Dealing with them, it's just that those ways are not yet socially acceptable.

As we are good students of history, there will be no need to spend an undue amount of time in the whole “starving and riddled with pestulince” phase. We can just skip ahead to where we break out the implements and have a large party in the town square. If somebody can bring a good axe, I have a nice, fat, round bucket that should work perfectly for the occasion.

someone to man the fast food counter after he’s got rid of everyone else.

And most of them are smart enough to realize that if there is no democracy, then there are no property rights, which means the mend with guns can take everything they own. It is worth noting that the Trump's rise has been driven by white working class voters, not billionaires.

There is a reason that Liberal societies are more successful in every way measurable. They are better for the rich, the middle class, and the working class.

i secont that scentance .

and all Liberal societies but the U.S. have a progressive taxation system. The U.S. did until 2001, and then we found out that the appetite of the world to fund our debt was close to limitless and so we slashed taxes for the super rich, and validated that approach in multiple Presidential and mid-term elections starting in 2002.

I think we are getting to the limit of the world's appetite to fund America's deficits.

spoon in his mouth who hadn't learned financial responsibility and only cared about the rich. He didn't know where the money was coming from. He figured someone else would take care of it. Or trickle down would suddenly start working. Or he was just bad at math.
All of the above?

Greed and stupidity accounts for all of our Republican deficits and the whittling away of our progressive tax system.

One would have expected the market to reject the last 24 years of out of control deficit spending by refusing to by Treasuries, but it didn't. I don't get where the demand for Treasuries comes from, but it exists and investors just keep buying them, so the U.S. gets to have artificially low taxes on the super-rich. If you remember, VP Cheney actually commented that "deficits don't matter". He was referring to the markets' willingness to fund our deficit spending.

At some point, it has to end. Republicans seem to think that point is coming soon, and I actually agree with them on this. The biggest fight of the next 10 years will be over who pays to balance our budgets. Will it be the poor and working class with entitlement cuts, or will it be the rich with higher taxes and lower corporate welfare?

If everybody in the U.S. knew what Trump is doing - what he's actually doing, not the lies spun by Fox News and all the other propaganda outlets - 99% of them would disagree with most of it.

They think they agree with him because they have a false idea of what he's actually doing.

But they won't listen. Decades of brainwashing have done their work.

I put this all on the billionaires: Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and many others.

I agree with Naomi Klein. This is a global power grab by billionaires who have fantasies.

And Trump delivered. The U.S. stock market has lost about $10 trillion in value in the last two months. That came out of someone's pocket, and many of those were the "elites" that Trump's voters want punished. Throw in academics, journalists, white collar workers, and that is a good stew of those deserving punishment as far as Trump's voters are concerned.

Democratic voters today are often highly educated knowledge workers that are increasingly comfortable economically and socially liberal. Those are the "libs" that Trump's voters want "owned".

People aren't really for anything Trump is about. They are for the RW media myth.
The good billionaires can't seem to undo what the bad billionaires have wrought.
All for this RW billionaire fantasy that harms everybody, even the billionaires.

None of that is true. Most of the wealth generated comes from the exploitation of labor and plundering of resources in areas that are under authoritarian rule.

"White working class" is just some stupid cliche. Billionaires control the media and fund right wing "think tanks," the propaganda mills, and the politicians who destroy the infrastructure and loot the public treasury.

Property rights? Most land was once held in common, and not so long ago. People were, and still are being driven from the land. There is a famous poem about that.

They hang the man and flog the woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leave the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine

The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Until they go, and steal it back

With a few exceptions, most Europeans lived in some form of feudal society from about the 6th century through the 15th or 16th century. Even then, most agricultural workers, which was most workers, lived as virtual serfs through the 17th and into the 18th century. The idea that there were widespread communal lands that people worked collectively in harmony is a fantasy. Life was brutal and short for the vast majority of Europeans into the 19th century. The development of cities in the late Middle Ages did lead to greater freedom and opportunity, which is why so many people migrated to the cities in the Renaissance and after. Places like Venice and Florence, Amsterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp provided a much better quality of life for their residents.

With the American and then French Revolution, followed by the transition to greater democracy in Great Britain, there was an explosion of innovation and improvements in quality of life and lifespan, starting around 1800. Most economic historians that have opined on this topic believe that somewhere between 90% and 95% of all major innovations in human history have occurred since 1800.

Most conflicts over that period involving the developed world have resulted from the traditional feudal culture struggling to adjust to a technological society where the most effective organizations are collaborative and dynamic instead of autocratic and static. The American Civil War, the Revolutions of 1848, the Meiji Restoration, China for most of the 20th century, the Russian Revolution, throwing off the colonial yokes in South America, Asia and Africa, and the Arab Spring, all have this dynamic to some extent.

The most dangerous societies are ones where a traditionalist ruling class gets control of a rapidly advancing economy. Examples of this are Germany and Russia prior to World War I, and Japan prior to World War II. The ruling classes in those countries were not responsible for those countries' rapid development, and those ruling classes misunderstood the source of their power and misused that power badly as a result.

I am of Western European descent, and I live with freedoms and a quality of life that my ancestors could not dream of 300 years ago. If Slavery is America's original sin, Feudalism is the West's original sin. It was a brutal social construct that resulted in centuries of 90% of all people living in misery and virtual slavery. The idea that there was some primitive, communal utopia under Feudalism is absurd.

You may be "of Western European descent" - who could have guessed that? - and you may "live with freedoms and a quality of life that my ancestors could not dream of 300 years ago." Beside the fact that none of this is all about you, the vast majority of people live much more precariously than their ancestors did under Feudalism. You are living with freedoms and a quality of life that most of the people in the world can not dream of today.

You ignore the main points in my post, for example, the extent to which your wonderful life means a miserable existence for people in other countries, much more miserable than their lives were before the arrival of the western Europeans.

You say "the ruling classes in those countries were not responsible for those countries' rapid development" in Germany and Japan. Not sure what that is supposed to mean. In England a traditionalist ruling class got control of a rapidly advancing economy. Germany was very much a liberal democracy before WWII.

The overwhelming majority of people moving to cities since the Industrial Revolution and colonialism first lost their land and left out of desperation, and are mostly living in horrendous slum conditions to this day. You are applying an upper middle class suburban model to the rest of the world.

As for the lifespan issue, that has changed because of declining mortality rates. When half of the population dies in childhood, that seriously skews the average life expectancy. It doesn't mean that everyone dies at age 40.

In late 18th Century colonial America the infant mortality was extremely high. Yet many of those who signed the US Declaration of independence lived into their 80s. John Adams 90, Samuel Adams 81, Charles Carrol - 95, for example. Few died before the age of 60.

"The child mortality rate in the United States, for children under the age of five, was 462.9 deaths per thousand births in 1800."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041693/united-states-all-time-child-mortality-rate/

So I guess those massive "improvements in quality of life and lifespan starting around 1800" in Great Britain explain why millions and millions left? Beyond that, do you have any idea whatsoever about the poverty levels in India, Africa, the Mideast, or Latin America today after two centuries of your wonderful western European improvements being forced on people? Do you have any idea about the extent of environmental degradation?

"Most economic historians that have opined on this topic believe that somewhere between 90% and 95% of all major innovations in human history have occurred since 1800."

Oh, have they opined that? 90% and 95% of the environmental destruction has also happened, putting at risk the future of the planet as a safe home or humanity.

I guess the "90% and 95% of all major innovations in human history" doesn't include the wheel, selective breeding, sailing ships, irrigation, sanitation, written language and literature, government, the printing press, drama, music...

This idea that humans had such a better life when they were nomadic gatherers is a tiny variation from neo-libertarian tripe of someone like Yuval Noah Harari.

I referred to Germany before World War I, when it most certainly was not a Liberal democracy. Japan was ruled by Samurai until the Meiji restoration, and over half the population literally had no rights at all. Japan industrialized in about 30 years heading into the 20th century, but its military was still run by Samurai families, which led to its disastrous involvement in World War II. Russia had serfs until 1861, but was industrializing faster than any country in Europe in the first decade of the 20th century. England was not ruled by a traditionalist class in the 19th century. It had adopted many of the Liberal approaches from Holland, particularly when it came to property rights, in the 17th and 18th century, and by the 19th century, rights and freedoms were rapidly expanding beyond just the upper classes. Development happened in fits and starts, but it was light years beyond the quality of life in Feudalism.

The people that moved to cities during the industrial revolution had no land. There is some fundamental disconnect where you think that everyone in medieval times owned land. Almost no one owned land, and the value of human labor was virtually nothing because there was more labor to work the fields than was necessary, and in a primitive, agrarian economy, you don't need people for much else beyond farmwork.

Colonialism was terrible, but that was an mercantilist, neo-Feudal approach to resource aggregation and utilization more than it was capitalism. It is hard to argue that colonialism is Liberalism or capitalism when none of the colonial people had agency in their exploitation. That is a prerequisite for both.

If you are going to try to discredit me with a label, I would prefer "socialist" to "libertarian," Thanks. Hell, "tankie" would be better lol. What libertarian talks about the Enclosure Acts??

"This idea that humans had such a better life when they were nomadic gatherers is a tiny variation from neo-libertarian tripe of someone like Yuval Noah Harari."

I didn't say anything like that. The Olmecs, the Aztecs, the Maya, and the Incas were not "nomadic gatherers."

"I referred to Germany before World War I, when it most certainly was not a Liberal democracy."

Yes, and I referred to Germany before WWII, when it most definitely was.

"There is some fundamental disconnect where you think that everyone in medieval times owned land."

I didn't say they owned land, not in the sense you mean. I said they weer drive from the land, they lost access to the resources of the land. There is no controversy about that. The same pattern applies to all of the colonial lands, as well. Again, there is no basis for controversy about that. It is well documented. Who "owned" the Western Hemisphere before the Europeans arrived? The Europeans brought the concept of land ownership with them. That concept, which you are defending, was just an excuse for exploitation and genocide.

"Colonialism was terrible, but that was an mercantilist, neo-Feudal approach to resource aggregation and utilization more than it was capitalism. It is hard to argue that colonialism is Liberalism or capitalism when none of the colonial people had agency in their exploitation. That is a prerequisite for both. "

No idea what you are trying to say there.

but I need to interject to ask for one clarification.

"Germany was a liberal democracy before WWII?"

I'm guessing you're referring to Weimar Germany, which essentially was put to death in January 1933, which was more than six years before the start of WWII.

Prior to WWI Germany was an autocracy, though in some ways it pursued more progressive policies than the rest of the world, its system of social security for example. It also was home to the largest socialist party--the SPD--in the world. Suffrage was extended to a greater part of the populace than anywhere else, though this meant little as the Reichstag--its parliament--had little actual power over foreign policy or the military.

Colonialism may have grown out of mercantilist economics, but it provided the capital accumulation and much of the raw materials needed for the emergence of modern dominant capitalism, while neo-colonialism maintains this dominance. Cirsium I think is correct in stating that the Atlantic slave trade, followed by colonialism, formed the basis for European and American prosperity and economic dominance. In North America this was augmented by a continent rich in natural resources that was essentially stolen from the people who lived there originally, who were driven from their lands mostly through violence.

I think it's a mistake to see current or even past societies as all one thing or another and to see any neat delineations between, for instance, capitalism and mercantilism. The Soviet Union was, in many regards, a socialist society, and yet its policies toward non-Russian and non-European peoples under its control had definite and over riding elements of colonialism.

Anyway, my two cents.

I disagree about the Atlantic Slave Trade providing any societal benefit for even the South other than enriching a few thousand wealthy families in the antebellum South. Slavery stunted economic growth and technological development, which is why the South was behind the North in virtually every way measurable heading into the Civil War. Slavery dramatically depressed wages in the South, since poor whites were competing with slave labor for jobs, driving down what they were able to earn, which had the effect of reducing capital formation. American Slavery was essentially a feudal social and economic structure, literally tying slaves to the land, and effectively tying poor whites to the land too. As a result, the antebellum South was a slow growth, resource export driven economy.

There are two major reasons the Civil War was not ended sooner. The first was because the South had better generals and a more martial culture at the beginning of the war. Feudal societies are basically constructed for war, and the South had a large, well-trained population of poor whites that knew how to use the combat tools of that era, rifles. I think the generals advantage balanced out with the emergence of Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheriden and Meade by 1863.

The bigger, and more surprising, reason that the war lasted as long as it did was the willingness of poor southern whites to fight to the end. The odds were heavily stacked against the Confederacy from the beginning of the war, and despite some early victories, the South was in a position where it practically had to win every battle it fought. By July 4, 1863, when the Confederacy lost Gettysburg and Vicksburg on the same day, there was effectively no way for the South to win the war. At that point, the slave owners were sending poor whites to die, and suffer at home, for a war that was already lost. Yet the poor whites kept fighting and sacrificing for a system that kept them in virtual subsistence economically. It is unusual historically for a population to continue to fight after it is clear they are going to lose, and this dynamic works across cultures. The poor southern whites were an exception to that, and their willingness to fight to the death, and bitterness about the price they paid, led directly to the pushback against Reconstruction and the emergence of Jim Crow laws.

Thanks for your excellent comments. Much appreciated.

But we sure as hell don't need them.

Eat the rich.

Country to which they flee to.

They are more stuck than we are

I think that was George Carlin.

Carlin was correct and I can him say, " I told you so". I wish this could be played everywhere in the states.

They haven't been taxed enough to pay for their privileges so they don't appreciate how good they've had it.

They’re already working on their dreamscape…

Actual quote: It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
George Carlin speaks truth:

I just posted the same thing. Carlin knew.

International in terms of assets, management, tax avoidance, currencies, executive residences and dual+ citizenships, etc. Oligarchs have far more in common with each other than with citizens of their country of origin.

and far away from the rest of us, relying on pipe dreams of AI robots to fill their every need. Then they could all go Howard Hughes (look him up, kids) while a lot of their hidden offshore money gets stolen.

Galt's Gulch, wherever it is (the Gobi comes to mind) will be almost as useful as the Rapture would be, ridding us of a bunch of men who are so wedded to their own bullshit they've been endangering us all.

So yeah, the sooner these guys slide into their computerized, mechanized bolt holes, the better. Self isolation is even more efficient than overcrowding at driving people already on the edge completely bonkers, self destructively so.

We won't miss them. That's guaranteed.

Private security, private jets with non-stop range and tangible value retaining assets that will keep them whole regardless of market/society's circumstances. They've been ready for chaos for years. IIRC - Zuckerberg has his in Hawaii. They'll be "eating the poor" rather than us "eating the rich".

as your companions in some gated community in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Interesting that the article itself only received 7 recs.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220256158

Not that they are paying into it or paying any taxes

1984 or Fahrenheit 451, we will turn into "A Brave New World?"

Will someone come up with "soma" for us? Is our "soma" all of the distractions that keep us from rebelling? Like sports, religion, music, games, computers, TV?

They could help the Earth and its inhabitants, but they have no intention of doing so.

They want to build impregnable bunkers, and you know what they worry about besides food? Well, how to lock up the food — but even beyond that, how to create a personal security force that can be guaranteed 100% loyal to them. Their ideas in that regard are ludicrous, including shock collars.

Everything except something I started thinking about until I turned the page and saw Rushkoff was thinking about the same thing: befriend their families. Rushkoff put it this way: “Why don’t you send a Bar Mitzvah gift to their kid?” The men looked at him as though he’d sprouted a second set of arms.

Love this book.

otherwise, spot on