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

[Deleted]

also people citing the joker quotes from TDK are missing the point of the film; the point of the film is that the joker's wrong about humanity.

haha and how did you reach that assumption? the joker won after all.

- - - Updated - - -

Very interesting break down, yeah Robin I recognize through the man interpretations has had a role with Batman as Harley has with Joker, but outside of what you touched on yeah, I kind of have agree.

But for the most part thus far they have never brought anything to the story.

I think I see Robin as Batman light, and Harley Quinn as Female Joker.

- - - Updated - - -



Why guillotines?

Why not force them to live out their existence without the power and influence of their money?

- - - Updated - - -



He wasn't wrong about humanity. The films were about redemption through. The faith and believe Joker could be wrong, not that he was.

i don't know if you caught my addition but i highly recommend reading about Jungian philosophy its helping me be a better person in a way, reference my posts now with my first ones.

[Doctor Amadeus]

haha and how did you reach that assumption? the joker won after all.

- - - Updated - - -



i don't know if you caught my addition but i highly recommend reading about Jungian philosophy its helping me be a better person in a way, reference my posts now with my first ones.

Interesting I'll check it out.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I mean, a 1000 year study of human history also says that if people believe in a different mythological creature than you, you should murder them and their entire family unless they recant.

[nanook12]

Temporary solution. Beat the rich and take their riches, so wealth inequality passes for a while. Then people amass wealth again and after some generations there are agains filthy rich and dirt poor, so it is time to start an another revolution.

Exactly, there is no final solution to anything.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Exactly, there is no final solution to anything.

Except socialism.

[Macaquerie]

Go ahead and start the violence and see what happens to you. Rich people have bodyguards with guns. Even if the government were to outlaw all guns tomorrow the rich would still have armed protection.

Why would anyone risk their lives protecting some rich asshole, when you could just turn around and rob your boss instead?

When it comes down to it, society runs on a sort of honor system, as long as I believe that everyone around me is respectful of norms and institutions and will act in good faith, then I am willing to do the same. Once people start losing confidence in the system, then society starts to crumble and it's difficult to build it back up again. In modern times, it's certainly not the poor who are trying to undermine societal stability, it's the rich who continually try to grab a bigger piece of the pie for themselves while proclaiming that social harmony and sharing are evil. And while they make themselves momentarily better off, weakening the institutions that allowed them to accumulate this wealth in the first place is going to hurt them in the long run, whether there is a violent revolution or just a long and slow process of decay and rot.

[igualitarist]

Inequality is better than violence, so....

Also, lets say its possible to achiev equality through violence. First, we need to consider empirical evidences show everytime violence was used for the sake of equality, was had massacres and didn't even come close to permanently fix inequality.

This take us to the basic conclusion we would need constant use of violence fo fix inequality. But who would be the ones with the power to use violence ? Yep, the government, and/or those entities allowed by the government to use violence. Would those people be as equal as everyone in their country ? I am sure no.

So, we arrive at the conclusion everyone with at least 2 functional neurons already know - equality is impossible and this idea is dangerous when become absolute.

[Deleted]

If one was into conspiracies, one could argue that social programs are dimmed to be the bare minimum to stop rebellions, giving time for the powerful to enjoy their power at minimum cost.

Well there is likely some truth to that

[NED funded]

Inequality is better than violence, so....

This. People are missing the devastating economic effects of violent uprisings. You could easily throw the entire country into a shithole and make it a thousand times worse than it actually was pre-uprising and this is the case most of the time.

- - - Updated - - -

If one was into conspiracies, one could argue that social programs are dimmed to be the bare minimum to stop rebellions, giving time for the powerful to enjoy their power at minimum cost.

This is literally what Marx said.

[Endus]

Wealth inequality cannot be eliminated. Even if you somehow eliminated the concept of an economy, and took us back to the fucking stone age, Gorg is going to have a bigger club than Krom.

Further, wealth inequality isn't an inherently bad thing. Everyone being equally destitute is a much worse state to be in. In scenario one, you have a dollar and someone else has ten dollars. In scenario two, you have five dollars and the other person has over a hundred. Inequality has grown, but you are in an objectively better position regardless.

The quality of life is better for the average person living in a first world country today than it has been at any other point in history. There are problems with that much inequality, sure. But don't try and tell me your plush modern life is more oppressive as a result.

This is like saying "water's not a problem! You need water to survive!" When the issue is that flooding has wiped out entire towns and left people with nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

This. People are missing the devastating economic effects of violent uprisings. You could easily throw the entire country into a shithole and make it a thousand times worse than it actually was pre-uprising and this is the case most of the time.

Not every time, though.

Or did the American Revolution result in economic collapse of the USA?

It's honestly weird as hell that Americans are the most likely to spout this kind of stuff when the USA was founded through a violent revolution.

[NED funded]

Not every time, though.

Or did the American Revolution result in economic collapse of the USA?

It's honestly weird as hell that Americans are the most likely to spout this kind of stuff when the USA was founded through a violent revolution.

I never said it was every time. But in most cases, you are just throwing the country into the hands of militant leaders fighting for more power as it constantly happens and happened in a lot of African and Latin American nations or just throw it under a despotic leader like it did during Cuba, China, Russia and others, costs a shit load of resources which makes the likelyhood of another conflict happen again and so on. It is a long understood problem that violent conflicts are one of the biggest poverty traps for poor countries.

There is an excellent book called The bottom billion which I would deffo recommend to understand the struggles of poor countries.

https://www.sfu.ca/content/sfu/dean-...Paul%20Collier

Link if you are interested Endus.

The conflict trap is among the first chapters and it's not that long.

[Macaquerie]

I never said it was every time. But in most cases, you are just throwing the country into the hands of militant leaders fighting for more power as it constantly happens and happened in a lot of African and Latin American nations or just throw it under a despotic leader like it did during Cuba, China, Russia and others, costs a shit load of resources which makes the likelyhood of another conflict happen again and so on. It is a long understood problem that violent conflicts are one of the biggest poverty traps for poor countries.

There is an excellent book called The bottom billion which I would deffo recommend to understand the struggles of poor countries.

https://www.sfu.ca/content/sfu/dean-...Paul%20Collier

Link if you are interested Endus.

The conflict trap is among the first chapters and it's not that long.

Part of the reason for the cycle of violence is that revolutions in the third world almost always cast Western imperialists and capitalists as the real enemy, but for various reasons the rebels are usually aren't able to target Westerners directly and have to settle for killing collaborators or destroying economic assets. And over time, the new rulers almost always find it convenient to ally with Western business interests rather than continuing to push the revolutionary agenda, rendering most of their rhetoric hollow and hypocritical.

[Rennadrel]

Good job pointing out something I have being saying for the last year or two.

[korijenkins]

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.

Whenever society gets as unfair as it is, its usually the easiest route. Not because violence is great, or stealing is great, but the richest people reach a point where they are simply content, and even ecstatic, about the people under them suffering. Greed is the worst of the worst, and we live in a world right now where someone making half a billion dollars a year refuses to even pay taxes, let alone pay MORE in taxes.

If people specifically in America knew just how bad they were getting screwed over by the government and the rich, there would be a revolution tomorrow. Unfortunately, most people end up fighting with each other over things like guns and gay rights, and the true enemy is totally ignored.

[Collegeguy]

But is the quality of life better now than it was in the French Revolution for the under class? The inequality doesn’t really matter as long as the masses have just enough to survive.

People en masse start starving in the streets while others sit in ivory towers , then we can talk violent revolution. But as it stands, there really isn’t any reason someone in America should starve. even if the government doesn’t feed them, a charity or food bank or even just the kindness of strangers , will step in.

Why do I bring up starve ? It’s seems the only thing that sparks a violent revolt against the upper class. Not having an iPad wont do it, not have a mansion or a Lamborghini won’t do etc. only starvation

Not entirely accurate. People tend to rise up when they have a perception of failure or betterment. It certainly doesn't take starvation to reach that point.

The scientific study of cascading failure would be a good grasp of how you reach that point. Enough systems become inadequate to the point where the whole network of society falls down (or people spark a revolt). One systems failure causes the others to have to compensate.

Currently, our technology and science has advanced so quickly that society is ripe with systems that are woefully deficient. Everything from medical care, government, education, wealth inequality, and even law enforcement.

For example, our education systems are based off a traditional structure designed when information was not only rare but far more valuable. Today, you could learn to become a book keeper by watching some youtube videos. Our education now leaves us with a system of paying thousands of dollars for what our technology has devalued.

Not saying college should be free, probably a lot cheaper, but entire system needs to be reformed. People may also feel powerless and out of touch to fix the systems because government bribery (lobbying) may prevent the correction.

The failure of one system (education), will leave it up to another system to compensate (government, universal income, prison).

When the entire system fails and the correction comes, we likely would not see it coming or be able to predict it. It would be like the Arab Spring.

[I Push Buttons]

It's honestly weird as hell that Americans are the most likely to spout this kind of stuff when the USA was founded through a violent revolution.

Not of our choosing.

American colonist didn't start a violent revolution. They didn't march to the governors mansions and decapitate the loyalists or anything like that.

They filed petitions, grievances, pleas, etc., for years. They protested non-violently (though they did destroy property) for years. They exhausted every possible means to resolve their disputes. And then when it finally came to blows, it was defense... Hell the US strategy for most of the war was to avoid battle.

[NED funded]

Part of the reason for the cycle of violence is that revolutions in the third world almost always cast Western imperialists and capitalists as the real enemy, but for various reasons the rebels are usually aren't able to target Westerners directly and have to settle for killing collaborators or destroying economic assets. And over time, the new rulers almost always find it convenient to ally with Western business interests rather than continuing to push the revolutionary agenda, rendering most of their rhetoric hollow and hypocritical.

I feel like the whole Western imperialists and capitalists schtick is mostly an excuse for despots to seize power and mantain power. Why are my promises not materializing? western imperealism and their counterrevolutionary minions Why does the revolutionary leader suck? He sold out to western/capitalist interests. And like that I don't doubt there is some neocolonialism going when western/capitalism nations take advantage of the weak status this nations are and get enormous concessions in exchange of resources to keep the despot in power, but rn that is more of a Chinese thing than a western thing.

[msdos]

Human beings worship the economic market now and are willing to allow the price of everything to skyrocket.

What's funny is when you mention violence to over come something, everyone immediately jumps to the conclusion, "oh, they're going to kill us then steal it". No, the people with the wealth need to have their realities shook, like a reverse intervention, to remember what it's like to have humanity, rather than just chocking everything up to economic anemia.
They need to have their livelihood snatched from them, force them to subsist in slums, force them to work terrible jobs, force them to serve other people at the local level, not at the Winemixer, charity level, get them in soup kitchens and shit, but not for one day, for years. Get these higher ups living in poor black or latino communities, remove them from their alabaster towers.

I think that would spark a lot of change.

[Scathbais]

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

You are acting like a moocher and a thief. What makes you think you are entitled to other people's earned wealth? Answer: you are not! You act as if economic outcomes are a zero sum game (hint: they are not). The wealthy don't become wealthy because they are stealing from others (unless they are a warlord in a third world country), they become wealthy by providing goods or services that improve peoples lives.

In the US for example, the 1% aren't getting wealthy while everyone else gets poorer. That is simply not true. Most people's incomes have risen, it is just that the wealthy invest in the stock market that helps their wealth grow at a much faster rate.

So the solution is not to rob the wealthy of their wealth, but for people to save and start investing so that they too can increase their wealth.

[msdos]

So the solution is not to rob the wealthy of their wealth, but for people to save and start investing so that they too can increase their wealth.

You put like all your thought into your rebuttal against him and like zero thought into the actual solution, because lemme tell you, that solution is poor. The more wealth everyone has, the higher the cost of everything, I thought we've gone through this like 1 million billion times.
Refer back to my post about how humanity will allow the price of everything to reach asinine levels just because.