this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
528 points (99.8% liked)

politics

25936 readers
2219 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 81 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Capitalism is a system that rewards people for antisocial behavior. 20,000 years ago, people engaging in antisocial behavior would have been thrown out of the tribe (or executed) for their selfishness and greed, but today they rule.

We can try to use the power of the state to reign them in and keep them under control, but it's a never-ending struggle. They will try to seize state control, to remove any systems that seek to moderate them. They believe that they are superior human beings, super human even. In their minds, their wealth proves their superiority. They have even convinced large numbers of us that they must be unrestricted, free to pursue maximum profits, otherwise modern civilization will collapse.

Maybe they're right. Maybe capitalism can't survive without sociopaths pursuing profits with relatively few restrictions. All the more reason to abolish capitalism, in my opinion, even if that means returning to a more communal existence.

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think you have a pretty romanticized idea about how society was run 20.000 years ago

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

According to "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow, if one were in the Americas, it could have been pretty okay. Depending on the tribe, a selfish person could have been exiled and many people's competed to be generous.

Rousseau and the European Enlightenment struggling against the weight of the Catholic Church, may have presented an overly negative view on life long ago. (Source is also "The Dawn of Everything".)

[–] troglodyke@lemmy.federate.cc 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Anyone talking about society 20,000 years ago is bullshitting. We have no records for how these societies operated anything but a superficial level.

This is Jordan Peterson and Evelutionary Psychology levels of scientific rigor.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago

No written records, but "we" have found bones and pottery.
But yes, it is all extremely unclear and one should not draw many conclusions or generalities from those.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How am I romanticizing the stone ages? By pointing out that members of the tribe who acted selfishly were often executed (and sometimes tortured)? Is that idea a romantic one, in your mind?

Selfishness wasn't so harshly punished back then because stone age people were noble savages, who were just more righteous than we are today. No, selfishness was so harshly and violently punished (even if the sentence was banishment, that was often a death sentence) because selfish people were a threat to the survival of the tribe, and thus a threat to the survival of every member of the tribe.

[–] troglodyke@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

7000 years ago 95% of the male population died off. Based on our discovery of mass graves showing violent deaths from this time, the most likely explanation is that there was a globe spanning slaughter of people - prehistoric people were people too, they had the same flaws that we do now

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

the most likely explanation is that there was a globe spanning slaughter of people

Last I read, they think it was due to waring between patrilineal tribes. I never argued that there wasn't waring between tribes, only that too much selfishness and greed was not tolerated within the tribe.

prehistoric people were people too, they had the same flaws that we do now

Where did I say otherwise? I would like to point out that wars and mass slaughter did not stop with either the agricultural or industrial revolutions. I am not necessarily offering a solution to war and violence, I am simply pointing out that we evolved to live in tribes. We are tribal, and highly social by our nature. Capitalism is a very antisocial, individualist system. It rewards greed and selfishness and leads to inequality, which breaks down social cohesion. For that, and many other reasons, I think it is unsustainable.

[–] couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Well for starters, the suggestion that everyone was part of the same tribe. If tribes had differences with eachother, how do you think that played out

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Also we still have something like 2-4% psychopaths in out gene pools. So they at least lived long enough to reproduce.

I wonder what and when the historical low % of them was.

[–] troglodyke@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 2 months ago

The most likely explanation for why 95% of the male population died around 5000BC is because of a mass breakout of war, people forget that prehistory had the same humans that we have today

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 58 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Disappointed to see Jacobin taking the threat of the wealthy leaving seriously...

It's fucking New York, raise property tax and raise it more for any person (or corporation without a majority of owners) that lives outside of New York.

Stop fucking acting like we can't do shit, because the wealthy might retaliate. They haven't stopped the class war, they're fighting as hard as possible and willing to cross any line.

Anyone saying we can't fight back because they might retaliate is ignorant of the entire history of America. They're already doing everything they can to fuck us over.

If the wealthy say they'll leave because of progressive the response should be only:

K

And then go back to talking about progressive policy to voters.

Don't let them stop what's working by changing the subject.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The thing about the rich leaving is.... It doesn't matter if they do. What actual work do they do to produce the profits? Absolutely fuck all.

Imagine for a moment that all billionaires suddenly left the county. They'd effectively be abandoning their properties, which so long as progressive policies are in place, wouldn't create a power vacuum where another rich asshole steps in and does the same or worse than the last one.

WE are the producers. Implement progressive policy, make work more fair and everyone except the leaches (ownership leaches, not the disabled) benefit.

Again, as you stated, progressive policy is the way to first, make the leaches leave, but also make the leaving not further destructive to society as a whole.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

They’d effectively be abandoning their properties,

They wouldn't...

They can't take a fucking skyscraper with them, and they still pay property tax where it's at.

That's why I'm saying if you wanted to keep them, you'd drastically raise property tax, with a reduction for states residents. Especially when talking housing, that would be huge.

A homestead taxed at 5% or an investment property at 25% means investment firms aren't just going to stop buying, they'll start selling. Which would solve but at least alleviate the housing crisis.

Like, specifically NYC, they're in a weird situation they want to reduce the price of real estate. It can't happen too fast tho or it 08 all over again.

But the best thing to reduce real estate prices, is taxing the fuck out of investment properties. Maybe throw a multi-year plan out there so it gets more and more painful every year. That way it's not a fire sale all at once.

We have plenty of options, we just need to elect politicians willing to use them

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Right. Rich people leaving New York is a feature, not a bug. It’s not like they pay taxes and any “investment” they do is extractive (eg landlords).

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The article ends with

This is not the arrangement of a free society. This is the stuff of kings and feudal lords ruling over serfs. It is not befitting a democracy. And for a country so devoted to the principle of freedom and so proud of our history of rejecting illegitimate monarchical authority, we should be pissed off about it. Americans shouldn’t have to grovel pathetically before oligarchs to prevent them from nuking our economy as punishment for trying to attain an infinitesimal fraction of the privilege they enjoy — privileges which, of course, are already more lopsidedly distributed to the wealthy than ever.

If he wins the general election, Madani will have to proceed carefully, calling the wealthy’s bluff enough to pass meaningful reforms without setting into motion a devastating process in which those bluffs become reality. The rest of us, though, should be clear about one thing: what we’re seeing now is a tiny minority trying to hold an entire city — an entire society — hostage to its own interests, using its structural leverage in the economy to undermine the democratic will of ordinary people.

Surely there’s a better economic and political system than one where we have to coddle these villains every time we want to raise the standard of living for the majority. We don’t have to put up with this.

Imo. they aren't buckling to it. The article points out that under the current system it is a real threat to the politician Mamdani. So it is up to the people to back him up in pushing for meaningful change as well as put the pressure for real change to the corrupted system.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago

Unlike other classifications of people, it’s relatively easy to create new rich people. Isn’t that what these people think the American Dream is all about? Is this group of rich people opposed to the American Dream?

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

The article was talking about how Mamdani will have to handle the rich if he is elected. For the rest of us it suggests revolution.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 months ago

"Because of capitalists’ colossal structural power, we’re required to stroke the egos and soothe the anxieties of tantrum throwing elites every time we want to improve society. If we want better education, healthcare, and childcare programs, or to fix our own crumbling infrastructure, or to make our own cities affordable to live in, we are structurally compelled to consider the interests and feelings of the ultrarich, to beg permission from the most wantonly unethical and pathologically narcissistic people on earth."

It's frankly ridiculous that despite having more wealth than they know what to do with, they're still obsessed with the fear that someone else might get a little of it.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 months ago

Looting is not governing.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Any rich idiot who could stomach moving to Florida has already done so. Or maintains multiple residences in New York and Florida.

You know, like Trump and Epstein do.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago

They are losing control, they are scared, they will attempt to to divert the attention of the public with war. The aristocracy will be dismantled or we will be annihilated.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The wealthy are a cancer. If allowed to metastasize, they will inevitably kill their host civilization.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It has been allowed to metastasize.

[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The cancer is now running the lab

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Be sure, the cancer pulled itself up by its bootstraps and got where it is on merit alone.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I believe that's called a "boofocracy".

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago

The other point is that I think this article made a shitty economic argument. If rich people are staying because they're making money, and if you stop them from making money then they'll leave, what's actually happening is that they are stealing our money while they're here. It's not like that money magically showed up, right? It came from somewhere, it came from someone, right? In reality, they're getting a ton of benefits from the taxpayers. So if the claim is that the economy will suffer when they depart, that's an interesting question, and it really depends on the details.

[–] Septimaeus 2 points 2 months ago

You have upset your Ferengi masters!

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

I think this is inherent to humans. No matter what system, this is the natural end point.

[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›