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

[Spiffums]

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.

Because they'd go to jail you idiot for armed robbery.

[zenkai]

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.

[video=youtube;JyhfHQ_7Skg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyhfHQ_7Skg[/]

[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/11/is_violence_the_only_way_to_end_inequality.html[/]

I don't need your civil war, it feeds the rich while it buries the poor.

[JohnBrown1917]

Guillotines for the rich.

My brotha from another mother

[Deleted]

If you want communism, why are you so mad about Russia affecting the election xD

[JohnBrown1917]

There's no difference between fascists and socialists.

Neither of you know what fascism actually is, its cute.

[Grimbold21]

How about you mature a bit instead of childishly throwing a fit if things don't go your way?

[Deleted]

Guillotines for the rich.

And then the poor are still poor.

[wholol]

The problem is wealth inequality cannot be solved as long as there are finite resources, it doesn't matter how far back you go or how many wars/ acts of violence occur, it is simply inevitable that the emerging victor in whatever conflict establish the terms that benefit said victor.

Another thing to consider is human greed and need for power, so long as we as a species rely on a system that is based on hierarchy there will always be a need for more within the human species and to be fair, we are still too primitive to transcend our basic instincts and evolve into a more emphatically advanced unified species.

The only reason a 3rd world war isn't happening right now is mainly due to how much we've fucked up the planet already, our ecosystem cannot handle the byproduct of nuclear war lest we simply end up going into an ice age with a 99.9% extinction rate.

Although with a vastly overpopulated planet and a steadily increasing birthrate + decreasing global resources , we are currently on the precipice of a global crisis that may very well end up in a devastating way.

[downnola]

Apparently mass murder is morally acceptable in far-lefty fantasyland if it's the rich being systematically disposed of. If we're all about punching Nazis for promoting genocide, then I propose we split the difference and deck some commies too.

[Deleted]

honestly i'm more worried that violence won't be a solution to wealth inequality anymore. violent revolutions and civil disobedience works if you can overwhelm the defenses of the ones in power. But the amount of control over population, both in terms to prevent an uprising through information control, and in sheer power of automated defenses, means that these days even if you get the army to stay out of it a civilian population doesn't stand much of a chance.

a lot of pitchforks and torches may cut it against some swords and muskets, but pistols and rifles won't cut it against mass media, mass surveillance, risk of loosing cushy lifestyle, denial of utilities and food, and modern force multipliers.

[Deleted]

Apparently mass murder is morally acceptable in far-lefty fantasyland if it's the rich being systematically disposed of. If we're all about punching Nazis for promoting genocide, then I propose we split the difference and deck some commies too.

Yeah it's surprising how the left is always the one using the term "Nazi" while they are often the extreme ones.

The thing with revolution is that if it comes on a scale that it topples power, the people will suffer the most since this doesnt work anymore in a globalised world.

Back in the days it happened in France or in Russia, people werent interdependent as much and didn't have to rely on trade with other nations just to be fed.
If a revolution would happen now, that country would be a paria, the people would be stuck in it and food would run out within a week.
And while all this is happening, the people in power and those with wealth are long gone and will have taken everything with them.

[Nerovar]

but all in all that's 6448 years of recorded humans enslaving humans. when you put that into the context that there's evidence that some races are only 8000 years old and that we have only had a slavery free world for 70 years since the UN mandate. it goes to show that no matter how common and repetitive the behavior or act. we can if we put our minds to it make changes for the better.

Don't you think that labour conditions like those of people who live in certain third world countries are at least comparable to slave labour? On another note, the single biggest reason why slavery was abolished is quite simple: it became inefficient compared to wage labour. While slavery might be profitable and efficient when it comes to simple tasks (e.g. picking cotton on a field) because they're easy to perform and supervise, in an industrialized society however it's really impractical. You'd rather have employees in your factory who are willing to work and don't need to be observed because they have an actual incentive to do complete their task. Also if workers are property there's simply less competition and less room for expansion.
Make no mistake, capital doesn't free humans because of moral values or the goodness of capitalists. It only sets free productive forces. Or to use the words of Karl Marx:
"The development of productive forces of cooperative labour is the historical task and right of the capital. By doing so, it unknowingly creates the material requirements for a higher form of production."

[Laerrus]

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.

Perhaps for someone that feels no guilt or remorse. I could never be like that. Even getting angry with someone close to me, I often feel like shit afterwards.

However, it's a different story for someone on my shit list. I hold grudges for a very, very long time. I never act on it though, I patiently wait for Karma to come back around and bite them in the ass. It's not out of fear of some imaginary law either, I don't want to deal with the consequences of taking any kind of violent action.

Even if we were to revert completely back to the Middle Ages with wealth only clustered among the elites, I agree that there would be violence, but I also think many people will still retain some form of civility. It is natural for people to want to find comfort, even in the worst of conditions.

[Barael]

Oh man, who's gonna tell Steven Pinker? He's gonna be crushed.

[Daelak]

doesnt matter... the most of the poor today live a much better life than the poor of the depression, or even after it and there was no uprising. things have to take a huge downward spiral before I foresee a revolution in the US.

Also the dream isnt dead, maybe harder to get but its there ... i lost everything and rebuilt it into a new life, its not my dream anymore but its a good life for the most part.

So you enjoy that all the profits from increased productivity since the early 1970's have gone to an extreme minority of the population for no other reason that they were born at the right time into the right family?

This delusional ideology is so widespread, you and the people who hold your ideology are defending the literal decline of a system that gives your your quality of life for you and your progeny pro bono. Think about that.

[fled]

Actually it shows violence DOES NOT solve inequality...which is a straw man. Just ask any surviving Kulak (Gulag survivor).

Poverty is the real issue, not inequality. Inequality is not a zero sum game. People becoming richer does not make you poorer. I agree with the advent of AI, automation and soon-to-be trillion dollar corps like Amazon, some degree of socialism will have to be deployed at the lower socioeconomic levels. Pay attention to the real issues and stop reading Buzzfeed.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

ackchyually

[Daelak]

Actually it shows violence DOES NOT solve inequality...which is a straw man. Just ask any surviving Kulak (Gulag survivor).

Poverty is the real issue, not inequality. Inequality is not a zero sum game. People becoming richer does not make you poorer. I agree with the advent of AI, automation and soon-to-be trillion dollar corps like Amazon, some degree of socialism will have to be deployed at the lower socioeconomic levels. Pay attention to the real issues and stop reading Buzzfeed.

The inevitable effects of inequality will, without question, collapse the entire premise of what creates value in the modern global economy in the first place, making whatever the wealthiest people in the world have valueless. This is without considering the deleterious effects that humans impact the environment through their venture to produce monetary wealth.

[Rukario]

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

Lmao...first thought that came to mind.

[meowfurion]

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

Tell your ideology to the millions who died under communism and socialism in their own countries BY their own countries' hands.