Reply #48: Rousseau, inter alia

[dpibel]

You're a bit leapy here: You express, albeit obliquely, the proposition that it's problematic to agree on a definition of the common good.

I suggest that there are some points on which it seems relatively easy to agree: food, clothing, and shelter.

I didn't suggest that Marxism was the true path to achieving that common good. You, however, wandered off into some discourse which mainly serves to illustrate your misunderstanding of Marxism and your mistaken belief that the USSR and Cuba represent failed Marxism.

I can think of another guy who suggested that caring for the least fortunate was a good thing. Can you? (Hint: starts with "J.") Of course, it's not hard to make an argument that his philosophy has been a miserable failure, too.

Similarly, you determine, without reference to much of anything, that I'm some deluded follower of Rousseau and his notions of the noble savage. I was merely anticipating the argument (which you also make obliquely) that greed is a part of human nature by noting that there is a long and well-established human history of operating in societies which are based on motivations other than greed.

I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by your statement that "primitive cultures were more R than D." I'd be marginally interested in hearing your theories on that, because I think you're bucking pretty much the whole of social anthropology, not to mention facts, in holding that view.

In your discussion with other posters in this thread, you claim to have read Marx. What have you read? It's a little surprising to encounter someone who has read Marx and still manages to be startled by the news that Marx argues that capitalism is a necessary predicate for the development of socialism and, thence, communism.

You might also be startled to learn that one of the principal divergences between Marxist theory and the practice of something called Marxism in the USSR, China (you've been forgetting to include China in your list of failed Marxist experiments), and Cuba is that, in all three cases, the political organization was top-down. That's not the way Marx saw it happening. It's a common delusion amongst people who grew up in the USofA and have read more about Marx than they've read Marx to believe, as you seem to, that Marx prescribes an authoritarian society. I'd really appreciate it if you'd tell me where to find that in Marx.

BTW: I doubt there are many Marxist organizations that would particularly welcome my views, so you make a fundamental error when you try to put me in that box. But at least I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about when I talk Marxism.

Finally, you invoke the standard line about, "Why should anyone work to feed those lazy people who won't get off their asses?" This is, of course, a straw man which may reflect something about you--I guess if you were assured basic food, shelter, and clothing, you're pretty sure you'd just sit on your duff and take. There's very little evidence, however, that most people work that way. Perhaps you really believe that all those people all over the world are poor because they're just so damned lazy. If that's so, you should try their lives some time. Most people work very hard. Some scrape by; some (especially in lucky places like the USofA) do very well. But I'd be curious whether you could point me to an example of a society where people given the opportunity to do something useful that will provide them the necessities choose instead to leech off their fellows. See that italicized portion? That's a quixotic effort to try to forestall your answer that we can see the very thing right here in America, with its ubiquitous lazy welfare bums. When you have a system that depends on an excess labor force, you end up with people who have nothing to do, and no hope. (I don't for one microsecond expect you to believe that, and urge you to save us both the trouble of explaining to me that most people on welfare just like it so much, and that anybody in America can make it if only they try; fact is, I'll tell you in advance that I'm not going to argue the point.)

But really. The original point: You disagree that food, shelter, and clothing for all are "the greater good?" I guess if you do, you're original post makes sense; we probably won't be able to agree on that.