I don't know what reasonably substantiating such a claim would look like to you, but yeah, there's something to it.

Think of it as game theory; or think of it like simple mob dynamics. Play Wolf or Mafia, and get an idea of how powerful information asymmetry can be.

Look down stream at where our cobalt, our lithium, our chocolate comes from; what we've done to Africa and South America and indigenous people everywhere; look what Epstein did, and who with, and how media covered it; look at the history of colonialism; look at how people who spoke out against Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/US torture/drone assinations/Israeli occupation and atrocities were and are being treated by the political and media class. Look at how climate protesters are smeared while polluters are green-washed; not sometimes, but as a matter of course. There's not many ways to explain all the above without the original claim as a large factor.

I'd recommend Chomsky, Naomi Klein, John Perkins, Sarah Kendzior and Whitney Webb if you want to learn more.

▲

dustingetz 7 months ago | parent [-]

i’m with you, i’ve read some chomsky, but you are speaking in absolutes. It seems historically true that most, even all wealth has come from amoral means (especially relative to today’s values) but is it absolutely true, and absolutely true today, and in the future? What if means are relative to societal values in that time? For example, I eat chicken, though I feel like I ought not to, and in 100 years I’d be surprised if that is still acceptable to do.

▲

mandmandam 7 months ago | parent [-]

> you are speaking in absolutes.

No I'm not. I said "there's something to it". I'm not OP, and I think OP could be understood to be speaking as "in the vast vast majority of cases" rather than an unbreakable now-and-forever rule. It's wise to interpret people in the most charitable reasonable light, generally.

> but is it absolutely true, and absolutely true today

If it's true in 99% of cases, or 100%, the difference is pretty small. Seems odd to focus on.

And we weren't discussing whether or not this would be true in a hundred years, but what the situation is now and historically. Certainly there is a potential for radical change; I would even call it necessary.

▲

dustingetz 7 months ago | parent [-]

> But there is a level of wealth and position where you ABSOLUTELY MUST participate in the most evil parts of society to stay where you are.

(emphasis added)

I’m a founder of a venture backed seed stage startup, as a missionary not mercenary founder i do not seek extraordinary wealth but my shareholders do and I have fiduciary duty as well as substantial ownership. I struggle to accept without clear demonstration that my mission’s success means I “ABSOLUTELY MUST participate in the most evil parts of society”. This is a very strong claim, I don’t think it applies to me!

	▲	20after4 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Being a founder of a startup, even a relatively successful one, doesn't put you into the same class as the top 0.1% of billionaires. At the very least you have to exploit the labor of the bottom 99% of society in order to attain 1% wealth. When you get to the level of Musk, I think it's almost self-evident that it isn't possible to attain that much wealth, without being directly responsible for a significant fraction of all the evil in the world. That's slightly different from "participating in evil parts of society" but I think that it certainly would be difficult maintain that kind of wealth but somehow avoid participating in the activities of your peers.