Well, see, there’s your problem right there. There is a distinction between what politics means and how it gets corrupted.
Like, in ancient Rome they made a decree that anyone hitting someone has to pay a $50 fine on the spot (or the fucking correlate amount of Sestertians), and one rich fuck went around in his sedan slapping people in the streets and have his posse pay the victim and then move on to the next one.
That’s hardly “politics”- that’s abuse and loopholing the law.
There is such a thing as just law, just politics, democracy and basic fucking human decency, and we can have it.
But rich fucks decided, what if we use our money to corrupt politics, so we can slap people in the face with impunity?
Agreed. Politics is a natural process for us humans. We engage in politics when we raise our hand to be called on in class, or even when we blurt out our answer. We engage in politics when we decide what information should be public, internal, and confidential at work. We engage in politics when we decide to vote on representatives.
Money is just a medium for stored value, a status provided by collective agreement. Money isn’t inherently political, but it’s often used politically. Funds are often produced or withheld based on political considerations. This is usually fine when it’s money leaving our political system. The bigger problem is when the considerations are set by monolithic entities pushing money into our political system.
We engage in politics every time we open our moufs.
Edit: Yes, and I agree, and I think that if you look at it in an even superficial manner, you see how broken it is. Not to sound naive or anything, but what makes a $10 barber charge $10 and how do we estimate how fair that is.
I get that I’m touching on complicated economic paradigms here, but to me, as a casual observer, what something is worth, is based on what I’m willing to give.
But let’s say the system is set up so that I have to provide a certain amount of coal each day, and get paid in lodging, but I also can’t move off the land, and have to pay for my sustenance in the company store, then what does “value” mean?
They say capitalism is what governs the world because it is the most “efficient”. What does that mean, most efficient? They say it’s what drives ingenuity and innovation. But we had ingenuity and innovation way before we had capitalism. Capitalism has no end game, only more. If we could focus all that energy to something we actually wanted, something everybody everywhere genuinely wanted- good child care, good education, good healthcare, good roads and upkeep, then we could have all that. In my meaning, capitalism is putting the cart before the horse- it presupposes that through competition, the best overall result will come about. But it doesn’t care which result. Just whichever result gets there first. That’s the big point of contention. Money has no rules, no morals, no laws. And it has superseded democracy. Elections = finance. Living = finance. Everything = finance. It has become a self serving cancer, that only maximizes output, and that’s what cancer is. A cheap, singular algorithm, which just so happens to be incompatible with democracy itself, and doesn’t do what most people want, but subsumes them under its own imperative umbrella, and creates division between men.
Here’s what I’m thinking- capitalism may well be the best “overall” system for increasing wealth, but if I earn 1$ for every $100 you make, then I’m not gonna be happy with that dollar no matter that I’m half a kebab richer, you feel me?
I’m drunkenly rambling and shaking my fists at clouds, sorry for that. I should delete this but I’ve come this far, fuck it.
that sounds fine in theory but you can’t extricate money from politics. even if you enacted a perfect finace reform for all govt officials, average people tend to vote on issues that affect their finances. It’s always going to be about money one way or the other.
money is politics.
Well, see, there’s your problem right there. There is a distinction between what politics means and how it gets corrupted.
Like, in ancient Rome they made a decree that anyone hitting someone has to pay a $50 fine on the spot (or the fucking correlate amount of Sestertians), and one rich fuck went around in his sedan slapping people in the streets and have his posse pay the victim and then move on to the next one.
That’s hardly “politics”- that’s abuse and loopholing the law.
There is such a thing as just law, just politics, democracy and basic fucking human decency, and we can have it.
But rich fucks decided, what if we use our money to corrupt politics, so we can slap people in the face with impunity?
That’s the problem. Money. Not politics itself.
Agreed. Politics is a natural process for us humans. We engage in politics when we raise our hand to be called on in class, or even when we blurt out our answer. We engage in politics when we decide what information should be public, internal, and confidential at work. We engage in politics when we decide to vote on representatives.
Money is just a medium for stored value, a status provided by collective agreement. Money isn’t inherently political, but it’s often used politically. Funds are often produced or withheld based on political considerations. This is usually fine when it’s money leaving our political system. The bigger problem is when the considerations are set by monolithic entities pushing money into our political system.
We engage in politics every time we open our moufs.
Edit: Yes, and I agree, and I think that if you look at it in an even superficial manner, you see how broken it is. Not to sound naive or anything, but what makes a $10 barber charge $10 and how do we estimate how fair that is.
I get that I’m touching on complicated economic paradigms here, but to me, as a casual observer, what something is worth, is based on what I’m willing to give.
But let’s say the system is set up so that I have to provide a certain amount of coal each day, and get paid in lodging, but I also can’t move off the land, and have to pay for my sustenance in the company store, then what does “value” mean?
They say capitalism is what governs the world because it is the most “efficient”. What does that mean, most efficient? They say it’s what drives ingenuity and innovation. But we had ingenuity and innovation way before we had capitalism. Capitalism has no end game, only more. If we could focus all that energy to something we actually wanted, something everybody everywhere genuinely wanted- good child care, good education, good healthcare, good roads and upkeep, then we could have all that. In my meaning, capitalism is putting the cart before the horse- it presupposes that through competition, the best overall result will come about. But it doesn’t care which result. Just whichever result gets there first. That’s the big point of contention. Money has no rules, no morals, no laws. And it has superseded democracy. Elections = finance. Living = finance. Everything = finance. It has become a self serving cancer, that only maximizes output, and that’s what cancer is. A cheap, singular algorithm, which just so happens to be incompatible with democracy itself, and doesn’t do what most people want, but subsumes them under its own imperative umbrella, and creates division between men.
Here’s what I’m thinking- capitalism may well be the best “overall” system for increasing wealth, but if I earn 1$ for every $100 you make, then I’m not gonna be happy with that dollar no matter that I’m half a kebab richer, you feel me?
I’m drunkenly rambling and shaking my fists at clouds, sorry for that. I should delete this but I’ve come this far, fuck it.
Edit: Fuck me, workers of the world UNITE
that sounds fine in theory but you can’t extricate money from politics. even if you enacted a perfect finace reform for all govt officials, average people tend to vote on issues that affect their finances. It’s always going to be about money one way or the other.
You’re missing an important distinction ….
The problem is money distorting politics to harm society or citizens in favor of a few
Politics serving the needs of citizens, including their economic needs, is NOT