Comment on Personalized Political Spectrum

• Tja@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  For safety, or for power.

  source

  • Riverside@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Terrible analysis based on cold-war líes. The USSR for example saw a massive reduction in the wealth and power of leaders compared to what came after and what existed before:

    Image

    Tell me again how Che Guevara and Rosa Luxembourg were chasing power when they sacrificed their lives for the betterment of others

    source

    • custard_swollower@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Uh, your graph is missing power levels for Lenin and Stalin.

      source

      • webp@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        over 9000

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • RidderSport@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Whatt your graph shows is only a reduction in percentage. The top 10% still amount to around 25% of the wealth - which is wild considering that companies that were privatly owned didn’t exist. So what equity positions are we talking about?

      source

      • Riverside@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        The top 10% still amount to around 25% of the wealth

        Yes, so? Do you expect or wish a society with completely equal distribution of resources? I agree with the fundamental principle of harder working people receiving more than those who contribute less (as long as everyone’s needs are met). The top 10% by the way weren’t mostly politicians, they were highly trained workers like university professors, surgeons, media personalities, high profile artists…

        source