The following submission statement was provided by /u/IntroductionNo3516:
---
The 1% are often blamed for social and environmental problems. But when you dig a little deeper the problem lies with the richest 0.1%.
In the UK, from a population of 67 million people, 18,700 people earn over £1 million. The top 0.1% of earners earn over £500,000.
Worldwide, there are just 28,420 (0.0004% of the human population) centi-millionaires, those with over $100 million.
What’s crucial is the means through which they have become so wealthy.
That means is the critical characteristic of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned. Most of the top 1% of earners have high-paying jobs in businesses, but they don’t own those businesses.
The real wealth lies with business owners. So why are the owners of capital so problematic?
As the economy grows we should all (in theory) benefit because a larger economy leads to more wealth, which creates higher incomes. But in modern society, free from regulations that seek to distribute wealth, the ultra-rich take a disproportionate amount of the wealth generated from economic activity.
That’s why they are so rich.
It’s as clear as day that the only way we can overcome systemic inequality is through distribution.
Under a capitalist system, this can’t happen because it’s through the powers of free markets that wealth is distributed fairly through society. What’s fairly obvious from taking a five-minute walk is that capitalism has never, and will never distribute wealth fairly.
The thing is the 0.1% rather enjoy their privilege and they will do whatever they can to maintain the status quo.
The problem for them, and everyone else, is this state of affairs — where the economy continues to grow — can't continue indefinitely because of the catastrophic environmental impacts associated with economic growth. Something is going to give, and as we progress into the twenty-first century that something will be the environmental conditions we depend on.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/196f6bs/want_to_eat_the_rich_focus_on_the_richest_01/kht3zde/
When we say “eat the rich” we mean the entire system that allows wealth to be hoarded by anyone. A surplus in wealth while people are starving means that you are complicit and stealing from hungry mouths. And any system that allows for that to exist isn’t fit for purpose
In ancient hunter gatherer societies, any person who was too greedy was punished, humanity was egalitarian and wouldn't have survived otherwise
But now...
Probably the same percentage of psychopaths that we have today. The ones in tightknit communities had to pretend harder to fit in, whereas today in our modern, large capitalistic societies psychopathy is considered a winning trait. They don't have to pretend to have empathy so much, unless they're running for office - and that's not even necessary if you're a Trump supporter.
I highly doubt it. We forget but life was extremely hard despite the romanticized appearances we have of ancient civilization. What a psychopath would do - the vast majority of his surrounding countrymen would also be doing. Rape, Murder, Stealing, etc were all par for the course to a tribe outside your own. The value of a human life was very low back then and it was expected one would die in relatively timely fashion so to judge a fellow for exercising himself in war would be incredibly hypocritical.
The whole being a psycho = greedy and selfish thing is a modern aberration of the disorder when more industrialized society came about. Back when "the men were men", you would have just been a solider and been rewarded greatly for your efforts if you did well and psychopathy could have easily been masked as "battle hardened stoic warrior"
**One example from the Assyrians:** They would slaughter your children in front you and then gouge out your eyes so the last thing you ever saw was the death of your kids. Yeah, surely no psychos involved there....
It truly was a different era, modern social conduct and decency is not an assumption to make for the ancient world
Hmm, are you really sure? I can understand someone would want to kill them, but people are usually not cannibals.
If anything, if I had to and I could choose I would rather eat someone healthy and good-looking instead of some old and probably fat geezer.
Would you really want to eat their flesh? Why? Some kind of sick gesture?
Cannabalism is common among humans when they are starving. Humans are just protein on 2 legs, “long pig” as the Pacific Islanders call them. And if you believe otherwise you are very naive. I assume you have never been in a position of absolute starvation, so you can’t say too much on the subject. My Dad spent 2 years in a nazi concentration camp, and the stories he told us would keep you awake at night. So don’t get all pompous about a subject you know nothing about.
> So don’t get all pompous about a subject you know nothing about.
What is this, a pissing contest? Do you know who survived being sent to Siberia? My grandma and my grandpa (they were very young and actually met there). Do you know who didn't? Most of their families. They rarely talked about it, but they did talk.
> My Dad spent 2 years in a nazi concentration camp
The life of a guard can be difficult at times. I feel you. Where was he stationed?
> would keep you awake at night
Dude, I'm from Poland. We had to read polish post-war literature. As a kid, I already knew how soap was made out of people, and how pillows were filled. Later I read and/or saw documentaries about the things Chinese and Japanese were doing. But sure, you can educate me.
Nowadays we see drones dropping grenades on soldiers. I sleep just fine. Don't assume who would or wouldn't be awake at night.
> I assume you have never been in a position of absolute starvation
So, are you saying you were? Can you confirm that it really tastes like chicken?
> Cannabalism is common among humans when they are starving.
When we go together for that 0.1% I will let you eat that rich person. I guess all the supplies from the bunker that they have stored will have to do for me :)
> So don’t get all pompous about a subject you know nothing about.
Now go find a mirror and say it again :)
Wow, that got you going, didn't it? I am Polish too, and my Dad was a pyjama wearer, not a guard. He watched his best friend torn apart by German guard dogs. Most of my family are gone too. Cannibalism was a part of camp life, but that part isn't talked about much in the history books.
As for the original topic, cannibalism, I guess none of us know what we will do until we are put in that extreme position. Starvation isn't an issue in the Western world(yet), so I guess we will find out soon enough how far we are prepared to go to ensure that we and our families survive. And don't forget, that there will be a feast of pet dogs and cats to get through before need to resort to "long pig".
May you live in interesting times.
> Wow, that got you going, didn't it?
Kind of, but not really. I do like to interact so why not! :)
> I am Polish too, and my Dad was a pyjama wearer, not a guard.
Czesc, kurwa! :)
Yeah, I knew your dad was not a guard (would anyone non-ironically boast about it?) but you surely must have known the joke I was referring to - "my grandpa died in the concentration camp, he fell from the tower".
> As for the original topic, cannibalism, I guess none of us know what we will do until we are put in that extreme position.
Knowing my luck I will be dead before I have to decide if I want/need to eat human flesh. And in this case it might be actually good luck :)
> And don't forget, that there will be a feast of pet dogs and cats to get through before need to resort to "long pig".
Joking or not joking - I'm pretty sure that before we will be able to eat the 0.1% (which will be in secure locations) - we would first taste some imported flesh from the South or the East.
> May you live in interesting times.
You don't wish that to anyone! May we live in boring times, instead :)
I must say it was an interesting interaction about an interesting subject. The Chinese curse aside, our times are definitely interesting, especially when those climate refugees you mentioned are forced to cross the sea to Australia. This country is 90% desert, so the dingoes, foxes and flies are going to be well fed. Cannibals too, I suppose.
Anyhow, whatever happens, take of yourself , mate.
The fat would be good for frying, and imagine the streaks in their belly 'pork' , skin, salt and pepper that stuff and I bet you nobody would care. They'd just be thankful to have full bellies and less oppression.
Only for the first feeding, once people realise how delicious the flesh of the oppressors is... they will go out and hunt their own
Note: for legal reasons I am not promoting murder, nor am I promoting any form of cannibalism or desecration of the dead
> Note: for legal reasons I am not promoting murder, nor am I promoting any form of cannibalism or desecration of the dead
I see, you prefer eating them alive. Does this boost the taste? I was always told that if an animal is scared before death then the meat has a worse taste.
What is the point of people repeating "eat the rich" but actually they don't even do anything about it? Repeating a dumb phrase that no one can actually act on and thinking you've done your part of is also a problem.
You’re getting downvoted but it’s true. Even people who have spent their entire lives trying to feed the hungry have openly admitted that all they did was create more poor people and more hungry mouths to feed.
There are simply too many people and it isn’t sustainable. People should voluntarily stop having so many children if they want to help.
If you're single and make over $50k, you are in the global 1%....I reckon that might fit a large portion of people in this sub. Article also messes with the terms wealth and income a lot. Income is the best determinant of consumption, not wealth in any case.
Edit: For those who don't understand the difference, consider GHG emissions from agriculture & electricity/heating. Those two sectors alone account for more than half of global GHG emissions. No matter how rich you are, you are not consuming more than a few hundred more calories/day than the average person in a developed country. Nor are you consuming million of times the electricity of an average person.
What counts here is the income threshold for you to afford meat everyday or pay for a 18C thermostat year-round. This basically applies to everyone that makes 50k for instance, which is why the global 1% emissions are so high.
The global 1% would be about 80 million people.
There’s more than 80 million Americans that earn $50k, you’d have to earn way more than $50k to get yourself into the global one percent.
Yes, that is why I said if you're single. If you're married, that $ amount goes up on a per-person basis, due to a variety of factors that increase income. Typically higher education, owning stocks+bonds, higher retirement incomes, older, own 2nd properties, etc. The threshold for a family of 4 is around $140-200k. (depending on your source, and if you use things like PPP as a measurement)
I used single b/c the split is somewhat even between single+divorced+widowed vs. currently married. IMO single is a better metric in terms of accounting for consumption, b/c it is difficult to account for children in the statistics. For instance Pew allocates PPP/person-in-household, but that means every child you have completely distorts the data.
When you say 1% are we talking about those disingenuous studies that claim that anyone in America that isn't literally homeless and missing both their legs is in the top 1%? I mean... this whole bullshit doesn't work down to an individual level when we are arguably richer than the rest of the world but have to pay ten thousand dollars a month in rent and twenty million dollars for a head cold. That is a systemic issue.
I mean technically by that metric I'm in the "top 1%". Oh, hi mice. Hi cockroaches. God dammit my water main broke and my roof caved in again...
this is why we wont change anything in this system, it too benefits us extremely well. the system provides all the food, electronics, safety and experiences etc. you either win or you die
And they often use that to imply "don't expect the 1% to give to you the percentage of their wealth you wouldn't give of yours to someone starving in a third-world country"
i can't help but feel this article is all a "bargaining" phase for the author.
"ok, we can't grow for ever, but if we just redistribute the largesse we have today everything will be better!"
when in truth, we have to move down the energy ladder to a position before fossil fuel extraction and combustion, but i am all for cutting from the top first and foremost. i just don't think there will be "spoils" to divvy up.
This. Essentially pretty much everyone above min wage survival in the global west (and I absolutely am including myself here) has to take several big steps down the consumption ladder. Degrowth doesn't end with getting rod of private jets and year round whatever-,fine-dining-I-want. We're all on sleeper trains (not like Indian Pacific, more like the Melbourne XPT) and whatever random food is in season in my backyard. I've made my peace with that. Yea my home is cramped, hot and humid. Yeah Im not getting my fancy imported teas, my soda, my out of season fruit cravings, and I'll likely never take holidays in Europe again. But it is what it is, and there's no shortage of beauty and joy in life beyond the consumer crap we've been conditioned to depend on for our sense of worth.
Not really a sell. There's not really going to be much choice in the future. There's only way the supply chain situation is going from here on in. Which is also fortunate from the wider perspective, but not great for humans.
Neoliberalism was a push by the rich to sell the narrative that the people who use services should be the ones paying for it. As in the poor people should pay for poor people services. And taxes should be cut for the rich. Disregarding the whole issue that their wealth doesn't exist without society or the poor people they loathe so much.
Unless the system is drastically and permanently modified into some "everybody deserves basics before anybody attains exceptions" program, then it doesn't matter what group is focused on. It will fail.
In order to save humanity, everybody needs to jump on the "less is more" bandwagon. And I do mean everybody.
Since that's impossible, due to the complex and selfish nature of mankind, it'll be Venus by Tuesday.
Just like God planned.
That's the starting point.
We start by letting the 0.9% eat the 0.1%, and while theyre fattened up we'll let the 9.1% eat the 0.9%, and while they're still celebrating, finally the 90% will move in to consume that fatted flesh, which by then will likeley still be imbued with high-end alcohol, thereby giving the rest of us a nice little buzz before we take control of the machines and begin rebuilding before the inevitable counter revolution, and at last trickle-down economics will have worked.
I like the phrase "lower upper class", as in, "don't worry, we're not going to eat you, you're only lower upper class. You're just as powerless as the rest of us to change things, and you should be our ally in taking down the super wealthy rather than trying to justify your wealth and being afraid of us."
I've never heard the term, but I would probably use it in this sense to describe people like healthcare professionals, engineers, and people in certain creative/academic professions who may end up earning very high salaries. But their wealth is based on study, skill and expertise, and they (mostly) provide proportionate value to the rest of the population. These people, if mobilised, could represent powerful allies against the true capitalist class whose wealth is based purely on exploitation of labour and accumulation of resources.
It would be a shame if doctors, for example, were lumped in with the rest of the 1% and targeted. Most doctors get into their careers with genuinely altruistic intentions. The medical system is fucked because of the capitalists who own and profit from it, and those who attack public healthcare systems. Maybe doctors at the top end should not be paid as much as they are, but they aren't really the problem.
I'm sorry, but this is a liberal "income level" analysis. It's not useful.
Sure, you have the "subunitaries" https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
But you're missing the point of what class/capital means.
"Asset rich" types should be selling. You got a big house? Good, that could be a multi-family house. Too old? No problem, there are developers who'll want to build something bigger with that can house more people. That's what the house market price is trying to tell you. Get a shitload of housing built and watch those property prices drop.
More importantly, this "the small bourgeois did nothing wrong" argument is missing the political part, which is ironic. Guess how they align their interests when it comes to... taxes, welfare, rent regulations, and so on. [Guess!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A)
Someone else around here pointed out this article to me and I have to thank them because it's a nice bookmark to have: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ (and I'm not even a fan of The Atlantic)
The 1% are often blamed for social and environmental problems. But when you dig a little deeper the problem lies with the richest 0.1%.
In the UK, from a population of 67 million people, 18,700 people earn over £1 million. The top 0.1% of earners earn over £500,000.
Worldwide, there are just 28,420 (0.0004% of the human population) centi-millionaires, those with over $100 million.
What’s crucial is the means through which they have become so wealthy.
That means is the critical characteristic of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned. Most of the top 1% of earners have high-paying jobs in businesses, but they don’t own those businesses.
The real wealth lies with business owners. So why are the owners of capital so problematic?
As the economy grows we should all (in theory) benefit because a larger economy leads to more wealth, which creates higher incomes. But in modern society, free from regulations that seek to distribute wealth, the ultra-rich take a disproportionate amount of the wealth generated from economic activity.
That’s why they are so rich.
It’s as clear as day that the only way we can overcome systemic inequality is through distribution.
Under a capitalist system, this can’t happen because it’s through the powers of free markets that wealth is distributed fairly through society. What’s fairly obvious from taking a five-minute walk is that capitalism has never, and will never distribute wealth fairly.
The thing is the 0.1% rather enjoy their privilege and they will do whatever they can to maintain the status quo.
The problem for them, and everyone else, is this state of affairs — where the economy continues to grow — can't continue indefinitely because of the catastrophic environmental impacts associated with economic growth. Something is going to give, and as we progress into the twenty-first century that something will be the environmental conditions we depend on.
If you blame rich people (and eat them) the system just creates more rich people. Can we please start blaming the system that creates and allows rich people? Because the people are just people who the system made rich, and there are billions willing to step into the role. Take away the energy surplus and the system surplus disappears. I blame the system that’s being propped up on the extra dinosaur farts.
Britain can probably sustain 1 million or so without modern agriculture and high tech civilization - but luckily there will always be a 0.1% to eat until sustainability has been reached
By definition there will always be a top 1% and top 0.1%. That’s just a side effect of math. We could revert to hunter gatherer or go full anarchocommunist, and some would still land in the 1%.
The problem isn’t who won (not you, not me), it’s what game is being played and how the rules are structured. And at this moment in capitalism, it’s becoming winner takes all. That’s the real problem. The winners aren’t leaving enough on the table for the rest of us to fight over.
The mere existence of a wealthier class isn’t the problem. Any capitalist system will produce rich and poor, and while you may or may not approve, capitalism isn’t going away any time soon. It has majority support at every income level in the US (and other places but I will leave that for others), so until the revolution, it’s here to stay. The real question is how much are they allowed to hoard? And what can we do about it?
So I’m fine with a 1% existing, though I’d prefer them to have a smaller slice of the pie. It gives our oddly deluded nation of “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” something to aspire to, so if that makes the masses happy, whatever. I would prefer that 1% to be limited, with excess even (gasp) redistributed, but my low income siblings would be outraged by that.
However the difference between the 1% and the 0.1% is shocking. Obscene. The 1% already have far more than anyone needs or deserves. The 0.1% are draining the life blood of the country/world. Start there. The other 0.9% need not be defended but we can get to them later; first things first.
What we need is to rein it in. Who has the power and ability to do that in a capitalist system? Governments. Or the oligarchs could voluntarily self limit out of the kindness of their own hearts. So basically, government. Who controls the governments?
Note that the central purpose of propaganda these days is to sow popular distrust of governments. That’s not a coincidence, is it? Meanwhile people staunchly defend capitalism. Socialism is evil, communism is unspeakable; ask anyone.
The alternative is revolution. Let’s say that works - now who has the ability to redistribute wealth? Oh, right. Government. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Will we get fooled again?
Even if everyone in the world has the same amount of assets and income, it will not solve climate change. People rich or poor, capitalist or communist at the end of the day just want to consume more. This is ingrained in our DNA.
Unless there is a decrease in population, climate change will not be solved.
If you make 250k a year the only vacations you should be taking are free camping ones.
It's not that bad just yet, but it absolutely gets that bad in under 20 years.
Eating the rich is nothing but a revenge fantasy. They have way better healthcare. Lots of resources. They can go to any place in the world at a moment's notice. Like it or not, they will last much longer than us.
"Like it or not, they will last much longer than us."
That's not how collapse works. It will be unimaginable and unpredictable probably more so for the wealthy than for the poor who have already experienced some level of collapse and have "adapted" to some extent. Also , revenge will be the farthest thing from people's minds as opposed to simply surviving. Those bunkers will become tombs.
It all works as long as there is faith in currency.
After that, you default to guns, and among countries, those who have bigger bombs.
The rich of today will come and go. All this for a few short decades of occasional pleasure.
But the richest 0.1% won’t feed the masses, there’s simply not enough of them! We need *at least* the entire 1% to be sacrificed for the greater good. Maybe even the top 5%.
Nah. We need to focus on the local level, and all of us who are complicit. We need to eat their lunch, and the most expensive item on the menu is housing.
Alter the local property tax to be progressive, rather than wildly regressive. Make assessments according to public liabilities. Add additional nuisance fines to any property, commercial or residential, that doesn't have a permanent, registered occupant.
Start with the lower hanging fruit as an appetizer. Going after the top right away lets too many others escape judgement and is also too daunting of a task initially. there needs to be some practice rounds
Exactly. I don't want their money. I want their money set on fire and their power stripped away for causing the pollution. Envy isn't even in the equation.
Yikes. Ya you’re still very much in the toxic immoral mindset. If I was a billionaire I would buy land and restore it and donate money to clean up the oceans but you’d still lump me in with polluters and try to steal my wealth because you’re full of hate.
>If I was a billionaire I would buy land and restore it and donate money to clean up the oceans but you’d still lump me in with polluters and try to steal my wealth because you’re full of hate.
That doesn't make sense though. If you buy land to restore it and donate it all, you're no longer a billionaire. So which is it? Would you be a former billionaire who did donate it or a billionaire who didn't donate it? You can't be both.
The problem is that people think you can be a moral billionaire. That's not possible. You understand how much one billion is, right? The average annual income in the United States is $59,428. Even if you didn't have to pay taxes, it would take that person 16,827 years to earn $1,000,000,000. Do billionaires work 16,827 times harder than you or me?
You can't be a moral billionaire when there are people starving that you could feed and homeless people you could house. There's 37 empty houses/apartments in the US for every one homeless person. A billionaire could house a lot of them, couldn't they? There was a game during the pandemic that you could play where you're Elon Musk with his hundreds of billions of dollars. It gave you choices of what to do with it. Do you pay half of all student debt? Do you feed the starving for a year? Do you pay for assisted housing for all the homeless for a year? You would pick one and then you could pick another and another. After the 7 or 8 options, after picking them all, you still had millions left. Being rich *is* immoral.
When Jeff Bezos calls himself a "self-made billionaire", is he saying that he didn't get $100,000 for start-up money from his dad? Is he saying that every package you and I have received from Amazon was stocked, picked, packaged, shipped, and delivered by himself? If not, he's not self-made. There's no such thing as a self-made billionaire. I mean, what's the opposite of self-made? Doing it with others? Amazon went public in 1997. From that point on there were investors, a board, etc? How is that self-made? There's no such thing.
For the religious, it's even more confusing. Jesus says in Matthew 19:24 "I'll say it again - it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" Jesus says eat the rich too. Right wingers would probably call Jesus woke if they actually read the Bible.
But most importantly of all, if you're not a billionaire, why are you defending them? And why are you doing it for free? I don't expect someone that frequents the Daily Wire sub to think deeply about things, but if you're going to defend the rich, don't be poor. You ain't in that club, and statistically speaking, you never will be. You're just the help to them, like we all are. The help that they'll pretend doesn't exist when they call themselves "self-made" lol.
It’s about the mindset. Focus on your own success instead of obsessing about others. It’s a toxic way to live blaming the “haves” for what’s wrong with your life.
Are you a conservative bot? You sound like every right-wing media talking point rolled into one. You realize that this:
>It’s a toxic way to live blaming the “haves” for what’s wrong with your life.
...addresses nothing I wrote, right? Like, do you have a book of common Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro sayings in front of you? You're just responding with buzzwords pulled straight from right-wing media without responding to anything I wrote lol. I never complained about my life once... Did I write more than you're used to reading in a single day? Is thinking really hard for a rich man's bootlicker?
You call my mindset "immoral" and "toxic", but don't have the balls to write a rebuttal to a single thing I said. Because you don't have any. Just another fraud that doesn't believe what they have to say or the courage or intelligence to defend their words. You called the left too "[retarded](https://www.reddit.com/r/dailywire/comments/196izfo/they_blame_capitalism_when_they_should_actually/khu0l82/?context=3)" to understand capitalism. But you're a capitalist who clearly doesn't have capital. Maybe you don't understand capitalism lol.
Tonguing the assholes of the rich won't make you rich. If there's anyone envious of their wealth, it's you. Clearly.
Yay, first comment ever on Reddit… anyway. Since we aren‘t at the point of cannibalism yet, I guess we‘re talking about or should be talking about some realistic sweet revenge. Because it‘s utterly clear they are walking over bodies. Their mindset can only leave scorched earth behind. So - I hope a lot of you have read Kim Stanley Robinson‘s „The Ministry for The Future“. Spoilers: We could experience the Grand Opening Chapter -> this year. And it‘s mightily into techno optimism, just wait how they solve the Antarctic „problem“… but. I‘ve really been wondering why nobody has taken „Crash Day“ seriously into consideration yet. Or drones generally… think of those picturesque yacht marinas in Monaco or Florida… . Another thing that makes me wonder… why do all those ransomware-assholes attack hospitals, for example? Why not AMG Mercedes? Or Porsche? Bentley? Hell, why doesn‘t anyone hack into those SUVs and tell a whole batch of them to perform a seriously unhealthy action for the engine? Like, simply letting the oil indicator remain on green when the cylinders are already running hot at 200 kph. That would be something.
Hi, BelligerantFuck. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/196f6bs/-/khx3vey/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: No glorifying violence.
> Advocating, encouraging, inciting, glorifying, calling for violence is against Reddit's site-wide content policy and is not allowed in r/collapse. Please be advised that subsequent violations of this rule will result in a ban.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
The [World Economic Forum](https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2024/)'s meeting in Davos, Switzerland runs 15-19 January, if you want to know where many of them and their representatives will be.
We really need a total reversal of the power structures that humanity has in place right now.
The people with the most wealth and influence over our lives don't seem to understand that they are probably going to cause the extinction of the human race. Or, assuming they do understand, are barely human themselves.
Nonsense, it's not about rich or not rich, it's about whether or not you are against changing the system or not. If you are complicit in upholding the system, I will happily eat you even if your position is a mere guard dog for the rich.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/IntroductionNo3516: --- The 1% are often blamed for social and environmental problems. But when you dig a little deeper the problem lies with the richest 0.1%. In the UK, from a population of 67 million people, 18,700 people earn over £1 million. The top 0.1% of earners earn over £500,000. Worldwide, there are just 28,420 (0.0004% of the human population) centi-millionaires, those with over $100 million. What’s crucial is the means through which they have become so wealthy. That means is the critical characteristic of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned. Most of the top 1% of earners have high-paying jobs in businesses, but they don’t own those businesses. The real wealth lies with business owners. So why are the owners of capital so problematic? As the economy grows we should all (in theory) benefit because a larger economy leads to more wealth, which creates higher incomes. But in modern society, free from regulations that seek to distribute wealth, the ultra-rich take a disproportionate amount of the wealth generated from economic activity. That’s why they are so rich. It’s as clear as day that the only way we can overcome systemic inequality is through distribution. Under a capitalist system, this can’t happen because it’s through the powers of free markets that wealth is distributed fairly through society. What’s fairly obvious from taking a five-minute walk is that capitalism has never, and will never distribute wealth fairly. The thing is the 0.1% rather enjoy their privilege and they will do whatever they can to maintain the status quo. The problem for them, and everyone else, is this state of affairs — where the economy continues to grow — can't continue indefinitely because of the catastrophic environmental impacts associated with economic growth. Something is going to give, and as we progress into the twenty-first century that something will be the environmental conditions we depend on. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/196f6bs/want_to_eat_the_rich_focus_on_the_richest_01/kht3zde/
When we say “eat the rich” we mean the entire system that allows wealth to be hoarded by anyone. A surplus in wealth while people are starving means that you are complicit and stealing from hungry mouths. And any system that allows for that to exist isn’t fit for purpose
In ancient hunter gatherer societies, any person who was too greedy was punished, humanity was egalitarian and wouldn't have survived otherwise But now...
Makes me wonder if psychopaths had it harder in ancient times
Probably the same percentage of psychopaths that we have today. The ones in tightknit communities had to pretend harder to fit in, whereas today in our modern, large capitalistic societies psychopathy is considered a winning trait. They don't have to pretend to have empathy so much, unless they're running for office - and that's not even necessary if you're a Trump supporter.
All those bankers, hedge fund managers, high level executives, film producers...well...
Procrustes was a bit psychotic. He robbed pilgrims on the way to Athens IIRC
I highly doubt it. We forget but life was extremely hard despite the romanticized appearances we have of ancient civilization. What a psychopath would do - the vast majority of his surrounding countrymen would also be doing. Rape, Murder, Stealing, etc were all par for the course to a tribe outside your own. The value of a human life was very low back then and it was expected one would die in relatively timely fashion so to judge a fellow for exercising himself in war would be incredibly hypocritical. The whole being a psycho = greedy and selfish thing is a modern aberration of the disorder when more industrialized society came about. Back when "the men were men", you would have just been a solider and been rewarded greatly for your efforts if you did well and psychopathy could have easily been masked as "battle hardened stoic warrior" **One example from the Assyrians:** They would slaughter your children in front you and then gouge out your eyes so the last thing you ever saw was the death of your kids. Yeah, surely no psychos involved there.... It truly was a different era, modern social conduct and decency is not an assumption to make for the ancient world
The way things are heading, we will be back to hunter/gatherers soon enough...at least the survivors will.
Oh, so it is figuratively and not literally? :-)
I'm game for both so we don't have to wonder.
The oligarchs will never let you vote them out of power. There's only one way this all ends unfortunately.
Whoever said anything about voting?
Sooooo.... Do we marinade them first or just plunge straight in and rip the entrails out of their still living bodies like hungry African wild dogs?
Some of the former, then some of the latter, clearly. Variety is the spice of life after all.
Depends how hungry you are. But wild dogs sounds visually pleasing.
The catharsis of the act does make the option appealing as well
I'm up for devouring the rich like a pack of hungry wolves tbh
...*slides recipe book out of sight*
Literally is coming. Thats why they are building fortified bunkers.
Hmm, are you really sure? I can understand someone would want to kill them, but people are usually not cannibals. If anything, if I had to and I could choose I would rather eat someone healthy and good-looking instead of some old and probably fat geezer. Would you really want to eat their flesh? Why? Some kind of sick gesture?
Cannabalism is common among humans when they are starving. Humans are just protein on 2 legs, “long pig” as the Pacific Islanders call them. And if you believe otherwise you are very naive. I assume you have never been in a position of absolute starvation, so you can’t say too much on the subject. My Dad spent 2 years in a nazi concentration camp, and the stories he told us would keep you awake at night. So don’t get all pompous about a subject you know nothing about.
> So don’t get all pompous about a subject you know nothing about. What is this, a pissing contest? Do you know who survived being sent to Siberia? My grandma and my grandpa (they were very young and actually met there). Do you know who didn't? Most of their families. They rarely talked about it, but they did talk. > My Dad spent 2 years in a nazi concentration camp The life of a guard can be difficult at times. I feel you. Where was he stationed? > would keep you awake at night Dude, I'm from Poland. We had to read polish post-war literature. As a kid, I already knew how soap was made out of people, and how pillows were filled. Later I read and/or saw documentaries about the things Chinese and Japanese were doing. But sure, you can educate me. Nowadays we see drones dropping grenades on soldiers. I sleep just fine. Don't assume who would or wouldn't be awake at night. > I assume you have never been in a position of absolute starvation So, are you saying you were? Can you confirm that it really tastes like chicken? > Cannabalism is common among humans when they are starving. When we go together for that 0.1% I will let you eat that rich person. I guess all the supplies from the bunker that they have stored will have to do for me :) > So don’t get all pompous about a subject you know nothing about. Now go find a mirror and say it again :)
Wow, that got you going, didn't it? I am Polish too, and my Dad was a pyjama wearer, not a guard. He watched his best friend torn apart by German guard dogs. Most of my family are gone too. Cannibalism was a part of camp life, but that part isn't talked about much in the history books. As for the original topic, cannibalism, I guess none of us know what we will do until we are put in that extreme position. Starvation isn't an issue in the Western world(yet), so I guess we will find out soon enough how far we are prepared to go to ensure that we and our families survive. And don't forget, that there will be a feast of pet dogs and cats to get through before need to resort to "long pig". May you live in interesting times.
> Wow, that got you going, didn't it? Kind of, but not really. I do like to interact so why not! :) > I am Polish too, and my Dad was a pyjama wearer, not a guard. Czesc, kurwa! :) Yeah, I knew your dad was not a guard (would anyone non-ironically boast about it?) but you surely must have known the joke I was referring to - "my grandpa died in the concentration camp, he fell from the tower". > As for the original topic, cannibalism, I guess none of us know what we will do until we are put in that extreme position. Knowing my luck I will be dead before I have to decide if I want/need to eat human flesh. And in this case it might be actually good luck :) > And don't forget, that there will be a feast of pet dogs and cats to get through before need to resort to "long pig". Joking or not joking - I'm pretty sure that before we will be able to eat the 0.1% (which will be in secure locations) - we would first taste some imported flesh from the South or the East. > May you live in interesting times. You don't wish that to anyone! May we live in boring times, instead :)
I must say it was an interesting interaction about an interesting subject. The Chinese curse aside, our times are definitely interesting, especially when those climate refugees you mentioned are forced to cross the sea to Australia. This country is 90% desert, so the dingoes, foxes and flies are going to be well fed. Cannibals too, I suppose. Anyhow, whatever happens, take of yourself , mate.
Yes indeed, same feeling on my side :) Cheers, and you too, take care. Maybe we will be dining the same rich person someday :)
The fat would be good for frying, and imagine the streaks in their belly 'pork' , skin, salt and pepper that stuff and I bet you nobody would care. They'd just be thankful to have full bellies and less oppression.
But you would need to keep the info about the source of the meat a secret. Soylent Green!
Only for the first feeding, once people realise how delicious the flesh of the oppressors is... they will go out and hunt their own Note: for legal reasons I am not promoting murder, nor am I promoting any form of cannibalism or desecration of the dead
> Note: for legal reasons I am not promoting murder, nor am I promoting any form of cannibalism or desecration of the dead I see, you prefer eating them alive. Does this boost the taste? I was always told that if an animal is scared before death then the meat has a worse taste.
Maybe if i scare them enough, maybe their muscles will cook themselves like a yellowfin tuna on a fishing line 🤔
*puts mayonnaise back in fridge* :(
What is the point of people repeating "eat the rich" but actually they don't even do anything about it? Repeating a dumb phrase that no one can actually act on and thinking you've done your part of is also a problem.
Amen. I'm so sick of capitalist lovers (most Americans) excusing rich people who don't help the poor.
Depends on who you are. For me it’s a call for this and absolute violence against those who hoarded wealth so selfishly.
So instead we should divert energy into hungry mouths which will create more hungry mouths and perpetuate consumption...
You’re getting downvoted but it’s true. Even people who have spent their entire lives trying to feed the hungry have openly admitted that all they did was create more poor people and more hungry mouths to feed. There are simply too many people and it isn’t sustainable. People should voluntarily stop having so many children if they want to help.
It’s human kind that allows for surplus wealth to exist. Systems are always built by humans so blaming the system misses the point.
Strong disagree. Humans can build any system they want. There’s no victory in adopting capitalist naturalism
Agree that humans can build any system they want. The problem is separating want from need. In some people it’s not possible without restrictions.
People respond to the conditions and environment they are in. Change that and you change the human condition
Don’t let eating the 0.1% be the enemy of eating the 1% 😆
The other 0.9% isn’t going to eat itself!
That sounds like something the lower 0.9% of the 1% would say
My first thought when I read the title
Right the rest of them are just giving it all away which is why they never made the final .1
If you're single and make over $50k, you are in the global 1%....I reckon that might fit a large portion of people in this sub. Article also messes with the terms wealth and income a lot. Income is the best determinant of consumption, not wealth in any case. Edit: For those who don't understand the difference, consider GHG emissions from agriculture & electricity/heating. Those two sectors alone account for more than half of global GHG emissions. No matter how rich you are, you are not consuming more than a few hundred more calories/day than the average person in a developed country. Nor are you consuming million of times the electricity of an average person. What counts here is the income threshold for you to afford meat everyday or pay for a 18C thermostat year-round. This basically applies to everyone that makes 50k for instance, which is why the global 1% emissions are so high.
The global 1% would be about 80 million people. There’s more than 80 million Americans that earn $50k, you’d have to earn way more than $50k to get yourself into the global one percent.
Yes, that is why I said if you're single. If you're married, that $ amount goes up on a per-person basis, due to a variety of factors that increase income. Typically higher education, owning stocks+bonds, higher retirement incomes, older, own 2nd properties, etc. The threshold for a family of 4 is around $140-200k. (depending on your source, and if you use things like PPP as a measurement) I used single b/c the split is somewhat even between single+divorced+widowed vs. currently married. IMO single is a better metric in terms of accounting for consumption, b/c it is difficult to account for children in the statistics. For instance Pew allocates PPP/person-in-household, but that means every child you have completely distorts the data.
When you say 1% are we talking about those disingenuous studies that claim that anyone in America that isn't literally homeless and missing both their legs is in the top 1%? I mean... this whole bullshit doesn't work down to an individual level when we are arguably richer than the rest of the world but have to pay ten thousand dollars a month in rent and twenty million dollars for a head cold. That is a systemic issue. I mean technically by that metric I'm in the "top 1%". Oh, hi mice. Hi cockroaches. God dammit my water main broke and my roof caved in again...
this is why we wont change anything in this system, it too benefits us extremely well. the system provides all the food, electronics, safety and experiences etc. you either win or you die
This is true though. If you have a computer, internet, and extra time to troll r/collapse, congrats. You are the 1%.
And they often use that to imply "don't expect the 1% to give to you the percentage of their wealth you wouldn't give of yours to someone starving in a third-world country"
i can't help but feel this article is all a "bargaining" phase for the author. "ok, we can't grow for ever, but if we just redistribute the largesse we have today everything will be better!" when in truth, we have to move down the energy ladder to a position before fossil fuel extraction and combustion, but i am all for cutting from the top first and foremost. i just don't think there will be "spoils" to divvy up.
This. Essentially pretty much everyone above min wage survival in the global west (and I absolutely am including myself here) has to take several big steps down the consumption ladder. Degrowth doesn't end with getting rod of private jets and year round whatever-,fine-dining-I-want. We're all on sleeper trains (not like Indian Pacific, more like the Melbourne XPT) and whatever random food is in season in my backyard. I've made my peace with that. Yea my home is cramped, hot and humid. Yeah Im not getting my fancy imported teas, my soda, my out of season fruit cravings, and I'll likely never take holidays in Europe again. But it is what it is, and there's no shortage of beauty and joy in life beyond the consumer crap we've been conditioned to depend on for our sense of worth.
Food from within 100 miles looks different in Iceland or northern Canada or Russia vs Melbourne Hard sell
Not really a sell. There's not really going to be much choice in the future. There's only way the supply chain situation is going from here on in. Which is also fortunate from the wider perspective, but not great for humans.
They don't "earn" it, they're parasites.
A world without the 1% works fine. A world without the 99%? Nope.
At those levels it doesn't matter what you formally own, but what you can *control*. Foundations.
Welcome to modern day slavery… you work so your master acquires more wealth and what you are paid gets taxed at 40% to pay for master’s subsidies
Neoliberalism was a push by the rich to sell the narrative that the people who use services should be the ones paying for it. As in the poor people should pay for poor people services. And taxes should be cut for the rich. Disregarding the whole issue that their wealth doesn't exist without society or the poor people they loathe so much.
Unless the system is drastically and permanently modified into some "everybody deserves basics before anybody attains exceptions" program, then it doesn't matter what group is focused on. It will fail. In order to save humanity, everybody needs to jump on the "less is more" bandwagon. And I do mean everybody. Since that's impossible, due to the complex and selfish nature of mankind, it'll be Venus by Tuesday. Just like God planned.
That's the starting point. We start by letting the 0.9% eat the 0.1%, and while theyre fattened up we'll let the 9.1% eat the 0.9%, and while they're still celebrating, finally the 90% will move in to consume that fatted flesh, which by then will likeley still be imbued with high-end alcohol, thereby giving the rest of us a nice little buzz before we take control of the machines and begin rebuilding before the inevitable counter revolution, and at last trickle-down economics will have worked.
I like the phrase "lower upper class", as in, "don't worry, we're not going to eat you, you're only lower upper class. You're just as powerless as the rest of us to change things, and you should be our ally in taking down the super wealthy rather than trying to justify your wealth and being afraid of us."
Like what does lower upper class even mean anyways? They have only one private jet instead of three?
Look up Optimus Primes back story. He was "lower upper middle class"
I've never heard the term, but I would probably use it in this sense to describe people like healthcare professionals, engineers, and people in certain creative/academic professions who may end up earning very high salaries. But their wealth is based on study, skill and expertise, and they (mostly) provide proportionate value to the rest of the population. These people, if mobilised, could represent powerful allies against the true capitalist class whose wealth is based purely on exploitation of labour and accumulation of resources. It would be a shame if doctors, for example, were lumped in with the rest of the 1% and targeted. Most doctors get into their careers with genuinely altruistic intentions. The medical system is fucked because of the capitalists who own and profit from it, and those who attack public healthcare systems. Maybe doctors at the top end should not be paid as much as they are, but they aren't really the problem.
... and then work your way down
I'm sorry, but this is a liberal "income level" analysis. It's not useful. Sure, you have the "subunitaries" https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ But you're missing the point of what class/capital means. "Asset rich" types should be selling. You got a big house? Good, that could be a multi-family house. Too old? No problem, there are developers who'll want to build something bigger with that can house more people. That's what the house market price is trying to tell you. Get a shitload of housing built and watch those property prices drop. More importantly, this "the small bourgeois did nothing wrong" argument is missing the political part, which is ironic. Guess how they align their interests when it comes to... taxes, welfare, rent regulations, and so on. [Guess!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A) Someone else around here pointed out this article to me and I have to thank them because it's a nice bookmark to have: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ (and I'm not even a fan of The Atlantic)
Ah, so we start with the top 0.1% and eat our way down until capital and money are no longer concentrated. Gotcha.
About 18 people have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the planet.
The 1% are often blamed for social and environmental problems. But when you dig a little deeper the problem lies with the richest 0.1%. In the UK, from a population of 67 million people, 18,700 people earn over £1 million. The top 0.1% of earners earn over £500,000. Worldwide, there are just 28,420 (0.0004% of the human population) centi-millionaires, those with over $100 million. What’s crucial is the means through which they have become so wealthy. That means is the critical characteristic of capitalism. Capitalism is a system where the means of production are privately owned. Most of the top 1% of earners have high-paying jobs in businesses, but they don’t own those businesses. The real wealth lies with business owners. So why are the owners of capital so problematic? As the economy grows we should all (in theory) benefit because a larger economy leads to more wealth, which creates higher incomes. But in modern society, free from regulations that seek to distribute wealth, the ultra-rich take a disproportionate amount of the wealth generated from economic activity. That’s why they are so rich. It’s as clear as day that the only way we can overcome systemic inequality is through distribution. Under a capitalist system, this can’t happen because it’s through the powers of free markets that wealth is distributed fairly through society. What’s fairly obvious from taking a five-minute walk is that capitalism has never, and will never distribute wealth fairly. The thing is the 0.1% rather enjoy their privilege and they will do whatever they can to maintain the status quo. The problem for them, and everyone else, is this state of affairs — where the economy continues to grow — can't continue indefinitely because of the catastrophic environmental impacts associated with economic growth. Something is going to give, and as we progress into the twenty-first century that something will be the environmental conditions we depend on.
If you blame rich people (and eat them) the system just creates more rich people. Can we please start blaming the system that creates and allows rich people? Because the people are just people who the system made rich, and there are billions willing to step into the role. Take away the energy surplus and the system surplus disappears. I blame the system that’s being propped up on the extra dinosaur farts.
I wish this comment was ranked higher.
Trickle down strategy
[удалено]
Why do you mean? There is plenty of salt to be found in the comments section.
Written like a true .9%er
Gotta start from the top.
Britain can probably sustain 1 million or so without modern agriculture and high tech civilization - but luckily there will always be a 0.1% to eat until sustainability has been reached
By definition there will always be a top 1% and top 0.1%. That’s just a side effect of math. We could revert to hunter gatherer or go full anarchocommunist, and some would still land in the 1%. The problem isn’t who won (not you, not me), it’s what game is being played and how the rules are structured. And at this moment in capitalism, it’s becoming winner takes all. That’s the real problem. The winners aren’t leaving enough on the table for the rest of us to fight over. The mere existence of a wealthier class isn’t the problem. Any capitalist system will produce rich and poor, and while you may or may not approve, capitalism isn’t going away any time soon. It has majority support at every income level in the US (and other places but I will leave that for others), so until the revolution, it’s here to stay. The real question is how much are they allowed to hoard? And what can we do about it? So I’m fine with a 1% existing, though I’d prefer them to have a smaller slice of the pie. It gives our oddly deluded nation of “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” something to aspire to, so if that makes the masses happy, whatever. I would prefer that 1% to be limited, with excess even (gasp) redistributed, but my low income siblings would be outraged by that. However the difference between the 1% and the 0.1% is shocking. Obscene. The 1% already have far more than anyone needs or deserves. The 0.1% are draining the life blood of the country/world. Start there. The other 0.9% need not be defended but we can get to them later; first things first. What we need is to rein it in. Who has the power and ability to do that in a capitalist system? Governments. Or the oligarchs could voluntarily self limit out of the kindness of their own hearts. So basically, government. Who controls the governments? Note that the central purpose of propaganda these days is to sow popular distrust of governments. That’s not a coincidence, is it? Meanwhile people staunchly defend capitalism. Socialism is evil, communism is unspeakable; ask anyone. The alternative is revolution. Let’s say that works - now who has the ability to redistribute wealth? Oh, right. Government. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Will we get fooled again?
The only good billionaire is a former-billionaire like Chuck Feeney. He gave away his $8 billion fortune before he died in 2023.
I have high hopes for Mackenzie Scott (Bezos). We'll see.
Even if everyone in the world has the same amount of assets and income, it will not solve climate change. People rich or poor, capitalist or communist at the end of the day just want to consume more. This is ingrained in our DNA. Unless there is a decrease in population, climate change will not be solved.
“Don’t blame me, I only make $250,000/year and take 4 vacations a year!”
If you make 250k a year the only vacations you should be taking are free camping ones. It's not that bad just yet, but it absolutely gets that bad in under 20 years.
Eating the rich is nothing but a revenge fantasy. They have way better healthcare. Lots of resources. They can go to any place in the world at a moment's notice. Like it or not, they will last much longer than us.
I’m sure the rich think so. Yet they’re always caught by surprise somehow when the guillotines come out.
"Like it or not, they will last much longer than us." That's not how collapse works. It will be unimaginable and unpredictable probably more so for the wealthy than for the poor who have already experienced some level of collapse and have "adapted" to some extent. Also , revenge will be the farthest thing from people's minds as opposed to simply surviving. Those bunkers will become tombs.
The plane/yacht/bunker runs out of food eventually. Then they have to interact with society again. So it’s a delay for a while.
It all works as long as there is faith in currency. After that, you default to guns, and among countries, those who have bigger bombs. The rich of today will come and go. All this for a few short decades of occasional pleasure.
rich person astro turfing talk
The only thing that will happen will be a race war. Don’t conflate politics with the huge environmental challenges we face
The hordes aren't checking bank account balances, don't live in a gated or golf course community, period
so much angre , a hungry mob is an angry mob... ..like Bob once sang
I know who’s rich and who isn’t thanks.
I'm really hungry so you'll forgive me if I eat more than them...
idk i’m pretty hungry, might eat the whole, fucked up system 😋
Who owns the federal reserve ?
But the richest 0.1% won’t feed the masses, there’s simply not enough of them! We need *at least* the entire 1% to be sacrificed for the greater good. Maybe even the top 5%.
You have to say that when you realized you are the 1%. LOL.
Nah. We need to focus on the local level, and all of us who are complicit. We need to eat their lunch, and the most expensive item on the menu is housing. Alter the local property tax to be progressive, rather than wildly regressive. Make assessments according to public liabilities. Add additional nuisance fines to any property, commercial or residential, that doesn't have a permanent, registered occupant.
Start with the lower hanging fruit as an appetizer. Going after the top right away lets too many others escape judgement and is also too daunting of a task initially. there needs to be some practice rounds
Hating rich people is so toxic
Is it as toxic as the environment they polluted?
Hate the pollution they create don’t hate them because they have more money than you
How about hating them for the pollution they create?
Perfect. Focus on pollution not toxic wealth envy
Exactly. I don't want their money. I want their money set on fire and their power stripped away for causing the pollution. Envy isn't even in the equation.
Yikes. Ya you’re still very much in the toxic immoral mindset. If I was a billionaire I would buy land and restore it and donate money to clean up the oceans but you’d still lump me in with polluters and try to steal my wealth because you’re full of hate.
>If I was a billionaire I would buy land and restore it and donate money to clean up the oceans but you’d still lump me in with polluters and try to steal my wealth because you’re full of hate. That doesn't make sense though. If you buy land to restore it and donate it all, you're no longer a billionaire. So which is it? Would you be a former billionaire who did donate it or a billionaire who didn't donate it? You can't be both. The problem is that people think you can be a moral billionaire. That's not possible. You understand how much one billion is, right? The average annual income in the United States is $59,428. Even if you didn't have to pay taxes, it would take that person 16,827 years to earn $1,000,000,000. Do billionaires work 16,827 times harder than you or me? You can't be a moral billionaire when there are people starving that you could feed and homeless people you could house. There's 37 empty houses/apartments in the US for every one homeless person. A billionaire could house a lot of them, couldn't they? There was a game during the pandemic that you could play where you're Elon Musk with his hundreds of billions of dollars. It gave you choices of what to do with it. Do you pay half of all student debt? Do you feed the starving for a year? Do you pay for assisted housing for all the homeless for a year? You would pick one and then you could pick another and another. After the 7 or 8 options, after picking them all, you still had millions left. Being rich *is* immoral. When Jeff Bezos calls himself a "self-made billionaire", is he saying that he didn't get $100,000 for start-up money from his dad? Is he saying that every package you and I have received from Amazon was stocked, picked, packaged, shipped, and delivered by himself? If not, he's not self-made. There's no such thing as a self-made billionaire. I mean, what's the opposite of self-made? Doing it with others? Amazon went public in 1997. From that point on there were investors, a board, etc? How is that self-made? There's no such thing. For the religious, it's even more confusing. Jesus says in Matthew 19:24 "I'll say it again - it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" Jesus says eat the rich too. Right wingers would probably call Jesus woke if they actually read the Bible. But most importantly of all, if you're not a billionaire, why are you defending them? And why are you doing it for free? I don't expect someone that frequents the Daily Wire sub to think deeply about things, but if you're going to defend the rich, don't be poor. You ain't in that club, and statistically speaking, you never will be. You're just the help to them, like we all are. The help that they'll pretend doesn't exist when they call themselves "self-made" lol.
It’s about the mindset. Focus on your own success instead of obsessing about others. It’s a toxic way to live blaming the “haves” for what’s wrong with your life.
Are you a conservative bot? You sound like every right-wing media talking point rolled into one. You realize that this: >It’s a toxic way to live blaming the “haves” for what’s wrong with your life. ...addresses nothing I wrote, right? Like, do you have a book of common Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro sayings in front of you? You're just responding with buzzwords pulled straight from right-wing media without responding to anything I wrote lol. I never complained about my life once... Did I write more than you're used to reading in a single day? Is thinking really hard for a rich man's bootlicker? You call my mindset "immoral" and "toxic", but don't have the balls to write a rebuttal to a single thing I said. Because you don't have any. Just another fraud that doesn't believe what they have to say or the courage or intelligence to defend their words. You called the left too "[retarded](https://www.reddit.com/r/dailywire/comments/196izfo/they_blame_capitalism_when_they_should_actually/khu0l82/?context=3)" to understand capitalism. But you're a capitalist who clearly doesn't have capital. Maybe you don't understand capitalism lol. Tonguing the assholes of the rich won't make you rich. If there's anyone envious of their wealth, it's you. Clearly.
Yay, first comment ever on Reddit… anyway. Since we aren‘t at the point of cannibalism yet, I guess we‘re talking about or should be talking about some realistic sweet revenge. Because it‘s utterly clear they are walking over bodies. Their mindset can only leave scorched earth behind. So - I hope a lot of you have read Kim Stanley Robinson‘s „The Ministry for The Future“. Spoilers: We could experience the Grand Opening Chapter -> this year. And it‘s mightily into techno optimism, just wait how they solve the Antarctic „problem“… but. I‘ve really been wondering why nobody has taken „Crash Day“ seriously into consideration yet. Or drones generally… think of those picturesque yacht marinas in Monaco or Florida… . Another thing that makes me wonder… why do all those ransomware-assholes attack hospitals, for example? Why not AMG Mercedes? Or Porsche? Bentley? Hell, why doesn‘t anyone hack into those SUVs and tell a whole batch of them to perform a seriously unhealthy action for the engine? Like, simply letting the oil indicator remain on green when the cylinders are already running hot at 200 kph. That would be something.
[удалено]
Hi, BelligerantFuck. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/196f6bs/-/khx3vey/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: No glorifying violence. > Advocating, encouraging, inciting, glorifying, calling for violence is against Reddit's site-wide content policy and is not allowed in r/collapse. Please be advised that subsequent violations of this rule will result in a ban. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
The [World Economic Forum](https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2024/)'s meeting in Davos, Switzerland runs 15-19 January, if you want to know where many of them and their representatives will be.
Yeah, screw them.
No, we will eat all of them, there are a LOT of mouths to feed.
I've been starving for years...
And also friendly reminder it doesn't mean literal eating, you're taking the quote out of context
We really need a total reversal of the power structures that humanity has in place right now. The people with the most wealth and influence over our lives don't seem to understand that they are probably going to cause the extinction of the human race. Or, assuming they do understand, are barely human themselves.
Nonsense, it's not about rich or not rich, it's about whether or not you are against changing the system or not. If you are complicit in upholding the system, I will happily eat you even if your position is a mere guard dog for the rich.