American dream vs. Democratic Socialist dream...

[RadioRaheem84]

I asked my brother, who is devoutly capitalist, if he would rather live in a nation like the US where the market was open and he was given more "freedom" to one day make it to be a millionare, yet the social services were piss poor OR if he would rather live in a social democratic/democratic socialist nation where he would have the basic needs (education, medical care, social security, employment) met but his social mobility as far as becoming a multi-millionare would be impaired.

He chose the first nation. This is how I view the American dream mentality that is prevalent in the US. 60-75% of the population would rather struggle to one day make it to the top 20%, than have the state meet their basic needs. The rich feed this mentality by invoking that one day they too can be like them if they just vote to keep government out of the marketplace.

[mykittyhasaboner]

of course, what better way to fool an entire population of idiots than by telling them they'll be rich if they suffer by working too hard for whats close to slave wages.

[RadioRaheem84]

of course, what better way to fool an entire population of idiots than by telling them they'll be rich if they suffer by working too hard for whats close to slave wages.


They condition them to believe that they can acheive a dream if they get "government" off thier backs and away from the capitalist class. They pretty much say that a government for the people by the people should step aside in order to make room for private power. The appeal to their lusts and desires by introducing cheap goods and saying that if you work harder you can accumilate more and better products. They exhault the 10% that make it from rags to riches as examples that anyone can make it. The people forget that the door is very narrow and was always meant to be narrow so the upper class could enjoy their posessions with a hint of exclusivity. They give up their social security, their medical care, their free education...all FOR JUST A CHANCE to become like the top twenty percent.

The capitalist class turns this around by saying that its freedom. Anyone weeded out was not fit and anyone needing the state is a parasite. The state was made to merely serve the needs and inrests of individuals who seek protection from the masses that infringe upon their right to property and wealth. As the gap between rich and poor widens, the upper class further scapegoat the state, saying that more public enterprises should be in private hands in order to better serve the intrests of all. In the end we are left with three choices; we either leave the nation, sucumb to the rules and work, or become a member of the upper class.

[Psy]

Odd that the 1960's by most is seen as the good of old days of America, when people had good jobs and the economy was booming yet the government was still there "messing" with the markets then.

Still those with experience in the job market do tent to notice that they are not in full control of where they work. That skilled workers ended up in unskilled positions is actually common place, thus the cynical worker is born.

[RadioRaheem84]

Odd that the 1960's by most is seen as the good of old days of America, when people had good jobs and the economy was booming yet the government was still there "messing" with the markets then.

Still those with experience in the job market do tent to notice that they are not in full control of where they work. That skilled workers ended up in unskilled positions is actually common place, thus the cynical worker is born.


Ironically what is percieved by many people to be the "Golden Age" of America were the Keynesian 40s,50's and 60s. Heavy state control of the economy was prevalent and unions were seen as a good thing for America. Business was at the lower end of the ladder and working for the government was more respectable than working for Wall Street.

The international econony was regulated by the Bretton Woods System, protectionism was rampant, and free trade ideas were laughed at.

Now, this doesn't absolve the United States from hypocrisy. It practised heavy state intervention in the economy at home, but certain elements of the capitalist/political class forced neo-liberalism abroad. The perfect example of this was Eisenhower, who was a Keynesian president that introduced the Federal Highway Acts and other huge public expenditures of infrastructure, but disposed of the equally-nationalist leader Mossedegh in favor of a Pinochet like "reformer", the Shah on behalf of the capitalist class of the UK.

[Psy]

The fact the 1960's was part of the long boom also played a major role.

But I notice that many people ignore that in 1960's there was not such thing as personality tests for skilled workers. Most job interviews was simply to verify the applicant had the skills, also the most skilled engineers of the 1950's to 1980's would never pass a personality test now thus be unemployable in todays job market. Most had complete contempt for authority figures and some even played pranks on management back when engineers had leverage over their company so they really didn't have to worry about getting fired.

Now even engineers are expendable and companies don't give engineers anymore rights then unskilled labor.