that they are automatically morally bankrupt. I have broken down my more nuanced take that you seem to mostly agree on, so I guess I'm not sure why you are continuing to push on this one point. No one has called for actually punishing billionaires for this in this specific comment chain; I know that opinion is all over elsewhere, but that's not relevant to what we have been discussing.
Personally speaking, I'm doing okay under the current system, I recognize where my labor is and has been exploited and am lucky enough myself to get by with what leverage I have. But I recognize that I'm just one bad accident from losing my livelihood and not being able to provide for me and my family. And if the wealth gap continues growing, then billionaires, or the owning capital class in general, should be worried about violence against them. And if that day comes, I for sure ain't sticking my neck out for some fucking billionaire.
At the end of the day, we can disagree on messaging, but I'll leave that to proper organizations to get the message right and try to support them when I see them to hopefully turn things around before it turns to violence. But we're not going to convince anyone here by just getting the perfect message for the masses.
You are right that we seem to be talking in circles, so I'm done here. Going to GI back to enjoying the rest of my weekend and I hope you have a good one.
Yeah, the only thing I'd push back on is why I keep harping on that one point. I think that's been the whole cycle here. I've been saying, "I think X," which has been responded to with a "here's a more nuanced and detailed TUVWYZ," to which I respond with, "yeah, I agree with you on all those letters, but I'm specifically talking about X." And then the loop goes around again. I'm "continuing to push this one point" because it was the point I opened with and the only one that mattered for the purposes of the discussion at hand.
But, all that said, I'm not too worked up about it, and I agree this has gone on longer than it probably should have. Not everyone needs to agree on everything, and I think this issue, while a pet peeve of mine, is ultimately small in the grand scheme of things.
Hope your weekend has continued well, and I'll get back to enjoying mine as well. :)