Survival of the richest: The wealthy are plotting to leave us behind

[Tribble]

Your suggestion that I am opposing the dehumanization and mass murder of civilians to "muddy the waters and deflect", implicitly because I support the agenda of the upper class and want to protect them from criticism, is a lie.

Your admission that you support atrocities against an entire class of people, which includes civilians and children, is repulsive.

I don't think there's anything left for us to discuss.

As you wish, blame the messenger. Clearly, there were no valid points made by my humble self.

Get back to me when you have prevented the poor people from dying in floods and Peter Thiel from using blood transfusions to extend his life time in his NZ mountain penthouse. Hope you will manage to do that, and do that while separating all the sheep from all the goats.

Just out of curiosity Pital, if it is a necessity to purge the bourgeoisie in order for the total abolishment of private property to occur (which is after all the #1 stated objective of communism), what would that look like? How many people would need to be killed? What would we do with their supporters? How would we prevent an Animal Farm scenario from occurring?

The way I see it, in order to fully purge capitalism from Earth (not just in practice but concept) the body count would likely have to be very high, particularly in Western nations.

[The Romulan Republic]

It would end exactly as it has when it was tried before- tens of millions dead, and a dictatorship perhaps more brutal than what it overthrew. Because violence and tyranny are built into the fabric of Marxism, and the only hope it offers is a fantasy that they will somehow wither away once they are no longer needed- a childish delusion that ignores human nature.

Its ultimately just another apocalypse prophecy- eventually, all the sinners will be purged, and then a new, perfect world, populated only by the "right" people, will rise from the ashes.

It makes me sick.

[K. A. Pital]

Just out of curiosity Pital, if it is a necessity to purge the bourgeoisie in order for the total abolishment of private property to occur (which is after all the #1 stated objective of communism), what would that look like? How many people would need to be killed? What would we do with their supporters? How would we prevent an Animal Farm scenario from occurring?

The way I see it, in order to fully purge capitalism from Earth (not just in practice but concept) the body count would likely have to be very high, particularly in Western nations.

Note the entire “kill kill kill” isn’t coming from me. Abolition of private property on capital isn’t the same as abolition of all property. Abolishing the bourgeois class is not the same as purging them as individuals, my idea is only giving them the same treatment as they do to their workers. Leaving them with nothing and offering them a guaranteed workplace. It is actually more than what they did for their workers.

Would it kill Jeff Bezos to work for a living? I guess it would, heh. I’m not suggesting to do more than nationalize banks and large companies, and relieve the bourgeois from reigns of power via expropriation. Alone the nationalization of the banks would undercut private property on capital massively. We could follow up from there.

After all, workers have nothing, so the “tragedy” would only be that the rich must live a life like everyone. Fucking. Else. Not more and not less. If there be huge “body counts” from this, then I guess society is horribly designed. I abhor the idea that someone deserves to be the owner of all, but does not work.

And yea, there is a multitude of issues that need to be solved along the way. Yea, it can end a failure (the Paris Commune failed, but it did not mean the end of the movement, just as the collapse of Soviet-type societies is not our end, but only a lesson to us, so that we become smarter and stronger). All of it does not really make me less determined. I don’t come from the West, I don’t cry rivers over modern day masters and rulers.

Poor TRR is so worried that we are so bad. I worry for him. He thinks capitalists are innocent. But at the same time he thinks slavers are not. Takes some serious mental gymnastics, but I understand him. It is fearsome to start looking into the face of reality.

[K. A. Pital]

Like, the thread is literally about the very rich discussing how to leave us all in the mud, dying in storms, in polluted wastelands, while they flee to a retreat Elysium and enjoy life there. How a dude wanting to make a “fairtrade” phone without slave labour failed to do so. This is the XXI century.

But sure, we’re the baddies. Red Scare 3.0.

[Tribble]

Just out of curiosity Pital, if it is a necessity to purge the bourgeoisie in order for the total abolishment of private property to occur (which is after all the #1 stated objective of communism), what would that look like? How many people would need to be killed? What would we do with their supporters? How would we prevent an Animal Farm scenario from occurring?

The way I see it, in order to fully purge capitalism from Earth (not just in practice but concept) the body count would likely have to be very high, particularly in Western nations.

Note the entire “kill kill kill” isn’t coming from me. Abolition of private property on capital isn’t the same as abolition of all property. Abolishing the bourgeois class is not the same as purging them as individuals, my idea is only giving them the same treatment as they do to their workers. Leaving them with nothing and offering them a guaranteed workplace. It is actually more than what they did for their workers.

Would it kill Jeff Bezos to work for a living? I guess it would, heh. I’m not suggesting to do more than nationalize banks and large companies, and relieve the bourgeois from reigns of power via expropriation. Alone the nationalization of the banks would undercut private property on capital massively. We could follow up from there.

After all, workers have nothing, so the “tragedy” would only be that the rich must live a life like everyone. Fucking. Else. Not more and not less. If there be huge “body counts” from this, then I guess society is horribly designed. I abhor the idea that someone deserves to be the owner of all, but does not work.

And yea, there is a multitude of issues that need to be solved along the way. Yea, it can end a failure (the Paris Commune failed, but it did not mean the end of the movement, just as the collapse of Soviet-type societies is not our end, but only a lesson to us, so that we become smarter and stronger). All of it does not really make me less determined. I don’t come from the West, I don’t cry rivers over modern day masters and rulers.

Poor TRR is so worried that we are so bad. I worry for him. He thinks capitalists are innocent. But at the same time he thinks slavers are not. Takes some serious mental gymnastics, but I understand him. It is fearsome to start looking into the face of reality.

Are you suggesting that it’s feasible to overthrow our entire economic system and social order peacefully? Because I think history shows the odds of that happening are practically zero.

Also, how would you avoid all of this turning into yet another Animal Farm? How would you avoid the purges, the oppression? Or are you asking us to believe that Soviet Russia really was a workers pardise and Stalin always knew best? I fail to see the point of joining a glorious revolution if the leaders just become my new oppressors, presuming i survive the fighting and purges which tend to happen with these things.

[FaxModem1]

Wow, way to ignore a point that I made clearly: yes, technology is a tool.

This tool is primarily in the hands of a psychopathic ruling class. So it is not bad as an inanimate object, but it is bad in the same sense the Maxim gun enabled the British Empire to massacre everyone local in their way.

Saying Pital here is a mean psychopath and the rest of your pathetic character attack is basically a tu quoque, as worthless now as it was before. Like, ignore the fact I am powerless and do not control technology or own capital, and steer it to push Earth into an ecological calamity hitherto unseen, which might end in omnicide, and say I am a psycho for speaking ill of the rich, that helps you to feel good about yourself.

Why am I surprised? Nemo propheta in patria.

I will leave you to try and solve the conundrum where you try to reason with people holding all the power, all the wealth and do not give two shits about you.

Surely the mercy and compassion of Jeff Bezos and his like will arise, shine and save the world. Keep dreaming.

As for their family members: just don’t ask for unemployment benefits, ask for their compassion once unemployed. I am sure they will come to help you guys! Cause that’s what they do, Tony Stark, Richie Rich and Scrooge McDuck.

I'm not saying that we should revere Bezos or their ilk, so stop putting words in my mouth. I'm pointing out that French Revolution style guillotines is probably not the answer. And yes, we need regulation, and for a cultural shift in viewing technology to save us, but clamoring for the deaths of the rich isn't really going to accomplish anything, now is it?

Nihilism in that we can't accomplish anything and can only survive the upcoming 'Event' is an unhealthy attitude, and we need to work towards actual improvements, not finding which person we should kill when things go horribly wrong, for they surely will. They want to run away and hide, you want to chase them. Neither, in my opinion, is productive.

We need to make a culture of positive changes, and make change, either through grassroots or top-down, that we can still save the day, if only because we say it long enough, people will be motivated to do it.

[K. A. Pital]

Are you suggesting that it’s feasible to overthrow our entire economic system and social order peacefully? Because I think history shows the odds of that happening are practically zero.

Also, how would you avoid all of this turning into yet another Animal Farm? How would you avoid the purges, the oppression? Or are you asking us to believe that Soviet Russia really was a workers pardise and Stalin always knew best? I fail to see the point of joining a glorious revolution if the leaders just become my new oppressors, presuming i survive the fighting and purges which tend to happen with these things.

I am not suggesting the rulers will go down peacefully. This is historical experience. Neither am I offering a paradise, nor was there one in Soviet-type societies (even in my time). Although we have had our share of achievements as well, like a carpenter’s son being sent to space. As far as I am concerned, deposing a ruling class who live in a separate reality thanks to ownership of everything is simply a necessity, come what may. You fail to see the point? Then I fail to see the point in the uprising of Spartacus (Rome and slavery lasted a while longer, and he died), French Revolution (Napoleon), American Revolution (a bunch of slavers) and so on. Every revolution can be invalidated because of subsequent reaction or whatnot.

As to how to avoid purges, I would suggest keeping the democratic mechanisms intact and protecting them (and I am thinking about direct democracy and worker delegates) should be enough to prevent needless abuse. I cannot give guarantees. Whereas the current elite is guaranteed to leave everyone behind and do literally nothing to help the working class.

I'm not saying that we should revere Bezos or their ilk, so stop putting words in my mouth. I'm pointing out that French Revolution style guillotines is probably not the answer. And yes, we need regulation, and for a cultural shift in viewing technology to save us, but clamoring for the deaths of the rich isn't really going to accomplish anything, now is it?

Nihilism in that we can't accomplish anything and can only survive the upcoming 'Event' is an unhealthy attitude, and we need to work towards actual improvements, not finding which person we should kill when things go horribly wrong, for they surely will. They want to run away and hide, you want to chase them. Neither, in my opinion, is productive.

We need to make a culture of positive changes, and make change, either through grassroots or top-down, that we can still save the day, if only because we say it long enough, people will be motivated to do it.

You say as if “we” have the power. But is there even a “we”? The unions are destroyed. Extended families do not exist. The church is gone. All solidarity is dying out. The “electorate” just chooses between money bags.

First we have to establish a “we”, establish common ground and consciousness between the have-nots.

Individualism and pondering on whether the rich are, as persons, redeemable or not totally bad is actually entirely counterproductive. Just as or more-so than just hating them for what they are doing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just out of curiosity Pital, if it is a necessity to purge the bourgeoisie in order for the total abolishment of private property to occur (which is after all the #1 stated objective of communism), what would that look like? How many people would need to be killed? What would we do with their supporters? How would we prevent an Animal Farm scenario from occurring?

The way I see it, in order to fully purge capitalism from Earth (not just in practice but concept) the body count would likely have to be very high, particularly in Western nations.

Note the entire “kill kill kill” isn’t coming from me. Abolition of private property on capital isn’t the same as abolition of all property. Abolishing the bourgeois class is not the same as purging them as individuals, my idea is only giving them the same treatment as they do to their workers. Leaving them with nothing and offering them a guaranteed workplace. It is actually more than what they did for their workers.

Would it kill Jeff Bezos to work for a living? I guess it would, heh. I’m not suggesting to do more than nationalize banks and large companies, and relieve the bourgeois from reigns of power via expropriation. Alone the nationalization of the banks would undercut private property on capital massively. We could follow up from there.

After all, workers have nothing, so the “tragedy” would only be that the rich must live a life like everyone. Fucking. Else. Not more and not less. If there be huge “body counts” from this, then I guess society is horribly designed. I abhor the idea that someone deserves to be the owner of all, but does not work.

And yea, there is a multitude of issues that need to be solved along the way. Yea, it can end a failure (the Paris Commune failed, but it did not mean the end of the movement, just as the collapse of Soviet-type societies is not our end, but only a lesson to us, so that we become smarter and stronger). All of it does not really make me less determined. I don’t come from the West, I don’t cry rivers over modern day masters and rulers.

Poor TRR is so worried that we are so bad. I worry for him. He thinks capitalists are innocent. But at the same time he thinks slavers are not. Takes some serious mental gymnastics, but I understand him. It is fearsome to start looking into the face of reality.

I don't think "capitalists are innocent", I think that dehumanizing an entire class of human beings including children to justify their murder is evil.

You are lying about me because its the only way to justify your frankly vile philosophy, which explicitly requires war crimes on a scale seldom seen outside the Holocaust.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think "capitalists are innocent", I think that dehumanizing an entire class of human beings including children to justify their murder is evil.

So slavers are not evil because they have children?

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think "capitalists are innocent", I think that dehumanizing an entire class of human beings including children to justify their murder is evil.

So slavers are not evil because they have children?

Um... no?

I'm just saying that there are people who have wealth, or are part of the wealthy class, who got their without actually doing anything wrong, and don't deserve to be murdered for it.

[Jub]

Um... no?

I'm just saying that there are people who have wealth, or are part of the wealthy class, who got their without actually doing anything wrong, and don't deserve to be murdered for it.

Accumulating more wealth than you can ever spend is always wrong. There can be no innocent billionaire and many multi-millionaires are also guilty of hoarding resources and enslaving the working class. There is no ethical way to amass a billion dollars and anything less than turning those funds over to the masses is an evil act.

You can't call yourself 'good' because you give a pittance to charity, usually through your own foundation. My yearly income should I stay on income assistance would be $9,120 if I give a homeless man $5 so he can eat for the night a man who earns $200,000,000 per year would need to give $110,000 to match my generosity on a percentage basis. I'll casually give that $5 away when I can afford to, do many billionaires do the equivalent?

[The Romulan Republic]

Um... no?

I'm just saying that there are people who have wealth, or are part of the wealthy class, who got their without actually doing anything wrong, and don't deserve to be murdered for it.

Accumulating more wealth than you can ever spend is always wrong. There can be no innocent billionaire and many multi-millionaires are also guilty of hoarding resources and enslaving the working class. There is no ethical way to amass a billion dollars and anything less than turning those funds over to the masses is an evil act.

I'll agree, but I reiterate- what about children who are born into wealthy, are still minors, and just happen to be rich because their parents are? Are they born evil because of their class?

Also, selfishness is not commendable, but I also don't believe it should be a death penalty offense.

You can't call yourself 'good' because you give a pittance to charity, usually through your own foundation. My yearly income should I stay on income assistance would be $9,120 if I give a homeless man $5 so he can eat for the night a man who earns $200,000,000 per year would need to give $110,000 to match my generosity on a percentage basis. I'll casually give that $5 away when I can afford to, do many billionaires do the equivalent?

Some do, some don't. Bill Gates, for example, has given tens of billions to various causes. You could argue he could still be doing more (we have a thread on this), but percentage wise he's beating you, by the sounds of it, and certainly beating me. Of course, he can afford to, because he could give 99% of his wealth and still have more than you or I have in our entire life.

Personally, though, I prefer punitive taxes (backed by even more punitive fines and prison sentences if they are not paid) as a solution for insufficiently charitable rich people, not dehumanization, bloody revolution, mass murder, and dictatorship.

[Jub]

I'll agree, but I reiterate- what about children who are born into wealthy, are still minors, and just happen to be rich because their parents are? Are they born evil because of their class?

In most cases, they will grow up to be like their parents. Can you name a case of a child born into millions giving it all away to live as a middle-class citizen? The children themselves aren't evil but it is almost certain that they will become so due to the system they live in.

Also, selfishness is not commendable, but I also don't believe it should be a death penalty offense.

That selfishness kills people. While not murder the rich are guilty of gross negligence causing death every day that they do not act to fix things. For this, I would find some deaths acceptable if the goal was the redistribution of wealth.

Some do, some don't. Bill Gates, for example, has given tens of billions to various causes. You could argue he could still be doing more (we have a thread on this), but percentage wise he's beating you, by the sounds of it, and certainly beating me. Of course, he can afford to, because he could give 99% of his wealth and still have more than you or I have in our entire life.

Yes, and he's still part of the problem because he doesn't use his wealth to alter the system so that acquiring his level of wealth is no longer possible. That would do more for the world than any donation he could give and yet he doesn't even try.

Personally, though, I prefer punitive taxes (backed by even more punitive fines and prison sentences if they are not paid) as a solution for insufficiently charitable rich people, not dehumanization, bloody revolution, mass murder, and dictatorship.

You have too much faith that the Democrats actually have your interests in mind when at every turn they have shown that they support that status quo. If not by word than by deed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course you try to derail this into a "Both Sides" attack on the Democratic Party, and of course you try to treat them as a homogenous block based on their worst members. To justify terrorism and mass murder and despotism, first you have to discredit the possibility of meaningful non-violent reform.

So you support murdering people for no reason other than having wealth? So tell me, do you support the preemptive murder of those children because they will "almost certainly" become evil?

Christ, I don't want to defend the upper class, it makes me feel icky to do so, but when people are advocating their murder in the name of your agenda, you kind of leave me no choice.

Look, I'm a Socialist. I'm proud of that. But I am a Democratic Socialist, and if you give me a choice between Socialism with Crimes Against Humanity and not supporting Crimes Against Humanity, that's no choice at all. Condemn me for it if you want. Call me the enemy for not hating the "Other" hard enough. It won't change where I stand. "Its wrong to engage in mass murder of sapient beings" is a pretty good hill to die on.

[The Romulan Republic]

This whole conversation honestly me sick. Not just for the obvious reasons, though that's enough, but because it shows me a glimpse of a fast-approaching future where there are no sane people, no good people- just different groups of despotic, murderous fanatics trying to murder each other, and anyone who disagrees with them.

I mean, we're sitting here having a conversation about whether its okay to murder classes of people for the "greater good".

If that world comes to pass, then I will be both a Nazi and a commie race-traitor in the eyes of society, because I don't hate hard enough and purely enough for either side. If that world comes to pass... well, I hope I have the strength to die bravely, because its the best anyone will be able to hope for.

[Jub]

Of course you try to derail this into a "Both Sides" attack on the Democratic Party, and of course you try to treat them as a homogenous block based on their worst members. To justify terrorism and mass murder and despotism, first you have to discredit the possibility of meaningful non-violent reform.

I guess we should only judge a group by their best members then? No, you judge a group by who they allow into their ranks and by who they allow to lead them. In this case, we can easily judge the Democrats by their endorsement of Hillary and Pelosi and those endorsements scream status quo loud and clear.

So you support murdering people for no reason other than having wealth?

I support a redistribution of wealth by any means necessary. If the rich hold onto their ill-gotten wealth in the face of force then they have shown themselves to be deserving of that force.

So tell me, do you support the preemptive murder of those children because they will "almost certainly" become evil?

I'd rather laws strictly limiting that transfer of wealth to one's children, and the transfer of wealth in general. Given that such law seems unlikely in the time we have left before the twin disasters of late-stage capitalism and climate change force action violence may be required even against those normal considered powerless.

This whole conversation honestly me sick. Not just for the obvious reasons, though that's enough, but because it shows me a glimpse of a fast-approaching future where there are no sane people, no good people- just different groups of despotic, murderous fanatics trying to murder each other, and anyone who disagrees with them.

I mean, we're sitting here having a conversation about whether its okay to murder classes of people for the "greater good".

Spare me the sight of your bleeding heart.

[The Romulan Republic]

I guess we should only judge a group by their best members then? No, you judge a group by who they allow into their ranks and by who they allow to lead them. In this case, we can easily judge the Democrats by their endorsement of Hillary and Pelosi and those endorsements scream status quo loud and clear.

No, you judge them by the composite of all their qualities, good and bad. At least, if you are capable of nuanced thought and not an infantile child.

I support a redistribution of wealth by any means necessary. If the rich hold onto their ill-gotten wealth in the face of force then they have shown themselves to be deserving of that force.

Then do you recognize a moral obligation to try and exhaust all non-violent means before pursuing violent ones?

I'd rather laws strictly limiting that transfer of wealth to one's children, and the transfer of wealth in general. Given that such law seems unlikely in the time we have left before the twin disasters of late-stage capitalism and climate change force action violence may be required even against those normal considered powerless.

The former, at least, can easily be achieved by sharply raising inheritance taxes (something I strongly support).

Spare me the sight of your bleeding heart.

Spoken like a true sociopath.

[Jub]

No, you judge them by the composite of all their qualities, good and bad. At least, if you are capable of nuanced thought and not an infantile child.

To do that one would have to judge them by their actions which have been in service of the status quo. The best they have to show as far as 'progress' goes is the shambling corpse of the ACA which is regressive by first world standards. The furthest left-leaning Democrat is a left-leaning centrist when compared to what needs to be done.

Then do you recognize a moral obligation to try and exhaust all non-violent means before pursuing violent ones?

I recognize that what must be done simply must be done. If time allows for a non-violent solution I will cheer for it, but such a solution seems unlikely.

[The Romulan Republic]

Still ignoring all the Democratic candidates who have endorsed universal health care, the Green New Deal, 15 an hour minimum wage... hell, UBI is beginning to make inroads, albeit slowly (I really hope Yang gets on the debate stage, as it'll give him a chance to raise the issue in front of the largest possible argument, and force other candidates to address it).

Theoretically I recognize that there are times when violence is necessary. But I also believe that all alternatives must be exhausted first, and both moral and pragmatic grounds. In part because a society at war is not generally one that is capable of quickly and efficiently addressing other problems. People often think that violence will offer a quick, clean solution, as opposed to the frustratingly slow messiness of politics. History shows otherwise. All too often, you get a cycle of revolutions and dictatorships and counter revolutions, leaving a society in ruins and unable or unwilling to spare funds or effort for things like infrastructure or social programs or the environment.

And I will never, EVER endorse or accept the murder of civilians, or of people based on class. It may sound trite, but its still true: if you become a monster to beat the monsters, the monsters have still won. People often accuse me of being inconsistent. That may or may not be true, but if there is one point on which I always stand firm, I hope that its this one.

[Jub]

Still ignoring all the Democratic candidates who have endorsed universal health care

Call me when this is the majority opinion shared by the Democratic party and when they actually make a real push to implement it.

the Green New Deal

Too little. Too late.

15 an hour minimum wage...

Literally a useless gesture in the face of companies that can raise prices to match any wage increase.

UBI is beginning to make inroads, albeit slowly

Canada should do more but at least we're among the nations who've runner proper pilot studies assessing its feasibility.

Theoretically I recognize that there are times when violence is necessary. But I also believe that all alternatives must be exhausted first, and both moral and pragmatic grounds.

Would you rather wait 100 years to get something done bloodlessly or 10 years with bloodshed on the scale of the French Revolution? Can you even argue that one method is less bloody than the other given the death wealth inequality causes?

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think "capitalists are innocent", I think that dehumanizing an entire class of human beings including children to justify their murder is evil.

So slavers are not evil because they have children?

Um... no?

I'm just saying that there are people who have wealth, or are part of the wealthy class, who got their without actually doing anything wrong, and don't deserve to be murdered for it.

They got their wealth by exploiting the dispossessed in a system of wage slavery. Those who inherit slaves are just as much slavers as the ones who got the slaves in the first place. “Not doing anything wrong”? Do you even believe what you are saying? To amass even mid-sized capital you have to exploit others. Amassing billions requires acts of evil on a wholly different scale.

There were spouses and children of slavers who became a part of their class by birth or marriage. This did not mean we should not have abolished their class.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, you can become a millionaire (even get up in the tens of millions range or higher, conceivably) simply by winning the lottery, or writing a popular book, or being a popular actor. Its unlikely, but possible. Its hard to see how any of those (or other examples I could give) are inherently exploitative means of acquiring wealth. You can also inherit wealth, in which case, someone else might have got it through corrupt means, but you didn't. You just got lucky.

Abolish the class, yes. You can do that through legislation, heavy taxation, and stronger enforcement of tax law, plus increased government oversight (or state ownership) of key industries and services. It does not require literally exterminating everyone who is a part of the class.

But since you're dodging around the question (while making your sickening intent pretty clear), let me ask you again, directly: Do you support the murder of children on the bases of their belonging to the upper class, yes or no?

Call me when this is the majority opinion shared by the Democratic party and when they actually make a real push to implement it.

That will obviously depend on the outcome of the election. Which will depend in part on whether progressives engage with the Democratic Party, or decide that its not pure or radical enough and jump ship.

Too little. Too late.

Anything at this point would be too little too late. There is no way to completely avoid a climate disaster.

You do the best you can.

Literally a useless gesture in the face of companies that can raise prices to match any wage increase.

Not useless, but not a permanent solution.

I believe minimum wages should be legislated to automatically rise to keep pace with inflation.

Canada should do more but at least we're among the nations who've runner proper pilot studies assessing its feasibility.

I think the US is where we were five years ago on this. Its coming.

Would you rather wait 100 years to get something done bloodlessly or 10 years with bloodshed on the scale of the French Revolution? Can you even argue that one method is less bloody than the other given the death wealth inequality causes?

I take the view that the "short victorious war" is among the most common and dangerous fallacies in history.

Look at the French Revolution. It was closer to a hundred years of revolutions, counter revolutions, and various authoritarian regimes, and it finally settled into a Republic that was far less radical than what many of the revolutionaries had once sought to achieve. Is that really the model that you want to follow?

Or Russia, which saw a communist revolution, followed by a grinding civil war, various purges, Stalinism, tens of millions dead, various gradual reformations, an attempt at democratization that turned into Kleptocracy, and is now currently enjoying a sort of Neo-Fascism under Putin which is actively supporting other fascist movements around the world that are inhibiting and reversing any of the attempts at reform you want.

Also, keep in mind that if you can't get enough citizens to support something to change it democratically, you're unlikely to get enough behind more radical actions like armed revolt to actually win said revolt. A few angry hardline socialists aren't going to defeat the US military, and they won't win over the support to do it if they're the ones seen as initiating violence. I hope to God we don't ever end up in a civil war again, but if we do, I pray that at least its the other side that's stupid enough to start it. Because that's the only way they don't wipe the floor with us.

[Jub]

Actually, you can become a millionaire (even get up in the tens of millions range or higher, conceivably) simply by winning the lottery, or writing a popular book, or being a popular actor. Its unlikely, but possible. Its hard to see how any of those (or other examples I could give) are inherently exploitative means of acquiring wealth. You can also inherit wealth, in which case, someone else might have got it through corrupt means, but you didn't. You just got lucky.

Except that the company selling lottery tickets is exploitative and thus any wealth it 'creates' comes already tainted. The same goes for any but the rarest of self-published hit books. Traditionally published authors use the machinery (both literal and figurative) of the wealthy publishing company to achieve their own success and thus are tainted.

But since you're dodging around the question (while making your sickening intent pretty clear), let me ask you again, directly: Do you support the murder of children on the bases of their belonging to the upper class, yes or no?

If that is what it takes to effect a timely change the answer is and ever will be yes.

That will obviously depend on the outcome of the election. Which will depend in part on whether progressives engage with the Democratic Party, or decide that its not pure or radical enough and jump ship.

Why should an election have any bearing on the direction of the party as a whole?

Anything at this point would be too little too late. There is no way to completely avoid a climate disaster.

There was and many of the current Democrats sat on their hands. Our blood will be on those hands.

Not useless, but not a permanent solution.

I believe minimum wages should be legislated to automatically rise to keep pace with inflation.

Inflation will always win that race because prices will always be more fluid than wages.

I take the view that the "short victorious war" is among the most common and dangerous fallacies in history.

Look at the French Revolution. It was closer to a hundred years of revolutions, counter-revolutions, and various authoritarian regimes, and it finally settled into a Republic that was far less radical than what many of the revolutionaries had once sought to achieve. Is that really the model that you want to follow?

Given the many virtues of modern France, I would have no issue shedding blood to achieve what they have.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, you can become a millionaire (even get up in the tens of millions range or higher, conceivably) simply by winning the lottery, or writing a popular book, or being a popular actor. Its unlikely, but possible. Its hard to see how any of those (or other examples I could give) are inherently exploitative means of acquiring wealth. You can also inherit wealth, in which case, someone else might have got it through corrupt means, but you didn't. You just got lucky.

You could enter the slaver class by marriage or inheritance. Neither marriage nor childbirth are inherently exploitative, are they not?

But since you're dodging around the question (while making your sickening intent pretty clear), let me ask you again, directly: Do you support the murder of children on the bases of their belonging to the upper class, yes or no?

No. I support their re-induction into the working class. Just as with their parents.

[The Romulan Republic]

You could enter the slaver class by marriage or inheritance. Neither marriage nor childbirth are inherently exploitative, are they not?

A dodge. You said it was impossible to acquire wealth without exploiting people. I provided counter-examples.

Again, your slavery analogy fails, because to have slaves, you must be directly exploiting and violating other sapient beings. A person who is wealthy might be harming people by inaction, but unless they acquired their wealth by exploiting or violating others, its not really equivalent, and saying it is just cheapens the horror of slavery.

No. I support their re-induction into the working class. Just as with their parents.

If you'd clarified that about five posts ago, a lot of trouble might have been spared.