• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Dubai's Labor Under-Class Riots--at my Dad's construction site!

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
Poverty and Welfare
The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is a growing and parasitic burden on all productive working people, and injures rather than benefits the poor themselves. We propose the elimination of all government involvement in welfare and relief programs. Any aid to the poor should be conducted on a voluntary basis.

I have a strong negative impulse against that theory. First of all, it's just a slogan, with no evidence or logic to support its claims. And it just strikes me as wrong-headed and ill-conceived in principle. That said, I don't know too much about the intellectual or academic rigor behind the theory, so my opposition is...spiritual, emotional.

Hold me?
 
Alex D. from TRIBE on Utility Room

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
because the political/economic inequality characteristic of capitalism is bound to interact with and reflect other social inequalities? *cough*slavery*cough*
right, but reflections of social inequalities will undoubtedly be apparent regardless of what the political/economic system is..

you just made it sound as though capitalism naturally promotes such social inequality, when in fact it merely reflects it.. i'm just nit-picking. ;)
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
docta seuss said:
right, but reflections of social inequalities will undoubtedly be apparent regardless of what the political/economic system is..

you just made it sound as though capitalism naturally promotes such social inequality, when in fact it merely reflects it.. i'm just nit-picking. ;)

I think that the process by which capitalism reflects these inequalities is specifically by worsening them. Not necessarily being the root cause, but acting as an irritant and/or accelerant.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
I think that the process by which capitalism reflects these inequalities is specifically by worsening them. Not necessarily being the root cause, but acting as an irritant and/or accelerant.

wait is accelerant a word? becuase if it is im totally using that at work tomorow.



i was just thinking about htis on college street for dinner, college street is a mix of restuarants and bars, offering many fo the same foods and drinks but have to openly compete with eachothehr. this competition is a delicate interplay of competing interests where people choose one bar over the other but come to college st. in the first place because there are lots of bars and places to go and people around.

the socialistic elements come into play when we speak of a centrally directed body which ensures working conditions for employee's are safe, they are paid reasonable wages, roads and garbage is taken care of and laws allow business to happen but reasonably restrict things like liquor distribution (19+) or last call hours. also allow the state to police the area as opposed ot private contracted gangs enforcing laws designed to benefit the local business interests only.

the peversion of either side comes in the form of mafia controls that strong arm new business from opening or keep them from serving say italian food, or prevent them from serving drinks at a cheaper price than the average, or where a mafia ensures only 1 or 2 bars can become dominant, the most powerful forcing the other places out of business. the healthy competition is perverted into monoplistic power grabs that threaten the entire vibe of the area that featured tons of places to go.

the perversion of socialistic elements come in the form of insistance that all college st. employee's unionize and are paid wages so high that operating a restaurant is possible only by serving cheap food or chargin lots of cash, or simply going out of busienss leaving people with no choice but 1 or 2 places to go that managed to survive.

both are different approaches the same end: monopolies and over concentraitons of power bases in the hands of a few people.

though im oversimplifying the issue, ive always felt agreed with the notion that extreme ends of the political spectrum are essentially the same, and the most desirable approach lies somewhere in the middle, allowing people through democracy to dictace adjustments in policy as society moves forward rather than entrenched methods to planning non?
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Well first of all, we don't live in a democracy.

We live in a system called "representative government", which is specifically undemocratic. Democracy (aka direct-democracy) means that poeple get a say in all matters. You mention that we have power over policy, but we have virutally ZERO influence there. Without a herculean feet of organizational and awareness effort we have no mechanism through which to communicate our "demands" to the government. Except for one election every four years. Which is quite simply a fucking joke. When you look at it that way, it's laughable when people strut around bigging up our "democratic principles" because we don't have them.

No citizen gets to vote on--or even influence the contents of--any legislative proposals. The only people who can are lobbyists, and they can do that because they are very well funded...by rich corporations who see that funding as an investment, that has an expected return. Normal citizens don't have the time or money--and because the majority of people have to work to survive, time is money--or know-how to effectively lobby the government.

In fact there are so many barriers in the way of collective citizen action that you begin to wonder whether those barriers were erected by design. DeafPlayer has lots of good info on this. The system we live in only talks and acts like a democracy. There are so many examples of the government being terrified of citizens coming together--for example when there is a subway party, the police are mobilised! Police are people who have been furnished with a "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence", they cary semi-automatic handguns that are designed exclusively to put holes in peoples' bodies. Why are they called because a bunch of people are having fun on a subway car? Why is it so necessary to disrupt that activity?

That's one example, but it illustrates a telling reflex against the independent free assembly of individuals, which is supposed to be one of our freedom. Incidentally do you know what the diffrence between a freedom and a right is? Rights cannot be taken away, but freedoms are GRANTED and therefore CAN be revoked. They exist because the government allows it. The implicit message is clear.

I've seen several documentaries that give explicit proof that our "consumer culture" was a deliberate invention for the purpose of occupying the masses because of the terrible things that were associated with mob mentality, like revolutions and nazism. If people are concerned about what they're going to buy, what's in season, what can they afford, how can they afford more, then they will become isolated and incapable, socially, of coming together and forming a critical mass that--by definition--has the power to influence the government. This is every state's absolute worst nightmare. At the same time, the consumer construct allows for the creation of a corporate class that enriches itself on the illusion that we can have whatever we want. Credit card companies and banks are one example. Any economics class, no matter how conservative, will teach that paying workers a sallary is merely a measure taken to ensure that the money goes BACK to the corporation, and by so doing, keep them in business and producing. The cycle.

Actually, economists and historians do not debate that after WW2 a conscious decision was made to pay people WAY more money for the purpose of fostering the consumer 'revolution' People could become obsessed with having stuff, and companies could ensure that they would generate wealth for themselves, and the government could ensure that there would be no real backlash for the apocalyptic insanity of WW2, which was a human catastrophe that amounted to nothing more than genocide against every party.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

atbell

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
In fact there are so many barriers in the way of collective citizen action that you begin to wonder whether those barriers were erected by design. DeafPlayer has lots of good info on this. The system we live in only talks and acts like a democracy. There are so many examples of the government being terrified of citizens coming together--for example when there is a subway party, the police are mobilised! Police are people who have been furnished with a "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence", they cary semi-automatic handguns that are designed exclusively to put holes in peoples' bodies. Why are they called because a bunch of people are having fun on a subway car? Why is it so necessary to disrupt that activity?

Despite the fact that I smell a pair of retorical questions, I am going to answer anyway.

Laws make it a requirement of the city police force to stop organized events on city property. Liability is out of control on this continent. By allowing the events to go on the city becomes open to massive law suits. I don't think Canada is quite as bad as the US but the laws around here have been established again and again in the courts. It gets really bad when alcohol is involved.

If you can figure out how to start reversing the trend for individuals prosecuting institutions for trivial claims that look a lot like individual incompetence, then the police force would be a lot less justified in breaking up the parties.
[/quote]


SellyCat said:
That's one example, but it illustrates a telling reflex against the independent free assembly of individuals, which is supposed to be one of our freedom. Incidentally do you know what the diffrence between a freedom and a right is? Rights cannot be taken away, but freedoms are GRANTED and therefore CAN be revoked. They exist because the government allows it. The implicit message is clear.

Good point.

SellyCat said:
IAny economics class, no matter how conservative, will teach that paying workers a sallary is merely a measure taken to ensure that the money goes BACK to the corporation, and by so doing, keep them in business and producing. The cycle.

That sounds like the basis for trickle down economics to me. I prefer to think of the exchange of money for labour as a form of delayed barter.

SellyCat said:
Actually, economists and historians do not debate that after WW2 a conscious decision was made to pay people WAY more money for the purpose of fostering the consumer 'revolution' People could become obsessed with having stuff, and companies could ensure that they would generate wealth for themselves, and the government could ensure that there would be no real backlash for the apocalyptic insanity of WW2, which was a human catastrophe that amounted to nothing more than genocide against every party.

So what would have happened if the backlash had occurred? Are you talking about armed uprisings, revolutions and civil strife? Your post makes the suposed actions of this unknown body sound wrong but I think I would much rather see fucked up soldiers come home and obsess about buying things then lashing out and attacking the people closest to them. War sucks, we should likely avoid it and oppose starting it. In the case of post WWII decisions they were made in light of the fact that the war had already taken place.

Seeing as there are soldiers on "duty" right now, it might not be a bad idea to begin looking into post conflict problems and solutions for the problems.

Did instigating a consumer frenzy "work" after WW2?

Would things have been better or worse if no action was taken?

How was the action taken?

Who decided to make it happen?

What other options for action were there after the War ended?

BTW: Really liked your note on democracy. The illusion of democracy coupled with the illusion of freedom probably do more to suppress dissidents then any police force.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
BTW: Really liked your note on democracy. The illusion of democracy coupled with the illusion of freedom probably do more to suppress dissidents then any police force.

fair points but i think you have to temper your assertions with some perspective.

its like a husband and wife saying they are sooooo unhappy in their marrige because the husband wishes his wife had double d cups instead of single d cups.

of course there are inherent structural flaws in canada's system, or any democratic system for that matter, but their exitence shouldnt be indicative of fatal flaw: a failure of the state or our society as a whole.

no one is perfect, how could a group of imperfect individuals expect to rule with impunity and 100% concensus by its citizenry that every move they make is awesomely perfect? you work with waht you have and hope that despite disagreements policy is equitable and in keeping with peoples rights and freedoms.

of course a freedom can be taken away, if you drive drunk your freedom to drive a car is revoked for a specific period. a reasonable framework has to be devevloped if we are as a society willing to organize ourselves together.

no one has total freedom of course, but pointing this out says nothign to me about the flaws in our system as we in canada probally still ahvemore personal freedom both of where to work, where to live and how to express ourselves than most people in this world. taht stands to measure that we must be at the very least on the path towards something better down the road as opposed to states that are in the process of denying people the right to express themselves at all, or barring them from even leavingt their country non?
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
My point wasn't about Canada in particular. Canada is just a minor member in the club of "Western Doemocracies", none of whom are democratic, and all of whom are undemocratic.

As for the thing about post-WW2, I was NOT trying to say it shouldn't have been done necessarily, merely that it set the stage for the inequalities and worsening prosperity gaps that we've been talking about AND the atomisation of society. Atomisation = the isolation of individuals from one another--the term was invented in the 18th century when the idea of a State was invented. I.e. the state replaced Kings as the non-personal object of absolute loyalty. Incidentally, states are infinitely more power than kings or popes EVER were. They have nearly unlimited power--or the potential thereof--states control every aspect of our daily lives. The things we never think about--actually it seems that our major freedom is that of chosing what to buy, which when thought of that way is quite frightening.

So anyway, the remarks about the state and the manufactured consumer culture are meant to illustrate dangerous precedents that have gone a long way to diminishing our capacity to collectively pressure our government.

Some people--and I fear that Judge Wopner is one of them--are quite concerned with avoiding any criticism of THIS particular country. None of this has anything to do with Canada per se and to focus on how Canada isn't Iraq or Afghanistan is a total waste of time. Who cares if we have it pretty good here--the systems we call democracies are explicity UNdemocratic. I have no interest in either condemning or defending Canada on this universal issue. She is like all the other states that claim to be democracies. Her citizens are some of the freest in the world, but those rights and freedoms come at a price--we don't have ANY say in what the government does. The idea that power and legitimacy-of-authority are granted BY the people exists in theory only. If only 10% of the population voted, they would elect the next government...no government would ever take that as general vote of non-confidence in the STATE itself.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
of course a freedom can be taken away, if you drive drunk your freedom to drive a car is revoked for a specific period. a reasonable framework has to be devevloped if we are as a society willing to organize ourselves together.

Sorry Judge Wopner, but this is assinine. The nature of the freedoms I was obviously referring to were clearly not related to specific cases of justifiable legal intervention against dangerous and stupid criminal behavior.

It's the construct I was referring to--the charter of rights and freedoms and the fundamental distinction between the two. We don't have the freedom or the right to REJECT our government...it's not up for debate--in fact any attempt to do so is one of the worst "crimes" that anyone can commit. Crimes against the State are automatically worse that crimes against individuals. So our state, our government, is something that is completely not up for discussion.

We have no say in that--there was no referendum on our constitution, our laws, the structure of government, the economic system, membership in international organizations, particiaption in military campaigns, and the list goes on--either nationwide or provincially. We never had--and never will have--a chance to register our official say in these matters, simply because that would infringe on the government's overwhelming power. It's not up to us, because the state is mortally afraid that we would say "no" to anything it wants to do.

We never get to say NO to the state--it's neither a right NOR a freedom. The idea that we get to vote for one representative and his party ever four years is a fucking INSULT to us as citizens. We only get to chose who operates the entrenched bureaucratic machinery that--by its very nature--operates according to very rigid and inflexible principles and culture. It's actually a laughable crime against democracy--more people should wake up and realise that it's a scam of the heighest order.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
Some people--and I fear that Judge Wopner is one of them--are quite concerned with avoiding any criticism of THIS particular country. None of this has anything to do with Canada per se and to focus on how Canada isn't Iraq or Afghanistan is a total waste of time. Who cares if we have it pretty good here--the systems we call democracies are explicity UNdemocratic.

ha ha ha! youve never seen my many past posts in other threads being highly critical of canada, just like any other state.

yes youre right my drunk driving example was quite assy!! though there is a massive grey area b/w acts of treason and legitimate saftey oriented denials of freedom, and this grey area is what feeds the need to draft policy and considering differnt approaches non?

i think u are too wrapped up in the theoritical frame work of some anachistic notion that electing officials is "a serious fucking insult" says to me that youre exaggerating or you actually consider our current democratic structure a insult,
my question would be as opposed to what?

its like debating religious issues, one can stew over the texts but teh final conclusion of any religion is its practice by its adhearents. of course in practic its never close to the perfect paper definitiions, and critism at all levels is important,

but critism blindly directed towards one state is that much better when its put in perspective. thats all. i dont think anyone buys the argument that we are a great nation simply because we are not Tajikstan. but i do think critism of canada can be all that more biting and dynamic when put in perspective.

-----------

of course to even live in any sort of social construct be it a state, a community or any sort of group, there will be embedded rules or structures.
do you feel that the majroity of citizens that choose to remain in canada despite our undemocratic nature are simply fools who have bought along with their material goods a pre-packaged soma-like happiness that isnt really happiness at all but a type of material slavery?

legitimate questions, but again one should temper their question to the very nature of one's ability in a given state to ask such things out loud or in public forums. though i think we are arguing at 2 differnt things,

but either way good debate.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

man_slut

TRIBE Member
The lack of accountability in our government tells me that government is not acting in our best interest.

Direct involvement in politics, and economics by the people would alleviate a lot of the class divides typically found in our current system. It would also avoid the class structures that developed from centralized and market socialism.
 

man_slut

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
do you feel that the majroity of citizens that choose to remain in canada despite our undemocratic nature are simply fools who have bought along with their material goods a pre-packaged soma-like happiness that isnt really happiness at all but a type of material slavery?
QUOTE]

I would say for the most part YES. People are slaves to banks in order to mortage thier homes, cars and credit card debt. No one ever thinks about the social, econmic or even enviromental ramifications (externalities) of thier consumerism. The only thing they know to do is become financially well off, get married and have kids. Kids are told to want toys, other kids get ostracized in schools for not having the right clothes or cool toys... this gets fed to us all the way into adulthood.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
man_slut said:
judge wopner said:
do you feel that the majroity of citizens that choose to remain in canada despite our undemocratic nature are simply fools who have bought along with their material goods a pre-packaged soma-like happiness that isnt really happiness at all but a type of material slavery?
QUOTE]

I would say for the most part YES. People are slaves to banks in order to mortage thier homes, cars and credit card debt. No one ever thinks about the social, econmic or even enviromental ramifications (externalities) of thier consumerism. The only thing they know to do is become financially well off, get married and have kids. Kids are told to want toys, other kids get ostracized in schools for not having the right clothes or cool toys... this gets fed to us all the way into adulthood.

fair enough,

what other country would you be better off or much more free from such pointless pusuits?
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
JW, it's not about another country! All developed and developing countries are part of this system. As such they are all the same. The differences between them exist only from a perspective that ignores the fact that they are all of the same. Once you ignore that, then sure, there are lots of differences...among states that are of the same type.

Furthermore, to point out over-arching systemic problems that breed and buttress inequality in the absense of some revolutionary, binary alternative, is NOT invalid. The two halves of that argument are mutually exclusive. I do NOT have to have a binary alternative in mind in order to isolate and condemn the dangerous and destructive thread that runs through--and binds together--all actors in this system.

That being said, I generally have problems with Noam Chomsky for the exact thing you complain about. Namely the endless abuse of the objects of his criticism. There is a difference between Chomsky and I, however, which is that he has infinitely more ability to motivate, encourage and inspire people due to his immense popularity. Chomsky, however, seems to want to avoid influencing peoples' perception of ALTERNATIVES for the same reason that I oppose revolutionary schemes that aim to alter the nature of society. Namely that they require the manufacture of unanimity, which is something he and I hate, in principle.

I'm not contradicting myself, by the way. I reserve the right to point out the common system thread(s) while--for now--abstaining from offering a universally acceptable--and therefore impossible--alternative. In the scope of this discussion, that is perfectly acceptable.

I have said in previous posts that I prefer particularistic domestic and international system reforms instead of scrapping an entire system, parts of which either work very well or can be harnessed to work very well--in the interests of the general population, NOT any elites. Elites by definition do not deserve any kind of special privilege, assistance or recognition. They are already elites, and should be excluded from any further benefits under the pretense that ONLY elites deserve those benefits--which is ridiculous anyway.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
ManSlut said:
I would say for the most part YES. People are slaves to banks in order to mortage thier homes, cars and credit card debt. No one ever thinks about the social, econmic or even enviromental ramifications (externalities) of thier consumerism. The only thing they know to do is become financially well off, get married and have kids. Kids are told to want toys, other kids get ostracized in schools for not having the right clothes or cool toys... this gets fed to us all the way into adulthood.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. To focus on these things as "freedoms", borders on mental illness--literally. Consider all the things we DON'T have a choice in....there are sooo many things that we are conditioned NOT to even notice is out of our hands. For example, choosing to have different socio-political arrangements on a community basis, taxation on a community basis, operating mutual aid societies--I have to study for a test right now, but I'll get back to this list. I was thinking about it the other day.

Another example is the explicit economic barriers that prevent people from having a say. Nobody debates that media forms opinion--well the only people that can use media systems are people with money. The more money you have, the more free-speech you have; the larger your audience, the more influence you have; the more influence you have, the more influence you can continue to accrue via wealth and propagation of opinion...especially considering people absolutely today use the same propaganda techniques that were considered to be so apalling under the Nazis. It is a fact that the Nazi propaganda machine--designed by Joseph Geobells "Minister of Enlightenment"--was based on the American media system, of which Hitler was a huge fan.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
And I'm not using Hitler and Nazis as a rhetorical bomb-shell to equate anybody with the Nazis! I swear.

The point is to illustrate the dangers INHERENT in such a mechanism and system existing in the first place.
 

man_slut

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
man_slut said:
fair enough,

what other country would you be better off or much more free from such pointless pusuits?

That's my point... we are only allowed to follow pointless pursuits. Any attempt to organize the masses to participate in our economic and political system or to make the "system" more accountable to the people is labelled dangerous and not in the interest of a free market economy.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
man_slut said:
That's my point... we are only allowed to follow pointless pursuits. Any attempt to organize the masses to participate in our economic and political system or to make the "system" more accountable to the people is labelled dangerous and not in the interest of a free market economy.

Straight up!
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
man_slut said:
judge wopner said:
That's my point... we are only allowed to follow pointless pursuits. Any attempt to organize the masses to participate in our economic and political system or to make the "system" more accountable to the people is labelled dangerous and not in the interest of a free market economy.

sorry but among your "pointless" pursuits was having children....

and you would have never come to your enlightened conclusion without all that school you went to which was built by peopoepl engaged in the meaningless pursuit of "work" to pay for their homes to house their kids who would one day go to that school to conclude that the very process that got them there was pointless. ....

:p :D
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
man_slut said:
sorry but among your "pointless" pursuits was having children....

and you would have never come to your enlightened conclusion without all that school you went to which was built by peopoepl engaged in the meaningless pursuit of "work" to pay for their homes to house their kids who would one day go to that school to conclude that the very process that got them there was pointless.

I'm glad you mentioned school. You're refering to Public Education.

Public Education--the concept thereof--was invented by the French Revolution. That famous sociopath, Maxamillion Robespierre--apart from having the best name EVER--decided that the government must be the EXCLUSIVE provider of education for the explicit purpose of "managing public opinion". They wanted to make all people within the territorial borders of "France," believe that they are, infact FRENCH, which many certainly were not. Schools were used to indoctrinate the population to all accept a common framework that included the primacy of the state, the subordination of religion to the state, and the subordination of all other concept or persons to the state.

Other examples of the Impersonal State--birthed of the French Revolution--invading the populations' mind include the attempt to impose a national religion of "deism and virtue", impose a whole new calendar, where 1789 = Year 1 of the Republic. The state, therefore was determined to affect the basic perceptions, loyalties and thoughts in general of the population. When they say equality and freedom-of-the-individual and all that, they also said that the MOST VIRTUOUS thing you can do, is to subordinate your individuality to the collective "will" of the "nation"...which of course has no meaning. There is no such thing as a collective will.

After the mid 17th century, Kings in Europe--and especially France--were preoccupied with preventing civil war based on religion. So they allowed people to worship whatever they wanted--within certain limits--while declaring the kingdom's preference. The Religious 30 Years' War had decimated 30% of the European population by then. Kings were not NEARLY as interested in invading the minds of men as the states that replaced them are.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
"By claiming that all power originates from the people, tyrants gained an infinite capacity to enslave them all peacefully."

--SellyCat.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
"By claiming that all power originates from the people, tyrants gained an infinite capacity to enslave them all peacefully."

--SellyCat.

quoting yourself?

thats either all kinds of awesome or just plain ghey.
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
This is an excellent example of how the New York Times--and big-media in general--choose to report half the story. They report on the poor labor conditions, but don't report the BLATANTLY racist salary spectrum that

Don't you understand - RACE DOES NOT EXIST! We cannot talk about something that does not exist! :D
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
janiecakes said:
Who is it?
Milton Friedman
He won the Noble Prize and was very influential inventing "economic" justifications for what rich & powerful ppl want to do to society, in terms of economic policies, and in particular much of what they have successfully done to society since the 70s

He's basically described Chile after the Pinochet coup as politically oppressive, but economically free and open
Thats his (and many others') derranged idea of economic "freedom", of "free (democratic) markets", and an "open economy"... the mere fact that their conceptions of 'free markets' could possibly exist within a police/terror-state says a lot, imo...

Anyway hes good at confusing things in very convenient ways, to justify policies in the real world on the grounds that in some kind of insane fantasy-land they would have really just results. But, just by sheer accident, in the real world, the theories tend to be favoured by the rich and favour them (hence the Nobel Prize)

Like Homer's dream about the Land of Chocolate
mmmmmm.......... chocolate...
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
docta seuss said:
right, but reflections of social inequalities will undoubtedly be apparent regardless of what the political/economic system is..

you just made it sound as though capitalism naturally promotes such social inequality, when in fact it merely reflects it.. i'm just nit-picking. ;)
I made it sound like what I meant, which was exactly that capitalism naturally promotes such social inequality and does not merely reflect it

Social inequalities will undoubtably be reflected by any political/economic system, but there is variation in how different systems treat or "interact with" social inequality
Some systems specifically target social inequality, specifically relations of domination/exploitation/subjugation, and mean to combat them, others pretend they dont exist or cynically accept them and implicitly take advantage of them, making it an issue of being "free to be unequal" as Margret Thatcher stated her ideal.
The very basic premise of capitalism/market liberalism is that people should try to take as much as they can from others and give as little as possible in return <-- this is obviously quite condusive to taking advantage of and amplifying social inequalities
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top