It strikes me that in some ways this article is merely a restatement of the Pareto Principle, which applies across ALL societies, not simply communist ones. Resources inevitably run uphill and the vast majority of resources aggregate in the minimum number of hands over time in a power law distribution. Perhaps there is a closer thematic similarity between Ponzi Schemes and Totalitarianisms than seen in other such contrasts, but the overall process seems to be far more generic. If anything, a Ponzi Scheme and perhaps quasi-Mafia centralized tyrannies as well are probably natural processes at their purest.
But Communism puts itself forth as a way to avoid that Pareto distribution.
Ironically, it almost always ends up both with more wealth concentration at the top and poorer low-level people than just about any other modern system.
I would also note that a wealth gap doesn't hurt anyone* if the rising wealth raises everyone's living standards.
* The exception being that amassed wealth can provide outsized political influence.
Peter Turchin, among many others, has pointed out that wealth gaps always and inevitably go "toxic" in the modern meaning. There's no way to perpetually moderate wealth imbalances, because as humans we are limited to the experiences of our own lifetimes and rarely apply the lessons of history over personal greed and advancement.
You start at a situation of low(er) population density and a Square(ish) Deal for the commons. Population and productivity increases create excess wealth, the excess wealth eventually becomes noticeable to the elite sectors, and the elite move to grab more and more of the excess. As more and more of the excess is grabbed, there is more and more room to expand the elite with capable new blood. More and more elites are produced (elite overproduction). As population expands and excess wealth is enclosed, the wage rates of the commons can be undercut, and more and more of the commons are immiserated to poverty.
Eventually the dynamic reverses. The more candidate elites there are, the more cutthroat the environment among elites becomes because there are not enough elite niches to hold them all. The more immiserated the commons become, the more resentful and primed for violence the commons become. See the entire process of social evolution in America since c. 1965 - wage stagnation and the Higher Education Bubble. Eventually factions of the elite face off, form armies (actual or virtual) of sections of the commons, and one faction of elites wins and either physically kills the others or demotes them to the commons. The commons get a renewed "Square Deal" and access to the elite is limited to prevent the process. Two generations later, Grandson wonders why Grandpappy is so paranoid and hey there is so much excess wealth sloshing around...
Rinse. Repeat. Eventually Joseph Tainter's collapse model is validated, the complexity of the social system is too much to muddle through with with one of the every-other generation mini-collapses, and the entire system goes down.
Look to the Black Blocs and Deplorables of 2020 for the modern armies, even if not formally armies per se, so far.
In modern capitalism, almost all wealth of the very rich are stored in company shares or government bonds. Probably quite a bit more in company shares.
This mean that this wealth is doing work. It is invested in machines and other capital equipment and factories and the real estate they sit on.
In many industries, especially software, that wealth is at work paying for labor.
The wealth of the elites is not sitting in some Scrooge McDuck gold coin vault. It is out there creating more wealth by doing more useful work.
The wealth gap in the US has what? Tripled in the last 20 years?
But average wages for the bottom 50% have gone up considerably, even adjusted for inflation. Only the cost of college and housing has not really kept up with those wage increases, and those are just awful and it does hurt a lot of people.
But most Americans do walk around with $500-$1000 supercomputers in their pockets.
I am not belittling the struggles to make ends meet. It's just that compared to the 80s and 90s, a much lower percentage of Americans are real struggling now, even though the wealth gap has TRIPLED.
The only problem actually caused by the wealth gap is jealousy, and for the most part it's irrational jealousy. The wealth gap doesn't actually hurt any poor people, because the economy is not a zero sum game.
I am not talking about trickle down. Stock holdings are literally the main engine of the economy.
It strikes me that in some ways this article is merely a restatement of the Pareto Principle, which applies across ALL societies, not simply communist ones. Resources inevitably run uphill and the vast majority of resources aggregate in the minimum number of hands over time in a power law distribution. Perhaps there is a closer thematic similarity between Ponzi Schemes and Totalitarianisms than seen in other such contrasts, but the overall process seems to be far more generic. If anything, a Ponzi Scheme and perhaps quasi-Mafia centralized tyrannies as well are probably natural processes at their purest.
I think you are right.
But Communism puts itself forth as a way to avoid that Pareto distribution.
Ironically, it almost always ends up both with more wealth concentration at the top and poorer low-level people than just about any other modern system.
I would also note that a wealth gap doesn't hurt anyone* if the rising wealth raises everyone's living standards.
* The exception being that amassed wealth can provide outsized political influence.
Peter Turchin, among many others, has pointed out that wealth gaps always and inevitably go "toxic" in the modern meaning. There's no way to perpetually moderate wealth imbalances, because as humans we are limited to the experiences of our own lifetimes and rarely apply the lessons of history over personal greed and advancement.
You start at a situation of low(er) population density and a Square(ish) Deal for the commons. Population and productivity increases create excess wealth, the excess wealth eventually becomes noticeable to the elite sectors, and the elite move to grab more and more of the excess. As more and more of the excess is grabbed, there is more and more room to expand the elite with capable new blood. More and more elites are produced (elite overproduction). As population expands and excess wealth is enclosed, the wage rates of the commons can be undercut, and more and more of the commons are immiserated to poverty.
Eventually the dynamic reverses. The more candidate elites there are, the more cutthroat the environment among elites becomes because there are not enough elite niches to hold them all. The more immiserated the commons become, the more resentful and primed for violence the commons become. See the entire process of social evolution in America since c. 1965 - wage stagnation and the Higher Education Bubble. Eventually factions of the elite face off, form armies (actual or virtual) of sections of the commons, and one faction of elites wins and either physically kills the others or demotes them to the commons. The commons get a renewed "Square Deal" and access to the elite is limited to prevent the process. Two generations later, Grandson wonders why Grandpappy is so paranoid and hey there is so much excess wealth sloshing around...
Rinse. Repeat. Eventually Joseph Tainter's collapse model is validated, the complexity of the social system is too much to muddle through with with one of the every-other generation mini-collapses, and the entire system goes down.
Look to the Black Blocs and Deplorables of 2020 for the modern armies, even if not formally armies per se, so far.
I am going to disagree with you on this one.
In modern capitalism, almost all wealth of the very rich are stored in company shares or government bonds. Probably quite a bit more in company shares.
This mean that this wealth is doing work. It is invested in machines and other capital equipment and factories and the real estate they sit on.
In many industries, especially software, that wealth is at work paying for labor.
The wealth of the elites is not sitting in some Scrooge McDuck gold coin vault. It is out there creating more wealth by doing more useful work.
The wealth gap in the US has what? Tripled in the last 20 years?
But average wages for the bottom 50% have gone up considerably, even adjusted for inflation. Only the cost of college and housing has not really kept up with those wage increases, and those are just awful and it does hurt a lot of people.
But most Americans do walk around with $500-$1000 supercomputers in their pockets.
I am not belittling the struggles to make ends meet. It's just that compared to the 80s and 90s, a much lower percentage of Americans are real struggling now, even though the wealth gap has TRIPLED.
The only problem actually caused by the wealth gap is jealousy, and for the most part it's irrational jealousy. The wealth gap doesn't actually hurt any poor people, because the economy is not a zero sum game.
I am not talking about trickle down. Stock holdings are literally the main engine of the economy.