In the 1960s, the split was closer to 60/40, with 80% of the population making 60% of the income, and the richest 20% of the population making 40%. [ref] Between 1960 and 2000, the income split has gone from 60/40 to 50/50.
Perhaps I'm wrong but haven't we seen this before a few hundred years ago. I'm thinking of the poor unwashed masses rising up and overthrowing the rich elite minority. The french revolution, the american war of independance, the russians also killed off their royalty if I remember correctly. These days the people are the business leaders, and not royalty but they still have the same outlook on life. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the same thing happen again. When you leave people with nothing and no hope they have very few real reasons to not die for a cause. Keep the masses happy and comfortable and they don't want to risk losing that.
The poor unwashed masses in those three cases were doing the bidding of the middle and upper classes, who wanted to replace royalty with themselves. True peasant revolutions are rare. (I know there's one or two important historical examples, but I can't think of them right now).
Peasants/workers were very poorly educated then. That's why one of the tasks of the bolsheviks was to teach the workers. As Lenin wrote, it was absolutely vital to explain dialectic materialism to workers. Today nobody cares about advanced philosophy courses for the masses, but fortunately, people today are educated enough to be a driving force in the revolution. Actually, I don't see why intelligentsia can't lead the revolution once again. Many of them are quite capable of thinking about the common good an
Today nobody cares about advanced philosophy courses for the masses...
That's because people realize that an advanced course without years of introductory courses is either propaganda or a waste of time.
Many of them are quite capable of thinking about the common good and working to achieve that.
I doubt they've thought for a second about the common good, but on the odd chance they did, I hope it would occur to them that having another 40 million die trying to make Communism work _yet_ _again_ is not exa
I hope it would occur to them that having another 40 million die trying to make Communism work _yet_ _again_ is not exactly compatible with the common good.
First, don't confuse communism with a totalitarian dictatorship. One does not necessarily means another. And second, don't forget that everyone knew even 90 years ago that Russia was not ready for the transition to communism. When USA or EU changes from capitalism to communism in a few decades, no one needs to die. Deaths in Russia happened during the
"First, don't confuse communism with a totalitarian dictatorship. One does not necessarily means another"
Read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". It demonstrates quite convincingly that communism (by it's very nature) inevitably means totalitarian dictatorship (actually, more oligarchy than strict dictatorship, but that's splitting hairs).
The same type of people who "get ahead" under Communism also turn out to be the same type of people who set themselves up as totalitarian's.
I was born in Soviet Union and now live in Russia. I have a BBA degree and another degree in innovation management, my father is Professor, Doctor of Economics, my grandfather was a Professor of Economics, PhD. I know advantages and disadvantages of communism, socialism and capitalism firsthand. I don't need to read some political harangue written by a long dead man.
Hayek wasn't a stupid person, but the time and place he lived in inevitably limited his perception. His book might be an interesting historica
I know advantages and disadvantages of communism, socialism and capitalism firsthand. I don't need to read some political harangue written by a long dead man.
Let's contrast with this statement:... it was absolutely vital to explain dialectic materialism to workers. Today nobody cares about advanced philosophy courses for the masses...
So, which is it? Is education and reading past works important or not? Or are they only important when they back up your opinion?
Demagogy. First, it is important to teach people "one true doctrine" - the dialectic materialism of Marx and Lenin. You shouldn't teach them wrong things extensively.:) And please don't get me wrong, knowing other views might be important, but different philosophical viewpoints are not equally valuable. Second, I am talking here about a very specific case - about myself and about this one book. Surely you must realise that I have other things to do in life. I can't just read any book that someone recommen
In re: Joseph McCarthy, read "Treason", just out by Ann Coulter, as it dispells many of the myths about that time period.
See, I could spend months repeating all the extensive arguments and facts against some of the B.S. found here, but really don't have the time nor interest. I figure that if I at least give a reference to factual material widely available in book form that covers the topic, then anyone who actually wants to find out the truth will bother to read at least part of it (even if it's just from
The level of state intererence in life of the individual in later Soviet Union is comparable with that in the US in certain periods. Does the name Joseph McCarthy ring a bell? Or do you think there is nothing totalitarian about the US today?
Joseph McCarthy was 50 years ago, so it is similar to using Joe Stalin to discredit communism. I never said there's nothing totalitarian about the US today. The difference being I'm still able to talk to my representative WRT the USA PATRIOT act being a steaming pile o
As far as I know, when he wrote "The Road to Serfdom", he was only 26 years old. And not a Nobel prize winner by a long shot. And I doubt that he visited the USSR before writing the book. I said several times that I don't believe Hayek to be stupid, but I don't believe him to be a trustworthy expert on communism either and his 1944 book to be a worth resource today, especially given some of the wild speculations that Sharp'r claims are there.
I am not asking you to read Joseph Trachtenberg's* books on capit
My guess is that Hayek (recommended by Sharp'r) actually tried using Joe Stalin to discredit communism. What else could he do in 1944. But the fact is that Stalin != communism and Stalin violated many principles of communism when he succeumbed to his paranoia. Saying that communism is bad because of Stalin is precisely the same as saying Democracy is bad because of McCarthy and capitalism is bad because of Bill Gates.
You mention North Korea, Cuba and PRC, but 1) Each of these countries is a special case wit
My problems with Marx stem from the fact that he seems to ignore greed and other human motivations to produce 'more than one needs'.
What is an ideal place where one can incubate a communist nation (even though one of the goals is to tear down the idea of 'nation')? Does it exist anywhere? Is it possible? Or is the 'science' of communism something that only works under laboratory conditions?
I don't think Marx ignored greed. In fact it was hardly possible to ignore it in the 19th century.:) But anyway, I think it can be said that the theory is pretty solid and is still the best scientific theory we have to explain the transitions between socio-economic orders.
As for the ideal place, there are two important things that you need - one is production capacity and the second one correctly raised people. The first one will be available soon in all developed countries because of scientific and techn
Please give me one example of an attempt to create a communist state that didn't end up as a totalitarian dictatorship.
It's all checks and balances, man. Not only between branches of govt, but between govt and the people. In communism, there is no checks and balances. The state owns everything, the printing presses *and* the guns. How could it *not* become a totalitarian dictatorship?
For a communist govt to work, it would require that people have hearts of gold. What a load of crap. Democracy and ca
Well, Cuba is not a totalitarian dictatorship, Belarus is not a totalitarian dictatorship (a dictatorship, though). These countries are not communist, though. The point is, there have been no communist countries yet, there have been only countries governed by communist parties, not the same thing.
Check and balances are vital, no doubt about that. The lack of openness and proper feedback was the major drawback in USSR.
The things that you describe are not the characterisics of communism, but of totalitarian
I'm not concerned about the people that will often behave like they should. I'm concerned about the people who don't.
There's always going to be scarcity. At the very least, population growth will guarantee that. The reason industrialized countries have low birth rates is because kids are expensive; in your perfect la-la land that won't be true, and eventually scarcity will kick in again, at the very least for real estate.
And if you look around, you'll see that the more people have, the more they want.
The problem is not the scarcity per se, the problem is our common heritage from our animal roots. We used to compete for land, for food, for sexual partners. Now we compete for money, for power in the social hierarchy, for sexual partners again. But the main reason is still scarcity of basic resources - food, shelter, medicine. That's why we need power and money and that's why our mates need us to have the power and the money. But the promise of communism is that all basic and many advanced needs will be me
I'm not saying that the intelligentsia had anything to do with revolutions; it was money and power. Money and intelligence are not in any particularly useful way related. I also won't touch your reference to Lenin with a ten foot poll. What I was trying to do is point out to the original poster that the idea of a peasant revolution is a myth. The true task of the Bolsheviks (and the founding fathers of the US) was to convince the masses that things will be so much better if you let us run things instead of
What do you mean money and power? If you think all Bolsheviks wanted was money and power, you are crazy.:) If you think that money and power was necessary to organize the revolution, you are also not entirely correct - money was needed, but it could be relatively easily acquired.:)
And regardless of who is organizing the revolution, the point of original poster was that concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is an indicator that poor people might become willing to risk everything in a revolution. A
He then referred to three revolutions that were not carried out by peasants. No amount of hand wringing and revisionism can change the fact that changes in the status quo are no brought about because of 'the masses'. History changes because of one person or one group of people. They may enlist the masses. Hell, that p
You are right. I was giving the original poster a benefit of the doubt. May be he meant that "peasants" were an important force in the revolutions, directed by someone else. I agree with you that Winston Smith was probably insane when he said that our hope lies in Proles.:)
But today masses are more than capable of organising themselves, as examples, such as Indonesians throwing off Suharto, antiglobalists organising themselves and also Al Quaeda terrorists. Of course, often there is a cunning mastermind,
I'll agree with you that today's proles (particularly in first and second world countries) are fare more capable of forming a movement than those of 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Ironically, in large part due to communications systems built and designed for the US Military Complex:)
Thus did the US government became the architect of its own demise.:)
T. Jefferson felt that a revolution every 10-20 years was a healthy thing for any country. By that measure, the US is about 120 years overdue. (Although some would call the 60's revolutionary, I'm not prepared to raise it to the level of the US Civil War.)
I think the US couldn't imagine how ubiquitous telephones and computers would be when it funded Internet and communications satellites. If they had, I bet they would have kept a tight
This is exactly why Europe has such a lavish welfare system -- Hitler capitalized upon uncared-for Germans who were jealous of the wealthy overclass (with a significant amount of Jews). This was only 60 years ago and Europe is not going to make the same mistake again, though the economics of welfaring a section of the population which have a significant percentage of people who just want to drink beer and sleep around has got serious problems too. Paying people to be slackers isn't good for the country, though bloody revolution (you better be careful, corporate America) is a poor solution, offered up by the people who want to be the next aristocrats.
IMO, the solution involves the "haves" having compassion for the "have-nots" which means welfare only for the purpose of getting them a niche where they can be productive (and relatively happy doing it) for themselves, their families and the aggregate society. Ted Turner, you fuck, are you listening?
Peace & blessings, bmac
True peace and happiness are only a wish away -- www.mihr.com
The flaw in your arguement (well... combined with capitalism) is that compassionate people don't have much of a chance at being wealthy.
Socialism cures a lot of these problems, but early retirement cures them all practically. Force retirement of anyone that makes 5 million dollars of assets and or cash and the problem will be solved. This way everyone gets a chance at prosperity, and I bet you won't find anyone starving either. People wasting resources just because they have them will be much less of an
Yeah, but the flip side of that is when your parents die you don't go into extreme debt trying to pay off the taxes on their house. Which was 30k when they bought it, and is now worth 500k.
IMO, the solution involves the "haves" having compassion for the "have-nots" which means welfare only for the purpose of getting them a niche where they can be productive (and relatively happy doing it) for themselves, their families and the aggregate society. Ted Turner, you fuck, are you listening?
Compassion or a desire to save money, WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM?
Remember outsourcing? Remember automation? Service industries are the obvious next wave of automation, as I predicted back in the late 1980s
Dude, there's so much stuff to do on this planet, it would be generations before 6 billion organized, educated & trained (that's part of the process) human beings completed a complete "renovation". Landscaping, dump-clearing, organic vegetable growing, child educating (with a far greater ratio of teacher:student) are just a small list of possibilities. Some would think this kind of work is retro, but it seems to me that that is what a highly automated/robotized society will tend towards (if the progre
Dude, there's so much stuff to do on this planet, it would be generations before 6 billion organized, educated & trained (that's part of the process) human beings completed a complete "renovation". Landscaping, dump-clearing, organic vegetable growing, child educating (with a far greater ratio of teacher:student) are just a small list of possibilities. Some would think this kind of work is retro, but it seems to me that that is what a highly automated/robotized society will tend towards (if the progress
Perhaps a more relevant historical comparison is between the assignats (money) the National Assembly printed up under King Louis and the $25K the author of the above article wants created (somehow) for every person.
Louis et al. created too much money. It became worthless. The number of assignats it took to buy bread went through the roof. The resulting hyperinflation made the masses _very_ miserable, and was an impetus for the revolution. People lost their heads.
Printing money in the pre-industrial economy is stupid, because you can't correspondingly increase production.
Printing money in robotics-based economy is ok, because you are not limited in production factors. You can easily make more robots to process more resources, to build more solar/wind power plants and to make more robots. Of course, there are still some limits and they are quite close (until we get to nanotech), but the ultrafast growth will become possible with robots.
Welcome into communism. Communist Party of Soviet Union promised to build it by 1980. They were overoptimistic, because Russia was not ready for the transition to communism and everyone (including the bolsheviks) knew that even before 1917. But our generation will live under communism (for some time).
err... communism is supposed to eventually result in the elimination of govt. I know: never happened... but it is supposed to... Under the "cycle" you describe, I don't think communism is stable enough to
It wasn't stable to last in Soviet Union, because it couldn't be (and wasn't) built there at that time. Bolsheviks realised that well, but they didn't have a choice. There was no other strong political force, and someone had to take power (with czar overthrown and with Russia fighting in the WW1). After that they had to keep the power and after the Civil War they started to build the production capacity. Russia was predominantly an agrarian country, but under communists it was quickly turned into a modern i
Hundreds of years ago, you could kill a lord, and take all of his gold. You then controlled most of the wealth of the lord. Nowadays, what would killing Bill Gates get you? Probably only a tiny percentage of his wealth-- the rest is socked away in stocks. The French Revolution was driven not only by the "will of the 3rd estate", but also rational self-interest of each individual.
Maybe people would kill the elite if they had a moral justification (at least to themselves), AND they stood to gain a signif
"Hundreds of years ago, you could kill a lord, and take all of his gold."
No you couldn't. And acts of historical desperation are not driven by "rational self-interest" (what was in it for Tim McVeigh?) , but some selfless (if possbily misconceived) concern for the greater culture, and the movement it will make through history. And poverty probably has something to do with it as well.
Sorry, bad example on my part. But if all the villagers of a town revolted, each of them would get some measure of wealth, relatively directly. On the other hand, revolting on a local level has neglible personal gain in the modern world.
Tim McVeigh isn't a good example: historically, his was a non-trivial act, but not a major turning point. He didn't precipitate a rebellion.
You're always going to have weird stuff going on at the far end of the bell curve... but as long as the vast majority of people a
Technology will make it impossible. In the past you could give your peasents some cheap weapons and if you threw enough of 'em at the Military they'd succeed. With modern warfare (weapons, logistics, communications) you can easilly put down any such 'peasant' revolt. And with modern propaganda you can nip it in the bud.
The only solution I can is a non-violent revolt where the oppressed stop having children; doing away with the labor surplus and making labor valuable again. Or a plague/massive war. Either
Look at vietanam and Afganaston before you say that too loudly. Sure there was a lot of external assistance, but then the American revolution got a lot of assistance too. (Mostly from France, which was at war with England)
Civil wars are very hard to win because you don't know who will stay on your side. General Robert E. Lee of American Cival war fame was offered the job of commander of the Yankee forces, but instead took the job of the confederate forces because he liked that side better, and suddenly the rebels had one of the best generals of the war on their side.
There are a lot of guns out there. I don't know how Europe would do, but in the US there are at least as many guns as people, and most are in fireable shape, with amunition. Hard to win a war when you are not sure who is the other side. Nukeing your own people isn't a good idea. Local forces can still win a revolution or civil war, but because local forces don't need your fancy supply lines and communications, they are honest supportive citicians until you come to town. With modern transportation a rebel can attack miles from home and still be at work the next morning. One crossover general can run the whole thing from his secert internet connected bunker, using pgp to make sure communication goes works. Of course the other side has plenty of advantages, but if they will help is debatable, and really depends on the actual situation.
Not to address your main point -- but I noticed to wrong statements. First of all, Robert E. Lee took the job of the confederate forces, not because he liked that side better, but because he had family on that side, and his personal loyalties were there.
His feelings were that the South should have freed the slaves before the war. Technically, he was right. So he would have made a great Southern president.
But he made a lousy general. Tactician? Perhaps pretty good. Good at getting the troops emotiona
Look at vietanam and Afganaston before you say that too loudly. Sure there was a lot of external assistance, but then the American revolution got a lot of assistance too. (Mostly from France, which was at war with England)
Neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan are terribly relevant to the original point (that the weapons technology makes an uprising essentially impossible to win).
In the case of Vietnam, the actions available to the U.S. were constrained by political considerations. If they hadn't been,
In the past you could give your peasents some cheap weapons and if you threw enough of 'em at the Military they'd succeed. With modern warfare (weapons, logistics, communications) you can easilly put down any such 'peasant' revolt. And with modern propaganda you can nip it in the bud.
I agree with most of what you say and I'm not endorsing violence but don't forget that Communists overthrew their governments fairly easily. Or even look at the American and French revolutions: who would have thought that
" Technology will make it impossible." the author brought that up in the essay, in one of those yellow boxes. He said that the evolution in robotics would enhance the security state. Makes you rethink that Patriot Act, doesn't it?
The only defense a modern society has to prevent its military from being used to control that society, is to make sure that the elements of the military are drawn representatively from that society.
In those countries where the government uses the military to brutally suppress the populace, it's almost a given that many of the forces used to perform that suppression are "elite forces", who have been isolated & trained & rewarded in ways designed to keep them from having any kind of empathy with the
I'm thinking of the poor unwashed masses rising up and overthrowing the rich elite minority. The french revolution, the american war of independance, the russians also killed off their royalty if I remember correctly. These days the people are the business leaders, and not royalty but they still have the same outlook on life.
Actually the American revolution was organized and led by people who of enormous wealth - Washington, Jefferson, the Lee and Randolph families, etc. So if you're right and histor
Somethings got to give, and I think you may be right.
The 'revolution' this time may not come by arms, but by economics. The 'rich' that are there by greed don't seem to realize that it's all those average schmoes that keep them in business. Once the majority of the workforce is displaced by overseas 'outsourceing' and/or robots... the very companies that took those measures will take an economic hit also.
It's all intermingled.
Although, there are a few 'businessmen' that I wouldn't mind seeing lynched,
The 'revolution' this time may not come by arms, but by economics.
It IS possible for an economic revolution. For example, people can start boycotting goods, withhold funds (not give to banks), etc. But I don't think that alone will work for two reasons.
Firstly, the world is not egalitarian and there are massive differences is wealthy between regions/countries/etc. The wealthy can simply go and exploit someone who is even more desperate than you. They can even sell their products to this desperate bun
Mr. Marx if you thought religion was the opiate of the masses "you ain't seen nothing' yet"
Both advertising and psychology have both really come up as powerhouses lately. We are better at manipulating our citizens now than we ever have been in the past. Sure they can still get swept up in a surge of emotion and riot, but the second they stop to watch TV (and they will, people can't riot indefinitely) its all over.
I personally think that capitalism will collapse within our lifetimes. In my opinion, a key determinant of revolutions is the size and strength of hte middle class. As long as the middle class is big and happy, everything will be stable. But if the middle class erodes and becomes working class or poorer, watch out...
Also, a lot of Latin American countries are on the verge of a revolution... this time, USA can't do anything...
One flaw in your argument is that the American government has gotten very good at keeping people satiated. The French and the Russians were beyond poor, they were starving. Why do you think the government spends enormous amounts of money subsidising farming? Its not to protect jobs, most of the work is automated anyway. When I was in college a decade ago, I had to live off of $20 a week in groceries. Recently, I went through a period of unemployment, and I discovered that, despite ten years of inflatio
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
History repeats itself? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm wrong but haven't we seen this before a few hundred years ago. I'm thinking of the poor unwashed masses rising up and overthrowing the rich elite minority. The french revolution, the american war of independance, the russians also killed off their royalty if I remember correctly. These days the people are the business leaders, and not royalty but they still have the same outlook on life. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the same thing happen again. When you leave people with nothing and no hope they have very few real reasons to not die for a cause. Keep the masses happy and comfortable and they don't want to risk losing that.
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
That's because people realize that an advanced course without years of introductory courses is either propaganda or a waste of time.
Many of them are quite capable of thinking about the common good and working to achieve that.
I doubt they've thought for a second about the common good, but on the odd chance they did, I hope it would occur to them that having another 40 million die trying to make Communism work _yet_ _again_ is not exa
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1, Troll)
First, don't confuse communism with a totalitarian dictatorship. One does not necessarily means another. And second, don't forget that everyone knew even 90 years ago that Russia was not ready for the transition to communism. When USA or EU changes from capitalism to communism in a few decades, no one needs to die. Deaths in Russia happened during the
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2, Troll)
Read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". It demonstrates quite convincingly that communism (by it's very nature) inevitably means totalitarian dictatorship (actually, more oligarchy than strict dictatorship, but that's splitting hairs).
The same type of people who "get ahead" under Communism also turn out to be the same type of people who set themselves up as totalitarian's.
Hasn't anyone told you fell
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Hayek wasn't a stupid person, but the time and place he lived in inevitably limited his perception. His book might be an interesting historica
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
Let's contrast with this statement:
So, which is it? Is education and reading past works important or not? Or are they only important when they back up your opinion?
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1, Troll)
See, I could spend months repeating all the extensive arguments and facts against some of the B.S. found here, but really don't have the time nor interest. I figure that if I at least give a reference to factual material widely available in book form that covers the topic, then anyone who actually wants to find out the truth will bother to read at least part of it (even if it's just from
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
Joseph McCarthy was 50 years ago, so it is similar to using Joe Stalin to discredit communism. I never said there's nothing totalitarian about the US today. The difference being I'm still able to talk to my representative WRT the USA PATRIOT act being a steaming pile o
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
I am not asking you to read Joseph Trachtenberg's* books on capit
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
You mention North Korea, Cuba and PRC, but
1) Each of these countries is a special case wit
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
What is an ideal place where one can incubate a communist nation (even though one of the goals is to tear down the idea of 'nation')? Does it exist anywhere? Is it possible? Or is the 'science' of communism something that only works under laboratory conditions?
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
As for the ideal place, there are two important things that you need - one is production capacity and the second one correctly raised people. The first one will be available soon in all developed countries because of scientific and techn
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
It's all checks and balances, man. Not only between branches of govt, but between govt and the people. In communism, there is no checks and balances. The state owns everything, the printing presses *and* the guns. How could it *not* become a totalitarian dictatorship?
For a communist govt to work, it would require that people have hearts of gold. What a load of crap. Democracy and ca
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Check and balances are vital, no doubt about that. The lack of openness and proper feedback was the major drawback in USSR.
The things that you describe are not the characterisics of communism, but of totalitarian
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
There's always going to be scarcity. At the very least, population growth will guarantee that. The reason industrialized countries have low birth rates is because kids are expensive; in your perfect la-la land that won't be true, and eventually scarcity will kick in again, at the very least for real estate.
And if you look around, you'll see that the more people have, the more they want.
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
And regardless of who is organizing the revolution, the point of original poster was that concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is an indicator that poor people might become willing to risk everything in a revolution. A
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
I'm thinking of the poor unwashed masses rising up and overthrowing the rich elite minority. [slashdot.org]
He then referred to three revolutions that were not carried out by peasants. No amount of hand wringing and revisionism can change the fact that changes in the status quo are no brought about because of 'the masses'. History changes because of one person or one group of people. They may enlist the masses. Hell, that p
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
But today masses are more than capable of organising themselves, as examples, such as Indonesians throwing off Suharto, antiglobalists organising themselves and also Al Quaeda terrorists. Of course, often there is a cunning mastermind,
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2, Insightful)
T. Jefferson felt that a revolution every 10-20 years was a healthy thing for any country. By that measure, the US is about 120 years overdue. (Although some would call the 60's revolutionary, I'm not prepared to raise it to the level of the US Civil War.)
I think the US couldn't imagine how ubiquitous telephones and computers would be when it funded Internet and communications satellites. If they had, I bet they would have kept a tight
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
"Useful fools".
It's about the only concept they got right.
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
Distinction without a difference.
You got it (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO, the solution involves the "haves" having compassion for the "have-nots" which means welfare only for the purpose of getting them a niche where they can be productive (and relatively happy doing it) for themselves, their families and the aggregate society. Ted Turner, you fuck, are you listening?
Peace & blessings,
bmac
True peace and happiness are only a wish away -- www.mihr.com
Re:You got it (Score:3, Insightful)
Socialism cures a lot of these problems, but early retirement cures them all practically. Force retirement of anyone that makes 5 million dollars of assets and or cash and the problem will be solved. This way everyone gets a chance at prosperity, and I bet you won't find anyone starving either. People wasting resources just because they have them will be much less of an
Re:You got it (Score:1)
Re:You got it (Score:2)
Re:You got it (Score:2)
wrong answer (Score:2)
Compassion or a desire to save money, WHERE ARE THE JOBS COMING FROM?
Remember outsourcing? Remember automation? Service industries are the obvious next wave of automation, as I predicted back in the late 1980s
Re:wrong answer (Score:1)
more automation possibilities (Score:2)
The French Revolution and Hyperinflation (Score:2, Interesting)
Louis et al. created too much money. It became worthless. The number of assignats it took to buy bread went through the roof. The resulting hyperinflation made the masses _very_ miserable, and was an impetus for the revolution. People lost their heads.
I don't think printing up money for peo
Re:The French Revolution and Hyperinflation (Score:2)
Printing money in robotics-based economy is ok, because you are not limited in production factors. You can easily make more robots to process more resources, to build more solar/wind power plants and to make more robots. Of course, there are still some limits and they are quite close (until we get to nanotech), but the ultrafast growth will become possible with robots.
Today the economic theory tea
Re:The French Revolution and Hyperinflation (Score:1)
err... communism is supposed to eventually result in the elimination of govt. I know: never happened... but it is supposed to... Under the "cycle" you describe, I don't think communism is stable enough to
Re:The French Revolution and Hyperinflation (Score:2)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Maybe people would kill the elite if they had a moral justification (at least to themselves), AND they stood to gain a signif
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
Tim McVeigh isn't a good example: historically, his was a non-trivial act, but not a major turning point. He didn't precipitate a rebellion.
You're always going to have weird stuff going on at the far end of the bell curve... but as long as the vast majority of people a
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
Most likely, a life sentance in prison.
Won't happen (Score:2)
The only solution I can is a non-violent revolt where the oppressed stop having children; doing away with the labor surplus and making labor valuable again. Or a plague/massive war. Either
Re:Won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at vietanam and Afganaston before you say that too loudly. Sure there was a lot of external assistance, but then the American revolution got a lot of assistance too. (Mostly from France, which was at war with England)
Civil wars are very hard to win because you don't know who will stay on your side. General Robert E. Lee of American Cival war fame was offered the job of commander of the Yankee forces, but instead took the job of the confederate forces because he liked that side better, and suddenly the rebels had one of the best generals of the war on their side.
There are a lot of guns out there. I don't know how Europe would do, but in the US there are at least as many guns as people, and most are in fireable shape, with amunition. Hard to win a war when you are not sure who is the other side. Nukeing your own people isn't a good idea. Local forces can still win a revolution or civil war, but because local forces don't need your fancy supply lines and communications, they are honest supportive citicians until you come to town. With modern transportation a rebel can attack miles from home and still be at work the next morning. One crossover general can run the whole thing from his secert internet connected bunker, using pgp to make sure communication goes works. Of course the other side has plenty of advantages, but if they will help is debatable, and really depends on the actual situation.
Not correct on two counts. (Score:3, Informative)
His feelings were that the South should have freed the slaves before the war. Technically, he was right. So he would have made a great Southern president.
But he made a lousy general. Tactician? Perhaps pretty good. Good at getting the troops emotiona
Re:Won't happen (Score:1)
Neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan are terribly relevant to the original point (that the weapons technology makes an uprising essentially impossible to win).
In the case of Vietnam, the actions available to the U.S. were constrained by political considerations. If they hadn't been,
Re:Won't happen (Score:2)
If you're brave, you might start up a web page with a discussion dediated to this.
Re:Won't happen (Score:1)
I agree with most of what you say and I'm not endorsing violence but don't forget that Communists overthrew their governments fairly easily. Or even look at the American and French revolutions: who would have thought that
Re:Won't happen (Score:1)
Re:Won't happen (Score:1)
In those countries where the government uses the military to brutally suppress the populace, it's almost a given that many of the forces used to perform that suppression are "elite forces", who have been isolated & trained & rewarded in ways designed to keep them from having any kind of empathy with the
re: History repeats itself? American Revolution - (Score:1)
Actually the American revolution was organized and led by people who of enormous wealth - Washington, Jefferson, the Lee and Randolph families, etc. So if you're right and histor
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
The 'revolution' this time may not come by arms, but by economics. The 'rich' that are there by greed don't seem to realize that it's all those average schmoes that keep them in business. Once the majority of the workforce is displaced by overseas 'outsourceing' and/or robots... the very companies that took those measures will take an economic hit also.
It's all intermingled.
Although, there are a few 'businessmen' that I wouldn't mind seeing lynched,
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
It IS possible for an economic revolution. For example, people can start boycotting goods, withhold funds (not give to banks), etc. But I don't think that alone will work for two reasons.
Firstly, the world is not egalitarian and there are massive differences is wealthy between regions/countries/etc. The wealthy can simply go and exploit someone who is even more desperate than you. They can even sell their products to this desperate bun
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
To plagiarize from Calvin and Hobbes a bit:
Mr. Marx if you thought religion was the opiate of the masses "you ain't seen nothing' yet"
Both advertising and psychology have both really come up as powerhouses lately. We are better at manipulating our citizens now than we ever have been in the past. Sure they can still get swept up in a surge of emotion and riot, but the second they stop to watch TV (and they will, people can't riot indefinitely) its all over.
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:2)
that's why capitalism is going to collapse (Score:1)
Also, a lot of Latin American countries are on the verge of a revolution... this time, USA can't do anything...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:History repeats itself? (Score:1)
One flaw in your argument is that the American government has gotten very good at keeping people satiated. The French and the Russians were beyond poor, they were starving. Why do you think the government spends enormous amounts of money subsidising farming? Its not to protect jobs, most of the work is automated anyway. When I was in college a decade ago, I had to live off of $20 a week in groceries. Recently, I went through a period of unemployment, and I discovered that, despite ten years of inflatio