Actually, you can become a millionaire (even get up in the tens of millions range or higher, conceivably) simply by winning the lottery, or writing a popular book, or being a popular actor. Its unlikely, but possible. Its hard to see how any of those (or other examples I could give) are inherently exploitative means of acquiring wealth. You can also inherit wealth, in which case, someone else might have got it through corrupt means, but you didn't. You just got lucky.
Abolish the class, yes. You can do that through legislation, heavy taxation, and stronger enforcement of tax law, plus increased government oversight (or state ownership) of key industries and services. It does not require literally exterminating everyone who is a part of the class.
But since you're dodging around the question (while making your sickening intent pretty clear), let me ask you again, directly: Do you support the murder of children on the bases of their belonging to the upper class, yes or no?
Jub wrote: ↑
Call me when this is the majority opinion shared by the Democratic party and when they actually make a real push to implement it.
That will obviously depend on the outcome of the election. Which will depend in part on whether progressives engage with the Democratic Party, or decide that its not pure or radical enough and jump ship.
Too little. Too late.
Anything at this point would be too little too late. There is no way to completely avoid a climate disaster.
You do the best you can.
Literally a useless gesture in the face of companies that can raise prices to match any wage increase.
Not useless, but not a permanent solution.
I believe minimum wages should be legislated to automatically rise to keep pace with inflation.
Canada should do more but at least we're among the nations who've runner proper pilot studies assessing its feasibility.
I think the US is where we were five years ago on this. Its coming.
Would you rather wait 100 years to get something done bloodlessly or 10 years with bloodshed on the scale of the French Revolution? Can you even argue that one method is less bloody than the other given the death wealth inequality causes?
I take the view that the "short victorious war" is among the most common and dangerous fallacies in history.
Look at the French Revolution. It was closer to a hundred years of revolutions, counter revolutions, and various authoritarian regimes, and it finally settled into a Republic that was far less radical than what many of the revolutionaries had once sought to achieve. Is that really the model that you want to follow?
Or Russia, which saw a communist revolution, followed by a grinding civil war, various purges, Stalinism, tens of millions dead, various gradual reformations, an attempt at democratization that turned into Kleptocracy, and is now currently enjoying a sort of Neo-Fascism under Putin which is actively supporting other fascist movements around the world that are inhibiting and reversing any of the attempts at reform you want.
Also, keep in mind that if you can't get enough citizens to support something to change it democratically, you're unlikely to get enough behind more radical actions like armed revolt to actually win said revolt. A few angry hardline socialists aren't going to defeat the US military, and they won't win over the support to do it if they're the ones seen as initiating violence. I hope to God we don't ever end up in a civil war again, but if we do, I pray that at least its the other side that's stupid enough to start it. Because that's the only way they don't wipe the floor with us.