this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
933 points (92.0% liked)

Memes

45612 readers
761 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 month ago (8 children)

the initial argument only applies to Utopian Socialism anyway – fighting for your personal interest is exactly the point of communism, destroying all the enemies of the working class

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Depends on the definition. Kropotkin, who self identified as anarcho communist, wrote a scientific book literally called Mutual Aid

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When you feed the poor, you're called a Saint

When you ask why the poor have no food, you're called a communist.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I work a couple food service jobs and the waste brings a tear to my eye. And that's just what makes it to the restaurant. Oh this tomato doesn't look perfect? Throw it away.

Perfect tomato's for sale: $10 each.

Then the pile of perfect tomatos rot as hungry eyes look upon it from outside the store. (They aren't allowed inside, the vagrants might steal!) Rotten like the hearts of those who gatekeep necessities for profit and power.

[–] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

That just Is word for word the peak of "grapes of wrath "

"The oranges needed to be dumped in kerosene and burned. It is cheaper than dumping them in the river and making sure the poor don't take them... why? All for the sake of profit"

[–] EABOD25@lemm.ee 48 points 1 month ago (10 children)

People are neither inherently selfish or inherently generous. People are survivors regardless of what is necessary to do so. A human will give the shirt off his back to his neighbor but will spite a customer service worker because they're in a bad mood or feel slighted. Your tribe is your most important social aspect

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, and eating hot dogs also goes against human nature. That shit didn't exist in 3,500 BCE.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

are you really saying emulsified rat lips, chicken trimmings, porkins, and beef slurry didn't exist in 3500 BCE?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Not in such a convenient package!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The very existence of society and the fact that we aren't blindly killing eachother for resources proves that civilization is not based on humanities animalistic instincts. Therefore the claim that humans cannot overcome their own base instincts (as claimed by many Liberals) would imply that we are no morally or intellectually superior to animals.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Even animals are not based on such "animalistic instinct", most of animals cooperate on some level.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Indeed, all intelligent creatures are capable of acting beyond what is strictly needed for survival.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Cooperation is needed for survival in many cases, or at least improve the odds.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jimitsoni18@lemmy.zip 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

I know I would be attacked by entire fediverse, but I want to say that charity also has egoism as backing cause. People help other people because it makes them feel good. And people expect themselves to be noticed or praised or rewarded, even if they tell themselves and everyone else that they don't.

Also don't presume that I am a capitalist, before you decide to attack me.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I mean, you're not wrong, but your point is also kinda meaningless. Of course, you only ever do things because there's something in it for you, even if that something is just feeling good about yourself. If there was truly nothing in it for you, then why would you do it?

But that misses the point of the "people are inherently selfish" vs "people are inherently generous" discussion, because it's not actually about whether people do things only for themselves at the most literal level, instead it's about whether people inherently get something out of doing things for others without external motivation. So your point works the same on both sides of the argument.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago

Donating to charities often gives tax benefits.

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Kind of. I agree partly. My mother used to knit winter clothes, for free, for some institutions and she wasn't the one delivering them. They never knew who she was, and she didn't bother.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] arken@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

We hear that argument a lot, and though some people's charity may be motivated purely by egoism I don't think it applies to the majority at all. The argument assumes that if doing something makes you feel good, then that feeling must be the sole motivation for that action, which is dubious. And if we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, every action that does not make you feel bad is egoistic, and the concept becomes completely meaningless. Saving a child from falling down a cliff? Egoistic! Intervening when someone is treated unfairly? Egoistic! Giving up your chair for an elderly person on a crowded bus? Egoistic!

Let's take this last (admittedly small, everyday, non-dramatic) example. Sure, you could give up your seat purely because you want to look like a good person to others (although it's doubtful anyone would even notice). It's also possible to experience this feeling called empathy, to see an elderly person struggling to keep their balance while standing up and to want to alleviate that particular suffering. Everyone else is sitting down looking at their phones, so there's no community pressure to speak of. No one would call you out if you just pretended not to notice. And the discomfort from standing up on a really crowded bus on a bumpy road could easily outweigh that little buzz you get from doing good.

I'll go even further; it's even possible, in a scenario like this, to not even think about how it's going to make you feel or your self-image or whatever. You just want to help someone else because it's in your power to do so. If this isn't an example of not being egoistic, what would be? What would be the opposite of egoism? To act completely dispassionately?

And what about someone sacrificing their own life to save another? Striving to do good in the world does feel better, yes, but empathy is also a burden. Still, there are genuinely good people out there, that do good deeds and do not take any credit for it, even do it anonymously. And I can tell you from experience, not all of them walk around on clouds feeling like saints. Some of them even experience crippling guilt because they feel they do not do enough. How is that egoism?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Charity can serve as a means of control. This is way Republicans advocate against social services.

The government cannot mandate that you attend church to receive EBT. A church can require you attend a service to feed you.

I’ve heard from friends in Utah, for example, that access to many social services is through the church. Friend was trying to rescue a girl from FLDS - pretty much all job training/housing required she play along with mainstream Mormonism.

Orgs like the Salvation Army are known to require trans people to detransition to recieve services as well.

Another benefit is the rent seeking - Goodwill is a good example. You can still turn a profit with the right combination of PR, and tying access to services based on things that’ll make you profit (Goodwill “provides employment” for disabled people - they are legally allowed to pay them far below minimum wage.)

It’s the two pillars of the contemporary Right - control and grifting.

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Charity can also be used as a tax avoidance scheme and weaponized for political purposes; this is why the rich love it, through charity they are able to help themselves even further

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

We will feed you if you believe in our religion and work our fields, your true reward for your good works and piety will wait for you in heaven.

It's like your pension plan in the sky.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Considering Ayn Rand's novels as literature was a mistake.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

"One of the USSRs biggest mistakes was giving Ayn Rand an education"

[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

"And when all those self made champions went away and created a new society, free of the old one, one of them asked 'does anyone of us know how to cook?'. And then they screamed in fear".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (37 children)

We're always going to end up with people who can manipulate a crowd being in charge. We're stupid like that.

load more comments (37 replies)
[–] walthervonstolzing@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago

It's either this fairy tale, or its flip side, the myth that 'private vices' somehow add up to 'public virtues'.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

We are also born unable to care for ourselves. Or speak. Or...

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Kids don’t want to work these days

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Communism Killed 100 Zillion People

Now the massive population of China and Venezuela and Vietnam and Cuba and California are going to take over the world

No, they aren't doing Real Communism. That's just Authoritarian State Capitalism.

Yes, we have to fight them. That's why we need the western governments to spend trillions of dollars on private military services.

We have to kill all 100 Zillion of them. Because they've been infected with the Mind Virus of Communism.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. There are too many people out there that sound just like this.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The zillion part definitely made me lean towards sarcasm, but I guess I can never be too sure with all the brainrot and bots out there. The Red Scare still lingers.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The Red Scare never died, and the Cold War never ended.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›