Who will own America? Stats from "Bush Recovery"

[cyu]

From http://greyfalcon.net/concentrate.png

http://greyfalcon.net/concentrate.png

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

What do Third Worldists have to say?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I don't think there is any Third Worldists since AvartRedGarde is restricted.

[Lynx]

The breakdown may be similar in Third World countries, just on a smaller scale.

Are global (world) figures available?

[Il Medico]

I did a research paper on this in my junior year of high school. I don't know if I could find the paper. It probably has a number of holes in it as I had, at the time, a limited understanding of class struggle.

[Il Medico]

Aha! I found it. It is very naive though and only has a basic sense of class struggle. I was also a more devout man then than I am now. So..... Don't attack this three year old report too bad. Anyways, if you want to read it.


English III Honors
Economic Inequality in America and the World:
There is a problem in America, one that gets bigger every year. The problem is economic inequality, which is widespread in America. A problem many view as only one of third world countries in Africa. However, the gap between the rich and the poor in America is huge. In the richest country in the world (USA) 10% of the total population controls 90% of the total wealth, while the other 90% of the population controls only 10% of the wealth. That is a big gap, not to mention the fact that , of that top10 percentage, the top 1% of the population owns around 50% of the wealth. These are the so-called hyper-rich, the Bill Gates of the world. This is obviously a problem, but how do we fix it? Well there are three main approaches, the conservative Republican approach, the liberal Democratic, and the revolutionary communist approach.
The first approach is the Republican approach; I call it the “Market” strategy. It is the premise of thing like Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts. It is the idea that if you give tax cuts to the rich CEOs they will hire more people, which will create jobs. The newly employed now have money and will spend the money. This will drive the economy and eventually if everybody works hard and the government keeps taxes low, the cycle of poverty will end.
This is the idea championed by the conservative right, which idealizes capitalism. It is an idea that has held sway in this country for a long time, but is simply not true. There are a few major problems with this approach. First, the Republicans grossly under estimate the greed of the rich. Second, in a capitalistic economy, ups tend to increase the economic gap, not lower it. The third and final problem I find is that they seem to base their assumptions on the Leave It to Beaver, two cars in every garage fantasy of capitalist America. The reality is much bleaker.
The second approach is the more liberal Democratic approach, that I call “Aid” strategy. This has been the premise of social programs like the New Deal and Great Society. They operate based on providing aid to the downtrodden, to help them get on their feet. This is the type of approach that leans toward market regulation. The combination of social programs like welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid along with job training will slowly pull people out of poverty. This was the idea when LBJ launched the War on Poverty, which was vastly cut back by Nixon and Reagan (and eventually turned by the conservative congress under Newt Gringich into a war on the poor). This approach promises a revival under Obama and the Democratic congress.
There are a few problems with this method, although it is much better than the “Market” approach. The biggest problem is the Republicans. They consider such social programs as “entitlements” and do every thing they can to destroy them, or just make them useless. Another problem is the limit on coverage for welfare. This again is affected by Republicans who insist on a low limit. The amount of money needed to be covered by welfare is below $20,000 (the poverty line). While they stop covering someone, who makes over that and everybody knows that 20,000 is not enough to stay out of poverty.
The final approach is the communist approach, which I call the “Robin Hood” strategy. This has been the goal of revolutionaries from Lenin to Mao. They propose a reallocation of wealth, in order to bring about economic equality. This would do away with capitalism and the cycle of poverty. Bringing about a collective society in which everybody owns everything (or in other words 100% of population owns 100% of wealth). This collective pool of wealth would then be redistributed equally among the people.
There are a few problems with this approach. For one, a collective communistic society would be hard to create in the materialistic world we live in, although not impossible. Another reason, at least in the USA, is a public distrust of communism and socialism built up over the Cold War. The last reason is capitalism itself. Dislodging capitalism from a heavily capitalist society like America would take nothing short of an armed revolution.
In consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the above methods, I believe the only way to end economic inequality is by implementing communism. I hear the boos already, however, to me this the only way to close the gap. The idea of communism is not new; it has been around since the ancient Greeks. Communism as we know it though is from Marx. In his writings, Marx describes a economic system in which there is no social/economic classes and everybody is equal. Sounds nice, right? Well first there has to be a bloody revolution by the industrial workers to overthrow the vile factory owners. That is how Marx saw it; this however, was flawed because it only included industrialized nations. Lenin is the one who added agricultural peasants to the list of possible revolutionaries.
The main problem that communism has faced in the past is totalitarianism hijacking their movement (Stalin for example). While other times the revolutionaries themselves fell into the old adage “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” and eventually the role of dictator (Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh).
It is my opinion that the only way communism can be implemented is with democracy. During the course of history, we have seen that totalitarianism ruins communism, as well as seeing that capitalism ruins democracy (the combination of totalitarianism and capitalism is fascism). Totalitarianism ruins communism by causing the dictator or the ruling party to become the upper class that then hoards the wealth. This completely negates communism in the society. When we look at the effects of capitalism on democracy negates it as well by creating a upper class dictatorship.
Another thing that has given communism a bad rap (besides McCarthyism) is its anti-religion stance. This of course is from Marx, who was an atheist, and said that religion was not necessary. Most communist have towed this line, and perhaps if they had been more tolerant of religion more people would be communist. Even the Dali Lama was very excited about communism, until that is Mao said religion was bad. I personally feel that religion compliments communism, especially my faith, Catholicism.
The doctrine of the church is very socialist in tone. They even preach shared responsibility for the community. If you listen to his holiness, the Pope you will heard him preaching about ending poverty. This is of course one of the main goals of communism. The Pope also preaches equality among all people, another communist belief.
Communism , of course has its critics, most of which are Republicans. They say that in a communist society there is no incentive to work hard. Once again, they are wrong; the incentive is just different then in capitalism. In a communist society, you own everything collectively, so if you do not work the collective pool drops in worth and it hurts the amount of money everyone makes, including the person not working.
Another thing that the Republicans usually tout with the above argument is that if you work hard in a capitalist society, you will get your fair share of the American pie (if your idea of fair share is the crumbs that make through the rich peoples beards). I find this argument somewhat offensive. They are basically saying that the poor are only poor because they do not work hard enough! It is sad to think many people actually believe that (many in our school in fact). This not to mention the fact that the whole idea is preposterous. Bill Gates for example is worth 60 billion dollars, that is the same as the bottom third of the US population! That is 100 million people; can one preppy nerd work harder then 100 million people? I think not.
The level of inequality is unacceptable, the top 1% are leaving even those in the other top 9 percentile far behind. Chris Rock had a stand up skit in which he explains the difference between rich and wealthy. He said Shack (Sequil O’Neil) is rich; the white guy who pays him is wealthy. That perfectly describes the gap between the rich and super rich.
Shack leaves the middle class far behind in his own right. Middle class businesses have long been the competition for the upper class. They however, are shrinking at an alarming rate. They are being push out of business and into the working class.
The working class are the bottom of the economic rung of course. All they really own is their labor, and with outsourcing and technological leaps and bounds, workers are losing their jobs. Capitalism is getting to be a dark place for workers. Chairman Mao once said “It is always darkest before it is totally black” and by the looks of the economy and the growing economic gap, it is getting dark fast. All I can do is hope that there will be a dawn after the black.
The issue of economic inequality is not just an economic issue; it is also a moral issue. Che saw this when he said that “The only form of communism that I find acceptable is the one that ends the exploitation of man by man”. I see not how anyone could justify one person living in exuberance while hundreds others live in absolute desolation. Communism is the only answer and the rich capitalist are against it because they will lose money. This is because like power, money is a finite resource, for one to get some, somebody else has to lose some. It is sad that they exploit their fellow man for the gain of capital, ever increasing social as well as economic inequality.
I believe that like the feudal system, the capitalistic system will eventually destroy itself. People need to stand up for their rights and say they won’t accept this unfair economic system that sustains a huge gap between the classes. The rich are always weary and waiting for liberators of the lower classes. However, I believe that Che was correct when he said “I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. People liberate themselves.”

Also, note: When I first got introduced to communism I was a big fan of Che and less knowledgeable about actual ideology.

[fabilius]

I like your article. Although I don´t agree with it´s catholic romanticism ;)

[Il Medico]

I like your article. Although I don´t agree with it´s catholic romanticism ;)
Well to be fair, I am Catholic. And as I said, I was a much more religious man when I wrote the above article. But I am glad you liked it. :)