Like the Tories did in the UK
[serious]
Submitted 5 days ago by InterestingUsername@lemmy.ml to [deleted]
https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/5797250b-b6ab-4ec4-aa5f-c41d66a011f0.jpeg
Comments
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
SingularEye@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
homeless people reading that sign in 2024
Allero@lemmy.today 5 days ago
[serious] because the very existence of the rich and poor means there are systems creating inequality.
Should you kill the poor, the next poorest group will be sucked of their money and will become poor.
The problem is not the poor, it’s the system that creates poverty.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
For sure. Or put a more direct way, someone needs to be making drinks at Starbucks when the rich-enough-to-survive go there, someone needs to be boiling noodles and chopping onions all day for when they want pasta at a restaurant, someone needs to stand in the sun next to hot asphalt and lay it so they can drive over it.
And if it’s not the too-poor-to-live, it’s the next wrung down.
Astronut@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
Then the middle class would be the poor class so we kill them and so on?
Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Eventually we would finally kill the 1%…
Astronut@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
Then just start with them sonsabitches!
mEEGal@lemmy.world 4 days ago
easier to kill the rich
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
This is not merely a hypthetical. Vlad Tepes (Yes, The Impailer ) notoriously invited all his poor to a grand feast, instead to kill them all. (I think he burned them alive.) Usually in feudal and early capitalist societies, it was just enough to deny them basic necessities and let them die off, but this often would lead to an outlaw problem as some of the more able poors would turn to banditry and poaching to live.
In liberal societies, just as we don’t outlaw people anymore, there are some known good reasons to support low income, disabled and marginalized groups.
One of them is to cut off or discontinue the outlaw-to-professional-criminal pipeline. People who are forced to work but cannot for some reason will resort to poaching, banditry, fraud or any number of extralegal revenue-enhancement tactics. Criminal syndicates such as the Crips and the Bloods pull their numbers from demographics that are given no other choice by the society they live in.
Another reason the state might support it’s low-income demographics is in recognition that capitalist societies teem with social roles and efforts that contribute value to the society without compensation. Parenting is the primary one.
In fact, in the US, as social programs for low-income households have been defunded or rendered inaccessible (such as SNAP and Medicaid), millennials and zoomers are now choosing not to have children, and avoiding romantic relationships, so that the fertility rate is well below the replacement level 2.1 children. We’re not just not having kids, we’re not having sex.
Also, thanks to deregulation, and the failure of wages to keep up with inflation, a lot of the US is under-compensated. Much of the poor population in the US have jobs, but they’re not being paid a living wage. Infamously, Walmart workers still have to rely on SNAP benefits and Medicaid because their wages are not enough to afford a sustainable living. They still count as poor, and would be swept up if ICE were to start going after poor Americans. And then Walmart would find they have fewer applicants, and might have to offer better wages and benefits. (This happened after the great resignation when workers furloughed during the COVID-19 lockdown found they could monetize their home hobby, or just didn’t want their shit job anymore.)
But this isn’t to say these uncompensated or under-compensated people are useless or not contributing to society, just that what they do isn’t recognized by the system that rewards value with compensation.
Curiously, our political class and our ownership class both imagine they could dispose of the poor without ill effects, even as they directly depend upon those people to parent, to maintain homes, to organize communities and yes, even sometimes to do basic labor. At the same time, they’re also the ones screeching about how American women are not having enough (white male) babies.
Just as the US is suffering a shortage of farm hands to harvest crops, thanks to the persecution of immigrant workers, when we deny benefits and services to low-income houses, we’ll find that other work we depend on will cease to be done. And that will be accompanied by a new wave of organized crime… or maybe organized resistance against a state that has turned violent against them.
programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
[serious] Why not kill the richest people to make the poor people not poor?
nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
nonentity@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
Conversely, a mature society would assassinate the poor by ensuring the provision of subsistence is readily available to anyone who needs it, and not gated behind employment.
Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
I like it, surely such a society has reasonable means for law abiding and respectful people to integrate. Do you have a website or something where I could start the process?
errer@lemmy.world 5 days ago
That’s what they’re doing currentaffairs.org/…/how-elon-musk-killed-hundred…
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Nobody ever asks him about this, and he never responds to posts about it. Same for his begging to go to the island. He’ll pipe up on everything else nobody asked him about, but not those two subjects.
over_clox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Eat the rich, spread the wealth amongst the poor…
Leviathan@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Why not kill rich people to solve poverty?
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Uh, because they’re actual people? Besides, their wealth would just be inherited.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 days ago
There’s a lot fewer rich people to kill than there are poor people. Doing the trolley problem on this means the rich people lose.
Leviathan@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Sir, you do understand that I was simply flipping the post to highlight its absurdity? Are you alright?
jobbies@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Why not kill and BBQ the rich people to feed to poor people?
Leviathan@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Disease. The only reason I can think of at this point.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
[serious] Why not kill the hoarders to solve poverty?
bizarroland@lemmy.world 5 days ago
What a modest proposal
AA5B@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Used to be called starting a war. It’s working for Russia but you really need to have a draft/conscription to make it succeed. The wealthy pay a doctor to say they have bone spurs and the poor go die somewhere else. As a VA plus the wealthy benefit from an overheated economy
But there are side effects, such as generating more poverty by killing off the main income in families
morphballganon@mtgzone.com 4 days ago
Starting a war only kills certain demographics, namely young poor people, as well as anyone who lives in a place that gets bombed.
Police handle other demographics.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
That worked well enough back in ye olden days, but you don’t see it much in the modern world. Winning a war isn’t just about having enough people on the front line. It’s about what kinds and what quantities of weapons and equipment you can get to people that matters. A tiny country with a small population and an advanced industrial economy will wipe the floor with a country with an army of peasant conscripts 10x as large. Keeping the people in uniform equipped and fed is even more important than actually finding people to put into a uniform.
This matters because every person you send to the front line is another that can’t be on the home front working at a munitions plant, or working on a farm, or driving a train to transport war supplies, etc.
Unless your economy already has structural mass unemployment, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Every draftee you throw away into the meat grinder is one more that can’t be supporting the war from the home front.
roserose56@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
Why not bomb USA to stop what is going on right now?
Meat_Of_Nan@lemmy.world 5 days ago
They would have to wipe out the vast majority of people on the planet. Like the VAST majority. They’d be killing themselves too because they would be killing off basically the entire work force that holds society together. What little of humanity that remains would just be doomed to die a slower death, as nobody would be around to produce food, mine resources, manufacture goods, keep supply lines moving, maintain public infrastructure.
They’d just be signing themselves up to slowly starve to death once the food runs out and nobody is around to make more of it. Not to mention it’s not like the vast majority of people are just going to sit around and be genocided by these monsters. The war effort alone would be enormous, and whoever is left would be traumatized.
Definitely a solid shit post.
vivalapivo@lemmy.today 4 days ago
Poor is being killed, it’s just not that vivid
GhostFace@lemmy.today 4 days ago
That has to be a bot post, right?
Who could actually be inhumane enough to just put that thought out there?
seejur@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Magas. The ultimate fuck you got mine (until someone get theirs instead)
ICastFist@programming.dev 4 days ago
You’d be amazed at the amount of poor people who deeply believe in rich people propaganda
bridgeburner@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Billionaires
hansolo@lemmy.today 4 days ago
There’s a miniscule chance it’s intentional irony based on Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, in which Swift proposes easing babies to solve the Irish famine.
Buy probably just a dickbag.
mastod0n@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I mean why would people for far right narratives?
Because it’s an easy answer with a appearently reasonable thought process.
The same reason why people online argued Marvel’s Thanos had a point
MrSelfDestruct@piefed.zip 5 days ago
Dead Kennedys wrote a song about it
thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 5 days ago
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor
backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 4 days ago
46 years old and still relevant. Maybe this is why so many conservatives think they’re punk rock, media literacy and satire are dead and they’re like “yes, let’s kill the poor”.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Yep. Sounds like a Redditor.
slaacaa@lemmy.world 3 days ago
In progress
spitfire@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Let the hungry eat the rich
WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Jonathan Swift you card, I didn’t realize you were using Reddit now!
lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I came into this comment section expecting this modest proposal to be widely recognized for what it was. to my surprise, your reply was far down the page
Xerxos@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
What do you think is the purpose of denying poor people health care, implementing hostile architecture, and eroding social projects? This has been ongoing for quite a while now.
Seriously, wishing for something the GOP is already working on with all they got. 🙄
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Reminds me of this bit from Mitchell and Webb youtu.be/s_4J4uor3JE
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
I wonder if anyone has asked ChatGPT. I’m kind of afraid to
greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Do people have worth beyond the work they do?
Yes, obviously
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Commie.
davidagain@lemmy.world 3 days ago
why not kill poor people to solve poverty?
From whom would you then extract wealth and labour?
DrunkAnRoot@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Clankers
trashboypro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
Then who will work for the rich people? The other rich people?
Phantaloons@piefed.zip 4 days ago
That’s what the prison system is for.
marzhall@lemmy.world 4 days ago
And you get bonus slavery until they die
thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 5 days ago
kill a couple billionares and give their wealth to the poor people and they wont be poor anymore and it a lot less killing…
2 or 3 instead of millions, I think that math works out pretty well
Town@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
Why kill them? I would rather they compete on a reality TV show to not get fired from a soul sucking benefitless job at their former corporations.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I’d watch a reality TV show where people like Musk had to work for a week in a mine, or on an oil rig, doing the hardest jobs. They wouldn’t last a minute.
backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 4 days ago
Or Bumfights. What do you think they’ll be using the Temu Colosseum for after it’s first spectacle?
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
Why can’t we, as a society, just take Musk’s money and redistribute it? It is absolutely stupid that we allow someone to have more money than he can use while so many people can’t afford to live
Wispy2891@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Most of those trillions are unrealized gains based on completely unrealistic valuation in “trust me bro” style
Like Tesla being worth more than all the western car manufacturers combined or xai being “worth” billions even if it’s losing billions every year.
The second he dumps those stocks, the house of cards would crash almost immediately
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Realistically it’s not liquid assets like it is for you and me. They purchase items that “appreciate” like land and art, then take loans out using them as collateral to then get them appraised higher to take out another loan to pay off the other one then use the extra for living on. They don’t live on dividends or income, it’s a game of loans that they have a small army of accountants running. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take those assets. Just that it doesn’t translate into immediate cash flows for people.
plutopos@lemmy.zip 5 days ago
Because it’s not “real” money
Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
We can
Syndication@lemmy.today 5 days ago
Bro solved the trolley problem.
WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 5 days ago
Jonathan Swift you card, I didn’t realize you were using Reddit now.
timestatic@feddit.org 5 days ago
Money would be devalued quite a bit, since production capacity doesnt randomly jump. If everyone is rich, no one is
Janx@piefed.social 5 days ago
You wouldn’t be creating currency, only redistributing it.
workerONE@lemmy.world 5 days ago
If people had money and were able to take care of their needs, they would spend more than the billionaire who just keeps it but doesn’t use it. Money spent would drive the economy creating revenue that can be reinvested into the business to increase efficiency and capacity.
But to address your point, redistributing billionaire wealth directly into workers hands wouldn’t make everyone rich. Yes people would have more money, at least at first. This is why socialists believe in controlling the means of production. Desperate people cannot afford to go on strike and they cannot take time off work to vote. They can’t afford to take time to find better jobs.
Fair wages doesn’t make everyone poor. Arguing that everyone can’t be rich isn’t a sincere argument. You’re arguing that we need people to be poor and desperate.
justlemmyin@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Sounds like a good thing
_chris@lemmy.world 5 days ago
It’s worth it.