3 ms·
Unfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now.
by uiri 10y ago
Unfortunately the ultimate rebalancer of wealth historically has been revolution and war. It's why the descendants of Roman plutocrats don't own the world now.
The Early Roman Republic made a distinction between Patricians (aristocrats) and Plebeians (commoners). The former were very wealthy while the latter were definitely not. By the time of the late Republic and the Roman Empire, this distinction was entirely meaningless - there were rich and poor of both of these hereditary classes.
Revolution, by definition, excludes reforming an existing system which is what happened to the Republic. Arguably, the Patricians relented to the Plebeian demands because they needed soldiers to fight in wars. However, usually when one refers to redistribution of wealth through war, one usually talks about victors taking the wealth of the losers.
- cletus 10y agoI never cease to be surprised at the propensity for pedantry on HN about the irrelevant, which is to say that nothing you've said has anything to do with my point. My point is pretty simple: history has a habit of erasing wealth. War and revolution are the ultimate forms of wealth redistribution. And by revolution think the Russian Revolution.
- chillwaves 10y agoLoved your post, regretted reading that reply.
- nugget 10y agoModern Russian history is fascinating in this regard. In just the last hundred years (the Tsar was deposed in March 1917) they've moved from oligarchy to communism, revolution, blood shed, fanaticism, rebellion, the (relatively peaceful) breakup of an Empire, a total wealth reset, and are now back to oligarchy again.
- cletus 10y agoThe sad thing about the break up of the USSR is the brazen thievery of Russian wealth (i.e. Oil reserves and so on) in the name of privatization. Think where Russia might be today if they had a system like Norway.