4 ms·

It's serfs and masters, and it always has been. Since a few hundred years ago, a creative/merchant/white collar class clawed their way a bit above the serfs, bu

It's serfs and masters, and it always has been. Since a few hundred years ago, a creative/merchant/white collar class clawed their way a bit above the serfs, but the gap between all of us and the 1% is still enormous. Sure there are individual outliers between those two close lumps on the scale, and between the very distant lump and the rest of us, but lest we forget, those that have the gold make the rules.

azm1 10y ago
it has always been like that.Few powerful people only.Unfortunatelly socialism emerged like a fake and dangerous pseudosaviour and from then on many people think we are supposed to be 'equal'.
gajjanag 10y ago
> It's serfs and masters, and it always has been. This is an excellent point, whose magnitude I have come to appreciate more recently. One of my favorite ruminations on the fundamental role that inequality plays in civilized society comes from "Midnight Tides" by Steven Erikson: "As they walked, Tehol spoke '... the assumption is the foundation stone of Letherii society, perhaps all societies the world over. The notion of inequity, my friends. For from inequity derives the concept of value, whether measured by money or the countless other means of gauging human worth. Simply put, there resides in all of us the un-challenged belief that the poor and the starving are in some way deserving of their fate. In other words, there will always be poor people. A truism to grant structure to the continual task of comparison, the establishment through observation of not our mutual similarities, but our essential differences. 'I know what you're thinking, to which I have no choice but to challenge you both. Like this. Imagine walking down this street, doling out coins by the thousands. Until everyone here is in possession of vast wealth. A solution? No, you say, because among these suddenly rich folk there will be perhaps a majority who will prove wasteful, profligate, and foolish, and before long they will be poor once again. Besides, if wealth were distributed in such a fashion, the coins themselves would lose all value - they would cease being useful. And without such utility, the entire social structure we love so dearly would collapse. 'Ah, but to that I say, so what? There are other ways of measuring self-worth. To which you both heatedly reply: with no value applicable to labour, all sense of worth vanishes! And in answer to that I simply smile and shake my head. Labour and its product become the negotiable commodities. But wait, you object, then value sneaks in after all! Because a man who makes bricks cannot be equated with, say, a man who paints portraits. Material is inherently value-laden, on the basis of our need to assert comparison - but ah, was I not challenging the very assumption that one must proceed with such intricate structures of value? 'And so you ask, what's your point, Tehol? To which I reply with a shrug. Did I say my discourse was a valuable means of using this time? I did not. No, you assumed it was. Thus proving my point!'"

azm1 10y ago

it has always been like that.Few powerful people only.Unfortunatelly socialism emerged like a fake and dangerous pseudosaviour and from then on many people think we are supposed to be 'equal'.

gajjanag 10y ago

> It's serfs and masters, and it always has been. This is an excellent point, whose magnitude I have come to appreciate more recently. One of my favorite ruminations on the fundamental role that inequality plays in civilized society comes from "Midnight Tides" by Steven Erikson: "As they walked, Tehol spoke '... the assumption is the foundation stone of Letherii society, perhaps all societies the world over. The notion of inequity, my friends. For from inequity derives the concept of value, whether measured by money or the countless other means of gauging human worth. Simply put, there resides in all of us the un-challenged belief that the poor and the starving are in some way deserving of their fate. In other words, there will always be poor people. A truism to grant structure to the continual task of comparison, the establishment through observation of not our mutual similarities, but our essential differences. 'I know what you're thinking, to which I have no choice but to challenge you both. Like this. Imagine walking down this street, doling out coins by the thousands. Until everyone here is in possession of vast wealth. A solution? No, you say, because among these suddenly rich folk there will be perhaps a majority who will prove wasteful, profligate, and foolish, and before long they will be poor once again. Besides, if wealth were distributed in such a fashion, the coins themselves would lose all value - they would cease being useful. And without such utility, the entire social structure we love so dearly would collapse. 'Ah, but to that I say, so what? There are other ways of measuring self-worth. To which you both heatedly reply: with no value applicable to labour, all sense of worth vanishes! And in answer to that I simply smile and shake my head. Labour and its product become the negotiable commodities. But wait, you object, then value sneaks in after all! Because a man who makes bricks cannot be equated with, say, a man who paints portraits. Material is inherently value-laden, on the basis of our need to assert comparison - but ah, was I not challenging the very assumption that one must proceed with such intricate structures of value? 'And so you ask, what's your point, Tehol? To which I reply with a shrug. Did I say my discourse was a valuable means of using this time? I did not. No, you assumed it was. Thus proving my point!'"