[lit-ideas] Re: From today's paper
- From: Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:32:13 -0800 (PST)
The authoritarian aspects are the ones being used to *remove* anything good for
the people, i.e., any vestigial benefits of the New Deal like Social Security.
This financial crisis is a transfer of wealth away from the the middle class
toward the very wealthiest, unless you can spin taking $700 billion from the
communal coffers and giving it to Wall Street by someone from Wall Street; for
that matter, by lots of someones from Wall Street since they all go through the
same revolving door into and from the government. Likewise; the repealing of
Glass Steagall that basically prohibited commercial banks from using
the public's savings to gamble with, enacted during the Depression as it was
that very gambling that, like today, was responsible for the
Depression. Greenspan started working on repealing Glass Steagall as soon as
he took office. Social Security is most likely going to be gone in the pretty
near future, most likely in my lifetime.
The people are the country Eric. What's the difference between, say, Mexico
and Sweden? It's the standard of living of the citizens, obviously..
Sweden ironically happens to be this horrible thing called socialist while in
Mexico the people are pretty much on their own, with drug lords filling the
vacuum, doing the best capitalism in town. Citizens can't live well without a
government that is at least not against them. What's the point of having a
government at all if it's not for the welfare of its people? Just curious,
Eric. How do you define socialism and how is it authoritarian?
I guess for Veronica, I was unclear that literature didn't particularly help me
learn anything about myself. Even historically, like everyone I loved Gone
With the Wind. But until I understood the Civil War better (not that I
understand it well at all) I didn't know that the scene where Ashley and Rhett
and the others go out to clean out the bad areas was basically a euphemism for
a Ku Klux Klan style outing. Does it make Gone With the Wind useless? No,
obviously. It just, for me, means that I need to get some context before
really appreciating it.
Likewise I remember watching that wonderful BBC dramatization of Middlemarch
and I remember going for a long walk and discussing it and finding just
mountains and mountains of psychological dynamics in it, but first I had to
learn the dynamics or I would never have seen them. But, please don't
misunderstand. We agree, literature is wonderful. I completely agree with
you that there is no better way to travel through time and space other than in
a book. I stopped reading maybe because the last literary work I was reading
was Anthony Trollope and suddenly 9/11 happened and I couldn't concentrate on
it. Their little problems of Mrs. Somebody doesn't like Mr. Whoever seemed
utterly irrelevant to 110-story buildings going down. Soon after that the
godforsaken 21st century happened; Iraq and peak oil and climate change and
resource depletion. Who ever heard of any of that in the 20th century? It's
all kind of leveling out to this dull
background roar that I'm getting used to. My literature-filled 20th century
is long ago and far away. Maybe we need to read a book on this list again.
Maybe read Tom Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again just for the title....
--- On Sun, 11/2/08, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: From today's paper
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 8:35 AM
Ursula asks: Why else would 'socialist' be such an
inflammatory term?
Because there are enough authoritarian aspects to US
society as it exists right now, without adding the
notion of socializing. Socialism is inflammatory
because it suggests yet another ueber-entity that
brings even more monitoring and control. Forget the
"socialism-is-bad-for-business" argument. That's not
it. It's that things are difficult enough without
surrendering yet more power to incompetent officials.
Socialism really boils down to some anonymous doofus in
an office having more power over your life than you do.
It's Kafka without the fine prose style.
In a more homogeneous society, "socialism" wouldn't
strike so many gongs. People would get along more
easily, they'd understand each other's motives better,
and they'd feel more prone to cooperate for the common
good. If some popinjay at the Central Committee (or
whatever) went power mad, went paperwork mad, or was
just spoiling everything by forcing people to attend
tuba quartet recitals in public parks, people would be
better able to take cooperative action against said
popinjay.
But in a fragmented society, socialism is just an extra
set of cleets added to Orwell's jackboot crushing a
human face forever.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
