hunger is "fundamental to the working of the world's economy"
I mean, he's probably right, but that means we should work to change the system, not throw more orphans into the crushing machine
But the machine needs those orphans to keep going! Why would we want to deprive the system of what it needs? Won't anybody think of the shareholders!?!
Even if this article was some sort of thought experiment, what the fuck value does it have? Even if the outcome was very much “I’m against this,” I’m not sure what the point is, unless it does a good job of explaining what kind of fucked up things this has lead to in society (like sweat shops and modern day slavery). Even then, this kind of nonsense serves wealthy scum.
Kinda like how Kevin O'Leary thinks more poor people incentivizes more business startups. As if homeless people and poor families are just a few business courses away from millionaire status.
In a sense he is right, since more people without work means more people you can employ in a new business, it's just that this makes the case that our economy is organized in a bad way rather than that poverty is good.
FEE is an American Libertarian think tank.
Let that help you figure out what’s actually happening here.
This is such a clickbait, and it backfired.
The actual point conveyed in the article is that world hunger is beneficial for the rich as it allows to operate sweatshops and employ people under tyrannical conditions over low pay, which is not far from modern slavery. Which is super bad for everyone else, hence world hunger must be stopped and rich should get the taste of their own medicine.
But people did react to the headline, and possibly rightfully so.
Well i didnt read the article but it depends on the framing. Is he defending the capitalist status quo? If yes then he can go die of hunger imo. If the article points out that rich people benefit from hunger and that this is in fact bad, then thats cool.
He does directly state the latter.
Here's an archived version of the article, courtesy to TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world:
What a self own with the title then. Should have changed it to "The beneficiaries of world hunger"
Decided not to stir it, probably
Reads like a communist shitpost. I can understand the urge to scream into the void but the UN probably isn’t the best forum.
UN is often about grand messages and general directions. It's not always about forcing direct action - which might be a shame, but UN ain't almighty.
It's not even marginallymighty
Professional headline interpreters.
On duty
So he's not defending/promoting "world Hunger", just arguing that it's not a bug but a feature developed to have cheap labor, and that the people in power don't want to end it
Isn't this what Anarchists and other Anti-capitalists have been saying for well over 100 years? That despite having the ability for abundance, we use scarcity to extract labour from people to make rich fuckers money?
Lenin made the clearest case for it in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Financial and Industrial Capital is exported directly to the sources of raw materials and lower cost of living, which is then hyper-exploited for super-profits domestically.
Even within Capitalist countries, starvation is kept dangerous because Capitalism requires a "reserve army of labor," as Marx put it. It's the idea of "if you weren't doing this job, someone would kill for it" that suppresses wages.
Sounds good at a glance, but when you look at the way he reaches that conclusion (that the threat of hunger is the only reason people are willing to work), and his solution (for a class of "intellectuals" like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill..
Usually most sane people go "Hunger is used to extract labour from people so rich people can make money, so we should change this state of affairs" not "this is good and how we should continue, in an evil usually the preserve of 19th century British Imperial officials."
How does the saying go? When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail?
The only tool he has is what capitalism gave him - the idea that people will only work if threatened with starvation, homelessness, or other punishment.
The idea that the benefit of a community and society at large, and by direct extension - our own, could motivate people, or to be more precise, the idea that society would benefit everyone not just a "select" few, doesn't even come in to consideration.
Maybe they should build a city in the ocean where these intellectuals have full control. Maybe experiment with some cool drugs.
Sounds positively Rapturous
Would you kindly come join us?
Lmfao, I'd pay to watch them descend in to chaos as they insist on ranking each other by importance or whatever arbitrary measure of superiority they choose, because they simply can't function otherwise, until they all end up dead from refusing to "lower" themselves to cooperate with "inferiors".
There’s an event coming up in November you’re really going to enjoy.
If only.. But I suspect whatever happens in November, it isn't going to be pleasing at all (to me as an anarchist, anyway), especially because it isn't themselves they consume, like the hypothetical "intellectuals" on the desert island would, but the rest of us, and those most vulnerable first.
I imagine the UN wouldn't let an author publish something that calls for revolution though lol
That would be the first time the UN actually did anything.
Sure, but they shouldn't be publishing this garbage either.
Well, he's not wrong about hunger being an intended part of capitalism so workers are coerced into working for even less pay.
Calling it a "benefit" is very clickbaity though.
Read that fee article as well and it seems like the author just stated, that certain institutions benefit from world hunger.
In the interview, Kent explains he was not advocating global hunger but was intending to be “provocative” by saying certain individuals and institutions benefit from global hunger.
“No, it is not satire,” Kent told Marc Morano, founder and editor of Climate Depot. “I don’t see anything funny about it. It is not about advocacy of hunger.”
It doesn't look like he's advocating for global hunger, but criticizing those who do benefit from it
Wall. Holy fucking shit.
He calls it "not satire" but "provocative". So he doesn't mean it, but says it to provoke a reaction... Like satire.
This just feels like either
A. He doesn't fully get what satire is and assumes it has to be lighthearted or
B. He's using "provocative" to basically mean "clickbait, but I'm too pretentious to call it that"
