Not your neighbor mechanic. Not your family member, a cashier in a local market. Not your friend, happy with any job he can find. Not your kid, freshly graduated and fighting with “data input”. Not your neighbor, a local farmer providing you with healthy food. Not your neighbor, a plumber without whom the city will be renamed Rekatrina. Not your friends who repair pavement and care about local roads.
Is it possible that these books are being written by people who have never been working and who have no intention to ever work?
Correct. They are not writing those books, but they are the downstream targets of these ideas. Be made to feel guilty if you don't care enough for the downtrodden, be instructed that "inequality" is your fault, be criticized for wanting to live your own life, be assured that government is here to take care of you and solve all of your problems, and all of these ideas inculcated by a powerful elite that has deliberately used our human nature, with all of its strengths and weaknesses, against itself.
We should never read, discuss or comment these books.
Assuming that they are dedicated to the degradation of social life in the sense that some remote fiction makers seriously believe that they know something about the life of the community…
These are fantasies at best or sick imagination at worst. If these authors went out and asked you and your neighbors, “What do you think about…” and then sincerely reported their findings, then, maybe…
The main problem is that all manifestos, including such “noble” ones like the reasons for space exploration, depopulation, climate change, herd immunity or energy transformation, start with the end conclusion already taken for granted.
They write one sentence, and spin their theories backwards to this day. They then make up rules and laws to enforce their theories - but this time without guaranteeing that they will deliver the promised land. And the whole population of the Earth is in a limbo. You must not go back, where you knew the ground and you managed. You can’t go the promised land, because it is only a fantasy vision, preferably several hundred years apart. You can’t NOT comply with these fantasies, but if you comply, your only gain will be the continuous loss of your money, time, health and energy.
At the same time, a large group of people are laughing at you. They will continue living exactly as they want, above all laws.
What happened to “But I like my gas stove and landline phone and diesel car, this is my life, I don’t want to change anything in it”?
... "What happened to “But I like my gas stove and landline phone and diesel car, this is my life, I don’t want to change anything in it”?...
I like my 20-year old Nokia too (I don't have a smart-phone). And recently a smart-meter (against my will) was installed, and the bills are now significantly higher.
I'd check that meter again. It must be ok. The bills are higher because we need to spend more because the lockdown forced billionaires to pledge a lot of money to other countries. We need to help them. We are all in this together.
Maybe these books are being written by those with an academic career, which is probably likely to be someone with a middle-class up-bringing. Of course, the college-department funded by the elite to advance certain types of research. Just a thought.
The bourgeoisie actually means a person of the bourg, that is, a city dweller. The meaning of these terms (also "middle class") has to be taken in its historical context. In the proto-capitalist era those living in cities tended to be merchants, traders. These people were not part of the aristocracy, yet they were financially successful. Over time they represented a distinct class and were economically powerful, but did not yet have political power. So between the peasant class and the aristocracy they were the "middle class." During the English revolutions of the mid to late 17th Century, this class started to challenge the aristocracy for power. The revolutions of 1848 were really bourgeois revolutions (while using for their own purposes the working class to achieve their political ambitions). After 1848, the middle class - which was now synonymous with the capitalist class - became dominant or at least equal to the aristocracy. The land owning aristocracy did not go away, they and the no-longer-emergent capitalist class joined forces (and that remains true to today). The bourgeoisie, or capitalist class is the ruling class. What we call middle class today is not the same as what it meant 150 years ago when Marx was writing.
If you are to question the motives of Marx based on the funding he got from various ruling class-linked persons, you should also do that for Anthony Sutton (who was at the Hoover Institution, a ruling class funded ideological think tank).
In Africa there are no public hospitals and healthcare is private, because only in these cases does the IMF provide economic aid, the same happens in the Middle East (except Syria and Iran) and in the non-socialist East and in Latin America, except in the states where there is socialism, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, which strangely are also the states that suffer the terrible attack of US and Western sanctions, and are continually targeted by hetero-directed coups d'état. The lack of a public health system is the real leading cause of death, but no one denounces this reality, and this is madness, which no media questions. The only states that have provided a welfare state system and education and public health, I am thinking of Gaddafi's Libya, Patrice Lumumba's Congo, Thomas Sankara, president of Burkina Faso, but not only that, have been targeted by attacks violent states and criminal wars by proxy. from the west. The problem has always been there, because it is there, in Africa, in Latin America, and also here, in the areas where class injustices remain unresolved, that we continually witness the scene of primary accumulation that Marx talks about in the first book of Capital , even before covid and the fourth industrial revolution, which is just a new and faster method of expropriation of resources by the whores of financial capitalism. For the Western colonial states, these countries are what was destined to become Russia in the plans of the Nazis: mere geographical expressions, mines to be exploited without scruples, inhabited by subhumans.
Now we too are slipping into the subhuman state,
exploited for profit, which has always been the capitalists' ideal, didn't they do the same to workers in the nineteenth century? Just read Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England ... (or with non-whites they use as bodies to exploit and eliminate, as voids to lose.) They have not changed, they are still the same, they have only changed their method of appropriation. Capitalism drips blood from head to toe, wrote Marx, now we will understand it again on our white skin.
Myra. Of course. But the Elite want to crush as many individuals as possible. Hence population reduction plans are proceeding as we speak. Vaccine bio-weapons. Weaponized migration. The Global Compact for Migration. The Declaration of North America eliminates all national borders in favor of global regions. Civilian asset forfeiture. Food processing plants burned. Cattle ranches and dairy farms and even gardening by individuals being outlawed. That's just the beginning. Sound like somebody's manifesto ? You will own nothing and be happy !!
governments are corrupted by the big capitalists, by the multinationals that follow the armies in their wars of expansion, to rob the territories that the armies have reduced to ashes.
Hence the terror of communism, instilled in the minds of Americans and citizens of the Empire, the terror of justice from below, the terror of justice ..
I'm not talking about what Mao's China was forced to become, so as not to end up like Africa and the Middle East, lands of conquest and plunder, populated by subhumans, I'm talking about true communism, of the struggles that for two centuries, they have written the rules and rights with blood, for everyone, even for those who were previously considered little more than a thing, a non-human to be milked and suppressed. In the USA and here, in the West, communism has become a heresy, justice from below, justice of the people, in short justice, is a crime. This is why the world is returning to the Middle Ages, this is why citizens are clouded by the fetishism of goods, which is worse than the fetishism of religion.
This is why oligarchies strangle democracies, and the financial aristocracy (die neue Finanzaristokratie), without laws or culture, scum of humanity according to Marx, who as always is right, commands the sovereign people. he corrupts governments, loosens the rules, makes laws, sleeps with armies, because only with continuous wars can he remain in power.
"The financial aristocracy, in its forms of income as in its pleasures, is nothing other than the reproduction of the underclass at the top of bourgeois society." (Marx)
But people identified themselves with the interests of their masters, and Wilhelm Reich explains this well. People defend the bad guys who harass and rob them, they even hate the word communism. When in reality communism has always existed, well before Marxism, even if it has once again become a ghost, slandered and emptied of its true meaning. So we have returned to the Middle Ages and we will go even further back, we will let slavery re-establish itself undisturbed, we will continue to allow the commons to accumulate in the hands of a minority of lawless idiots, only cunning and evil. But there will always be people who defend them, as servants defended their masters...
''The first man who, after enclosing a piece of land, thought to say, This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes one could have saved humanity,
breaking down fences , or filling the ditch, and shouting to his peers: “Be careful to listen to this impostor; we are finished if we forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all and the earth belongs to no one. " Rousseau, 1774.
At first, the British bourgeoisie were a despised and oppressed class-let under feudalism. Then they became the source of cash for the monarchy, separate from the proceeds of royal lands (the King had originally been just another Lord). When Britain went to sea, the English bourgeoisie largely displaced the gentry as the military class. Eventually, they took power. The largest of the British capitalists merged with the defeated aristocracy... in many cases, quite literally.
One of the first profitable businesses after the Civil War for the unemployed aristocracy was the production of offspring for marriage and the transfer of hereditary title. The smaller bourgeois became the new "middle-class", now supplemented by paid employees (if privileged ones) of the larger capitalists, and these were supplemented in turn by a rising number of specialists. Eventually, after the Industrial Revolution, the term described highly paid employees almost exclusively through the elimination of most independent proprietors, though technical progressions provided some opportunities for moving up the class ladder. The original class had been revolutionary and in competition with their "betters". The reconstructed one, which was mostly not a class at all, was absolutely slavish in its loyalty and was the mainspring of Empire.
The American Brits were "middle-class" in the original sense: landed, propertied, but untitled. So too were the bulk, perhaps even a majority, of the original population, although they held much lesser property. But in America, there was no landed gentry... the term was a nonsensical import.
The unreality of it all is inevitable. A new, faux middle-class is declared just as the old, real one is destroyed.
But the real innovation was the scale of it all... in Britain and America. Such a middle-class exists in every capitalist country. The difference with these two was that it was declared to exist as even a majority of the population. It takes a lot of bodies to administer an Empire, it seems.
To glorify the "middle class" is to glorify Empire knowingly or not.
In truth, it is not class but a polyglot. It consists of small proprietors who are constantly diminished in number, new "entrepreneurs" propelled by revolutionary changes in industry, highly paid employees of large enterprises, educated professionals and specialists, and even an "aristocracy of labor". This exists in every country. What makes it quite often reactionary is its total dependence on the ruling class.
That they exist on such a grand scale is precisely because of Empire. In the 1950s and 1960s, the political population of the U.S. included not only the small businessmen, engineers, and advertising executives of the U.S. but also those of India, and Argentina, and Belgium, and Tunisia... all of whom happened to be American... for the moment.
It is Empire on a grand scale which produces this polyglot on such a grand scale, so as to dominate the political life of a country and drown even proletarian thought in ordinary philistinism. And it is the death of Empire, or its stagnation, which will weaken and ultimately displace that monopoly. How do we know this to be true? The same way as everything else we know... it wasn't always like this.
Most people don't distinguish between personal property and private property.
Anyone who obtains their understanding of Marx through Anthony Sutton will be forever ignorant. Why not go to the source?
While, the origin of the term may be British, for most of its history, the American middle-class went by a Continental definition. America was a “middle-class” country from its inception… built on “free” land (in the dual sense… i.e. also “freed” from its former inhabitants. As late as the decades after the Civil War, 70% of the population owned their own means of production, even if it was modest in most cases.
The subsequent transformation of that status was partly the operation of the very same forces of Empire and partly the result of the flood of European immigrants recently freed from their property. In approximately 60 years, the population of freeholders fell from 70% to less than 10%. It is less than 5% today, once the various tax schemes and contractor rackets are abstracted away. The story of America before the War is the story of The Grapes of Wrath and in no way could the U.S. be accurately described as a “middle-class country.”
So what has changed, since? Was it FDR, the New Deal, Democrats… a new “Enlightenment” perhaps? In fact, it was a positive outcome to the Second World War. What Britain lost, the U.S. inherited. And among that inheritance was a new definition for “middle-class”, adopted from the English.
Social mobility, the movement up the division of labor, a certain level of prosperity, advancement through education… and all of it made possible from industrial ascendancy and the fact that Indian banks were now located in New York. The end of that era comes with globalization. It makes little difference whether the new era produces a new capitalist competition or whether the very success of American Empire relocates Indian banks to India. The inevitable result will be the decomposition of the American middle-class and there is not a single political perspective which promises otherwise. It is the division of misery in the decline that is in question.
Capitalism does not elevate… it expropriates and impoverishes. Its urban slums and shanty towns are a step down from the rural, quasi-capitalist material it begins with. Worldwide, it expropriates wealth from the many instead of creating “prosperity”. It is only in microcosm that it appears otherwise.
Look at some charts on postwar income in the U.S.- they divide U.S. income into a hierarchy of 10 tiers, each representing 10% of the population, and then project that income forward from WW2. For something like 20 years, the top seven or eight of the ten reach upwards… until they stall in the 1960s and 70s. After that, one after another, the next highest tier stagnates… sometimes even falls… until only a couple of tiers continue to advance. Meanwhile, the “lifestyle” is temporarily maintained through two incomes, and then through huge debt and home equity loans, followed by the first general drop in home ownership and the first general reversal of “liquidity” in a generation. The story is straightforward.
All attempts to paint the existence of the middle-class as an aspect of “politics” or policy, positively or negatively, are simply wrong. The "middle-class" is a historically created, changing, and ultimately decomposing social structure which is no more a permanent part of America than Conestoga Wagons or the railroads.
Lets say those 10 people were not complete fools, no way they would want all the wealth IF acquiring it would disrupt or even destroy their opulent lives.
There’s a reason the elites and their ideological cadres have weaponised envy and resentment, now morphed into outright nihilism, into the opiate of the masses. Almost everything happening today in the west can be understood beneath the banner of resentment and envy ... the elites envy and resent our freedoms at the same time, and they would rather destroy everything than allow mankind to flourish.
Who is writing such books?
Not your neighbor mechanic. Not your family member, a cashier in a local market. Not your friend, happy with any job he can find. Not your kid, freshly graduated and fighting with “data input”. Not your neighbor, a local farmer providing you with healthy food. Not your neighbor, a plumber without whom the city will be renamed Rekatrina. Not your friends who repair pavement and care about local roads.
Is it possible that these books are being written by people who have never been working and who have no intention to ever work?
Correct. They are not writing those books, but they are the downstream targets of these ideas. Be made to feel guilty if you don't care enough for the downtrodden, be instructed that "inequality" is your fault, be criticized for wanting to live your own life, be assured that government is here to take care of you and solve all of your problems, and all of these ideas inculcated by a powerful elite that has deliberately used our human nature, with all of its strengths and weaknesses, against itself.
We should never read, discuss or comment these books.
Assuming that they are dedicated to the degradation of social life in the sense that some remote fiction makers seriously believe that they know something about the life of the community…
These are fantasies at best or sick imagination at worst. If these authors went out and asked you and your neighbors, “What do you think about…” and then sincerely reported their findings, then, maybe…
The main problem is that all manifestos, including such “noble” ones like the reasons for space exploration, depopulation, climate change, herd immunity or energy transformation, start with the end conclusion already taken for granted.
They write one sentence, and spin their theories backwards to this day. They then make up rules and laws to enforce their theories - but this time without guaranteeing that they will deliver the promised land. And the whole population of the Earth is in a limbo. You must not go back, where you knew the ground and you managed. You can’t go the promised land, because it is only a fantasy vision, preferably several hundred years apart. You can’t NOT comply with these fantasies, but if you comply, your only gain will be the continuous loss of your money, time, health and energy.
At the same time, a large group of people are laughing at you. They will continue living exactly as they want, above all laws.
What happened to “But I like my gas stove and landline phone and diesel car, this is my life, I don’t want to change anything in it”?
... "What happened to “But I like my gas stove and landline phone and diesel car, this is my life, I don’t want to change anything in it”?...
I like my 20-year old Nokia too (I don't have a smart-phone). And recently a smart-meter (against my will) was installed, and the bills are now significantly higher.
I'd check that meter again. It must be ok. The bills are higher because we need to spend more because the lockdown forced billionaires to pledge a lot of money to other countries. We need to help them. We are all in this together.
Maybe these books are being written by those with an academic career, which is probably likely to be someone with a middle-class up-bringing. Of course, the college-department funded by the elite to advance certain types of research. Just a thought.
This is an outstanding analysis of the historical record. Thank you.
The bourgeoisie actually means a person of the bourg, that is, a city dweller. The meaning of these terms (also "middle class") has to be taken in its historical context. In the proto-capitalist era those living in cities tended to be merchants, traders. These people were not part of the aristocracy, yet they were financially successful. Over time they represented a distinct class and were economically powerful, but did not yet have political power. So between the peasant class and the aristocracy they were the "middle class." During the English revolutions of the mid to late 17th Century, this class started to challenge the aristocracy for power. The revolutions of 1848 were really bourgeois revolutions (while using for their own purposes the working class to achieve their political ambitions). After 1848, the middle class - which was now synonymous with the capitalist class - became dominant or at least equal to the aristocracy. The land owning aristocracy did not go away, they and the no-longer-emergent capitalist class joined forces (and that remains true to today). The bourgeoisie, or capitalist class is the ruling class. What we call middle class today is not the same as what it meant 150 years ago when Marx was writing.
If you are to question the motives of Marx based on the funding he got from various ruling class-linked persons, you should also do that for Anthony Sutton (who was at the Hoover Institution, a ruling class funded ideological think tank).
Thank you very much for the well-written summary.
In Africa there are no public hospitals and healthcare is private, because only in these cases does the IMF provide economic aid, the same happens in the Middle East (except Syria and Iran) and in the non-socialist East and in Latin America, except in the states where there is socialism, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, which strangely are also the states that suffer the terrible attack of US and Western sanctions, and are continually targeted by hetero-directed coups d'état. The lack of a public health system is the real leading cause of death, but no one denounces this reality, and this is madness, which no media questions. The only states that have provided a welfare state system and education and public health, I am thinking of Gaddafi's Libya, Patrice Lumumba's Congo, Thomas Sankara, president of Burkina Faso, but not only that, have been targeted by attacks violent states and criminal wars by proxy. from the west. The problem has always been there, because it is there, in Africa, in Latin America, and also here, in the areas where class injustices remain unresolved, that we continually witness the scene of primary accumulation that Marx talks about in the first book of Capital , even before covid and the fourth industrial revolution, which is just a new and faster method of expropriation of resources by the whores of financial capitalism. For the Western colonial states, these countries are what was destined to become Russia in the plans of the Nazis: mere geographical expressions, mines to be exploited without scruples, inhabited by subhumans.
Now we too are slipping into the subhuman state,
exploited for profit, which has always been the capitalists' ideal, didn't they do the same to workers in the nineteenth century? Just read Engels, "The Condition of the Working Class in England ... (or with non-whites they use as bodies to exploit and eliminate, as voids to lose.) They have not changed, they are still the same, they have only changed their method of appropriation. Capitalism drips blood from head to toe, wrote Marx, now we will understand it again on our white skin.
I am very anti-communist. Name me a country where communism worked. It is authoritarian and crushes the individual.
Myra. Of course. But the Elite want to crush as many individuals as possible. Hence population reduction plans are proceeding as we speak. Vaccine bio-weapons. Weaponized migration. The Global Compact for Migration. The Declaration of North America eliminates all national borders in favor of global regions. Civilian asset forfeiture. Food processing plants burned. Cattle ranches and dairy farms and even gardening by individuals being outlawed. That's just the beginning. Sound like somebody's manifesto ? You will own nothing and be happy !!
governments are corrupted by the big capitalists, by the multinationals that follow the armies in their wars of expansion, to rob the territories that the armies have reduced to ashes.
Hence the terror of communism, instilled in the minds of Americans and citizens of the Empire, the terror of justice from below, the terror of justice ..
I'm not talking about what Mao's China was forced to become, so as not to end up like Africa and the Middle East, lands of conquest and plunder, populated by subhumans, I'm talking about true communism, of the struggles that for two centuries, they have written the rules and rights with blood, for everyone, even for those who were previously considered little more than a thing, a non-human to be milked and suppressed. In the USA and here, in the West, communism has become a heresy, justice from below, justice of the people, in short justice, is a crime. This is why the world is returning to the Middle Ages, this is why citizens are clouded by the fetishism of goods, which is worse than the fetishism of religion.
This is why oligarchies strangle democracies, and the financial aristocracy (die neue Finanzaristokratie), without laws or culture, scum of humanity according to Marx, who as always is right, commands the sovereign people. he corrupts governments, loosens the rules, makes laws, sleeps with armies, because only with continuous wars can he remain in power.
"The financial aristocracy, in its forms of income as in its pleasures, is nothing other than the reproduction of the underclass at the top of bourgeois society." (Marx)
But people identified themselves with the interests of their masters, and Wilhelm Reich explains this well. People defend the bad guys who harass and rob them, they even hate the word communism. When in reality communism has always existed, well before Marxism, even if it has once again become a ghost, slandered and emptied of its true meaning. So we have returned to the Middle Ages and we will go even further back, we will let slavery re-establish itself undisturbed, we will continue to allow the commons to accumulate in the hands of a minority of lawless idiots, only cunning and evil. But there will always be people who defend them, as servants defended their masters...
''The first man who, after enclosing a piece of land, thought to say, This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes one could have saved humanity,
breaking down fences , or filling the ditch, and shouting to his peers: “Be careful to listen to this impostor; we are finished if we forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all and the earth belongs to no one. " Rousseau, 1774.
At first, the British bourgeoisie were a despised and oppressed class-let under feudalism. Then they became the source of cash for the monarchy, separate from the proceeds of royal lands (the King had originally been just another Lord). When Britain went to sea, the English bourgeoisie largely displaced the gentry as the military class. Eventually, they took power. The largest of the British capitalists merged with the defeated aristocracy... in many cases, quite literally.
One of the first profitable businesses after the Civil War for the unemployed aristocracy was the production of offspring for marriage and the transfer of hereditary title. The smaller bourgeois became the new "middle-class", now supplemented by paid employees (if privileged ones) of the larger capitalists, and these were supplemented in turn by a rising number of specialists. Eventually, after the Industrial Revolution, the term described highly paid employees almost exclusively through the elimination of most independent proprietors, though technical progressions provided some opportunities for moving up the class ladder. The original class had been revolutionary and in competition with their "betters". The reconstructed one, which was mostly not a class at all, was absolutely slavish in its loyalty and was the mainspring of Empire.
The American Brits were "middle-class" in the original sense: landed, propertied, but untitled. So too were the bulk, perhaps even a majority, of the original population, although they held much lesser property. But in America, there was no landed gentry... the term was a nonsensical import.
The unreality of it all is inevitable. A new, faux middle-class is declared just as the old, real one is destroyed.
But the real innovation was the scale of it all... in Britain and America. Such a middle-class exists in every capitalist country. The difference with these two was that it was declared to exist as even a majority of the population. It takes a lot of bodies to administer an Empire, it seems.
To glorify the "middle class" is to glorify Empire knowingly or not.
In truth, it is not class but a polyglot. It consists of small proprietors who are constantly diminished in number, new "entrepreneurs" propelled by revolutionary changes in industry, highly paid employees of large enterprises, educated professionals and specialists, and even an "aristocracy of labor". This exists in every country. What makes it quite often reactionary is its total dependence on the ruling class.
That they exist on such a grand scale is precisely because of Empire. In the 1950s and 1960s, the political population of the U.S. included not only the small businessmen, engineers, and advertising executives of the U.S. but also those of India, and Argentina, and Belgium, and Tunisia... all of whom happened to be American... for the moment.
It is Empire on a grand scale which produces this polyglot on such a grand scale, so as to dominate the political life of a country and drown even proletarian thought in ordinary philistinism. And it is the death of Empire, or its stagnation, which will weaken and ultimately displace that monopoly. How do we know this to be true? The same way as everything else we know... it wasn't always like this.
Most people don't distinguish between personal property and private property.
Anyone who obtains their understanding of Marx through Anthony Sutton will be forever ignorant. Why not go to the source?
While, the origin of the term may be British, for most of its history, the American middle-class went by a Continental definition. America was a “middle-class” country from its inception… built on “free” land (in the dual sense… i.e. also “freed” from its former inhabitants. As late as the decades after the Civil War, 70% of the population owned their own means of production, even if it was modest in most cases.
The subsequent transformation of that status was partly the operation of the very same forces of Empire and partly the result of the flood of European immigrants recently freed from their property. In approximately 60 years, the population of freeholders fell from 70% to less than 10%. It is less than 5% today, once the various tax schemes and contractor rackets are abstracted away. The story of America before the War is the story of The Grapes of Wrath and in no way could the U.S. be accurately described as a “middle-class country.”
So what has changed, since? Was it FDR, the New Deal, Democrats… a new “Enlightenment” perhaps? In fact, it was a positive outcome to the Second World War. What Britain lost, the U.S. inherited. And among that inheritance was a new definition for “middle-class”, adopted from the English.
Social mobility, the movement up the division of labor, a certain level of prosperity, advancement through education… and all of it made possible from industrial ascendancy and the fact that Indian banks were now located in New York. The end of that era comes with globalization. It makes little difference whether the new era produces a new capitalist competition or whether the very success of American Empire relocates Indian banks to India. The inevitable result will be the decomposition of the American middle-class and there is not a single political perspective which promises otherwise. It is the division of misery in the decline that is in question.
Capitalism does not elevate… it expropriates and impoverishes. Its urban slums and shanty towns are a step down from the rural, quasi-capitalist material it begins with. Worldwide, it expropriates wealth from the many instead of creating “prosperity”. It is only in microcosm that it appears otherwise.
Look at some charts on postwar income in the U.S.- they divide U.S. income into a hierarchy of 10 tiers, each representing 10% of the population, and then project that income forward from WW2. For something like 20 years, the top seven or eight of the ten reach upwards… until they stall in the 1960s and 70s. After that, one after another, the next highest tier stagnates… sometimes even falls… until only a couple of tiers continue to advance. Meanwhile, the “lifestyle” is temporarily maintained through two incomes, and then through huge debt and home equity loans, followed by the first general drop in home ownership and the first general reversal of “liquidity” in a generation. The story is straightforward.
All attempts to paint the existence of the middle-class as an aspect of “politics” or policy, positively or negatively, are simply wrong. The "middle-class" is a historically created, changing, and ultimately decomposing social structure which is no more a permanent part of America than Conestoga Wagons or the railroads.
Lets say those 10 people were not complete fools, no way they would want all the wealth IF acquiring it would disrupt or even destroy their opulent lives.
There’s a reason the elites and their ideological cadres have weaponised envy and resentment, now morphed into outright nihilism, into the opiate of the masses. Almost everything happening today in the west can be understood beneath the banner of resentment and envy ... the elites envy and resent our freedoms at the same time, and they would rather destroy everything than allow mankind to flourish.