4 ms·
It's unrealistic because the people with the money are not going to give it away unless you force them. In the industrial revolution the wealthy had a motivatio
by forensic 15y ago
It's unrealistic because the people with the money are not going to give it away unless you force them. In the industrial revolution the wealthy had a motivation to educate the masses: get better workers and fill the military.
What now though? Robots are better soldiers AND workers. Carnegie and Rockefeller were motivated by foreign competition to help people with education and social services. Rockefeller in particular focused his social services on birth control to reduce overpopulation because he saw little value in human life at the bottom of society.
Now that masses are simply not needed for anything, and the masses no longer are a military threat due to extreme military tech, the masses have no bargaining chips other than appealing to the humanity of the plutocrats.
And I fear that many of the plutocrats agree with Ayn Rand when she says, "I don't want your appeals to my better nature. Appeal to my self-interest."
How does someone with no money, no marketable skills, no way to afford education, no ability to exert physical power, continue to survive when the upper class only accepts appeals to their self-interest?
- eneveu 15y agoRockefeller in particular focused his social services on birth control to reduce overpopulation because he saw little value in human life at the bottom of society. That's pretty interesting. Being European, I don't know much about US industrialists and US population policy. I'd like to learn more about this. Do you have books / articles you'd advise on this subject?
- Mz 15y agoHow does someone with no money, no marketable skills, no way to afford education, no ability to exert physical power, continue to survive when the upper class only accepts appeals to their self-interest? Appeal to enlightened self-interest is more powerful than appeal to someone's "better nature". Find the sweet spot where those two meet. It does happen (that those two things meet) and that's the target if you want meaningful, effective change. Rome had a policy of "bread and circus" -- to keep the masses fed and passively entertained in order to avoid rioting in the streets. I follow a similar policy in my household when facing difficult situations. It's very effective.
- forensic 15y agoYou're not thinking this through. Rome had to avoid rioting because Rome didn't have tear gas. China does not have to avoid rioting. They are comfortable with using tanks to kill thousands of unarmed protestors. The circumstances have changed since Rome. Technology has changed them.
- Mz 15y agoI don't think it's as simple as that. Wealth is a product of society and population. Billionaires need people to have decent incomes to buy their products or there isn't any money to hoard. Best to keep those folks pacified so you are reasonably safe walking around in life as a billionaire or you become a prisoner of your wealth. It seems to me the masses don't need billionaires in order to exist but billionaires need the masses in order to exist. Henry Ford stated he wanted his factory workers to all be able to afford a car so there was a consumer market available. If billionaires are too draconian, it can come back to bite them. Even presidents get assassinated. Piss off enough people badly enough and it stops being safe to be you, no matter who you are. PS -- There are riots in London currently going on: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2861840 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2861840 http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-protest-054921704.html http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-... PPS -- I've seen a couple of comments on HN indicating the rioters are staying ahead of the police using Blackberries. I find this funny given your remarks about how technology has changed things.