• StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I guess that could be aimed at what the post is criticizing, sure. I’d call it a stretch to say "We need to ‘eat the rich’ " is doing such blaming. Maybe I misread the “still” in your original comment, though.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eating the rich isn’t even relevant to this topic anyway since the problem is pollution and waste, not wealth inequality. Saying that eating the rich is the solution is saying the poor need to rise up and take stuff, which won’t solve anything when the problem is the stuff existing in the first place. Plus it puts the onus on the poor to act, instead of acknowledging that society as a whole should expect their government to regulate companies for the benefit of society.

        Most likely I missed the point where eat the rich lost any actual meaning related to its origin like gaslighting or pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

        • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is extremely relevant, because the pollution and waste don’t come from nowhere; they come from capitalism and its profit motive. Yes, the oppressed (that’s the whole working class, not just people who are typically categorized as “poor”) must act in order to gain the autonomy and power to be able to shape our environment. The onus is 100% on us. Simply “expecting” the oppressive institutions of nation-state governments to suddenly stop being beholden to the capitalists they were designed to protect and serve is not going to do it. Of course it isn’t “fair” for the onus to be on the oppressed and not the oppressors, but it’s how power fucking works.