>Speaking of the so-called "social Darwinism" (or the repackaged rat race), it's not even a nice abstraction, because it's simply inaccurate. It neglects the development of social services, safety nets (and all other "bleedin heart librul" or whatever terms were used to disparage these ideas) are a social mechanisms evolved exactly to counterbalance the niceties of the initial accumulation and capitalism as survival of the greediest. Evolved, i.e. part of the same social Darwinism, if you want. They were invented, and have taken root, because they satisfy a social need. Had the need not been there, the invention wouldn't have happened, or would have been an evolutionary dead end.
>
>Of course, with good propaganda you can convince people that they don't need milk, they need Coke, or that redistribution is just when you take from the poor to give to the rich, but unjust when it's in the other direction.

milk, juice, soda, coffee, tea, wine, beer or whisky.... It's all about having choice isn't it?
No one should make you just drink any one beverage or stop you from drinking the beverage of you choice.


>
>OTOH, I have to agree with Marcia in one point - any system that's supposed to catch the thieves and give the loot back to the people usually ends up rewarding the thieves and punishing those who live well because they work a lot (soft or hard, can't say, being biased towards software) and have results that satisfy a need, which brings money. This has happened on both three sides of the rusty curtain, and just shows that no system is immune to corruption. Which does not mean we shouldn't try to do it right - take back from the thieves, and reward the diligent.

Wow
In my little mind ,and in two years that I've been reading your posts, this is the most powerful. But how would you... no, forget it. It gets too complicated.