I’m not so convinced human history, especially with regard to collective societies, supports that idea as general statement - animal farm isn’t a bible of truth that says “wealth redistribution always works this way” it’s more a warning of authoritarian governments don’t implement checks/balances and try to divide the population and garner support among the elite fee
This way our economy is organized is NOT how it has always been through history. It’s foolish to believe it has to be this way and every single person would absolutely just keep charging more for everything given the chance. Too many orgs are out there protecting community (see nonprofits in Canada buying up city land for the express purpose stewardship and preventing price gouging or food banks with negotiating power to bulk buy groceries cheaper) to support that idea. What do i know tho right?
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’m not so convinced human history, especially with regard to collective societies, supports that idea as general statement - animal farm isn’t a bible of truth that says “wealth redistribution always works this way” it’s more a warning of authoritarian governments don’t implement checks/balances and try to divide the population and garner support among the elite fee
This way our economy is organized is NOT how it has always been through history. It’s foolish to believe it has to be this way and every single person would absolutely just keep charging more for everything given the chance. Too many orgs are out there protecting community (see nonprofits in Canada buying up city land for the express purpose stewardship and preventing price gouging or food banks with negotiating power to bulk buy groceries cheaper) to support that idea. What do i know tho right?
Yep. Hierarchy is the real enemy in Animal Farm, not collectivism.
Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
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.
Im glad you are really taking the time to intellectually engage with a complex topic instead of dismissing it casually.
Oh. Right.