There's nothing wrong with buying $6 bread or having many cars or whatever. You don't need to flagellate yourself just because you have money. It's just life.
Even if we tear everything down and rebuilt from first principles, some would have more and others less. By six orders of magnitude. It's just inescapable. Even communist countries were like that.
The rich person hate is pretty dopey. There's a subreddit /r/LateStageCapitalism that actively breeds hate against rich people the same way /r/coontown bred hate against blacks. It's just somehow more socially acceptable to post online about killing rich people than minorities. There was literally a comment that was talking over the merits of stabbing Musk just for being a wealthy capitalist.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this comment other than to say it's a very strange time we live in. The whole "us vs them" mentality isn't healthy. There's no reason they should feel bad about buying $6 bread just because they can.
Did my statement say there was something wrong with being rich?
This is about people who feel embarrassed. I doubt they are feeling embarrassed because they feel that there is nothing wrong with their extravagance....and their solution to this embarrassment is to hide their extravagant spending, not by altering their spending or generosity.
But I also empathize. I've done the same when I walk past the homeless, or past fieldworkers...and me a poor post-doc.
Hating the rich...Well now there are multiple types of rich, aren't there. There are rich that were born to their money, treat investments of that money as "risks", look at the rabble and sneer because she/he is so obviously better, because look at all that risk that payed out...that type is easy to hate. But money makes money and I find the rentiers worthless. Then there are those that worked hard, and got lucky, and still remember what it is like to wonder how the hell you are going to fix the brakes on the car, how to lose weight while working two part-time jobs with hours that change weekly.
In any case, hate of the rich is not driven by envy or driven by the fact that they are rich at all. The hate is driven by the excessive inequality, not just the exaggerated inequality in pay, but exaggerated inequality in opportunity, in legal representation both in the courtroom but also in the making of law. They are angry because the fix is in, and they know it in their bones.
Do you really think being rich is the same as being born black?
Inequality has a lot of messed up effects, such as rich individuals being able to destroy the planet's ability to sustain life in pursuit of profit, in a way the only through the magnification of capitalism is such short sightedness possible. A community would never vote to destroy itself, but in the pursuit of profit, it is nothing for the wealthy to pollute and destroy a land that is not their home.
Secondly, the drive of technologly (drives all change and overthrown feudalism with capitalism) will make the exchange of labor for money pretty much obsolete for increasing portions of humanity. The question is, do we waste the human wealth generated by education and innovation because we can't find a way to make a few bucks in sweatshops anymore? This again, is where inequality is facing drawbacks.
There is wrong. Read the article. Most of the people interviewed are said to have inherited wealth, in the millions of dollars. More wealth fell into their lap than the maid will ever earn in several lifetimes. This is deeply unfair. The economic system that promotes this is deeply unfair. Wealthy people benefit from a system that perpetuates their wealth. They actively influence decision making to favour themselves. They can buy power, influence, to a point 99% of the earth's population can. Notwithstanding your opinions on socialism (dirty word I know), Marxist class theory is real: the "owners" and the "workers" are as clear-cut social classes as the peasantry and nobility of yore.
Also, about that subreddit, I have never seen any post calling for "killing rich people" or any nonsense like that. It's just a place to post examples of capitalism gone awry. Perhaps it just touched a nerve?
Boy I wish I could dig up that comment about killing Musk. It was under a thread titled "We won't take kindly to defending your tech bros here" or some nonsense. It was about how if you come in there to say anything good about Musk, expect to get banned. The subthread devolved into talking about stabbing capitalists.
Yes, but /r/coontown was banned for similar behavior. I think that ban was justified. People have been calling for The_Donald to be banned for a long time. /r/physicalremoval was just banned for inciting violence.
It does matter whether people are saying this, and how frequently they're saying it.
So I guess the solution is we redistribute the wealth, right? I mean it's worked really well in the past hasn't it? Just looks at this list of successful Commun... oh wait never mind the list is empty.
In the US at least, we can start with healthy tax reforms that actually redistribute wealth downwards, not up. Not everything has to reduce to the USSR straw man.
As long as your empire needs laws that everybody needs to agree with to exist (or to be passed on) then yes - it is fair to limit what you can do with it.
You built an empire and you deserve recognition for that achievement, but what precisely did your child achieve?
Did you earn the right to determine ex nihilo who should benefit from your talent? Or did yoir chils by virtue of winning the fallopian race become the optimal manager for the fruit of your labour?
Local jury of peers, taking into account community needs and individual factors?
Like if we want to go full hippy and consider the global situation on this, the reasonable argument here is that children are owed f-all after education and insertion into society. That's fair, right?
I once worked with a guy who ran a small consultancy. He made himself out to be a self-made millionaire and was pretty showy about it. One Christmas he told all of his full-time employees that the business had a bad year and there would be no bonuses. The week after that announcement he drove up to the office in a brand new, fully loaded Mercedes S550. It was disgusting, as he could have just skipped an upgrade or two on the amenities and given at least a $500 bonus to his workers. He only had 4 employees who weren't his family. (His family members got bonuses though).
I later learned he didn't build his business himself and was given $250k by his father as seed funding. I lost all respect for him. He got his comeuppance when every one of his non-family employees quit within six months of each other. They were the ones doing all the work. His business suffered severely, his wife divorced him because her social status fell, and he had to sell most of his assets to stay afloat. I felt no pity for him because he was such a garbage person.
I've met a few people like him in my life. I really despise these types, because they pretend like they didn't win a sort of lottery at birth. And you're right, a system that perpetuates this type of situation is very much a part of the problem with inequality in general.
Why is it deeply unfair to inherit wealth? It is the main reason why people work so hard to achieve the American dream: to pass their wealth and opportunity on to the next generation.
Your premise is also incorrect, but not uncommon. Many people look at wealth as if it is a fixed state of affairs; i.e. one is 'wealthy' or 'poor' as a matter of class dictate or caste. And the fact is, unlike the peasantry and nobility of yore, wealth can be lost or gained from generation to generation (and even within one generation). Inherited wealth is a stalwart against poverty, not an impediment to it. Every person who inherits some degree of wealth, whether it's a family heirloom necklace or an apartment building, is that much less likely to be a ward to society, taking money out of the economy rather than being more productive and contributing to an ever growing pie.
In fact, wealthy people of the ilk you are talking about tend to piss their money away, which is good for the economy. The yacht industry alone employs 50k+ people as crew. These are not super wealthy people, these are the '99%' who depend on that livelihood, and are using to build their own nest egg for their own families. Do you think they would be better off being taken out of a fair labor market, with opportunities for advancement and creating new products and services, in favor of being given government handouts instead?
A peasant could ascend to the ranks of nobility, and climb the ladder, at least across generations. Likewise a nobleman could fall from grace and be stripped of status. But that doesn't make that class system any less real or oppressive.
Similarly, a Bangladeshi child sewing pants in a factory could, in the most hypothetical of senses, become a wealthy CEO, and it is possible the owner of said factory, earning in a month what the girl makes in 500 years, may lose everything he has. But it's very, very unlikely.
I know many wealthy people. And it's true that they can lose their wealth through bad decisions and unfortunate circumstances. However, nearly every wealthy person I've seen this happen to has regained most of their wealth. Why? Because once you're wealthy you have connections to other wealthy people. Their friends will build them up again. Reaching the status of "wealthy" is a sticky bit. As long as you don't alienate your other wealthy friends, you'll retain your wealthy status.
That maxim you hear is true: the first million is the hardest. After that you're set.
/r/LateStageCapitalism is not about breeding hate against the rich? I just went there and not a single post on any page I went to had a hateful post towards the rich.
Maybe there's one or two posts occasionally but there's 180,000 subscribers....
It's actually a really good subreddit about legit problems we're facing in ....Late Stage Capitalism.
"You spelled "confiscate their property, send them to gulag, and allow them to work their way back into society" wrong. Deporting the Bourgeoisie only inflicts them on another country."
The country is becoming more and more controlled by the rich. Which is a legit problem for a free society when a politician can be influenced by big money. It leads to oligarchy, which destroys the country. So their complaints against the rich are extremely valid.
If my words are inaccurate, point out that they're wrong. I don't feel bad at all for highlighting their behavior. The mods actively breed discontent and sow discord -- that is the purpose of the subreddit. They, from the top-down, encourage people to feel this way.
My examples aren't cherry-picked. It was ten seconds of effort after sorting by "top of the last month." I could post many more if you'd like.
Eh, there's some truth to that. And I'd prefer not banning subreddits at all. But on the other hand, people have been calling for The_Donald to be banned for years for similar behavior, and they have far more subscribers.
Suffice to say, all I was doing was mentioning that LateStageCapitalism exists and pointing out some of their behavior. I don't actually want them to be banned. Like all subs, there is some good content mixed in with the extremism.
Your comparison of people revolting against the rich is more apt to the French Revolution and American Revolution than to communism.
Both revolutions actually overthrew the rich aristocrats and created a democratic republic...
Unchecked free market capitalism leads to silo-ing of wealth and power amongst a select few and that's the point the people on that subreddit are trying to make. They don't hate rich people...they hate the oligoloplies and big monied interests that are have more influence than the average citizen on the direction of the country.
The American Revolution was a regional separatist movement led by the local rich aristocrats, it did not overthrow the rich aristocrats.
And the French Revolution did not, in fact, establish a democratic republic, it established an unstable regime nominally dedicated to democratic values but ruled by a succession of different regimes (of which, only the four years of the Directory even superficially resembles a democratic republic) before transitioning into the First Empire.
The actual outcomes are two of the greatest long lasting Democratic Republics in the history of the HUMAN RACE....
Also, compared to the aristocrats, lords, and king and queen of 1700' British empire, George Washington and company were absolute low rent scrubs.
Sure there were varied classes of people who revolted but the ultimate outcome was to rip the power and wealth from the rich few and give it to the many....
> The actual outcomes are two of the greatest long lasting Democratic Republics in the history of the HUMAN RACE....
The French Revolution didn't produce a democratic republic. It produced a series of short lived regimes imposed from the top down, culminating in the First Empire. France is a democratic republic now, but only continuously since 155 years after the Revolution (if you pretend the Vichy regime didn't happen, it's been a democratic republic since the fall of the Second Empire, “only” 80 years after the revolution.)
Note all of those 'short lived top down, regimes' ended in minor revolutions as well with the people taking the power back from the top, the outcome eventually establishing a Democratic Republic.
The French Revolution was the key and laid the groundwork to the eventual Democratic Republic by establishing the Rights of Man, the first French Constitution, and destroying aristocratic society from top to bottom, along with its structure of dependencies and privileges.
We can nitpick all we want about the various intermediary forms of govt but the ultimate outcome from the French Revolution was the French Democratic Republic, which laid the groundwork militarily, philosophically, and culturally.
You spelled "confiscate their property, put them in chain gangs, and allow them to work their way back into freedom" wrong. Deporting the niggers only inflicts them on another country.
Yeah, I think hate is upsetting no matter what outgroup you pick.
Here's what I almost tacked onto the end of my original comment:
"In before someone defends them by saying it's sarcasm. Oh? So the people in /r/coontown who were being sarcastic about killing blacks is reprehensible, but this is somehow ok?"
I didn't want to construct a strawman argument, but there you go.
Dismissing online forums seems silly. Both HN and reddit have had a huge impact.
The title "deport them" is satirising the classical conservative discourse of blaming the immigrants and the minorities, suggesting that those really to blame by the average Joe's woes are the rich 0.1%, thereby making use of irony to subvert the term "minorities" to mean those 0.1% of the population. Clearer?
It's ironic you're explaining irony to me when I already got the joke.
It's in the context of "screw these rich people." That joke wouldn't be okay if it was "screw these black people." So are we applying equal standards? Why not?
Personally, I think all jokes should be fine. The more scathing criticism and wit, the better. But we live in a climate where that's not really realistic. (Well, it is, but the joke had better be pretty funny to get away with it. This one was a lowball.)
So again: Why is it ok to aim this hatred towards rich people, but not minorities?
Minorities don't hoard wealth to the detriment of others. Minorities don't encourage and profit from a reckless, agressive, all-consuming consumer capitalist economy that's wrecking the planet. Minorities don't manipulate your mind with endless propaganda and advertising. Minorities don't lobby government to write laws that favour them. Minorities don't dodge taxes. In short, I have no valid reason to be angry at minorities, I have plenty to be mad at the privileged few in the current system. Honestly? If I have to spell this out to you I don't think this conversation is ever going anywhere.
I think there's something wrong with having many cars that you don't actually use. The externalities of manufacturing are quite out of proportion with the enjoyment of the car collector. It's not wrong per se to have more money than others, but it does morally obligate you to spend it on things that are net positive for society.
Our agreement is based on the fact that there will always be someone more interested in your wallet than your life. It is dangerous to suggest that after x dollars it is acceptable to take money from someone. Excluding taxes, which are a different subject.
It's nothing to do with morality. It's to do with self-preservation. Eventually, the have nots get tired of looking in on those that live lives that their children will not be able to obtain and revolt, often violently. This is especially true when those who have inherited wealth assume to know how those who don't have wealth should live and apply flippant responses to real world issues.
Sure, that is the point of moral relativism, because morality is shaped by culture. For instance, capital punishment is variously moral/immoral in different parts of the world.
Even if we tear everything down and rebuilt from first principles, some would have more and others less. By six orders of magnitude. It's just inescapable. Even communist countries were like that.
The rich person hate is pretty dopey. There's a subreddit /r/LateStageCapitalism that actively breeds hate against rich people the same way /r/coontown bred hate against blacks. It's just somehow more socially acceptable to post online about killing rich people than minorities. There was literally a comment that was talking over the merits of stabbing Musk just for being a wealthy capitalist.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this comment other than to say it's a very strange time we live in. The whole "us vs them" mentality isn't healthy. There's no reason they should feel bad about buying $6 bread just because they can.