30 Tweets To Show How Dystopic Our Capitalistic Society Already Is, As Shared By ‘Existential Comics’
There’s nothing like a philosopher to set the record straight for everyone. Corey Mohler, the mastermind behind ‘Existential Comics,’ voices his razor-sharp thoughts about the world not just in webcomic form but also in spot-on tweets. And today, we’re featuring some of his best insights about capitalism, economics, greed, and just how unjust the entire system can seem living in the 21st century.
As you’re scrolling down, remember to upvote the tweets that you found to be particularly enlightening, dear Pandas. Meanwhile, tell us what you think of Corey’s ideas in the comments. And if you’ve got any insights about inequality, finances, and the job market, we’d love to hear what you have to say, too. Got your thinking caps? Good!
Bored Panda reached out for a chat about capitalism with financial expert Sam Dogen, the author of 'Buy This, Not That' and the founder of 'Financial Samurai.' We spoke about the pros and cons of capitalism, nepotism, and why some executives earn embarrassingly huge sums of money compared to their employees. Read on for the full exclusive interview.
More info: Twitter | Patreon | ExistentialComics.com
This post may include affiliate links.
Firstly I have only read about half of this post but I feel that I have the general theme. And whilst I agree that capitalism is based on exploiting the workforce and that 'trickle-down' economics doesn't work, what is the solution? We can complain about it all we want - and we do - but in the end, all we are left with, is a bunch of exploited people agreeing with each other that we are being exploited. Whichever system we use, some people will always be 'more equal than others' because that is unfortunately, human nature. I hope a panda - maybe you, dear reader - can offer a solution to what has quietly become one of the biggest threats to our standard of living ever faced.
The part that blows my mind the most is how many of the people they oppress will staunchly defend the very system that oppresses them. Complete buy-in to the notion of some people deserving things and others don't; if you don't have X or Y it's because you "didn't work hard enough" rather than the system being somewhat stacked against most of us and REALLY stacked against some of us. We don't have to accept that system. We CAN make a better world.
Maybe this is where capitalism will fail. To succeed it needs people with a disposable income to purchase it’s commodities. If the workers have no income, capitalism fails.
True, but I feel like that's more of a theme with certain characters (Like Tony Stark and for example) while other characters (Like T'Challa) realized that there were problems with society that needed to be changed. And of course there are villains that had some damn good points (Like Killmonger and Hela) while other villains are just psychos (Like Thanos and Harrow) So I think it kinda just depends on the movie.
Yes. The " best we have " has destroyed entire ecosystems and is gonna wipe us all if this planet. I swear humans are actually really dumb animals.
Does anyone ever think that leaving America is the quickest way to solve all these problems? Because I sure do now.
The point of this tweet *isn’t* that everyone who makes a lot of money doesn’t work hard to earn that. That’s obviously not always true. The point is that we live in a country where meritocracy is held as gospel (re: the American Dream! Work hard enough and you’ll make it! And if you’re not making it then you’re not working hard enough!). We do not live in a meritocratic society — if we did, all of the people who do back-breaking, thankless labor everyday for minimum wage would be the real capital owners.
Just been made redundant from a job I loved, they ground me down so much I am more than happy to grab the last pay cheque and run.....
They won't admit it.......kinda like how America won't admit who REALLY built their country
We're all lowly hourly unskilled laborers until a pandemic hits, then we suddenly become "essential" (but disposable) workers.
That's because we have surpassed Capitalism and become a Corporatocracy that is in danger of becoming a theocratic autocracy/dictatorship.
Lobbying and party donations should be totally scrapped. Each candidate should be awarded £x for their campaign paid for by the government. Whichever candidate is the most popular with the electorate should win. Isn't that what a fair and transparent election looks like? They will never do it though, because the political parties are hungry for cash and the corporations are hungry for political influence. It's all a big con.
Mainly when it's a Democrat in office. With Republicans it's always someone else's fault and therefore not their responsibility to try to fix. Well, at least nowadays. I don't remember it being this bad in the 60's and 70's.
Ohhhh that "you're lazy and want free stuff" argument pisses me off. I will litteraly spend an hour explaining how i worked my ass off and got ripped off and some idiot will spout that off at me. Do they have a stroke and just blank out the description of what i did to earn the thing I didn't get? It it just their automatic response as opposed to thinking? Are they just all trolls enjoying how much more pissed off i get when they dismiss my efforts?
I get the sentiment, but who pays the construction workers? And where does the money for those paychecks come from? This one is not all black and white. Of course scooping up real estate (especially after the housing crisis), evicting, renovating and renting out at an insane markup is despicable. But if someone invests his money to get an appartment to rent out for passive income/retirement safety, he's not necessarily a bad landlord.
And corporations dont want you to own anything, only rent it. Music, books, movies, your house, your appliances, your phone...
I've explored my creative potential despite poverty. I've written over ten books. I'm an illustrator. I'm a blacksmith. I'm a woodcarver and a carpenter. Nobody cares.
capitalism is good at solving certain types of problems, whereas it generates a hole lot of other problems, and there are certain types of problems that it sucks at solving (climate change is one of them). I do not believe in unrestricted capitalism since it is basically a way for specialists to screw over the average joe. The world has become so complicated, that there is simply not enough resources to do a thourough analysis for every choice we have to make, and hence we have to rely on rules of thumb and simplifications in order to not become paralysed. Homo Economicus does not exist as anything outside the model of a capitalist, and that opens for all sorts of ways to hack the system in order to get an advantage. This is most often the case for issues, we have little experience with and only get a few costly tries to learn, and where the effects will only become visible down the line. Mortages or cigarets are examples of such an issues, where regulations produce a better result
Imagine having enough money to end world hunger but instead you go off and play space man
That's already happening. Companies are profiting off of being climate woke and the renewable energy industry is drawing a lot of investment. It's not enough though, to truly make a difference we need degrowth which is absolutely never gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime.
No..but the alpha female in wolf packs may take or kill the pups of a subordinate female. Sound familiar?
however we currently se a revolt against softerware companies overcharging for their products by competing freeware "clones". Despite those mainly being developing by volunteers in their spare time, some of them are actually really nice products of nearly the same quality as proffesional pendant. For start ups and hobbyist, this is a real blessing, as the professional versions are so expensive that they are impossible to get your hands on in a legal way.
Yeah..I remember hearing that argument in my economics class. I was being told that there weren't enough resources to feed everyone. Then I showed them a picture of a landfill with piles of lettuce, cabbage, and other food rotting. The only problem I see is giving people access to the food. Whether through affordability or just physically bringing it to them.
I don't think this person understands what communism really means. No wonder, he was educated in the capitalism utopia of the USA
So the answer is to make a personal default on their mortgage and have tenants become homeless. Most "good" landlords just wanted the same extension on forgiveness of their mortgage. It was only the db investment corporations and wanna be flippers that wanted to be able to collect or evict.
A certain Corporate owned party (well, owned a lot more than the other one) found the idea of paying someone to stay home to better life for everyone abhorrent. "Pay people to do nothing? Heavens No! That's only for rich people"
Guillotine is inappropriate. I would go for putting them in a below minimum wage job working with the public, zero hours contract, rented accommodation where the rent is enough to pay the landlord's mortgage. Oh, and a most unbecoming polyester uniform
I think we learned that from Europe. I don't think Native Americans have the same ideals.
Some people on this website don't like to hear it, but there is a landlord crisis. Both individual and corporate landlords. They are the reason people can't afford to rent or buy houses. The truth is, if you make profit from the basic human right of having a safe place to live, you are immoral.
This is one where his take becomes too simplistic. Profit and interest, for instance, can be about hedging against risk. Without interest, literally no one would ever lend money - there'd be no point. You would risk default with no benefit to offset the risk. As long as some borrowers default, then some interest is necessary - the work being done is "the absorption of risk." Same for profit in *some* instances. Simple example: I'm a mechanic with one employee. They make a wage while I keep the profit left at the end of the month. If there is no profit, the employee still gets paid while I get nothing. He makes less if everything is good, but is not responsible for losses if they occur - less reward but also less risk. It's when we remove the risk that there's a breakdown - like with bailouts. If you keep the profits when it's good and the taxpayer bails out your losses, there's no risk, therefore there should be no rewards. 'Capitalism for profits, socialism for losses' = bad.
The problem is there is not a lot of daylight between these two things.
Load More Replies...Two commentors below say this is not capitalism it is US policy. Yes and no. I'd have to exhaustively go through each tweet above to show which is US-specific and which is generally applicable to capitalists, but here's an example: 1370472075...9697b1.jpg
The problem is there is not a lot of daylight between these two things.
Load More Replies...Two commentors below say this is not capitalism it is US policy. Yes and no. I'd have to exhaustively go through each tweet above to show which is US-specific and which is generally applicable to capitalists, but here's an example: 1370472075...9697b1.jpg
