The whole point of the phrase is: When the poor have nothing left to eat, they will eat the rich.
It wasnt coined as a threat. It’s a warning. The poor are already starving, and there is a limit.
And the thing is that ‘rich’ is not an intrinsic property, it’s not genetic. When you eat the rich, everything they were hoarding - that which gave them the title ‘rich’ - becomes accessible. It doesn’t disappear from the system like an MMO inventory.
Only after the starving poor eat the rich, will there be a path to a possible future without starvation.
When the rich are too rich there are ways, and when the poor are too poor there are ways.
Last winter we sold two girls and endured, and this winter, if this one my woman bears is a girl, we will sell again. One slave I have kept—the first. The others it is better to sell than to kill, although there are those who prefer to kill them before they draw breath. This is one of the ways when the poor are too poor.
When the rich are too rich there is a way, and if I am not mistaken, that way will come soon.
That tendency of systems is precisely why I’m skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Advanced and improved are vague terms. 1) Are the systems today better for the common man? And if so, how?
2) If it takes 400 years, then it’s largely irrelevant to anyone concerned with systemic change within their own lifetime.
That tendency of systems is precisely why I’m skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Systems endure until they don’t. A system with a long history tends to have a more entrenched position and a wider base of supporters.
Advanced and improved are vague terms
If you want a full categorical break down of 400 years of economic plans and conglomerated practices, I might point you to your local university and advise you to pick up any number of lectures on the subject.
But if you’re just going to “Nuh-uh” everything since the Dutch East India Company incorporated…
Systems endure until they don’t. A system with a long history tends to have a more entrenched position and a wider base of supporters.
Or rather, until they give way to another system that exploits the masses for the elite. In reality, systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has never occured in history. It was there through the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and even today in the 21st century.
The form it takes changing is irrelevant since the exploitation of masses itself never stopped.
It doesn’t matter if the name it’s given or how it happens changes.
If you want a full categorical break down of 400 years of economic plans and conglomerated practices, I might point you to your local university and advise you to pick up any number of lectures on the subject.
But if you’re just going to “Nuh-uh” everything since the Dutch East India Company incorporated…
What a roundabout non-answer.
Asking you to specify how the systems have improved specifically w.r.t. the common man (which I don’t believe they have) doesn’t require university lectures if you had a concrete answer.
I’m not “nuh-uh”-ing everything, I’m looking for reason for common beliefs people hold that, as far as I’ve seen so far, have been nothing but just vibes and values. In reality, those claims (eg: “systemic change is real and has happened!”) have been historically inaccurate and anachronistic, if not simply straight-up false.
Ever since 1850? Geee, just two years after the Revolutions of 1848, I guess the peoples should never be appeased because they’ll just want more and more!
As for me, I’m referring to Marx and communist critiques of capitalism that have spanned several European countries in its inception which were then expanded by 20th century and modern communists who repeatedly said that collapse was imminent and inevitable.
That’s been a consistent theme that hasn’t changed since around 1850.
People keep going “oh yeah, it’s really gonna collapse this time! There’s gonna be real good change soon!” Nope. Bs. Historically inaccurate.
I’m running out of names for that advent, so here’s the last one, I’m sorry but you’re just too semantically demanding. So here goes - Springtime of the Peoples
As for the rest. Are you seriously claiming that there were no uprisings or revolutions since 1850? Brother, I’m sure you can do some better research.
Or are you looking for something more spectacular, the full-blown worldwide revolution, and anything smaller than that is just too futile for your taste.
Are you seriously claiming that there were no uprisings or revolutions since 1850?
That’s not my claim at all.
My claim is that systemic change hasn’t occured.
It doesn’t matter if “uprisings” or “revolutions” occur if they don’t lead to systemic change. For example, the french revolution lead to a dictatorship. Which isn’t a win.
None of these “revolutions” have lead to any real systemic change. Key word: systemic. Not just measly concessions like “women can vote now” or "workers can get the weekend ‘off’ ".
Or are you looking for something more spectacular, the full-blown worldwide revolution, and anything smaller than that is just too futile for your taste.
It doesn’t need to be global, no. But it must lead to lasting, relevant systemic change in favour of the common man, yes.
If Elon dies, lots of his wealth will disappear as the stock price of his companies will drop. Not sure how much and if they will recover but, like it or not, he is a big part of the reason the stock market loves his companies.
The whole point of the phrase is: When the poor have nothing left to eat, they will eat the rich.
It wasnt coined as a threat. It’s a warning. The poor are already starving, and there is a limit.
And the thing is that ‘rich’ is not an intrinsic property, it’s not genetic. When you eat the rich, everything they were hoarding - that which gave them the title ‘rich’ - becomes accessible. It doesn’t disappear from the system like an MMO inventory.
Only after the starving poor eat the rich, will there be a path to a possible future without starvation.
~ Pearl S. Buck, The Good Earth
People have been theorizing (or fantasizing, rather) about the supposed collapse of the system since 1850, thinking it was soon then.
Guess it’s soon enough for us to not see it in this lifetime either.
Aka, worthless.
Google Russia 1918 and keep reading.
It’s collapsed a bunch of times.
The sudden, often arbitrary, and devastating failures make up much of the case for why the system is bad.
Is the system bad? Sure.
Will a good system finally show up? Doubt.
Those collapses you mentioned haven’t lead to a worthwhile system, have they?
Collapse is meaningless on its own.
People try new things. Sometimes those things work.
The problem isn’t that ideas are floated and failed. It’s that systems calcify around people in privileged positions.
Economic models in 2026 are far more advanced and improved than ones from 1626
That tendency of systems is precisely why I’m skeptical of any real systemic change to occur.
Advanced and improved are vague terms. 1) Are the systems today better for the common man? And if so, how? 2) If it takes 400 years, then it’s largely irrelevant to anyone concerned with systemic change within their own lifetime.
Systems endure until they don’t. A system with a long history tends to have a more entrenched position and a wider base of supporters.
If you want a full categorical break down of 400 years of economic plans and conglomerated practices, I might point you to your local university and advise you to pick up any number of lectures on the subject.
But if you’re just going to “Nuh-uh” everything since the Dutch East India Company incorporated…
Or rather, until they give way to another system that exploits the masses for the elite. In reality, systemic change in the sense of mass exploitation ending has never occured in history. It was there through the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and even today in the 21st century.
The form it takes changing is irrelevant since the exploitation of masses itself never stopped.
It doesn’t matter if the name it’s given or how it happens changes.
What a roundabout non-answer.
Asking you to specify how the systems have improved specifically w.r.t. the common man (which I don’t believe they have) doesn’t require university lectures if you had a concrete answer.
I’m not “nuh-uh”-ing everything, I’m looking for reason for common beliefs people hold that, as far as I’ve seen so far, have been nothing but just vibes and values. In reality, those claims (eg: “systemic change is real and has happened!”) have been historically inaccurate and anachronistic, if not simply straight-up false.
Ever since 1850? Geee, just two years after the Revolutions of 1848, I guess the peoples should never be appeased because they’ll just want more and more!
I wasn’t talking about the US 🤦
It’s stupid how people just assume it’s america if you don’t specify.
What the fuck are you talking about? Spring of Nations didn’t spread to the US in the slightest.
Then what are you talking about?
As for me, I’m referring to Marx and communist critiques of capitalism that have spanned several European countries in its inception which were then expanded by 20th century and modern communists who repeatedly said that collapse was imminent and inevitable.
That’s been a consistent theme that hasn’t changed since around 1850.
People keep going “oh yeah, it’s really gonna collapse this time! There’s gonna be real good change soon!” Nope. Bs. Historically inaccurate.
I’m running out of names for that advent, so here’s the last one, I’m sorry but you’re just too semantically demanding. So here goes - Springtime of the Peoples
As for the rest. Are you seriously claiming that there were no uprisings or revolutions since 1850? Brother, I’m sure you can do some better research.
Or are you looking for something more spectacular, the full-blown worldwide revolution, and anything smaller than that is just too futile for your taste.
That’s not my claim at all.
My claim is that systemic change hasn’t occured.
It doesn’t matter if “uprisings” or “revolutions” occur if they don’t lead to systemic change. For example, the french revolution lead to a dictatorship. Which isn’t a win.
None of these “revolutions” have lead to any real systemic change. Key word: systemic. Not just measly concessions like “women can vote now” or "workers can get the weekend ‘off’ ".
It doesn’t need to be global, no. But it must lead to lasting, relevant systemic change in favour of the common man, yes.
If Elon dies, lots of his wealth will disappear as the stock price of his companies will drop. Not sure how much and if they will recover but, like it or not, he is a big part of the reason the stock market loves his companies.