“The System” (as some call it) has but one purpose. That is maintaining itself while accumulating the greatest wealth it can for those at the very top of that system’s organizations.
To accomplish this purpose it is necessary to suppress the majority of the population in a society. For a society cannot have massive accumulation of wealth in 1%, 2% or even 10% of its population and have an egalitarian society also. Either we can have massive accumulation of wealth in a few hands or we can have an equitable distribution of wealth where the vast majority share in the “blessings” of that society, but… we cannot have both.
For an instance: If we begin with an economy where there had been a relative economic equity (the 1950s and 1960s in the United States of America, for example) there would then be the need to drive a wedge between the middle and the lower echelons of income earners. The poverty stricken would play only a peripheral role in this process.
This wedge driving would have to be accomplished, in part, by driving down the wages of the working class through union busting and offshoring of jobs among other means. This would be done so the lower income earners fall below what is necessary to maintain an independent lifestyle. Some of whom would then need “public assistance.” This “public assistance” would then be presented as a “government handout.” A handout which would increasingly be paid for by the middle class and those few workers still capable of maintaining an independent lifestyle.
This increase in the burden on the middle class would be accomplished in two ways: first by decreasing the contributions made by the working class whose ranks would be diminishing, and much more importantly, by decreasing the tax previously levied on the upper class and their corporations.
This would continually be done in order to justify an apparent need to cut taxes on that middle class. However, such a decrease of taxes would necessarily have be applied to the upper class (out of “fairness”) who would get the lion’s share of the benefit. This, in turn, lessens the sources of income for the government thus forcing it to cut “social safety net” programs. The more the safety net is cut, the more those at the margins would fall ever deeper into poverty. This would serve to increase the burden on the middle class. Thus, an ever increasing vicious cycle of impoverization in a race to the bottom of the economic latter is created.
All the while the productivity of the working class would have been increasing in their efforts to maintain their jobs. This increase in productivity would create ever greater national wealth. Wealth which would not be shared in an equitable fashion with those creating it. Instead this wealth would be accumulating in the hands of those at the very top of the economic strata who control the means of production and distribution. Once concentrated this wealth could not “trickle down” fast enough to equalize the disparity created by this process. The ultra-rich would “be forced” to store their newly acquired wealth in “secret offshore banks accounts” which would serve to hide that wealth from taxes.
Those who are forced to rely on “public assistance” are then presented by the mass media (which is owned by the wealthy) as “too lazy to work,” “shiftless bums” and/or as unworthy in some other way. Thus justifying further cuts in “public assistance” which would then create more funds with which to cut taxes that benefit those at the very top of the economic strata. That is, on those who control the corridors of power which make the requisite policies necessary for this process of wealth accumulation to occur.
In this way those at the highest levels make out “like a bandit” all the while blaming the economic woes of the middle class and the upper level of the working class upon those who are suffering the most.
Roger W Mills II