sleepy jack

I guess there's just some fundamental differences here. I've never understood the argument that Socialism robs people of motivation because it hands everything to them on a silver platter. You can look at many socialist countries and see that isn't necessarily the case. On the opposite of that spectrum you have people who would be very wealthy in those countries and instead of immigrating to the States they stay and choose to live a non-affluent and superfluousness life. I think in both cases, the would be Bourgeois and would be Proletariat feel moral responsibility to contribute to society.

The problem I have with your idea - the American dream basically - is it seems to me to be the exception as opposed to the rule. I don't really want to get personal with this but my family, despite working hard, has never been able to climb beyond lower-middle class. The odds are completely stacked against us too. In the United States there's essentially a system of welfare for the rich and affluent and capitalism for the poor. The problem with that is capitalism is incredibly vicious and indifferent to the poor. Just look at Africa to see that.

And then here's where I see things completely different then you do. I agree you should be allowed to do what ever you want as long as you're not interfering with anyone else's freedom but I think capitalism by its very nature calls for that. It leads to a horrific division of classes where one class is under oppression constantly. In capitalism there where always be that oppressed class too - in this system people are in economic chains. I think, as long as these chains exist that no one will ever be free and justice can only exist as something purely idealistic and platonic. When politicians and so on start talking about the beauty of the free market and the American dream they're only doing so to ensure that those chains stay unnoticed.

__________________