There are many arguments on Social Polarization. Generally say that Social Polarization is the unequal distribution of social wealth with ignoring the contribution for the society in wealth making. Some people got more to be called as the Rich, and some people got less to be called as the Poor. 

    The revolt on the unequal distribution of social wealth has a long history. The earliest instance may be the struggle of slaves against slave owners in Ancient primitive slave society. The most significant one against the social unequal should be the idea of Communist and its practice in recent centuries.   

   According to the History of communism of Wikipedia that last modified on 8 July 2013, the earlier communist ideas were from various philosophers in Ancient Greece. In Europe, during the Early Modern period, various groups supporting communist ideas appeared. Tommaso Campanella in his The City of the Sun propagated the concept of a society where the products of society should be shared equally (1601). But, until 1840s, after sociologist Karl Marx developed Marxism, the international communist movement has launched and resulted in more than 70 years' practice of socialist society that involved countries nearly half of the world in last centaury. But generally say it has failed in 20 years ago.

   Since the outbreak of 2008 Financial Crisis, the protest on the unequal distribution of social wealth has developed much severe. Such as, the international protest movement that began from Wall Street in New York City's Zuccotti Park on 17 September 2011 with a slogan of "We are the 99%". 

   The argument on Social Polarization has also developed much intensive. 

   2013, American economist, Professor Robert Reich distills the story through the lens of widening income inequality to have presented documentary film Inequality for All. It indicates that income inequality currently at historic highs.

   Over the last thirty years, before the latest recession, the U.S. economy doubled. But, these gains went to a very few: the top 1% of earners now take in more than 20% of all income—three times what they did in 1970. Inequality is even more extreme at the very top. The 400 richest Americans now own more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined. While this level of inequality poses a serious risk to all Americans.

   In 1997 – 2007, in the United States, the finance was fastest development part of the American economy.

   Following is the video screenshots from Inequality for All, which indicated that the peak point of relative financial wages at 1928 and 2007 has well matched the occurrence of finacial crisis. 

      

   The two times economic crashes well match the peak point of income inequality at in 1928 and 2007. From the peaks of relative financial wages, we can easily speculate the huge volume of financial economy or paper economy that is buying and selling on the financial markets to make money by money.

   The existence of Social Polarization is a fact; however, we have to distinguish between the source of its income and the use of funds, which can be generally divided into financial economy and real economy.

   The Rich made money in financial economy by buying and selling on the financial markets to make money by money, in nature, was plundering real economy, which mainly was in playing negative effect.

Such kind of Social Polarization should be limited.

The Rich made money in real economy by investing in means of production to organize social members to manufacture materials wealth, which is really relating the needs for human survival.

Such kind of Social Polarization should be promoted.

Follow topic focus on the real economy.

In real economy, the money of the Rich is not in handy for self enjoying but being used in the business' running with creating employment for the Poor and revenue for social governing. Therefore, in fact, it is being shared by the Poor in playing the role of public wealth.  

   Viewing in this practical way, the Poor are not poor as some people complained; and the Rich are not rich as some people fantasized.  

   In one sense, the Poor are sharing the result of the Rich’s hard working. Because of those Rich need full heart on business management with undertaking the psychological pressure of variety of unknown risks. Therefore, I have enough reason to question the reasonableness of the existence of Social Polarization.

   In consideration of social fair, the idea of communism is much reasonable. However, the failure of the practice of socialist society – so called as primary stage of communism has clearly showed that good idea of communism could not work in human society.

   The documentary of The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy that wrote by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, can be called as the Chronicles of the World Economy in last century.

   Generally say, according to the documentary, that the Battle for the world economy in last century is the battle of socialism and capitalism with the nature of the battle of planning economy and marketing economy. 

   The documentary introduced the collapse of the leader or big brother of socialist countries - Soviet Union from interviews of some Russian experts.

    NARRATOR: An independent-minded young economist, Grigory Yavlinsky, wrote a report on why workers in state mines were so unproductive.  

    GRIGORY YAVLINSKY: The people don't want to work. The people have no incentives. The economy inside which the people have no incentives have no future. So you can do two things: Take a gun and put this gun to his head like it was at the Stalin's time, or you have to give him incentives, because he wants to improve the life of his family, and he can't.

    NARRATOR: Factory managers at Norilsk could see the economy was not working, because the workers were not working.

    VALERY KOVALCHUK, Former Norilsk Factory Manager: You can't work properly under socialism. There is no incentive. And sadly, that's the only thing that gets us going. People come to work and just go through the motions. They doze off, read papers, do the crosswords. The state goes on paying them, the state gets poorer, the people get corrupted, then bankruptcy. And that's what happened -- the collapse of a great empire.

    Some people may say that the corruption of one-party authoritarian political system was the main reason to have collapsed the Soviet Union - great socialist empire. The argument is not wrong, but, it can not get full mark.

    Let us see other evidence that may help to get full mark.

  Britain is a veteran capitalist country with a enviable multi-party democratic political system, the two well-known economists that have been dominating the world economy by their economic theories - Adam Smith and John M. Keynes were both his descendants. As the means of social governing, multi-party democracy is good, but facts have proved that is not any country or any Race can play it well.

  The good democratic governance of the son countries of Canada, Australia proves that British are the best player of the democracy, and good at social governing. 

     According to the History of the Labour Party (UK) From Wikipedia that modified on 30 June 2013, from 1945 to 1951, the Labor Party of Britain that grew out of the trade union movement, nationalized major industries and utilities including the Bank of England, coal mining, the steel industry, electricity, gas, telephones and inland transport including railways, road haulage and canals. It developed and implemented the "cradle to grave" welfare state.

     In order to discuss this issue, I have to review above history, I am being touched again. That nationalization should be the part of socialism and the welfare from cradle to grave should be the part of communism. The purpose was to make people's lives better. Also, in some sense, it could be seen as that of the victory of trade union movement against Social Polarization.

    However, the good wish and practice got frustrating return. The production inefficiency after state-owned the enterprises almost destroyed the economy. And then, in Britain, Ms. Margaret Thatcher has to have privatized them again. The communist-style social welfare has developed into too heavy to burden. Now the current Prime Minister David Cameron is ongoing new reforms to save British economy by cutting down the public expenditure, including the social welfare. 

    The process from original private ownership to state ownership, and then privatized again is really meaningless Toss About for Great Britain, but the really meaningful practice for Human Society. The Great Britain, with the multi-party democracy, most adept at social governance, also can not well play the Ferris wheel of socialism.

  In fact, the countries of suffering the Meaningless Toss as that of Great Britain were great many; the United States is one of them. The facts clearly showed that the failure of the practice of socialism is not from the political, neither the dictatorship of one party as that of failed socialist countries, nor the democracy of multi-party as that of developed capitalist countries, at least is not at all.

  I think that the one of the reasons for human could not well play the socialism is related to human nature.

   <Management is the Art of Playing Human Nature>

  The failure of the socialist practice was not fully due to the Autocracy Governance and the Planned Economy, but essentially was due to that it over relied on the human culture nature by madly suppressing the exertion of human animal nature under the enforcement of State Apparatus.

  The success of the capitalist practice is not fully due to the Democracy Governance, but due to the Market Economy that benefits society by meeting the greedy of human animal nature through gaining profit according to the needs of the society in the marketplace.   

     Adam Smith, in his famous book <The Wealth of Nations>, suggests that benefits society by playing selfish and greedy of human animal nature with free competing in the marketplace under the control of invisible hand. Whether you prefer or not, the fact is clear, that market economy has stimulated the prosperity of the material wealth to have ensured the basic needs of human survival.   

     Davos Annual Meeting 2012 has specially debated on Capitalism. Some people said that Capitalism was dead. I say that suppose Capitalism was dead, the world would be dead, too. Because of, currently, we have no proper social system or any alternative can well organize the production of social material wealth driving by human animal nature.

    Whether the socialism or the capitalism they are both the comprehensive social system, but in essential, in consideration of human survival, they are both the social production model of  material wealth.   

    Human needs a social model to maintain the production of material wealth for survival. The practice has showed that pure socialism was not work, whether you prefer or not, the capitalism is a only choice currently, and thus, the Social Polarization is inevitable byproducts. 

    The society urgently needs to establish a clear ideology that most of those Rich are the good organizer of the production of social materials wealth with their money. They are playing the role as civil servants. They are the communists in reality.   

    Such as, in the article <My view on Entrepreneur and Enterprise inspired from Peter Shoore>, I introduced Peter Shoore, who is the owner of Sunrise Farms Vancouver Canada. He studied classical music in the Netherlands for seven years to have earned his doctorate in music. But personal ideal have to surrender to the reality, he gave up his favored music to have to run chicken farm with his parent. 

   After decades hard working, now he is also, could be called as Billionaires, but his money is being used running business in more than 15 branches located in different provinces Canada with supporting the livelihood of thousands of families and providing revenue for government for 30 years. In fact, his money is taking the effect of public wealth, and he has been playing the role of civil servant. 

  Now you may agree with me, that our society needs more Rich as that of Peter Shoore. In this sense, the Social Polarization should be welcomed.

    Social Polarization is unreasonable, in consideration of Universal Value; it should be or must be eliminated. However, in consideration of the need of human survival and human unchangeable nature of animal, its presence should be or say that it must be, or even say that it has to be, because of Capitalism – the market economy is the only feasible way currently.

     We can assume that if we launch communist movement again, depriving the property of those Rich, to equally distribute to the public, to implement the vision of Karl Marx：”From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” “Jeder nach seinen F?higkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!”<Critique of the Gotha Programme>  1875.  Then see that what will happen.

    More than 100 years of the communist movement, and more than 70 years of practice of socialist society, has clearly proved that is impossible. Although the vision of Karl Marx is perfect for human beings, but practice proved that it did not work. However, as striking contrast, the successful social practice is that of following the vision of Adam Smith, by meeting selfish and greed of human animal nature with free competing in the marketplace, to achieve the goal of benefiting humankind, 〈The Wealth of Nations) 1776.

    The argument of Social Polarization has been greatly promoting the hostile attitude of Employees toward Employers, to psychologically blow the work enthusiasm of the Employees, and to reduce the efficiency of production of material wealth. Thus, it is playing the role of destruction of the human society.

     Facing the unequally of Social Polarization, human has two choices:  

     Firstly, to tolerate social unequally, people have jobs to earn living, thereby, to live in a prosperous life as that of those who are living in developed countries.

    Secondly, to enjoy social fair, people have no jobs to earn living, thereby, to have to live in a needy life as that of those who are living in socialist countries.

    Answer is clear. The argument of Social Polarization must be stopped immediately.

    Forbes makes the World's Billionaires List every year, I think that they may be ignored the nature of the Rich and their money. The List has been playing a role to arouse public aware of Social Polarization from time to time. It may easily cause misunderstanding and to induce public hatred mentality toward the Entrepreneurs.   

   The concept of Social Polarization is worth serious reflection. It is playing a bad role to harm the society in many ways.

    Everyone dreams a society of every thing in equality. However, the practice showed that it is impossible because of unchangable human animal nature, which proved by thousands years social evolution.

    The Social Polarization is a confused argument, because of, the money of the most of the Rich is not in handy for self enjoying but being used in the business' running with creating employment for the Poor and revenue for social governing. Therefore, in fact, it is being shared by the Poor in playing the role of public wealth. 

    Viewing in this practical way, the Poor are not poor as some people complained; and the Rich are not rich as some people fantasized. The Rich is playing the role as best organizer of production of social material wealth for the Poor; they are true social servants and communists in reality.

    The arguments of Social Polarization are playing very bad role to harm human society. Because it arouses hate mentality of employees toward business owners to cool down their work enthusiasm and thereby to lower down the efficiency of the production of social material wealth for human survival. 

                                    --- Frank  July 23 2013 in Canada