On 2/9/07, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's imagine a hypothetical 50 year old investment banker. He owns a mansion in Connecticut and Upper East Side apartment, has a beautiful second wife, vacations at the finest resorts around the world. He loves wine and art, and has a magnificent collection of each which he truly appreciates. Having plenty of money, he decides to retire from investment banking, spending his time managing his own money and serving on various charitable boards. My questions is how should a Marxist think of this individual life? Should we symphathize/feel sorry for him, because he thinks he is happy but is really "self-estranged?" Or should we point to his life and happiness and say that once the revolution comes, everybody can live his life, but capitalism is unjust in the meantime becase only the few lead that life? Or something else?
This scenario is premised on two filthy lies 1) Said investment banker "earned" his wealth in some reasonable definition of the term "earned". IB is a zero-sum game, his wealth necessarily impoverished someone else. 2) It is possible for everyone in the world to enjoy this lifestyle. (leaving aside the question of whether everyone would want to). This is an absurdity just like saying everyone can be king. So should we sympathise or feel sorry for him? Why? I am sure his illusions of well-deserved wealth (and his pretty second wife) are sufficient to keep him warm at night. I'd save my sympathy for those unfortunates who need the charities that our IB friend so generously supports. -raghu.
