You don't "need" rich people, but they are an inevitable consequence of the ideas Western civilization is built on. We generally believe that someone is entitled to keep what they have earned and do what they wish with it (property rights). So, let's say you burn down society and start over with everyone working at subsistence level. The first generation, everyone will be basically equal. By the end of the generation, some will have done better than others (through luck, or through hard work and intelligence). They will want to pass it on to their children. Now in the next generation, some people will be starting at an advantage. Some of those will take it easy, but some will use their leg up to get even further ahead. The ones who get even further ahead will want to pass that on to their children, and so on.
Repeat this cycle enough times and you will wind up with rich people and poor people, even if you started with a perfectly level playing field. It's an inescapable outcome. Some people will always do better than others, even starting from nothing, and as that advantage accretes through generations it will mean you wind up with the haves and have-nots. The only way to prevent it is to enforce limits on what people can do with the fruits of their labor - and that is something most are not willing to do. People believe in property rights and aren't generally willing to violate them. So, you will inevitably have rich people in society.
> We generally believe that someone is entitled to keep what they have earned and do what they wish with it (property rights).
This isn’t the law of the land because “we believe it” but because the burgeoisie made it so. But that’s a side note.
> So, let's say you burn down society and start over with everyone working at subsistence level.
Hypothetical/alternative history is not interesting. You can look at the enclosure of the commons in England. The commons that the subsistence farmers used was outright stolen.
Yes, and then there’s the subsistence level. Serfs and landless famers have been exploited for millenia not because their peers had worked harder and in turn had more grain stored... but because they were landless and/or oppressed by the weaponized lordship.
By the way, do you honestly think that someone will be enlightened by explaining how inheritance works? Maybe you’re just of an exceptionally patient explainer.
> Repeat this cycle enough times and you will wind up with rich people and poor people, even if you started with a perfectly level playing field. It's an inescapable outcome. Some people will always do better than others, even starting from nothing, and as that advantage accretes through generations it will mean you wind up with the haves and have-nots.
What this narrative seems to imply is the most direct and obvious inequality, namely some people having bigger houses, more swimming pools, and more cars than others.
This is totally uninteresting. Does someone want to work 30% harder than the median over five years so that they get to install a swimming pool? Whatever, I don’t care.[1]
There’s something about money though. You can use it for more stuff than buying cooler cars. You can use it as capital, i.e. to invest in means of production. Then you can buy all of the means of production. Or you can employ imperialism via the state (that you effectively own because you have money) in order to seize the means of production (or access to raw goods) in some second/third world country that wanted to naively own their own stuff. (Property rights?) Lots of things you can do with money.
Then eventually all the small proprietors (small business owners that we like to put on a pedestal for propaganda purposes) have been outcompeted. The farmers have been driven off the former common land (see enclosure of the commons).
All you can do to survive is to sell your labor as a commodity. So about fruits of their labor:
> The only way to prevent it is to enforce limits on what people can do with the fruits of their labor - and that is something most are not willing to do.
A small business owner that works alongside their employees is producing part of the “fruits of their labor”. A capitalist that employs a thousand workers including the managers is not part of producing the “fruits of their labor”. See how farcical that is? The fruits of their labor has got nothing to do with labor. Only about sitting on capital.
Meanwhile the laborer does not get the fruits of their labor. In fact it has got nothing to do with how many fruits he bears. Only about what the market is willing to pay for the labor commodity. As well as collective bargaining if that is even in the picture. (Guess who is actively working against that.)
Yeah I’m all about people getting to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In actuality.
The reformist approach of things like taxation does take away people’s swimming pool expansion funds. It does. Which is an inherent side effect to how completely fungible money is; it can buy a swimming pool or capital or be put to someone’s CIA informant/collaborator stipend all the same.
[1] I asked what social function rich people serve. Owning a swimming pool is fine even though it serves to social purpose. Just like a lot of other things that are fine but serve no social purpose.
Repeat this cycle enough times and you will wind up with rich people and poor people, even if you started with a perfectly level playing field. It's an inescapable outcome. Some people will always do better than others, even starting from nothing, and as that advantage accretes through generations it will mean you wind up with the haves and have-nots. The only way to prevent it is to enforce limits on what people can do with the fruits of their labor - and that is something most are not willing to do. People believe in property rights and aren't generally willing to violate them. So, you will inevitably have rich people in society.