On Sunday, May 13, 2012, Michael Smith wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:04:26 -0700
> Jim Devine <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > 1) the fact that the NYT published this article -- which refers to
> workers
> > as "wealth creators" -- means *something* even if it's only UMC folks
> like
> > me (and Carrol) who read it; it reflects popular disgust
>
> No NYT article reflects anything 'popular'. Every word in the
> Times is the elite talking to the slightly less elite.
>

In general, sure. But part of that is having an opposition spokesperson
pipe in every once in a while.  In response to Carrol, I don't really see
it that way.  He's  mostly speaking about the fact that this discourse has
a long history.  That's true and notable. I think he errs in saying the
system feeds on our natural inclinations: this would mean we're all
naturally sociopaths or psychopaths but some of us (99%?) are unfortunately
able to subdue this inclination, much to our personal detriment.  Or, as
Hobbes said of the state and Freud of the nation, the ruling power manages
to subdue most of this misbehaviour.  But as McPerson said of Hobbes, this
overlooks the way the system itself actually fosters this proclivity,
effectively making it so that being a sociopath is the best way to get
ahead of the game by rewarding and protecting that behavior above all
others, at least when it comes to things that matters.  On this count it is
true that the author merely hints at possible avenues of agency for
changing the system (e.g. The state is used to reward vice so we would
reform or get rid of the state.) But in this case it seems enough to have
him articulate that everyone works and everyone takes risk.  Though these
things are quite obvious to anyone who thinks about it in the concrete, the
discourse mostly focuses on an abstract notion of people called job
creators vs. those who are workers. So I agree with Jim's assessment of
this being an intervention in a popular discourse, even if it is made at an
elite level.  It is no where close to sufficient, but on some level
interventions like this will likely be necessary.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to