Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Wealth Distribution under Capitalism by Party9999999 Wealth Distribution under Capitalism by Party9999999
Thank you rich kids of instargram for you contribution to the class struggle.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcthulhufhtagn1987:
cthulhufhtagn1987 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2017
Well, what system collapsed?
Reply
:iconwesleylayden:
WesleyLayden Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2017
It's better than starving 24/7.
Reply
:icontailsmo4ever:
tailsmo4ever Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2017  Hobbyist Writer
Ummm....I think you got it the other way around....
Reply
:iconzackaube:
zackaube Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2017
This is absolute nonsense.

You're deliberately switching the two around.
Unless you're claiming that wealthy people are wealthy as a direct result of theft. Which is asinine.
Reply
:iconptwolv022:
ptwolv022 Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2017
He's saying that, ideally, socialism is about everyone working. Workers are given the benefits they deserve for being the backbone of the state and economy. Meanwhile, capitalism has the lucky few ride off the work of others. Some people get super rich because they were born into moderate to large wealth. Some people make money by screwing over others. In the end, many of the wealthiest in the world don't have to do hardly anything as they make tons of money off of the workers or their corporations. Or off of what is nearly slave labor (sometimes done by children) in under-developped countries. Every job has a worth, but certain jobs make far more than they are really worth and, by a result, others make far less than they should. Steve Jobs didn't work so much harder than the rest of the world in order to become uber-rich. He screwed over people, or just manuevered into a position with leverage in order to keep up his position at the top.
Whether you think Socialism is about taking money from the hard working to give to the lazy, or if it's about the government providing for the workers of the nation, Capitalism still produces people whose wealth and power were built on the backs of others.
Reply
:iconspikedpsycho:
spikedpsycho Featured By Owner May 8, 2017
Socialism can only survive with a mass of pessimistic greedy people.
Reply
:iconvladiverse:
Vladiverse Featured By Owner Edited Apr 11, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
But that's how most of the socialist countries work, those who work are higly taxed and those who don't work get the taxpayers money.

Socialist have a flawed way of thinking, it's not working people who are most important, but consumers. Becouse workers are just a part of society, but everyone is a consumer, which is why free market capitalism works so good.
Reply
:iconparty9999999:
Party9999999 Featured By Owner May 4, 2017
No, that's not how it worked, indeed a few socialist country when so far as end taxation.
Reply
:iconvladiverse:
Vladiverse Featured By Owner May 4, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
If You really are Marxist then You are for the wealth distribution which means everybody works, gives all fruits of Their labor, and someone splits Them in the way everybody have equal amount. For someone who have at least a slightest idea about the economy that's 100% tax for everyone and living on what state gives. You can't have a state without taxes.
Reply
:iconthatgrumpywriter:
ThatGrumpyWriter Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2017  Hobbyist Writer
I'm pretty sure part of socialism is taking away your hard earned wealth and redistributing it, no?
Reply
:iconstarsatyr:
starsatyr Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2018
No. Socialism is where workers own the means of production, and split the profits among themselves; sole-proprietor operations would only exist for activities that one person could do alone (maybe in conjunction with specialists in other fields like law and accounting). Billionaires would not exist because the rentier class (who get all their income from "rents", i.e. stock dividends, rents from renting out property - in short, any income NOT derived from labor) would not be allowed to exist, or would have their power over the economy curtailed.
Reply
:iconthatgrumpywriter:
ThatGrumpyWriter Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
Ah, so how many gulags would that take to achieve, approximately?
Reply
:iconstarsatyr:
starsatyr Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2018
(snark)The existing jails would work well enough for the Trumpanzees and their handful of die-hard brain-dead supporters.(end snark)

If we wind up with the kind of economic collapse caused by supply-side economics in 1929 and 2008, we could well see workers taking matters - and the factories - into their own hands. Too many "wealthy" people have the kind of paper wealth that proved ephemeral when the Stock Casino Market crashed in 1929. With the dismantling of much of the New Deal by the oligarch-owned politicians, we're on the brink of another such collapse - especially with the Orange Moron making noises about slapping huge tariffs on steel and aluminum. That will prove as disastrously stupid as the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. (BTW, neither man won reelection in 1932.) We can only hope intelligent people have had enough.
Reply
:iconthatgrumpywriter:
ThatGrumpyWriter Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
The New Deal was largely ineffective at ending the Depression. WWII ended it. Not to mention that your proletarian revolution has been predicted time and again, and each attempt has resulted in millions of innocent deaths from famine, imprisonment, and genocide at the hands of the "people's government". Socialism of the kind that isn't a Utopian wet dream, that is, REAL Socialism, is only possible in a largely Capitalist world by subsisting on self-sufficiency. Autarky of this kind causes only two things: famine and war. Self-sufficency is only possible through tariffs. Tariffs cripple trade, capital flow, wages, and economic development.

And since it seems that "intelligent" people are increasingly blind of practical knowledge, this nonsensical delusion that one can have a cake and eat it too with tariffs and Etatism is only going to increase.
Reply
:iconstarsatyr:
starsatyr Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2018
The New Deal worked far better than doing things the way the oligarchs wanted. BTW, both the New Deal and WWII involved government spending; hacks like Amity Schlaes insist that there's a difference between the two.

It isn't the economic system, it's the authoritarianism. Many theorists wanted - and still want - a violence-free transition to a Socialism featuring worker-owned industries, genuine family farms*, etc. - and there's NO reason it can't happen. If there is violence, the lion's share will come from the oligarchs through their mercenaries. Though how many will still be able to afford mercenaries if we have another 1929 Crash is anyone's guess, as the majority of great wealth, then and now, is based on manipulating paper, and will evaporate in another Stock Casino Market meltdown.

America was at its most prosperous when taxes on the rich approached 90%, tariffs were reasonably high, and Unions were at their strongest. 

*Small, individually owned farms, not corporate food factories. An important study of the impact of small vs. large farms, the Arvin-Dinuba study (named after the two towns being studied) reveals that life in Dinuba, the town surrounded by the small farms, was far superior to life in Arvin, the town surrounded by large factory farms, by every measure the study's lead researcher could devise. Google it for yourself.
Reply
:iconthatgrumpywriter:
ThatGrumpyWriter Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
WWII ended the Great Depression because the global market was reignited, not because of simple "Government Spending". The real truth is, one has to wonder how applicable the examples of the world stage between 1914-1945 really are, considering the incredible size of the Great War, the subsequent economic boom of the '20s, and its equally enormous collapse in the '30s. But I digress. And don't forget your precious FDR is the only president to serve four terms! Considering also the massive expansions of Executive power (including an attempt at rigging the Supreme Court in his favor), the exorbitant increases in State interference in the market (price fixing and all that), and the forced imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, he came awful close to that dictatorship you see so much in the current President.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internme…

There is a very big reason that a peaceful transition can never happen, which is that a business helmed by a single leader operates better than one controlled by a council, or by democratic vote. Even if somehow these Capitalists were to slowly hand over their businesses over time, the Syndicated (for lack of a better term) businesses would eventually collapse under the weight of their own bureaucracy. New businesses would rise to meet the demand, and the cycle continues. In order for a successful transition, either a violent revolution would be required or the interference of the State. Either way, coercion is required.

And could you substantiate your claim? Or are you trying to lead me into some sort of trap? First, what do you define as prosperity? Is it absolute economic wealth per capita, total economic wealth, GDP growth, individual freedom, wealth inequality, standard of living, or some other measure? Personally, I think it's too difficult to easily point to a specific place in time as being the most "prosperous". After all, in terms of economic optimism the first thing I think of is the 1950s, however Jim Crow laws, nuclear annihilation, and tariffs don't make a good case in that direction. Perhaps the modern day? Maybe, except for the inchworm rotting of individual rights, market instability caused by the Fed's policy of throwing money at everything, increasing Federalization of State power, the destruction of privacy and trust in the State, and the rise of political radicalism into the mainstream dialogue (hello!).
Reply
:iconstarsatyr:
starsatyr Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2018
No. The New Deal was working (and would have worked faster, as it did in Sweden) if FDR hadn't gotten jittery about the deficit and cut back on the stimulus. The core problem with Hoover's approach, the same approach favored by Libertarian pro-business economists and politicians, is its basis in supply-side economics; the New Deal, and LBJ's Great Society, were based on demand-side economics, which put the emphasis on enhancing the buying power of workers' paychecks instead of enhancing the profits of already-wealthy business owners. Adopting supply-side in the 1980s is where we and our economy went off the rails. On the point about FDR's expanding powers, the only people who felt he was becoming a dictator were the super-rich who wanted to maintain, even expand the power of the "Financier Nobility" and their power over the workers - or perhaps "serfs" would describe them better.

If the Kochs, Mercers, Scaifes and their ilk get everything they want, we'll see "Stock Market Crash of 1929 - Part II" for certain. If, as in 1929, their great wealth (especially that of the hedge fund managers and stock speculators) remains based on manipulating paper, they will become among the poorest Americans after another crash. If enough voters clearly see the truth that right-wingers know NOTHING about running an economy, we WILL see a peaceful transition to a more just society.

How do I define the kind of prosperity that will endure, not flash and fade in cycles of boom-and-bust? I define it as a mix of 1950s good wages and strong unions, 1960s social consciousness (and I think a little more Hippie wouldn't hurt!), and anti-bigotry social justice. A good place to start might be called, "DE-Wal-Mart-ing the economy" with stronger antitrust protections to prevent small businesses and worker-owned cooperatives from being out-competed by megacorps.
Reply
:iconmarcioo9:
marcioo9 Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Hobbyist Artist
heh what a irony
Reply
:iconlostcameltoes:
lostcameltoes Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2016  Student General Artist
I think all government is corrupt some way.
Reply
:icondandybandi:
DandyBandi Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
very true
Reply
:iconoddgarfield:
OddGarfield Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2016  Student
No, I'm thinking about Socialism sense Socialism would not exist without the taxes of the working class paying its existence through whole those on those social programs get free crap.
Reply
:iconstarsatyr:
starsatyr Featured By Owner Edited Mar 8, 2018
The REAL freeloaders are the 1%er oligarchs whose income is entirely from rents* and dividends, who never do a lick of real work (wage labor) in their lives. Tax the shazzbats out of their ill-gotten gains, society would have all the money it needs for workers.

If Artificial Intelligence gets going the way some experts predict, the majority of working-class people won't be able to earn a living anyway.

*Hence the term 'rentiers'.
Reply
:iconstarsatyr:
starsatyr Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2018
For those who want to rescue capitalism, here's all we really need:

1. Get tax rates back to their levels in the 1940s and '50s.
2. Re-outlaw stock buybacks.
3. Tie deductions for businesses and corporations to wages; eliminate most or all other deductions.
4. Outlaw the use of offshore tax havens.
    And above all:
5. Restore the laws and regulations of the New Deal!
Reply
:icongrisador:
grisador Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2015
True
Reply
:iconredflag450:
RedFlag450 Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2015
But that's not tru capitalism! That's muh evil corpatism!
Reply
:iconmxm777:
mxm777 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
right
Reply
:iconhk-0391:
HK-0391 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015   Digital Artist
Everyone reading this comment, get up, go and get some popcorn, and scroll down to watch the shit-storm unfold.
Reply
:iconlostcameltoes:
lostcameltoes Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2016  Student General Artist
Same omg XD
Reply
:iconhk-0391:
HK-0391 Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2015   Digital Artist
Thank you, past me! I needed a pick-me-up today.
Reply
:iconhk-0391:
HK-0391 Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2015   Digital Artist
No problem, future me!
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2015
Communist elite stole money from working class and lives in luxury, remember Nicolae Ceaușescu?
Reply
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2014
shoot is the guy in the bottom center going to drink all that?
Reply
:iconparty9999999:
Party9999999 Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2014
Swim in it more like.
Reply
:icondigiquilldraws:
DigiquillDraws Featured By Owner Sep 10, 2014  Hobbyist
Someone earned that money. If not them then their fathers, or their grand fathers. Point is somewhere down the line someone worked their ass of to become rich. THATS Capitalism. Those with vision and drive end up at the top. Those that simply want to clock in and clock out everyday don't.
Reply
:iconcochegara:
Cochegara Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2014
Most of rich bastards of XIX century just stolen money from state budget.
Most of rich bastards of XXI century just recieved same money in form of subsidies.
Reply
:icondigiquilldraws:
DigiquillDraws Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2014  Hobbyist
They received those because they built successful companies that our economy needs in order to function.
Reply
:iconmoxc:
MOxC Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
A successful company that is integral to the economy should not need subsidies or bailouts. 
Reply
:iconcochegara:
Cochegara Featured By Owner Oct 3, 2014
And they are still repeat this "we are hardworkers" bullshit.
This cowards just can't face the truth.
Reply
:icondigiquilldraws:
DigiquillDraws Featured By Owner Oct 3, 2014  Hobbyist
You have no idea how economy s work do you? 
Reply
:iconcochegara:
Cochegara Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2014
It works like this: we produce, you consume.
Reply
:icondigiquilldraws:
DigiquillDraws Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2014  Hobbyist
I produce as well the rise I would have no money with which to consume.
Reply
:icondigiquilldraws:
DigiquillDraws Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2014  Hobbyist
I produce as well though. Otherwise j would have no money with which to consume. 
Reply
:iconcochegara:
Cochegara Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2014
White-collar? Produces?
:D
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjarreltheluckyone:
Jarreltheluckyone Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2014
"I don't like socialists (politicians of socialist party?) Because they are not socialists." C. Degaulle.
Reply
:iconludoms:
ludoms Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2014
"capitalism is the exploitation of men by men, syndicalism is the inverse" M.Colucci (AKA Coluche)
Reply
:iconjarreltheluckyone:
Jarreltheluckyone Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2014
He was so right! pffff! If he see the world of today.... :-/
Reply
:iconborchenstein:
Borchenstein Featured By Owner May 25, 2014
very true
Reply
:iconopinionsprofile:
OpinionsProfile Featured By Owner May 13, 2014
That's pretty much exactly what it is.
Reply
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner May 12, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
The free market is about free trade and the creation of wealth. Socialism always fails after they run out of other people's money to steal.
Reply
:iconmclj10:
mclj10 Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2015
Capitalism always fails when it runs out of other peoples' money.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
September 27, 2013
Image Size
928 KB
Resolution
744×990
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
12,651 (1 today)
Favourites
173 (who?)
Comments
129
Downloads
50
×