You know why communist movement never really took off in the US? Because workers there do not think of themselves as oppressed working class, but as temporarily impoverished millionaires.
There's a lot of truth in this statement. IMO, "unbridled" capitalism is not a problem in itself. The problem is that government is not separated from the business matters, which means the wealthy can afford to "cheat" by altering the political environment to favor them. This can stifle the competition and significantly tilt the scales in favor of the ruling class.
You have a pretty distorted view of the behaviour a ruling class indulges in outside of the view of the peasants. I get it, you want aristocrats to be noble, outstanding citizens, bound by a code of noblesse oblige, but that's a fantasy. It's not real. It wasn't real back when aristocracy was an actual thing, it isn't real now. The sooner you come to realize that, the better.
Well, I do realize it isn't real, at least for the majority of the ruling class. Aristocrats like that are hard to come by these days, which is annoying me to no end. I strive to be such a man, bound my "noblesse oblige" a noble gentleman and an examplary citizen. Can't say I always succeed, but I have been taught this by my family, and I fully intend to follow this. It was never even a question for me, that's just how a man should be. I know at least one person who does the same, and she had a similar upbringing (and her lineage is even better than mine
). This is what an aristocrat, or even just a descendant without an actual title,
should strive to be. The vast majority does not, and I am very displeased with them because of that. But don't tell me that the minority who actually believes in honor, nobility and gentlemanly behavior does not exist, because both I and my parents are among this minority, as well as my friend (and her family probably too; it does take a certain upbringing). And as my grandparents told me, this kind of people used to be a lot more common, even if not a majority of the ruling class. I don't know to what extent (not having lived in those times), but I'm pretty convinced it was indeed the case.[/rant]
Still, you missed my entire point. It wasn't about gentlemanly behavior, or even basic human decency. No, those are not required. There are, however, certain social norms that ruling class abides by. If you're rich and important, you dress in suits and tuxedos, drive expensive cars and at least try to seem intelligent and educated. I meant this sort of norms and standards expected from the ruling class. The president can't drive a rusty Zaporozhec around unless he's deliberately trying to make a political statement. Nor can a banker debauch in a bar without press making a ruckus. You won't see a CEO stay in a roadside motel. The balls and races were more of a rhetorical a metaphor than anything else. The point was, since ruling class people can't just go to some bar and order some beer, they have to book a hotel and make it all a fancy, pretentious, secret ceremony. Ultimately, it was no different from what happens in college fraternities, only those were grown men doing it. All the shock came from all those supposedly dignified figures acting like students, but this is just human nature. If this was anyone else (say, some middle class office drones), there won't be a problem. Their greed and lack of foresight, no doubt influenced by the financial bonanza that preceded the crisis, is another matter, and a problem with capitalism in general, regardless of personal flaws of people who run the banks.
Still, I do think that this shows that the ruling class is made up of people unsuited for the task. But then, it's hardly my only problem with the ruling elites. Believe me, in Poland, the supposed elites hardly even
look the part (for example, some came in business suits to an evening charity ball. I looked better than a good part of them on my high school prom).[/another rant]
