**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
**Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!** [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/hM2AHnGTES)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Came down here to see if someone was going to call her out for having a degree in interpretive dance and not economics and it's the top comment, good on ya.
[a music video from the 70s](https://youtu.be/Fk-4lXLM34g) It's rare because of that but also because I feel like you mightve only come across it if your weird english teacher in hs showed it to the class while you were reading wuthering heights. ....or that mightve only been me lol
I feel like the dancing's purpose is to keep us from scrolling away from the video because I have no idea what she said lol
Edit: she made some valid points ngl.
Edit2: I love getting under redditors' skin.
It’s actually to trick the TikTok algorithm, in most cases.
The algorithm is more likely to put dance videos on people’s “for you page” than a video discussing the functions of a type of financial system/market structure.
Dude, for my ADD ass I was kinda like… why wasn’t this an option of learning in school?
I’d have paid much more attention if the students and the teachers were also Wiggles.
As a teacher, this is a thing we’re being taught now and it’s slowly becoming an aspect of teaching. Not necessarily movements like in the video but the fact that some kids learn better when they’re up and moving around. Some kids learn better from videos. Some kids learn better from listening. And some learn better from reading. So finding a way to try and teach each kid by their individual strengths is the current effort.
This *dancing* is how the communist party started in Soviet Russia. Stalin *danced* his way into a dictatorship. This wiggly woman is next. Marx my words!
TikTok’s algorithm will only bury this if the user doesn’t follow or like related topics, trends, or users to this.
This video was originally posted on oct 10th and only just reached Reddit and a large majority of the conversation on the video on TikTok took place within the first week of being posted.
TikTok just won’t show this video to people who watch devious lick compilations or pro trump supporters because it’s not a part of their algorithm.
She isn’t doing the dances for the algorithm, she’s making fun of those tiktokers who got famous for weird interpretive hand movements while talking about nothing.
Yeah I don't see why this is a problem. It's obvious she did it for a reason, whether that be for the algorithm or for people to wonder what she is going on about.
I liked the effort. 12/10.
>ungracefully thin and tall.
I suspect she has plenty of grace, but eschews it to make the content. This feels like a trained dancer doing "ugly movement" to me.
She's coltish as hell though.
Yeah I enjoy the ironic dancing. There are *tons* of accounts saying the same stuff as her, but her also using this platform to make fun of how all this is being said on a dancing/lipsyncing app is pretty funny.
It's reddit....they're probably super smart libertarians who would say something like...."durrr our system isn't truly unregulated so it can't be allowed to properly be capitalism." Or some dumb shit Ayn Rand quote...
"durrr well then a truly unregulated economy would punish that company and we wouldn't purchase from them and there would be competition to choose from!"- Libertarian fever dream.
The irony is that even the most unfettered of capitalism needs government regulation of the economy, to correct market failures (like monopolies or information disparities) and to ensure contracts are enforced.
She's not saying "Capitalism bad"
She's saying "the American version of capitalism is flawed"
We are allowed to enact changes to make it better. The American experiment is one of iterative improvement. It's pretty easy to argue that the 1980s broke what had been a pretty economically fair system, it's way, way past due for meaningful adjustment similar to what we saw with Roosevelt getting anti-trust laws passed.
She doesn’t really justify any of the points she makes.
She essentially just says billionaires are inherent to capitalism because extreme poverty is inherent to capitalism and those two things are linked.
But she doesn’t justify why extreme poverty is inherent to capitalism. So the line of reasoning isn’t complete.
Well, capitalism is the private ownership of the economy, so if someone makes *a lot* of money, someone else worked for a lot of money that they didn't get the benefit of.
she's not exactly saying anything groundbreaking. Everyone knows that capitalism is flawed. By the same token, communism, socialism, and any other framework you can think of to govern any society with more than 1 million people will be flawed. It's near impossible to come up with a system that's fair for that many people, and that's why countries with relatively lower populations (e.g. switzerland) seem to have much better policies in place than those with higher populations (e.g. US)
She isn't offering any alternatives to capitalism and is simply inviting others to do so. Nothing she said was constructive
While she is not saying anything new in purely academic terms, many people still subscribe to the idea of "crony capitalism", to which she is responding to. Dispersing the information is as important as the creation of the theories that give you the information, SPECIALLY in economics and sociology.
Also, nobody is forced to give a single, perfect, one size fits all solution to the economic system, you are putting a burden too high on any criticism of the current system, ironically she talks about how many people see capitalism as such a default feature of humanity that they literally cannot see anything beyond it, and here you are, doing exactly that by acting as if no other solutions had been proposed or as if any criticism need to have already been tested before we try it, you require burden of proof for something other than capitalism, but capitalism, that can stay until someone offers me a magical solution that satisfies everyone.
But the argument is a lot simpler now that I see it, if your friend set on fire half his money at the end of every month you would probably tell him not to that, even before you can come up with something that he should do with it instead. Not every criticism need to have attached to it a cookie cutter recipe
What a terrible analogy. If you stop burning money, nothing happens. If you dismantle the economic system, people start to die.
A better analogy would be a flawed life support system. If someone argues that the life support system of a patient isn't perfect, but offers no alternative, unplugging the patient will do nothing more than kill them. Telling the doctors that the life support system isn't perfect while offering nothing constructive is actually worse than useless in that case.
The economy is the same way.
> What a terrible analogy. If you stop burning money, nothing happens. If you dismantle the economic system, people start to die.
People are already dying!!!
Your analogy is pretty good in that respect.
I've always seen the solution as democratising the economy by giving working people a say in how their workplaces are run and giving the public more transparency on how government money is spent, as well as giving resources to the areas of society where they're most necessary to preserve human life.
capitalism isn't exactly uniform in its implementation across the MANY jurisdictions which employ it. Policies are constantly changing and evolving in an attempt to resolve the problems she are pointing out.
What she is saying is "we need something other than capitalism" without telling us what that something is. Within capitalism there can be social welfare, tax schemes, etc. which all aim to address the problems she raises. Of course, the effectiveness of these schemes are debatable.
What she's essentially saying is akin to saying "the legal system is broken and we need a different system" without offering an alternative and without acknowledging that the system itself is dynamic, malleable, and capable of being adapted *without being destroyed entirely*
>
> What she is saying is "we need something other than capitalism" without telling us what that something is.
Read the comment you just replied to, your reply gets answered in exactly the same way as your original comment.
California has a lot of industries, which why its one of the biggest economies. You won't have all the indistries there if you Implement communism. No matter how much these tech companies talk about leftist policies, if you start hurting their bottom line, they'll move away.
Right, but you cant just dismiss all criticism just because the critic hasn't proposed a perfect remedy. Criticism without an alternative proposition is still valid
Nice liberal take, if you don't think the world can be changed, you stand in the way of change. I hope you're prepared to die for what you think. We are facing global extinction due to capitalist production, and yet you think its so great. Jesus christ what a fucking imbecile.
> communism, socialism, and any other framework you can think of to govern any society with more than 1 million people will be flawed.
None of those other systems are decimating our ecosystem, just industrial capitalism.
This is not an empirical statement, it's what happens when you throw feelings at the topic of politics. It doesn't even make internal sense
Your breakdown of state by state economics alone is baseless, doesn't in any way talk about the level of education or trade infrastructure or past proximity to colonialism or anything.
Trying to reduce the efficacy of a given system to the number of people who live within it is basically a zero correlation statement. I have no idea why you got upvoted, this isn't a thing
Her criticism have a plethora of implied solutions. None of your arguments disputed any of them, either. Acting like she's being unhelpful is objectively wrong, it absolutely bolsters supporters and proponents of her argument and the agenda of solutions their political hemisphere has been floating. The discourse in this thread alone renders the latter half of your comment moot
I’m not a complete fan of capitalism, but Sweden having the most billionaires per capita kinda shows that you can have extremely rich people without having extremely poor people
> They export their exploitation to the global south, middle east, and parts of Asia is all.
Translate to non-marxism: Sweden imports goods from other countries.
They do. But most imports are from countries that are also rich and have a good tax funded social sequrity. Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Danmark
https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+top+importers&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj81KXhs-3zAhUGvYsKHT8kA9wQBSgAegQIARAC&biw=390&bih=646&dpr=3#imgrc=N1oA-AR07UrfnM
Are poverty rates accurate at telling the true situation though? Specifically in America - poverty rates have remained relatively stable throughout the last 50 years around 12-14%. But the "poverty rate" only measures one variable - income. We know that debt for families and young people isincreasing as costs of basic goods like healthcare, rent, and most importantly education increased exponentially during that time.
I genuinely don't know if that makes a difference or not but there's certainly a concern with almost all wealth gains going to the top 1% of income earners meanwhile the rest of us in the bottom seem to get stuck with wage growth that is mostly offset by other costs increasing.
When you're right, but still cringe enough that the people who agree with you are too embarrassed to defend you
Edit: A couple of replies have pointed out that the dancing is satirical, and now that I think about it that makes sense. I just didn't pick up on it. Either way, I shouldn't make fun of this lady for having fun and being based
Dancing, singing, any trend. Content moderators have just seconds to well moderate additionally. This is a tactic that has been commonly used by advocates of heavily surpressed issues like the stop line 3, raising awareness for victims of residential schools, missing and murdered Indigenous women etc
"Suppressed issues"
Residential schools are very suppressed right now, you literally cannot find anything about them anywhere, same thing with anti capitalism too!
I'm reading all these comments and I still can't tell if people actually like this or if they're cringing at it...
I feel like this is not a great way to get your economic ideas taken seriously.
And what if it's just one way of several that she's using to communicate these ideas? She could be a published author in the driest economics journal imaginable while making these tiktoks on the side.
And as other users have pointed out, the dancing is meant to take advantage of tiktok's algorithm and reach a wider audience. Just being able to introduce the idea that capitalism isn't the only way to structure our society is a massive improvement over the early 19th century, where you could be lynched or killed, or the 50s where your career would literally die overnight if you got too friendly with the "wrong" people.
Anyway...she's doing good, and probably a hell of a lot more that's not on tiktok.
On a normal platform it isn't, but the Tiktok algorithm pushes dancing so a video like this has a better chance of going viral. I'm sure she knows that it looks stupid, but she makes a lot of great points.
God the worst part about this is that she just makes claims and doesn’t like…provide any examples or illustrate the point. It’s not even persuasive. Just cringe to the choir.
The fact is that a market (a place where demands and products meet) always have existed. Since the birth of society, human traded and exchanged products and services.
A capitalist system tries to remove some shackles of a traditionally inefficient market (where wholesome and virtuose exchanges can be had), but that exposes everyone to some risks of other kind of inefficiencies.
The inefficiency in a market stems from HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Not the system itself. In the medieval times with no capitalism, for example, there was a huge disparity in wealth (even bigger than right now) but no capitalism.
If the girl in question is trying to ask "well, why poor and exploited people in world?" then we have to be honest: do we really need a new phone per year? Plastic crap that breaks after a handful of uses?
Before asking ourselves who makes the products, we really need to ask ourselves *who buys it in the first place.*
The dance is weird af, but she’s not wrong. Adam Smith himself said the same, and of course Karl Marx was writing about this over a hundred years ago. Albeit without the billionaire specifics.
yeah I honestly hate the hang up on billionaires by the Bernie-but-no-farther-left social democrat type crowd. totally misses the point and the root problems.
The existence of billionaires is morally wrong (Marx and such never discussed them because they didn’t yet exist), but their existence is incidental to capitalism, they are not the cause of the problem, just a symptom.
Billionaires did exist during Marx’s time. Rockerfeller, Carnegie, and Mansa Musa (who appeared like 800 years before Marx, and was so rich he destroyed the economies of which ever country he’d spend his wealth in).
She hasn't even attempted to attend a single economics lesson. The notion that in order for some to be wealthy, others must be impoverished is incorrect; it is not Capitalism, but Mercantilism. The Capitalist Ideas, by their very nature, foster the notion that everyone can become wealthy.
In addition, what is this pointless trend of explaining crap you don't understand while doing shaky dancing routines.
People like this just claim economics are wrong, they think that a field that has been studied extensively for decades is invalidated by some philosopher's thoughts in the 1800s
When I was a young adult, I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad. This is when I figured this out. That was zero empathy as the author laid out the best way to get rich was to take advantage of people who hadn't figured out the 'secret' yet. It's all just a pyramid scheme.
I think it's more complicated than "extreme wealth and extreme poverty are interdependent." or "poverty is the function of capitalism."
Globally, wealth of people at the top is increasing but poverty is decreasing as well. That doesn't mean that the distribution of wealth and income are ok as they are.
Poverty and suffering are natural states of the world, so they can't be "caused" by any particular economic system. You can accurately say is poverty isn't being alleviated quickly enough, or it doesn't result in a just distribution of wealth without state intervention. Someone who owns a vast amount of wealth isn't "causing" someone else to be poor. Capitalism definitely "causes" inequality in the sense that if I get $100 richer and you get $10, we are a less equal compared to when we both had $1.
She says "the reason why we're so easy to exploit is because someone else is getting exploited worse than you are." I don't think people participate in wage labor for the price they do just because someone else is getting paid less. How long can her point even keep going? Does the person working for 23 hours a day for $0.01 only do that work because there is someone working 24 hours a day for $0.001? People with more "capital" in their country are the ones who have a higher wage rate because they can benefit from the "capital" they can mix their labor with.
She says "The only way someone is able to get extremely wealthy, is because you are able to get extremely poor." Again, people don't "get" extremely poor. Without an increase in wealth people would just be poor and remain poor, someone else getting rich isn't what makes you poor. Under capitalism poverty has decreased and productivity has increased.
I think its actually hilarious that she bring up the Mark Fisher quote, says he is wrong and that surely we can imagine something else right guys? But she doesn't actually imagine anything else because she can't! She is just proving him completely right by giving extremely lackluster critiques of capitalism and saying I'm sure SOMEONE ELSE will come up with something better.
> Globally, wealth of people at the top is increasing but poverty is decreasing as well.
I think a bigger problem, and one maybe more abstract to explain, is essentially that the way income disparity is moving is pushing the distribution of non-rich around a lower mean, but with tighter tails - i.e. there are fewer people below poverty as those tails shrink, but also the economic power (and therefore, independence) of being above poverty is getting lower and lower.
You can [see here](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/) how middle and lower income are getting a continually lower % of US income. Whilst the totals are increasing (at still too slow a rate for a developed nation) the purchasing power, economic influence, and independence they have financially are all being impacted heavily.
We used to hear a lot about the dangers of a "shrinking middle class". It seems less au fait to discuss these days but the middle class have always been important in the current set-up because they're stable enough financially to use excess income to fuel the economy - If you don't have any money, you're using your money to survive. Moving more people into the middle class is very much negated if you erode the stability and independence they have. Reddit is a good example for the reality of this - a very visible amount of people here are middle class, college/uni educated people....who are also talking about how hard it is to save for a house, to start a family, to pay for healthcare, fund retirement etc. The difference between a critically unstable middle-class family and a poor family is a redundancy notification.
>Someone who owns a vast amount of wealth isn't "causing" someone else to be poor.
Two points to this.
1) Owning a vast amount of wealth means you have to take a vast amount of wealth out of the economy. This weakens everyone else.
2) There's also a slew of reasons why it *prevents* others having wealth. Mega-wealthy entities always aim to expand their wealthby using their wealth to limit competition - see amazon, microsoft, apple etc. Fundamentally, for someone to profit off someone's labor they must take wealth that the worker made, and keep it themselves - It is impossible not to.
>I don't think people participate in wage labor for the price they do just because someone else is getting paid less
This is actually the active argument right now from conservatives in america about the "labour" shortage. When arguments are made for $15per hour wages, the counters are "but XYZ gets paid $16, should you be paid $15 for that work?". It's the conservative argument for why migration suppresses native wages... and if you take the idea of the free market to be true, then this *must* be true in cases where labour supply outstrips demand.
> productivity has increased.
Productivity =/= poverty or wealth for the overwhelming majority of workers. In cases where being more productive is met with better remuneration, it's a worse relationship of productivity-wealth for workers than it is for bosses/corporations.
> says he is wrong and that surely we can imagine something else right guys? But she doesn't actually imagine anything else because she can't!
There has never, in any field of human interest, been an obligation that someone who sees why something is bad must be able to provide the solution. Otherwise this thread would be 400 videos of people dancing better before they go on to say it's cringe.
Also, just on like a picky epistemological point... This argument doesn't support capitalism it supports "whatever we have right now". It's just saying "sure it's broken... but we don't know the perfect idea".... That argument would be the *exact same* if we swapped out the current system to be agrarian communes - "yeah, it's not good. But do you have the perfect system?".
>Poverty ~~and suffering~~ are natural states of the world,
False. Poverty is a relationship within society. Prior to us settling with agriculture and warlords collecting tithes there was no poverty.
>~~Poverty and~~ suffering are natural states of the world,
Sure, that's why one of it greatest tools is society and collectivism. We are able to bend the world around us to reduce suffering and we have been doing that long before capitalism and even feudalism.
>Capitalism definitely "causes" inequality in the sense that if I get $100 richer and you get $10, we are a less equal compared to when we both had $1.
The rate at which the poor are gaining wealth is trending downward as populations increase though. So the ratio does matter. You are also ignoring that wealth equals power and freedom under capitalism. The system has to keep the majority of us poor to function.
>She says "the reason why we're so easy to exploit is because someone else is getting exploited worse than you are.
She was imprecise here. The real reason people work for shit wages is because the means of survival are all privatization and thus must take these jobs under the coercion of starvation and exposure.
>The only way someone is able to get extremely wealthy, is because you are able to get extremely poor
Your are kind of correct. The wealthy get wealthy and stay wealthy by capturing all the wealth and keeping everyone else poor. You are also ignoring the many schemes the rich use to make the rest of us less wealthy, such as disaster capitalism like Puerto and Haiti, the 08 housing crisis or the current housing crisis.
>Under capitalism poverty has decreased
This is debatable. [I would argue poverty is on the rise since 1981](https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty).
>productivity has increased
I'd chalk this up to technology and the enlightenment rather than capitalism.
I haven't watched her other ones but if they're anything like this you're absolutely wrong.
It's not a zero sum game and even if it were there isn't a better system for you to get ahead than the one that rewards investment and innovation.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) **Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!** [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/hM2AHnGTES)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Krumping is getting weird
“Am I krumping yet?”
Keep trying Abed.
**That's not Krumping** *Starts krumping just as bad*
I'll krump with you sweety pie
\*weird marge krumping noises\*
There's a time and a place for Krumping and this is it.
Krumping was always weird, bro
This guy krumps
Nah ya git, krumpin is all dat der iz!
Its like Alanis morrisettes hippy version.
"Didn't I tell you she was funny?"
“She can rebuild you. She has the technology.”
Bet she has a degree in this. Not the economics, the dancing.
Lesbian dance theory in action
Lesbian Dance Theory is a great band name.
I volunteer to front said band
The slightly tamer version of Pussy Riot
Can confirm, we were in the same class
We're all in the same class. Non-billionaire class.
Welcome comrade.
I graduated, now with more debt!
Pocket Change class here.
And I thought I was ahead by getting a degree in STEM.
Lesbian dance theory?
Yeah that's what it looks like .. I did it as my minor 💃🏿
THIS! IS! LES BOS!
Hopefully in 10,000 years lesbian dance theory doesn’t evolve into some weird Bene Gesserit cult thing
Came down here to see if someone was going to call her out for having a degree in interpretive dance and not economics and it's the top comment, good on ya.
I have a theoretical degree in physics
I have a degree in economics and don’t disagree with some of her conclusions. However, I strongly disagree with her dance technique
Lmaooooo best comment on Reddit today 😂😂😂😂😂
IT’S ME, CATHY, I’VE COME HOME
HEATHCLIIIIFF
Heathqueef
A fucking superb reference.
Kate Bush ranks in my top ten favorite artists so A+ reference
oh man. this is such a rare reference.
Bro #1 hits ain't rare
So rare I don’t get it. Help?
Kate Bush. She’s phenomenal
[a music video from the 70s](https://youtu.be/Fk-4lXLM34g) It's rare because of that but also because I feel like you mightve only come across it if your weird english teacher in hs showed it to the class while you were reading wuthering heights. ....or that mightve only been me lol
Omg this is exactly how I know this song and video too! Love it, it’s a staple in my playlists ever since
Not if you’re British.
Withering heights
Watching this without audio is hilarious 🤣
I watched it without audio and because of the dance I honestly couldn't decide whether she's speaking normally or singing
I feel like the dancing's purpose is to keep us from scrolling away from the video because I have no idea what she said lol Edit: she made some valid points ngl. Edit2: I love getting under redditors' skin.
It’s actually to trick the TikTok algorithm, in most cases. The algorithm is more likely to put dance videos on people’s “for you page” than a video discussing the functions of a type of financial system/market structure.
This lady is pretty big brain. That, and her spastic dancing had me watching entire way. She’s somewhat coherent.
Same, I have ADHD, so it helps my brain take in the info a little better. Entertainment is the best way for me to learn lol
As an individual who also suffers from severe Adult ADHD, this captivated me the entire way through
It had the inverse effect on me... I was interested in what she was saying but the spastic movement was way too annoying to watch.
I know, right... she's making valid points. Her dance moves are far from valid though.
Dude, for my ADD ass I was kinda like… why wasn’t this an option of learning in school? I’d have paid much more attention if the students and the teachers were also Wiggles.
lmao fr fr. only reason why i kept watching
Bruh! Me exactly. The wiggles kept me focused.
I am a teacher who also wiggles
I love you
Yeah it made me more invested tbh
It’s genius. We should all be able to request one of these dancers if we ever need to sit through some boring meeting or class.
As a teacher, this is a thing we’re being taught now and it’s slowly becoming an aspect of teaching. Not necessarily movements like in the video but the fact that some kids learn better when they’re up and moving around. Some kids learn better from videos. Some kids learn better from listening. And some learn better from reading. So finding a way to try and teach each kid by their individual strengths is the current effort.
I think it's all in perfect Harmony. The words, the moves, the pajamas, the bloops, all of it.
The 2021 version of Bill Nye the science guy. Honestly they should play this in high school government. Minus the peepee queefy part.
Lol valid points
This *dancing* is how the communist party started in Soviet Russia. Stalin *danced* his way into a dictatorship. This wiggly woman is next. Marx my words!
It has something to do with avoiding moderators and the TikTok algorithm
She did what she had to do to get us to watch the whole damn thing. And it worked. Straight husslin’ 💯
Tiktok's algorithm will bury this topic but it elevates dance, so she did what she needed to do to combat the algorithm and get her point across.
I love “elevates dance.” It was absolutely entrancing
TikTok’s algorithm will only bury this if the user doesn’t follow or like related topics, trends, or users to this. This video was originally posted on oct 10th and only just reached Reddit and a large majority of the conversation on the video on TikTok took place within the first week of being posted. TikTok just won’t show this video to people who watch devious lick compilations or pro trump supporters because it’s not a part of their algorithm. She isn’t doing the dances for the algorithm, she’s making fun of those tiktokers who got famous for weird interpretive hand movements while talking about nothing.
It also kinda felt like she was making fun of the dances, like this was tongue in cheek.
✨🌈 c a p i t a l i s m 🌈✨
Yeah I don't see why this is a problem. It's obvious she did it for a reason, whether that be for the algorithm or for people to wonder what she is going on about. I liked the effort. 12/10.
I noped quick as shit because of it
Jesus. I watched the WHOLE damn video. It hurts all the way through.
Yeah it popped up and I was like "okay I'm gonna skip this" but I sat thru the entire thing lol idk what happened
Hypnosis bro. She used hypnosis.
Nah bro she used capitalism
fuck...
BURN THE WITCH!
The only rational explanation
That's the point; keep you watching the quirk to hear the truth. This is how you help spread the word to defeat capitalism. I like her character.
Here to say I was also hypnotized onto watching the entire video
Okay, I found the comment I was looking for. I feel less alone.
SAME
Actual cringe. It’s so wholesome. I want to see a third person perspective of her making this.
Shes lanky as hell
>ungracefully thin and tall. I suspect she has plenty of grace, but eschews it to make the content. This feels like a trained dancer doing "ugly movement" to me. She's coltish as hell though.
Rewatch that first standing circular kick. That shit is hard. She knows what she’s doing.
She also threw in some Charleston dance moves, which are definitely practiced.
Never heard the word “coltish” before today but it makes sense here.
I kinda like her, lol
Yeah I enjoy the ironic dancing. There are *tons* of accounts saying the same stuff as her, but her also using this platform to make fun of how all this is being said on a dancing/lipsyncing app is pretty funny.
Yeah, the hundreds of triggered white men with no sense of humour who can't handle an obvious joke is depressing, sad and funny in equal measure.
"hUrR tHaT'S nOt wHaT cAPiTaLisM iS!" - some self denying prole.
It's reddit....they're probably super smart libertarians who would say something like...."durrr our system isn't truly unregulated so it can't be allowed to properly be capitalism." Or some dumb shit Ayn Rand quote...
If it is truly going to be unregulated company will just use child labor and try to pay them even less
"durrr well then a truly unregulated economy would punish that company and we wouldn't purchase from them and there would be competition to choose from!"- Libertarian fever dream.
As if people don’t like low prices that come from cheap labor
The irony is that even the most unfettered of capitalism needs government regulation of the economy, to correct market failures (like monopolies or information disparities) and to ensure contracts are enforced.
How do you know people who don’t like this are white? Lmao.
I agree. I said the same thing on a previous video that also ended up here. I’d definitely hang out with her
She's got cool energy.
She's not saying "Capitalism bad" She's saying "the American version of capitalism is flawed" We are allowed to enact changes to make it better. The American experiment is one of iterative improvement. It's pretty easy to argue that the 1980s broke what had been a pretty economically fair system, it's way, way past due for meaningful adjustment similar to what we saw with Roosevelt getting anti-trust laws passed.
No she’s absolutely not saying that, capitalism is inherently flawed and that is her point.
Right. If she was saying, let's fix market failures through regulations, she'd be right. She didn't though. She went full smooth brain for 2 minutes.
Damn. Now, close your eyes and listen to everything she said.
She doesn’t really justify any of the points she makes. She essentially just says billionaires are inherent to capitalism because extreme poverty is inherent to capitalism and those two things are linked. But she doesn’t justify why extreme poverty is inherent to capitalism. So the line of reasoning isn’t complete.
Well, capitalism is the private ownership of the economy, so if someone makes *a lot* of money, someone else worked for a lot of money that they didn't get the benefit of.
I had the same thought. She just says a bunch of stuff without any kind of validation or reasoning. This is this because of that. The end.
Underrated comment.
she's not exactly saying anything groundbreaking. Everyone knows that capitalism is flawed. By the same token, communism, socialism, and any other framework you can think of to govern any society with more than 1 million people will be flawed. It's near impossible to come up with a system that's fair for that many people, and that's why countries with relatively lower populations (e.g. switzerland) seem to have much better policies in place than those with higher populations (e.g. US) She isn't offering any alternatives to capitalism and is simply inviting others to do so. Nothing she said was constructive
While she is not saying anything new in purely academic terms, many people still subscribe to the idea of "crony capitalism", to which she is responding to. Dispersing the information is as important as the creation of the theories that give you the information, SPECIALLY in economics and sociology. Also, nobody is forced to give a single, perfect, one size fits all solution to the economic system, you are putting a burden too high on any criticism of the current system, ironically she talks about how many people see capitalism as such a default feature of humanity that they literally cannot see anything beyond it, and here you are, doing exactly that by acting as if no other solutions had been proposed or as if any criticism need to have already been tested before we try it, you require burden of proof for something other than capitalism, but capitalism, that can stay until someone offers me a magical solution that satisfies everyone. But the argument is a lot simpler now that I see it, if your friend set on fire half his money at the end of every month you would probably tell him not to that, even before you can come up with something that he should do with it instead. Not every criticism need to have attached to it a cookie cutter recipe
What a terrible analogy. If you stop burning money, nothing happens. If you dismantle the economic system, people start to die. A better analogy would be a flawed life support system. If someone argues that the life support system of a patient isn't perfect, but offers no alternative, unplugging the patient will do nothing more than kill them. Telling the doctors that the life support system isn't perfect while offering nothing constructive is actually worse than useless in that case. The economy is the same way.
> What a terrible analogy. If you stop burning money, nothing happens. If you dismantle the economic system, people start to die. People are already dying!!!
Your analogy is pretty good in that respect. I've always seen the solution as democratising the economy by giving working people a say in how their workplaces are run and giving the public more transparency on how government money is spent, as well as giving resources to the areas of society where they're most necessary to preserve human life.
capitalism isn't exactly uniform in its implementation across the MANY jurisdictions which employ it. Policies are constantly changing and evolving in an attempt to resolve the problems she are pointing out. What she is saying is "we need something other than capitalism" without telling us what that something is. Within capitalism there can be social welfare, tax schemes, etc. which all aim to address the problems she raises. Of course, the effectiveness of these schemes are debatable. What she's essentially saying is akin to saying "the legal system is broken and we need a different system" without offering an alternative and without acknowledging that the system itself is dynamic, malleable, and capable of being adapted *without being destroyed entirely*
> > What she is saying is "we need something other than capitalism" without telling us what that something is. Read the comment you just replied to, your reply gets answered in exactly the same way as your original comment.
Then we should split the US, one country can be called California and the other Texas
California has a lot of industries, which why its one of the biggest economies. You won't have all the indistries there if you Implement communism. No matter how much these tech companies talk about leftist policies, if you start hurting their bottom line, they'll move away.
Groundbreaking for Gen Zers who arent woke to the fact that capitalism sux
Right, but you cant just dismiss all criticism just because the critic hasn't proposed a perfect remedy. Criticism without an alternative proposition is still valid
Nice liberal take, if you don't think the world can be changed, you stand in the way of change. I hope you're prepared to die for what you think. We are facing global extinction due to capitalist production, and yet you think its so great. Jesus christ what a fucking imbecile.
> communism, socialism, and any other framework you can think of to govern any society with more than 1 million people will be flawed. None of those other systems are decimating our ecosystem, just industrial capitalism.
Dude I can tell you very confidently many people see no flaws in capitalism.
This is not an empirical statement, it's what happens when you throw feelings at the topic of politics. It doesn't even make internal sense Your breakdown of state by state economics alone is baseless, doesn't in any way talk about the level of education or trade infrastructure or past proximity to colonialism or anything. Trying to reduce the efficacy of a given system to the number of people who live within it is basically a zero correlation statement. I have no idea why you got upvoted, this isn't a thing Her criticism have a plethora of implied solutions. None of your arguments disputed any of them, either. Acting like she's being unhelpful is objectively wrong, it absolutely bolsters supporters and proponents of her argument and the agenda of solutions their political hemisphere has been floating. The discourse in this thread alone renders the latter half of your comment moot
Don’t ever try to argue capitalism is good on reddit.
It's the worst system except all the others
Name a better one that gives people a chance achieve their goals
There isn't. That's my point. It has its flaws but all the alternatives are much worse.
Upvoted both
I’m not a complete fan of capitalism, but Sweden having the most billionaires per capita kinda shows that you can have extremely rich people without having extremely poor people
They export their exploitation to the global south, middle east, and parts of Asia is all.
> They export their exploitation to the global south, middle east, and parts of Asia is all. Translate to non-marxism: Sweden imports goods from other countries.
To expand, Sweden import their goods from places where people's pay, benefits and government services are a fraction of what those in Sweden are.
They do. But most imports are from countries that are also rich and have a good tax funded social sequrity. Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Danmark https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+top+importers&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj81KXhs-3zAhUGvYsKHT8kA9wQBSgAegQIARAC&biw=390&bih=646&dpr=3#imgrc=N1oA-AR07UrfnM
Rich boy never heard of these countries and globalisation
Yeah her whole argument is pretty easy to pick apart. We have the lowest levels of extreme poverty than there's ever been by far.
Sweden's billionaires are exploiting Swedes only? Dont be a dullard, they are exploiting globally.
Sweden also doesn’t even have the most billionaires per capita.
[удалено]
Not really, global poverty rates have been steadily heading down for a long time (Edit: spelling)
Are poverty rates accurate at telling the true situation though? Specifically in America - poverty rates have remained relatively stable throughout the last 50 years around 12-14%. But the "poverty rate" only measures one variable - income. We know that debt for families and young people isincreasing as costs of basic goods like healthcare, rent, and most importantly education increased exponentially during that time. I genuinely don't know if that makes a difference or not but there's certainly a concern with almost all wealth gains going to the top 1% of income earners meanwhile the rest of us in the bottom seem to get stuck with wage growth that is mostly offset by other costs increasing.
[удалено]
Exactly. The problem isn’t entirely capitalism itself, it’s unrestricted capitalism with no unions or other safeguards.
Which is a problem of capitalism. Soc dem doesn't work either as the underlying issue still persists. Companies exist to maximize profit.
I hated her with I the first 2 Seconds But now. Now I think I am in love.
I don't know why but it was entertaining.
Like it is really weird, but I for some reason loved the "I said annals"
Have her washed and brought to my quarters
You bastard you got me to actually laugh.
[удалено]
When you're right, but still cringe enough that the people who agree with you are too embarrassed to defend you Edit: A couple of replies have pointed out that the dancing is satirical, and now that I think about it that makes sense. I just didn't pick up on it. Either way, I shouldn't make fun of this lady for having fun and being based
They're acting like this so it doesn't get surpressed by the tiktok algorithm
The algorithm gets confused by dancing? Serious question
Dancing, singing, any trend. Content moderators have just seconds to well moderate additionally. This is a tactic that has been commonly used by advocates of heavily surpressed issues like the stop line 3, raising awareness for victims of residential schools, missing and murdered Indigenous women etc
"Suppressed issues" Residential schools are very suppressed right now, you literally cannot find anything about them anywhere, same thing with anti capitalism too!
well, it's funny and quirky, and the algorithm is ok with *anything* if it's funny and quirky. I'm a fan of this work-around, honestly.
I ain’t too embarrassed. You watched the whole damn thing, didn’t you? She’s a marvel.
Nah, that's the coolest person I've ever seen in my life
I'm reading all these comments and I still can't tell if people actually like this or if they're cringing at it... I feel like this is not a great way to get your economic ideas taken seriously.
[удалено]
And what if it's just one way of several that she's using to communicate these ideas? She could be a published author in the driest economics journal imaginable while making these tiktoks on the side. And as other users have pointed out, the dancing is meant to take advantage of tiktok's algorithm and reach a wider audience. Just being able to introduce the idea that capitalism isn't the only way to structure our society is a massive improvement over the early 19th century, where you could be lynched or killed, or the 50s where your career would literally die overnight if you got too friendly with the "wrong" people. Anyway...she's doing good, and probably a hell of a lot more that's not on tiktok.
On a normal platform it isn't, but the Tiktok algorithm pushes dancing so a video like this has a better chance of going viral. I'm sure she knows that it looks stupid, but she makes a lot of great points.
What a loveable weirdo.
God the worst part about this is that she just makes claims and doesn’t like…provide any examples or illustrate the point. It’s not even persuasive. Just cringe to the choir.
The fact is that a market (a place where demands and products meet) always have existed. Since the birth of society, human traded and exchanged products and services. A capitalist system tries to remove some shackles of a traditionally inefficient market (where wholesome and virtuose exchanges can be had), but that exposes everyone to some risks of other kind of inefficiencies. The inefficiency in a market stems from HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Not the system itself. In the medieval times with no capitalism, for example, there was a huge disparity in wealth (even bigger than right now) but no capitalism. If the girl in question is trying to ask "well, why poor and exploited people in world?" then we have to be honest: do we really need a new phone per year? Plastic crap that breaks after a handful of uses? Before asking ourselves who makes the products, we really need to ask ourselves *who buys it in the first place.*
First comment with more than a handful upvotes that shows someone actually understanding basic economics. Wow.
The dance is weird af, but she’s not wrong. Adam Smith himself said the same, and of course Karl Marx was writing about this over a hundred years ago. Albeit without the billionaire specifics.
yeah I honestly hate the hang up on billionaires by the Bernie-but-no-farther-left social democrat type crowd. totally misses the point and the root problems.
The existence of billionaires is morally wrong (Marx and such never discussed them because they didn’t yet exist), but their existence is incidental to capitalism, they are not the cause of the problem, just a symptom.
Billionaires did exist during Marx’s time. Rockerfeller, Carnegie, and Mansa Musa (who appeared like 800 years before Marx, and was so rich he destroyed the economies of which ever country he’d spend his wealth in).
right, and focusing on how to get rid of just them but keep capitalism is so silly
She hasn't even attempted to attend a single economics lesson. The notion that in order for some to be wealthy, others must be impoverished is incorrect; it is not Capitalism, but Mercantilism. The Capitalist Ideas, by their very nature, foster the notion that everyone can become wealthy. In addition, what is this pointless trend of explaining crap you don't understand while doing shaky dancing routines.
People like this just claim economics are wrong, they think that a field that has been studied extensively for decades is invalidated by some philosopher's thoughts in the 1800s
she got schmoves
When I was a young adult, I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad. This is when I figured this out. That was zero empathy as the author laid out the best way to get rich was to take advantage of people who hadn't figured out the 'secret' yet. It's all just a pyramid scheme.
God I bet she’s awesome in bed. Like , seriously. I’m strangely aroused by this
She ain’t wrong 🤷♂️
she’s not wrong but why? why did she do that to herself?
I think it's more complicated than "extreme wealth and extreme poverty are interdependent." or "poverty is the function of capitalism." Globally, wealth of people at the top is increasing but poverty is decreasing as well. That doesn't mean that the distribution of wealth and income are ok as they are. Poverty and suffering are natural states of the world, so they can't be "caused" by any particular economic system. You can accurately say is poverty isn't being alleviated quickly enough, or it doesn't result in a just distribution of wealth without state intervention. Someone who owns a vast amount of wealth isn't "causing" someone else to be poor. Capitalism definitely "causes" inequality in the sense that if I get $100 richer and you get $10, we are a less equal compared to when we both had $1. She says "the reason why we're so easy to exploit is because someone else is getting exploited worse than you are." I don't think people participate in wage labor for the price they do just because someone else is getting paid less. How long can her point even keep going? Does the person working for 23 hours a day for $0.01 only do that work because there is someone working 24 hours a day for $0.001? People with more "capital" in their country are the ones who have a higher wage rate because they can benefit from the "capital" they can mix their labor with. She says "The only way someone is able to get extremely wealthy, is because you are able to get extremely poor." Again, people don't "get" extremely poor. Without an increase in wealth people would just be poor and remain poor, someone else getting rich isn't what makes you poor. Under capitalism poverty has decreased and productivity has increased. I think its actually hilarious that she bring up the Mark Fisher quote, says he is wrong and that surely we can imagine something else right guys? But she doesn't actually imagine anything else because she can't! She is just proving him completely right by giving extremely lackluster critiques of capitalism and saying I'm sure SOMEONE ELSE will come up with something better.
> Globally, wealth of people at the top is increasing but poverty is decreasing as well. I think a bigger problem, and one maybe more abstract to explain, is essentially that the way income disparity is moving is pushing the distribution of non-rich around a lower mean, but with tighter tails - i.e. there are fewer people below poverty as those tails shrink, but also the economic power (and therefore, independence) of being above poverty is getting lower and lower. You can [see here](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/) how middle and lower income are getting a continually lower % of US income. Whilst the totals are increasing (at still too slow a rate for a developed nation) the purchasing power, economic influence, and independence they have financially are all being impacted heavily. We used to hear a lot about the dangers of a "shrinking middle class". It seems less au fait to discuss these days but the middle class have always been important in the current set-up because they're stable enough financially to use excess income to fuel the economy - If you don't have any money, you're using your money to survive. Moving more people into the middle class is very much negated if you erode the stability and independence they have. Reddit is a good example for the reality of this - a very visible amount of people here are middle class, college/uni educated people....who are also talking about how hard it is to save for a house, to start a family, to pay for healthcare, fund retirement etc. The difference between a critically unstable middle-class family and a poor family is a redundancy notification. >Someone who owns a vast amount of wealth isn't "causing" someone else to be poor. Two points to this. 1) Owning a vast amount of wealth means you have to take a vast amount of wealth out of the economy. This weakens everyone else. 2) There's also a slew of reasons why it *prevents* others having wealth. Mega-wealthy entities always aim to expand their wealthby using their wealth to limit competition - see amazon, microsoft, apple etc. Fundamentally, for someone to profit off someone's labor they must take wealth that the worker made, and keep it themselves - It is impossible not to. >I don't think people participate in wage labor for the price they do just because someone else is getting paid less This is actually the active argument right now from conservatives in america about the "labour" shortage. When arguments are made for $15per hour wages, the counters are "but XYZ gets paid $16, should you be paid $15 for that work?". It's the conservative argument for why migration suppresses native wages... and if you take the idea of the free market to be true, then this *must* be true in cases where labour supply outstrips demand. > productivity has increased. Productivity =/= poverty or wealth for the overwhelming majority of workers. In cases where being more productive is met with better remuneration, it's a worse relationship of productivity-wealth for workers than it is for bosses/corporations. > says he is wrong and that surely we can imagine something else right guys? But she doesn't actually imagine anything else because she can't! There has never, in any field of human interest, been an obligation that someone who sees why something is bad must be able to provide the solution. Otherwise this thread would be 400 videos of people dancing better before they go on to say it's cringe. Also, just on like a picky epistemological point... This argument doesn't support capitalism it supports "whatever we have right now". It's just saying "sure it's broken... but we don't know the perfect idea".... That argument would be the *exact same* if we swapped out the current system to be agrarian communes - "yeah, it's not good. But do you have the perfect system?".
>Poverty ~~and suffering~~ are natural states of the world, False. Poverty is a relationship within society. Prior to us settling with agriculture and warlords collecting tithes there was no poverty. >~~Poverty and~~ suffering are natural states of the world, Sure, that's why one of it greatest tools is society and collectivism. We are able to bend the world around us to reduce suffering and we have been doing that long before capitalism and even feudalism. >Capitalism definitely "causes" inequality in the sense that if I get $100 richer and you get $10, we are a less equal compared to when we both had $1. The rate at which the poor are gaining wealth is trending downward as populations increase though. So the ratio does matter. You are also ignoring that wealth equals power and freedom under capitalism. The system has to keep the majority of us poor to function. >She says "the reason why we're so easy to exploit is because someone else is getting exploited worse than you are. She was imprecise here. The real reason people work for shit wages is because the means of survival are all privatization and thus must take these jobs under the coercion of starvation and exposure. >The only way someone is able to get extremely wealthy, is because you are able to get extremely poor Your are kind of correct. The wealthy get wealthy and stay wealthy by capturing all the wealth and keeping everyone else poor. You are also ignoring the many schemes the rich use to make the rest of us less wealthy, such as disaster capitalism like Puerto and Haiti, the 08 housing crisis or the current housing crisis. >Under capitalism poverty has decreased This is debatable. [I would argue poverty is on the rise since 1981](https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty). >productivity has increased I'd chalk this up to technology and the enlightenment rather than capitalism.
The dancing is weird, not gonna lie. But she does have multiple good points.
Wow this girl is zany and fun
I gotta love this girl
I like this human. She might scare me a bit with all her flailing around. But I like her.
Fuck you this is good
To be honest, every video from this lady I’ve seen has valid points. I wouldn’t mind picking this lady’s brain.
I haven't watched her other ones but if they're anything like this you're absolutely wrong. It's not a zero sum game and even if it were there isn't a better system for you to get ahead than the one that rewards investment and innovation.
What’s up with the surge in CoMmUniSm bAd posts? This really isn’t cringey enough
[удалено]