On Medium: The Ancient Cold War Against The Alienated Superrich
Read on about degrees of freedom, invisible dominators, and the wealthy class's temptation of schadenfreude: how the superrich are bound to be alienated from the working class.
Individually speaking, the average worker contributes much more to society than he receives from it, while the wealthiest person contributes much less in relation to what she takes from society, which she accumulates for herself.
I suspect that that's right, but it would be interesting to calculate it. I once tried to show that no one could possibly earn billions of dollars because of the limitations of the human brain (how much work the neurons could do), and the odds of that work affecting the planet, but I didn't get far. Much of this would be subjective (regarding which work is important). The butterfly effect can also enhance the influence of even an apparently minor cause.
It would be interesting if it were calculated but it is important not to get too reliant on mathematical validation especially if it is obvious that this is happening.
''Likewise, the super-rich may have very little in common with the poor masses, psychologically and culturally speaking.''
I'd wager that the rich have in common with the poorest a tendency toward criminality, but what they commit is parasitism, completely acceptable in our civilized societies.
The concept of criminality is divided into a subjective aspect and an objective aspect.I refer to the objective aspect. Some forms of crime, officially considered as such, are more aligned with the objective aspect. Rape, for example.
Any type of intentionally malignant violation in the physical space of an individual [a priori considering only human beings but...] enter the spectrum of crime category according to a more objective conception. This corroborates your article on the differences in freedom between individuals according to their classes, even though I consider freedom a possibility always related to the responsibility to practice it.
This is a way of giving it a unique concept rather than leaving it very synonymous with relatively similar behaviors such as the ability to practice actions without measuring consequences.
But it hasn't been a massacre because the dominant class has needed the slaves, just as sadists need masochists. At least, that's been so for thousands of years, until perhaps the automation of labour with machines and AI.
But enslavement is a form of slaughter. Parasitism is a form of slow predation.
Yes, very recently that the owners of the means of production have concluded that workers need to have a minimum of comfort so that they can work harder and generate more profits for them.
You might like this.
ReplyDeletehttps://medium.com/@erikrittenberry/civilization-is-flinging-itself-to-pieces-stand-back-7fcbde22584e
Individually speaking, the average worker contributes much more to society than he receives from it, while the wealthiest person contributes much less in relation to what she takes from society, which she accumulates for herself.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that that's right, but it would be interesting to calculate it. I once tried to show that no one could possibly earn billions of dollars because of the limitations of the human brain (how much work the neurons could do), and the odds of that work affecting the planet, but I didn't get far. Much of this would be subjective (regarding which work is important). The butterfly effect can also enhance the influence of even an apparently minor cause.
DeleteIt would be interesting if it were calculated but it is important not to get too reliant on mathematical validation especially if it is obvious that this is happening.
Delete''Likewise, the super-rich may have very little in common with the poor masses, psychologically and culturally speaking.''
ReplyDeleteI'd wager that the rich have in common with the poorest a tendency toward criminality, but what they commit is parasitism, completely acceptable in our civilized societies.
''wager''
Deletebet
The concept of criminality depends on the law, but the superrich may be largely above the law, so calling them criminals is empty.
DeleteThe concept of criminality is divided into a subjective aspect and an objective aspect.I refer to the objective aspect.
DeleteSome forms of crime, officially considered as such, are more aligned with the objective aspect. Rape, for example.
Any type of intentionally malignant violation in the physical space of an individual [a priori considering only human beings but...] enter the spectrum of crime category according to a more objective conception.
This corroborates your article on the differences in freedom between individuals according to their classes, even though I consider freedom a possibility always related to the responsibility to practice it.
This is a way of giving it a unique concept rather than leaving it very synonymous with relatively similar behaviors such as the ability to practice actions without measuring consequences.
I don't believe in a class struggle but in a massacre of one over the others, including even the middle class.
ReplyDeleteBut it hasn't been a massacre because the dominant class has needed the slaves, just as sadists need masochists. At least, that's been so for thousands of years, until perhaps the automation of labour with machines and AI.
DeleteBut enslavement is a form of slaughter. Parasitism is a form of slow predation.
DeleteYes, very recently that the owners of the means of production have concluded that workers need to have a minimum of comfort so that they can work harder and generate more profits for them.