|
|
|
|
|
by pandaman
3816 days ago
|
|
>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. |
|
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.