There have always been labourers in wealthy countries that are better off in pure "numbers" terms than landlords in poor countries.
The average landlord in London or SF is likely wealthier than the average programmer in London or SF.
Even software engineers are barely middle/upper-middle class in most of the world. A landlord, lawyer, doctor can easily gather more wealth.
I assume maybe Canada and Australia are very close. But in some countries (not gonna name names), it's not even worth to put yourself through all these years of hard education. You'd be better off becoming an accountant.
Of course if you work remote with an SF salary, that's a different story...
A programmer who is not also a landlord, nor a member of the capital class, is very unlikely to have more, or even as much, wealth as a typical landlord in their area. A pure laborer is pretty much at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. That can change if you pay the laborer enough to start buying real estate in their area for example. But that would turn those laborers into landlords.
A labourer is someone with no special skill or trade. Stacking shelves is a labourer job: the only requirement is physical strength.
Software devs are generally highly skilled professionals like perhaps lawyers.
The idea was to consider the historical criticism of capitalism in a modern setting (e.g., how effective is the market in addressing economic inequality?). The discussion got out of control, though.
> The basic message of the image is the critique of the capitalist system, with its hierarchy of power and wealth. It also illustrates that the working class is supporting all others, and if it would withdraw their support from the system it could, literally, topple the existing social order.
Inequality is not a capitalism only issue.
It's one of the most simple logical fallacies -- the strawman. Everyone should have learned about this in high school at the latest, yet there are plenty of very smart people on HN touting this viewpoint. It's sad, really, how people lie to themselves in an attempt to convince themselves they are morally superior.
As soviet experience becomes a non-threat and an ancient memory, I hope fair criticism of current economic system will be done by clever people.
It's clear you're arguing in bad faith, so I'm just gonna leave it at that.
It's a weird of inverse no-true-scotsman argument. I haven't met many socialists who argue in favor of a fully centralized economy. The big discussion, I suppose, is how much should be regulated, and which parts of our society should be 'markets'.
In how many of those states is that actually true? Maybe Cuba (which the US has been trying to overthrow for decades), and Kurdistan (oops guess who was completely abandoned by the US even though they were instrumental in defeating ISIS?), which that page doesn't even mention. The rest are some form of state capitalism. Certainly China is. Unless you think the workers democratically decided that being paid starvation wages to work in electronics factories to make cheap stuff for Americans was a good idea.
At some point in my early 20s, I mentally outgrew that childish, ill-considered ideology and I'm glad that I did. I've heard every argument under the sun for why Socialism will work if only you "put me in power" and I don't buy any of them.
Anyone arguing for it fundamentally does not understand human activity (behavior and history).
If you were to do a "pyramid" with Communism, you could remove all intermediates (since intellectuals, the middle-class and religious people are systematically killed in the process of bringing Communism), the (un-elected) despotic elites at the top feast while the rest is living in utter misery, starving, or spending time in gulag(s) working for free as slaves for the Greater Good.
I don't know if any of you know history, but pissed off peasants with nothing to live for is a recipe for disaster...every single time.
It seems to me that the whole world can't live peacefully side by side by design when everyone is always striving for more money, power and growth. I don't know how to fix this but it's an interesting problem.
And the best practical evidence we have is that every significant attempt at communism has produced dreadful outcomes, up to and including actual genocide. Communism can only work when every country in the world is Communist, because otherwise people will always want to leave for the Capitalist country where things are better. Draw your own conclusions about where highly visible activists really want to take the world.
So you're saying the market is separate from the components that make it up? The Market is by definition a group of people engaging in the act of producing and consuming services.
If your comment is to be taken at face value, you've just stated that the Market can't exist, because a group of people can't do that, which is to put it mildly ludicrous.
Furthermore, the market is not only well within the realm of doing by a group of people, it can in fact be regulated by the same people who through their collective activity create that thing we call the Market.
It's an outcome. Not a cause. People are the cause, and are therefore the ultimate shapers of the resulting market. A market that implicitly and enforcibly disincludes a thing is no less real and tangible a system than the unregulated idealized market boogeyman everyone assumes will just work.
It just amazes me that economic die-hards dismiss the freedom of market participants to organize and reshape the market through the utilization of organized government policy, yet accept the freedom for private individuals to do the same thing through laissez-faire and non-interference in their business affairs.
A movement in a more socialistic direction is a Market phenomena. Much as many may wish it weren't so.
I'd be really surprised if this were not Russian propaganda.
> The work is based on Nicolas Lokhoff's 1901 caricature of the Russian Empire hierarchy by the Union of Russian Socialists.
A pie-based version, for those who remember Bush declaring his intent to make the pie higher:
When an article about a Libertarian movie reviewer on LetterBoxd was flagged and removed from Hn yesterday within minutes...
I'll stop there.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.