The Benefits of World Hunger
The Benefits of World Hunger
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
Before you have an opinion on it, just read the article, it's just one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf
The UN really shot themselves in the foot by deleting it, because the title only looks bad if you don't actually read the rest of the text, which they now made more difficult.
they probably would've just added [SATIRE] to the title
I edited my post 👍
No, the text is pretty fucked, too
The text is only fucked the the way that The Onion sticks are fucked: this is only labeled satire because of the tone of the article. The content is as true as "real" news.
The actual "fucked" content is that the author was correct, and that the wealthy benefit from hunger and the threat of starvation to maintain access to abundant cheap labour.
Yo I see this shit posted all the time. The article was written in 2008 for the UNs magazine and meant to be satire. It has since been removed by the UN for being ambiguous.
https://communist.red/the-benefits-of-world-hunger-un-blurs-the-line-between-satire-and-reality/
things that were obvious satire in 2008 are ambiguous now i love 2020s capitalism
Yeah I posted this and went to bed without ever looking for the article. Made an edit that should federate soon enough acknowledging this
@sharkfucker420 It's a good thing "A Modest Proposal"[1] wasn't titled "The Benefits of Cannibalism" because I guess people would have taken that at face value as well.
I need a physical copy of that
“No one works harder than hungry people”
While this is probably true, the problem is that their reward for this hard work in no way comes close to fixing their hunger problem.
Meanwhile the assholes in control of the economy and responsible for their hunger problem are taking all the rewards and hoarding it for no better reasons than to compare with other assholes.
To quote the article in question (highlight is my own):
"[H]ow many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth."
So is the title “the benefit of world hunger” more of a cynical title, then? Or is it actually making an argument in favor of world hunger for the benefit of our economy?
No one works harder than people whose lives are threatened [for example, by starvation] and they are working to not die.
The logical conclusion of this is that we should bring back slavery and extermination camps because that's how you maximize the efficiency from of humans. /s (obviously)
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
Which is actually said in the original article
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!?!
Won't anybody think of the employees in the orphan crushing industry?
Nah they are doing like A Modest Proposal satire thing, that's funny. Guilty liberals just don't want to hear it and assuage that guilt by making the UN not joke about it at brunch. That's basically as good as actually feeding people.
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:
Professional headline interpreters.
On duty
FEE is an American Libertarian think tank.
Let that help you figure out what’s actually happening here.
Was about to post this as well. The fact that a bunch of staunch Libertarians are even like "Wait a second" shows a refreshing hope for rational self-awareness lol.
Apparently that article was "just satire bro don't take it seriously bro" failed satire.
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.
Edit: the article is very much satire. Thanks for the added context and commentary!
It’s satire. And it’s apparently doing its job swimmingly because people are on here talking about it.
Yeah, started reading the original article and I totally get the tone now. Definitely worked well on me!
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.
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.
"a modest proposal" was another banger on a similar topic
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.
I understand it as a provocative piece, it genuinely made me realize that maybe one reason why the problem of hunger was not solved is because it is indeed being exploited.
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..
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.
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.
The context that he meant it was poor people are going to be hungry, so they'll hustle and start businesses to be rich and successful.
Only one who's never been hungry aside from an intentional fast at most can dare claim the benefits of deprivation.
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.
I mean some people are benefiting from it
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
argued that hunger is "funamental for the working of the world's economy"
Maybe he's right and we need to change that.
The article:
Thanks!
He calls it "not satire" but "provocative". So he doesn't mean it, but says it to provoke a reaction... Like satire.
Yeh it's pretty clearly not sincere in voice. Seems like by saying 'not satire' they're trying to avoid people thinking they mean the content of what the article describes isn't sincerely true, but given how it's written, it's hard to conclude the author cheering on from the sidelines. Te nonchalance and unaffected language when discussing a travesty seems pretty clearly to be a device used for effect which frankly is pretty close to what gets called 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"
It sounds like he just doesn't find it funny, which is why he doesn't want to call it satire.
It doesn't have to be funny haha to be satire. Just like dramatic irony doesn't have to be a knee slapper.
Contending that it was what, assholes?
OP really should have just linked the article:
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, Kent was being critical of the idea that market-led solutions (i.e. capitalism fixes hunger) are better than community-driven solutions. He was also saying that hunger is part of capitalism, and you'll never get rid of hunger while capitalism exists, because capitalism needs to withhold resources to force people to work.
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.
Wall. Holy fucking shit.
Not even most serfdom and slavery advocates went as far.
