this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
563 points (97.6% liked)

People Twitter

5390 readers
1778 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
563
No comment, just interesting (slrpnk.net)
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's an interesting perspective.

You think they'd form on their own? or we shouldn't be getting to the point where they are needed or something else entirely ?

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think some degree of meritocracy (i.e. recognition of a skills hierarchy) is necessary for human advancement, but as it currently stands it's impossible to separate that out from wealth privilege. If I had the answer, I'd make sure to tell everybody.

There's a million other processes by which wealth favours the accumulation of wealth, and it's largely this "logic of capital" that results in the formation of class hierarchies and entrenched inequality/capital enclaves.

That's probably secondary to geography in the first instance, e.g. wealth in the form of agricultural surpluses and the use of grain as a fungible commodity and proto-currency.

At this point a huge amount of wealth redistribution seems like a good start, and if it all flows back to the top, which I'd expect it to, then it'll just need redistributing again.