3 ms·
For the capitalist, maybe it is? We slide back to feudalism, slavery and over the back side to unknown territory beyond where the majority of people's existence
by Gravityloss 10y ago
For the capitalist, maybe it is? We slide back to feudalism, slavery and over the back side to unknown territory beyond where the majority of people's existence are at the whims of those few who control the machinery.
- maxerickson 10y agoIt doesn't make any sense to let a few people control the machinery. In a feudal structure, the lord guides the violence that asserts the control. If you are just talking about machinery, it's going to be awful tough for a small group to continuously resist the forces of millions that move against them. They might build machines of violence, but it is not so likely that they will be able to stop others from building them too (in which case we need a political solution, force won't decide the issue)
- Gravityloss 10y ago"It doesn't make any sense to let a few people control the machinery." But that's where it's going, it's a positive feedback process. The L shaped wealth curve. Are you advocating a different system of laws, not based on private property and business?
- maxerickson 10y agoI'm not advocating for it, I'm saying that it is likely to come about, even in the face of extraordinarily violent resistance by the few that end up with the wealth.
- disordinary 10y agoIn many ways it's where we're at. The top 1% having the wealth of the bottom 50%, etc.