3 ms·

I mean, that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, doesn't it? That there are two classes of individual, an upper class of

I mean, that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, doesn't it? That there are two classes of individual, an upper class of those who primarily get their income by owning assets and not doing work (the titular capitalists) and an underclass of those get their income for doing actual work (the proletariat). Everyone is incentivized to join to the upper class by easiest and most accessible means possible, and get-rich-quick schemes are the natural endpoint of that incentive.

danans 5y ago
> that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, Sure, Marx's critiques have stood the test of time pretty well. > Everyone is incentivized to join to the upper class by easiest and most accessible means possible, and get-rich-quick schemes are the natural endpoint of that incentive. I agree, but there is generally a inverse correlation between easy/accessible and real/successful. Sure, some people got a truly easy path to "rich" (massive inheritance, lucky bet on the right stock, seizing previously state-owned industries because of your connections), but they are statistically rare. So I'd argue that by the time we get to the get-rich scam scenario, very fewer are entering the upper class (or even the middle class) via these schemes. Also, by "rich" here I don't mean "comfortable and able to pay the mortgage, an annual vacation, etc", but rather the more contemporary definition of "F-you money".
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  Oh, agreed upon on all points. I should have emphasized that I meant the attractiveness of those methods is based on whether they appear easy and accessible, regardless of their actual efficacy. By the nature of capitalism, which relies on there being many proletariat and few capitalists, any method that was actually easy, accessible, and effective would quickly have the ladder pulled up as the market corrects (or in many cases, legislates away) the "error", indeed leading to that inverse correlation.

danans 5y ago

> that kind of gets at the fundamental conceit of Marxist critiques of capitalism, Sure, Marx's critiques have stood the test of time pretty well. > Everyone is incentivized to join to the upper class by easiest and most accessible means possible, and get-rich-quick schemes are the natural endpoint of that incentive. I agree, but there is generally a inverse correlation between easy/accessible and real/successful. Sure, some people got a truly easy path to "rich" (massive inheritance, lucky bet on the right stock, seizing previously state-owned industries because of your connections), but they are statistically rare. So I'd argue that by the time we get to the get-rich scam scenario, very fewer are entering the upper class (or even the middle class) via these schemes. Also, by "rich" here I don't mean "comfortable and able to pay the mortgage, an annual vacation, etc", but rather the more contemporary definition of "F-you money".

LordDragonfang 4y ago
Oh, agreed upon on all points. I should have emphasized that I meant the attractiveness of those methods is based on whether they appear easy and accessible, regardless of their actual efficacy. By the nature of capitalism, which relies on there being many proletariat and few capitalists, any method that was actually easy, accessible, and effective would quickly have the ladder pulled up as the market corrects (or in many cases, legislates away) the "error", indeed leading to that inverse correlation.