Sociopath Community

Isn't that just capitalism driven to its extremities?

Xadem said: 

In the USA there's a 1% who holds all the wealth and is systematically causing the middle class to disintegrate, we see right now the opposite effect of what caused Feudalism to decline in the later medieval periods, because if this keeps going, we will end up with the peasant/noble dynamic again. I think the new nobles are the likes of Facebook and Google, Amazon and Apple CEOs, whose power is skyrocketing exponentially and who are using increasingly more sinister methods to establish the complete and utter disconnect between the peasantry and the moden aristocracy. Meanwhile the college educated people and liberal Hollywood are the new clergy, whose monopoly on culture is reminiscent of the Church impeding on everyone's private life. 

 

 You hit on a couple of very interesting points here. Been seeing lots of finger pointing at income inequality as societies greatest problem. Humans will never be equal, sorry. There will always be a bell curve of haves and have nots. and as society gets dumber and lazier, the weighting towards the have not will continue to rise.

I'm thinking that dummies and lazy people are societies greatest problem. lol.

The 1% is not that big of a deal, Just work hard and marry a smart chick.

https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/income-family-top-1-percent-every-state-2019-4

If Facebook, twitter and Google continue with their obvious political bias, they will soon see themselves regulated by the government as free speech utilities.

Speaking of google, facebook, ect-

Ted Kaczynski was right.

Xadem said: 

Okay so bare with me, but after realising that the European Union is a neo imperial Belgian construct, I will now share my revelation that the USA is a Neo-Feudalist aristocracy. 

Neo-feudalism or new feudalism is a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy, and public life reminiscent of those present in many feudal societies, such as unequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility.

What rights do wealthy people have that middle class or the poor do not also have? What legal protections does a wealthy individual have that all other individuals do not have? 

The concept of "neofeudalism" may focus on economics. Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neofeudalism in contemporary society are class stratification, globalization, neoconservative foreign policy, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and "neo-corporatism" (Wikipedia)

There's a lot of concerns here shared by any type of governance. What about the american approach to these is feudalistic?  The two quotes above really haven't defined neofeudalism in any meaningful or distinct way. 

In the USA there's a 1% who holds all the wealth and is systematically causing the middle class to disintegrate, we see right now the opposite effect of what caused Feudalism to decline in the later medieval periods, because if this keeps going, we will end up with the peasant/noble dynamic again.

There has always been wealth inequality and the richest 1% used to be wealthier. 

Jeff Bezos, the richest American alive today is the fourths richest in U.S. history. 

1. Rockefeller adjusted wealth is $253 billion and he lived from 1839-1937

2. Vanderbilt adjusted wealth is $205 billion and he lived from 1794-1877

3. Astor adjusted wealth is $138 billion and he lived from 1763-1848 

When these men lived there was hardly a middle class to speak of and standard living conditions were far worse than today. Based on your explanation it can be assumed that the United States used to be far more feudalistic and has become far less with the rise of the middle class and the shrinking of historical income inequality. 

I think the new nobles are the likes of Facebook and Google, Amazon and Apple CEOs, whose power is skyrocketing exponentially and who are using increasingly more sinister methods to establish the complete and utter disconnect between the peasantry and the moden aristocracy.

During the middle ages you had to be born into nobility. Today if you have an idea that can be actualized and made profitable for shareholders you can enter this noble class you speak of. Furthermore nobles can fall out of their nobility due to poor financial decisions and management. Is the fact that productivity instead blood determines this nobility a crucial difference between the two systems? 

Meanwhile the college educated people and liberal Hollywood are the new clergy, whose monopoly on culture is reminiscent of the Church impeding on everyone's private life. 

I agree with this more or less but i think it goes beyond culture and also manages valid thought at the most fundamental levels. For instance there is a scientific canon that you must believe in or you are declared pseudoscientific by the majority. Rejecting darwinism, big bang theory, global warming etc will land you in this category even if you have good reason and evidence. 

I agree completely. The US is very much an aristocracy. Technically anyone can succeed in the US. We don't have official class systems that prevent lower class citizens from rising, but the tools one needs to raise their status are often difficult to obtain without buying them. ex: An impoverished person can go to college on a full scholarship if they get straight A's throughout high school and maintain all A's in college, or a rich person with straight D's can have their parents buy their way in. Or two people are arrested for the same crime, both are guilty. One is assigned a public defender, has a short trial and is sentenced. The other has the ability to hire a team of lawyers who, although not able to prove innocence, are able to sway the judge and jury to a minimum sentence, much lighter than what their poor counterpart received.

Running for office is impossible if you cannot fund a campaign so all of our politicians are rich people, making decisions that benefit rich people at the expense of the bottom class.

example: Reopening the country during COVID, putting the lives of hair dressers, servers, retail staff etc at risk so the CEOs can make money over video conference from one of their 5 high security mansions.

Then these politicians re-arrange voting districts in their favor to suppress the voting power of citizens.

Say for instance a state has 1000 people. 440 are registered to the Star party, 560 registered for the Stripes party. The current state legislatures are all Stars party and they rearranging 10 voting districts so each has 100 citizens. 8 districts each contain 55 Stars members and 45 stripes members. 2 district have 100 Stripes members. In the next election all 1000 citizens vote, and every single one votes with their party. Total citizen votes: 440 for stars, 560 for stripes, a clear win for stripes but  with 1 vote per district based on citizen majority, the final outcome is 8 votes for Stars and 2 Votes for Stripes. The system is fucking rigged.

People in power would rather let millions of people die to maintain a shitty fragile system, rather than to reform a more stable and fair system because the current system favors them over 95% of the rest of the country. Gun control isn't about safety because the 1% don't care about that, it's about taking more power from those already weaker so they can't rise up.

America eventually is going to turn into one of those anarchist rebellions where the working class behead the upper class if we can't get out shit together and stop treating half the population as expendable labor instead of citizens of a democracy.

lmao i love it when sollipsistic narrow minded westerners who dont understand political ideologies in depth and see the world thru a me-based prism put labels on things based on how they NPD split (black and white thinking) countries, people, and factions based on how it makes em feel and serves them.

"X is an austocracy because i dont like it! capitalism is bad because i am too dumb and untalented to thrive in it! this dictatorship is actually a democracy because i like it! socialism is good because i cant make more than minimum wage! X guy is Y because i dislike W about him! war is peace! freedom is slavery!"

grow up and learn what the words you use mean. dont give fictive labels and exaggerate properties to sound smart on the internet. this is no different than people who wont laugh at offensive jokes because they are "offensive". Just because X has negative trait Y doesnt mean its also all these other negative traits or things you dont like. Thats toddler tier reasoning.

Tryptamine said: 

Isn't that just capitalism driven to its extremities?

 I agree with this. I don't consider this to be Neo-Feudalism. While you could draw similarities to Feudalism, as each society I'd say bares some of the marks of it's predecessor. I'd just say this is the evolution of Capitalism. 

Tryptamine said: 

Isn't that just capitalism driven to its extremities?

Yes and no. The main difference with capitalism driven to it's extremes is that capitalism still holds opportunity, while neo feudalism holds a caste system which deters upward mobility. Just like in medieval times, serfs would be indebted to the nobility for a set amount of years or even their entire life, so are the contemporary people through their debt, of which some can't even be gotten rid of via bankruptcy. Capitalism means opportunity, which I see fading away. 

Edit: I'd actually be more inclined to agree that hyper-capitalism in the USA will lead to Neo-Feudalism