8 billion people vs. 3000 billionaires: Who would win?
-
While you're correct that there are no examples of such a society*, that isn't because money is crucial to development. It's because the time of technological breakthroughs happened in a global capitalist economy. Just because that's the way history played out doesn't mean that was the only way it could've. Money didn't invent those things, people did. They had the time and resources to make that stuff happen. And yes, they got those resources via a moneyed economy, but that doesn't mean those same people couldn't have gotten the same time and resources had they existed within say a library economy.
::: spoiler *
Not exactly a perfect society (what is) but the Incas developed cutting edge technology for the time within a moneyless society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_technology
:::I apologize for not being clear in what I was asking for. I didnt mean that I wanted an example of a society that, say, developed MRI technology outside the capitalist framework. I simply wanted an example of a society which could produce and use an MRI without the use of money or authoritatian force. They can have access to all the underlying science and technological know-how. But they need to get someone to mine the iron ore that will be smelted to be turned into streel which will become a tool which will be used in the manufacture of an MRI machine... without paying them.
Problem being - no one wants to mine iron ore. There are limits on how much prestige a society can distribute, and little will go to iron ore miners. The actual benefit of the labor is so far removed that the likelihood for personal gratitude from a beneficiary is vanishingly small - for example, someone who has a torn meniscus diagnosed with an MRI is unlikely to send the iron ore miner a personal thank you card. Of course, we could pay our miner in clothes and food and housing - but then we've just reinvented money but less efficient. Seeing no personal benefit to breaking his back every day in a dark hole, out miner would want to find something else to do with his time, resilting in no iron ore, and thus, no MRIs.
But I mean, prove me wrong.
-
Elaborate and explain
It's not the billionaires but the antisocial, amoral whores who will sell their souls for money and do their bidding that are the problem (police, army, etc.), and those who would quietly acquiesce. And of those there are way too many in some societies for change to be easy/possible.
-
All evidence points to a regime change (in the physics sense, not the political) being the necessary condition for things to go from our current state to something new.
We currently have people paying poorer people a very small amount of their own net worth to protect the wealthy person's status and position. This is similar to how kings and queens paid the army and policing forces to control the peasants.
Before the French Revolution I am sure it seemed impossible that the peasants would revolt, but the years leading up to the revolution things were getting worse and worse for the average peasant. There is a tipping point where the average person does not think the current system is delivering on the promise that of you do what you are told you can have a good life. I think we are approaching that point now.
If the rich try to hire someone and underpay them for security, stiff contractors for services, flaunt laws and generally behave obnoxiously at some point people will have had enough. Whether that ends with guillotine action or people just divesting from those systems depends on how much freedom people think they have.
If people thought they could go and homestead, live off the land, and get by without the massive companies these billionaires own then they would have that outlet and choose that peaceful option. The fact that we have taxation creates a pressure to pay in currency which demands earning in that currency. Same with paying rent, you have to earn money simply to live. No amount of growing all of your food gets rid of your financial obligations, so there is no out from the system. If that system is unreasonable it begins to feel less like participation and more like coercive control. Wage slavery is not the same as slavery, but both involve coercion and require the legal system to support them. Both lead to revolutions. Both lead to violence.
I guess the billionaires have to decide if they really want to paint that big a target on their backs by flaunting their wealth. At this point I think they feel untouchable.
Mostly all agreed, but the populace isn't starving, not even close. I'm not arguing that we're not suffering, only that we're nowhere near suffering enough for a revolt. But damned do I like what you've written!
-
I chose to believe that the working class will eventuall prevail, that people will no longer have nationalism, and work together towards a common future.
It may take years, it may take decades, perhaps even a century, but we will get there. We must get there. Life is too short, life is too miserable. We cannot give up on trying to build a better future.
Because the moment I lose that last bit of hope, I will literally kill myself. So I cannt give up on humanity. I have to have faith that there are good people out there trying to fix problems, because that's what gives me he motivation to live.
Humans have been living under absolute monarchies, communities have been destroyed by imperialism and colonialism, slavery was rampart, the concept of human rights didnt even exist. But we have come so far, humanity have come so far, a lot of the problems we faced in the past had been fixed or at leased inproved. And yes we eill face a lot more problems in the future, and eventually we will find those solutions just as we did for the past problems; we cannot give up now.
Yes, climate change will destroy so many thing, lives and livelihood, but we must find the strength to perservere. Because life is a miracle, Earth even being capable of sustaining life is a miracle.
I remember there was a kid in class that asked: "If humans mess up the Earth, why don't we just move to Mars?", the teacher who's field is related to environment (can't remember the exact subject), told the class that, humans can use up all the fossil fuels and melt all polar ice caps, and Earth would still be 100 times more habitable than Mars.
Because no matter how bad it gets, its still still the most habitable planet that we know of.
Do not give up. (I know I'm being a hypocrite since I subconsciously always tell myself to give up, but don't do that, fight those thoughts)
Right on! Humans have lived through horrors that make 2025 a cakewalk. We'll hang in, we'll survive. We're the toughest multipurpose animals this planet has ever produced, the AR-15s and Toyota Hiluxes and Swiss army knives of mammals. Not the best at any one thing, but we can do it all well enough.
Things are bad now, maybe especially for us Americans. Who among us thought we'd see fascism taking root?! Maybe I'm old and idealistic, but I didn't see Trump 2.0 coming, not again. But we'll survive, we'll live on. History is always two steps forward, one step back. We Americans are seeing the "one step back" for the first time.
-
And yet, the poor and stupid people queue up to join the ICE and MAGA organisations.
They would be as upset as they should be, if they were smarter. They wouldn't be "poor and stupid" if they were smarter.
That's not a koinkidoink. USA has spent a very long time deliberately creating this situation. And by USA I mean those in power.
The people joining ICE may not be who you think they are. No journalism has scared me quite so much as this article:
-
The people joining ICE may not be who you think they are. No journalism has scared me quite so much as this article:
my uncle knows im looking for work and hella enthused was like why dont you just work for ice they have a great signing bonus, like bro im gonna send you to el salvador first if I somehow decide thats what I want to do with my life
-
What an absolute moron.
I don't, I feel like moron / stupid just doesn't cut it for idiots like this. I honestly don't know of an adjective the fully encapsulates the stupidty, childishness, and naivite of a regular person aligning with the super rich.
-
Elaborate and explain
Billionaires, because we are too dumb to not fall for their tricks
-
Elaborate and explain
Unfortunately that is not how the figures really are. Way too many of those 8 billions will willingly simp and fight the rest of us in the name of those billionaires.
-
All evidence points to a regime change (in the physics sense, not the political) being the necessary condition for things to go from our current state to something new.
We currently have people paying poorer people a very small amount of their own net worth to protect the wealthy person's status and position. This is similar to how kings and queens paid the army and policing forces to control the peasants.
Before the French Revolution I am sure it seemed impossible that the peasants would revolt, but the years leading up to the revolution things were getting worse and worse for the average peasant. There is a tipping point where the average person does not think the current system is delivering on the promise that of you do what you are told you can have a good life. I think we are approaching that point now.
If the rich try to hire someone and underpay them for security, stiff contractors for services, flaunt laws and generally behave obnoxiously at some point people will have had enough. Whether that ends with guillotine action or people just divesting from those systems depends on how much freedom people think they have.
If people thought they could go and homestead, live off the land, and get by without the massive companies these billionaires own then they would have that outlet and choose that peaceful option. The fact that we have taxation creates a pressure to pay in currency which demands earning in that currency. Same with paying rent, you have to earn money simply to live. No amount of growing all of your food gets rid of your financial obligations, so there is no out from the system. If that system is unreasonable it begins to feel less like participation and more like coercive control. Wage slavery is not the same as slavery, but both involve coercion and require the legal system to support them. Both lead to revolutions. Both lead to violence.
I guess the billionaires have to decide if they really want to paint that big a target on their backs by flaunting their wealth. At this point I think they feel untouchable.
The biggest ruse in American history is the modern billionaire convincing the working class Americans that the immigrants, homeless, people of color, and LGBT+ people are the real enemy and the reason you're unhappy. Capitalism is the only functioning system of government, don't pay attention to the fact that almost every other developed country has universal healthcare.
-
I don't, I feel like moron / stupid just doesn't cut it for idiots like this. I honestly don't know of an adjective the fully encapsulates the stupidty, childishness, and naivite of a regular person aligning with the super rich.
Corporate brainwashed, delusional, desperate, uneducated, lazy, close-minded, coping human?
The media is pushing “answer a few questions, or spin a wheel, and get rich”, and “sing in your car, then get famous on Idol” and getting huge ratings. Same way we got this fucking President. Corporate brainwashing.
-
Elaborate and explain
We're already seeing the results of the fight, so no need to elaborate on who would win and how
-
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
I think it's possible for humanity to coordinate without money.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We're not there yet, and you can't just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that's a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can't outlaw money tomorrow.
Words are how we communicate ideas, and words are messy and can mean different things in different cultures and contexts (and a lot of times people use them incorrectly). Semantics matter in science and academia when you're trying to be precise for the historical record so things don't get misinterpreted by people who usually don't have the ability to ask you what you mean by "has the ability" or "humanity". A very broad statement I might add. Too broad of a statement for most academic literature.
An early step in the process of ending our reliance on money is broadly accepting that it isn't a necessity. I never claimed that that kind of global shift would happen overnight, and I don't find it useful to use that kind of prescription to undermine the concept unless your goal is solely to undermine the concept.
-
I apologize for not being clear in what I was asking for. I didnt mean that I wanted an example of a society that, say, developed MRI technology outside the capitalist framework. I simply wanted an example of a society which could produce and use an MRI without the use of money or authoritatian force. They can have access to all the underlying science and technological know-how. But they need to get someone to mine the iron ore that will be smelted to be turned into streel which will become a tool which will be used in the manufacture of an MRI machine... without paying them.
Problem being - no one wants to mine iron ore. There are limits on how much prestige a society can distribute, and little will go to iron ore miners. The actual benefit of the labor is so far removed that the likelihood for personal gratitude from a beneficiary is vanishingly small - for example, someone who has a torn meniscus diagnosed with an MRI is unlikely to send the iron ore miner a personal thank you card. Of course, we could pay our miner in clothes and food and housing - but then we've just reinvented money but less efficient. Seeing no personal benefit to breaking his back every day in a dark hole, out miner would want to find something else to do with his time, resilting in no iron ore, and thus, no MRIs.
But I mean, prove me wrong.
I would again point to the Incas as a decent example. Though I kind of want to pick at your use of "money or authoritarian forces".
Money is currently used as an authoritarian force. It's given those with money restrictive control over our daily lives. Look at all the censorship by those who control the major websites and payment processors on the internet. Look at the who lobbied the creation of infrastructure that forces most every person in the states to own and maintain a car. Look at how they're working on dismantling our public education system. Our police and military exist to protect those with money. This is how capitalism works. Despite some lofty ideas of peace liberty and democracy for all, when the system is based around money everything else will get compromised.
-
An individual with a net worth of “just” $1b can afford to spend upwards of $50m per year on privacy and security, all while continuing to live a lavish lifestyle of excess and see their net worth continue to grow.
That’s more than the annual US household income being spent on a daily basis.
Now consider that the top 10 billionaires have more than 140x that amount.
Yes, they are made of flesh & blood, and are susceptible to all of the same maladies as you or I — but especially post Luigi, they are shoring up their defences to the point that even a motivated individual would have just as much chance of becoming a billionaire as they are to getting to one.
I would hope to be proven wrong, and to see a true working class uprising against them in my lifetime - but alas, I think they are too effective at keeping us arguing against ourselves to ever pose a serious risk to their hegemony.
Hear me out:
zombie movie, but it's the poors storming down the megarich bunkers.
-
Elaborate and explain
The billionaires. There are many reasons, but my favorite is the Matthew effect.
-
Elaborate and explain
What kind of battle are we taking about? Violence? Then 8 billion people would win because the combined force of knowledge.
This question also really depend on strategy. You know a billion worth doesn't need to be all in cash. Before cash was a thing, we traded items.. but it's rare to trade items that are exactly worth the same, so money is a nice way to compensate that.
The billion worth can all be spent on defense, it can all be spent on pleasing the 8 billion people. It can be spent to create harmony instead of hatred.
-
I would again point to the Incas as a decent example. Though I kind of want to pick at your use of "money or authoritarian forces".
Money is currently used as an authoritarian force. It's given those with money restrictive control over our daily lives. Look at all the censorship by those who control the major websites and payment processors on the internet. Look at the who lobbied the creation of infrastructure that forces most every person in the states to own and maintain a car. Look at how they're working on dismantling our public education system. Our police and military exist to protect those with money. This is how capitalism works. Despite some lofty ideas of peace liberty and democracy for all, when the system is based around money everything else will get compromised.
I read up on the Inca. Interesting. But I'm still doubtful they could build an MRI - I want a modern example.
And I'm certainly no fan of the current system - it sounds like you're describing America, and yes, America is a bit of a shit show at the moment. But we should also remember that Sweden's strong social safety nets, Finland's excellent education system, and the Netherlands' transportation infrastructure all exist in societies which use money.
Meanwhile, I don't think eliminating money would really solve the problems you are looking to solve. Power-hungry people will seek power regardless of the system they find themselves in. If they don't become capitalists, they become high-ranking bureaucrats and politicians.
-
Elaborate and explain
wrote last edited by [email protected]Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
-
Ok, let’s look at this…
IF billionaires were removed from the picture, what would be the result?
There would be investment assets in various holding entities that would then be what, up for grabs? Sold off? Put in probate? Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless. How would that affect the market and the regular person’s investments?
Multiple BoD positions and CEO positions opening up. How would those be compensated? Just make more people rich?
Material possessions originally worth absurd sums now up for grabs to nobody who could realistically afford to use or maintain them (yachts, palatial homes, etc). Manufacturers of luxury goods would vanish (stupidly expensive watches, clothes, cars).
How would you prevent some other greedy, power-hungry f_cks from taking up the reins and putting us right back where we started? There is no point in civilization’s history where greedy f_cks haven’t existed, so how do you prevent their grubby fingers from tipping the scales right back in favor of piling all the money and power in their corner?
What are the unintended consequences?
(This is NOT an argument implying we should keep billionaires, just asking realistically and pragmatically what the result would be should they no longer exist)
Trillions in stock alone would suddenly be ownerless
