The article is actually decently well written good-faith satire meant to address how poverty and hunger are inherent to capitalism as a system. The title was just too bold lol

      • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Y’all should actually read the article because it seems like it’s saying something completely different from what OP is trying to make it sound like. Basically, if I understood correctly, the article was being critical of the idea that market-led solutions (i.e. capitalism fixes hunger) are better than community-driven solutions.

        This paragraph seems to sum up the article pretty well:

        In Kent’s view, one gathers, global hunger is not a complex problem that is being addressed by free market capitalism; it’s a moral one that requires empowering intellectuals like Kent to solve it.

        • skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          And to be clear you mean the original UN article, not the article from the libertarian think tank “Foundation for Economic Education” (“FEE”)

          And the UN article link (archive) is in the comments

          • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I couldn’t find the original UN article which is why I was referencing the FEE one. Also, while I quoted the bit about “empowered intellectuals” I assumed that was pro-capitalist cynicism towards education and community due to the heavily pro-capitalist slant in the rest of the FEE article. I kinda figured everyone else picked up on that too.

            Thanks for the link! I’ll have to read the original in a bit.

            • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              the original UN article

              Someone linked it bellow: https://archive.is/MObDZ

              The FEE article is garbage, but the original is like a broken clock, it makes a couple of valid points, but it doesn’t strike me as being written by an anti capitalist, but by someone who wants to reform capitalism.

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • underwire212@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s satire. And it’s apparently doing its job swimmingly because people are on here talking about it.

    • kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It does explain those things! I quote:

      “While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created.”

      The title is clearly thinly veiled satire and a pointed reminder that our current wealth is founded on the suffering of the poor.

      Just read the article, it’s one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf

      But I’m sure George Kent, author of “Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food” is actually a shill for wealthy scum.

      • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I appreciate the added context as I hadn’t had a chance to read the actual article yet. It could use a better title though. In the context of being on a a UN website, the satire gets lost completely.

        • kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I honestly kind of like the title and the angle of being brutally honest about the fact that the author (like most who are well off) actually benefit a lot from world hunger. That’s an important point, not because we should support world hunger, but because if we are to tackle it we must be willing to lower our standard of living.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think about this all the time.

      All the “just a prank” folks.

      All the “I’m just asking questions” folks.

      The “It’s just a thought experiment” folks.

      • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’ve seen it firsthand from people before and I’m just like… why? Why do you think this way? It’s just cowardice at the end of the day. They’ll say those things because it’s an easy escape from being called out for having fucked views that allow fascism and corporate interests to flourish.

        “I’m just asking questions” is so fucking annoying. You and I both know you’re not and you’re trying to frame this like you’re not the sociopath in this situation. It’s so disingenuous.

  • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

    • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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?

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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…

      • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.”

        • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

      • Dasnap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Maybe they should build a city in the ocean where these intellectuals have full control. Maybe experiment with some cool drugs.

        • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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”.

            • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

      • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        his solution (for a class of “intellectuals” like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill

        This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” what they’re describing tends to devolve into “a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions” when questioned about what a “dictatorship of the proletariat” actually entails. Often they’ll try to justify it by saying it’s only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.

    • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    argued that hunger is “funamental for the working of the world’s economy”

    Maybe he’s right and we need to change that.