Rob from rich,give to poor -> rob from poor,give to poor
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Robin Hood is an idealized character who, in his devotion to robbing the rich and giving to the poor, might as well have been a hero to Karl Marx. However, after enough iterations of robbing from the rich (of which I am not) and giving to the poor, would not the rich also be poor? Who then is left to be robbed after the riches of the rich have all been equally distributed? Does the rich man remain rich after his wealth is gone? Do the poor become rich after the rich man's wealth is gone or is there just one more poor man in the bunch who's just really pissed?
Focusing on the economic myth of the legend of Robin Hood is missing the point of the story, but let's pursue this one to its conclusion.
The process you describe in the story is a means to an end, not a proposed economic model.
The purpose of Robin Hood in robbing tax money was not to create social equality, it was to remove a dictator from power. Redistributing the wealth to the peasants was - in their eyes - an act of compassion and altruism, yet its true purpose was to increase his own fame and public image so that, no matter how large a bounty was put upon his head, the peasantry would not betray him.
His actions were hardly Marxist.
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Focusing on the economic myth of the legend of Robin Hood is missing the point of the story, but let's pursue this one to its conclusion.
The process you describe in the story is a means to an end, not a proposed economic model.
The purpose of Robin Hood in robbing tax money was not to create social equality, it was to remove a dictator from power. Redistributing the wealth to the peasants was - in their eyes - an act of compassion and altruism, yet its true purpose was to increase his own fame and public image so that, no matter how large a bounty was put upon his head, the peasantry would not betray him.
His actions were hardly Marxist.
On the contrary, his actions fit well with the communist manifesto. In which it talks about the oppression of the plebeians by the patricians and such of that sort in order to appeal to the common man, while later on it proposes a form of government which is absurdly powerful. The marketing of social equality sounds nice, really nice, however the means to acheive this do not provide social equality but instead an amassing of wealth into a omnipresent government which might as well be a political black hole.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
What?!
One robs from the rich rather than the poor because the poor haven't got any f*****g money to rob, because they are poor. That's about as far as it goes. You give to the poor because THEY are the ones who hide you, feed you, and where you spend your ill-gotten gains. Its got bugger all to do with communism at all.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
i remember reading a folk tale about a king that was not happy until he lost all of his riches and power. even the clothes on his back. naked, powerless and poor, he felt free.
what was my point? i forgot.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Ever play Monopoly? The game is structured to give in the end all money and power to one individual - that's the monopoly. Most economic structures work similarly and money and power is funelled to a narrower group at the top. Therefore, to permit for balance, governments must "redistribute" to counteract such tendencies. The rich don't become poor, they just don't amass the wealth and power to allow one of them to establish in due course a monopoly. This power also undermines democracy when concentrated. Redistribution is absolutely required under any kind of capitalism. The tendencies of capitalism demand it. Otherwise, dystopia is built.
Monopoly is the most popular Zero Sum game. There are few is any win-win scenarios in Monopoly. In the real world, win-win is possible (although not guaranteed).
ruveyn
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
i remember reading a folk tale about a king that was not happy until he lost all of his riches and power. even the clothes on his back. naked, powerless and poor, he felt free.
what was my point? i forgot.
Obviously the point was that he lost his mind as well as his power.
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
i remember reading a folk tale about a king that was not happy until he lost all of his riches and power. even the clothes on his back. naked, powerless and poor, he felt free.
what was my point? i forgot.
Obviously the point was that he lost his mind as well as his power.
Not necessarily. People with more money seem to have more money troubles* ... and several folks with far more than me have heartily agreed when I have said that to them.
(*Note: The problem of seeming to never have enough can easily grow right alongside anyone's balance sheet.)
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
i remember reading a folk tale about a king that was not happy until he lost all of his riches and power. even the clothes on his back. naked, powerless and poor, he felt free.
what was my point? i forgot.
Obviously the point was that he lost his mind as well as his power.
Not necessarily. People with more money seem to have more money troubles* ... and several folks with far more than me have heartily agreed when I have said that to them.
(*Note: The problem of seeming to never have enough can easily grow right alongside anyone's balance sheet.)
Mo' money, mo' problems. A miserable SOB who comes upon a fortune is just a miserable SOB with more money. Truly happy rich people would be just as happy without the money. Each step up the financial ladder carries more weight.
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
i remember reading a folk tale about a king that was not happy until he lost all of his riches and power. even the clothes on his back. naked, powerless and poor, he felt free.
what was my point? i forgot.
Obviously the point was that he lost his mind as well as his power.
Not necessarily. People with more money seem to have more money troubles* ... and several folks with far more than me have heartily agreed when I have said that to them.
(*Note: The problem of seeming to never have enough can easily grow right alongside anyone's balance sheet.)
Mo' money, mo' problems. A miserable SOB who comes upon a fortune is just a miserable SOB with more money. Truly happy rich people would be just as happy without the money. Each step up the financial ladder carries more weight.
The misery that comes with money is minuscule compared with the misery that comes without it. That's a myth promulgated by the rich to keep the poor from strangling them.
After all his money was gone, maybe he would actually feel relieved over no longer having to try to hold on to it.
i remember reading a folk tale about a king that was not happy until he lost all of his riches and power. even the clothes on his back. naked, powerless and poor, he felt free.
what was my point? i forgot.
Obviously the point was that he lost his mind as well as his power.
Not necessarily. People with more money seem to have more money troubles* ... and several folks with far more than me have heartily agreed when I have said that to them.
(*Note: The problem of seeming to never have enough can easily grow right alongside anyone's balance sheet.)
Mo' money, mo' problems. A miserable SOB who comes upon a fortune is just a miserable SOB with more money. Truly happy rich people would be just as happy without the money. Each step up the financial ladder carries more weight.
The misery that comes with money is minuscule compared with the misery that comes without it. That's a myth promulgated by the rich to keep the poor from strangling them.
I disagree. When money becomes a #1 priority, then you are bound to be miserable. I've been in both situations both during childhood and during adulthood. I think when you're put in a situation where material possessions have to be given up, it forces you to look at what's really important. It promotes creativity and a simpler life based on the things that truly matter most, which happens to not be things at all, but people.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Poor Things is a male take on feminism |
10 Apr 2024, 2:27 pm |
Poor level of suppourt in college |
12 Mar 2024, 7:52 am |
Is it odd I don't like it when people give me sympathy? |
03 Mar 2024, 1:58 pm |
Can someone give up Lent for Lent? |
04 Apr 2024, 1:05 am |