I'm guessing from the ellipsis masquerading as an argument that you're implying that doing something about wealth inequality is dangerous, because of... history, or something.
This isn't totally false. Social change can be uncertain and rocky. If you want to be serious though you've to look at the risks of inaction, namely, allowing the funnelling of resources to the top percentile to continue.
I'm not sure how many people realise how out of hand that funnelling has gotten, or how concentrated at the very very top it's gotten.
As an example I saw recently, here's a graph[0] of French society from 2014 to 2021. Along the x-axis it's the poorest percentiles on the left, richest on the right. Y-axis is the percentage annual increase in revenue.
I think the reality is that inaction is arguably at least as likely to lead to the kind of "..." that you may well be hinting at.
Wow, I didn’t realize people might be so ignorant of history. What I stated in my comment is how Soviet Union got started in 1917. Do I need to explain how that experiment ended?
Assuming that your reading comprehension skills aren't letting you down here, I can only read this as a highly disingenuous comment. I made a serious argument, politely, and you've ignored the entire thrust of it, and instead you pick five words to quote back at me and willfully misinterpret.
You know very well that when I said "because of... history, or something" I was alluding to the fact that you had not in fact specified your historical reference at all. You did not state anything about the Soviet Union in 1917, you alluded vaguely and noncommitally to the redistribution of wealth being bad, maybe - it's unsure because, as I've said, there's no specifics.
If you don't make your point, we can't assume what it is. Or do you think that the Soviet Union in 1917 is the only moment in history where wealth/poperty was redistributed? If so, that would be a display of a pretty serious level of historical ignorance on your part.
In any case, now that you've deigned to share your point with us - the choice isn't one between a. what we have now, unchanged, and b. the Soviet Union in 1917. This false dichotomy is a common favourite of people heavily invested in maintaining the status quo, often people who are monetarily invested.
On the off-chance that you're not one of those types and are simply ignorant of the richness and complexity of human social organisation, I warmly invite you to read some anthropology to discover the myriad of ways human societies function and have functioned throughout history. You could be in for a very eye-opening experience.
The Soviets lifted an unprecedented number of people out of poverty. This was unequalled until China in the following century. They would likely have achieved more and lasted longer without the constant harassment of capitalist countries. (Remember when the US even invaded Soviet soil? Most Americans do not.)
The US and some European powers managed to convince Soviets to switch to an American-style economy, run by oligarchs. Those countries proceeded to loot the Soviet Union for anything they could find. And so we have today.
How would you describe the millions the Soviets lifted to death by starvation and millions used as slave labor, or is that only in the Texas approved history books?
The problem with revolutions is that when the prevailing power structure is turned upside down, it allows the most ruthless people to rise to the top, from where they unleash waves of terror to eliminate opposition, consolidating control in their bid to forge a new power structure.
This is what happened in France, what happened in Russia, and what has happened in many other cases. It is not an ideological phenomenon, has nothing to do with communism, and it happens because a society refuses to reform for so long that the system collapses under its own corruption. We are heading down that same path by refusing to institute moderate reforms while we still have the option to do so.
And of course, the chaos of revolution is not the only way for a vicious tyrant to gain power and institute a reign of terror...
The mass starvation was linked to communist policies of state planning and collectivization. In reality the lower classes were mass starved in order to bring some utopia that never came.
This was not only driven by vicious men, this was there from the very start, this was inherent in the revolution and its ideology, and mainly caused by real shortages stemming from economic issues
You can see it with Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and i'm probably only missing more examples due to ignorance. You have an economic system which is "scientific", but is actually just a mass experiment resulting in deaths of millions. And an ideology that is so sure of itself as it is "proven" it never stops or self-questions
I think this is a reasonable description of what happened, and a real danger. Dogmatically gettng stuck on one set of economic and social possibilities just because they fit into the grand benevolent -ism is the issue is always fraught.
It goes both ways, of course.
When people say: "Oh, we can't do socialism, or anything that looks or feels even a tiny bit like socialism, because look what happened with Lenin et al!", I think they are ironically engaging in the very essence of what lead to these attempted revolutions going so poorly.
Social and economic rigidity and dogmatism is the issue.
Socialism has some good ideas, and can be hellishly bad. Capitalism has some good ideas, and can be hellishly bad. Same for anarchism, veganism, hedonism, and so on. This isn't to say that all ideologies are equal, but that dogmatism is generally very dangerous.
That's largely an american thing, most of europe is social democrat without resorting to killing millions.
However, defending the revolutions that resulted in catastrophe and complete failure is in my opinion dangerous. We don't need another trial at an extreme ideology that knows everything to guess the end result
Any good suggestions for trustworthy and non-propagandistic books that go into this?
I've only read one excellent (French, translated) collection of the writing of Alexandra Kollontai, and otherwise nothing much of length on the topic. Kollontai was already enough to suspect that the usual simplistic narrative as whispered by our interlocuteur here might not be the whole story whatsoever.
Don't even need to 'distribute' the wealth[1]. Just burn it. It's the inequality itself that causes problems--out-of-touch billionaires having the power to make the rest of us do their bidding, whether it makes any dang sense or not--not the lack of giant wads of dollar bills in everybody's pockets.
[1] If by 'wealth' we mean numbers in computers. Actual wealth, like healthy land and clean water and manufacturing capacity should be shared by everyone, but currently money is what controls it.
Oh wait…