Originally posted by e1618978
No, that is exactly what we DONT need. Class struggles like you are talking about make things worse for everyone, as they saw in Russia.
You don't have to go as far as the Russian Revolution to have a class struggle.
The only struggle I'm advocating here is one that would take place at the ballot box, by getting the majority of voters to vote more like they're in the 99% that they're in, rather than voting time and time again for policies that benefit the interests of the top 1% more than their own interests.
I'd like people to start asking themselves: "What's more important to me? Dependable, affordable health care that I can count on even when I change jobs or become unemployed? Or knowing that if/when I get rich someday, my taxes will be low enough that I can afford the 60 ft. yacht instead of only the mere 55 ft. yacht? Hmmmm... lemme think..."
You are still not realising that the poor in this country have a much easier life than the poor ever have had in the history of the world.
I'm quite well aware that the bottom tier is better off than they have been throughout much of history -- at least in this country. There are still very primitive levels of poverty elsewhere in the world.
That poverty might not be so miserably grinding any more isn't, however, good enough an excuse to explain away or accept the vast inequities in the distribution of wealth we have in the US.
In order for the bitter revolutionaries to have any power, the masses must really be opressesed. As a result of the industrial revolution, things got a whole lot worse for the poor, and that caused the union movement in the US and the chineese and russian revolutions overseas. Nothing equivalent is happening now - everyone is rich, including the poor, on a historical scale.
Like I said, I'm not looking for mobs with pitchforks to storm the Bastille. All it should take is a little more awareness -- including shaking up the poor among the Religious Right to realize that supply-side economics wasn't among the teachings of Jesus -- that having politicians who were more responsive to their economic needs than those of the very wealthy would result in a better, more secure life for themselves and their families.
The entrepreneurial class are optimists.
Ah, yes! Let us once again sing the praises of the Mighty Entrepreneur!
who believe that the world is a good place, and that there are opportunities to be had. This kind of person will generally, maybe after a few tries, get rich.
I'm not sure how much real evidence there is for this. After all, this is very much the kind of history which most especially written by the victors. You're not going to find many books in the bookstore on the theme, "How I tried to become rich, failed miserably, and never had the wherewithal to try again". I have heard of statistics -- please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm relying on vague memory here -- that the majority of businesses fail. Such statistics would tend to belie the triumphalist anecdotes of the Mighty Entrepreneur.
Most of the rest of the world is not comfortable taking entrepreneurial risks. They want to keep their safer jobs, and spend time with their families.
So exactly how reward-worthy
is such risk taking?
Worthy of 584 times the wealth of someone working a low-wage job which the entrepreneur's success still ultimately depends upon? Will we utterly crush the risk-taking derring-do of the Mighty Entrepreneur if we raise his taxes such that he only ends up with, say, a mere 200 times the wealth of his bottom-tier employee? Will we severely diminish the general over-all increase in societal wealth because the Mighty, Incredibly Deserving, Risk-Taking Entrepreneur pays more in taxes?
Besides, don't forget the old corporate business mantra, "Socialize the risk, privatize the gain". These glorious risk-takers often let society as a whole pay for their failed risks, through the distributed burden of unpaid corporate bankruptcy debts, while greatly limiting their own personal risk. Such noble bravery.
It is only when the welfare of the general population drops dramatically, which is is not and will not do, that bitter revolutionaries get any power. Until then, people like me rule the world, and the world is better off for our rulership.
Forgive me if I spoke out of turn, your Highness.
If you look at things with some introspection, I think that you will see that calling for revolution and a pessimistic negative attitude are self feeding phenomon.
If you pay attention you'll notice you're totally overstating and misreading what's being discussed here. But then again, who am I to question your sage perception, upon which all good things which I enjoy depend?
You want the world to go to shit so that you will come into power, and because that is what you want, you see shit on everything.
Its a half-full, half-empty kind of thing.
And you, apparently, desperately want to believe in your own self-aggrandizing mythology.