Re: Please Read...
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2003 5:48 pm
Were we always that cold and cynical?
Possibly. Possibly not. I'm sure historians could point to rougher times, but they'd be hard pushed to point to a time when an acceptable level of existence has been so damned expensive and beyond the means of so many (ironically, there is another thread about how many remote controls we all own). Sign of the times, I know.
For the homeless/less well-off, the gradient back into society (and also education) steepens further, a foothold more dificult. Socialism pretty much failed (though that's not to say it could never work) and capitalism brought success to an influential few. We'd never had it so good, apparently. But who did 'We' exclude? We were promised change, but it never came. Instead what we got was a society that doesn't even have an acknowledged working class, though it does have what has been so disgustingly called an underclass. Under what? I take it the idea is to redeem oneself by aspiring to be middle-class.
Which is beyond the means of so many, of course. We already have a society of haves and have-nots. The danger we face is creating a society of haves and never-will-haves.
--
"once there was class-war/ but not any longer/ because baby we are all bourgeois now" McCarthy - We Are All Bourgeois Now.
Possibly. Possibly not. I'm sure historians could point to rougher times, but they'd be hard pushed to point to a time when an acceptable level of existence has been so damned expensive and beyond the means of so many (ironically, there is another thread about how many remote controls we all own). Sign of the times, I know.
For the homeless/less well-off, the gradient back into society (and also education) steepens further, a foothold more dificult. Socialism pretty much failed (though that's not to say it could never work) and capitalism brought success to an influential few. We'd never had it so good, apparently. But who did 'We' exclude? We were promised change, but it never came. Instead what we got was a society that doesn't even have an acknowledged working class, though it does have what has been so disgustingly called an underclass. Under what? I take it the idea is to redeem oneself by aspiring to be middle-class.
Which is beyond the means of so many, of course. We already have a society of haves and have-nots. The danger we face is creating a society of haves and never-will-haves.
--
"once there was class-war/ but not any longer/ because baby we are all bourgeois now" McCarthy - We Are All Bourgeois Now.