I’ve been thinking that ever since that dumb “submarine” sank at the Titanic. I don’t feel particularly sorry for the people who died (other than the kid who apparently didn’t want to be there in the first place), but the outright glee I saw a lot of people express online was surprising.
It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable, happy middle class and even lower class that had a relatively comfortable existence without feeling too at risk of losing everything. As you get to the end of that century and into this century, the wealthiest forgot why that policy existed, newcomers didn’t understand it, or they decided they wanted to see how much more extraction they could get away with thinking they’ll be able to reign in any unrest before it gets too bad; probably some combination of those and other factors. It’s a dangerous game to play, though, and it seems like explosive moments are closer than the wealthy powers realize.
Not that I think there’s any real organizing power behind the scenes, just that in the past a lot of people came to a collective understanding of a system that could bring a lot of financial stability to a lot of people.
It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable, happy middle class and even lower class that had a relatively comfortable existence without feeling too at risk of losing everything.
Actually, the richest people in America were terrified of FDR and the New Deal, and even attempted a fascist coup in order to overthrow him. Fun fact, George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was implicated in it!
As you get to the end of that century and into this century, the wealthiest forgot why that policy existed
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the threat of an alternative and “proved” that capitalism was the superior ideology, pushing their confidence that they could do no wrong through the roof.
It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable
Thats because we stopped them, they always try as much as they are allowed to.
All good my friend! Was more just interesting given the context- my bets are on elites these days believing they can reign in any unrest, rather than being as interested in reining it in. Hubris and such.
Made a lot out of a very common error, just thought it was neat. :)
I’ve been thinking that ever since that dumb “submarine” sank at the Titanic. I don’t feel particularly sorry for the people who died (other than the kid who apparently didn’t want to be there in the first place), but the outright glee I saw a lot of people express online was surprising.
It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable, happy middle class and even lower class that had a relatively comfortable existence without feeling too at risk of losing everything. As you get to the end of that century and into this century, the wealthiest forgot why that policy existed, newcomers didn’t understand it, or they decided they wanted to see how much more extraction they could get away with thinking they’ll be able to reign in any unrest before it gets too bad; probably some combination of those and other factors. It’s a dangerous game to play, though, and it seems like explosive moments are closer than the wealthy powers realize.
Not that I think there’s any real organizing power behind the scenes, just that in the past a lot of people came to a collective understanding of a system that could bring a lot of financial stability to a lot of people.
Actually, the richest people in America were terrified of FDR and the New Deal, and even attempted a fascist coup in order to overthrow him. Fun fact, George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was implicated in it!
Smedley Butler was a goddamn hero and should’ve been the next president
Well, at least he got to be played by Robert De Niro in a movie…sort of. That’s something.
Buddy look at the tax code post great depression. There was no agreement the government said fuck you pay them.
The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the threat of an alternative and “proved” that capitalism was the superior ideology, pushing their confidence that they could do no wrong through the roof.
Not much formal organizing needs to happen, based on the way this particular CEO found out.
Thats because we stopped them, they always try as much as they are allowed to.
The deregulation of the 80s and 90s really screwed this country over.
Same with the UK and privatisation
In summary: Neoliberalism.
Neoliberals always surprise me, How do they think that more neoliberalism will fix problems caused by neoliberalism?
It’s “rein in any unrest”. I’m not pointing this out to be a grammar nazi, but because “reign in” is an interesting slip in the context of your post.
Oh, thanks; I’ll blame autocorrect and not paying enough attention
All good my friend! Was more just interesting given the context- my bets are on elites these days believing they can reign in any unrest, rather than being as interested in reining it in. Hubris and such.
Made a lot out of a very common error, just thought it was neat. :)