redistribute-wealth

Chris Pratt, attractive rich heterosexual white man, says he doesn't feel represented in Hollywood.

America’s favorite Average White Man has an interview with People magazine ahead of the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy.  

“I don’t see personal stories that necessarily resonate with me, because they’re not my stories,” Pratt, 37, told the magazine. “I think there’s room for me to tell mine, and probably an audience that would be hungry for them. The voice of the average, blue-collar American isn’t necessarily represented in Hollywood.”

I’m actually amused by how earnest he is.  Has he ever even been to the movies?

I’m pretty sure there’s a whole genre of movies based on average, blue-collar American white men literally saving some brown person’s country or the entire planet or whole other planets.  

I’m pretty sure there’s a whole genre of movies where average, blue-collar American white men pine after some woman who is probably too good for them and then a whole lot of stuff happens in the middle where she realizes whoever she’s with is a dick and she should be with the protagonist instead so the average guy can get the girl.

I’m pretty sure there’s a whole genre of movies where average, blue-collar American white men – who are usually from Chicago or Boston – go into a life of crime for some noble reason (or not) and we sit for 90 minutes rooting for a “hero” who is literally breaking the law in every frame and/or killing people.

Chris Pratt sounds like someone strapped him in to a chair and made him watch Moonlight for 17 days so now he forgot that Hollywood is literally founded on white mediocrity.  But wait!  There’s more:

“I really feel there’s common ground out there that’s missed because we focus on the things that separate us,” he said. “You’re either the red state or the blue state, the left or the right. Not everything is politics. And maybe that’s something I’d want to help bridge, because I don’t feel represented by either side.”

I actually do think there’s common ground out there, and the common ground is the provable fact that the vast majority of Americans are a lot less prosperous than they realize, especially in comparison to the corporations they work for where all of the money is being hoarded.  Our common ground as Americans would be redistributing the enormous wealth of this country so that we all could experience a higher standard of living.  Unfortunately, that’s not possible because the things that separate us (mostly race, class, education, and location) are effectively used by our political system to keep an Us vs Them society among average Americans.  This ensures that we don’t turn the country into a Haves vs HaveNots society where the overwhelming majority of Americans would define themselves as the HaveNots if they were thinking clearly and less concerned with how much they have in comparison to a neighbor who doesn’t look and/or think like they do.

But that’s not where Chris Pratt is.  Chris Pratt is one of those Everybody Is So Upset, Can’t We All Just Get Along? yokels who doesn’t want to deal with conflict.  He doesn’t have to deal with the day to day consequences of politics so to him, not everything is politics.  I’d love to see what kind of bridge he is planning to make with his everyman blue-collar American heterosexual movie that speaks to him and has never been done before repeatedly.  Let me know how it is.  I’ll go spend my HaveNot money on something else.

  • right-winger: leftist pinkos just want to redistribute the wealth and expand the size of government!!
  • an actual leftist: actually those are short-term solutions proposed only as long as capitalism is a thing. as long as an elite class hierarchically controls the means of production and sources of wealth, higher taxation on the wealthy and more middleman government programs/regulations will be necessary. in the transition from capitalism to socialism, we do favor large-scale wealth redistribution, but from there we want the entire economic framework changed to one involving democratic job complexes and production for human need rather than for the profit of the elite class; at that point, "big government" for the sake of redistribution and regulation will no longer be necessary because the system as a whole would actually be structured to work for the people rather than just mostly elites, and thus egalitarianism and oversight by the people for the people would be written into the economy's genetic makeup.
  • right-winger: leftist pinkos are always trying to take away our guns!!
  • an actual leftist: actually many of us support the inalienable right of self-defense for the oppressed against their oppressors. guns and gun culture are incredibly dangerous when linked with reactionary ideals, which is why we want cops, violent patriarchs, and fascists disarmed. in imperialist white supremacist heteropatriarchal capitalism, the oppressors should relinquish their guns first.
  • right-winger: leftist pinkos don't want people to keep the product of their labor!!
  • an actual leftist: actually we want a system where people are better able to retain the product of their labor; if you work for a boss in a capitalist firm (i.e. most people) the grand majority of your labor product belongs to the boss and you have no say over what happens with it or with production as a whole.
  • right-winger: leftist pinkos hate freedom!!
  • an actual leftist: actually we want more freedom for the average person, in the sense that we want all people to have influence over and access to the things that involve them and the things they need. flat workplace democracy is more conducive to human freedom than vertical workplace autocracy. reduced working hours that arise from automation and democratic production-for-need are more conducive to human freedom than long hours of exploited labor for the benefit of capitalists.
  • right-winger: .....
  • right-winger: .....
  • right-winger: i'm gonna pretend i didn't hear any of that.
  • John C. Miller, President and CEO of the Denny’s Corporation: Oh boy the teenagers have started making fun of me
  • Millennial, pressing their face against the window: You are a capitalist running dog and I will seize your wealth and redistribute it to the people.

We can afford to feed, clothe, educate, and provide shelter for everyone.

We let too many politicians plunder our taxes, and redistribute our wealth toward war/bombs.

  • leftists: theres like 8 people who directly control how much money the vast majority of the population makes at their jobs
  • leftists: theres maybe 1000 people who directly control how much 99.9% of the world makes
  • liberals: okay but why aren't you talking about income inequality
  • leftists: these people don't even have incomes and damn the entire world to poverty. we need to be talking about redistributing their stolen wealth
  • liberals: uhm but they made that fair and square
  • leftists: okay, fine, never address the issue, lets continue going no where.
  • me, ransacking items from a random house in a video game: aw gosh, I dont know if I should be doing this, these people could be saving this stuff for a special occasion, they might not have much to their name-
  • me, ransacking items from the house of a clearly wealthy person in a video game: NO MERCY FOR CAPITALISM, REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH, GLORY TO THE PEOPLE

sorry guys my liberal, triggered, sjw socialist tart self has been brainwashed by the great and holy word of bernie sanders and thus forth, i can only see josh martinez as the winner of big brother…!!!!!! redistribution of wealth!! carl marx!!! leftists rule!!!

The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth…
—  Thomas Sowell (1931-) American economist.

(note: US-centric, but probably applies everywhere with some details swapped around)

the main thing that worries me about the inevitable destruction of the value of unskilled human labor by machine labor, is that public opinion- democracy’s last hope of resisting fully-automated extinction capitalism- will turn in a very predictable and completely disastrous direction

what we want is, when human labor collapses, for the human population to vote in favor of humans continuing to exist even though most humans don’t need to work, thanks to automation. a basic income guarantee, or something like that, funded by taxes on automated labor (or, just, by normal taxes.) we want robots to take over all the jobs, because most jobs are worked more or less involuntarily, and they suck, and it would be great if people didn’t have to do them anymore

but what i’m worried will happen instead, is that the human population will vote in favor of restricting or outlawing automated labor, so they can still have jobs. our culture is fixated on this idea that human dignity and worth is earned through labor. the US is a majority christian nation with puritanism in its cultural roots- 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12, “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.” it’s in the cultural DNA, and i don’t know if we can get it out quickly enough.

my prediction is that, within my lifetime, we’re going to see a sort of neo-neo-luddite movement- with strong bipartisan support- to regulate and restrict how corporations are allowed to use automation, in order to force them to maintain human jobs. both parties will make big promises to crack down on job-killing robots, and neither of them are going to be very good at actually legislating this. big companies with lots of money and lawyers will find loopholes and lobby to have their automation protected, conveniently driving their smaller, robotless competitors out of the market. 

please don’t become a part of this movement. please make sure that the language of the political discourse around automation is in terms of how best to tax and redistribute the wealth from automation. otherwise, we will, uh, probably die.

anonymous asked:

would beyonce / jay-z redistributing their wealth be the same as gates redistributing his wealth?

this is difficult to answer because bill gates is so much more wealthy than they are, which is true, but all billionaires should redistribute their wealth in a way that structurally eliminates the ability to become a billionaire in the first fucking place while others are dying in the streets. 

They all would have to collectively work together to change the world, and this of course isn’t just one person’s fault, it takes a lot of people to make change, but none of the billionaires have pushed for such a structural change they could help make happen because they are capitalists at heart.

MBTI Last Things They'd Ever Say

INFP: I love accepting the harshest of criticisms because I find strength in realizing my weaknesses!

ISFP: Art is nothing more than a futile attempt for humans to waste their time pandering to each other for acceptance over the subjective quality of the mundane.

ISTP: Hard work is the key to success. That’s why I never smoke pot. Really.

INTP: I think I make friends so easily due to my accute awareness of social customs and natural empathy for others. I don’t really see the point in arguing all the time, and I wish we could all just get along. Also, aliens could never possibly exist.

ENTP: I am sorry I hurt your feelings with my joke, that was not my intention and I would like to make it up to you. I’m really not very funny.

ENTJ: Socialism is the best form of government. A meritocracy like capitalism is inherently ableist, and because I am largely unsuccessful and unmotivated, redistribution of wealth will benefit my stifling disability of laziness and aimlessness.

INTJ: Because I deeply care about you as a human being, I will entertain your dramatically different point of view and try to apply it to mine.

ISFJ: Fuck your feelings and I hate you. Mental illnesses are just a crutch used by the lazy, entitled youth of today! Also, what is anxiety?

ISTJ: Woah, dude. Last night was so crazy. I can’t believe we snorted all that coke off of the strippers we hired from the bank job money!

INFJ: Today I decided I wouldn’t be hopelessly and pathetically crippled by my own self doubt and anxiety. I will go out and enjoy myself in the moment amongst a large group of acquaintances in a crowded public space.

ENFJ: I have a motivational poster of Adolf Hitler in my room. I really admire his ideas about humanitarian relief.

ESFJ: I just cleared all the scheduled plans in my calender for the next six months and decided to take life one step at a time.

ESFP: For my new year’s resolution, I will not drink alcohol all year. I will also learn meditation and practice stillness and peace for at least four hours a day. Sit happens!

ENFP: My goals are to get into a prestigious school, eventually become a tireless lawyer who also works weekends,
and permanently settle down into suburbia with a thirty year mortgage and a perfect family.

ESTP: I feel like taking it easy today. Maybe I’ll sit by myself and enjoy a nice cup of tea and this book on quantum mechanics and post my thoughts about it later on my book club blog.

ESTJ: I honestly just don’t understand the point of all this bureaucracy. In my opinion, rules are meant more as guidelines and are maliable to the situation at hand. Flexibility is more important than rigidity, and compassion is more important than justice, wouldn’t you say?

anonymous asked:

Have you heard the story of how Robin Hood, the classic Chaotic Good icon, is actually Lawful Good? In some versions of the story, he is specifically defying the unjust laws and sheriffs appointed by someone who is not the rightful King, and protecting the people against the abuse of power. When King Richard returns from war, Robin stops being an outlaw and actually serves him because now the laws will be carried out in a Lawful Good manner. If this is true, who is the new CG archetype?

Oh dear…

OK, let’s drop some names. The premise of this version is that brave King Richard the Lionheart is off to the Crusades, fighting in the Holy Land or held captive in Austria. In his absence, his coward brother John plots to usurp the throne, oppresses the people, and imposes unfair taxes on them.

Robin Hood supports the good king Richard, fights mean usurper John and his mean sheriffs, and collects the ransom required for the good king’s release (or waits until the king comes back). Either way, Richard restores justice in the end, and Robin gives up his outlaw life. All rejoice, the end.

And this is my least favourite version of Robin Hood.

It’s not very old. It’s 20th century, though the seeds were planted earlier by Walter Scott in Ivanhoe. It appeared in the 1922 film Robin Hood, with Douglas Fairbanks, and it got picked up by others later - Errol Flynn’s and Disney’s versions, most notably. And don’t get me wrong, the films themselves are great, but this specific element of the story REALLY riles me up. You know why?

  • One, because fuck kings in general.
  • Two, because Richard the Lionheart? Really? That’s the good king? The warmongering moron who treated his kingdom “merely as a source of revenue to support his armies”? And you’re blaming John for excessive taxes? REALLY NOW??
  • And three, because what’s even the point of glorifying an outlaw if you cop out in the end and make him law-abiding? It’s a classic case of “Hollywood destroys everything”. Boo, I say!

Robin Hood is a folk legend. He doesn’t have a canon, nothing is “true”, it’s all fanfiction. If you like your version better, then that’s great. And if you want to call that version Lawful Good, I’m not gonna stop you. (Though using unlawful means for lawful ends sounds pretty Neutral to me, at least when other avenues haven’t been considered. And the “stealing from the rich” bit doesn’t get addressed in your analysis, unless good king Richard embarked on a grand project of wealth redistribution when he came back and I missed it.)

Still, if the LG square of the alignment chart is occupied by that Robin Hood, I have some great news for the CG square: the other Robin Hood is still available.

And for me, the most iconic Chaotic Good figure is and will always be him, the quintessential Robin Hood: the one who steals from the rich, gives to the poor, and dies an outlaw in the forest - “lawless, frank, and free”.

P.S. I got fired up because I HAVE OPINIONS about Robin Hood, sorry for the rant and thanks for the question. :) @tuulikki​ understands me, right?

  • libertarian: communism only works on paper, not in practice
  • same libertarian: if you support redistribution of wealth from literal goddamn millionaires then you're literally, and I mean LITERALLY literally, a schoolyard bully holding a six-year-old upside down and shaking them until wads of cash fall out of their pockets, like in cartoons except the child is disgustingly rich. don't you feel like a fool NOW
Giant: Ch. 16

Be gentle with me
I might not be ready
I am learning to love
I am learning to let myself be loved
How did I miss this lesson when I was young?

The cover of CatCo magazine stared back at her in the waiting room of the federal jail. Kara squeezed her hand and flipped a page in her copy of the magazine, not trying to pay much attention to anything at all. Even though it was a few months old, it was still the newest magazine in the place, which was terrifying enough in its own right.

Keep reading

Thoughts this morning

Post-scarcity economy is inevitable, but current system in the future will deny post-scarcity to most. Decentralize *all* forms of power and authority. Power to the people does not need the state, the corporation, or the rich as middleman. Scarcity today only exists because centralized power demands it. Government wouldn’t need to redistribute wealth if employers redistributed wealth correctly in the first place. Free open source software as a model for running all business projects? Owning the means of production means having stakes (shares?) in the business, not just salary. Human working menial job is a waste of brain power. All should benefit and prosper from increased efficiency and automation. Time invested should hold more value than money. Decentralized infrastructure requires individual free time to work. Rethink freedom as devoting yourself to multiple projects instead of the 40 hour work week. Rethink national security as decentralized infrastructure. A greenhouse on every block. Solar panels on every roof. An HOA that buys you in to local ecology/infrastructure. Fully automated luxury eco-communism.

What I was told in my comparative government class

I figured I’d make these posts to document what I learn about communism, the industrial revolution, and capitalism. So far, not TOO bad, but misleading in an area.

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

People work for pennies a day in extremely dangerous working conditions - CORRECT

People often don’t even make enough to afford rent - CORRECT…I know a great political cartoon from back then illustrating this, maybe I’ll find it later

Strikes meant a risk of death - CORRECT

No worker’s compensation, getting harmed or killed in factories meant struggling for your family and possibly risking starvation - CORRECT

Young children working in sweatshops - CORRECT

KARL MARX

Workers produced things that had a greater value than what they were paid for them - CORRECT

When the proletariat takes control of the government, it permanently takes wealth and redistributes it - INCORRECT, communism seeks to abolish money and eliminate the need for distribution, as well as dissolve the state


Overall: Decent coverage of the industrial revolution, misleading definition of communism that I’m now not surprised so many Americans believe…

Feel free to share your own experiences.

I feel like left-libertarians are some of the only people who talk about how a number of features of our current patent law are nothing more than mechanisms for redistributing wealth towards patent-holders, often with negative effects on innovation. Or at least who talk about it as much as it deserves to be talked about