Home | About | Donate

New Rules Needed to Vanquish Legacy of Inequality and Growing Wealth Gap


New Rules Needed to Vanquish Legacy of Inequality and Growing Wealth Gap

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer


Make all the rules you'd like but all roads lead to Socialism.
Capitalism has the seeds of its own destruction built in.
It can be propped up, regulated, manipulated and twisted every which way but loose.
But in the end it will devour itself.
And we're 98% there already.

First comes the hunter-gatherer.
Then the pseudo-slave and Feudalism.
Then Capitalism.
Followed by Socialism.
And eventually evolution into Communism.

It's inevitable having been written in the stars eons ago.


We need a group that works on the Philosophy of Life (Real Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness). But there is no such groups. hence the issues. It is like BAD Governance...Who can help?


Once corporations and government are fully merged and a dash of religion is added for good measure you have Fascism.
Or at least that's what the Catholic Church decided before it handed this bastardized economic and political system to Mussolini..


We need philosopher kings, but all we get is neoliberal globalists.
What a gyp.


nothing is inevitable, and to think so invites complacency as you cede agency to a historical determinism that doesn't exist. There are far too many historical examples of long-term retrograde shifts to argue otherwise.

If we want socialism, we'll have to fight for it. Most likely literally.

I believe strongly in trajectories. But even the straightest of arrows is subject to being buffeted by an unexpected wind.


Things can be slowed or they can be sped up, but in the end the result is always a foregone conclusion.
Things are born, slowly age and then die.


Under the human condition of Communism is the state necessary?


If inequality is the disease and democracy the cure, we have been coming at the problem all wrong.

Our oligarch forefathers established their dictatorship and deceitfully called it "representative democracy" knowing representatives would, through bribes and threats, be under their control.

If its not direct, its not democracy.

To cure inequality, all barriers to direct democracy by voter initiatives and referendums must be removed.


Hey Deidre, you really should be a bit more careful with your figures. Many of us here at CD may well be in the top 20% depending on what is chosen as the criteria. You don't say if that's income based, or accumulated net worth or intelligence!

Yes, the tax law needs to be changed, but don't throw those working to foment that change under the bus to make your point.

One final observation to lay on you: how on earth do people of color really believe Hillary will fix this disparity? Her husband and she worked to create it in the first place! Careful you aren't hitting your head against the wall because it feels good when you stop. Bernie would have worked to fix the root cause of the disparity, while HRC will only work to change the appearance of the rate of the disparity. She benefits from the disparity, you know. And she was never arrested fighting for the rights of folks of color like that other guy that was snubbed, apparently by people of color.


No, we already had that, with the New Deal/Great Society. By the 1970s, extreme inequality had dramatically shrunk. These programs played the central role in creating an era of tremendous productivity and upward class mobility, resulting in the biggest middle class in US history. Far from perfect, still a work in progress, but much better. Unfortunately, that same middle class changed their minds. They demanded that the policies be reversed, the programs ended. During the 1980s, the middle class agreed that tax cuts and handouts to corporations would be used to create a mass of "good, family-supporting jobs," thereby ending US poverty, and we've lived (struggled) with our laissez-faire capitalism ever since.

Americans today DO want inequality. They hope to shrink the gap between middle class and rich, and widen the canyon between the poor and middle class. Liberals have spent the years of yet another administration celebrating inequality, standing in solidarity with the middle class (consumers and campaign donors), simply disappear the masses of poor.

Wealth gap? Much of the country doesn't have time for such bourgeois fluff. We're coping with America's poverty crisis in an era of disappearing collective resources.


They don't. Like middle class white people, they deal with economic/class inequality by simply disappearing the consequences (poverty crisis). We all pretend that our deregulated capitalism is so successful that everyone is able to work, there are jobs for all, and therefore poverty is merely a perverse sort of "lifestyle choice."

Of course, the great majority of US poor are white, and live in those vast spaces between the cities. If we think of the poor at all, we call poor people of color "disadvantaged," and poor white people "white trash."


Communism initially embraced socialism, and later developed a corrupted form of socialism. The same is true of capitalism, which (as currently seen in the US) does provide socialist advantages, but only to the middle class and rich.

On your inevitability theory, a list of nations have actually implemented something close to democratic socialism, and it has been working far, far better than what we have. In the US, even today's liberals reject democratic socialism, which does include a legitimate welfare system. All the data prove that legitimate welfare works, and even Bill Clinton noted that ending our former welfare programs would actually take a heavy toll on the economy/nation. When making comparisons, we oddly note only the communist or capitalist nations, overlooking the many more successful nations that have a legitimate blend.


Who, pray tell, is going to write and enforce said rules...? You got it, the paid players. This article spells what is needed, but falls far short of naming who and saying how it is going to happen. More verbiage. Stirring the pot.


Will you please consult a text on political science so that you will understand what fascism is. In a fascist government, there is one strong man (or woman in the future) who controls what happens in the society. Germany was a democratic republic when Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg. Once Hitler was Chancellor, he convinced enough conservatives in the Reichstag to join with the Nazis (a minority party) to form a majority coalition and pass an Enabling Act giving Adolph absolute power. The democratic Weimar Republic became a fascist dictatorship by a vote of democratically-elected members of the Reichstag.

The German industrialists (the wealthy in Germany had all the power, just like the wealthy in the US) were deathly afraid of a Marxist revolution and wanted Hitler in power because he was a rabid anti-communist. So, the industrialists convinced President Hindenburg to hold his nose and appoint Hitler Chancellor (that is how things worked in the Weimar Republic). Hindenburg hated Hitler because Hitler was a lowly corporal and Hindenburg was a field marshal. Hitler was not even German; he was Austrian.

By no stretch of the imagination is the US a fascist nation because there is no single strong man controlling the country as Hitler controlled Germany after the Enabling Act was passed.

Wealth inequality resulted from one thing: supply-side economics (cut taxes on the wealthy and something will trickle down to the rest of us). In 1980, the 1% controlled 25% of the wealth in the country. Reagan was elected and we got supply-side economics. This resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% because the 1% now controls 50% of the wealth in the country. Or, as that capitalist Warren Buffett said: "It's class warfare and my class is winning."


The exact same sentiments are expressed in the opening pages of the Communist Manifesto, which had the right idea but failed to take into account the sleeve nature of the greedy few who will use any system to their own ends.


You really don't understand capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is predicated on humans acting out of rational self-interest and the invisible hand of the market producing the best outcomes. Capitalism is predicated on selfishness (to be selfish is to act in your own self-interest), or as Ayn Rand said: "selfishness is a virtue" and as Gordon Gekko (the movie "Wall Street") said: "greed is good."

Socialism rejects market economics and opts for government planning. When Congress passed TARP, the government took part ownership of the big Wall Street banks. This was socialism, but it was socialism for the rich. There is no private ownership of the means of production under socialism. Under capitalism, corporations are motivated to maximize shareholder value, while under socialism, there are no shareholders because the people own the means of production.

The socialist Eugene Debs thought the overthrow of capitalism could come via the ballot box (he ran for president a number of times). Marxists reject the ballot box and believe the overthrow of capitalism can only happen via a violent revolution.


Marx was nuts because he thought class solidarity was greater than ethnic solidarity, He actually thought that workers of the world would unite because they had nothing to lose but their chains. But in WWI, German workers had solidarity with their fellow German capitalists. They killed French workers, and vice versa.


Please read the history of Nazi Germany. Hitler did not take over Germany. Hitler ran for president in 1932 and lost the election. But the German industrialists wanted Hitler in power because Hitler was a rabid anti-communist. They ignored his lunatic anti-Semitism and his wanting to make Germany great again by establishing the Third Reich. Does this sound familiar? The Donald is a lunatic xenophobe who wants to make America great again.

The German industrialists told President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor (the head of government). In the Weimar Republic the president was a figure head. His only real power was to appoint the Chancellor. Once Hitler was Chancellor he convinced enough conservatives to join with the Nazis (a minority in the Reichstag) to form a majority coalition (in democracy, the will of the majority prevails) to pass an Enabling Act making Hitler a fascist dictator.

A dictator has absolute power. They don't need thugs because when they say jump, the people must say: "how high and when can we come down." The difference between a dictator and an absolute monarch is that monarchs rule by divine right of kings, while dictators have to gain power without the help of God.


There is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

If p, then q; q; therefore, p.

If Clinton and Trump are the public faces of thug organizations that do the dirty work for capitalists, then the US is a fascist state.
The US is a fascist state.
Therefore, Clinton and Trump are the public faces of thug organizations that do the dirty work for capitalists.

I guess your knowledge of logic is as bad as your knowledge of history.