Forum Post: Should the wealthy have to defend themselves? - Or should we do it for them?
Posted 12 years ago on June 6, 2012, 10:50 p.m. EST by brightonsage
(4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
There is general agreement the numbers are there to show that the number of wealthy individuals has been growing at very high rates over the past four decades. The average wealth held by these individuals has also been increasing at very high rates over the period.
Now the general public seems to be aware of these trends and have expressed concerns at some of the implications of these facts coupled with others. And some have challenged whether aspects of this reality and the conduct that has accompanied it are fair, are good for society in general and even whether it compromises s the security of the United States.
The question is, who should defend the wealthy against these challenges? Should it be the President? The Congress? The "free" press? The professional PR industry? The wealthy themselves?
Or, should it be the responsibility of the middle class, whose incomes have stagnated even as their productivity has escalated at a rate roughly equivalent of the rate that the income of the wealthy has escalated? Or, should it be the working poor, whose incomes have dropped while their productivity has also increased?
Is it fair to look back to see if the wealthy have defended the middle class and the working poor as this has transpired? Or, should that be ignored, and we should just decide that since the trickle down that has been promised and everyone is waiting for (Yep, still waiting for scraps from the table, so to speak) must come from the wealthy, since they are the only one's who have anything, that the middle class and working poor should dedicate several hours per week in venues all across the country defending the wealthy, justifying their incomes, their wealth in reserve, the stashing of it in foreign banks, private equity funds and tax shelters? Oh, and buying politicians.
Some middle class and working poor seem to have already made that commitment. And you must applaud this. There are lots of them diligently defending the wealthy on this very web site. They are quite happy sending the wealth created by their productivity to the wealthy while they defend them. And they are smart to do it even while some are chanting, "Stupid, stupid, stupid."
Instead of taking big raises over the years, or like the bankers do, accepting big bonuses to stay in their jobs while their stock goes down to a fraction of what it was in 2007, they happily, ecstatically even, continue to take smaller effective incomes in order to "invest" that money with the wealthy, who will, after it grows sufficiently, send it raining down like manna from heaven (I don't have any actual pictures of that happening, but you can visualize it, I am sure.)
So, should all of us who aren't quite rich (yet) spend our free time between jobs, rallying behind the rich and explaining why the best thing for us, is for them to take all of the money (above bare subsistence), for now?
[Hint: I'm told it is easier if we pretend to be rich when we are rudely pushing into ourselves into other's conversations, calling other members of the working poor nasty names, and bragging about how some of our best friends are middle class while distracting the brightest among us from working on actual plans to produce the change that we really believe in.]
No.
Rallying for the rich is like giving a glass of water to a fish.
Neither is it productive to begrudge our neighbors success.
In the end this is a question of theft. Should we steal from the rich to give to the not so rich? Is theft justified particularly if we beleive the victim's wealth is unearned?
You make a good point. But if we are willing to steal from the poor to give to the rich, shouldn't we stick to the principle?
Stealing is wrong in either case.
Ahhhh. Stealing is wrong. And either case Hmmm, maybe we should stop everyone from doing it in every case then.
Maybe.
I'm game.
so is killing
the rich control the money loaned out and invested
that got the power from the fed
People can spend their money in whatever legal way that they like.
banks can loan out the same money ten times and charge interest on all those loans
That is the point of a bank.
to shuffle money in the form of interest towards those that have banks ?
to create money through debt?
Bank Business Plan: 3,5,3
Borrow at 3%
Lend at 5%
Hit the golf course by 3 PM.
Do you think bankers use the same principles to fudge their golf scorecards that they use in their financial bookkeeping?
"Oh darn, 14 over...let's just write that in as a negative 2."
"You should improve you lie Judge. Yes. Winter rules."
change the law so it isn't theft just as laws have been changed to legalize the theft that is now occurring.
Define "Rich". Is someone who saved their whole life to put their kids through college and owns their home while someone else went into debt, ate and and took lavish vacations each summer --"rich"
I see it as a question of properly distributing the money taken through taxes back to the people. What is happening is that the federal banking system is supposed to distribute federal wealth--derived from printing money and taxes, through low interest non-risky loans back to the people. It's their money. What is happening is that the bankers, the "rich" are siphoning off this money for themselves, by giving the investment houses federal banking status, getting money from the government at low interest, having the taxpayers cover their bet's etc, quantiative easing,etc. Until the Federal banks distribute federal wealth to the people as orginially intended, it really won't matter how many "rich" there are. In fact you could take all the money from all the rich and it wouldn't dent the banking debts.
To that it it might be productive to start a party specifically to introduce legislation to:
1) restore the flow of money in the Federal Banking System 2) Bring jobs back to America by taxing companies that create American jobs less than companines who ship jobs over seas.
Sure additional legislative reforms should be introduced to prosecute banking fraud, specifically prohibit speculation, limit political contributions etc
if we choose to go by the banks numbers
The law can be changed but changing the mind of the person from which the money is taken is not so easy.
ofcourse
they want to determine what jobs they'll offer and investments they'll support
Let's think about investments.
The biggest investment that most people make is their home.
How many people do you expect include as a criteria for purchase the number of jobs created when they buy a home?
and these days homes are rarely paid off
which means the banks are always making interest
(last question unclear)
When people invest in a home they don't consider job creation; why should the bank?
nope, property is different than jobz
how true. i feel like i'm being robbed and i am. :(
Not only do you get robbed but the money is then squandered, like $30 million spent in VT on IPADS for kindergardeners.
lol! i'm talking about the fed.
People are delusional, and think that we need more rich people to boost us out of the recession. See the DROP in people who think there are too many rich after 2007: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147881/americans-divided-taxing-rich-redistribute-wealth.aspx
Also, how to fix this: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/US95
How many more rich people do you think it will take? Their profits are at record levels and so their investment must be very satisfying to them, since they aren't making investments that actually hire people. If you can make a good return on your money why would you invest in something different? Having more money to invest in things that don't create jobs is going to work how?
If there is more demand for a good or service that requires people to provide more people must be hired. There are no data that show increasing wealth in the top 1% produces significant incremental demand. It would seem that your point is more rich people rather than richer rich people. You are on the right track if more people had more money demand would go up. What if there were 5 times as many millionaires as there are now? How about ten times? How about a hundred times the number of half millionaires? Or a thousand times the number of quarter millionaires. Obviously we need many more nearly rich people because they create much more demand which is what employs many more people and make us prosperous again. If one person had all of the money, demand would be zero and is not the solution.
I didn't say I think there should be more rich people, that's what people answered in the poll.
Though, and it's hard to make this point, "one person with all the money" would not be immediately harmful to the economy. See http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/05/alternative-to-socialism.html
Problems only occur because there are enough "middle-class" and somewhat-rich that prices go up in expectation that one of these people will want a resource. If there was only one rich person, then all the people offering "luxury" goods that seem to be the best available would all raise their prices by 10,0000%, but the prices for everything else would stay the same at first. Eventually though, the people selling for 10,0000% would buy cheaper products that only cost 1000% of normal, so the wealth really would "trickle down" but the real effect would be that prices would be raised so that the poor could not afford things, leading to both inflation and "deadweight loss".
This is why "more millionaires" is not as helpful to the economy as "more people who make $100,000 per month by working just 10 hours per week".
Note that the poll is not about wanting more "nearly rich" since there are also fewer people saying that wealth and money should be more evenly distributed.
One person with all of the money does harm the economy. In essence there would be no economy. How many tooth brushes does one person need? One buyer does not an economy make.
The point I was clearly making is that more people making some more money in the middle class and the working poor, is what stimulates the hiring of more people, not fewer people at the top making even more than they currently are. It was an attempt to get people who believe in supply side economics to reexamine the premise behind their talking points.
If you get that, I wasn't talking to you.
Not if they didn't spend it. People would just lower their prices.
If the government printed $15 trillion in cash, in $1 trillion notes (so 15 notes total) and then gave it to me, and I didn't do anything with it... as long as I can convince everyone that I will not spend that money and no one can steal it, it has no effect on the economy.
However, if I say that I want to buy a house, selected randomly from all houses in the US, and am willing to pay up to $15 trillion for it you would immediately see a significant number of houses have their prices increased to $15 trillion. Even if I was lying.
Since rich people do spend their money, wealth does have a 'harmful' effect as in the second case though.
Many people don't get it, surprisingly, despite that it "should" be obvious. Support the accelerated work week and a counter-culture that will force job creation: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/
Yes they do. It is even worse if they don't spend it. If they did it would begin to spread out and some people would soon have some money to spend. Lowering prices changes absolutely nothing if everyone has NO money to spend. I couldn't buy a Ferrari for a penny if I don't have a penny. .Saying a market will develop based on lying commitments to buy rather than actual sales is ridiculous. Every seller will require confirmation of your ability to pay before the transaction happens. Expressing a "willingness" doesn't fool anybody.
You really don't understand how the market works, do you? It's all hypothesis to you, isn't it?
You really don't understand real estate speculation, do you?
That's in response to changing market conditions though; just look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly since you don't seem to understand the concept I'm talking about. You didn't read the post I linked above either, did you.
"Deadweight loss" is an accepted concept in economics. You can deny that all you want though.
Deadweight losses only occur when, in fact, there is a market (that is transactions are taking place) If you have all of the money there is no market, no pricing can be established and you can have no knowledge of the market the supply the demand or the price. It is an accepted concept in an appropriate scenario, And yes, I do understand real estate speculation.
If one person had MOST of the money in the economy, there would be no harmful effects as long as they didn't spend it and there was no expectation from the market that it would be spent in the future.
I rest my case.
We have many "nearly rich people", it's called the middle class and they are part of the problem.
We have the largest number of billionaires in the world, and almost certainly (too lazy to look it up) the largest number of millionaires as well. We also have 18 million empty homes. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41355854/Nearly_11_Percent_of_US_Houses_Empty
It used to be the middle class, they are the ones who have seen the wealth drop by 40% and their income erode over the last couple of decades. They can't come up with 20% down to buy the houses that are too big for them. Most of those houses were built for a market that doesn't exist, and shouldn't have appeared to exist. Even if their incomes had gone up proportionally with the rich since the 70's. the market was being distorted by mortgage tax deductions. encouraging the purchase of houses that were too big and too far from the workplace.
You might be right. But we still have 18 million empty homes, and I think prices stopped dropping and maybe even started going back up.
Student debt + mortgage might be too much but, that's why they're empty homes instead of being bought up. Probably financial sector people are buying them at current prices. ^_^
To be repetitive, the accelerated work week would fix inequality as well as unemployment. A housing bubble is due to prices going up significantly more than it costs to build the house; the option to work less would lead to greater price sensitivity and bubbles would be less common.
We used to try to figure out how the projected increase in productivity would leave everyone with so much spare time on their hands. Instead the 1% took all of the marginal increase in value, the middle class is being forced into working more hours, many of them uncompensated and without benefits.
The model got broken by rigging the system. Fix the system, people work less for more pay etc.
Yes it is rigged, alright. If you think it isn't you aren't in it or you on top of it.
You may like this idea for outreach.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/letter-sent-to-the-sierra-club-at-their-e-mail-con/
People with a postgraduate education are the most likely to work more than 44 hours per week.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122510/Self-Employed-Workers-Clock-Hours-Week.aspx
These people have the most control over their employment and work hours. The regulatory or political system is not rigged. The cultural assumptions are just broken; or rather we need to break them.
http://coalitionforsocialchange.wordpress.com
check it out
Foresight not hindsight. Secession not succession. Good sentiments. Practicality of implementation needs more work. I think we have to get control first by getting the money out of governance. Then you can have a chance of getting through a series of amendments eliminating corruption etc. if you try to do it in one step the people don't have the confidence that they know all of the fixes and the unintended consequences they will bring with them. They generally bel;ieve that getting the money out is necessary. When that works and the leaders that brought it about the thest of the steps become possible.
great post!
Thank you. I was trying to stimulate a little thought where too little currently exists.
Honk, if you're (not your) delusional. I heard that 40% of the union members in Wisconsin provided Scott's winning tally. Now, that's delusional.
Too many people have been conditioned by the constant barrage of bourgeois propaganda. They believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that supply-side economics, or trickle-up welfare, actually stimulates the economy. They believe that a government, which defines marriage, dictates reproductive choices, substitutes myth for science, limits rights of speech, assembly, and protest, grows the military-industrial complex to perpetually battle phantoms is miraculously somehow smaller government.
Your question is really moot, since to large extent we already defend the 1% and increase their wealth with the fable of supply-side economics.
Assume that most people (more than half the population) are delusional.
What is the best way to convince people that they are, in fact, delusional? Or to put it another way, how to convince people to spend the time to examine their thinking and correct their delusions?
The best way is to cause some penalty to them, which we can do by encouraging people to abuse welfare and food stamps. http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/
Marx and Engels believed the best way to rid proletarians of bourgeois indoctrination was through education and training. Eventually workers will realize how they have been exploited and begin to react in revolutionary ways. If Syriza wins the upcoming election in Greece, the victory may offer some validation of Marxian theory in modern, real-world politics.
The bourgeousie will not relinquish control voluntarily.Workers must wrest that from them, whether through an evolutionary process or through a revolutionary process.
Marx described the giant pool of unemployed labor that existed even in his time.
However, what he did not do was offer a way to reduce labor supply in the face of productivity increases.
The accelerated work week, as linked above, accomplishes that objective. If some people who are part of the labor force refuse to recognize unemployment and inequality as problems, then exploiting the system is the natural action we must take.
It would, definitely, be much easier if we could fix this just through logic and dialectic (as opposed to debate). But too many people are just too stupid to realize how stupid they are, and unwilling to listen to logic because after all, listening to and understanding arguments takes time.
If the welfare bill goes up, maybe they will listen. If they try to take away welfare, this may lead to riots (see Greece, Arab Spring) so we still win.
Marx did in fact describe the giant pool of unemployed labor, but attributed that to the objectification of labor into a commodity; the product of workers' efforts was simply another resource to be used or discarded, as necessary, by capitalists.
An accelerated work week will not change the bourgeois objectification of labor. The capitalists will still consider it only a commodity, subject to the laws of supply and demand. The only way for labor conservation to work can be for all workers around the world to join in such a move. Otherwise, the capitalists will simply outsource the labor to another location as they have already accomplished in this country.
The groundswell in Greece seems almost a textbook example of Marxian theory, and if Syriza sustains the victory and moves the country toward communism, that may be the first domino, but that is certainly very speculative.
To me, the failure of socialist/communist governments so far is simply, the workers have not been ready to rule themselves in a truly democratic way, but most of the "communist" revolutions have taken place in third-world countries, which Marx, Engels, and other all agreed would not be conducive to a proletarian government.
Greece, however, is a different story, That may be the closest yet to what Marx predicted as the ideal situation for a workers' revolution,.
Those activities which can be moved overseas have long since been moved there. Higher wage rates (from lower labor supply) might move a few more activities overseas, but it is easily within our capacity as a society to accomodate those changes. This is one description of the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/opinion/brooks-the-two-economies.html
They have taxes to deal with due to their existing debt, but isn't the main resistance of voters to an "austerity" policy? And isn't that (in Greece and other countries... 50% youth unemployment in Spain) due to unemployment? Debt, after all, is always net zero for an entire economy, so rich people are somewhere. Lower wages would basically fix the competitiveness issues but would not fix unemployment; the accelerated work week would fix unemployment but many people are subject to fixed rent payments. If it's really a problem (competitiveness in the EU zone with different levels of government debts, different from US states' situations) then people in a country could probably just enact a law which lowers fixed rents in existing private contracts between individuals.
I think of it as the inherent flaws with centralization of decision-making despite limited information. Product shortages being the classic example. The accelerated work week would fix the problems with oversupply of labor which lead to unemployment and high inequality (through brand monopolies and corporate profits), meaning that "socialism" could be reserved simply for things with positive externalities like subsidizing health care. Capitalism (in the sense of private decision-making about production) doesn't have to be scary.
I disagree about "those activities which can be..."
The latest trend is to outsource service jobs; anything that can be handled without a face-to-face requirement is being outsourced. The old slogan for the 19th-century communists was, "Workers of the world unite!" More than 150 years later, that still rings true.
The Greek "austerity" policy has been the result of the debt, which has been piled up over the years. I suggest you read this article: http://socialistworker.org/2012/06/06/what-syriza-stands-for . The explanation of Syriza's plans clearly indicates a Marxian approach, which intends to correct the supply-side failures from decades of governmental mismanagement.
Finally, centralization of government has, so far, always led to the same end. There may be a way around this, but no one has solved that conundrum through various systems of government, though Marx and Engels believed a true direct democracy during the early evolution of communism could avoid this pitfall. No one has tried that.
Capitalism isn't scary, but it is, at least historically, exploitive because, as I pointed out earlier, it objectifies labor into a commodity treated no differently than others.
If a capitalistitic society would recognize labor as the indispensible, individual, human contribution to the success of the society and allow workers a place at the decision-making table, it might stave off what early communists considered the inevitable proletarian revolution.
Perhaps, in that context, labor conservation--the accelerated work week, et al--could work.
(having had time to read the Syriza declaration)
Many US states do have a referendum system, especially for things like tax increases. I think people who suggest this ignore how impractical it is for voters to need to be informed about every single government issue (which means being informed on its effects—the kind of thing members of Congress frequently receive briefings about because they aren't experts either).
Even the US is not nearly as free of socialism as some people would like to think of course. The entire tax credit system is a way of centralizing decision-making in a way that benefits special interests. Recently read that some US agency was encouraging banks to be more lenient on approving home loans leading up to the bubble, which is so reasonable I don't even feel the need to research it.
Basically, a "direct democracy" clearly fails even for things like preventing unnecessary wars (see: Iraq). Machiavelli talks somewhere about how democracies are the most tyrannical when it comes to treatment of other countries' citizens in a war... which is harder to evaluate in the present though since very few developed countries other than the US seem interested in starting any wars.
Which was prevented in the US only by labor reforms and things like publicity from the book The Jungle.
Most people who have jobs have a comfortable standard of living, even though wage share of national income has been steadily dropping for decades. It's more difficult to convince people to support this change because after all, we have been focusing on "higher product quality" (instead of "less time working") for hundreds of years.
I don't believe a direct democracy is impractical, if modern technology is used. Furthermore, if members of Congress have been informed, they have certainly done a miserable job.
I agree the US currently has some bourgeois-socialist programs like Social Security, Medicare, and a supposed progressive income tax. Most of that is window dressing--already the target of reactionaries eager to repeal the safety nets--to simply stave off a workers' uprising.
Machiavelli also wrote how rulers could and should take advantage of their subjects, lessons not lost on modern American politicians, which may explain the perpetual love affair with wars.
The labor reforms and FDR's programs have delayed the day of reckoning for the ruling class.
True, most working people have an acceptable standard of living, though real wages for the lowest income earners have decreased since the implementation of supply-side economics, and even better-educated workers, including college graduates, have only gained marginally in real income.
I, for one, would be willing to try labor conservation with the implementation of a true progressive income tax, which included corporations and also charged them for federally mandated insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security, and also the beginning of property redistribution, appropriating many of the vacant buildings around the country to house the needy.
For example. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147881/americans-divided-taxing-rich-redistribute-wealth.aspx
If it was up for a vote on policy, it is by no means certain that policies that benefit "the 99%" would win over policies that benefit "the 1%". 21% think that there are too few rich people, compared to just 31% who think there are too many.
Or take the debt ceiling debate. If it was up to the voting public, the debt ceiling would NOT have been raised which would have lead to fewer government jobs or underpayment and therefore less money in the rest of the economy and job loss. The Tea Party was certainly open to that happening, but OWS seems to be more on the side of more government spending in general.
I do not remember Machiavelli ever encouraging a state to go to war. That was in the novel 1984, maybe you're confusing them? Machiavelli did say that it seemed more effective for a ruler to use the "stick" than the "carrot" (feared instead of liked).
I forget when they made it so most poor people don't pay any income tax but it's possibly lead to more complaints than it's worth... much better to be taxed on $30k income than to have no tax on $15k income, and I think it would encourage people to care more about how the government spends money (on wars and so on).
The last time wealth inequality was this high it was only fixed through inflation (WWII) and high taxes on income. I don't think it's necessarily a problem as long as competition is allowed to work by discouraging purchase of brands and other "unnecessary" things. See for example high housing prices in some areas like New York and the sharply increased income of real estate workers in the top 1%/0.1% of income...
If we don't redistribute income and just used the accelerated work week (someone pointed out that "conservation" sounds slackerish, since someone might assume it means you work the same time but use less effort during that time), we would generally be selling to existing holders of land and wealth but, due to more competition (lower brand premiums), we would generally be buying from people who are not existing holders of wealth. And there's always property taxes.
House prices have only remained high because people can and do pay those high prices. The deadweight loss for monopolies/oligopolies mentioned here.
If instead of one person with $0k (or maybe $10k from unemployment insurance) income and another person with $100k/year, we had two people with $50k/year, house prices would go down and both people would have a house.
Fear of revolution might be useful but we're nowhere near that point.
I am still not sure if people have some kind of fear of the lower GDP that might result from the accelerated work week (from fewer total hours worked). For example, what if aliens invaded..! We would want a strong military right?!
As you know polling figures are easily skewed by the question itself. So, I don't really believe that's a valid point.
You must have read a different The Prince than I. Niccolo wrote, "Thus a prince should have no other object, nor any other thought, nor take anything else as his art but that of war and its orders and discipline; for that is the only art which is of concern to one who commands."
He went on: "In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."
Finally, Niccolo's coup de grace: "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Perhaps, there's another Machiavelli?
I did say a true progressive income tax, not one in which billionaires pay less than their secretarys in income tax.
During this last "recession" housing prices collapsed. Here, in Clark County, Nevada, banks have purposely withheld properties from public foreclosure sales to keep prices as high as they are, and still thousands of vacant apartments, building, homes sit around, unoccupied.
Housing prices might go down, if the banks released their hold on much of the real property. Furthermore, many of 1% are buying housing as a long-term investment, hoping--I assume--for a return to a feudal-like society, in which workers also depend on their employers for housing.
I have no fear of revolution, only realize its consequences. I do disagree that we're a long way from that point. If you take a look at the various class struggles during 19th-century France, you will see a remarkable similarity to our own times, with the constant push-pull of the bourgeousie and the proletariat. Several major revolts took place thoughout that time starting with Canut revolt in 1830, the Springtime of the Peoples in 1848, and the establishment of the Paris Commune in 1871.
My concern is simply for the American people to construct a just society, in which all who want to work, do work, and those who cannot work receive the care they need.
Service jobs include things like transportation. You can't outsource taxi driving to another country... at least, not yet.
And if it is outsourced, it's because people are willing to do it for LESS than what someone here would earn. The only reason someone would be unable to match that lower wage rate would be if prices of things like land are kept high—which only happens if either 1) the entire US population is incredibly stupid and doesn't vote for higher property taxes and redistribution, or 2) there ARE high-paying jobs available which allow people to pay for high housing, health etc costs. If people with those jobs don't want to support the accelerated work week to share jobs, then it just goes right back to "class warfare" on the poor and the logical response is to respond in kind.
"And if it is outsourced, it's because people are willing to do it for LESS than what someone here would earn."
That was why I prefaced with the old communist slogan.
I believe you have hit the nail on the head with the various options: redistribution, labor conservation, or revolution. I don't believe most people want the last; the consequences would be awful. So, the issue is to concentrate on one of the first two or both.
So are you ready to defend them?
Absolutely not, my point is not to defend the 1%. Instead, I believe we should concentrate on how to turn the tables and have the workers elevate themselves into the ruling and only class.
That has been shown not to work, historically, and I am not interested in being sacrificed in another demonstration.
Turning the tables is fine as long as it isn't a lazy susan that goes around, and around, and around......
The nature of people is that they are not the same in any respect. The system has to recognize this and make sure that they are all treated fairly, while recognizing this. Equality, in practice, lasts about 5 milliseconds. A system needs to functional reasonably well, not perfectly, indefinitely.
What has been shown not to work? I don't believe a true workers government has existed historically outside of the Paris Commune of 1871, which functioned perfectly well, until it was crushed by the French goverment. Granted, the Paris Commune lasted only two months, but the workers successfully accomplished a transition to a brief, classless society.
Equality does not mean uniformity, only that all are treated equally, while recognizing the differences in people and their differing contributions.
It is like the half life of Californium. It is so short that they were into some form of autocracy so fast everyone missed it. Just like Californium, that's is it's nature. Things behave according to their nature. If you say, but I don't believe that is it's nature, I would say, the case you posit had too many outside factors to substantiate that and the other cases were more convincing to the contrary.
Well, I'm not sure what your point is, except to say the Paris Commune lasted too short a time, and that human nature inherently tends toward authoritarianism.
There is no good answer to your opinions, because you take the worst and somehow generalize it to the norm. Your last sentence actually makes the case for Marxism, since Marx would agree wholeheartedly. Most other cases support his theory of the ruling class oppressing the working class.
As a matter of fact, I recommend you read Marx's speech about the Paris Commune.
What ever the "targeted" system is, when the old one breaks down in a revolution it is everyone and every system for themselves. The outcome is a crap shoot. If you have a corrupt system with a lot of them practiced in exploitation and suppression, the odds are better for them that those committed to egalitarian models. In history, the chance of a good system coming out of a bad one, since most of the participants have no experience in implementing and maintaining their target system. Evolution may take longer and it does but it engenders much lower risk of a disaster.
I agree. Revolutions are full of surprises; so is life. As Burns wrote, "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley."
Stalin's surprise was 40,000,000. to 80,000,000. dead people. Not the sort of surprise to flirt with casually.
When I was young three girls discovered I was dating all of them. They gave me a card signed by all of them which said, "In 93 million years the earth will fall into the sun. Now doesn't that make your problems seem insignificant?"
See above.
Yes, and Trotsky seemed to be one of the most surprised.
[Removed]