4 ms·

Historically, that's when a revolution or regime-change happens. This is something the richest of the rich have either forgotten or mistakenly think they'll be

Historically, that's when a revolution or regime-change happens. This is something the richest of the rich have either forgotten or mistakenly think they'll be insulated from. Like the line from Titanic when the extravagantly wealthy Calvert is trying to buy himself onto a lifeboat – "Your money can't save you any more than it can save me."

aksss 4y ago
Depends on the scope of “history”. You could also say that historically that’s when a civilization gets put under a feudal yoke for scores of generations. Successful revolution by “the workers” is more the exception than the norm in the story of humanity, I should think. there are plenty of places in the world that are ruled by truly oppressive regimes, and I think most of the world, most of the time, has looked like that, not like the developed “West”.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >not like the developed “West” The west is like this today (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) in part also to a lot of violent and sometimes deadly revolts against the ruling class. US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc. all saw bloody strikes and protests, in order to get fair living conditions. Noting was ever given out of pure generosity, without a fight.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The west [...] (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) That's...barely a thing at all. > US, UK, France, Italy, etc. If those are your examples, you really don't need the “apart from...”
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      My point was that all the theft from colonialism didn't really improve things much back home for the average folk in those countries later on, as all the stolen wealth ended up in the hands of the few elites, and the working class people were left to sort it out for themselves. The wealth inequality was absolutely insane. It's not like thanks to colonialism, everyone living in the UK victorian era could afford to prop their feet up, live off free stuff taken from the colonies, and never have to work a day in their lives. Quite the contrary, they were working long hours living in poor conditions. The working class only saw lifestyle improvements when they fought back for them.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        Spot on! During the industrial revolution life expectancy in UK was among the lowest in the world for the poorest industrial workers. Inequality was incredibly high. Painting people in a country as being all benefiting (or being harmed) from an external factor is very misleading
slothtrop 4y ago
War, actually. Inequality in the Victorian era was high, after the early 20th century labor movements and a couple of world wars wages greatly improved. There have been many periods of high inequality and stagnation in history broken up by war. Since war is not a preferable catalyst in this day and age, we have to opt for organized labor.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Since war is not a preferable catalyst in this day and age Excuse me, but where have you been in the past 3 months?
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    Well war in Ukraine isn't going to clean the slate for the Western world, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
tablespoon 4y ago
>> At one point, you won't have any money to buy any assets if your wages are barely covering your food and shelter, and so we'll go back to feudalism where only those few with inherited wealth owned assets and everyone else was a slave for life. > Historically, that's when a revolution or regime-change happens. This is something the richest of the rich have either forgotten or mistakenly think they'll be insulated from. Revolutions aren't always successful. If the rich control the state by corrupting democratic institutions and remove from the peasantry the tools to pursue "politics with other means," they might actually get away with a transition to something like feudalism.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I sort of wonder what you mean by tools to pursue politics by other means. Presumably you mean guns, but the thing is that in the US the plutocrats created their own epistemic ecosystem and got all the people whose identity are wrapped up in guns (and own the majority of them) to buy into it - remember how we're not allowed to call them plutocrats since that's disrespectful; the preferred term is "job-creator". So now anytime the rabble get a bit restless, the job-creators just get another upper income tax cut. So I guess I'm curious when you say tools if you mean guns or information.

aksss 4y ago

Depends on the scope of “history”. You could also say that historically that’s when a civilization gets put under a feudal yoke for scores of generations. Successful revolution by “the workers” is more the exception than the norm in the story of humanity, I should think. there are plenty of places in the world that are ruled by truly oppressive regimes, and I think most of the world, most of the time, has looked like that, not like the developed “West”.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>not like the developed “West” The west is like this today (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) in part also to a lot of violent and sometimes deadly revolts against the ruling class. US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc. all saw bloody strikes and protests, in order to get fair living conditions. Noting was ever given out of pure generosity, without a fight.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The west [...] (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) That's...barely a thing at all. > US, UK, France, Italy, etc. If those are your examples, you really don't need the “apart from...”
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    My point was that all the theft from colonialism didn't really improve things much back home for the average folk in those countries later on, as all the stolen wealth ended up in the hands of the few elites, and the working class people were left to sort it out for themselves. The wealth inequality was absolutely insane. It's not like thanks to colonialism, everyone living in the UK victorian era could afford to prop their feet up, live off free stuff taken from the colonies, and never have to work a day in their lives. Quite the contrary, they were working long hours living in poor conditions. The working class only saw lifestyle improvements when they fought back for them.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Spot on! During the industrial revolution life expectancy in UK was among the lowest in the world for the poorest industrial workers. Inequality was incredibly high. Painting people in a country as being all benefiting (or being harmed) from an external factor is very misleading

slothtrop 4y ago

War, actually. Inequality in the Victorian era was high, after the early 20th century labor movements and a couple of world wars wages greatly improved. There have been many periods of high inequality and stagnation in history broken up by war. Since war is not a preferable catalyst in this day and age, we have to opt for organized labor.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Since war is not a preferable catalyst in this day and age Excuse me, but where have you been in the past 3 months?
- slothtrop 4y ago
  Well war in Ukraine isn't going to clean the slate for the Western world, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

tablespoon 4y ago

>> At one point, you won't have any money to buy any assets if your wages are barely covering your food and shelter, and so we'll go back to feudalism where only those few with inherited wealth owned assets and everyone else was a slave for life. > Historically, that's when a revolution or regime-change happens. This is something the richest of the rich have either forgotten or mistakenly think they'll be insulated from. Revolutions aren't always successful. If the rich control the state by corrupting democratic institutions and remove from the peasantry the tools to pursue "politics with other means," they might actually get away with a transition to something like feudalism.

hotpotamus 4y ago
I sort of wonder what you mean by tools to pursue politics by other means. Presumably you mean guns, but the thing is that in the US the plutocrats created their own epistemic ecosystem and got all the people whose identity are wrapped up in guns (and own the majority of them) to buy into it - remember how we're not allowed to call them plutocrats since that's disrespectful; the preferred term is "job-creator". So now anytime the rabble get a bit restless, the job-creators just get another upper income tax cut. So I guess I'm curious when you say tools if you mean guns or information.