Submitted by chaos in Anarchism

No matter how hard I work to help my community and organize for marginalized people, people say I don't contribute to society or the betterment of humanity. If I were I a landlord or a CEO or even a rich actor, they would admire me even though those occupations do nothing to better the world.

If I read and learn of my own accord without going to school, I'm a slacker, layabout, bum, but if I incur tens of thousands in debt to do it in an official learningtorium, I'm a student and "working to better society" (by preparing myself to accumulate wealth).

If people said what they mean, admitted they just mean I should be striving to become wealthy INSTEAD of striving to better the world, it wouldn't irritate me so much. By dressing up their snide remarks as concern for the "betterment" of "society", they allow themselves to excuse their own narcissistic greed as they scramble up the social / monetary ladder.

33

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

videl wrote

like when people say "grow up" but they really mean "conform"

16

Brick wrote

I mean, just give them what they ask for. Contribute to society by throwing a capitalist out a window.

9

RockBiter wrote

I think maybe you're giving people too much credit. "Contributing to society" is just a soundbite that most people parrot without considering what they REALLY mean when they say it. I don't really think they are making excuses for greed, they just don't understand how what you are doing is good when it is unfamiliar to them. Or, how what they are doing is wrong, when they're just doing what everyone else is doing.

Anyhow, keep fighting the good fight.

5

Plebeian wrote

This is similar to church folks. They forget the bible lists offerings as time, talent, and/or treasure.

4

BristholD wrote

People like Bill Gates contributed far more to humanity than Maria Theresa ever did. It is not that you contribute to society by just accumulating wealth, that's a fallacy. In reality, you become wealthy because what you do is very valuable for society. It is not just the "accumulation" of wealth, it is the creation of it for you and others. Those "greedy" capitalists are constantly creating new markets, job opportunities, better and cheaper goods and services for those marginalized people as well. This is how you achieve a better world.

−12

ziq wrote (edited )

This is how you create collapse, starvation and mass extinction.

5

BristholD wrote

How exactly, when world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970. Get rid of the free markets and you'll find yourself living in mass starvation and poverty just like our ancestors.

−9

ziq wrote

How exactly

f/collapse

mass starvation and poverty just like our ancestors

if our ancestors were in mass starvation we wouldn't exist. poverty only exists under capitalism i.e. right now most people in the world are poor so a few can be rich.

5

BristholD wrote

You are invited to go back to the 5th century, when generalized poverty, starvation, diseases, low life expectancy and so on were the norm for the overwhelming majority of people. Good luck. That would be called collapse and hell by our modern standards as of living. The truth is that poverty has been decreasing everywhere, in fact, world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970.

There's a reason why during the industrial revolution mass immigration from rural areas to urban centers happened: Better opportunities to escape from misery and poverty.

−10

c0pdislik3r_ wrote (edited )

I took your invitation and time traveled back to the 5th century. Everyone was having a great time and said the 5th century kicks ass. I told them some nerd on the internet didn’t think so so they suggested inventing a frozen dairy drink to give you as a hat.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

Literally everything you've said is inaccurate. Peasants were forced by deliberate state policies to relocate to urban areas to work a miserable, poor life in the factories.

4

BristholD wrote

Actually, the average income and standards of living grew significantly during and after the industrial revolution. This is fact, not debatable. That's why peasants migrated to the cities. The same thing could be seen more recently in China where peasants migrated from rural areas to big industrial zones. The only real policies that forced migration could be seen in places like Camboya under the communist rule of Pol Pot, but it was in reverse, forcing people to abandon the cities to work under miserable conditions in collective farms. Causing mass death and genocide. The Soviet Union also forced mass migration of people to work as slaves, in the 20th century. More massive massive misery and death. History is pretty clear.

After the industrial revolution and evolution into free-market capitalism, wealth was not just accumulated by some, but also by most people. Lots of wealth was created for most people, not just redistributed. Thanks mostly to technological innovations, progress in science, entrepreneurship and the establishment of liberal societies economically and politically.

−6

Pop wrote

have a look through f/Philanthropy

4

BristholD wrote

For philanthropy, you need money, that is to create wealth out of useful goods and services for others. Bill Gates contributed with far more money to philanthropic causes than Mary Theresa ever did. For that, he had to first create an enormous source of wealth in the free market with useful and valuable goods and services that helped to lift many people out of poverty directly and indirectly.

Community organizers and not even politicians are not the ones who make a big difference. Those who make a big difference are scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and meritocrats within the framework of freedom.

−10

Pop wrote

comparing to Mary Theresa is hardly doing any favours for your argument here. did you read anything in the forum I linked?

4

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

hasbrochem wrote

Almost makes one want to get a frozen dairy treat to share for their effort :D

3