States where the society views money as less important than social issues/equality already have and will continue to get progressive social benefits. You can't put a value on something if every expects it to be free. Lack of wealth is not an issue when everyone expects things to be free. But by recognising wealth and pricetags does money become important and thus hoarded. Th cake isn't money, it's cake. You don't need money redistributed for everyone to get cake when cake is expected as a social staple and offset by the society as a whole.

This is fundamental leftism. A society won't achieve it if they're focused on people having more money than them. "But how will I pay for cake if they have all the money?!" Uhhh, you don't. You demand the cake and halt everything until you get the cake. Once everyone has cake, back to business as usual.

I can't recall a single historical social issue that was resolved by acknowledging and redistributing wealth. Enough people just demanded it and social equality happened.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I love how you totally ignore my point. Sure, money isn't the cake, but housing is. Good luck ignoring the cops that evict you!

Sure, I want a classless, moneyless, stateless society but on the way there, we can't ignore what is. I'm not a Marxist but I think we can agree that Marx was left. He wrote a book "Das Kapital". You can literally google what it is about.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've read plenty of Marx.

I see your point. However, you are still not understanding. Fair housing can't happen if you think it's about distribution of wealth. Stop thinking it's all about money. It's about social equality. The left would introduce rental caps, tenant benefits, rental assistance programs, more rights and benefits to prevent unfair evictions. But also improve housing for renters to have more equal stance to own instead.

This is what left states do. Left is not considering and focusing on redistributing wealth as the centre of social inequality since it is not a social issue. Money comes after. It is a result. If a self-proclaimed "left" is so obsessed with money, I question their concern of actual social equalities because they too are only thinking about the money and there's no resolve in that.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nobody said it's only about redistributing money. We are talking about a 4 panel meme that says "Rich people are the problem". It's not a manifesto stating that redistribution will solve all our problems. It's a meme saying rich people are the problem. They are the ruling class. Not everything utterance has to have the solution. Sometimes it's enough to state the problem.

I'm full into solving the housing problem by occupying empty houses and self-organized groups around the concept of mutual aid. We need to abolish money and the state and patriarchy but sometimes it's ok to "just" say "rich people are the problem". This doesn't imply that it's the only one and that the solution is easy. It isn't.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Rich people are the by-product of social inequality. The actual problem. Correcting these things would naturally dissolve the power of money since it devalues its place in society as it is less needed for basic social survival.

But in there lies the true issue. If no longer money—an artificial measure of tracking what is valuable in society—what is the next thing the same people will want to control? Our history is riddled with it. That's the tricky part of we abolish money and it does sound awful nice like you say. Gold, water, people, currency, oil... It's always something. But leftism looks to ensure things like this are avoided, not being side-tracked by trying to cure the symptoms. If you are a leftist, people wih absurd control of something (money in this case) are an indicatior equality has been neglected and there's work to do. Step 1, look at what's making them have so much control and start on all of those things. It's not money. Money's not even valuable to many of the left.

I see this comic and I don't see leftism at all. I see someone upset about finance and doesn't know what to do but blame a specific symptom of inequality impacting them. That's not going to do anything and it's not "left". It indicates a value and focus for money that may even see them do the exact same thing if they amassed some, since it's so important to them than much other else in the complexities of society, especially the actual problems causing it.

My triggering issue is it says "this is left" and "this is right" without sensing the irony. The money part is just...so primitive I couldn't help myself. We see things on spectrums with many points peppered across for just a single individual. What upsets me is this primative two camp idea driving "Whatever I don't like must be right/left" without actually understanding what these things are. It's very clear of a naturally divisive society which is a breeding ground for social inequality. It smells distinctly US where almost many things (and historically so) are a really strong competition of one side versus another. Trying to drag leftism into that is actually opposing to its fundamental ideas. Neglecting the spectrum entirely is straight up regressive of social maturity and stability.

I don't think many people on Lemmy actually know what they are except unhappy, and they are looking for comfort and hope in a home. But the principle ideas of leftism do not conduct itself this way, lest it never succeed in progression.

Edit: Also, I appreciate you sticking with me this far :) It's okay if I've been exhausting enough now though. Exchanging thoughts and ideas is super fulfilling and we always get better for it, even if we don't think anything's sticking.