The wealthiest 1% will own more wealth than the rest of the 99%, soon. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GeneralGenoci;46973443]soon we will return to the great depression again[/QUOTE] We just narrowly missed it in 2008 lol.

who is the 1% ? is it the rothchild and rockefeller and other bank families ?

[QUOTE=Sniping Robot;46973100]For fox sake, capitalism is an economic system dealing with the distribution of scarce resources through buyers and sellers in markets etc. The level of wealth distribution through taxes and other methods can exist on any varying scale within a capitalist economic system, and is an issue dealt with by governments. Low levels of wealth distribution as is the case in the United States is reflective of government policies, NOT the capitalistic economic system. Also stop bitching about how 'bad' capitalism is due to it relying on infinite growth (FYI most economic growth is attributed to new technologies and doing things more efficiently rather than gathering more resources outright). Capitalism is not the central cause behind the massive wealth inequality currently occurring in the US. It is the level of wealth distribution through taxes that is the cause of this problem, [B]which can be solved under capitalism through wealth distribution by increased taxes and funding social programs etc.[/B] Apparently many in the US are so against this idea though that it is surprising to me when they express outrage at the levels of wealth inequality, as it is pretty much the expected result from relatively low taxes on the wealthy. I also want to add that trickle-down economics is complete bullshit and not reflected in any mainstream economic theory, and any who peddle that crap either have something to gain from it or have no understanding of economic theory. Thank god I've never heard that term used in my country otherwise I would probably have an aneurysm.[/QUOTE] you realize those are socialist ideas right? so in other words, you want social democracy(a.k.a capitalism tempered with socialism). but really guys, don't worry, you're headed for a situation much like brazil is atm, it's all fine, enjoy your utterly massive inequality. :smile:

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;46973906]you realize those are socialist ideas right? so in other words, you want social democracy(a.k.a capitalism tempered with socialism).[/QUOTE] And? Social welfare is a concept much older than socialism and does not require socialism. People who talk about "mix of capitalism and socialism" tend to look at the European Union (especially the Nordic ones) as an example, when in reality they operate on the same ruthless and efficient principles of capitalism.

[QUOTE=Deng;46974305]And? Social welfare is a concept much older than socialism and does not require socialism. People who talk about "mix of capitalism and socialism" tend to look at the European Union (especially the Nordic ones) as an example, when in reality they operate on the same ruthless and efficient principles of capitalism.[/QUOTE] They might operate under the same principles but to suggest for a second that the Nordic nations and the US are the same might be the funniest thing I've read all day. If anything America is a perfect example of how to take a good idea and shit all over it.

So being in the top 1% makes me feel pretty good about my life actually. (You need just $34,000 annual income to be in the global elite)

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;46974348]They might operate under the same principles but to suggest for a second that the Nordic nations and the US are the same might be the funniest thing I've read all day. If anything America is a perfect example of how to take a good idea and shit all over it.[/QUOTE] While I agree with the part about america, Deng never stated the US and nordic countries were the same. They clearly aren't. He's stateing they are both primeraly capitalist just handle it differently, which is true. If suddenly the private companies helping the government run their welfare programs stopped making profit the system would collapse, same as the Uk and France. It might be funded by the tax payer but a vast amount of that money ends up in the pocket of private companies. Just a note, while I agree with what deng is saying in his various posts I don't think capitalism is sustainable or the long term "correct" solution.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46969101]Yes, because the alternative leads to such prosperous [sp]totalitarian[/sp] societies such as the Soviet Union and PRC.[/QUOTE] Ah yes because Marx totally said "to be Socialist you must have a totalitarian state". Oh wait, no he fucking didn't, he supported the idea that Socialism is best used in a democracy, and would fuck up anywhere else. Lo-and-behold, when nations adopted forms of Marxism and became totalitarian, it didn't work well. That isn't saying there aren't downsides but I am sick of people thinking Socialism/Communism means "dictatorship". They are economic systems, not political ones.

This study, just like all of theses types of studies, assume the fallacy that $1 is equal everyone across the globe. Here's an example of why that's false: Let us say that I live in the US and own a single bottle of Penicillin. For all intents and purposes I have almost literally zero wealth. I probably won't even be able to find a single person willing to buy it off of me. Now, let's say I move to an extremely poor country with no easy access to medications. I will most likely do quite a bit better. I may even be able to sell individual pills for a decent amount. Notice that the amount of stuff I owned didn't change. In both cases I had only one single bottle of Penicillin, but in the second case I actually had more wealth. My wealth changed just from moving location because the stuff I owned was worth more to one set of people than it was to another set of people. Money works the same way. $1/day is basically meaningless in a wealthy country like the US or most of Europe, but it can fairly easily sustain a person in an extremely poor country. If your interested, watch the documentary "Living on One Dollar" on NETFLIX. It's about some college students who force themselves to live on a dollar a day in a poor central american nation for a few months. They are easily able to buy enough food for themselves on that measly amount. Any issue they had arose from an inconsistent amount of money, not the absolute amount.

The left rises

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;46968946]How can we possibly overturn such an inequality? Thinking about it; I see no alternative where the majority of wealthy wouldn't try lobbying against the threat to their wealth[/QUOTE] Well, putsching everything and everyone and replacing them with the equivalents of good old Joseph Stalin for a period of time might work

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46974692]Ah yes because Marx totally said "to be Socialist you must have a totalitarian state". Oh wait, no he fucking didn't, he supported the idea that Socialism is best used in a democracy, and would fuck up anywhere else. Lo-and-behold, when nations adopted forms of Marxism and became totalitarian, it didn't work well. That isn't saying there aren't downsides but I am sick of people thinking Socialism/Communism means "dictatorship". They are economic systems, not political ones.[/QUOTE] [quote][The workers] must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement is not suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible. Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction. —Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Address of the Central Committee..., 1850[/quote]

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46974692]Ah yes because Marx totally said "to be Socialist you must have a totalitarian state". Oh wait, no he fucking didn't, he supported the idea that Socialism is best used in a democracy, and would fuck up anywhere else. Lo-and-behold, when nations adopted forms of Marxism and became totalitarian, it didn't work well. That isn't saying there aren't downsides but I am sick of people thinking Socialism/Communism means "dictatorship". They are economic systems, not political ones.[/QUOTE] No, Marx didn't say that at all. What he said was that democracy was just the expression of the supremacy of the bourgeois, and was always against the proletariat getting "absorbed" in the democratic process. A true communist society would not be democratic, because there would be no need for governance, as there would be no state at all. Saying that communism was [B]just [/B]an economic system is also pure marxist heresy, since Marx was a materialist and firmly believed that political systems were always a direct consequence and an expression of the economic system of society. Also, Marx was a firm proponent of violent revolution and the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat. So basically everything you just said is wrong.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46974692]Ah yes because Marx totally said "to be Socialist you must have a totalitarian state". Oh wait, no he fucking didn't, he supported the idea that Socialism is best used in a democracy, and would fuck up anywhere else. Lo-and-behold, when nations adopted forms of Marxism and became totalitarian, it didn't work well. That isn't saying there aren't downsides but I am sick of people thinking Socialism/Communism means "dictatorship". They are economic systems, not political ones.[/QUOTE] Yeah well I am sick of people thinking Capitalism means corruption by the 'big companies' bribing politicians/exploitation of the poor, because these aren't inherent principles of the system.

20 years ago you could buy a house with a job serving tables. Now two people can't work full time and afford a fucking home together. Nope, we're doing just fine, you cocksuckers

[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;46975004']No, Marx didn't say that at all. What he said was that democracy was just the expression of the supremacy of the bourgeois, and was always against the proletariat getting "absorbed" in the democratic process. A true communist society would not be democratic, because there would be no need for governance, as there would be no state at all. Saying that communism was [B]just [/B]an economic system is also pure marxist heresy, since Marx was a materialist and firmly believed that political systems were always a direct consequence and an expression of the economic system of society. Also, Marx was a firm proponent of violent revolution and the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat. So basically everything you just said is wrong.[/QUOTE] No state does not mean a lack of any governance. Most supporters of any ideology even broadly related to Marxism generally all recognize that a true democracy is a necessity to the functioning of a communist society in the end. Not only that, but dictatorship of the proletariat is not a literal dictatorship and violent revolution still does not mean a dictatorship. And to make it better, Marx seems to have been opposed to an authoritarian implementation of communism if his critique of barracks communism is considered applicable and very obviously was not against non-bourgeois democracy.

I don't philosophically have a problem with that, as long as the standard of living is as high for everyone as it can be, but the rich having that proportion of wealth is often symptomatic of something bad about to happen to our economic cycle.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46976088]No state does not mean a lack of any governance. Most supporters of any ideology even broadly related to Marxism generally all recognize that a true democracy is a necessity to the functioning of a communist society in the end. Not only that, but dictatorship of the proletariat is not a literal dictatorship and violent revolution still does not mean a dictatorship. And to make it better, Marx seems to have been opposed to an authoritarian implementation of communism if his critique of barracks communism is considered applicable and very obviously was not against non-bourgeois democracy.[/QUOTE] [quote]A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?[/quote] [url]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Deng;46976125][url]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm[/url][/QUOTE] The defense of a new state does not necessarily mean the implementation of an authoritarian society. I don't deny that in the case of any revolution the opposed group would probably be suppressed, in this case that being the bourgeoisie. Just as in the American Revolution Loyalists were not all too welcome after the revolution I could see any same sort of thing occurring for the capitalist class or their defenders. For a further comparison I would say the occupation of a nation after a war by the victor to stop a resurgence of previous hostilities. Not really a good thing to quote to prove authoritarianism within a potential socialist or communist society when it concerns only the revolution and not really the existing society itself. And to note, I don't think the opposition of an exploitative system by not allowing it to start up would be authoritarianism so anything related to that would really be non-applicable in attempting to prove authoritarianism.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46976246]The defense of a new state does not necessarily mean the implementation of an authoritarian society. I don't deny that in the case of any revolution the opposed group would probably be suppressed, in this case that being the bourgeoisie. Just as in the American Revolution Loyalists were not all too welcome after the revolution I could see any same sort of thing occurring for the capitalist class or their defenders. For a further comparison I would say the occupation of a nation after a war by the victor to stop a resurgence of previous hostilities. Not really a good thing to quote to prove authoritarianism within a potential socialist or communist society when it concerns only the revolution and not really the existing society itself. And to note, I don't think the opposition of an exploitative system by not allowing it to start up would be authoritarianism so anything related to that would really be non-applicable in attempting to prove authoritarianism.[/QUOTE] They pretty much explicitly state outright that violence is a legitimate political tool to be used to suppress your political opponents. Is it just to create a society by killing all those who oppose it?

[QUOTE=Deng;46976429]They pretty much explicitly state outright that violence is a legitimate political tool to be used to suppress your political opponents. Is it just to create a society by killing all those who oppose it?[/QUOTE] I'd wager that it surely is. Suppression through violence is the foundation of almost every society seeing as the driving force behind a state IS violence. All the quote really says is a revolution is violent and not to shy away from that since it is necessary to actually fight back. In addition to this, almost every revolution operates upon this premise and I'm sure you don't oppose every one of those do you?

[QUOTE=Octavius;46976562]I'd wager that it surely is. Suppression through violence is the foundation of almost every society seeing as the driving force behind a state IS violence. All the quote really says is a revolution is violent and not to shy away from that since it is necessary to actually fight back. In addition to this, almost every revolution operates upon this premise and I'm sure you don't oppose every one of those do you?[/QUOTE] Well, historically the evidence shows that revolutions in which violence is used to crush political opponents will end badly. A good revolution is one in which the apparatus of the regime collapses from lack of popular support and it cannot use force to repress the people anymore. If the revolution needs to actively suppress certain political views, use violence, etc in order to maintain its rule, then this implies that the new regime lacks popular support.

[QUOTE=Deng;46976624]Well, historically the evidence shows that revolutions in which violence is used to crush political opponents will end badly. A good revolution is one in which the apparatus of the regime collapses from lack of popular support and it cannot use force to repress the people anymore. If the revolution needs to actively suppress certain political views, use violence, etc in order to maintain its rule, then this implies that the new regime lacks popular support.[/QUOTE] That really isn't true at all though. What it means is that a certain group, be it tiny or huge, is being suppressed. No matter what someone is going to be suppressed and to act like there are instances of revolution in which nobody was is pretty insane. Suppression does not mean suppression of the majority of the population but most likely a minority. Historically most revolutions, successful or not, have used suppression as a tool otherwise they would instantly fall to counter-revolution the instant the revolution came to an end.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46976744]That really isn't true at all though. What it means is that a certain group, be it tiny or huge, is being suppressed. No matter what someone is going to be suppressed and to act like there are instances of revolution in which nobody was is pretty insane. Suppression does not mean suppression of the majority of the population but most likely a minority. Historically most revolutions, successful or not, have used suppression as a tool otherwise they would instantly fall to counter-revolution the instant the revolution came to an end.[/QUOTE] And where does the suppression end exactly? Who qualifies as being "counter-revolutionary"? How much violence is tolerated?

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;46973906]you realize those are socialist ideas right? so in other words, you want social democracy(a.k.a capitalism tempered with socialism). but really guys, don't worry, you're headed for a situation much like brazil is atm, it's all fine, enjoy your utterly massive inequality. :smile:[/QUOTE] No dude, those are not socialist ideas. Peron and Vargas may have distributed equality by force, but by no means their justification and background were socialist, in fact, the total contrary, nationalist and populist. First to not endanger the national unity with possible revolutions and secondly to gain the support of the masses.

[QUOTE=Deng;46976779]And where does the suppression end exactly? Who qualifies as being "counter-revolutionary"? How much violence is tolerated?[/QUOTE] I don't think I could really make up an answer for that as it seems a bit situational, but that same thing can be said about most any revolutionary movement throughout history and I still doubt that you are opposed to all of those. Really it could range from violence in the form of taking private property to just killing anyone. Really I, nor anyone else, would really know since this is not a current situation and people can only make a guess. But really I would say these hypothetical questions are meaningless and contribute nothing. I think it has been established violent revolution inherently includes violent suppression and you can't simply just dismiss violent revolutions as not working because they have.

[QUOTE=Octavius;46976916]I don't think I could really make up an answer for that as it seems a bit situational, but that same thing can be said about most any revolutionary movement throughout history and I still doubt that you are opposed to all of those. Really it could range from violence in the form of taking private property to just killing anyone. Really I, nor anyone else, would really know since this is not a current situation and people can only make a guess. But really I would say these hypothetical questions are meaningless and contribute nothing. I think it has been established violent revolution inherently includes violent suppression and you can't simply just dismiss violent revolutions as not working because they have.[/QUOTE] Well I don't really see violent revolutions as justifiable. If violence has to be used to safeguard the revolution, then innocent people will be inevitably caught in the crossfire and die (as has happened in many revolutions in the commiebloc). Many of the goals themselves ultimately were proven to be a lost cause in the end. The Communist experiment should be left in the 20th century as a historical relic. It ended in 1991.

[QUOTE=Deng;46976985]Well I don't really see violent revolutions as justifiable. If violence has to be used to safeguard the revolution, then innocent people will be inevitably caught in the crossfire and die (as has happened in many revolutions in the commiebloc). Many of the goals themselves ultimately were proven to be a lost cause in the end. The Communist experiment should be left in the 20th century as a historical relic. It ended in 1991.[/QUOTE] Though I am sure that many are caught in the crossfire is that a reason to abandon the possibility of it as a tool to reach a certain end? I don't think writing off every single violent revolution on that basis is a good idea at all. I am sure we can find a number of situations in which a government did collapse under the pressure of the people, violent or not, and in each of those situations I assure you that the new government utilized force as a tool to ensure that the old regime did not again rise to contest their newly found power. In every instance of revolution they justify their means, i.e. violent revolution, and upon succeeding forcefully crush all other opposition of this kind and deal with other forms of opposition in a similar way. This is how a revolution works, violent or not the opposition is then crushed through the violence of the state apparatus and its institutions and this idea is what Marx supported as being utilized to prevent a return to the exploitative system of Capitalism. A system in power will obviously attempt to solidify its position and to pretend it won't or that this should not happen is simply crazy. Look at any revolution or counter-revolution and you will see this. And to address your idea that many of the goals were a lost cause, I would love to see anything supporting this. Just because the Soviet Union ended up as a degenerated workers' state does not 'prove' communism as impossible, wrong, or unachievable. And just to add to it, I'd say that experiment died in 1924 with the death of Lenin and eventual fall of the Left Opposition and Stalin's rise to create a purely state capitalist and very authoritarian society. No matter what you may personally think of the ideas of Socialism I don't think you can state something as a historical relic since a certain implementation of it had failed to succeed while also providing no further arguments to support this idea. And please do not point to the deformed workers' states that existed based on the Soviet Union's own degenerated system to score points against an ideology which they only wished to represent. So long as massive inequality and exploitation of the working class continues to exist I would wager that communism is a very relevant ideology, just as any other which seeks to answer these problems. I'd love to see you or somebody else combats the ideology itself rather than simply coming up with idealistic methods of change in society with no basis in the material world and which can be applied to anything.

[QUOTE=Deng;46968941]Well, I don't feel much like a slave.[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of fact whether you feel or do not feel like you're a slave. "Slave: [I]a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.[/I]" At the end of the day if you live on any country on planet Earth, you are defined as a slave. You're forced to work, pay your taxes, follow laws, completely obey to the state you live in. Resist in any of these ways and they'll jail for possibly years or kill you and have the ability to cover up your death to your loved ones. Meaning your forced to behave like a slave.

[QUOTE=Deng;46976985]Well I don't really see violent revolutions as justifiable. [/QUOTE] Read much about the English Civil War? It was a defining event for your nation and all. [QUOTE=SirDavid255;46977633]It's not a matter of fact whether you feel or do not feel like you're a slave. "Slave: [I]a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.[/I]" At the end of the day if you live on any country on planet Earth, you are defined as a slave. You're forced to work, pay your taxes, follow laws, completely obey to the state you live in. Resist in any of these ways and they'll jail for possibly years or kill you and have the ability to cover up your death to your loved ones. Meaning your forced to behave like a slave.[/QUOTE] This is the kind of vacuously edgy nonsense I used to think in high school. The fact that you'll be punished for harming other people doesn't make you legal property, and the fact that you'll starve if you refuse to work isn't the state's fault, it's yours.