I've seen an odd thing several times recently: people asserting or assuming that socialists want to give unlimited power to the state. (I can come back and find links if anyone cares about the particulars.) That's just a non-sequitur: as a quick perusal of Wikipedia will show (and I will not provide a link), it has nothing to do with the power of the state, only with the relative distribution of wealth and power relations.
(I've railed against Wikipedia in the past, and don't need to include another rant here; however, there are much better sources available, if you care to pursue the topic. I've read Ayn Rand, why don't you go read some
Fredric Jameson?)
It seems that often, when conservatives accuse liberals of wanting something or other, they reveal their own unconscious desires - their shadow, in Jungian terms. (It's become a cliche that guys who spend too much time complaining about/worrying about homosexuals are likely to be gay themselves; mutatis mutandis, concerns about, say, President Obama rounding people up in camps is a projection of people's unconscious desire to round people up.)
In any case, I am not particularly interested in giving omnipotent power to the state (not that I could of course, but I've seen it phrased that way), or signing away my rights in favor of cheap cars and gruel. And I don't even deny that people who work hard, or who are innovative, or perform some vital service, should be rewarded for that; the question is, how much more? Should house painters be eligible for food stamps while investment bankers commute from the Hamptons in helicopters? (That of course doesn't address the question of whether investment bankers produce anything of worth, and it's arguable that they don't.)
The middle is being hollowed out, and I think that's the source of much of the paranoia and extremism that's poking through, e.g. as the Tea Party; but I continue to be shocked at how poor the response is in meeting the actual problems.
There is of course an argument for supporting this: make things worse, make them so bad that the people will finally rise up! I'm not that kind of socialist, though.
There is of course an argument for supporting this: make things worse, make them so bad that the people will finally rise up! I'm not that kind of socialist, though.
2 comments:
Ducking the main point of your post, the first cartoon reminds me of a liquor store on North California Ave in Chicago that was called "Non-Better Liquors." For want of an 'e'... My made-up commercial slogan for them was "Non-Better: we're about the same as the rest--hey, you could do worse!"
So I guess this might actually address one of your points, which is probably why you put the cartoon there in the first place. One criticism of centrally-planned or other social-levelling programs is that they fail to encourage excellence. Free marketeers of course point to the profit motive as the only sure way of doing so; what means might a socialist choose?
(...going now to search Wikipedia for Fredric Jameson...)
As someone who has had the thrill of getting positive feedback about my songs, hearing my (college) band on the radio, published a cartoon (beyond the web) and also published an actual book, I can speak firsthand about other possible motives for doing stuff. And it's not merely fame: I didn't eat bugs on TV, I actually produced things that others thought had value. And in all of these cases, I didn't expect a direct monetary return. I know a lot of stuff gets put out there in hopes of "striking it big," including stuff that won't in itself make money, but may lead to further economic opportunities (including my own publications, although certainly not my musical performances) - but I can't imagine that people would stop innovating just because they already had enough to eat and a dry place to sleep.
Hm: this may warrant another post.
And I may have to steal "non-better liquor" for another cartoon!
Post a Comment