Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[PC2]

No wonder you keep claiming we can't learn from history,

No that's a misunderstanding of my point. My point is that the future is unpredictable in principle and that history can't tell you what the future will be like and how things will play out ahead of time.

you don't even know history, lol.

Which part of history do you think I'm not aware of?

Wealth inequality is what has driven more than one revolution throughout history, my guy.

Revolutions are driven by ignorant people who don't know that progress is incremental and not revolutionary.

Also our society in the West isn't under the same threat, there's no significant risk of revolution.

Every economist that's not sharing the same "supply-side" braincell will similarly tell you that, especially in a consumer driven economy like we have, massive wealth inequality and concentration is absolutely a serious risk to financial and social stability.

They're wrong.

[Edge-]

Which part of history do you think I'm not aware of?

The multiple revolutions, like the French Revolution, that were in large part created by gross wealth inequality and concentration?

Revolutions are driven by ignorant people who don't know that progress is incremental and not revolutionary.

TIL literally every modern democracy, most of which came out of revolutions, are all the creation of ignorant people.

It's almost like violence is required to break free of even more exploitative systems.

Also our society in the West isn't under the same threat, there's no significant risk of revolution.

I take it you're not paying attention to...well...any current events?

They're wrong.

Do tell! How and why are they wrong? What is the "right" perspective? Who holds this perspective?

[Mihalik]

Revolutions are driven by ignorant people who don't know that progress is incremental and not revolutionary

.

Right, so the Russian serfs should have waited another 600 years for the nobles to finally end serfdom?

Or should have the French just eaten cake and kept paying taxes out of the ass for another 200 years until the nobles would finally get bored and abolish the Ancien Regime?

What about the Haitian slaves? Die on the sugar plantations by the millions until the French grew a conscience?

What about to American revolutionaries? Should have just stayed another colony for another 150 years?

What about the Romanians in 89? Just sit and wait and hope their dictator didn't turn the country into a European North Korea or Belarus 2.0?

What about the Ukrainians? Should have just shut up and did what Lukashenko told them?

They're wrong.

That's according to which side of your ass?

[Poopymonster]

The multiple revolutions, like the French Revolution, that were in large part created by gross wealth inequality and concentration?



TIL literally every modern democracy, most of which came out of revolutions, are all the creation of ignorant people.

It's almost like violence is required to break free of even more exploitative systems.



I take it you're not paying attention to...well...any current events?



Do tell! How and why are they wrong? What is the "right" perspective? Who holds this perspective?

Don't you see? If you just wait long enough, because reasons, shit will Bob the Builder itself and be fixed perfectly.

[Endus]

No that's a misunderstanding of my point. My point is that the future is unpredictable in principle and that history can't tell you what the future will be like and how things will play out ahead of time.

Funny, since you constantly claim to the future's completely predictable, what with your claims that innovation will solve problems like climate change and thus we don't need to address it today.

Revolutions are driven by ignorant people who don't know that progress is incremental and not revolutionary.

So you're saying the American Founding Fathers were "ignorant people"?

Just want to be clear on your position. Since we can add that revolution to the list of revolutions predicated by wealth inequality.

Also, frankly, progress is often driven through revolution. The shift away from monarchism towards democratic systems was almost entirely driven by violent revolution, all the way back to the Magna Carta. The push towards the Age of Reason was rooted in Protestant revolutions against Catholic control. The Haitian Revolution was the single most successful slave rebellion in the Americas. The Chinese and Russian Revolutions led to whopping levels of "progress"; we might today disagree with the directions that progress took, but they absolutely advanced their respective nations in the process.

Also our society in the West isn't under the same threat, there's no significant risk of revolution.

This is just ahistorical.

They're wrong.

Nah. You just have no idea what you're talking about, or even what the basic precepts to be considered may be. You consistently make claims that violate natural laws. Which is why you're never able to back your own claims up with solid data analysis or reputable philosophical sources.

- - - Updated - - -

What about to American revolutionaries? Should have just stayed another colony for another 150 years?

To be fair, it only took Canadians another 100 years of politely asking before we were offered full independence.

[Shadowferal]

The multiple revolutions, like the French Revolution, that were in large part created by gross wealth inequality and concentration?

The "first red scare" was just after WWI, and that was when "socialism" sounded like a great idea.

[Forogil]

The "first red scare" was just after WWI, and that was when "socialism" sounded like a great idea.

I'm pretty sure there were earlier ones, people don't write 'A SPECTRE is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism.' unless there's an actual 'red scare'.

As for the French revolution, it was in part caused by the French state excessively supporting the American revolution (to snub the British - similarly as Germany partially supported the Russian revolution to destabilize Russia).

[PC2]

The multiple revolutions, like the French Revolution, that were in large part created by gross wealth inequality and concentration?

Those revolutions were caused by bad/authoritarian leadership and violent people, not wealth inequality.

It's almost like violence is required to break free of even more exploitative systems.

Political violence is always sub-optimal though. We created democracy to avoid large scale political violence, and it worked!

I take it you're not paying attention to...well...any current events?

I should be up to date on most of the major national and international issues. Did you have something specific in mind?

Do tell! How and why are they wrong?

It's because there's no reason to think economic inequality will destabilize our society.

What is the "right" perspective?

The truth is that inequality isn't a root cause of poverty and revolution and that there's infinite potential for everyone to become wealthier over time.

Who holds this perspective?

I do and I would say that neoliberals or libertarians must be thinking similarly because if they were not thinking similarly then they would be identifying as progressive leftists instead.

[uuuhname]

Those revolutions were caused by bad/authoritarian leadership and violent people, not wealth inequality.

my dude are you going to pretend you've never heard the phrase "let them eat cake." before? is that how far you are willing to go, pretending to be this ignorant?

- - - Updated - - -

yeah dude, those royals in their palatial palaces sure didn't suck up all the wealth from the poor.

[Edge-]

Those revolutions were caused by bad/authoritarian leadership and violent people, not wealth inequality.

Bad leadership that...

Complete the thought dude, what did the bad leadership do that pissed people off so much?

Political violence is always sub-optimal though. We created democracy to avoid large scale political violence, and it worked!

Sure, nobody wants political violence when peaceful solutions are possible. But the point being that those in power, especially in non-democratic systems, will fight to the death to protect their power and consequently force is required to remove them. Welcome to the history of most Democracies in the world, please read a book.

I should be up to date on most of the major national and international issues. Did you have something specific in mind?

Sure, the growing workers movements and anti-corporate/billionaire sentiments that are continuing to gain in strength as people are tired of busting their asses for nothing and are unable to find a place to live while some executive buys his 12th yacht.

Somehow, I don't exactly believe you.

It's because there's no reason to think economic inequality will destabilize our society.

That's a non-answer so I take it you don't actually have an answer here. Which isn't surprising.

The truth is that inequality isn't a root cause of poverty and revolution and that there's infinite potential for everyone to become wealthier over time.

Prove it, homeskillet.

I do and I would say that neoliberals or libertarians must be thinking similarly because if they're not then they would be progressive leftists.

So...nobody? Man, this is not an interesting or stimulating discussion if you're refusing to actually engage with any specific topics and just vomit out generic platitudes.

[PC2]

my dude are you going to pretend you've never heard the phrase "let them eat cake." before? is that how far you are willing to go, pretending to be this ignorant?

- - - Updated - - -

yeah dude, those royals in their palatial palaces sure didn't suck up all the wealth from the poor.

I mean if royalty was coercing a lot of wealth out of the poor then that's the root cause of the revolution, not inequality itself.

[uuuhname]

I mean if royalty was coercing a lot of wealth out of the poor then that's the root cause of the revolution, not inequality itself.

"if you drown in a pool of water you drowned in a pool, not water."

my god you can't even accept being wrong about one fucking minute detail.

[Endus]

Political violence is always sub-optimal though. We created democracy to avoid large scale political violence, and it worked!

It worked so well it was predicated of the deaths of millions of black slaves and led to one of the bloodier civil wars in known history!

This is why people point out that you have literally no grasp of basic facts.

It's because there's no reason to think economic inequality will destabilize our society.

Except for all the times in history when it has, before.

The truth is that inequality isn't a root cause of poverty and revolution and that there's infinite potential for everyone to become wealthier over time.

Again, infinite growth violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, the concept of conservation of energy. Any such claim can be discarded as ridiculous nonsense until you tell us exactly how we get free infinite energy from literally nothing.

[Edge-]

I mean if royalty was coercing a lot of wealth out of the poor then that's the root cause of the revolution, not inequality itself.

...so the wealth inequality is the cause of the revolution but it's not wealth inequality that caused the revolution.

This is excellent doubleplus good think.

[PC2]

...so the wealth inequality is the cause of the revolution but it's not wealth inequality that caused the revolution.

This is excellent doubleplus good think.

Again no. If you believe that the bolded part is true then try to prove it...

[uuuhname]

Again no. If you believe that the bolded part is true then try to prove it...

what is the definition of wealth inequality? can you even describe that? can you be honest enough for one fucking second to at least get us all on the same page? I know, asking a whole lot here but try.

[Edge-]

Again no. If you believe that the bolded part is true then try to prove it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes...nch_Revolution

I mean...the gross wealth inequality is a throughline in just about every historical analysis of the causes of the French Revolution, dude. Holy shit, open a history book and do some reading.

[Endus]

Again no. If you believe that the bolded part is true then try to prove it...

Asked and answered; https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/426881

That source digs a lot further than just the French Revolution, too; it's a throughline through many revolutionary movements in history.

[Ripster42]

Again no. If you believe that the bolded part is true then try to prove it...

You first champ:

Revolutions are driven by ignorant people who don't know that progress is incremental and not revolutionary.

[PC2]

what is the definition of wealth inequality? can you even describe that? can you be honest enough for one fucking second to at least get us all on the same page?

Your wealth is the value of your possessions. Inequality exists when a person has more or less than another person.