AN ARGUMENT AGAINST VIOLENT UPRISING

Surely no one these days would contest the notion that the rich are a parasitic and obsolete elite functioning only to drain our society at a crucial turning point in our history.

At previous times the death of the rich and their children would be a foregone conclusion at the hands of a starving angry mob. One can understand the natural impetus for such a course of action, as of a river overflowing its banks and sweeping away all in its path, without agreeing with the moral implications or endorsing violence.

But make no mistake: the rich, who are entrusted with the wealth of the nation, have squandered it. And a balance must be paid, not in cash.

Therefore as a more sensible and civilized alternative to the anger which simmers quietly despite the best efforts of the rich to remove it from the public square -- I have maintained a collection, it's not hard to see the taboo broken if you watch carefully -- let us suggest the following theory of capitalism and its relation to the State.

Capitalism is the application of money-as-energy to the activity of the nation-state. The Baby Boomer generation was engaged in an ideological conflict with a purportedly anti-capitalist polity, and the trauma of this conflict locked them in an ideological death spiral. Unable to conceive of any reform to the functioning of the United States as anything other than Marxism or Communism, they became beholden to ideas of fair markets, fair play, and corporate freedom to such a bizarre and extreme extent that they became unable to recognize the collapse of their society into a mirror of the Communist dictatorships: the elite formed a Party which constituted an oligarchy.

Now oligarchy is not without its benefits. Some amount of centralized decision-making authority is necessary for the State to function.

But for the same reason that the Media is always necessarily an appendage of the State (because the Media must report on what People desire to hear and Americans never met a war they didn't like), Capital is also an extension of the State. When Capital becomes divorced from this essential function, it believes that it controls the country when it has merely been entrusted with decision-making authority over some portion of its resources.

If they make bad decisions their decision-making authority should and must be revoked.

Formally this comes as a seizure of their assets. Anyone with more than 10 million in assets simply shouldn't have it anymore.

The alternative is war upon the rich. Not because we want it, but because it's simply in the nature of the mass human beast. I do not advocate for violence simply by observing its inevitability.

What does the government do with those assets once they've been seized? A variety of redistributive measures may be considered, but I merely ask you to agree to the necessity of the seizure.

Remember, the State doesn't have to be fair. The State must employ the fact of its violence strategically to solve the problems faced by the People who, in a Democratic Republic, constitute its purpose.

YOUR RICHES DO NOT BELONG TO YOU

YOU ARE BUT A MANIFESTATION OF THE NEEDS OF THE STATE

AND IF YOU FAIL TO MEET THOSE NEEDS

YOUR RICHES SHOULD BE STRIPPED FROM YOU.