It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

what killed Marxism?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   


I would say because socialism and dictaors make you dependent on them. No thanks I want as little contact with the governmant as possible. I don't want to be dependent on it for anything and I don't believe in taken from Y to support X.


Our governments are already, in many ways, making people dependent on them. Thay already take money from Y to support X.



That's what we have here. "prosper" how do you prosper when what you make is taken and doled out to everyone else that didn't work as hard as you?


Again, this is already done every day. Just look at the tax breaks/subsidies given to big business interests and loafers.



You got that backwards. Socialist serve the government.


Once again, we already serve the government, not the other way around. Just try dropping out of the system and not paying taxes any more. They dictate to us what we can and cannot do, even how we should think and feed us lies to justify their actions.



Sure it is. As much as the politians in the US suck we can still vote them out. Just look at last Nov. In Jan of 2009 GWB will board a plane and leave DC. He will not stay in office as much as people here think. The founders of the US made sure that no one man could become king or emporer. We may not be perfect but we will never be ruled like that. People that live under dictators are partly to blame for their problems.


Yeah, we can vote out the incumbents but their replacements are from the same mould and the backroom boys and globalist banking/corporate concerns still bankroll both major parties. It's always a case of "same @#&£, different day" at election time.




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
We will have to agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiveangelsfrank
"Castro came in and at least he gave the people something. "
what has he given them? Nothing. They are no better off now then before him and I know people that have been on those rafts. They have nothing good to say about dear leader.


Castro destroyed the comprador class in taht country. whiped them clean off the map. If no one has anything good to say about their leader, and everyone hates him, then how come the bay of pigs failed? Its a fact that when th exiles hit the beach, the CIA and US leaders expected the people of cuba to back the invasion, but they didnt. Instead they supported the Cuban army. And there was no gun to the back of their heads like in the days of stalin. They realized who their true enemy was, and it was capitalism and the military it pushed to their beaches.



"Maybe the USSR wouldn't have had such a massive military buildup if Western Capitalists weren't so pissed about their lost markets"
Yeah right if Stalin could have kept going he would have taken it to the Atlantic coast. The biggest post WW 2 tragedy was leaving eastern Europe under communist control.

and what about pre-WW2 huh? The red revolution happened well before WW2 and western capitalist states attacked red russia from the get go. It has nothing to do with the atrocities a country or leader commits, and everything to do with who scims the cream in that country. The rich robber barons, or the poor proletariat.



"Don't even try to tell me the people in those countries are better off under capitalism because its just not true"
Free markets lead to better living and that's a fact. Their will be people that don't do well and others that do obscenely well off the sweat of others but that's just the way it is. Maybe it's cruel but life isn't fair.

Ok, name one country in the third world taht is currently a free market economy that has had its people benifit from the glory of free trade. Some people dont do well? Try MOST people dont do well. Free market economies are a destructive force of imperialism. Designed to benifit the richest of the worlds rich. You dont go an invest in a country to help the people, you invest to get rich.



"The idea that America is a paradise has permitted throughout the Third World largely because of American Propaganda"
I heard that all before but the fact is people will risk everything to come here. If you work hard will do well here. This country isn't just a one race nation. The US was built by immigrants from ever corner of the planet. Most trying to leave a living hell for one reason or another.

Yes people do brave all sorts of dangers to go and live in the US, Because they've heard wonders about the democracy there and want to partake in it. Only to find when they arrive that its total bunk. They'll work for low wages and barely scrape by. while many turn to narcotics (mainly exported by the countries they've left with the support of the CIA), gangs, and petty crime just to get by.



"Pathetic. You have no idea what your talking about here"
Really I was poor once and worked my way out of it. I rather be poor here then poor in some 3rd world dump. If you don't want to be poor just work hard and there is a way out. I don't expect any one to help me.


Well good for you then. Im glad some have been able to overcome the debt cycle, regressive tax systems, blatent oppression, and other harsh austerity systems within the american economy and political scence. BUt if everyone could do that, then why havent they? One theory says that the deck is stacked against them, while they other just says their lazy. I tend to belive the first theory.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiveangelsfrank
We will have to agree to disagree.


I guess so, but it was good arguing with you.
No hard feeling hopefully.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
why do i keep hearing communism and marxism interchanged?
they aren't exactly the same system

marxism goes directly from the works of marx
communism is something different, it works off of ideas outside of marx

honestly, we should go with democratic socialism
using marx's good ideas and getting rid of the ideas we now know are bunk



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
If communism is so great, then why are you guys still living in your democratic homelands? I'm sure some of these countries which practice this Utopia-type government would be willing to take you in.

You can keep blaming the fall of communism on the interference of capitalist governments, but you're wrong. Communism, Marxism, socialism... they are all inherently flawed systems. Just look at countries such as France which are becoming more and more socialist everyday. Their economies are tanking and their unemployment rates are rising. But I guess that's our fault. It must be all those counterinsurgency troops that we're sending into France! LOL

Then look at a country like China which is moving away from communism and towards capitalism. Their economy is experiencing record gains.

Some of you use the ever-increasing tax rates in America as an argument against capitalism. But the call to raise our taxes comes from left-leaning, borderline socialist politicians. You think giving away 40% of your salary sucks? Try giving away 100%!

Like what some have said already, these systems of government such as communism, socialism and marxism look great on paper. Hell, how many times have we read on ATS about these alien races or inner-earth dwellers living in perfect harmony under these systems? That's because it can only succeed in a completely fictional environment. It is doomed to fail with humans. How is it fair that one man has to dig ditches all day for a living, while another gets to sit in an air-conditioned office and push papers, and in the end they are rewarded equally? And how is it fair that the government tells me that I'm going to be the one who digs ditches the rest of my life, while my next door neighbor is told that he'll be a desk jockey? Why does my family have to live in the bitter cold in Minnesota while another family gets to live in the lush hills of Hawaii? Those are just a TINY FRACTION of the problems with these forms of government.

These governments impede individuality and progress. In their quest for equality they end up making things unfair instead. Until we live in a robotic world where every human is exactly the same and every part of the world is exactly the same, then these governments will continue to fail.

And I won't even begin to get into the harm that these secular societies have caused throughout history. The liberal professors at our universities will have you believe that religion is responsible for more casualties than anything in the history of mankind. But in reality, secular societies have killed more people in the 20th century alone than religion has in its entire history.

So, what killed Marxism? The socialist and secular aspects of Marxism were responsible for its death, and the death of millions and millions of people as well. No, capitalism isn't perfect- it's just the best thing we've been able to come up with as of yet! Because like the humans that comprise capitalist systems, it will always have its flaws.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
If communism is so great, then why are you guys still living in your democratic homelands? I'm sure some of these countries which practice this Utopia-type government would be willing to take you in.


Im not saying communism is the perfect society. All im saying is taht it isnt as evil as its been painted to be.



You can keep blaming the fall of communism on the interference of capitalist governments, but you're wrong. Communism, Marxism, socialism... they are all inherently flawed systems.


Well ok if their flawed, tell me the flaws. show me exactly what lead to their fall. If there was no outside interfearence by the moneyed class, than show me how socialism is so flawed as to never work.



Just look at countries such as France which are becoming more and more socialist everyday.

And just look at countries that ARE socialist. Take sweden for instance. highest stanards of living they say? i guess thats thanks to capitalisms caring modes right?



It must be all those counterinsurgency troops that we're sending into France! LOL


More socialistic, maybe, but the rich elites still sit in power. Capitalist nations dont attack other capitalist nations, unless they start to shift the distribution of wealth and land downwards.



Then look at a country like China which is moving away from communism and towards capitalism. Their economy is experiencing record gains.

Yes and the money is flowing directly where it should, into the pockets of the few, at the expense of the many.



Some of you use the ever-increasing tax rates in America as an argument against capitalism. But the call to raise our taxes comes from left-leaning, borderline socialist politicians.

And the tax breaks the right leaning leaders issue benifit only the richest echelons of the population. Surplus moneys from the social services tax is being spent on the military and white house limouzines, while healthcare, daycare programs, and other essential social programs are crumbling.



That's because it can only succeed in a completely fictional environment. It is doomed to fail with humans.


Untill NATO and US forces invaded Yugoslavia, that country was doing pretty good. When a country provides for its people, theres no need for strife. its when the going gets bad that people start bickering and blaming others.



Those are just a TINY FRACTION of the problems with these forms of government.


Yes dictatorships really do suck. Too bad tahts not what socialism is really about. Capitalism, on the other hand, loves a dictator. They keep the poor and middle class inline while state suppression.



Until we live in a robotic world where every human is exactly the same and every part of the world is exactly the same, then these governments will continue to fail.

Democratic socialism, which is what i support, does not require robotic minds. It fact it demands critical thinking and questioning of governmental forces.



So, what killed Marxism? The socialist and secular aspects of Marxism were responsible for its death, and the death of millions and millions of people as well.


Interesting, but remember, communism and marxism are not the same thing. Communism is responsible for the deaths of many. but capitalism is responsible for the deaths of many more.



No, capitalism isn't perfect- it's just the best thing we've been able to come up with as of yet! Because like the humans that comprise capitalist systems, it will always have its flaws.

Captitalism is perfect the way it is. It is doing what its ment too. Suppress the lower classes, and keep the rich in they're luxury. The system doesnt work for you, it works for them.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Western Capitalist leaders dont blunder around and make mistakes when it comes to foreign policy. Sure there are unforeseen events and consequences, but the policy has largely been successful. Acumulate, Acumulate, Acumulate. At all costs, stopping at nothing untill every inch of the planet is made in its image.

Oh and thanks to Rasputin13 for his input.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by InSpiteOf]

[edit on 11-2-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Western Capitalist leaders dont blunder around and make mistakes when it comes to foreign policy. . . . Acumulate, Acumulate, Acumulate. At all costs, stopping at nothing untill every inch of the planet is made in its image.



EXACTLY what all the Stalinists, Maoists, and Chekists of various stripes were trying to achieve, for their own team. But they kept getting sidetracked by their own five year plans, and had to substitute mere genocide for a workable economic system. Poor devils. By that phrase I mean the millions of peasants they mowed down like spring wheat. The leaders won't get what they deserve until judgment day.

Good times.

.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Western Capitalist leaders dont blunder around and make mistakes when it comes to foreign policy.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by InSpiteOf]


What was the point of that post????

Is it Irony?



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
It proved that not all people are the same, nor should all people be treated the same in all ways.
If you were not a member in good standing of the Communist party you suffered.
Why should some idiot who has trouble cracking two eggs together get paid as much as someone who is responsible for repairing your heart

Communism, Socialism, all the isms, have proved their idiot ways don't work.
Sure everybody as a whole wants to get payed as much as the rich people do, hell I do. But do we deserve it
Not in most cases.
You should get what you earn. That is why they sucked the life out of their people and we eventually crushed there souls. Do you not remember



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Communism, Socialism, all the isms, have proved their idiot ways don't work.


You missed Capitalism off that short list of isms that don't work.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   


EXACTLY what all the Stalinists, Maoists, and Chekists of various stripes were trying to achieve, for their own team. But they kept getting sidetracked by their own five year plans, and had to substitute mere genocide for a workable economic system. Poor devils. By that phrase I mean the millions of peasants they mowed down like spring wheat. The leaders won't get what they deserve until judgment day.

Good times.



Point taken. but again, i dont approve of dictatorships, i do approve of land reforms, economic reforms, foreign policy reforms etc. That try and uplift the lower classes to some level of decent living and dignity. in other words social democracy. As i said before, im not trying to glorify communism, im just trying to show people that capitalism is as much of a destructive force as communism was, and to maybe not put too much stock into the imaginary benifits of the free market.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Western Capitalist leaders dont blunder around and make mistakes when it comes to foreign policy.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by InSpiteOf]


What was the point of that post????

Is it Irony?


No, IMO, it was pretty clear what the point of that post was.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
It proved that not all people are the same, nor should all people be treated the same in all ways.
If you were not a member in good standing of the Communist party you suffered.
Why should some idiot who has trouble cracking two eggs together get paid as much as someone who is responsible for repairing your heart

Communism, Socialism, all the isms, have proved their idiot ways don't work.
Sure everybody as a whole wants to get payed as much as the rich people do, hell I do. But do we deserve it
Not in most cases.
You should get what you earn. That is why they sucked the life out of their people and we eventually crushed there souls. Do you not remember


Its not just about being paid as much as the rich (and many of them are completely undeserving of the massive subsidies, government grants, bailouts, tax cuts, and other corprate welfare gains.) Its about social justice, about not having to worry about your old age years, about getting sick, about child labour, or ocupational safety.

Capitalism crushed socialism and communism (and still atempts to do so today), not because of the atrocities or injustices its people suffer. But because of the general assult those systems lay apon the moneyed class and coporate interests.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
. . . As i said before, im not trying to glorify communism, im just trying to show people that capitalism is as much of a destructive force as communism was, and to maybe not put too much stock into the imaginary benifits of the free market.



And yet the immigrants to capitalist countries are never rich people (who are secure, and thus allergic to risks). The immigrants are the poorest of the poor. And why is this? It's because capitalism delivers on what marxism just promises: nice houses, cars, every variety of food imagineable, and cable TV. The benefits of the free market are quite real; perhaps it is the promises of marxism which turn out to be illusory: equality, brotherhood, bread. . . .

In fact, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Capitalism succeeds because it rewards excellence, however imperfectly.

Marxism fails because it doesn't reward individual excellence, and doesn't punish personal incompetence.

There. For me, that is a one line answer to this whole thread.


Good Times.
.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

And yet the immigrants to capitalist countries are never rich people (who are secure, and thus allergic to risks). The immigrants are the poorest of the poor. And why is this? It's because capitalism delivers on what marxism just promises: nice houses, cars, every variety of food imagineable, and cable TV. The benefits of the free market are quite real; perhaps it is the promises of marxism which turn out to be illusory: equality, brotherhood, bread. . . .

In fact, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Capitalism succeeds because it rewards excellence, however imperfectly.

Marxism fails because it doesn't reward individual excellence, and doesn't punish personal incompetence.

There. For me, that is a one line answer to this whole thread.


Good Times.
.


First off, really good talking with you. Well stated alternative opinions are always welcome. Good on ya!

Capitalism does promiss luxury, your right about that. But who does it deliver too? I tihnk if you head to capitalist Turkey, capitalist Haiti, and capitalist Grenada, you might just see why capitalism is such a successful politico-economical ideology. Because in those countries the rate of capital accumulation is much higher than in western Capitalist countries. manly because there are no child labour laws, no occupational safety laws, no environmental protection laws, and no minimum wage standards. People living in those countries experiance pure unregulated capitalism and live in utter destitution. They dont have "nice houses, cars, every variety of food imagineable, and cable TV. " They're lucky if they can feed they're family throughout the week.

The benifits of the free market are quite real, to those taht already sit in complete opulence. Too the rest of the world, the benifits of the free market are myths. THe deck is quite stacked against us.

IMO, capitalism doesnt succeed because it rewards individual exellence, in fact it does quite the opposite. Peoples of nations that try to rise up and set there own terms (whether its land reforms, wealth redistribution, social justice etc.) they are completely repressed with force and violence. All inacted to make sure the country stays as a client-state country. This happens more often than not, and in these cases, the individuals of those countries aren't rewarded, they're murdered. THe history of capitalism is written blood, as with many ideologies.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Capitalism does promiss luxury, your right about that. But who does it deliver too? I tihnk if you head to capitalist Turkey, capitalist Haiti, and capitalist Grenada, you might just see why capitalism is such a successful politico-economical ideology.



Funny how you chose the most repressive, fascistic varieties of capitalism you could find. Too bad you left out the Netherlands or the Czech republic, as examples of capital. But maybe they'd have skewed your sample . . .


First off, I differentiate between capitalism and free enterprise. I'm a much bigger fan of free enterprise than I am of capitalism. I see capitalism in the marxist sense of the right to permanently own things, with the accompanying rights of selling, saving or destroying. Capitalism in excess actually drowns out free enterprise. On the other hand, capital is the reward, so to speak, for a job well done. There's no point in operating a local farmers' market, if the government is going to confiscate any real profits a farmer makes in the marketplace. (China is grappling with this philosophical issue right now.)




Because in those countries the rate of capital accumulation is much higher than in western Capitalist countries. manly because there are no child labour laws, no occupational safety laws, no environmental protection laws, and no minimum wage standards.


And that's at the choice of their ruling elites. I think everybody in this thread has agreed that the morals of the rulers matter more than the system used. But you are correct. Their elites have used political power to set LIMITS on what would have other wise been a FREE MARKET, to serve their own ends.



People living in those countries experiance pure unregulated capitalism and live in utter destitution. They dont have "nice houses, cars, every variety of food imagineable, and cable TV. " They're lucky if they can feed they're family throughout the week.


Yes, but that's because of fascism, not necessarily because of capitalism. Canada is a capitalist country too; and they DO have the nice things. . .

As a matter of fact, I argue that those nations you listed are not true capitalisms, since they restrict capital to certain elites. Capitalistic freedom would place no holds on who has an opportunity to buy a resource; they wouldn't limit the ownership to hereditary elites.




The benifits of the free market are quite real, to those taht already sit in complete opulence. Too the rest of the world, the benifits of the free market are myths. THe deck is quite stacked against us.


When I left my parents' home, all my possessions would fit in the backseat of a friends car, plus a bike strapped on top. Now I have all the things I listed. How? free enterprise. I didn't sit in complete opulence. I still don't; but I'm working hard to change that. (and being rewarded, too.)

Are the benefits of the free markets really myths? If so, then why do so few of the illegal immigrants to the United States actually turn around and leave after being here for a few months? Why do they try to stay for decades? Are they fools? Why don't they leave, if free markets hold no real benefits? Are they stupid? Honestly . . .

And why do so few countries give up a free market system in favor of pure socialism? why don't people vote their freedoms away, and create a marxist paradise? Who was tearing down the Berlin Wall, back in 1991? The West Germans? Trying to break in to the soviet bloc? Or was that a vast capitalist conspiracy?





IMO, capitalism doesnt succeed because it rewards individual exellence, in fact it does quite the opposite.


I agree with you about capitalism. The rich always try to ensconce their social position, to hide the fact that their children are lazy.

Free enterprise, on the other hand, means that they lose their fortunes in the marketplace if they are incompetent. That's why most American millionaires are first generation rich, and come mainly from immigrant households. you can read about it in The Millionaire Next Door a survvey of American millionaires. It's not what hollywood portrays, by any means.



Peoples of nations that try to rise up and set there own terms (whether its land reforms, wealth redistribution, social justice etc.) they are completely repressed with force and violence.


To be frank, all those terms are merely political euphemisms for stealing someone else's stuff. Rightly or wrongly, people (even poor ones!) tend to respond with violence when their stuff is being taken by force. justified or not.



THe history of capitalism is written blood, as with many ideologies.


C'mon, the history of humanity is written in blood. That's why many moral people who want to live the best life possible don't get involved in politics.

Adam Smith wrote quite eloquently about the market models of various states. I think that the first three volumes of Kapital quote him more often than any other single source. There's a reason.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Funny how you chose the most repressive, fascistic varieties of capitalism you could find. Too bad you left out the Netherlands or the Czech republic, as examples of capital.

Good examples yes, but i say those republics have large success not because of free enterprize, but because of the relative position between capital and democracy. Capitalist nations like the US for instance, that have had ages of democractic struggle are often well off, and its not because the capitalists incharge of big business seeing the benifits of giving the working population some measure of hope. It was because the working population rose up and rebelled anddemanded their rights out of necessity, not out of a liking for free enterprize.

I used those speicific examples as a small listing of fascistic capitalist states that support Western capitalism with their cheap labour and exports. IMO there are more fascistic capitalist states than there are democracit ones.



And that's at the choice of their ruling elites. I think everybody in this thread has agreed that the morals of the rulers matter more than the system used. But you are correct. Their elites have used political power to set LIMITS on what would have other wise been a FREE MARKET, to serve their own ends.


Yes and its the choice of many of the peoples of those countries (some of which i have listen) to rise up and attempt to cast out those ruling elites. Only to find themselves bearing the full brunt of US intervention policy. Again not to preserve democracy, but to prevserve the existing capitalist rule.



As a matter of fact, I argue that those nations you listed are not true capitalisms, since they restrict capital to certain elites. Capitalistic freedom would place no holds on who has an opportunity to buy a resource; they wouldn't limit the ownership to hereditary elites.

I live in canada, and yes we do have nice things and a pretty decent social safety net, but that too is dwindling.
I think this is one MAJOR difference we have. I see those countries and many like them as examples of how capitalism is ment to operate. Example: the US in 1898. Massive unemployment meaning a huge cheap labour pool. No child labour laws, no ocupational safety laws, no economic protection laws, and capital accumulation *the reward so to speak* was at its highest. Too me, its no surpirse that we see such fascistic states emerge in todays world, because thats what capitalists want. Unregulated accumulation.




When I left my parents' home, all my possessions would fit in the backseat of a friends car, plus a bike strapped on top. Now I have all the things I listed. How? free enterprise. I didn't sit in complete opulence. I still don't; but I'm working hard to change that. (and being rewarded, too.)


Again IMO, if capitalist leaders had their way, they would remove such luxuries from you. Hell they wouldnt have given you the opportunity to get them. Every dollar in the hands of the middle class and poor is one less dollar for them. Wouldnt you want to protect that?



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   


Are the benefits of the free markets really myths? If so, then why do so few of the illegal immigrants to the United States actually turn around and leave after being here for a few months? Why do they try to stay for decades? Are they fools? Why don't they leave, if free markets hold no real benefits? Are they stupid? Honestly . . .


No they are not stupid, but they ARE leaving a country that is more repressive than the US. The US and many western Capitalist nations have reaped the benifits for many years and immigrants see that and want a chance at their slice of the pie.
[quote
And why do so few countries give up a free market system in favor of pure socialism? why don't people vote their freedoms away, and create a marxist paradise? Who was tearing down the Berlin Wall, back in 1991? The West Germans? Trying to break in to the soviet bloc? Or was that a vast capitalist conspiracy?

Well many of the countries i listed, if not all of them, attempted egalitarian reforms but the revolutions were crushed by US force and intervention in favor of the capitalist economy. And yes, many people living under communism wanted their fare shake with capitalism. And when the free market reforms swept through the soviet bloc, people started realizing that capitalism wasnt what it was cracked up to be. Hence the joke i posted a while back. That same sentiment was shared throughout many former USSR states.

Is there a capitalist conspiracy? If by conspiracy you mean, "are the rich elites consciencously persuing their interests to keep the middle class and poor against the grindstone so they can reap the benifits of their labour"? THen yes, IMO there is.



I agree with you about capitalism. The rich always try to ensconce their social position, to hide the fact that their children are lazy.

Good to know, but i think its more than just protecting their children, its protecting their way of life.



Free enterprise, on the other hand, means that they lose their fortunes in the marketplace if they are incompetent. That's why most American millionaires are first generation rich, and come mainly from immigrant households. you can read about it in The Millionaire Next Door a survvey of American millionaires. It's not what hollywood portrays, by any means.

Well interesting and ill have to pick up that book, but how many of the rich elites actually lose their fortunes due to incompetence? IMO wealth is being consolidated into fewer hands on a daily basis.



To be frank, all those terms are merely political euphemisms for stealing someone else's stuff. Rightly or wrongly, people (even poor ones!) tend to respond with violence when their stuff is being taken by force. justified or not.

I think the poor Guatemalan farmer might think differently on that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join