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

[Collegeguy]

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.

That is something that is forgotten a lot actually. They even shipped a document to plea to become a state with representation in parliament. When the Brits ignored it, what did you expect to happen.

Even then there was still some hope. Most people don't know that Washington actually crossed the Delaware with a Union Jack on his flag.

[Seranthor]

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.

I encourage the frogs to jump. The problem is the 'frogs' are themselves among the richest people on the planet already.

[Deleted]

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.

Meanwhile, my own study of humans being able to do spaceflight has shown a terrible track record for the past 1000 years. Clearly we suck at it, might as well not do it.

While your posts just screams "confirmation bias" to me - fine, I'll bite. Just to point out a few flaws in your reasoning:
- While humans have always strived to do better, such concepts as equalities are fairly novel concepts on a historical scale. And they have braught their own share of problems with them too.
- You cannot look at history through the lense of today. In other words - Hindsight is one hell of a drug.
- Some concepts which we understand as self-explanatory today, were utterly alien a few decades or centuries ago. For example - the term and concept of "love" as we understand it today, only emerged shortly after Shaexperian times. (my spelling might be a little off, my apologies)
- While in a sense it would be fighting against your own nature, humans are social creatures. We have come a long way from the violent ape that threw fecies at each other for the crime of looking at a female wrong. But it is still in our nature. Those random thaughts that cross your mind when you see someone on the street you like and/or dislike - some of those are the impulses of the cave man or the ape, trying to get out.

This is fairly interesting topic, but over the years I have learned that it is pointless to write large posts on this forum, as the average reader has the attention span of a drunk toddler.
Also, its early and I have to get ready for work.

[Blamblam41]

Historically it's accurate.

Though I'm not keen to repeat histories mistakes. I want to solve inequality through democratic systems and healthy techno-social capitalism.

[Theodarzna]

This seems fairly accurate in its assessment, and while some pollyannish types might hoo- and haam- about it, there certainly is not a historical precedent for it being peaceful.

Violence it should be noted doesn't even necessarily mean Human V. Human, it could be a natural consequence. Violence is also to be understood in this historical researches context as anything extinguishing human life though not "natural causes" that may kill an individual but things like epidemic disease, famine, and natural disaster or climate change.

[Darknessvamp]

There will always be Wealth Inequality as long as there is more than one person in a society.

[MrMatticus]

Wealth inequality will always be there.

One person doesn't immediately deserve to have the same as another.

If you want to make it, then try harder.

[PC2]

Even if revolutionaries raided all the upper class properties, they wouldn't have a clue on how to maintain and produce wealth over time. Modern economic reporting is so accurate that there is no point in revolution, any politics that claims to be a shortcut to prosperity is easily falsified.

[Macaquerie]

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.

Maybe, but it's an effective excuse. I think it's hard for people in the West to fully grasp just how much imperialism shook the foundations of all the societies that it impacted. You bring up what the Chinese are doing in Africa or whatever, but they aren't annexing territories or carrying out massacres or re-educating the local elites to see Chinese culture as their own. And sure, you can argue that empires have always done this in the past, but European colonialism was a relatively recent phenomenon, most countries got their independence within living memory and in many cases, the most valuable assets remain largely in the hands of foreigners.

[Paetolus]

It is accurate, but violence is never a long term solution in regards to wealth inequality, and it is likely there will never be a good solution. That doesn't mean you can't get rid of poverty of course, but there will always be the rich, for better or for worse. And although I haven't read Starship Troopers in a long time, while violence being an answer to problems is a huge part of the story, I don't think Heinlein necessarily meant it in a class-conflict sense, but in more of a military sense. I only presume that though considering the book is, in a way, a critique on the US not being forceful enough with the Soviet Union at the time. Yet again, the movie is a satire of the book, so that may not matter at all, but I think this was one of that parts where they didn't alter much.

[Super Kami Dende]

Obtaining power through Violence, now where have I heard this before.

Also the Irony of linking a Starship Troopers Clip. A movie/Book heavily criticised for romanticizing Fascism. Lul.

I mean, History also shows that Colonialism was a net positive in furthering our civilisations.

[Seranthor]

The real issue is that people somehow believe that economic inequality needs to be fixed. All the tendency towards violence shows, is that people seem to be lazy and complacent when it comes to fixing the problems on their own. Being responsible consumers takes too much work...

Sadly, you are not wrong.

[Gouky]

So Leftist argument is "Pay up or we will kill you"
Fascists were always on the left

[Seranthor]

The problem is both the far left and far right feel they are getting unequal treatment. The far left feel they get unequal treatment in the workplace, sports, talk radio, and some laws. The far right feels they get unequal treatment in the press, movies, TV, schools, some laws, sports and even corporations now (like google). Both view the other as having a “wealth” of power in those fields. So who rises up and commits violence on whom?

This is a very good question... I strongly suspect that neither side 'rises', because they dont want to surrender what they already have.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, there is no final solution to anything.

Actually there IS a final solution, just no one alive currently depraved and evil enough to implement it.

[PC2]

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.

It was a revolt from monarchy toward a more democratic republic. Revolting away from a mixed economy that has democratic representation would be a supremely idiotic move.

[Dispraise]

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.

It's nothing like that at all. Who's being killed in this analogy? In what demonstrable way is life worse for the masses now than it was fifty years ago with less disparity between the top and bottom earners? Food production is up, extreme poverty is down, access and quality of healthcare is up, crime rates are down, social equality is up, and on, and on.

[Deleted]

Gonna be great. I'll get the guns ready for the peasants that want to steal what I worked for all my life.

[PC2]

It's nothing like that at all. Who's being killed in this analogy? In what demonstrable way is life worse for the masses now than it was fifty years ago with less disparity between the top and bottom earners? Food production is up, extreme poverty is down, access and quality of healthcare is up, crime rates are down, social equality is up, and on, and on.

Indeed, the reality is that most metrics have quietly improved. Progress is the slow boring process of everyone waking up and trying to make better choices than the previous day. But politics have become more about good vs evil where you cant have policy debates because it's already been pre-decided that the other side has evil motives. After a person gets to that point, a revolution sounds like a justifiable idea.

[The One Percent]

Who are the revolutionaries going to be? A bunch of soyboys and feminist landwhales? Don't make me fucking laugh.

[Gestopft]

Who are the revolutionaries going to be? A bunch of soyboys and feminist landwhales? Don't make me fucking laugh.

More like the over 40% of workers making less than $15/hour. Even some billionaires see it coming. Don't get me wrong; I very much hope anything revolutionary in nature is political, not violent. Namely, ditching the Neoliberal consensus.