[arethuza]

Well, one possible reason is that we may have an inbuilt sense of "fairness" - capachin monkeys have been demonstrated in experiments to get angry if they get unfairly rewarded. So might not people feel angry in the same circumstances?

A valid criticism of socialism for running societies (rather than institutions) is that it doesn't align well with "human nature" - but it might also be the case where the "winner takes all" aspects of capitalism also have similar problems.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_...

[bmmayer1]

It's key that monkeys, like humans, object to unfairness--not 'inequality.' Turns out that relative contribution matters a lot to how monkeys/people judge rewards.[1]

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082

[arethuza]

But inequality arguably leads to unfairness though - is it "fair" that someone who is successful can get better chances for their kids through better environment, schooling and connections?

I'd argue that inequality pretty much always leads to unfairness.

Edit: And I say that as someone who pays for their kids to be privately educated at a prestigious private school because it is obvious that doing so gives them an unfair advantage.

[bmmayer1]

I think the point is that fairness leads to inequality.

[arethuza]

And extreme economic inequality leads to people using their money to control politics and the media to stack the system in their favour. It's not simply the inequality that is the problem its what the rich choose to do with their money that is causing problems.

[bmmayer1]

> what the rich choose to do with their money that is causing problems

What do 'the rich' (as a class) choose to do with their money that is causing problems, and what are those problems?

[arethuza]

I'm not talking about the rich as a class. I'm in the UK where we have an unhappy combination of remarkably venal politicians (with some notable exceptions), media interests that are either overtly political (e.g. News International and the Daily Mail and related newspapers) or selected from a rather narrow privileged and biased group (e.g. BBC).

I'm not a Labour supporter - but the fact that a hard left party is within striking distance of winning the UK general election (despite the horrendously biased media coverage) shows that there things have got so bad for many people that extremely far left wing policies (by US standards) are starting to look attractive to an awful lot of people.

Not all rich people abuse their positions to obtain disproportionate political influence - but to get disproportionate political influence you have to be rich. Wealth isn't the problem - abuse of the power that wealth can bring is the problem.

Edit: Labour's motto of "For the many not the few" sums up the current political mess rather nicely.