a reply to: theantediluvian
As you know I'm an anarchist who, for practical reasons, is in favour of socialism. Hardly the guy to defend the current system, methinks.
But - the notion that say 100 or less people "control" the Earths population is ridiculous. There are far more culprits - the entire system is
outdated and should be replaced soon. Only problem is that it works way too well for the haves - and that, mostly, includes at least a third or more
of the readers in here, INCLUDING ME!
As some correctly pointed out: these 62 aren't Scrooge McDucks, they don't stash cash in some hidden cellar. In fact, they aren't even really in
control of "their" money. The control over "their" money is in the hands of a large number of others whom all "control" a bit of it. These others in
turn hire others to do work (and control yet a smaller chunk of the money), which hire others to do work (whom control yet a smaller chunk money) and
this re-iterates a number of times untill we finally get to the point where Joe Sixpack enters the picture to do the actual work.
As long as the work is being done by labourers - Joe and Jane - the entire pyramid of "managers" and "leaders" will receive their salaries and
bonuses. Roughly a third of all employed spend their days deciding what needs to be done with the chunk of money the are allowed to manage. They do
this within the guidelines of the ones that in turn manage them. And in the end, yes, there is that one guy that decides - only very, very major
things and always advised by the thousands that work for him. Even more assist these "managers", for example financial and legal experts, whom don't
really "produce" anything directly either.
I think it's safe to say that roughly half of our population does not do any physical labour and receives their money to provide some (managerial,
But the other half - Joe Sixpackse - suffers a great deal lately. Joe is gradually replaced with hard- and software and this makes him superfluous. He
is not in control of any money other than the amount he receives when his paycheck arrives. And if he's made redundant, he is simply handed a pink
slip, no "old boys network" for him.
We need to take care of ALL people, including those that aren't talented / lucky enough to become managers of other folks money. To allow this, we
should give Joe Sixpack at least a decent basic income, regardless if he works or not. In the end, machines will do most labour anyway.
Giving ALL people sufficient money to live (or, as capitalists would say: to consume) is what needs to be done, in tandem with further automation and
Apart from that, as an anarchist, I resent the bossing around that is done in many organisations, as it degrades human dignity. But in general, I can
appreciate the functional pyramid of leaders and subleaders, as long as it are qualities and not sheer luck that decide who does what. That's another
of my problems with the current system: there are apes, pigs and cows that run most large parts of our companies because they had the dumb luck of
being at the right place and right time, not because they are talented.
So, in short: we won't get far by hanging the 62 - we need to take care of the 50 percent.