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

[Deleted]

You have to take into consideration that China and Russia weren't exactly what you'd call industrialized capitalist societies when Communists rose to power. Let me make one thing clear: Marx never believed that you could implement socialism in an economically backward country like Russia. It had to fail because said countries simply didn't have the material requirements that were needed in order to create a socialist society which is why they failed miserably and killed countless people in the process. Am I saying it would have been a success in e.g. the UK or Germany? The answer is that I simply don't know. But it's idiotic and dangerous to assume that Capitalism is beyond any doubt the best possible system and should be perpetuated at any cost. Then again, it's not exactly in the nature of conservatism to question the status quo and formulate ideas for a better future.

The UK also know as the country that had a civil war, tried being a republic for a bit then said fuck it and put the monarch back after a decade.

The most revolutionary thing we do is try coffee with syrup but you guys crack on.

[Endus]

Please look carefully at Govt expenditure between 1942/3 to 1950 on the graph. This only reinforces the facts I pointed out.

No, it doesn't. That's the end of WWII and shifting out of the wartime economy, which was a clear exception to the pattern. Which is why I ignored it. You're dishonestly cherry-picking data points and moving goalposts.

Particularly since we were originally talking about the Great Depression, which ended in '41, and you tried to move the goalposts to start in '42.

[JohnBrown1917]

Communism doesn't work.

It is also not the only way to solve the wealth inequality.

[schwank05]

So what you are proposing if your worthless and don't want to work, that I should share my hard earned money with you? No thanks.

[downnola]

Same question was asked about races and sex of people. Why should everyone be equal?

Because the human race is one of the most genetically uniform species on the fucking planet. Like it or not, we're one people.

Wealth and income are another story. Any society that allows substantial economic freedom is going to have inequality, and that's a good thing because it rewards innovation and thrift. What's not good is low economic mobility (ie.,being stuck at the bottom with no way upwards). However, we can change that for better without going all Vladimir Lenin on the entire structure of our society. It won't be easy and it will require dialog and democracy, but it's doable.

[Endus]

Show me ONE nation, in human history, that had no capitalism, and was anything but poor. I'll wait.

Pharoanic Egypt.
Rome.
Song Dynasty-era China.

There's three. Also very resilient and long-lasting societies, I'll add.

Sociology IS a science.

No. It is not. Social "sciences" are not science. Speaking as someone with several hats in the social sciences.

And sociology can easily explain to people like you, that human nature is inevitable. Capitalism puts human nature to work. Socialism works against human nature, and that is why it fails.

That's just capitalist propaganda and is not rooted, in any sense whatsoever, in fact. Human nature is not "inevitable". Capitalism does not put it "to work". And socialism is not just not "against human nature", the earliest societies were closer to a socialist outlook than a capitalist one, which directly contradicts that idea.

[Toogoodman]

Same question was asked about races and sex of people. Why should everyone be equal?

I dont think this is quite the same thing, and hear me out on this one. You can essentially break working down into a few categories where it is fairly easy to score how much effort, or how dangerous a job is compared to compensation.

Obviously anyone in a management role should receive more compensation due to the fact that its their job to keep deadlines on track, and assume responsibility for those deadlines.

People with dangerous occupations, these jobs require more pay simply because they're dangerous.

Those two examples, unless compensated more, no one is going to willing accept greater responsibility/liability, and bodily harm, without compensation for said risks.

[Nerovar]

Oh the famous..."that wasn't REAL Marxism...." argument....

Because shouting "I've heard that argument before and disagreed" is obviously the most rational response. Maybe you should stick to shitposting if you're unable to drop the condescending tone and actually read what I typed. I don't see the point in having a discussion like this.

The UK also know as the country that had a civil war, tried being a republic for a bit then said fuck it and put the monarch back after a decade.

The most revolutionary thing we do is try coffee with syrup but you guys crack on.

Coffee with syrup sounds quite barbaric if you ask me. Maybe you should row back a bit...

[Tijuana]

Pharoanic Egypt.
Rome.
Song Dynasty-era China.

There's three. Also very resilient and long-lasting societies, I'll add.



No. It is not. Social "sciences" are not science. Speaking as someone with several hats in the social sciences.



That's just capitalist propaganda and is not rooted, in any sense whatsoever, in fact. Human nature is not "inevitable". Capitalism does not put it "to work". And socialism is not just not "against human nature", the earliest societies were closer to a socialist outlook than a capitalist one, which directly contradicts that idea.

Egypt, Rome, and Song Dynasty China all engaged in free trade. Capitalism and free trade are the foundations of every wealthy society in human history. Communism, Socialism, and Protectionism are present in every failed economy.

[Katchii]

You do know how much engineers, designer's and developers get paid right?

I'm no millionaire but fuck me I'm happy with what I get for the hour's I'm paid to make there dumb shit work.

This is exactly why wealth inequality is a thing, because of this mentality (which MILLIONS of people have, so not picking on you).

You do all the work and get paid a decent amount, the people at the top just spend and invest the money and make 10x more than you do.

That's why in capitalistic societies there really are two "classes," even if it's sometimes not technically separated that way: the working class and the folks who have the means to employ and pay the working class. Marx at least got that accurate, if you don't want to believe or read anything else he wrote about.

[Deleted]

Because shouting "I've heard that argument before and disagreed" is obviously the most rational response. Maybe you should stick to shitposting if you're unable to drop the condescending tone and actually read what I typed. I don't see the point in having a discussion like this.



Coffee with syrup sounds quite barbaric if you ask me. Maybe you should row back a bit...

I know, I know you should see the looks they get in the street. But don't worry we have a debate in the house of lords later about what to do with these perverted syrup drinkers personally I favor suggestion of export to Australia like the we did with the pick pocket orphans.

[Endus]

Egypt, Rome, and Song Dynasty China all engaged in free trade.

And, fascinatingly enough, "free trade" is not the definition of "capitalism".

So we can add "not understanding basic economic terminology" to your list.

[igualitarist]

Far left seems to forget that if a violent revolutions breaks out, the middle income citizens would make up for the vast majority of the body count. What makes it ironic is that people sympathetic to this idea are mostly... middle income citizens.

If a violent revolution for the sake of equality happens, the rich would either flee to more stable regions, or fight back with private armies, much better equipped than the revolutionaries.

So, what would be left for that angry, desperate mob of poor people ? Yep, middle income citizens, completely unable to defend themselves.

Revolutionaries should keep in mind this: for the poor, even middle income is elite. Thats why theres no middle class in communist countries.

[Tijuana]

And, fascinatingly enough, "free trade" is not the definition of "capitalism".

So we can add "not understanding basic economic terminology" to your list.

I never said it was, guy. I said these are the aspects of a wealthy economy. And among the aspects of a wealthy economy, you will not find a bunch of liberal communist bullshit. You will find free trade and capitalism.

What is even the point of arguing for communism? It's never going to be tried again. Why do you even want it? Do you just want millions more people to suffer and die?

[Elegiac]

I never said it was, guy. I said these are the aspects of a wealthy economy. And among the aspects of a wealthy economy, you will not find a bunch of liberal communist bullshit. You will find free trade and capitalism.

Despite the fact that every wealthy country today has 'liberal communist' aspects.

Okay, sure. I bet you think that barter preceded money too, sweetstuff.

[lummiuster]

LOL! You really thing you are one of those poor little slave exploited? While every composant of your computer, phone, your shoes, your shirt are made by actual slaves?
You know why people don't do shit? Because they benefit of it. Just like you. We are not the bottom. We depend on a daily basis of slaves. But we don't care because they are in an other country.

That is such a misconception to think that we are well because there are other regions doing much worse. It is like saying "im not a slave, I only get whipped 5 times per day compared to the African guy that gets whipped 50 times per day". It is also a misconception to think that we need these poor people to live wealthy.
This capitalist regime is exploiting us.
How would you define it? Imagine all the wealth we have (phones, pc, car..) were in the form of wood, chairs, and fruits. Gather the goods that a group people purchased with a week of work in a small city, we can count 100 apples and 50chairs (for example). Then you evaluate (make them work) to reproduce the same goods by cutting trees, planting seeds... Then the estimation shows that they could have produced all that in less than a day. In this example it means that they are being exploited by a factor of 7. Let me tell you that eventhough we live in one of the most developped country, we are being exploited by a factor close to 7.

[Endus]

I never said it was, guy.

You asked
"Show me ONE nation, in human history, that had no capitalism, and was anything but poor"
I gave those three.
You responded;
"Egypt, Rome, and Song Dynasty China all engaged in free trade."

So yes. You did. Right there. Either that, or you were deliberately and dishonestly moving goalposts and hoping nobody would point it out. I'm doing you the favor of assuming the former.

I said these are the aspects of a wealthy economy. And among the aspects of a wealthy economy, you will not find a bunch of liberal communist bullshit. You will find free trade and capitalism.

None of those three were capitalist. I'd agree with you on free trade, but free trade is not capitalist. It exists across a ton of different economic systems, including socialist ones.

[Machismo]

Egypt, Rome, and Song Dynasty China all engaged in free trade. Capitalism and free trade are the foundations of every wealthy society in human history. Communism, Socialism, and Protectionism are present in every failed economy.

I find it odd when you try to mention free trade, when you don't even support free trade...

You are a Trumpster, the paragon of anti-free trade and protectionism.

[Deleted]

This is exactly why wealth inequality is a thing, because of this mentality (which MILLIONS of people have, so not picking on you).

You do all the work and get paid a decent amount, the people at the top just spend and invest the money and make 10x more than you do.

That's why in capitalistic societies there really are two "classes," even if it's sometimes not technically separated that way: the working class and the folks who have the means to employ and pay the working class. Marx at least got that accurate, if you don't want to believe or read anything else he wrote about.

Except one issue. Yea I'm not the ceo in her fancy car and first class flights and champers at private party's, but I have a slightly less fancy car and a decent 2 bed house as a single guy I've got a big T.v and an ultra wide monitor I've got a new gaming rig just a few weeks ago with a Nvidia 1080 in it. And I can treat my family on occasions. I'm really happy with what I got economically any more would be needless excess and that the thing you don't offer me more you offer all of us less. Because historically you don't care if the poor are poorer as long as the gap is smaller. I'd rather have a huuuuge cap and every one have the free opportunity to do education and uni in subjects people actually hire in ( if you take arts at uni your a fucking moron) so they can be economically as stable as me.

It engineering jobs in the UK start at £23,000 a year outside London considerably more inside London. Raiding to 25-26 in 3 years and maxing out in the 40ks as just engineers. If you have the brains to be an architect or climb the management ladder you could be earning in the 100ks

Only 20% of listed engineering jobs get filled in IT.

There's your golden ticket yet non of you are taking it? Why? You want to eliminate the gender pay gap? Get women into engineering. Wanna raise minoritys from poverty? Give em computer's and teach them engineering!

[zEmini]

Killing people just outright is wrong.

How about we start with just destroying things like greedy corporate headquarters, Trump towers and yachts.