The Left's Myth of American Unexceptionalism
I read an article by Ezra Klein the other day, in the liberal American Prospect magazine (Yes, I do try to read both sides) called, "The Argument Over Inequality, The myth of individual exceptionalism may undermine society on the whole."
The title grabbed my attention, after all, I always believed that individual exceptionalism was a real thing. Since I was a child, I was sure that there were people in my family and in society who were exceptional in one way or another. Not only that, I have often thought that perhaps I was exceptional in one way or another, that I had something special to add to society. Yet Mr. Klein was here to tell me that actually, everything I thought about exceptionalism and personal achievement is wrong, and might actually be BAD for "society on the whole." Surprising.
Klein starts by using CBO numbers dishonestly to establish that our current system of capitalism is unfair:
"2006 is now the most unequal year on record. The number to remember is 5,800 percent. That's how much the incomes of the bottom 20 percent would have increased since 1979 if they had been given the same $863,000 pay increase as the average member of the top 1 percent.Never mind that the "poor" is a fluid definition in America, as opposed to most other countries in the history of man where the class you were born into was most likely the class you'd die in. Never mind that people who are poor in America today often move up tommorrow if they work at it, and sometimes those who are rich today, aren't always so rich tommorrow, all thanks to our "unequal" system of capitalism.
That didn't happen, of course. Instead, the number was 11 percent, or $1,600. That was the raise given to the bottom quintile during the past 30 years. Altogether, it could almost buy you a Macbook Air. Almost."
Using Bell's invention of the telephone and Darwin's evolution research as examples, Klein goes on to suggests that it's simply not fair for a select few to reap rewards for various inventions. After all, every invention builds on the technology that comes before it, and often times there are "parallel inventions." Someone, sooner or later, would have invented the magic doohicky:
"That is often the dull reality of progress: It follows a comma rather than a paragraph break. A field of research achieves a critical mass of ideas and underlying concepts and the next step becomes clear to a number of experts. A mixture of timing, PR savvy, and aggressive legal representation decides the name that gets etched into the history books. But the credit, properly distributed, should really accrue to the collective knowledge and expertise of society."Think about that for a second. "The credit, properly distributed, should really accrue to the collective..." But society didn't invent the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell did. And he didn't do it for the collective. He did it for his own selfish reasons and thank god for that. Bell gets the credit, and society gets to use the telephone.
The article gets worse from here, thankfully it's short. Like Mr. Klein's intelligence. The problem is that this "collective" versus "the individual" mindset isn't just Mr. Klein's bright idea. To use one of President Obama's favorite lyrical instruments, this "false choice" of collectivism versus individualism, is the stock in trade of the left. This idea is the root of what Obama was talking about when he was promising hope and change. Hope for all of those folks who don't push themselves to reach a higher level in life, change for those who do.
Call it "The Myth of American Unexceptionalism."
On the foreign policy front, President Obama has operated from a position of equanimity with the rest of the world's nations. In many ways, Obama actually positions the US as a bad actor in the international community - America has to gain forgiveness for it's actions from the rest of the world. Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, unless by exceptionalism you mean exceptionally bad.
The truth could not be farther from reality. America has had it's foibles, we've certainly made mistakes. But on the whole, the international "community" if you could call it that, has a lot more to apologize for than we do. Never mind the miles long list of positives America has contributed to the world, as well as the less quantifiable benefits of our democratic nation's mere presence as a the sole superpower.
The leftist will stop me right here and make the tired claim that the "last eight years" have destroyed America's reputation abroad. But this common refrain cannot survive even a modest study. How exactly is that true and who is doing the judging? France's Sarkozy was friends with Bush, and may have a man crush on Obama. Germany's Merkel has been a long time ally with the US, pre-Obama and now post. The UK's alliance with the US has been unshakeable, and looks to continue that way for years to come, even if we do give their leaders thoughtless gifts. So who hates us really? Russia? Spain? Bitch, pleeeze.
Despite this, President Obama went on his apology tour and made
clear that the dastardly actions of the past administration will not be
carried forth in Obama's new America. The crowds liked it but in terms
of yield, there has been no benefit thus far. On the other hand,
Obama's relinquishing our role as the sole superpower and defering to a
dysfuntional U.N., the resulting loss of America as a true beacon of
hope and an inspiration for freedom and democracy, will have it's
costs, both in terms of America's direct interests, as well as the
progress of democratic progress throughout the world.
Obama's entire domestic platform is based on an overt sense of
establishing unexceptionalism. Bailing out irresponsible borrowers and
corporations on the backs of tax payers (most of which are considered
"rich") or close to it is yet another venture into the realm of
unexceptionalism. After all, it's those who were responsible with their
borrowing, exceptional by today's standards, who have to pay for the
mistakes of the unexceptional, the irresponsible.
But the biggest area in terms of inspiring America to be unexceptional is in President Obama's health care plans. Americans are so equal, so unexceptional in their individual merits, that access to health care should be equal regardless of what they contribute to society.
The left will call me heartless for not caring about the 50 million uninsured, they will say that Obama is only offering health care to those who don't have it and the rest of us can continue to use our existing health care plans. However, by providing a government sponsored alternative, employers have no reason to continue paying into a private sector health care system, and this will ultimately lead to it's demise. This will impact not just the quality of health care across the board but also the level of ingenuity and advancement, given to us by exceptional doctors and researchers, whose individual work has benefited the collective.
The very people Obama has forwarded to run with the government take over of America's health care industry invariably support rationing as the main means to lower costs. (Tom Daschle wrote about rationing health care extensively in his book). Rationing is the ultimate expression of unexceptionalism - we are all so damn terribly equal and unexceptional in our individualism. Mere drones in the bees nest we call America. Even if there was a 1 in 20 chance that a certain procedure might help, it will be stricken from the arsenal to reduce costs, in the name of what's best for the hive. Yet we are not bees.
Perhaps at a high enough altitude, such moves in order to reduce the cost of health care on the collective, in order to make it more available, sounds fair. But to the guy who put in exceptional effort throughout his work life, being denied treatment that might save his life, on the grounds of "comparative effectiveness research" isn't really fair to him or his family.
All of this to solve the problem of health care. But there are other solutions to providing care to the uninsured who need it, and lowering costs, without dismantling one of the great industries in America whose improvements to the collective American quality of life has been nothing short of exceptional (please don't get me started on the United States' WHO ranking, even considering it's high cost).
The lessons learned from communism and socialism directly refute the sorry ideas of the left and Mr. Klein. The great experiment that is America proves that individual and American exceptionalism has benefited the collective way more than any other invention in history, especially those created in the name of fairness. True fairness is freedom. Freedom to be selfish even.
Fact is, individual exceptionalism is responsible for every single great thing that we benefit from in our lives today. Up till now, America has celebrated and encouraged the individual who was exceptional. I'm hoping that this doesn't change or America's exceptionalism will truly become a myth.
"Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, unless by exceptionalism you mean exceptionally bad."
I think you mean "Strawman Obama doesn't believe..."
I think almost all Americans have this sense that we are 'special' in some way -- and we are without a doubt quite special. We just don't agree that we should get special treatment all the time, as in: be able to break the rules, but everyone else has to follow them. The burdens of American exceptionalism are also obvious: We are singled out for anti-American venom by rivals, targeted by terrorists fighting their own governments, and have to essentially police the entire world. It's too much of a burden, and frankly, I don't think we can afford it anymore.
April 30, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're number 1, we're number 1! Happy now?
April 30, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are truly quite "special" - how's that short bus treating you?
April 30, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, this is a big improvement over your last few posts. You've laid out your ideas clearly, so that we can really deal with them. Thank you!
It looks like you missed the point on a few of these ideas. For example, the point about Alexander Graham Bell is that he was one of numerous folks clamoring to put out similar devices at the same time, which suggests that invention is a social phenomenon. It's much more complex than that, of course, hence Solow's Residual (did you catch that discussion)?
The point of all this is that if we want our society to continue to progress, we should do a better job of understanding the mechanism behind that progress--something that Klein's "Galtists" fail at.
Your reading seems to owe more philosophically to the film The Incredibles than to what Klein actually says. I'm aware that it probably sounds condescending for me to tell you to "go back and read it again," but you'd do well to, I think.
I may post again with your remarks about Obama, but probably not--the whole basis of your argument is flawed by the fact that you redefined Klein's terminology for him. And as Answer Frog observed, this gets us into straw man territory immediately.
Thanks again for the post, though--I was pretty surprised to see that you read this stuff!
April 30, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even wrong.
The best reason to avoid feeling exceptional is that, like Intelligent Design, its effect is to shut down inquiry, to excuse mistakes. The value in assuming we are more typical than exceptional is that we have to justify our actions, testing them against our principles.
The exceptional part is precisely the examining, provisional, fallible use of reason and law. That part does not support automatic approval of what we, or even the apparently exceptional among us, do.
April 30, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, really the whole notion that being an American (or French, for that matter) somehow inherently makes you special is completely alien to me. It is unfathomable that you would use something like nationality to define yourself.
All it means is that you had some advantages that others did not right off the bat when you were born.
You are what -- if anything -- makes you special. What you do with that which was given to you defines you. (And in the end, it all comes down to geography.)
You are not talking about competition, or merit -- those would require starting from equal footing -- but about 'winning' and prizes, which is an entirely different goal.
(Aside from the obvious questions like "could someone maybe contribute more if they had proper healthcare," or "how is it that people in those commie medicine countries live as long or longer even though their healthcare is so heavily 'rationed'?")
I will be charitable, and presume that you do not just want to have more stuff than someone else (what is the point of that?), but that you want to be comfortable, and do not believe it is possible for everyone to be equally comfortable at the same time? You should do the math on that at some point.
Would you be less meritorious if wealth was removed from the equation? Would someone else be more meritorious if wealth was removed from the equation?
April 30, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally
equal. They weren't only equal before God
and the law. They were equal every which way.
Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody
was better looking than anybody else. Nobody
was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All
this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and
213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to
the unceasing vigilance of agents of the
United States Handicapper General. -- Kurt
Vonnegut
C
May 1, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, this has nothing to do with the Klein article. You're just playing along with Obnoxious American's fantasy.
May 1, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's kind of funny that you say "Bell invented the telephone for his own selfish reasons". Bell invented the telephone because he was an inventor fascinated by the physical world. "Selfish" in this sense does not imply what one might think.
As AnswerFrog points out, you are simply attacking a straw man when you claim that Obama thinks America is "exceptionally bad". Is this what passes as debate? From what I can tell, Obama is a believer in exceptionalism. For example, he thinks it's America's duty to fix the problems in the Middle East.
If you want to form a cogent argument against the people who oppose American exceptionalism, it would be useful to figure out exactly what is meant by the phrase. People use the phrase not to say that there is nothing good about America. People use the phrase to say that America doesn't have a unique place in history, and that America wasn't placed on Earth by God to be the moral guardians of the world.
American exceptionalism is a key facet of the ongoing foreign policy of constantly meddling in the affairs of all the other countries of the world. It contains an air of superiority which goes well beyond what is justified by our superior economic position.
A lot of Americans seem to think that our nation has a divine right to a leadership position. The feeling of exceptionalism leads to a feeling of entitlement, which implies that leadership does not require the responsibility of understanding the needs and desires of the people being led.
May 1, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
May 1, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
People seem not to understand the theory of American exceptionalism. For some reason they think it refers specifically to the wonderfulness of Americans. American exceptionalism theory is that we as a nation was founded without any hereditary offices of state or state religion. We were the exception to revolutionary change because we did not have to contend with entrenched traditions of what a government must and should be.
At the time, it was a unique and noble experiment in self determination - in no way should it be taken to mean that we are superior by virtue of that exceptionalism.
May 1, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the problem with “left-thinking” Marxist/Socialist ideology:
Americans, like our Founding Fathers rightly give due credit to "exceptional individuals" who by their hard work, ingenuity and creativity, promote the advance of technological discovery, and by that, entrepreneurial freedom and our system of free enterprise.
Leftist ideologues have an inordinate craving to have the government dictate both individual ability and need. America is “exceptional.” Our Founding birth documents state our rights come from God and they are inalienable. That means no human being of mortal flesh and blood can take them away, whether grouped as a “State,” “an NGO,” or a “government.” The Russians tried Marxist/Socialism – it could never work. The world over, this lesson has been learned. Leftist ideologues cannot face logical dissent; for they are “closet dictators” waiting for opportunity to engineer forceful compliance in the guise of “legalism.”
I discovered many flaws with Marxist thinking as I delved into studying the works of Karl Marx himself. The works themselves speak boldly of his real intent rather than the adaptations made by adherents on a rampage to materialize Communism in their own respective countries.
It is well known among economists and political scientists that Karl Marx wrote, regarding a political-economic “call to arms” in reaction to the level of capitalist development already achieved in Germany and England. For example, Vladimir Lenin “jumped the gun,” by “putting the cart before the horse,” in the Soviet Union, the conditions of which, at that time, were grossly inadequate for a “Communist transformation” due to its ubiquitous agrarian economy. There was no surplus production in the Soviet Union to speak of, at that time. Karl Marx wrote in 1848, and Lenin took over the Soviet Union in 1917.
Marx claimed that the rigorous discipline required to maintain the labor force, coupled with tremendous surpluses of mass production that have to be externalized, - given that wages do not allow all employable workers to obtain even the fruits of their own labor and that, even if they could, excess goods would remain stockpiled and unsold, - owners of the means of production who are the major employers are then compelled to periodically release or discharge workers into the streets, until such a time the surplus mass production is disposed of.
This is 2009 and Karl Marx proved wrong in all his assumptions regarding capitalist development, especially in America, where safeguards, protections, precautions and requirements of justice such as the minimum wage, unemployment insurance benefits, social security retirement benefits, pensions, IRA’s, CD’s etc…, are lawfully framed into the principles of the free market so that comprehensive prosperity has continuum with inalienable rights to constructive liberty.
Marx wrote that every economic stage is poignant with contradictions due to the unity of opposites – excessive abundance and artificially created scarcities, for example - and eventually, a "revolution" or “social explosion” occurs and the next stage is attained. In that manner, Karl Marx proceeded from the first stage or "primitive accumulation," to various stages, such as the manorial system, mercantilism, and then, up to Capitalism, from which ensues "Socialism," – during the stage of Socialism, the State or government owns every means of production, and controls distribution of goods and services. (I am briefly summarizing; now remember, every stage is filled with contradictions and must "explode" eventually.) And finally, the stage of “Communism,” is reached whereby “society” owns all things in common.
In that final stage, as if by "Merlinesque magic," "the State withers away," and “society” becomes "the administration of things and the direction of production." Since each stage is assumed to be poignant with contradictions, the State or government cannot “wither away.” What kind of things will be administered; what kind of things will be produced? How will they be directed? And then directed to where? Who will administer? Who will direct?
What a fantasy! A godless dreaming conspirator like Karl Marx suddenly vaporizes, dissolves, disintegrates, pulverizes and escapes from every assumption he posited regarding Capitalism and "human nature," - "contradictions," "unity of opposites," “economic stages,” and "revolution," all, go “out of the window.” And Marx had "solutions" to "greed," "injustice," “private property,” and other so-called "irrational passions," coming from the State or government, now posing as the final “owners” of all means of production. He dismissed all forms of spirituality as a “crutch.” He stated that “Religion,” is the “opiate of the masses” and would have to be abolished. And his motto in replacing the free market was: "From each according to his ability (don't forget about the "drones" who must clean the stool, empty the trash, enter the mines, unclog the sewers etc.., who decides?.) and to each according to his need." Really? Who decides?
So the State that "magically" “withers” away now will determine both "ability" and "need" for all persons under the jurisdiction of the State or government.
Human ability would be constrained by State bureaucrats “administering things,” – no one could develop to the fullest development of his or her potentialities. Human need would be determined by the State or government bureaucrats who would “direct production,” – no one could prosper in pursuit of his or her lifelong goals; as already understood, no entrepreneur needs apply, for that implies the revival of private ownership of property. In our representative democracy, we know that hard work and gainful employment can bring great prosperity - Bill Gates and countless millionaires know this self-evident truth.
But from Karl Marx’s standpoint, only government bureaucrats would be allowed to dispense “private property” to laborers in payment for labor; and only State bureaucrats would determine the value or worth of labor, incentives, rewards, amount of owned property or final incomes.
Marxist/Socialism does not make sense except for people who entertain totalitarian fascism as a State-controlled “political system,” denying individual rights and micro-managing private lives.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” is the most satanic doctrine ever devised by the mind of Man. Long live Capitalism, the work ethic, the free market, entrepreneurial freedom, and the rule of law based upon the consent of the governed! Let’s keep voting!
Karl Marx was simultaneously naive, cynical and deceitful. He is Darwin's "twin brother," so to speak. Darwin also opposed human spirituality in his godless publications; he advocated a “theory of origin” that contradicts the Holy Bible. Marx and Darwin “paired up” in that, “descendants of apes,” would thus “struggle,” or “make revolution” merely to achieve government or State ownership of all means of production, and then, position themselves as “top bureaucrats,” – no different from the Soviet Union disaster that crippled its capacities for economic and democratic development.
We must reject Marxist/Socialist ideology and the “ape mentality” that degrades humanity in the saying that “the monkey with the most toys wins.” The Holy Bible tells us that God created us “in His own image and unto His own likeness;” and the Declaration of Independence states it’s a self-evident truth that we are created by God who endowed us with our inalienable rights.
For the horrendous sufferings Karl Marx and Charles Darwin have caused on the earth, they deserve eternity in Hell.
Thanks. With God's blessings, LEO
May 1, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, Leo, Leo. Its Good to see you back to your cut and paste rants.
Who brought up Karl? Darwin too? Eternity in hell for presenting thought provoking ideas? Where is your Christian love?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” is the most satanic doctrine ever devised by the mind of Man.
Really? thats the most satanic? Sounds like a philosophy from someone else I've read.
Should have thrown the bum out. Couldn't he have gotten a job or something?
Commie hippie.
May 1, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, man, just... wow.
Wall of Text crits you for 32,652,000 damage.
You die.
It's amazing that you'd even bring Darwin into this. Normally, Darwinist references in terms of social and political issues are expressed by those supporting an unfettered Free Market: the businesses that don't adapt to the changing conditions don't survive. That's the so-called "Darwinist" economic attitude, and it's the one required by unfettered free enterprise. The unfit, after all, can't be subsidised, because that puts unfair pressures on those businesses that would normally succeed without government assistance.
So I have to say, I'm impressed. Demanding a Darwinian approach while simultaneously wishing him an eternity in Hell. Not, of course, that anyone gets an eternity in Hell... after all, Revelations clearly states that those who don't share in eternal reward will be condemend to Gehenna, "the fire that burns for an Age". That'd be 1,000 years, at which time... they're utterly obliterated, no eternal torment. Sorry to disappoint. Of course, there's also that whole 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing, but obviously you've decided to go ahead and offer yourself up for immediate judgement. Please list all of your sins so the community can evaluate your case. But I digress...
Next, allow me to congratulate you on completely missing the point of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Who decides ability? Each of us do. You do what you want to do, what you feel you're most suited for and called, within yourself, in your heart of hearts, to do. That is where your truest ability lies: where your heart calls you; because that is where you can go and do what you do happily and freely. Each of our efforts contributes to the whole of society, no matter what those efforts are. Society would be impossible without each piece of the puzzle that's contributed by individuals. So, it's in society's best interests for those contributions to be ones that are made without rancor or compulsion.
That means people doing the things they love to do, which means people finding the things they love, and then being given the opportunity and tools to do it. But it hinges on the individual having in his life the liberty to pursue his own happines. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's a familiar phrase, but I don't think you'll find it in the Bible.
Life? The people of Jericho weren't given any option to convert and become Israelites, were they? Instead, Joshua was ordered by God to put to death every man, woman, and child for the crime of their ethnicity.
Liberty? Slaves told to obey their masters, guidelines on how badly you can beat your slaves...
The pursuit of happiness? Just how happy were those folks in Jericho about being the victims of divinely-ordered genocide?
Yeah. But I'm digressing again. Sorry. On to 'to each according to his need'.
What determines need? Well, that should be self-evident. You need food and water. You need protection against exposure, either through clothing or shelter (or, hopefully, both), and you need oxygen. When ill, you need the things, be they rest and fluids, or medication, that will allow you to recover. Those are what a person needs, from a physical standpoint; the things that, if they don't get them, they die. But from a social standpoint? Well, you need the physical things... and you need the freedom to be able to live in accordance with your beliefs and... oh, hell, look at that, we're back at Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
So, what determines need? Well... I'd say beyond the physical, biological needs... we do, ourselves, individually. Need, mind you, not want. You need shelter. You don't need a palatial manor. You need food. You don't need caviar. So we're talking about a baseline safety net that allows people to continue to function as contributing members of society.
You say this idea is 'satanic'.
First off, 'Satan' isn't a name, it's a job title. It means 'adversary'. In fact, the only times 'Satan' is identified in the Bible, he's doing exactly that: he's Man's Adversary. What's more... he can be shown to be doing it for God. Satan doesn't touch Job until God says it's ok to test him. Satan's other big moment is with Christ, and the whole 'turn this rock into bread' in the desert. Again, it's a test. When you took a test in school, were your teachers trying to make you fail? Or were they hoping you'd pass the test? Christ doesn't pass that test, he's not fit to be the redeeming sacrifice. If Christ isn't tested... then he doesn't know he's fit. 100% divine, 100% human, remember? All those human frailties and weaknesses, he's got. So, you test him. Demonstrate to him that he's got what it takes, that he has the strength of character to endure suffering and pain because it's the right thing to do. It's not the easy thing. It's not the personally advantageous thing... but it's the right thing.
So, maybe you're right: Marx was talking about trying to find an economic model where we put one another's needs ahead of our own wants. Darwin was talking about looking for truth, rather than just accepting answers on blind faith. They're not easy things... they're often not personally advantageous... but they are the right things. So in that sense, maybe they were 'satanic'... testing us to see if we could rise above the convenient and the easy, the teachings that had just been accepted without question, to choose the right options.
And if that's the case, then wouldn't the Christ-like thing be to pass the test? To reject what's easy and convenient in favor of the harder, less personally rewarding, but nevertheless morally correct choice?
Also, as a minor, but salient point:
"Lenin took over the Soviet Union in 1917."
Vladimir Lenin was one of the leaders of the October Revolution by the Bolsheviks in 1917. This led to the Congress of Soviets electing Lenin to lead the new Russian state, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Then followed the Russian Civil War, which lasted until late 1921. (Actually, the last elements of the White Army didn't give in until 1923.) In 1922, the Russian SFSR, Transcaucasian SFSR, Ukranian SSR, and Byelorussian SSR got together and signed the Treaty on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
In other words, in 1917, there was no Soviet Union to 'take over', just as there's no Soviet Union now. There was Russia. There remains Russia. The USSR happened later, and Lenin never 'took over', he was installed as the leader of the USSR from the start.
Splitting hairs? Maybe. Semantics? Definitely. But words matter, and the language we use to convey our ideas is important. Being clear about what you're saying prevents people from taking the wrong thing from your words.
It's also important to remember that, as you pointed out, Marx wrote in 1848. In 1848, the commercial telegraph had existed for 15 years, and wasn't widely implemented. It wasn't even as common as the depictions of it in fiction about the American west (usually set 1870-1890) make it out to be, and in those films, a telegram's an unusual event. So telecommunications was still in its infancy for Marx. When Marx wrote, the very idea of central power was a slow, burdensome process that took weeks, if not months or years, to wield. So he was primarily looking at smaller, localized groupings that saw to their own needs.
I think, in all honesty, if Marx had had any idea what was going to happen in the century and a half after he wrote those words, he'd have had a very different view on the potential 'contractions' to challenge capitalism's viability. A great many of the tools for communicating and coordinating economic activity that our entire system relies upon... simply didn't exist.
But, you also erroneously say that Marx had his solutions to human failings coming from the State. That's simply not so. As you point out, in Marx's final stage of development, the State is discarded as meaningless. Instead, the solutions come from the community. Marx's final 'communism' is nothing short of benevolent anarchy, or pure democracy (which are extraordinarily close to one another) in that problems are discussed among the entire populace, and solutions found and agreed upon, and then voluntarily implemented by all, because all agree that they are, in fact, the correct solution.
I don't know that I'd call Marx 'naive' in that, though. I'll certainly grant you that the scenario he envisioned is quite impossible, but that doesn't mean he actually expected it to happen. It's kind of like any other form of perfection: you know you can't ever get through life without sinning. You know you're going to sin. That doesn't mean you don't aspire to that impossible goal, and strive to achieve it. In the same way, just because Marx indubitably knew his utopian scenario would never happen, that doesn't mean he was wrong to set it out there and say 'this is what I think we should all try to get to'.
As far as religion and spirituality go... religion's a very different thing from faith. Faith can be a wonderful thing. Faith can inspire, can uplift, can bring out all of the best in people. A community of the faithful can be a beautiful thing, and can be a great source of common ground and benevolence among its members. Religion, though, the organized, structured system of enforcing orthodoxy and uniformity of doctrine and dogma... that is an opiate, but it's important to understand what that means. An opiate isn't just some drug you take to feel good. In fact, that's about the last thing an opiate is... though ironically, it's the first thing opiates promise and are sought after for.
What opiates really do is keep you unmotivated, keep you passive and pliable. That's what religions do: they give you easy, ready-made answers so you don't have to question. They give you behavioral guidelines and claim to have all the answers, in order to keep you from questioning the very need for them and their hierarchies. They keep you passive, receptive to what those in authority decide to tell you.
It's very, very important to understand the difference between a community of the faithful, and a religion. Religions are the systematic enforcing of their established dogma and doctrines. The folks you celebrate your beliefs with, the preacher who leads the services, those are parts of your community of faith. When you're faced with a difficult question, and you go to your pastor with it, and the two of you discuss the issue, and look to your personal faith for answers, that's the actions of members of a community of faith. When you get 'well, the church says 'x',' and trying to understand why gets you told what amounts to 'because they said so', that's religion. Your faith should never compel you to surrender your freedom to another man's judgement, but merely leave you willing to consider his words and opinions and how they resonate with your own relationship with God.
That's the difference between faith and religion, and it's important to keep that in mind when evaluating Marx.
Karl, I mean. Richard Marx... eh, you don't need to keep much in mind to evaluate his work. :/
Oh, and...
Wall of Text II crits you for 11,000,000,000 damage.
Hopefully, you lived. ;)
May 1, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The writer might be encouraged to read a great new book on the commons.
It is "Unjust Deserts" Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly.
It makes the case that knowledge is the primary source of our nation's wealth and that means that all Americans should share in that.
Tom Paine had this idea back at the founding of our nation. He argued for a National Fund financed by inheritance taxes. You would get 15 pounds at adulthood and 10 pounds a year at 50 (old age). Paine argued that a man alone on an island can't be wealthy aka can't accumulate private property. He needs society to be rich. So he owes society something.
Nowadays the ideas percolating up from academia like Alperovitz (a genius, by the way) and internet technology are the future. Creative Commons, social sites, Linux, are all manifestations of rethinking society and having the debates that Paine, Locke, Mills, Veblen took on as to how to deal with unearned income.
Even Warren Buffett said that "Society is responsible for a significant percentage of what I've earned."
This is the brave new world of American can do optimism. But Mom also says, "Share with your brother, Junior."
My favorite remark is on the book jacket by Barbara Ehrenreich. "Our celebrated entre- preneurs and moneymen are hoisting a cherry to the top of an already existing sundae--and then laying claim to the entire ice cream parlor."
May 1, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are uninsured and does not have insurance, you should check out the website http://UninsuredAmerica.blogspot.com - John Mayer, California
May 11, 2009 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink