Contributors

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Indeed

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires----John Steinback.

13 comments:

Unknown said...

This is so true....the American dream persists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that ANYBODY, no matter how uneducated, illiterate, unintelligent, impoverished, forgotten, screwed over, discriminated against, used by politicians and facing insurmountable odds, both from crappy schools, slap-dash "families' who give no support, and all sorts of obstacles, can somehow become rich. Therefore, few people begrudge the wealthy, because they think (however misguidedly and fantastically) that soon their own ship will come in.

GuardDuck said...

Hmmm, you post this like it's a bad thing.

Says as much about you as it does about those you ridicule.

Mark Ward said...

Well, it's not a bad thing that socialism has never happened because history has shown us that centrally planned economies fail. But history has also shown us that free market fantasies are just that and il consig is quite accurate in her statement above. People have to stop believing this fantasy and become more happy with their lives. Of course, that means we have to alter the paradigm of our culture (MJG) and define success differently so it's not going to be an easy task.

GuardDuck said...

Well Mark,

Why don't you tell me some specific examples of what people should value as success instead.

I should note though, that whenever someone speaks of what other people should value it just sounds like a different side of the same coin you decry as the rights imposition of morality upon others.

How would you differentiate your thoughts on what others should value with what others think you should value?

Mark Ward said...

First of all, can we dispense with the "liberals are telling me how to live my life" adolescent power fantasy? It's unbelievably frustrating to start a conversation within that framework. It's simply not true and I'm very tired of coddling paranoia.

My chief gripe with this country is that we define success extrinsically and not intrinsically. People only do things if there is a material gain in it for them. This has been passed on to the youth of today and they are rarely motivated unless they get something material in return-usually money, candy or a snack. In other words, people don't do things for the simple sake of doing them and feel the reward of being smarter, more experienced, and having the sense of giving something back.

Now, everyone defines this differently. Being that you are came here from Kevin's blog, I would say you might define one form of success as someone who learns proper gun safety and learned how to protect themselves. I would define success as turning in superior work at school which can open doors to a college and a stable career. It doesn't matter the specifics. You and I would each do these things for the sake of doing them, not because there was a monetary or material reward waiting for us when we did them. And that's the problem, generally, with people today. They aren't motivated without the cookie. But it's really worse than that. The image of success has become terribly warped.

As il consig aptly pointed out, people have these fantasies that their ship will come in and they will be just like LeBron James or Beyonce. To begin with, that's unlikely to happen. And just because they are stars and rich they are successful? LeBron James is a self involved d bag.

So, it's not even capitalism anymore. It's some sort of weird casino fantasy with the owners of the casino accusing anyone who derides them of being communists. And around 30 million people believe them because they are angry and afraid. I keep mentioning this quote but it really is appropriate to our country today. Andrew Sheng, a chief economic advisor in China, said in the film Inside Job, "Engineers build bridges. What do financial planners build?" I would define engineers largely as people who are successful. I would define my friend who is the president of a shoe company as a success. They put things in the world that people use and do what they do because they love it.

Other things I would value as success-family, friendship, faith, community service, mentoring, and healing (mentally and physically). By no means is this a complete list nor should my examples be taken as such either but they are beginnings.

juris imprudent said...

First of all, can we dispense with the "liberals are telling me how to live my life" adolescent power fantasy?

This is one thing that left and right agree on - they both have an overwhelming need to tell other people how to live. This is no adolescent power fantasy - and you have ignored recent examples of liberal (Obama Admin) nanny-ism after asking for such. Perhaps you don't recognize it when you see it - because you agree with the nannies.

My chief gripe with this country is that we define success extrinsically and not intrinsically.

And yet you immediately set yourself (and GD) apart from that. Strange isn't it when you look closely how little the world conforms to stereotypes (which is for the most part the rest of your argument).

But old grumps have been complaining about the next generation since Socrates, so don't feel bad.

Unknown said...

Well said, Mark.

Haplo9 said...

>And that's the problem, generally, with people today. They aren't motivated without the cookie.

Ok, so you think that people don't live up to your standards. So? The real question, Mark, is whether you would use the power of the government (either for outright lawmaking, regulatory authority, or taxation) to try to make people live closer to your standards. Would you? I believe you would, especially if said "making" was sufficiently wrapped in feelgood, do-gooding pablum such that you could convince yourself that you were actually doing the rest of us a favor.

Mark Ward said...

Hap, your statement illustrates why it is so unbelievably frustrating to even discuss issues like this. Your paranoia about the liberals and the government is where you start from and it invariably devolves from there.

The answer is no. It's not the job of the government to change the way people think. But guess what? It's not the job of corporations to socialize us. Now, that's not entirely their fault but they do bear some responsibility for taking over the socialization of people. They need to change if at least for the sake of their survival.

What needs to happen is for people to realize what is going on in our society and stop it. These aren't "my standards," Hap. They are problems that need to be addressed if we are going to move forward as a nation. We will likely fail as a country if extrinsic motivation is the whole of why we do things.

Unknown said...

I wouldn't advocate the use of anything in order to make people believe or act one way or another.

Other than, free speech. Protected by the 1st amendment. Marketplace of ideas? Remember that? Persuasion, facts, argument.

The problem is that so many people today are so completely ignorant of the actual facts. Willfully and blindfully so, following any sheep-hearder who yells loud enough and saves them from having to think for themselves, or God forbid, actually READ something, like, the constitution or the Federalist papers or any number of origiinal sources out there.

People need to rely on themselves, think for themselves, listen, debate, reason, research, and then come to a conclusion.

Whether the conclusion is "true" or "false" is not always clear nor is it actually always relevant.

After all, especially in the area of politics, opinions differ. However, the opinions should be based upon fact and reason.

OK, don't get me started...! :)

Anonymous said...

Consig,

"People need to rely on themselves"

is anathema to Mark's utopian vision of the US. I'll go ahead and put the words in his mouth and say that you obviously: live in an adolescent, Randian, rugged individualist, fantasy world.

juris imprudent said...

But guess what? It's not the job of corporations to socialize us.

Did someone that the rest of us can hear actually suggest that?

We will likely fail as a country if extrinsic motivation is the whole of why we do things.

That much I will agree with you; just realize that other people's intrinsic motivations can be wildly different from yours and no less valid.

Haplo9 said...

>Hap, your statement illustrates why it is so unbelievably frustrating to even discuss issues like this. Your paranoia about the liberals and the government is where you start from and it invariably devolves from there.

"Wah! Conservatives don't trust me! Don't they know that my way is the way that fixes the economy?"

>They need to change if at least for the sake of their survival.

You haven't answered the question Mark. How will you make this "need" come about?

>These aren't "my standards," Hap.

Since I and quite a few other people don't share them, yes, I don't think it's inaccurate to call them "your" standards as opposed to "ours."