this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
1319 points (97.2% liked)

Political Memes

5605 readers
538 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Ah yes, let's attack our neighbors who try to save their money, and let's ignore the bankers and politicians who created the system that incentivizes this behavior.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No one is pointing the finger at regular people... The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. The 1% often IS the bankers, and they did create the system, and they paid the politicians to pass it. You're just muddying the waters.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Have you read the text in the image?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This whole argument of peoples pension funds being the largest shareholders in a company is bizarre. https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-us/insights/public-pensions-survey pensions are owning less and less of the stock markets every year, become less and less relevant. Institutions like blackrock however are growing. Consistently.

Like mate your neighbour Barry isn't calling into the shareholders meeting to criticise the CEO for paying $0.05 an hour over minimum wage the the receptionist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Pensions have practically vanished in the US. It's all 401k

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. Stockholders are not the problem - corporate concentration of wealth and power is the problem. Attacking me for having a 401k is just crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

No one is attacking you for your 401k... The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. Your 401k almost certainly falls into that 7% the peasants "own". When we point a finger at "stock holders" we're talking about the relatively small group that owns everything and would rather kill everyone than share the wealth equitably.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When we point a finger at “stock holders” we’re talking about

Maybe you are but there's plenty of people who are perfectly happy to attack the middle class.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Honestly that's my big fear as far as any "revolution" goes... That people won't recognize the oligarchs separate from just the richest person they know. Like, someone with a big house in your neighborhood, is almost certainly not oligarch levels of destroy society and the world, but they'll be accessable while Elon and the banksters won't be.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

Have you read the text in the image?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Tbf, if that is what is meant by stockholders perhaps the specificity would do the argument good, because without it you're lumping them in with all stock holders (like those with a 401k.) I also get the notion that you may not care about the 401k but the hexbear users might, for instance, so some infighting may take place, but oh well.

At any rate by using terms that include a wider range of people than you do intend to kill (saying things like kill all landlords or kill all stockholders etc, which could include fair landlords and 7%ers or whatever unless specified), it's going to make those people who acknowledge those cases you "don't mean" defensive against being killed. Basically, we need another word that only applies to the people that you find it acceptable to kill, that excludes those who you think should live despite exhibiting similar behaviors to those marked for death, if you intend to get those people on your side.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Fair enough... Not sure what that term would be other than "oligarchs" or 1%... Although it's really more like the richest 1% of the richest 1%