| >> | >>58156
Of course systems are used for human emotion. It isn't the system thats the problem its the people on top. Capitalism, monarchy, democracy, republics and communism all have conquered lesser nations due to these forms of of governance being imposed by a more powerful country. The problem is the people in leadership, as in the bureaucrats, CEOs, kings, queens, Presidents, Supreme Leaders, Cominterns, Party secrataries, Head revolutionaries etc...
Anytime you beat your enemy you want revenge. Anytime one person is the head of any movement they take the lion's share of power. Look at stalin, pol pot and mao and compare that to hitler, franco and Mussolini. Same poverty and oppression of masses different excuse. There is very little difference in the elites across all time. Vilfredo Pareto's equations achieved special prominence, and controversy. He was fascinated by problems of power and wealth. How do people get it? How is it distributed around society? How do those who have it use it? The gulf between rich and poor has always been part of the human condition, but Pareto resolved to measure it. He gathered reams of data on wealth and income through different centuries, through different countries in two different continents: the tax records of Basel, Switzerland, from 1454 and from Augsburg, Germany, in 1471, 1498 and 1512; contemporary rental income from Paris; personal income from Britain, Prussia, Saxony, Ireland, Italy, Peru, ottman empire, the adab caliphates,Tang china, tibet under the buddhist monk rule over 9 centuries ago, the Mamluks of Egypt. What he found – or recorded – was striking. When he plotted the data on graph paper, with income on one axis, and number of people with that income on the other, he saw the same picture nearly everywhere in every era. Society was not a "social pyramid" with the proportion of rich to poor sloping gently from one class to the next. Instead it was more of a "social arrow" – very fat on the bottom where the mass of men live, and very thin at the top where sit the wealthy elite. Nor was this effect by chance; the data did not remotely fit a bell curve, as one would expect if wealth were distributed randomly. "It is a social law", he wrote: something "in the nature of humanity
Human beings are tribalistic and prone to back stabbing, scheming and conflict anon. We can't help ourselves its in our instincts. Logic cannot stop the gaping maw of human emotion. Those popukations you mention are too ruralnor primitive to understand such concepts. If you went to a rural amzonian tribe you would be treated well because they never knew a life of conflict. Once conlfict is known and understood its inevtiable to repeat. Same with african empires. Southern kush dominated norrhern egypt to unite the nile civilizations. Axum conquered most of yemen and souther arabia 1500 yrs ago out of need for more power and glory. Its not a racial issue, its not a religious issue if you realize neighboring countries war the most due to having minute differences in lifestyle. An egyptiana nd kushite basically lived the same lifestyle on the banks of the nile. The romans detested the greeks for their encroaching on latin lands in centralnitaly then called magna gracecia so they fought back and evebtually conquered greece. Neighbors hate eachother not for small differences, humans are hierarchical anon. We want to win no katter what |
