[Politics]How long until we eat the rich?

Recommended Videos

Drathnoxis

I love the smell of card games in the morning
Legacy
Sep 23, 2010
6,023
2,235
118
Just off-screen
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.
 

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
Occupy Wall Street was kinda like that, but it got shut down because there was no good organization behind it.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
It's been like that for ages, and the rich remain uneaten. People tend to want (and sometimes even expect) to become rich, not to eat them and have a genuinely fair society. That's something hard to imagine.
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,424
1,033
118
Rich people keep paying off the people in power, all the poor people in America live under the delusion that one day they'll be rich too ( they won't ), so they keep putting up with crap because one day they'll be on top and can deal out the crap ( spoiler: they'll die a "poor" person ).
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
6,132
3,706
118
Country
United States of America
It depends. How well can the people organize and educate each other, and how well can the propaganda that says the people who are on top are somehow 'necessary' or 'rightful' counteract that organization?

We proceed from widespread discontent to the knowledge among those who are not content that there is widespread discontent, and then from that knowledge to organizing around that discontent, formulating strategy and demands. The class war is ongoing, but it is for the most part being fought only by one side. On the other side, the people vastly outnumber the ruling class. The employees outnumber the employers. And the thin rationale that those who exploit labor and appropriate the surplus for themselves are 'job creators', or are otherwise necessary or helpful is vulnerable to a mere moment's clear thought.

But what is the form of the new society we might create? What question are we answering? Are we talking about planning vs. markets? Or are we talking about democracy in the workplace vs. the autocracy of our current capitalism? Personally, I like Richard Wolff's view (the latter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBRhTnswnv0
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Drathnoxis said:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless. While we could question whether the feats of starting up successful companies deserves the billions their creators now own, I think we can agree these people didn't acquire their wealth without being productive? They took risks, worked and still work more than you and I and their companies have become part of the lives of millions of people.

But off course when you see CEO's getting huge bonuses for taking absurd financial risks (banking crisis) or laying off thousands to slightly increase the already profitable margins we can ask ourselves if they truly deserve all that money. I think we really need to start distuingishing the rich who have become rich through innovative entrepreneurship and those who have become rich by making others poorer.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
6,132
3,706
118
Country
United States of America
generals3 said:
Drathnoxis said:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless.
Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,637
2,859
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Seanchaidh said:
generals3 said:
Drathnoxis said:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless.
Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)
So convince humanity to go against its natural inclination to continue to support the things that makes life more convenient for itself. If the power is corrupt and the money is corrupt then the only solution is the people right? But the people like convenience too much to actually give any kind of real effort for stopping such a thing (People still bought and continue to buy Nike products despite everything surrounding their production) so what exactly does everyone suggest be done other than "It's the responsibility of someone else"?
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Seanchaidh said:
Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)
Well, it depends, how do you determine how much value a worker produces? Because in that equation you're forgeting the value of capital. A worker using solely his own brain and hands will produce less value than one who has access to machinery, IT, ... Capital has become increasingly important and valuable and therefor also deserves its remuneration (which is done using profits). Maybe Capital is currently being overpaid, and based on dividend rates which tend to increase that may be a good point. But pretending that making a profit de-facto means that workers are underpaid is wrong and assumes only labor created value.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
generals3 said:
Seanchaidh said:
Amazon and Microsoft do useful things. They also pay their workers less than the value those workers produce, which is why they make a profit. (Amazon also pays the US postal service less than the value that the USPS produces for it, which is similar.)
Well, it depends, how do you determine how much value a worker produces? Because in that equation you're forgeting the value of capital. A worker using solely his own brain and hands will produce less value than one who has access to machinery, IT, ... Capital has become increasingly important and valuable and therefor also deserves its remuneration (which is done using profits). Maybe Capital is currently being overpaid, and based on dividend rates which tend to increase that may be a good point. But pretending that making a profit de-facto means that workers are underpaid is wrong and assumes only labor created value.
Definitely disagree with this. Those big, professional companies are making record billions of dollars of profit and most of this ends up in the hands of(often foreign) shareholders. Very little is for the company, let alone the workers. In public companies the CEO is mostly just a puppet. Even the tax man receives relatively little when profits are written off on some sister company in the Bahamas that makes 1% of the revenue(like with Starbucks). In the case of Amazon there is absolutely no reason to exploit their suppliers(like USPS) like that, or underpay their workers just so Bezos can have 200(!) billion dollars. That doesn't take away Bezos' accomplishment(which is huge) or that he invests like a billion per month in Blue Origin, but just reserving one billion(which he won't even notice) to give his workers a raise and not undercut his suppliers would go a long away. Now his strategy is one of pure greed, which he is allowed to do but does give capitalism a bad rep and can also ferment distrust among the public(which can hurt a company in the long run). But ofcourse people vote with their wallet and as long as Amazon can provide low prices with very effective customer support they will remain to have the competitive edge.

The book 'superclass: the global power elite and the world they are making' by David Rothkopf is a very good read on the matter.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
stroopwafel said:
Definitely disagree with this. Those big, professional companies are making record billions of dollars of profit and most of this ends up in the hands of(often foreign) shareholders. Very little is for the company, let alone the workers. In public companies the CEO is mostly just a puppet. Even the tax man receives relatively little when profits are written off on some sister company in the Bahamas that makes 1% of the revenue(like with Starbucks). In the case of Amazon there is absolutely no reason to exploit their suppliers(like USPS) like that, or underpay their workers just so Bezos can have 200(!) billion dollars. That doesn't take away Bezos' accomplishment(which is huge) or that he invests like a billion per month in Blue Origin, but just reserving one billion(which he won't even notice) to give his workers a raise and not undercut his suppliers would go a long away. Now his strategy is one of pure greed, which he is allowed to do but does give capitalism a bad rep and can also ferment distrust among the public(which can hurt a company in the long run). But ofcourse people vote with their wallet and as long as Amazon can provide low prices with very effective customer support they will remain to have the competitive edge.

The book 'superclass: the global power elite and the world they are making' by David Rothkopf is a very good read on the matter.

This doesn't necessarily mean you disagree with me. I have never said that shareholders should get an unfairly big part of the pie, I have even pointed out the dividend rate may be getting too high nowadays. My point was simply that capital does provide value and therefor needs to be remunerated. Just like a CEO deserves a salary too, doesn't mean it has to be 50 million a year.

This said a lot of people sometimes overestimate just how much investors get from a company. To take Amazon as an example, as of now they have yet to pay a single dividend. All the profits investors have currently made are from other investors. No single worker was underpaid to fund investor (which doesn't make Amazon's policies towards suppliers or employees any more ethical)
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,789
1
0
Ew, gross. Aside from there not being enough of them to go round, they're not very appetising at all. Imagine having to wait in line for whatever is left at the Warren buffet, or sit in a restaurant for hours and get served a sad little Trump steak. No thanks.

Just grind them into mulch and compost them.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Chimpzy said:
Ew, gross. Aside from there not being enough of them to go round, they're not very appetising at all. Imagine having to wait in line for whatever is left at the Warren buffet, or sit in a restaurant for hours and get served a sad little Trump steak. No thanks.

Just grind them into mulch and compost them.
.........I?ll give you points for the Warren Buffet pun.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
generals3 said:
Drathnoxis said:
The system is broken. The ways to become rich are the exact opposite of the ways to be a productive member of society. The majority of people are exploited so that a select few can hoard an unfathomable amount of wealth. I don't see how this can be sustainable. How long until the people rise up and eat the rich?

It's so frustrating, because if everybody worked together, we could all live very comfortable and easy lives. But instead capitalism is set up so that the majority of effort only benefits a small minority.

I don't entirely agree. While there certainly are (a lot) of people who become rich while creating little value for society this doesn't go for all of them. Bill Gates accumulated his wealth through the creation of microsoft, hardly a useless feat. Amazon is used by millions and surely can't be called useless. While we could question whether the feats of starting up successful companies deserves the billions their creators now own, I think we can agree these people didn't acquire their wealth without being productive? They took risks, worked and still work more than you and I and their companies have become part of the lives of millions of people.

But off course when you see CEO's getting huge bonuses for taking absurd financial risks (banking crisis) or laying off thousands to slightly increase the already profitable margins we can ask ourselves if they truly deserve all that money. I think we really need to start distuingishing the rich who have become rich through innovative entrepreneurship and those who have become rich by making others poorer.
First of all, no the wealthy do not work harder than most people. Most people work harder than the wealthy. Second, Most wealthy gain their money by taking part of what other people should have earned rather than doing the work themselves. They earn money from other's work so that they do not have to do the work themselves. By underpaying people for their work, they essentially create a siphon draining the wealth from those households, communities and cities where these people live and work and accumulate it into fewer and fewer hands. The CEO taking financial risks is not any riskier than the average person taking out a mortgage or putting a lien on their car or home to be able to survive. Although it involves less money due to them having less money, it is a higher risk because if it doesn't work out they can lose everything and become Homeless, starving and destitute if things do not work out for them. The CEO usually has enough money put back that they would be considered wealthy regardless if their risks flop, they will still not lose their ability to provide food, shelter or transportation for themselves. The risks that the poor take every day are MORE than those that are taken by the wealthy due to what is at stake if they lose.

People also tend to forget that even though Bill Gates tries to do some nice things now, when he was getting started he screwed people over, fired them and stole their work, took credit for their work and was taken to court repeatedly for his malignant actions. Years ago, when discussing Bill Gates with an old programmer father of a friend, I too though that the "cleaned up version" of the " Bill Gates Story" was reality, then he proceeded to show me numerous documents that told the truth about what happened. Bill Gates harmed the people responsible for his success to become successful himself. The vast majority of the time, for someone to breach the financial barriers to become successful, they are screwing people over and taking from them to be able to get to that point. It is extremely difficult for people to gain the capital needed to break the barrier to be successful without taking it from someone else.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Chimpzy said:
Ew, gross. Aside from there not being enough of them to go round, they're not very appetising at all. Imagine having to wait in line for whatever is left at the Warren buffet, or sit in a restaurant for hours and get served a sad little Trump steak. No thanks.

Just grind them into mulch and compost them.
*Sigh* I guess that would be the environmentally beneficial best choice, though I was so looking forward to launching them into the sun for the entertainment value, as that would be more entreating than a moon landing for sure.
 

Here Comes Tomorrow

New member
Jan 7, 2009
645
0
0
Never. They keep managing to manipulate to general populus into dividing each other into tribes so that they never turn on their puppet masters. Its especially obvious these days with the blacks vs whites vs gays vs men vs women vs trans vs pro-Trump vs anti-Trump vs immigrants vs muslims vs christians vs jews vs nazis vs fat people vs thin people vs socialists vs conservatives vs democrats vs Europe vs Brexit vs Remain vs Isreal vs Palastine vs ISIS vs Russia vs China.

It utterly baffles me how people will buy into and even DEFEND corporations because Apples twitter PR bot once said "Nazis are pretty bad guys. Buy this limited edition rainbow striped iPhone only $699.99" and think that they're still raging against the machine.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,443
2,056
118
Country
4
Never. We all get just enough compensation being part of their system to survive in relative comfort so we go along with it.
So presumably when that stops being the case.

And when they can't just pay a few people to protect them from the masses they're hoarding all the resources from.

But then they will have the money and resources to make robots to do that instead.