[pandaman]

I have two theories:

1. Similarly to bourgeois in the Russian Empire they believe they can aim the redistributing horde at their enemies while remaining safe themselves.

2. Note how it's always the income inequality and never wealth? If everybody's income had been the same then wealth had much more value. E.g. if everybody's income had been limited to $100k pa then somebody with just $10M in cash would had more money (and hence influence) than anybody who stated at 0 could possibly make in their lifetime and such a wealth would have never been surpassed. If you are seeking rent from your wealth then limiting everybody's income is a pretty good strategy usually expressed as "fuck you, got mine".

[js8]

I think you're very wrong in your reasoning, on both counts.

> they believe they can aim the redistributing horde at their enemies

I can understand why you say that, and it may be hard to understand, but actually, most people on the left don't really have "enemies". They want equality, not to conquer someone rich.

> Note how it's always the income inequality and never wealth?

First, wealth inequality is almost always discussed too (Piketty, if you want a trite example) and is often mentioned as being worse. But in any case, I think the focus on income is given by the fact that societies try hard to avoid ex post facto laws. So we say, OK, what you got now is fine but the rules are going to change from now on. That's why you focus on future change (income) rather than existing assets (wealth).

[pandaman]

>I can understand why you say that, and it may be hard to understand, but actually, most people on the left don't really have "enemies". They want equality, not to conquer someone rich.

Same as Russian bourgeois, who did not have personal vendetta against the "rich" (who had been the major capitalists and/or royal dynasty) they just thought it's unfair and those should not have as much wealth and influence. Is not it the sentiment of today's left against bankers/wall street/Koch brothers?

As for your theory why wealth is not targeted - so? Okay you do that for reasons you described, yet the effect is the same, is not it? I am pretty sure the 99% of the left do not care about this effect since they are not wealthy enough but it does not make it to disappear. The 1% who cares is, by definition, wealthy enough to instigate such a movement.

[js8]

I seriously can't comment on motivation of Russian bourgeois; still, I would like to explain it, even though I think it's futile.

Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a weapon and I don't. And I honestly don't believe either of us should have weapons, because we can live in peace. So I attempt to convince you to give up your weapon, but you think it's an attack, because you cannot read my mind, and you're paranoid that I am going to kill you when you are without the weapon I might take from you. But that's not my actual intent.

So it's the similar thing you're thinking with respect to the left. You could have also noticed I used a qualifier "most".

Your other argument also shows a good amount of conspirational thinking. In particular, it ignores the fact that most people on the left are against rent-seeking too. And with limited income it becomes actually quite complicated to manage large wealth.

[pandaman]

I don't see how you are arguing against anything what I've said. Here is a recap of this thread how I see it:

OP: I don't see why smart, capable people want to give their money to the government.

me (paraphrasing): Theory 1: they don't believe they are going to give the money themselves just like Russian bourgeois did not believe they are going to end up in exile/dead together with the "rich" they had been against (paraphrasing).

you: you are wrong, we just want equality.

me: it's okay, the Russians did want it too.

you: here is a weapon analogy, and you are just paranoid btw.

me: ...

[js8]

I am just trying to explain that your assumption about the intent of the left is wrong, that's all. You're basing this assumption on bad analogy with Russian revolution and on your fear, while you should base it on, I don't know, actually talking to some people on the left? Again, most of them don't think that revolutionary escalations are a good idea. (Although that's the path history often takes.)

But if you don't want to trust other people, then I don't see how could I convince you.