this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
439 points (99.5% liked)

Political Memes

12225 readers
2564 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) 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.

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

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

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

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Don't let the other comments fool you. Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean the absolute end of wealth. We're not talking communism.

Redistribution of wealth works just fine, AND IS ALREADY HAPPENING in the form of corporate welfare and companies paying Zero taxes.

Fixing/reversing that redistribution can mean anything from taxing billionaires - redistributing those taxes to jobs and services where that money is needed or more benefits going the poorest (yes, taxes, especially in a fair and progressive tax system IS a form of redistributing wealth). Redistribution could even be as simple as raising the minimum wage.

ALL SOCIETIES ALREADY HAVE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH systems it's not something you have to fear monger over. Drop that programming.

Don't be like those other commenters, reflexively protecting against the possibility of absolute re-equalization of wealth, or extreme near absolute redistribution of wealth. There's almost ZERO chance of them giving that to you. Their warnings come from paranoia (an unreasonable fear). The Truth is, most societies ALREADY HAVE redistribution of wealth, but it's to the wrong people and not enough of it goes to downwards.

Shoot for the moon on redistribution, you don't have to be worried that "well ACTSHULLY it doesn't work" because they're NEVER going to give you an equal system. So don't obcessively guard against it with your cultural programming - instead say: We already have wealth redistribution. It's just going to the wealthiest, and nowhere near enough of their wealth is going via taxes, wage distribution, and public funding of community services (Social work, public health care, public education, neighborhood improvement program) to those in need!!!

...."ackshully Communism doesn't work in the long run" <---- SHUT THE FUCK UP. THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC! We're talking about things that already happen just in the wrong direction.

[–] benderbeerman@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Redistribution of wealth doesn't work... for whom?

Sure as hell worked to redistribute the vastly distributed wealth we had across the United States into the hands of a few very powerful figures.

[–] benderbeerman@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Didn't work out so well for for the rest of us

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But it's true. Redistribution of wealth doesn't work. At least, not in the long term. What works are policies which prevent the wealth from being so unevenly distributed in the first place, by ensuring that most of the wealth generated by workers goes back to those who created it. Proactive policies vs reactive.

[–] slothrop@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

lol, upvoted bc you were at -1 for your basic logic, proving lemmy is becoming reddit redux.

qed

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Technically they're right...

Widescale redistribution of wealth demonstrably doesn't work, but the thing is right now the problem has been redistributed into the hands of a select few and it's killing everyone else.

A normal distribution of wealth would be everyone having enough by default, and people being able to earn extra through labor/services.

With a rigid tax system to ensure no one can control an oversized proportion of wealth to the detrement of everyone else.

Don't let them trick you into thinking the current reality is the norm or a standard. We can go the other direction even faster than we got here.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

"Widescale redistribution of wealth demonstrably doesn't work"

There's never been a "demonstrable" case of a society dying from absolute wealth redistribution/equalization.

Soviet Russia collapsed due to ongoing famines because of Lysenkoism. Had NOTHING to do with redistribution of wealth. It had to do with agricultural malpractice by a conman.

...and even in that system, wealthy politicians and elites were getting most of the redistribution. Just like in Western Society today. So you really have no clue what you're talking about when you say there's been societies collapse from "too much equality".

Source1, Source2.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So you really have no clue what you’re talking about

If you understood what people were saying, I'd bet you'd be pissed off less...

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Upward redistribution doesn't work, but you can say that more clearly.

Widescale redistribution of wealth demonstrably doesn't work, but the thing is right now the problem has been redistributed into the hands of a select few and it's killing everyone else.

"...the problem..." ? The problem of wealth? You think it would be a problem if anyone else was wealthy? That's not "the problem". Because the topic is Wealth Redistribution (which generally means to the poor, and is thus not a problem).

You're writing in a "preaching to the choir" style, which is apathetic and has smuggies attached, rather than as a more direct appeal to all.

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Taxes, taxes are how we redistribute wealth.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org -4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It really matters what we are taking about. If we distribute ask the mansions and boats nothing if value is really gained for the general population.

If we take all the stocks, nothing if value is really gained either, because liquidating then to run programs would be virtually impossible, and the trade is is everyone's 401ks vanishes.

If we try to take the cash, we will find out that the cash doesn't exist, and this would cause a m2 shrinkage the sameas a bank run.

What other don't raise is for example elon doesn't have a trillion dollars. He was stocks that would be worth a trillion in an infinite liquidate market, which doesn't exist, and his stocks trade at 300+ p/e. A liquidation would immediately remove 90% of the wealth instantly. What he has done is expanded the m2 because it's the wealth generated and other can loan out against this and add to the money supply though fractional reserve lending. Remove this, and you vaporize the money that never existed anyways.

It's very hard to extract cash from something that has no cash.

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Right... Getting money out of the rich would be like bleeding a stone. Ok

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 0 points 3 weeks ago

Where would the money come from then?