The Principle of Injustice

That the world (with its sane inhabitants) is really cruel. 

I don't think we can fix it. I think anyone isn't going to fix it. Everyone is "idunceir" about it.

I guess there are some examples of insane while peaceful humans. A few people might have mind problems, and at the same time not being aggressive.

There are big amount of relevant info about this, I don't even know where to start. That was a P. B. Shelley's quote. Also, anti-capitalists usually repeat it to underline the social gap that the capitalism creates by itself.

The social gap - is an injustice. 

The middle class? - What are you talking about? There are only warriors, meds, teachers, and the rest of such who just work for a government. If the Earth was like a gum or it expands each year getting bigger, then, perhaps, we never had such a problem. But the resources are limited. If one gets more control over some resources, the rest gets less control; and so on. There is no La Peau de Chagrin' to endlessly grow.

That injustice is more or less similar to the basted up by Catholics a story of the scrinium: one has sins, but if one needs to do a crime (like on a killing people crusade), a priest or a pope can forgive him by using that scrinium power. So, in such a case I don't even know what to say about the injustice? Is that fair?

That's why this question of 'rich gets richer...' is about the material sources, material things, not about something above it (the spiritual, etc).

I'd say the injustice ('rich get richer...') is barely the same as kinds of terrorism, murders, and so on. With no doubt many things in discussion depend on how we determine this or that term. In this case I understand an injustice in a more wide sense. To be rich, as for me, doesn't equal to have more money. The richs - are conceptual unit; in the past we might saw them as home tyrants among aborigines, chieftains, hotheads (i.e. leaders of headhunters), kingpins, mafioso bosses, Russian criminal bosses, and so on. Their M.O. or their style - the style of cads, twerps, punks - is what most essential characterizes them. Those ones have the essense Hose Ortega-y-Gasset explained as the effect of masses. 

There's one reason for a person who has lots of money to be in that class, I've been mentioning, - is to have that essence: greed, lust of power, hubris, etc. I'd say it's similar style of behaviour Lucifer showed when he wanted to become the most powerful creature. 

And, - I really do not know what is the best. I mean, I don't insist that this or that way of resolving that injustice principle is better. It's just a fact. Maybe it is in our nature, or we're doomed to live with it. 

And at the same time - no - I do not want to stop any attempts to view this problem, and to say anything about it. It's like Kv Quentin Meillassoux told about to resolve a problem (in a Hegelian style): that the problem used to be solved when then comes a philosopher with his another thought. You know, for me to solve this problem (about the injustice) doesn't mean to answer for (a) or (b), considering /as in your example/ "a" - is the remedies; "b" - is the gap. No, I don't think that a dichotomy (a) & (b) in this case is the ultimate way. Oh, no. Furthermore, I guess maybe there are more, than just dichotomies; maybe trichotomies, or quadrotomies, and so on; or maybe to solve this task is to say something not necessary usual and plain. Briefly - I don't think that the old ways are what can help us there.

That was P. B. Shelley's quote. It can be heard often from anti-capitalists which underline by it their dialectical intentions.

Some evidence claims the opposite views:
www.epi.org/action/the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-get-poorer/

www.ucl.ac.uk/culture-online/ask-expert/your-questions-answered/why-do-rich-keep-getting-richer-and-poor-keep-getting-poorer

fraserofallander.org/the-rich-get-richer-and-the-poor-get-poorer-exploring-the-impact-of-the-covid-19-crisis-on-the-widening-inequality-gap-in-the-uk/

It's impossible to understand here 'richs' and 'poors' as civilized or well-offed. For example, if there's a prison with prisoners and their head chief, plus his pawns, then even if that prison had been developed, become more advanced, more expensive, ans so on, the prisoners would remain prisoners and their chiefs would remain chiefs; or those chiefs could get worse.

This is one of the scenarios, and it might not work. I agree with you about the Third World. I guess in more aspects it really is.

Why this principle may still work is that: with the limited resources or re-accentation of the solving problems process. It's like when someone takes more, the rest takes less. Surely, to avoid it is usually to expand resource capacity or to print money which lead to inflation.

This principle definitely doesn't work then wars are holding.