Apocalypse Cow wrote a substantial comment to my last post, for which I thank him. Contrary to what he thinks, it won't end up "sparking a big debate" (unfortunately) between us. I'm not a Utopian Socialist, and the corruption of which he speaks is impossible to avoid. I just want to make a couple of points, and I hope they make sense. I took one too many tramadol, and the room is spinning a bit. If it spins a lot, ala Dorothy's house, I'll take a powder and return to the post later.
Equality is both impossible to achieve and, most of the time, undesirable. What I seek is class consciousness that will give the laborers of the world the intellectual foundation for international unionization. Unions exist primarily to collective bargain, and that is the heart of the whole concept of socialism, at least as it has evolved. One worker alone is nothing, but united they are a force greater than any cabal, corporation or capitalist institution. Anyone with a brother knows that there will be fighting and disagreements, but the key ideal here is to stand together to overcome wage slavery and tyranny.
And that has happened, again and again, in the real world. The impact of unions is still seen in the workplace. But if you'll allow me to skip ahead a bit, my problem is with capitalism. And there are many ways to deal with it. First, let me quickly justify my hatred of capitalism.
Capitalism is a messy term to define. For brevity's sake, I'll stick to corporations, which represent a major institutions and a functioning mechanism that is critical to capitalism. A corporation has a single goal above all others; to make a profit. That puts corporations at odds with the rest of society. Whether the corporation is public or private, it doesn't matter, it exists to make a profit for the owners/investors. Without regulation, corporations will do absolutely anything if it means making money. Without corporate regulation there are no corporate ethics, as ethics are tied to regulation. I don't know if you buy that or not, but here is a short list of things unregulated corporations have done:
Hire and take advantage of children, pollute without restraint, ignore safety needs in the workplace, pay next to nothing, callously manipulate legislation, and price fix with other corporations.
That list goes on and on, but you get the point. I don't believe in evil, and that people are evil, but corporations may as well be. They are the enemy of anyone who can't afford to or is disinclined to buy stock or buy the company outright. Check out the movie The Corporation to get the whole schpiel. I'm trying not to bore people too much, here. My point, however, is that individuals in a company are just people trying to live well and are usually decent. Put them together in a corporation, however, and they can do unspeakably nasty things to the world and the people living in it.
So then the big question is what to do about these corporations? You can regulate them, ala the New Deal and the social democracies of Western Europe. Or you can destroy them and replace them with "state capitalism" like the Soviet Union. Just for the record, China is a sort of hybrid that has combined "free trade zones" inside a Communist/military state. Socialists talk about a "third way" that combines a democracy with strong civil liberties with something called "workplace democracy." That's basically forcing corporations to accept a union structure via elected workers' committees. It's worth mentioning that in political science terms, you can't have socialism without democracy. By definition, socialists are pro-democratic. That's one reason that Hitler rounded up the socialists even before he got to the Jews; politically, they were a threat to his desire for absolute control. Ironically, "national socialism" was strongly pro-capitalist and industrialist. They called themselves "socialists" because socialism was popular among the German people at the time.
Class equality is a straw man. The key is class-consciousness. In this country, the working class has a tendency towards self-loathing. Feeling like a failure for being poor or even middle class is a distinctly American pathology. Corruption in trade unions is recognized and most people take the attitude that it is an unacceptable price to pay for the right to collective bargain. Strangely, corporate malfeasance is seen as just the way things are, and accepted. Closer inspection reveals the cause for this, and it has to do with self-loathing among an entire class of people.
There is no big argument, though, because we fundamentally agree as best as I can see. We agree that total equality is impossible, and possibly undesirable (lumpen proletariat). But greater equality is very possible by doing two simple things:
1. Public ownership and regulation of non-profit corporations aimed at utilities and those services deemed too important for the game of profit-seeking; national health insurance, car insurance, flood insurance (insurance of any kind), airlines, oil and gas companies, utilities.
2. For the private businesses that are left, we have the aforementioned institutionalized unions and very strong regulation.
That's all it would take to level the playing field a great deal and increase the quality of life dramatically. Capitalists, still left in a limited capacity, will still try to subvert democracy (as they do now in countless ways, just look at the Bankruptcy Bill passed a couple of summers ago). Seeking total equality is like hunting ghosts, but my humble demands will go a long way to making a better country and world.
One last point, about the term survival of the fittest. I'd be remiss if I didn't say that that is a reference to procreation. The fitness of an organism is defined by it's ability to produce viable offspring. So the innate survival instinct to which you refer isn't akin to a general desire to procreate. The instinct itself IS (generally speaking) the desire to procreate, or rather the vague compulsion. Having children is a selfish act, an act people engage in less when there is no abject poverty and a high standard of living. Birth rates are lowest in places where the quality of life is highest; W. European and Scandinavian countries.
My only point there is that "instincts" can be impacted by economics and social engineering for greater general welfare. It's ironic that you chose an example of human behavior that can be affected by socio-economic policy to make the point that human animals can't be deterred in their instinctual compulsions. Another way to say it is that greed is not part of our DNA, at least to the degree that we encourage and cultivate it in our current world economy. Aspects of our natural inclinations can be embraced. They can also be measurably reduced by a society that has the right value system.
In conclusion, my goal is to reduce inequality, celebrate class warfare to increase class consciousness, and strategically undermine the goals of corporate capitalism via unions, a free press, free elections, and general hell-raising. But we do agree that there is no Utopia, and total equality is impossible.
When it comes to scholarly matters, I'm downright elitist. The people behind Wikipedia have more faith in the academic wisdom of the masses than I do. And these days, in addition to being an existential nihilist and a meta-ethical relativist, I'm insanely negative about what is going to happen in the future. My ideals are attainable, but they won't be attained in my lifetime, or probably for 1,000 years, if ever. My only point here is that what I want is possible, and with the same DNA we have now.
13 comments:
I read your entire blog, and the one sentence that struck me down was "people who have children are selfish." Since when? Since when is the product of two people in love selfish? You apparently don't have any children. Or, you'd know that in having children, a mother, and hopefully, a father, are now responsible for another human being. A very tiny human being. They nurture the child together, and teach it morals and values. There are even some who teach that going to a public school is bad. That owning a gun should be a top priority. But, I digress.
Children give their parents a sense of completeness. I wanted children because I wanted to nurture them, love them, and mold them. Teach them what's in the world, and how to handle it. Thank heavens we can even have children. Children have the enviable trait of saying what's on their minds, and seeing things from a different angle. I learn more from watching and listening to children, than adults. They may not be able to drive a car, or drink, or go to the store, or work, even. But, they give love. They laugh. They listen to what you say. They want to please you. (Usually.)
Anyway, for all of the reasons people have children, being selfish is not one of them.
You read my entire blog? If you did, you'd know I can't have kids. Or perhaps you meant the entire post. Anyway, having children is a selfish act. For what it's worth, a parent told me that, my last boss.
Who ever has a child for the good of society? Rarely, at best. The reasons given are the ones listen in your response, and you inadvertently complete my argument. Children are only sometimes the product of a loving couple that does a good job at being a parent. That's the ideal situation. And even that ideal is about two people seeking something to complete themselves with. You don't sit there, prospective father and mother, saying, "Geez, we need to have a kid because the population is so low and society needs another baby/citizen. As much as we hate the idea of being parents, we're going to have to do it... you know, for THEM."
That doesn't happen. People have all sorts of reasons for having children, but it comes down to a desire to have them. If you do something that you want to do, it is by definition a selfish act, as opposed to a selfless act.
Nobody is saying that a child isn't a huge responsibility. On the contrary, I think it's the greatest one people take on. And too many stupid people take it on. Way too many. People who think that owning a gun is a top priority, for example.
Buying a pet dog is a minor responsibility compared to having children, but take a look at that thought process and back away from your emotionalism. Dog owners have to walk the dog, pick up the shit, pay for health care, etc. But nobody has the audacity to say that they are doing it for anyone else but themselves.
The same is true of the greatest responsibility of all, having children. Just because it comes with a ton of responsibility doesn't mean you aren't doing it for YOU. Did you have your kid for me? My girlfriend? My grocer?
No, of course not. You wanted to be a mommy. You did it for you, and your partner. If you had asked me, you would have heard my vote. Nay.
I apologize. I meant I had read your entire post.
I know you can't have children. I think, just a little bit, that had you been able, you would have had one yourself, with your partner. If I want to buy a car, and I do it, that's selfish.
If I want to buy a dog, and do that, I'm selfish.
If I want to have children, that's selfish too? I understand the point you're trying to make, but the simple fact is that children aren't dogs or cars. They're breathing, living, human beings. And I do agree with you that a lot of stupid people have babies, when they shouldn't. Ideally, only those with IQs above 180 should have children, right?
If children complete your life, and you complete theirs, there isn't anything selfish about that.
Some people who get pregnant have the option to kill their baby. Why don't they all do it? Because they're selfish? No, because it's their faith, and I understand you don't have any. Maybe that's what this is all about. Faith in human nature, faith in your partner, your wife, your husband. Faith that everything will work out just fine.. Faith that a human being is born for a reason, and we may not necessarily know that reason.
Faith, my friend.
If not for hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, and two separate orchiectomies, I probably would have children. I've been with many women in my life, and things might have been different if I weren't shooting blanks. But that, like my faith, is irrelevant.
Children are unique, and are not cars or dogs, but they do share a common reason for obtaining; a desire to have one.
People talk about the joy their children bring with them, how it changed their lives, about how fantastic and beautiful it is. If it weren't all that, and people still did it, you'd have a case. But you don't have an argument. Every time you talk about how great babies are, you make my case even stronger. Great sacrifices and great rewards, that's becoming a parent.
But make no mistake, people do it because that's what they WANT.
Strangely, most of the people who have abortions do so out of selflessness. I know you're going to hate that, but it's true. They feel they can't afford a kid, or don't want to raise it without a father, or are too young to be able to take care of a baby. Then, at great personal cost and physical and emotional pain, they have an abortion. That's more selfless than having a kid as a way of getting closer to your partner. Or because you want to "love something."
You may be surprised to know that I'm not judging people in the negative for having a baby. It just has no inherent value, and causes the greatest joy (by far) for the PARENTS.
In this society, people without kids are more often seen as selfish. Because they don't share their lives with a baby. I don't attach any value to having a baby, for OR AGAINST. But I do know that couples have kids because they want them.
As Charlie once said, the boss I mentioned before, father of three kids (ten years ago): "Fatherhood is a selfish act...I did it for me and my wife."
Again, it's not a good or a bad thing, that's just the truth of it.
I'm no eugenicist, so I don't think we should have licenses for parenthood. I'm no Fascist, either. But most parents should sit and think about what they are going to do for a long time, and consider money and stability, among other things. The responsibility is that big. And with all the abortion access and birth control, so many kids are still born to K-Fed/Spears type parents.
How many babies have been born, I wonder, because his or her mother wanted a "baby bump" like Angelina Jolie? Again, selfish, but now a negative, hurtful selfish.
You shouldn't homeschool your kid, bad move. I hope they are at least learning about evolution.
I guess you and I have different meanings to the word "selfish" When I hear that word, I am struck with the sense that whomever is "selfish" is a prick, a person who cares nothing about anything except himself. And will do everything in his power to get what he wants, whatever that is. I do admit that I had children because I wanted to. But, I disagree that it was a selfish act, as it was discussed, and though about, and prayed over, before any babies appeared. It is a big decision, not one to be taken lightly, and for that reason, I classify that as non-selfish.
I also agree with you, that some "children" want to have babies so they can be like Brittney or Angelina.. That's just being stupid. And I agree that such people should be smacked upside the head. There ought to be some kind of a test, not necessarily written or whatever, but something to differeniate the difference between wanting a baby because they want to love and nurture it, or to want a baby because Angelina has one.. I don't know what that is.. but maybe we can think of one together.
As for my kids, they went to public school. Not because they taught evolution. But because I felt the teachers could do a better job. If I felt that I could do the job better than a teacher, I would have had them at home in a heartbeat. But, I know my limits. So, that wasn't an option.
Hi
A Google Alert on "workplace democracy" just referred me to your recent blog posting. I'm the comms guy with the New Unionism network, and I'm wondering if you'd be interested in a paper one of our folks has just done on how workplace and economic democracy might fit together. I know I found it pretty inspiring, becaus eit points to a way forward now, rather than after the crunch (whichever crunch comes first). You can download it here: http://www.newunionism.net
I can have kids. I am very potent. Yet, I have no desire to have kids, because I have no reason to. And my wife doesn't want them either, and she's very potent, so we're in agreement. Before anyone declares "Its impossible, all women want children", it is indeed true that my wife doesn't want children, probably moreso than I do.
To want to have children is not selfish. To have them is, because you are putting a burden on the planet, its resources, and honestly, the planet doesn't need any more people.
One of my friends had a kid so that his last name could continue, and he could honor the death bed wishes of his grandfather. That's a very unselfish reason to have a child, and yet in the grand scheme of things, its still selfish because of the burden it puts on the planet, and really on the other people trying to live on the planet. Sure, his kid will never know hunger, but because of that kid, some child in africa or china may know hunger due to resources being finite.
I'm sorry but if children are needed to make a person feel complete, I feel sorry for that person, and I'm saddened that they don't have a stronger sense of self-worth.
Anonymous, look at your arguments for why kids are so great.
But, they give love.
They listen to what you say. They want to please you.
Those all sound pretty selfish to me, because they're centered around you, and not the child.
And if you're interested, yes, I have two dogs. Both are rescues, and I don't think that there should be dog breeders any more than there should be person breeders.
Am I selfish? Hell yes. But that was the gist of the comment I made to Darren's previous post, that everyone's selfish.
Darren, I've got to put up another post later about why unions and regulation don't really work 100%, either, for the same reasons that Utopian Socialism won't work. And again, its no reason to not have unions, I just think they could be better than they currently are.
Thank you PHJ for the link, I'm heading out right this minute but I'll read it later, perhaps we can talk about it. I look forward to AC's commentary, too. Unions are a tricky issue, and my passion for them is strong, but they are human institutions. Their failings will drive you mad. Nothing works 100%. And with globalization, the picture for unions is dim, at best. More on that later. Again, I'm not a Utopian Socialist, I'm what they call a "Constructivist" Socialist.
This is a good discussion, though, and AC is also dead on right about kids. More eloquent than I at making the point I was trying to make.
Apocalypse Cow:
Deciding to be responsible for another human being is not selfish. Not in the sense of my own personal definition of "selfish." I view a selfish person as someone who doesn't care about anything else, and I mean anything else, except what he/she wants. Not sharing, for example, is one example of being selfish. My grandson is still learning this very basic part of life. But, he is learning. That's good. Because we don't want selfish people all over the countryside. People who decide not to have children are also okay in my book. Child-rearing is not for everyone, never has been, as you well know. It's very difficult to raise one. Yes, you get benefits of love, etc., but all in all, it's hard. AND long, depending how long they stay at home. And even when they don't.
So, a person decides to have a child. But, you better have a darn good reason for it, eh?
Raising a child from start to finish takes sacrifice, which I don't think is a definition of the word selfish.
Anony the Mouse,
Forgive my saying so, but you're being rather small-focused about this. Even the most wonderful, caring, responsible parents still brought the child into the already crowded world knowingly spreading the finite resources thinner.
To put it another way: Raising a child is not selfish. Producing one is.
Heh, I just thought of a great bumper sticker. "Think Globally, Act Locally...Stop having kids!"
I also wanted to ask the anonymous poster her thoughts on the following: My neighbor has 7 kids, and is now pregnant with the 8th. They recently had to give up a dog because it was so ignored by most of the family. More importantly, the eldest child(14) already feels neglected by her mother who only seems interested in the youngest 2 or possibly 3 kids. The mother has been heard saying "I love babies so much, I just want to always have one!"
Would you say this person is selfish?
In that particular case, yes. That is being totally selfish. To keep having children, just because you love babies, is extremely selfish. Because we all know they grow up. And when they do, they get ignored. That's not right. This person obviously doesn't care about her family.
But, there are those of us who decide to have a child, that are not selfish. That do care about their family. And that's the point, I guess. To have a family. What's wrong with wanting to be a part of a family? If that's being selfish, then go ahead, call me selfish. I don't think it is. It's a part of life, always has been. You are part of a family. And yes, there can be families without children. Some of us just choose to make our families bigger. And this pleases us. It's not like "You want a pizza, you eat a pizza, so you're selfish for eating a pizza." Life's full of choices. A person needs to be selfish, to some extent, in order to survive, I believe.
Well i mean I see the direction he’s going. But as humans we make our own self conscious decision about which the act is used for. Sometimes for pleasure sometimes for babies but Whose to say the “ urge” to procreate isn’t survivilism? Where does the urge come from, if not from nature? If he’s saying it’s only there to make babies and survive then the “urge to procreate” was successful in it’s mission
Post a Comment