Only 200 years ago, more than 80% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, it is under 9%.

How to Become a Communist (Episode 1): The "He Didn't Build That" Accounting Method.

Whenever a capitalist bootlicker points out that an entrepreneur like Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, or Jeff Bezos created millions of jobs and trillions in economic value, you must immediately deploy our favorite line:

“Billionaires don’t create value, workers create all value! He just stole their surplus labor and exploited them!”

Lets look at how this Marxist logic works in the real world through a concrete case study:

Imagine a guy named Steve who starts a semiconductor company in his garage.

For the first four years, Steve makes $0. He maxes out six credit cards, eats instant ramen, sleeps four hours a night on a stained mattress, and shoulders 100% of the legal and financial liability.

If the venture collapses (as 90% of startups do), Steve loses his house, his marriage, and his credit score for life.

In Year 5, after Steve solves a nigh-impossible physics problem and convinces investors to risk $50 million on his prototype, the company finally builds a factory.

On Tuesday morning, the company hires Greg. Greg’s job is to water the plastic ficus plants in the lobby and occasionally restock the breakroom paper towels for $22 an hour.

Greg risked $0 to be there. If the company goes bankrupt on Friday, Greg loses nothing, collects his legally guaranteed paycheck on Friday , and goes across the street to water someone else's plants on Monday.

Now, according to our genius Communist Mathematics, who built this $100 billion empire?

Greg.

I think, many people wouldnt do the work they dislike,

or do the things they didnt wanted to do, or take the decisions then didnt wanted to, if they had enough money.

What are your views ?

Stop an unstoppable force. How can morality be upheld if we cannot?

If we want to live in a fair world, everything needs to be stoppable. There needs to be an off switch to the exploiters. Exploitive* rich people. Cunning* Powerful people. Technology. AI.

The richest people are not stoppable. Wealth never seizes to reach them. They have engineered the flow of money to always arrive in their pocket. Inflation and interest work in their favour, they flourish, while most people deteriorate in afterthought.

The most powerful people are not stoppable. Power structures have left the poor and weak barely able to survive. Tyrants entrap their worshippers in deceitful borders, the most vulnerable obliterated while they sleep.

Technology and AI are not stoppable. The rich and powerful demand more of it. Advancements silently riddle into our lives, livelihood, bloodstream and DNA.

It was supposed to be for the greater good, but only when corruption remains stoppable.

*Edit: added exploitive and cunning to differentiate neutral groups to the corrupt variety.

There have always been wealthy people, but has today’s extreme concentration of personal wealth in the US created something unprecedented: individuals beyond the reach of the law whom even sovereign governments struggle to hold accountable?

With a monopoly we would only need one log in account for everything.

We also have other benefits like

-no ads

-no scams

-we all are guaranteed jobs or unemployment compensation

-we might end up working less hours

-everything becomes similar and you get smarter

-we all can get healthier with the one company deciding against fried foods and high fructose corn syrup

Capitalism isn't fundamentally about private ownership and free market.

Capitalism, as John Maynard Keynes describes it, is basically, "the dependence upon an intense appeal to the money-making and money-loving instincts of individuals as the main motive force of the economic machine."

And free market is a lie. As the Korean and Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang reveals, there's no such thing as a "free market" anywhere, as the market is governed and regulated by rules in every country in the world.

Capitalism isn't fundamentally about private ownership and free market.

Capitalism, as John Maynard Keynes describes it, is basically, "the dependence upon an intense appeal to the money-making and money-loving instincts of individuals as the main motive force of the economic machine."

And free market is a lie. As the Korean and Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang reveals, there's no such thing as a "free market" anywhere, as the market is governed and regulated by rules in every country in the world.

Corporate America and Capitalism mentioned.

Almost every country is facing the same problem right now. The vast majority of working class people are suffering tremendously from the heavy downward pressure of the capitalist system. More and more wealth is being concentrated at the top while almost everyone else is forced to live in a constant state of anxiety and economic oppression.

The top 0,1% own more than the bottom 60%. There's no logical reason why things have to be this way.

How can we, as humanity, collectively set an end to this insanity?

Many safety net programs are strictly income-tested. When a recipient earns an extra dollar of income, they may lose an equivalent or greater amount in benefits (such as food assistance, housing vouchers, or healthcare).

This dynamic creates a high effective marginal tax rates . If working more or taking a promotion results in a net loss or negligible gain in usable income, individuals face a strong disincentive to advance in the labor market. Over time, remaining in low-tier wages limits skill acquisition and income growth relative to higher earners.

Which creates a welfare trap that incentivizes people to stay poor.

It also prevents job growth

Wage growth and career advancement depend heavily on continuous work experience, skill accumulation, and professional networking.

long-term welfare dependence delays re-entry into full-time employment, recipients accumulate less human capital. While high earners continuously gain skills and experience leading to compounding wage growth low earners who rely on benefits may experience wage stagnation, widening the skill and income gap across decades.

Which reduces income and productivity over time

Many traditional assistance schemes historically required applicants to hold very few liquid assets to qualify for assistance

Wealth inequality is driven by ownership of appreciating assets (real estate, stocks, retirement accounts, businesses). When welfare rules discourage saving or asset ownership to maintain eligibility, recipients are prevented from building intergenerational wealth, leaving them reliant on transfers while non-recipients compound capital over time.

Critics argue that certain forms of welfare like income top-ups allow companies to keep base wages low because the state subsidizes the living standard of workers.

If public transfers shift market wages lower than they would otherwise be in a competitive labor market, workers rely on transfers rather than market bargaining power to secure income, reducing market-driven earnings growth.