Cruelty was always the point.

"Misery builds character."

Except it doesn't. Learning to overcome adversity builds character. Being miserable with no recourse teaches nothing but to accept misery and injustice.

This is why we see conservatives opposing things that, to a rational mind who is not hellbent on making a more miserable world, would be logical steps in improving the quality of life: people must be miserable in one form or another; an enjoyable life is a privilege.

If you can make the masses believe that misery is somehow the default state for humanity, or that it is God's will that people should be miserable and struggle for every necessity or for the right to exist, it becomes all that easier to make unjust decisions: i.e. "You were treated unfairly? Well, life sucks. Get over it." The victim is told they must adapt to suffering. The causer of suffering is not called to account for their actions. Acceptance of the status quo is seen as a mandatory virtue, and complaining that "hey, maybe what we're doing is unfair and wrong" becomes a sin.

Building off this twisted unlogic, prosperity in and of itself becomes a symbol of virtue. Those with wealth were *obviously* once miserable like the rest of us, and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and made things work for them, so they deserve to be rich, to be exempt from the rules, to have a louder voice, to trample on those beneath them. It's divine right to rule by any other name.

"But Imurev, you crazy, antisocial bastard, how does making us suffer benefit the rich and elite?"

Again, creating a society in which misery is considered the norm and which the miserable have no right to complain about their misery and unfair treatment is a key tool in maintaining power and control.

Especially if the elite can blame certain groups for problems and create a scapegoat for others to pile the sins of the world on.