5 ms·

Yes, or you will have no one to buy this things from you when everyone will automate everything, then most people would have no job. System works now because s

Yes, or you will have no one to buy this things from you when everyone will automate everything, then most people would have no job. System works now because some of the money goes to middle and lower classes, not all is accumulated on the top. If you accumulate all the wealth in the top without any mechanism of distributing it in lower classes then whole system will collapse and you (as someone on top) will probably end up like in other revolutions in human history, hanging up from the tree.

sethrin 9y ago
What level of wealth inequality is necessary for revolution? How has that changed over time?
- pm90 9y ago
  This is an interesting question. In general, if you leave a huge chunk of your population in miserable conditions, at some point they will say, with legitimate reason, that the current system is fucked up, and with no way to remedy that, will not obey the laws any more. e.g. the French and Russian revolutions, as well as Communist Chinese one, were caused by the huge tax burden being placed on the poor while the wealthy often paid very little, or used their political influence to get tax breaks, which left the state broke and unable to raise revenue. A weak state + unhappy populace == revolution. This is why the Chinese government is very concerned with keeping economic growth high. This is why India has 0% tax on farmers/agricultural goods (so the State can't be held responsible for their misery). This is why Republican/Libertarian efforts to eliminate or reduce Government is so fucking scary. Of course there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with limiting govt. overreach. But the Govt. is a required political social entity and we've gotta keep going. Whats baffling to me is that so many wealthy people don't get this. If the Government goes away, their wealth is gonna get torched/taken. Anyways to answer your question: I don't know what the proportion would be, but likely indicators would be... unemployment level and uninsured rates. People with no healthcare and no jobs/money === desperate people whose survival instincts will kick in.
  - sethrin 9y ago
    Are your indicators perhaps proxies for the cost/availability of basic foodstuffs?
  - collyw 9y ago
    Isn't the anarcho capitalist theory that they can hire their own private security to protect their wealth? I imagine it would be like multiple Mafias running things.
    - sethrin 9y ago
      It's generally held that government is a local monopoly on violence. Anarchy is in these terms an unstable local minimum, and the first two thugs who agree not to plunder each other's pockets have started the cycle of government again. Generally I think corporations and (other) criminal organizations rely fairly heavily on the existence of some state, even a nominal one. Criminal activity when you are the law is simply bad governance. Either way, you can't construct a society based on a logical contradiction.
Chris2048 9y ago
Only the case if all goods are the result of automated factories, which isn't true. And if it were, you wouldn't need anyone to buy anything - whatever you might want can be made by your factories.
- lossolo 9y ago
  > Only the case if all goods are the result of automated factories, which isn't true. And which physical goods production can't be automated? Probably 99% can. There are first farms that are already fully automated, so whole chain along with transportation can be automated in future. You have any examples of whole industries that can't be automated? Because I can't think of any that can't, it's only matter of getting cheap technology to do that. > And if it were, you wouldn't need anyone to buy anything - whatever you might want can be made by your factories This is false, you don't have infinite amount of resources and for sure you don't have enough money and space to build factories for "whatever you might want".
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Why just physical goods? But in any case - A hand-made item? Which apparently adds worth.. > have any examples of whole industries that can't be automated? depends what you mean - at what technology level? Can modelling be automated? maybe. Can barista-ing be automated? Maybe. Can programming? To some degree.. > you don't have infinite amount of resources luckily, most needs are finite. > you don't have enough money and space to build factories The premise is everything you want being automated. If space/land is not automated, that breaks the premise. So there is something you'd pay people to obtain - land rights. A short transfer of all land to the elites later, and you have enough space for anything.
    - lossolo 9y ago
      > A hand-made item This is just a marketing gimmick (in case of products that we have technology to produce also by machines) in the times we live in to make you pay more for a product. > Why just physical goods? Because you can automate production of almost all physical goods. A lot of services also, but to certain degree, simple tasks only, state space is just too big in case of more complex services for today technology. > depends what you mean - at what technology level? Can modelling be automated? maybe. Can barista-ing be automated? Maybe. Can programming? To some degree.. That's why I was not writing about services but physical goods because in case of services it hugely depends, some can't be automated with our current understanding of the world around us. > luckily, most needs are finite. This is false. 'The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.' - Gandhi You need to take humans into the equation. Make everything for free because it's automated and you will see 7 billion orders for Ferrari, Lamborghini etc. You have enough factories to make those in 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Take physics into equation and amount of factories/transportation for all the resources and parts to make those products, just those products, what about other things? This will not scale on earth. > So there is something you'd pay people to obtain - land rights. Most people on earth do not own any land at all. > A short transfer of all land to the elites later, and you have enough space for anything. Read history, this would end like it always do, elites that would try that would be eliminated and replaced with new elites from proletariat. Remember that elites are protected by police and law only because other people allow that, not because this is something written in stone. Earth was already ruled by kings, they owned most of the lands, look how it ended.

sethrin 9y ago

What level of wealth inequality is necessary for revolution? How has that changed over time?

pm90 9y ago
This is an interesting question. In general, if you leave a huge chunk of your population in miserable conditions, at some point they will say, with legitimate reason, that the current system is fucked up, and with no way to remedy that, will not obey the laws any more. e.g. the French and Russian revolutions, as well as Communist Chinese one, were caused by the huge tax burden being placed on the poor while the wealthy often paid very little, or used their political influence to get tax breaks, which left the state broke and unable to raise revenue. A weak state + unhappy populace == revolution. This is why the Chinese government is very concerned with keeping economic growth high. This is why India has 0% tax on farmers/agricultural goods (so the State can't be held responsible for their misery). This is why Republican/Libertarian efforts to eliminate or reduce Government is so fucking scary. Of course there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with limiting govt. overreach. But the Govt. is a required political social entity and we've gotta keep going. Whats baffling to me is that so many wealthy people don't get this. If the Government goes away, their wealth is gonna get torched/taken. Anyways to answer your question: I don't know what the proportion would be, but likely indicators would be... unemployment level and uninsured rates. People with no healthcare and no jobs/money === desperate people whose survival instincts will kick in.
- sethrin 9y ago
  Are your indicators perhaps proxies for the cost/availability of basic foodstuffs?
- collyw 9y ago
  Isn't the anarcho capitalist theory that they can hire their own private security to protect their wealth? I imagine it would be like multiple Mafias running things.
  - sethrin 9y ago
    It's generally held that government is a local monopoly on violence. Anarchy is in these terms an unstable local minimum, and the first two thugs who agree not to plunder each other's pockets have started the cycle of government again. Generally I think corporations and (other) criminal organizations rely fairly heavily on the existence of some state, even a nominal one. Criminal activity when you are the law is simply bad governance. Either way, you can't construct a society based on a logical contradiction.

Chris2048 9y ago

Only the case if all goods are the result of automated factories, which isn't true. And if it were, you wouldn't need anyone to buy anything - whatever you might want can be made by your factories.

lossolo 9y ago
> Only the case if all goods are the result of automated factories, which isn't true. And which physical goods production can't be automated? Probably 99% can. There are first farms that are already fully automated, so whole chain along with transportation can be automated in future. You have any examples of whole industries that can't be automated? Because I can't think of any that can't, it's only matter of getting cheap technology to do that. > And if it were, you wouldn't need anyone to buy anything - whatever you might want can be made by your factories This is false, you don't have infinite amount of resources and for sure you don't have enough money and space to build factories for "whatever you might want".
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Why just physical goods? But in any case - A hand-made item? Which apparently adds worth.. > have any examples of whole industries that can't be automated? depends what you mean - at what technology level? Can modelling be automated? maybe. Can barista-ing be automated? Maybe. Can programming? To some degree.. > you don't have infinite amount of resources luckily, most needs are finite. > you don't have enough money and space to build factories The premise is everything you want being automated. If space/land is not automated, that breaks the premise. So there is something you'd pay people to obtain - land rights. A short transfer of all land to the elites later, and you have enough space for anything.
  - lossolo 9y ago
    > A hand-made item This is just a marketing gimmick (in case of products that we have technology to produce also by machines) in the times we live in to make you pay more for a product. > Why just physical goods? Because you can automate production of almost all physical goods. A lot of services also, but to certain degree, simple tasks only, state space is just too big in case of more complex services for today technology. > depends what you mean - at what technology level? Can modelling be automated? maybe. Can barista-ing be automated? Maybe. Can programming? To some degree.. That's why I was not writing about services but physical goods because in case of services it hugely depends, some can't be automated with our current understanding of the world around us. > luckily, most needs are finite. This is false. 'The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.' - Gandhi You need to take humans into the equation. Make everything for free because it's automated and you will see 7 billion orders for Ferrari, Lamborghini etc. You have enough factories to make those in 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Take physics into equation and amount of factories/transportation for all the resources and parts to make those products, just those products, what about other things? This will not scale on earth. > So there is something you'd pay people to obtain - land rights. Most people on earth do not own any land at all. > A short transfer of all land to the elites later, and you have enough space for anything. Read history, this would end like it always do, elites that would try that would be eliminated and replaced with new elites from proletariat. Remember that elites are protected by police and law only because other people allow that, not because this is something written in stone. Earth was already ruled by kings, they owned most of the lands, look how it ended.