6 ms·

What does a revolt look like? People can live in unimaginable conditions and not revolt. The idea that if things get bad enough "people" are going to do somethi

What does a revolt look like? People can live in unimaginable conditions and not revolt. The idea that if things get bad enough "people" are going to do something about it can just occur to someone that hasn't seen enough of the world.

lm28469 4y ago
CEOs getting insane pay doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can't use the "trickle down" economy as a proverbial carrot when people can't put gas in their car or heat their home while Bezos&co buy a new yacht every other day > The idea that if things get bad enough "people" are going to do something about it can just occur to someone that hasn't seen enough of the world. Or I'm French, who knows ;) Continue selling ports to China, continue selling sport clubs to Qatar, apartments to Emiratis, continue to delocalise industries to third world countries to save on labor, continue to force people into precarity, to force them into shittier and shittier jobs while asking them to work longer hours and retire at 67 for less and less quality of life. I'm telling you, at some point people won't have anything to lose and heads will start rolling
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Last time heads were rolling in France people were starving.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Well we have 10m people living under poverty, even armed with forks and spoons they'd take the Elysee in a day. Even the 42 000 homeless children living in France could take care of it
    - ttoinou 4y ago
      Poverty definition is a relative definition. Hence you're measuring inequalities, not wealth
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lm28469 4y ago
        Well that's what the discussion was about in the first place wasn't it ? The inequalities between CEOs and workers grew, one side lives in absolute poverty, the other in absolute opulence The poor are still too poor to live properly and the rich are too rich to count, that's not how they sold us capitalism is it ? Wasn't it supposed to even out inequalities ? Money trickling down to the poorest ? Why are there still people in ultra advanced countries who can't afford to heat their home ? > Poverty definition is a relative definition. Criteria such as: "can't afford clothes" "can't go out with friends/family at least once a month due to financial reasons" "not having access to internet" "can't pay water/electricity bills" "can't heat apartment above the minimum temperature determined by the law" "can't afford one week of vacation out of their own place" "can't afford meat/fish every other day"
        Firmwarrior 4y ago
        Our patron saint has this to say about it > For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process. That's much more likely to work than attacking wealth in the hope that you will thereby fix poverty. [9] And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. [10] > If all you have is statistics, it seems like that's what you need to fix. But behind a broad statistical measure like economic inequality there are some things that are good and some that are bad, some that are historical trends with immense momentum and others that are random accidents. If we want to fix the world behind the statistics, we have to understand it, and focus our efforts where they'll do the most good. http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
        lm28469 4y ago
        > And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. If we did that Bezos&co wouldn't have nearly as much money. A big part of the wealth of these individual is tax evasion or """optimisation""", taxes which are supposed to be used to fix these inequalities... Again, these people don't exist in a vacuum, these massive companies became what they are by squeezing as much as they're legally (and some time not so legally) allowed to squeeze, it's our collective job to set the boundaries. Not doing anything is letting them decide and their end goal is squeezing us and the planet dry You don't "attack poverty" with good intentions and nice speeches
  - orwin 4y ago
    If you mean the last revolution, this is wrong. The last successfull French revolution (1830) had nothing to do with starvation. Even the 1871 revolt didn't had much to do with what and how to eat. We killed factory owners for far less than an empty stomach. But at the time, we understood that the police was really representing the business owners (landowners, industrialists) more than the government and put their crimes not on the individual, but on the hand that lead them. I feel like this understanding is coming back in the US.
- zokier 4y ago
  Problem with the idea of heads rolling is that it doesn't really achieve anything. Let's hypothetically say you just stormed the parliament and slaughtered all the members there. Then what? Install military junta? That requires actual military backing, and doesn't exactly have great track record. Hold new elections? Attacking democratic institution seems unlikely strategy for winning seats, and if you think you can win that way then why did you need violence in the first place?
klyrs 4y ago
I'm not sure about a revolt, but this is what we're seeing: People mobbing into stores, grabbing things off the shelves, and just walking out. Sleeping in tents in massive encampments, turning parks and sidewalks into shanty towns. Pissing and shitting on the street in broad daylight. The richest are driving up rents and housing prices in cities. Gas is increasingly unaffordable, driving up cost of living in rural areas. People who cannot keep up will find other solutions. It might not involve guillotines, but the US has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world. edit: what I've described above is not a revolt, per se, but it is revolting.

lm28469 4y ago

CEOs getting insane pay doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can't use the "trickle down" economy as a proverbial carrot when people can't put gas in their car or heat their home while Bezos&co buy a new yacht every other day > The idea that if things get bad enough "people" are going to do something about it can just occur to someone that hasn't seen enough of the world. Or I'm French, who knows ;) Continue selling ports to China, continue selling sport clubs to Qatar, apartments to Emiratis, continue to delocalise industries to third world countries to save on labor, continue to force people into precarity, to force them into shittier and shittier jobs while asking them to work longer hours and retire at 67 for less and less quality of life. I'm telling you, at some point people won't have anything to lose and heads will start rolling

whatshisface 4y ago
Last time heads were rolling in France people were starving.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Well we have 10m people living under poverty, even armed with forks and spoons they'd take the Elysee in a day. Even the 42 000 homeless children living in France could take care of it
  - ttoinou 4y ago
    Poverty definition is a relative definition. Hence you're measuring inequalities, not wealth
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lm28469 4y ago
      Well that's what the discussion was about in the first place wasn't it ? The inequalities between CEOs and workers grew, one side lives in absolute poverty, the other in absolute opulence The poor are still too poor to live properly and the rich are too rich to count, that's not how they sold us capitalism is it ? Wasn't it supposed to even out inequalities ? Money trickling down to the poorest ? Why are there still people in ultra advanced countries who can't afford to heat their home ? > Poverty definition is a relative definition. Criteria such as: "can't afford clothes" "can't go out with friends/family at least once a month due to financial reasons" "not having access to internet" "can't pay water/electricity bills" "can't heat apartment above the minimum temperature determined by the law" "can't afford one week of vacation out of their own place" "can't afford meat/fish every other day"
      - Firmwarrior 4y ago
        Our patron saint has this to say about it > For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process. That's much more likely to work than attacking wealth in the hope that you will thereby fix poverty. [9] And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. [10] > If all you have is statistics, it seems like that's what you need to fix. But behind a broad statistical measure like economic inequality there are some things that are good and some that are bad, some that are historical trends with immense momentum and others that are random accidents. If we want to fix the world behind the statistics, we have to understand it, and focus our efforts where they'll do the most good. http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
        lm28469 4y ago
        > And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. If we did that Bezos&co wouldn't have nearly as much money. A big part of the wealth of these individual is tax evasion or """optimisation""", taxes which are supposed to be used to fix these inequalities... Again, these people don't exist in a vacuum, these massive companies became what they are by squeezing as much as they're legally (and some time not so legally) allowed to squeeze, it's our collective job to set the boundaries. Not doing anything is letting them decide and their end goal is squeezing us and the planet dry You don't "attack poverty" with good intentions and nice speeches
- orwin 4y ago
  If you mean the last revolution, this is wrong. The last successfull French revolution (1830) had nothing to do with starvation. Even the 1871 revolt didn't had much to do with what and how to eat. We killed factory owners for far less than an empty stomach. But at the time, we understood that the police was really representing the business owners (landowners, industrialists) more than the government and put their crimes not on the individual, but on the hand that lead them. I feel like this understanding is coming back in the US.
zokier 4y ago
Problem with the idea of heads rolling is that it doesn't really achieve anything. Let's hypothetically say you just stormed the parliament and slaughtered all the members there. Then what? Install military junta? That requires actual military backing, and doesn't exactly have great track record. Hold new elections? Attacking democratic institution seems unlikely strategy for winning seats, and if you think you can win that way then why did you need violence in the first place?

klyrs 4y ago

I'm not sure about a revolt, but this is what we're seeing: People mobbing into stores, grabbing things off the shelves, and just walking out. Sleeping in tents in massive encampments, turning parks and sidewalks into shanty towns. Pissing and shitting on the street in broad daylight. The richest are driving up rents and housing prices in cities. Gas is increasingly unaffordable, driving up cost of living in rural areas. People who cannot keep up will find other solutions. It might not involve guillotines, but the US has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world. edit: what I've described above is not a revolt, per se, but it is revolting.