So I'll ask you straight out: why is the choice you've made salary man or nothing? Why can't you get started with a side hustle, and then if it gets traction, you can quit your job and it becomes your main living?
One of the big barriers to this is a lot of investors seem to expect founders to work for nothing in the early years, which is a pretty privileged place to be: most people with dependents just can't do that, so I hear you.
But you don't need VCs. You don't need to live on noodles. You can build something that replaces your day job, you just need to figure it out.
Working full time for someone and doing a side hustle is hard, from experience.
What I’ve found is that trying to do the side hustle takes away from a lot time spent with your dependants, which you will never get back, unless you are lucky enough to “make the break”
Not impossible, and you’ve got to try and find a balance. But it just may never happen.
I'm fortunate that I don't mind getting up early and I hate morning TV/radio/news, so I can find an extra hour for myself each day.
As it's being done collectively, there's more of a chance of it getting off the ground, as people could take turns working on it in their spare time instead of a side-hustle dominating your time.
Once it's established, those people could then quit their job and work at the coop.
There are credit unions that could help with startup costs, as well as guides on how to structure it based on other successful coops.
Potential issues: employers don't tend to like it if they get wind that a group of employees are doing something on the side, and may find reason to take ownership of said effort (which your contract might allow them to do).
If all you optimize for is the well-being of your family, your efforts should go into amassing wealth, not changing the world.
In that case, moral ambition may not be for you. I mean, once you have a labradoodle, a set of cheese knives or a robot mower, there’s generally no going back
He’s an author and journalist, not a doer of any kind as far as I can tell from his bio.
Oh wait…
This isn't totally false. Social change can be uncertain and rocky.
If you want to be serious though you've to look at the risks of inaction, namely, allowing the funnelling of resources to the top percentile to continue.
I'm not sure how many people realise how out of hand that funnelling has gotten, or how concentrated at the very very top it's gotten.
As an example I saw recently, here's a graph[0] of French society from 2014 to 2021. Along the x-axis it's the poorest percentiles on the left, richest on the right. Y-axis is the percentage annual increase in revenue.
I think the reality is that inaction is arguably at least as likely to lead to the kind of "..." that you may well be hinting at.
[0] from here: https://elucid.media/analyse-graphique/inegalites-revenus-fr...
Wow, I didn’t realize people might be so ignorant of history. What I stated in my comment is how Soviet Union got started in 1917. Do I need to explain how that experiment ended?
You know very well that when I said "because of... history, or something" I was alluding to the fact that you had not in fact specified your historical reference at all. You did not state anything about the Soviet Union in 1917, you alluded vaguely and noncommitally to the redistribution of wealth being bad, maybe - it's unsure because, as I've said, there's no specifics.
If you don't make your point, we can't assume what it is. Or do you think that the Soviet Union in 1917 is the only moment in history where wealth/poperty was redistributed? If so, that would be a display of a pretty serious level of historical ignorance on your part.
In any case, now that you've deigned to share your point with us - the choice isn't one between a. what we have now, unchanged, and b. the Soviet Union in 1917. This false dichotomy is a common favourite of people heavily invested in maintaining the status quo, often people who are monetarily invested.
On the off-chance that you're not one of those types and are simply ignorant of the richness and complexity of human social organisation, I warmly invite you to read some anthropology to discover the myriad of ways human societies function and have functioned throughout history. You could be in for a very eye-opening experience.
(not as taught from Texas-approved history books)
The Soviets lifted an unprecedented number of people out of poverty. This was unequalled until China in the following century. They would likely have achieved more and lasted longer without the constant harassment of capitalist countries. (Remember when the US even invaded Soviet soil? Most Americans do not.)
The US and some European powers managed to convince Soviets to switch to an American-style economy, run by oligarchs. Those countries proceeded to loot the Soviet Union for anything they could find. And so we have today.
I've only read one excellent (French, translated) collection of the writing of Alexandra Kollontai, and otherwise nothing much of length on the topic. Kollontai was already enough to suspect that the usual simplistic narrative as whispered by our interlocuteur here might not be the whole story whatsoever.
No, thank you. I'm not a fan of capitalism, either, but that society was hardly a stellar example of an alternative.
This is what happened in France, what happened in Russia, and what has happened in many other cases. It is not an ideological phenomenon, has nothing to do with communism, and it happens because a society refuses to reform for so long that the system collapses under its own corruption. We are heading down that same path by refusing to institute moderate reforms while we still have the option to do so.
And of course, the chaos of revolution is not the only way for a vicious tyrant to gain power and institute a reign of terror...
This was not only driven by vicious men, this was there from the very start, this was inherent in the revolution and its ideology, and mainly caused by real shortages stemming from economic issues
You can see it with Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and i'm probably only missing more examples due to ignorance. You have an economic system which is "scientific", but is actually just a mass experiment resulting in deaths of millions. And an ideology that is so sure of itself as it is "proven" it never stops or self-questions
It goes both ways, of course.
When people say: "Oh, we can't do socialism, or anything that looks or feels even a tiny bit like socialism, because look what happened with Lenin et al!", I think they are ironically engaging in the very essence of what lead to these attempted revolutions going so poorly.
Social and economic rigidity and dogmatism is the issue.
Socialism has some good ideas, and can be hellishly bad. Capitalism has some good ideas, and can be hellishly bad. Same for anarchism, veganism, hedonism, and so on. This isn't to say that all ideologies are equal, but that dogmatism is generally very dangerous.
However, defending the revolutions that resulted in catastrophe and complete failure is in my opinion dangerous. We don't need another trial at an extreme ideology that knows everything to guess the end result
[1] If by 'wealth' we mean numbers in computers. Actual wealth, like healthy land and clean water and manufacturing capacity should be shared by everyone, but currently money is what controls it.
The author speaks to this directly:
> Now, you might be thinking: that’s all well and good, but I’ve got a full-time job, two kids and a mortgage. I’m happy to recycle and eat some tofu now and then, but a “fundamental transformation”? No thanks.
In that case, moral ambition may not be for you. I mean, once you have a labradoodle, a set of cheese knives or a robot mower, there’s generally no going back. But if that’s irritating to hear – and I imagine it might be – then by all means, prove me wrong. I have learned that there are always exceptions, and I want to show that you can be that exception. It’s never too late to step up.
To me limiting oneself to “idealistic but not ambitious” with a focus on fulfilling relationships and positive impact on family, friends, and local community seems like a good way to go.
“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good, or else that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions... Ideology—that is what gives the evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
In fact, I'd argue that taking care of your family _is_ a morally right and meaningful way of contributing to the world.
There's a reason traditional Christian ethical frameworks often prioritize responsibilities in layers: first to God (or core principles), then to family, then to the neighbor (broader community).
According to Wikipedia, the author has dependents.
"Bregman is married to Maartje ter Horst, a photographer.^[43]^[44] They reside in Brooklyn as of 2025 and have a child together.^[45]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutger_Bregman
(Attention Wikipedia editors: Unless I missed something, reference #45 appears to make no mention of Bregman's family.)
I'm all about changing the world, but I also have an obligation to take care of my family, so my way of changing the world is working a traditional job, donating to charity from my earnings, and using my time/talent/treasure outside of work hours to make a difference.