Beware the myth of the self-made man.
Yep! Few things are as dangerous as following someone who doesn’t understand that they got lucky.
But the entire society is conditioned to do it.
We are shown celebrities before we learn to speak. All around us are those recognizable idiots who rarely have benefited humanity in any meaningful way but have very, very marketable faces. All to make us poor pay for their luxuries.
"If you wish to make
an apple piea man from scratch, you must first invent the universe. ~Carl Sagan
This is one of the best visualizations of this issue. I regularly think back at this comic, awesome!!
And, again, this does not negate the fact that Richard worked hard to get his degree and worked his company’s ranks. It should not be about pushing down the Richards of the world, it should be about pulling up the Paulas, and strive for a world were everyone is a Richard [relating to the comic, not all white men or we would be doomed ':) ]
Careful, thinking like that will get you branded as a communist! /S
We need to make things more equitable for people.
Instead we are left with this:
Based take. I love how this comic depicts problems and privilege and you put it really well. I’m sick of people tearing down Richard.
deleted by creator
Nah, I think it could be done if billionaires didn’t hoard all the wealth. The wealth of some of these people is enough to live confortably for several lifetimes.
Even at 10 million dollars for a lifetime (which is way more than I’ll make in a lifetime) 1 billion is 100 lifetimes’ worth.
The only reason there’s “not enough resources” is because someone is always trying to make money off them. There’s plenty of resources, their distribution just won’t make anyone rich if we share and share alike.
And the pandemic showed that when people value their lives and time properly, minimal wages aren’t enough, which is why the supply of restaurant, hotel and grocery workers was so low. The ceos blamed $1000 checks though while keeping wages lower that needed and raking in profits.
Didn’t Elon Musk spend $45 billion on Twitter after promising to end world hunger if someone gave him a plan to do so? I think that would be a few years’ worth of ending global hunger if the estimate of $8-10 billion per year is even remotely still accurate.
There is more than enough money, food, and shelter in the world. But the rich are using the money they got by exploiting people to buy media companies, yachts, islands, and space rockets.
The problem with ending world hunger is, food abundance allows for more people. If you want to end world hunger, you need to start with healthcare and contraceptives and education, which is more expensive and less “flashy” than just saying “I bought a lifetime supply of rice for poor people in X area”.
The problem with ending world hunger is, food abundance allows for more people.
That is a garbage take… as is all right-wing “overpopulation” bullshittery.
It’s not, there is some nuance here.
The right-wing take is that we should use this potential crisis to lockdown borders, deny aid to others, and have it as an excuse why you don’t have to do anything to fight climate change, becuase people in (pick whatever the current scary country is) are breeding out of control, and coming here and ruining things for us.
The left wing take is to promote healthcare, education, and contraceptive use, while providing aid, making those benefits available to everyone, and empowering yourself and others to act.
The facts about population dynamics is not a right or left wing thing. What you think is the solution to the situation is.
It’s not, there is some nuance here.
Not really. The problem is fundamentally not one of population, but one of consumption. Specifically, the consumption of a small minority of rich people and the capitalist mode of production that keeps them rich. There may be no such thing as “overpopulation,” but there is most definitely such a thing as overconsumption.
The last time I checked, it would take the resources of four earths if everyone on the planet consumed resources at the rate the average USian does, and keep in mind that this metric - average US consumption - is heavily skewed by the batshit insane consumption of the priveleged classes in the US.
Ah yes, the US is the reason why other countries can’t grow enough food.
Yes there is nuance here. It’s idiotic to think that the interaction between population density, climate change, agricultural technology, supply line disruptions, international relationships and literally everything else, impacting the ability to provide food in a specific location on the planet is a black and white issue.
Shit, I should of realized it was you. The naive dogshit logic should have tipped me off.
I have read many comments here about how horrible it is that the rich get everything and we need to make the opportunities equal for everyone, I think they are missing the point of the comic. At the end, Richard’s view has been filtered through the things he was given as something that happens to everyone. Nobody told him that he was given privileges that Paula doesn’t have access to. To him, everybody has access.
Yep, which is why over the course of history Marxism took hold of the Socialist movement, rather than previous Utopian Socialists who believed they could simply “convince people” of Socialism being better, and reality would form around that, like the Owenites.
Marx added that the ideas people have come from their Material Conditions, which is a core concept to Dialectical Materialism.
So what you are saying, in plenty of words, is that because the dude has the material privileges he thinks that the world has the same access to them too?
Not quite. That’s one part of it, but not necessarily.
People hold ideas based on the physical reality they experience. People who grow up in wealthy environments are more accepting of worldviews that either justify or rationalize this, ie the myth of “meritocracy.” They can believe that others do not enjoy the same access, but can believe that hard work can get anyone where they are, as an example.
This has further implications. Fascism, for example, isn’t spread because it’s an “appealing idea,” but as a response to decay of Capitalism, typically. Anlyzing the mechanics of why certain types of ideas become broadly accepted based on change in material reality is useful for preventing dangerous ideas as well.
I wish we could make a population with even the basic reading comprehension to understand these facts and then people might start taking advantage of our most powerful tool, democratic voting, to make real changes to how wealth is distributed.
But to this day when you suggest such a thing, people will default to images in their mind of everyone being forced to wear grey jumpsuits and stand in line for hours for a potato. We have the technological and productive means now to socialize many elements of our lives that would give everyone access to more resources and benefits and lower poverty and needless suffering, which helps everyone, even those already privileged.
But the capitalist narrative will push back on these ideas to its last, dying gasp, even as the world starts to burn and people lose everything, we will still see people arguing for “job creators” and how the wealthy are responsible for all our comforts, and that the socialist alternative will mean people will never own anything… as capitalism takes people’s ownership of everything.
I wish we could make a population with even the basic reading comprehension to understand these facts and then people might start taking advantage of our most powerful tool, democratic voting, to make real changes to how wealth is distributed.
That’s why Leftists abandoned electoralism a long, long time ago. The system is deliberately designed against significant change in Class society, ergo Leftist theory is centered around organization and building dual power.
But to this day when you suggest such a thing, people will default to images in their mind of everyone being forced to wear grey jumpsuits and stand in line for hours for a potato. We have the technological and productive means now to socialize many elements of our lives that would give everyone access to more resources and benefits and lower poverty and needless suffering, which helps everyone, even those already privileged.
People’s ideas are generally a product of their Material Conditions. Socialism may be correct, but people’s class-interests largely influence what ideas people accept.
But the capitalist narrative will push back on these ideas to its last, dying gasp, even as the world starts to burn and people lose everything, we will still see people arguing for “job creators” and how the wealthy are responsible for all our comforts, and that the socialist alternative will mean people will never own anything… as capitalism takes people’s ownership of everything.
There is a rising Leftist current as a response to Capitalism’s decay, what remains is organizing that response and building up dual power.
The concept of noblesse oblige really needs to be restored and expanded. Most of us have advantages we don’t understand. It’s why charity and compassion is so important.
Noblesse oblige is unnecessary if you work to eradicate Class society in the first place. Convincing Capitalists to work against the forces of Profit to be nicer people will never work, that’s why Utopian Socialists all failed.
Eradicating class will never work, either.
Most things came rather easy to me throughout my life. I was talking before most kids my age, reading earlier and more advanced material than other kids. I never truly struggled in most of my classes, generally performing in the top 20-25% without really trying that hard, mostly out of laziness. I’ve always been quick to pick up musical instruments, figure out how mechanical things work, and was confidently disassembling and reassembling computers at a comparatively young age. I did not complete college and simply worked numerous jobs over the years. I didn’t have much money growing up and had a number of financial struggles until I landed in what was essentially my dream job a couple of years ago and am making enough money to be comfortable (not rich).
Am I a self-made man? Not in the slightest.
I had older siblings who encouraged me to talk and reading materials of various levels that allowed me to learn at an organic pace.
My mother was a teacher and about 50% of our toys were educational. In fact, my parents used to give us “fun” workbooks when we were children, which made homework less of a chore later in life.
I grew up with instruments around me and the means to purchase just about any reasonable instrument that interested me, meaning I had a wide array of instruments I enjoyed at my disposal.
My father was an electrical engineer and a pioneer of the PC revolution, so we had internet when most kids didn’t even know what “online” meant, piles of decommissioned computers for me to fuck around with, and a functioning computer in every bedroom and office when most homes didn’t have computers and any with a computer only had one that the family shared.
I dropped out of college due to boredom and worked whatever jobs I wanted to because my parents said I could continue living at home as long as I was studying or working.
I had financial issues because I had problems spending money I didn’t have on things I didn’t need. Even at my lowest points in life, I had a roof over my head and family who could have bailed me out of any situation I got myself into. My parents had plenty of money. While they didn’t hand it to me directly, they paid for every opportunity possible for me to learn and grow.
A couple of years ago, a job opened up at my work which turned out to be the perfect cross-section of my work-experience, hobbies, and home-projects that I’ve had the opportunities to work on. I was recommended to apply for the job based on this facade of a “highly intelligent, self-made man” that my old boss held of me. But I’m really just a beneficiary of my circumstances.
Now, I live in a house that my wife and I own because we were able to buy it at a reasonable price from my grandparents when they moved into assisted-living. My wife and I each drive our own cars that I help keep costs low on between my remote-hybrid work and the amount of car repairs that I can do myself because I was afforded the time and opportunity to learn them when I was younger. I also do a good portion of our home repairs, upgrades, and renovations myself because I had the opportunities to help my dad do similar-ish things growing up.
In all reality, I was born upper-middle class and have managed to work my way down towards the lower-middle class. My parents did not accept nor encourage failure and they didn’t have enough money or influence for me to fail my way upwards.
But I’ve always had the opportunity to just coast. And here I am: a child of just enough privilege, challenge, and cognizance to see how easy it is to end up struggling and to recognize what an asshole looks like.
Not enough privilege to need an award for having some semblance of self-awareness, but just enough to enjoy upvotes for admitting it.
I absolutely agree with this comic, and in a lot of ways I was the kid on the left.
I struggle with the solution though. Isn’t it the purpose of all life about giving your offspring a better chance?
When we give the kid on the right more opportunity, the left side will keep increasing their investment until it’s lopsided in their favor again.
Maybe it’s not about trying to reach some theoretical absolute equity, but keeping the distribution at a healthy balance so that one side is not completely locked out of the game. That’s healthier for the whole community too since healthy competition ensures there’s progress.
The solution cannot be only based on providing more opportunities to achieve equity of chance. To me, (financial/professional) success cannot and should not be the thing to strive for solely. We cannot all be attorneys and doctors and high achievers. We cannot expect a good life for all if everyone strives to be in the top 10% of society and this is the prerequisite for a good life and success, because by definition, this leaves 90% out.
So if you really want to have a good life for all, we need to stop the idea that you need to attain some artificial definition of professional success in order to have a good life, and provide a livable, worthy life for everyone - especially if they put in the time to work and contribute to society. If a person is working 40 hours a week, i.e. gives up 40 hours of their life and free time, why should it matter whether they work as a cashier, collect trash, or work as an attorney. In every case, they have a crucial role in society.
Well the first naive argument against that would be, why would anyone work hard to become an attorney if it doesn’t pay more than anything else? Why spend years in school if it’s not going to get you ahead?
I guess in the star trek universe you do it because you like it?
I want to believe maybe that might work?
These jobs should be rewarded more, but lower-skill jobs should still provide for a decent life, which they don’t. Having to work two jobs is a failure of the system, not the individual.
Having worked in both low end and high end job I have two answers to that. The first is social status. No matter how much you earn, you will always be seen as more intelligent and more “worthy” because you have a higher status job. I think for a lot of people it’s this admiration that would be enough. The second answer is physical reasons. My sister’s back has been shit since she was 30 because of her endless standing in a barista job. Some jobs are insanely hard and just the comfort of being able to take a coffee break and a chat and sit at your desk is absolutely worth striving for. (There are people who enjoy manual and physical labor, but then again, why punish them financially, if they are willing to do the “harder” jobs?)
And yes, a third answer would be the urge to learn more and be more.engaged mentally. But wanting to do that and that having to do that to achieve success are two very different prerequisites.
why would anyone work hard to become an attorney
Do you really think becoming an attorney is harder than, say, cleaning toilets 40h/week? I finished my master‘s degree in physics recently. Has it been stressful? Sure. But I could mostly choose my own rhythm to work, had a healthy balance of exercise and leisure, and had coffee breaks all the time. I know a carpenter and some farm workers, and I would have chosen uni over their work at any time. And chances are, once I get a „real job“ it will still be less hard than working on a field.
Wages are mostly a measure for how replaceable you are, not for how hard the work is.
It’s fine to reward those who’ve spent more time and effort more - as long as we remember and acknowledge that we need everybody else to make society work too, and the baseline of even the lowliest workers is reasonably comfortable.
So if you really want to have a good life for all, we need to stop the idea that you need to attain some artificial definition of professional success in order to have a good life, and provide a livable, worthy life for everyone - especially if they put in the time to work and contribute to society. If a person is working 40 hours a week, i.e. gives up 40 hours of their life and free time, why should it matter whether they work as a cashier, collect trash, or work as an attorney. In every case, they have a crucial role in society.
What method are you proposing to establish this?
I’m not a political and social science think tank, so I cannot propose anything. I doubt there is one method or approach to just establish this.
I mean I could tell you that I would “just” pay everyone basically the same, have “free” housing standardized for everyone and have them relocate to not further than 15 mins from their work, demolish single family houses, have students paid for studying, have parents paid for parenting, provide “free” necessities and basic foods, and get rid of bullshit jobs and companies that make products for empty consumption. But I mean, “just”. That’s obviously a thought experiment that happens by a complete layman and I doubt that I could win people for this, let alone in a democratic way.
I’m not a political and social science think tank, so I cannot propose anything. I doubt there is one method or approach to just establish this.
That’s fine, I am more asking a question to get you to think about method as well. Lots of people agree on goals, but methods of getting there are diverse, and many of them are fantasy, which makes the goals pointless.
I mean I could tell you that I would “just” pay everyone basically the same
People have unequal abilities and unequal needs. People shouldn’t be paid the same, the whole of production should be in service of fulfilling the needs of the whole of society.
have “free” housing standardized for everyone and have them relocate to not further than 15 mins from their work, demolish single family houses, have students paid for studying, have parents paid for parenting, provide “free” necessities and basic foods, and get rid of bullshit jobs and companies that make products for empty consumption. But I mean, “just”. That’s obviously a thought experiment that happens by a complete layman and I doubt that I could win people for this, let alone in a democratic way.
You’ll find that many people agree with you on this, but if you can’t achieve this electorally, your option becomes Revolutionary in nature.
I think you responded to the wrong comment, could that be?
I pasted the wrong block of text, sorry! Corrected it.
Isn’t it the purpose of all life about giving your offspring a better chance?
Yeap, but doesn’t mean you willfully or otherwise create a worse situation for someone else
Maybe it’s not about trying to reach some theoretical absolute equity, but keeping the distribution at a healthy balance so that one side is not completely locked out of the game. That’s healthier for the whole community too since healthy competition ensures there’s progress.
Equity is an ideal we may never reach, but the point is we keep trying to reach it. There’s no such thing as a “healthy distribution” of exploitable working class.
The economic models built on exploitation of cheap labor are a relic of the past, and humanity does not need them to ensure future intellectual or cultural growth. We can have capitalism and social welfare together. We can even have Veblen goods without essentially making slaves of other people.
It’s about humility and gratitude. Don’t refuse to build on your advantages, just do what you can to pay it forward and outward.
Isn’t it the purpose of all life about giving your offspring a better chance?
A better chance at what? Becoming a member of the parasite class?
Needs extra last panel where Richard tells Paula “if you don’t like your job just get another one you like”
And Richard’s autobiography that claims he worked since 12.
As someone who (mostly) got this privilege i completely agree with this comic
The toddlers look so much like little old people
richard as a baby looks like an old man
tbh they both look like they start very old and get younger
this is fantastic 👏
Richard is LinkedIn in a nutshell
This comic strip only hints at the race and gender aspect of it. Myself, a not so impressive product of the working class with a not so great track record, has managed to better than most. When I think about my pastey white skin and the junk between my legs I am never very impressed but to think that I’ve won some sort of cosmic lottery. Society has some major flaws you guys.
Discrimination comes in many aspects. I wish people would be more comfortable admiting their privileges, this would bring the change faster
And here I am, in a well paying job as a programmer, constantly having impostor syndrome lol.
Heartbreaking.
All that drawing and they missed the ‘a’ in ‘on a plate’ in Richard’s last panel, which is the title of the comic.
Nah Richard is just so privileged he feels he don’t even have to speak properly
I once had a machine shop teacher that has a qoute that still lives rent free in my brain.
“I feel bad for the people who grew up rich because they dont know how to do anything themselves and dont know how to fix anything!”
Its pretty true life advice, i wouldnt change the way a grew up even a little bit. Not having alot growing up made me happy to have the small things and take care of the things i already owned. You can be rich with money but the poorest with skills and intelligence and that makes you more sad then ill ever be.
