From The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution Against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos, by Ravi Batra:
The salient feature of the era of intellectual acquisitors is that the ruling elite amass wealth but make people believe that such an endeavor is good for society. For instance, they cut taxes for themselves while raising taxes for other classes, and yet are able to convince the public that such economic policies are in society’s best interest. Or they may persuade you that God has blessed them with opulence so that they can take care of the indigent. They have the intellect to make you feel better even as they hit you, at least for a while. Dogmas proliferate at this point, and the laborer bears the maximum burden of exploitation.
Once the majority of intellectuals become acquisitive, materialism degenerates into supermaterialism. There are no more religious or ethical restrains on the avarice of the elite, and the public follows its leaders, everything gets commercialized.
There comes a time when intellectual acquisitors are virtually unchallenged; that’s when the process of wealth concentration runs full throttle, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer at incredible speeds. The boundless greed and hypocrisy of acquisitive intellectuals ultimately torments the majority of people. Salaries go down, and the bulk of society is forced to devote much of its time to making money. Warriors and intellectuals then have to become laborers because they have little time left for the finer pursuits of life. They have to labor hard to support themselves and their children. The intellectual’s love for art, music, painting and philosophy give way to routine work all day long to provide the means for family survival. The warrior’s innate predilection for adventure and sport is replaced by overtime work to make ends meet. The vast majority of society comes to adopt the laborers’ way of living and thinking.
Only two classes then remain – acquisitors and laborers, or the haves and have-nots. The age of acquisitors eventually turns into the age of laborers, which may now be called the acquisitive-cum-labor age, in which the acquisitive intellectual is dominant. But many traits of the era of laborers come to afflict society, which essentially gets divided into two groups, one consisting of wealthy acquisitors, the other comprising the destitute and the middle class. The poor include the physical workers, and the middle class includes those erstwhile warriors and intellectuals now forced into toiling long hours for their survival.
For a while, people suffer through the deceit and exploitation of the reigning class. They maintain their lifestyle by increasingly getting into debt. Acquisitors now have a field day. They make money left and right. They enrich themselves through their control over businesses, farms and factories, and through lending money to the other classes.
This is the time that creates a group of disgruntled laborers from the former warriors and intellectuals. New leaders emerge from this group. Fed up with the status quo, one day they overthrow the ruling elite with the help of the masses, culminating in a social revolution of workers. It is through this process that the social cycle starts anew.
The particular genius of the United States has been to replace emergent leaders in this natural cycle with timid Democrats. They steal the thunder and lead the exploited masses into a brick wall. We are told that our only avenue of change is through the Democratic Party. That party then does all in its power, through dissembling and inertia, to block that change. Welcome, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton.
The question is, does Barack Obama represent real change, or is he merely another Democrat poised to thwart change and preserve the reign of the acquisitors. I wish I knew.
Well, we just might find out.
LikeLike
In the lexicon of game theory, some chance is *always* better than no chance. With very people that Batra describes (Republicans) there is no chance. There hasn’t been since 1981, when the failure of St. Reagan and his voodoo economic became reality. With the Democrats, there is always a slim chance. (I have a new appreciation for your acceptance of Nader, but our chance was tied to his, and that equaled zero. I will continue to chide Nader voters only because of this: they voted for the moral way … with precisely zero chance of success. Remember, some chance is *always* better than no chance. And as you chide me for thinking that John Kerry was a better man than you think, I will continue to chide you for thinking that Ralph Nader was a better man than he is.) I have to laugh my ass off over the righties thinking that Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi are ‘my leaders’. I’ve never voted for them and I sure as hell don’t owe those two screw-ups any fealty. But this year here is a bit different. This election has a wild-card, and it sure as hell isn’t the Gelding McCain. It’s Barack Obama. Me, I’m playing the best odds against a stacked deck, and I hope that you will too.
LikeLike
If you introduce the concept of “bargaining” and “leverage” into game theory, then Nader makes sense.
LikeLike