Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Most the things I'd file under "class warfare" absolutely do not hurt everyone (like redistribution of wealth). Unless we're talking literal warfare, ie Reign of Terror stuff, in which case I'd agree. Until shots are being fired though, it's an empty accusation.

Strife between classes is inevitable and not inherently bad, especially if that strife moves us away from having classes in the first place.

[Nadaka]

Ultimately I don't see why "class warfare" is a bad thing. It's like, an empty accusation.

"You're unhappy due to class discrepancies? How could you!?"

Shame on you for standing up for yourself. Good plebes just say "thank you sire, may I have another?"

[Kilroy the Grand]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If most couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic. That's why I put it in the spoiler.

[Strife26]

Most the things I'd file under "class warfare" absolutely do not hurt everyone (like redistribution of wealth). Unless we're talking literal warfare, ie Reign of Terror stuff, in which case I'd agree. Until shots are being fired though, it's an empty accusation.

Strife between classes is inevitable and not inherently bad, especially if that strife moves us away from having classes in the first place.

I get pretty leery whenever I hear redistribution of wealth, you know? I'd certainly contend that the entire system can get borked up enough/ harmed long before we're marching ceo's across the ice and reenacting the french revolution. Not to say that a higher tax rate for the wealthy isn't just/ necessary, it's just the kind of thing that has to be balanced really carefully so as to not infringe on either rights, nor the betterment of the system.

I would certainly argue that strife moving us towards a classless society is a bad thing, because such a place isn't remotely sustainable and *is* going to fall down, most likely in some serious, French Revolution-y style strife.

[kaijyuu]

I can't really contend your points without going into circular assertions. So I don't really expect to refute you, but just say that I disagree. I feel there can be a classless, stable society, as there will still be a power structure (unlike anarchy), just with everyone controlling it instead of an oligarchy.

[Nadaka]

The wealth has already been redistributed, its just been redistributed to the ultra wealthy.

[Karnewarrior]

I don't think a classless society can exist due to people wanting to be better than other people. The good thing about the free market isn't that it lacks social class but that you can move freely among them. Just because you were born poor doesn't mean you stay poor, in a free market.

But without regulation, irony sets in and the markets are no longer free but run by monopolies and bigwigs who crush new additions to their class of people. Pure capitalism, like pure communism, is simply unattainable, unsustainable, and unlikable. A median between the two is best.

[SealyStar]

I don't think a classless society can exist due to people wanting to be better than other people. The good thing about the free market isn't that it lacks social class but that you can move freely among them. Just because you were born poor doesn't mean you stay poor, in a free market.

But without regulation, irony sets in and the markets are no longer free but run by monopolies and bigwigs who crush new additions to their class of people. Pure capitalism, like pure communism, is simply unattainable, unsustainable, and unlikable. A median between the two is best.

Exactly.

What many people call "capitalism" is not capitalism. It is the end product of unrestricted capitalism. True capitalism is a system where everyone has a fair chance, everyone has an opportunity to make their lives better. "Capitalism" as it is too often used now is corporate feudalism- wherein monopolies control the government and all their citizens, where everyone is bound to one position, where the common man and woman starve while the lucky few reap the benefits.

This is what happens when you go too far down either end of the scale- whether it be left or right, the end result is a seamless combination of state and industry where the many are oppressed by a few- the difference is that on the left the state takes over industry, while on the right industry drowns the state.

It is ironic that seventy years ago the United States fought a bloody war against Fascist nations, yet now has almost become one itself.

-Political tirade off-

[kaijyuu]

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It is ironic that seventy years ago the United States fought a bloody war against Fascist nations, yet now has almost become one itself.

Sometimes I really wonder about y'all.

[Strife26]

I don't think a classless society can exist due to people wanting to be better than other people. The good thing about the free market isn't that it lacks social class but that you can move freely among them. Just because you were born poor doesn't mean you stay poor, in a free market.

But without regulation, irony sets in and the markets are no longer free but run by monopolies and bigwigs who crush new additions to their class of people. Pure capitalism, like pure communism, is simply unattainable, unsustainable, and unlikable. A median between the two is best.

Exactly.

What many people call "capitalism" is not capitalism. It is the end product of unrestricted capitalism. True capitalism is a system where everyone has a fair chance, everyone has an opportunity to make their lives better. "Capitalism" as it is too often used now is corporate feudalism- wherein monopolies control the government and all their citizens, where everyone is bound to one position, where the common man and woman starve while the lucky few reap the benefits.

This is what happens when you go too far down either end of the scale- whether it be left or right, the end result is a seamless combination of state and industry where the many are oppressed by a few- the difference is that on the left the state takes over industry, while on the right industry drowns the state.

It is ironic that seventy years ago the United States fought a bloody war against Fascist nations, yet now has almost become one itself.

-Political tirade off-

Eh, we're not nearly that bad. I mean, I'd agree that maybe industry is a bit overpowerful (and honestly, I think calling it the invisible hand might be better), but state's certainly nowhere near drowning.

I mean, Fascist is so strong a term as to be outrageous in describing the US now, I think.

[Karnewarrior]

If we could remove corporate lobbying from washington, I think we'd see a huge drop in political scumbags. Even if we kept lobbying, if we made it a personal deal much of the corruption that keeps the government from working properly would be swept away.

Unfortunately those same lobbyists would keep the law from going through so...

[Strife26]

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

I disagree. More people getting what they deserve in general gets everyone in general more of what they want (first thing on the hierarchy of needs being the stuff they need).

[Flying Dice]

I refute that a "free market" can exist, or at least one talked about like it's the friggin' City of Gold, just waiting to be discovered. There will never be a fair capitalist system (just look at the "how do we remove inequality?" thread to see why).

Capitalism isn't the road toward people getting rewarded solely for their effort and prowess. It just gets closer than most other systems. And I say that's a minor concern in the first place (people getting what they need is more important than people getting what they deserve).

I disagree. More people getting what they deserve in general gets everyone in general more of what they want (first thing on the hierarchy of needs being the stuff they need).

The problem is that "some people getting what they want" doesn't equate to "everyone getting what they need". As far as I'm concerned, people can stop thinking about their multimillion dollar mansions and luxury car collections until every person in the world has clean water and enough to eat. It isn't that that isn't possible, it's that capitalism doesn't prioritize everyone getting what they need to survive. Plenty of people are born into situations where they simply can not improve their condition in any (materially) significant way, regardless of what they do.

[Strife26]

Yeah, but stopping people from using their money as they see fit, and making money within the law as they see fit doesn't put bread in people's pockets. Tax them more and establish your safety net however you see fit, but pointing wealth or regulated capitalism as the problem is neither accurate, nor helpful.