1000 Year study of History says Violence is the Only Way to Solve Wealth Inequality

[nanook12]

This is going to be controversial, but I tend to thrive in controversy so here it goes. A study that focused on a thousand years of history finds that only violence or catastrophe can solve massive inequality. Honestly, I am not surprised. The idea that violence never solves anything is naive thinking. At the end of the day those with all the power and money are never going to share it more equally out of their own free will. It will require acts of force from the masses.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...nequality.html

[Endus]

While that may historically be true, there's really a first time for everything. At some point, everything we take for granted was done for the first time, and people were saying it'd never work.

At worst, all the study does is essentially justify that violence as the only viable solution. You can only step on people's necks for so long before they get fed up.

[Stormspark]

While that may historically be true, there's really a first time for everything. At some point, everything we take for granted was done for the first time, and people were saying it'd never work.

At worst, all the study does is essentially justify that violence as the only viable solution. You can only step on people's necks for so long before they get fed up.

I think it's inevitable at this point unless things drastically change.

[Hashtronaut]

...uhh clearly it does not solve wealth inequality, if we still have wealth inequality

[nanook12]

While that may historically be true, there's really a first time for everything. At some point, everything we take for granted was done for the first time, and people were saying it'd never work.

At worst, all the study does is essentially justify that violence as the only viable solution. You can only step on people's necks for so long before they get fed up.

Are you suggesting that we have evolved enough that we no longer decide outcomes with violence? I mean that seems naive to me, and evolution takes very long periods of time to have noticeable effects. The chances are very slim that we evolved enough to not need violence in the past 200-100 years.

Plus, people view violence as a terrible thing. I view violence in the framework of "one has to destroy in order to create." It is like building a sandcastle. Your first sandcastle will probably be shit, but you will learn the basics. Then you destroy that sandcastle and make a better one. Then you destroy that sandcastle and make a better one again and so on. Hell, nature itself is violent without human influence in it at all. Asteroids collide into planets and starts go supernova, but in the end those events must happen so new stars and galaxies can be created.

[NED funded]

So when do we start with university graduates counter-revolutionaries?

[Endus]

Are you suggesting that we have evolved enough that we no longer decide outcomes with violence? I mean that seems naive to me, and evolution takes very long periods of time to have noticeable effects. The chances are very slim that we evolved enough to not need violence in the past 200-100 years.

No, because evolution doesn't have anything to do with it.

I'm saying that we can do things nobody's done before. Just because it hasn't been done yet is not an argument that it cannot be done.

[Kapadons]

Violence is the only thing that creates lasting change in nearly anything , not just wealth inequality.

As it stands, too many people live great lives (in the US anyway) for it to be a point of desperation that would be needed as the catalyst for a violent uprising.

Simply put , people live to well to slaughter the rich en masse. At the moment anyway.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah, I don't normally agree, but yes, we are at a historic impasse there is a reason why some people are armed to the teeth and prepared for total war and others are completely clueless.

[bash the fash]

Are you suggesting that we have evolved enough that we no longer decide outcomes with violence? I mean that seems naive to me, and evolution takes very long periods of time to have noticeable effects. The chances are very slim that we evolved enough to not need violence in the past 200-100 years.

Social evolution is a lot different than biological evolution.

[infinit]

Most of the people who complain about wealth inequality are themselves wealthy or from wealthy families.

lets start with them

[Very Tired]

I'm guessing we all knew who the OP was before click on this thread...

[LMuhlen]

In the past this violence came in the form of the masses killing their kings or whatever. Today it is terrorism. It is not only for religious extremists, it may come a time when the masses just terror their way into a new world order.

It would need some serious neck stepping, but it may be a matter of time. Capitalism is a great machine, but it only knows full power. it doesn't step on the brakes. It is the government's job to guide it and keep it in check. If that fails, together with tech to do some nasty damage, who knows what could happen.

[Daedius]

*Grabs pitchfork*

Down with the 1% !

[bash the fash]

So does this mean OP is going to be the change he wants to see? When's the revolution begin, comrade?

[Kapadons]

*Grabs pitchfork*

Down with the 1% !

The 1% or the 0.01%? The 2 are very different things. Killing a family because they make $390,000 a year US seems a bit extreme.

[Very Tired]

So does this mean OP is going to be the change he wants to see? When's the revolution begin, comrade?

I'm pretty sure the Op has stated he expects others to do all the actual violence stuff while he sits on the side lines.

[nanook12]

No, because evolution doesn't have anything to do with it.

I'm saying that we can do things nobody's done before. Just because it hasn't been done yet is not an argument that it cannot be done.

I am going to side with the joker on this one. Mark 1:35: "You see there morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They are only as good as the world allows them to be. When the chips are down, these civilized people, will eat each other."


Although it is a movie quote it is heavy, and holds a lot of truth. People are only good to each other when their environment permits it. The moment you take away the plush easy living of modern life, then humans will immediately revert to their old ways. In a sense, a fair amount of human niceness is fake and as skin deep as a Starbucks liberal arts major. Once you take away their candy land world, they wake up to reality. keep pushing inequality further and further and people will eventually revolt.

I understand you argument that, "just because every other transaction of power and wealth from the rich to the poor required violence or catastrophe, doesn't guarantee that the next time will be the same." Well you can stick to that. I am going to stick to the rather large pile of historical evidence.

[theostrichsays]

Most of the people who complain about wealth inequality are themselves wealthy or from wealthy families.

lets start with them

To be fair, the few I know who talk about it irl I wouldn't consider to be from destitute backgrounds but there a couple who likely would be considered poor. But most of them have never actually wanted for shelter or food in their lives.

[nanook12]

Violence is the only thing that creates lasting change in nearly anything , not just wealth inequality.

As it stands, too many people live great lives (in the US anyway) for it to be a point of desperation that would be needed as the catalyst for a violent uprising.

Simply put , people live to well to slaughter the rich en masse. At the moment anyway.

Inequality is still increasing in the United States. For the first time this generation has a lower standard of living than their parents. How long can that trend continue before the volcano erupts?