6 ms·
i understand your sentiment here, and in the view of history this is true. The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can eas
by mbfg 10y ago
i understand your sentiment here, and in the view of history this is true. The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can easily put down the 99% politically, socially, financially and yes militarily. So there may be a reckoning at some point. But it will and badly for the 99%. This was mostly true throughout history as well, it's just become a more certainty now.
- praptak 10y ago"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
- futureiswithus 10y agoWe can boycott the rich. And when we cant, we can just choose to buy from the least rich
- ommunist 10y agoTry. Boycot banks by giving them no money, maintain social lending in your local area, see what happen then.
- khedoros 10y agoThat sounds more like a theoretical solution than a practical one. You'd need to get most of the population to ignore short-term convenience and pay higher prices for things (optimizing for a different metric than lowest cost). I don't think that will happen.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago-French Nobles just before the revolution
- nickpsecurity 10y agoJust saw your comment. You beat me to it. Here's mine, though, which provides a key detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797166
- Joeri 10y ago100.000 british men simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate. Throughout history it has been the case that sustained perceived inequality inevitably leads to revolution. We're nowhere near that point, but if trend lines continue and the middle class gets wiped out, it will happen. Democracy is supposed to prevent things from getting that bad, but we have seen that free elections are easily manipulated when you control the money and the message people hear, which is why these presidential elections will once again be a vote for either of two pro-super-rich candidates. Ironically it is in the super-rich's best interest to raise taxes on themselves to stop this from getting out of hand.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoSure they can. Their weapon is the media instead of bullets. They just have to convince at least half of them the British policies benefit them. Plus provide them with guns. They'll shoot the other half for the British. Just like Democrat vs Republican politics and media in the U.S.. Nation can't win if it's divided and fighting each other over the actions of elites who they continue to fund and vote in. ;)
- jonknee 10y ago... And yet Gandhi was right. Those 100,000 British men failed and India is today the world's largest democracy.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoHe was right and wrong. He was right that 100,000 British men couldn't use lead with obviously-bad situation to control India. He was wrong given small numbers of men used a careful combo of military, money, and media to control U.S., Britain, and India. Currently, India mainly serves as cheap labor to support money-making operations in U.S., Britain, and other countries. Gandhi was ultimately wrong: original exploitation was simply using tactics without psychological acceptance today's tactics have.
- jonknee 10y ago> The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can easily put down the 99% politically, socially, financially and yes militarily. They don't seem to be doing so hot politically. The poor Koch brothers can't even buy a primary election anymore.
- foobarian 10y agoMoreover, it there ends up being a violent reckoning, the outcome will be the 1% will be swapped out for a different 1% which will likely be worse than they are now. E.g. military junta or a bunch of mobsters.