#wealth accumulation

[unbfacts]

[shrinkrants]

...according to new empirical research that is not included in the main text of this book – the growth of affluence in the core [capitalist nation states] continues to rely on a massive net-appropriation of labour, resources and goods from the global South, worth trillions of dollars per year. The situation is quite extreme: the global South contributes 80% of the resources and 90% of the labour that fuels the capitalist world economy.  But these productive capacities, which could be used to provision nutritious food, good housing, and healthcare for everyone in the region, are mobilized instead to churn out plantation crops and sweatshop products for corporations and consumers in the core.

Recent research has found that we have more than enough productive capacity to end poverty forever and ensure good lives for all 8 billion people on this planet – with even less resources and energy than we presently use, thus also achieving our ecological goals – if production was organized around human needs rather than capital accumulation.  But to get there the global majority must win democratic control over the means of production. That is the fight.  That is the future we must struggle to achieve. I hope this book brings inspiration toward that end. 

Jason Hickel, March 2024

Written for the Korean translation of The Divide

"Recent research has found that we have more than enough productive capacity to end poverty forever and ensure good lives for all 8 billion people on this planet – with even less resources and energy than we presently use, thus also achieving our ecological goals – if production was organized around human needs rather than capital accumulation. "

[prole-log]

[justsomeantifas]

What would your opinion be of those rich people who own private collections but loan the art out to museums and shit?? Apparently this is considered "philanthropic?" But it also helps the museums bc they don't have to buy the pieces, so they save money, according to my friend who works as an assistant curator.

Rich people wouldn’t need to loan out their private collections to museums if they didn’t have a private collection to begin with and those works were publicly available lol. Like, I don’t understand why I’m supposed to be grateful to people for “fixing” a problem that they alone are causing. Loans and donations of artwork wouldn’t be necessary if artwork wasn’t hoarded in the first place, that’s literally the whole point and the whole problem here.

[flip-pancakes-not-tables]

when you're supposed to contextualize 2100 years between 600BCE to 1500CE

[justsomeantifas]

I can see some folks jumping to a conclusion based on State-sponsored Art, like in the USSR: Art "for the people" but really glorifying the State. Yet when in true stateless communism, the opposite happens. Artists are free to create & express without need for survival income. Private collections don't need to exist because everyone has equal access for appreciation. Art in all forms flourishes because the people are free to appreciate, instead of taking "time off work" -- losing income.

Yes! Artists can create without needing to be hemmed in by constraints related to whether or not their work is profitable. Collections of art owned by people can be much more inclusive without needing to account for what “sells” or what is more “worthwhile” to collect and conserve and display. Conversations about what art is, and what has counted as artwork historically can be had without for once having to consider the monetary worth of an artwork and how that decides if something counts as art or not. 

Elitist notions of art and artwork (especially in terms of European vs. every other form of artwork ever) can shift away from basically being centered around what has historically just been the tastes of rich people to something that’s much more equitable and involved, that looks at art and creativity beyond just the realm of the extremely rich. Like, there is so much that can be freed up in terms of the types of conversations that can be had, so much that can be learned when it hasn’t been locked up behind a paywall or in some bank deposit box. 

Like, that sort of stuff, those conversations, that stuff is exciting to think about. Just the sheer possibilities that can be explored, potentially, are staggering. 

[justsomeantifas]

Some people like art enough to collect it. What's so hard to understand about that? As long as they can afford it, what's the problem?

Here’s a list of posts that talk about exactly what the problem is:

Original Post

Follow Up Post #1

Follow Up Post #2

Follow Up Post #3

Follow Up Post #4

Follow Up Post #5

Follow Up Post #6

Follow Up Post #7

Have fun reading.

[justsomeantifas]

You: Spending thousands to millions of dollars on art just to hide it away is stupid and benefits nobody | this Jagoff: Well it's like a diary