this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
192 points (97.5% liked)

Memes

45729 readers
960 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The article is actually decently well written good-faith satire meant to address how poverty and hunger are inherent to capitalism as a system. The title was just too bold lol

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 1 month ago (18 children)

Before you have an opinion on it, just read the article, it's just one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf

The UN really shot themselves in the foot by deleting it, because the title only looks bad if you don't actually read the rest of the text, which they now made more difficult.

[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

they probably would've just added [SATIRE] to the title

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

A modest proposal for the global south

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 month ago

The article is NOT satire -- it's provocative. The author argues that world hunger benefits the rich. Capiche?

I hope the UN restores the article.

Interview with author: https://fee.org/articles/un-deletes-article-titled-the-benefits-of-world-hunger-was-it-real-or-satire/

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So he's not defending/promoting "world Hunger", just arguing that it's not a bug but a feature developed to have cheap labor, and that the people in power don't want to end it

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Sounds good at a glance, but when you look at the way he reaches that conclusion (that the threat of hunger is the only reason people are willing to work), and his solution (for a class of "intellectuals" like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill..

[–] Dasnap@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Maybe they should build a city in the ocean where these intellectuals have full control. Maybe experiment with some cool drugs.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lmfao, I'd pay to watch them descend in to chaos as they insist on ranking each other by importance or whatever arbitrary measure of superiority they choose, because they simply can't function otherwise, until they all end up dead from refusing to "lower" themselves to cooperate with "inferiors".

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There’s an event coming up in November you’re really going to enjoy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

his solution (for a class of "intellectuals" like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill

This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a "dictatorship of the proletariat," what they're describing tends to devolve into "a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions" when questioned about what a "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually entails. Often they'll try to justify it by saying it's only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Arcturus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I imagine the UN wouldn't let an author publish something that calls for revolution though lol

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Sure, but they shouldn't be publishing this garbage either.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Isn't this what Anarchists and other Anti-capitalists have been saying for well over 100 years? That despite having the ability for abundance, we use scarcity to extract labour from people to make rich fuckers money?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Lenin made the clearest case for it in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Financial and Industrial Capital is exported directly to the sources of raw materials and lower cost of living, which is then hyper-exploited for super-profits domestically.

Even within Capitalist countries, starvation is kept dangerous because Capitalism requires a "reserve army of labor," as Marx put it. It's the idea of "if you weren't doing this job, someone would kill for it" that suppresses wages.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

This is such a clickbait, and it backfired.

The actual point conveyed in the article is that world hunger is beneficial for the rich as it allows to operate sweatshops and employ people under tyrannical conditions over low pay, which is not far from modern slavery. Which is super bad for everyone else, hence world hunger must be stopped and rich should get the taste of their own medicine.

But people did react to the headline, and possibly rightfully so.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Yo I see this shit posted all the time. The article was written in 2008 for the UNs magazine and meant to be satire. It has since been removed by the UN for being ambiguous.

https://communist.red/the-benefits-of-world-hunger-un-blurs-the-line-between-satire-and-reality/

[–] match@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

things that were obvious satire in 2008 are ambiguous now i love 2020s capitalism

[–] Arcturus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There are absolutely politicians who would say this shit unironically

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Infynis@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

hunger is "fundamental to the working of the world's economy"

I mean, he's probably right, but that means we should work to change the system, not throw more orphans into the crushing machine

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

there's no "but" -- this is exactly the point the author is making.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Which is actually said in the original article

[–] Bread@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

But the machine needs those orphans to keep going! Why would we want to deprive the system of what it needs? Won't anybody think of the shareholders!?!

[–] chamomile@furry.engineer 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@sharkfucker420 It's a good thing "A Modest Proposal"[1] wasn't titled "The Benefits of Cannibalism" because I guess people would have taken that at face value as well.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

argued that hunger is "funamental for the working of the world's economy"

Maybe he's right and we need to change that.

load more comments
view more: next ›