From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 06:26:36 BST
Greetings again Ham,
Just a brief comment...
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:57:42 +0000, wrote:
> Social Darwinism? That's a novel aphorism for capitalism, although I don't
quite get the connection.
Social Darwinism proports that the "winners" (economically wealthy) in life are
so because they are "better" people. The poor are inferior, and hence their
poverty. This "natural selection", using wealth as an index of superiority, was
used in the 1870-1890 (as described by The Reader's Companion to American
History) to advance the notion that "unrestrained competition was simply
natural selection at work, steadily improving the national economy by weeding
out the unfit". In modern times (specifically post-Fordist) it has become the
dominant paradigm in resisting social measures to "equalize" wealth (i.e., the
"rich" deserve their wealth because they are productive, the "poor" deserve
poverty because they are lazy).
That is, the poor are poor because they are too lazy to go out and get a job, or
too stupid, or too valueless. The producers (aka, the "valued") rise and are
rewarded, while the lazy poor (the "valueless") fall to the bottom and die.
This is what you were saying when you suggested capitalism rewards productivity
and value, isn't it?
Since study after study has repeatedly demonstrated that there is no true
socio-economic mobility in this country, that people move slightly within a
given social-power level but never achieve true social class progression,
"social darwinism" (productive people get wealthy, unproductive people become
poor) would seem to suggest that the entire class of poor people must somehow
have deserved their lot in life, and it is not our responsibility or problem to
help them... after all, they are simply lazy and stupid.
As Platt suggested, they should just move somewhere and get a job. That's his
solution for ending poverty, I take it you are in somewhat agreement?
Two more quickies... :-)
> Then, I guess, you should consider Mark Maxwell's solution, which is to be a
"selfless" person and not own anything.
Not at all, although I see some Quality in the sentiment. Personally, as I've
said on the list several times, I'd be happy if more people cared less about
amassing personal wealth and more about doing Good, or as my grandfather used
to say "doing right by others".
Maybe we need another Great Depression to shake people out of their "wealth
fixations", make them remember that Good and wealthy are not synonyms, and that
one is far, far more important than the other. Of course, I am a dreamer,
aren't I?
> Personally, I value living life rather than trying to
> impress others with how I live it and what I have to show for it.
Marx, of course, would be appalled at the notion that community-minded action
was being touted as "trying to impress others". He would call that malady a
symptom of materialism. Was Jesus "trying to impress others" when he fed the
hungry, sheltered the homeless and healed the sick? Are the Amish "trying to
impress others" when they contribute to a communal plate to raise a barn for
their neighbor?
Only a staunch materialist would consider doing community-minded activity only
to reap some personal reward (in this case symbolic glory).
Nonetheless, I do agree with your sentiment.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 06:30:28 BST