zlacker

>However it is important to recall that the people who actually made all the money extracting the wealth got out years before, retiring and/or selling stock. They're bystanders now and probably happy to run the whole operation again.

And therein lies the problem with modern society. Whether you're an MBA wrecking a company or a voter wrecking the local economy there is no mechanism for the people who you've wronged to get at you so there's no incentive not to behave that way.

>>potato+(OP)
Be very very careful about what you wish for: your definition of who’s wronged whom and others’ definition of who’s wronged whom are going to vary, and often be in direct opposition.

>>eadmun+gb
That definition should always favor the small guy over the megarich. It should be inverse of the situation's power balance.

>>LocalH+lf
But then, before you know it, you’re back in the terror phase of the French Revolution—because once the guillotine demands to be fed, “the powerful” quickly becomes “whoever we don’t like.”

After several iterations of this pattern throughout our history (other examples are the Leninist/Stalinist purges or the McCarthy era), perhaps it is time we seek a better path—one that doesn’t end up written in the darker pages of our history books.

>>LocalH+lf
Using the word "should" acknowledges the proposed as counterfactual and the opposite as a rule that transcends any person's will. Its as harmless a claim as saying gravity has been reversed by redefining up.

>>DocTom+Vn
Well, one side of the struggle has all the means and time to find this better path. Are they doing that? No. So why should the weaker, poorer side do it ...?

>>DocTom+Vn
Or whoever wear glasses and looks "intellectual", or whoever has a business and so is burgeouis. It always ends the same.

First is the megarich, then is the wealthy, and then its the baker and then it´s you... barely doing better than them.

>>toyg+xD
... because if you identify your opponents as making mistakes/behaving poorly it is a mistake to copy them.

If your argument is basically assuming "[these people] managed the situation so stupidly they triggered a social collapse" then it is an excellent strategy to try doing things differently. The aim should be to make things better, not worse with different people in charge.

>>roenxi+CC1
But the poor side does not have any margins or resources, they don't have a choice as such. The only thing they can do is force the powerful to change course, by showing them what happens if they don't.

>>toyg+Rj5
> ...by showing them what happens if they don't.

So do the poor not have any resources, or do they have sufficient resources to bully the rich? Because if they have enough resources to cause other people problems they should maybe consider trying to use those resources to better themselves instead.

They don't have much, but they have more than enough to get much better results if they behaved in a sensible and organised fashion. If nothing else, a lot of poor people live in democracies and have the numbers to ram policy through if they have enough neurons to separate good ideas from bad [0]. I suppose it depends on what you want to call poor, but if they've got the numbers, time and energy to wreck things then they've certainly got the numbers to effect positive change.

I'd agree most people probably aren't up to the challenge; but searching for a better way is a much better strategy than being all "we're going for a replay of la Terreur!".

[0] The political process is pretty devastating evidence that they don't, it appears the best effort in a well educated place like the US was either Trump or the US Democrats. Hard to tell which attempt is more pathetic. Most voters have nearly no idea abut complex issues like creating prosperity.

>>roenxi+lo5
The poor can sacrifice their lives to get back at the rich. This happens if the rich make things so bad the poor decide their lives have zero or negative value. This happens often throughout history.

>>roenxi+lo5
If you think the US is "well-educated" or that their electoral process is "the best effort", I'm afraid there is a lot more stuff you need to read about political systems and the reality of class before you can pass judgement.

The US political system works like the ruling classes want it to work, no more and no less. The poor are simply performing some choreography.