I’ve seen people try to buck the system and prove that wealth distribution doesn’t always work that way, and yet in the end they discover it’s back to the same system again and it actually almost always does work that way.
Just sayin’. I enjoyed your comments and the feedback.
And I have seen societies that have bucked a less equitable system, and meaningfully and materially change things for the average person.
Kind of a core part of the concept of democracy is that it is meant to continuously have a feedback mechanism, continually allow for… you know, change.
It is often when societies become significantly less democratic that this change stops and things ossify…
…until the situation is so untenable for so many that they functionally revolt, often violently, though not always.
Does this always turn out well? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
This is all a very general overview.
Your view of the world amd of the history of human societies is fatalistic, self perpetuating, dismissive, and overly simplistic.
In other words, you are nearly certainly a conservative.
Your statement is simply objectively false. Almost no social system in history that has attempted to redistribute wealth more equitably and then backslid on this has /reverted to the same system/.
They are nearly always different in substantial, complex and meaningful ways.
An example, a prominent one: Russia. Russia was a feudalistic/monarchical society, things got spicy, wealth was redistributed, a lot of people died but a lot of people were a lot better off in a lot of ways. Obviously this was not perfect and had many flaws. Eventually the ‘communist’ system collapsed into more or less a corrupt weird sort of blend of capitalism, lots of social programs, similar amounts of oppression, lots of authoritarianism.
Not exactly ‘the same system,’ different in many complex and meaningful ways.
I’ve seen people try to buck the system and prove that wealth distribution doesn’t always work that way, and yet in the end they discover it’s back to the same system again and it actually almost always does work that way.
Just sayin’. I enjoyed your comments and the feedback.
And I have seen societies that have bucked a less equitable system, and meaningfully and materially change things for the average person.
Kind of a core part of the concept of democracy is that it is meant to continuously have a feedback mechanism, continually allow for… you know, change.
It is often when societies become significantly less democratic that this change stops and things ossify…
…until the situation is so untenable for so many that they functionally revolt, often violently, though not always.
Does this always turn out well? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
This is all a very general overview.
Your view of the world amd of the history of human societies is fatalistic, self perpetuating, dismissive, and overly simplistic.
In other words, you are nearly certainly a conservative.
Your statement is simply objectively false. Almost no social system in history that has attempted to redistribute wealth more equitably and then backslid on this has /reverted to the same system/.
They are nearly always different in substantial, complex and meaningful ways.
An example, a prominent one: Russia. Russia was a feudalistic/monarchical society, things got spicy, wealth was redistributed, a lot of people died but a lot of people were a lot better off in a lot of ways. Obviously this was not perfect and had many flaws. Eventually the ‘communist’ system collapsed into more or less a corrupt weird sort of blend of capitalism, lots of social programs, similar amounts of oppression, lots of authoritarianism.
Not exactly ‘the same system,’ different in many complex and meaningful ways.
sounds very good.