It occurs to me that to really provide some constructive input to this so-called “discussion” group, I need to speak the right language. I need to rant usefully.
Maybe what I would like to contribute does not comport, or else it is simply too “neutral”. So, I’ll modify my language a bit in the hopes that some of my arguments may be absorbed. Kind of like a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down, only in this case the sugar is the ranting and the medicine is the logical, but distasteful argument behind the ranting.
For example:
Distasteful argument: President Obama is on the left but he is not a Marxist.
Logical reasoning in neutral language:
The United States experiment is an uphill struggle. People are not wont to take the bull by the horns and make their lives the fullest they can be. They like to watch football on Sunday, not go to church, fix the porch, or work on that great idea in the garage (a la Hewlitt and Packard). Politicians, on the other hand are indeed wont to take the bull by the horns and make their lives the fullest they can be. People want comfort. Politicians want votes. Ergo – politicians provide comfort and people provide votes.
However, real comfort comes from unimpeded personal diligence.
The left believes you should be able to have my cake and eat it, too. After all, cake is made to be eaten and it isn’t usually made in single serving sizes. So gimme some! This isn’t really wrong-headed thinking in fact since it is more efficient to make things in bulk anyway, and not to waste it (do you realize how much food is thrown out in a typical restaurant?). The point is we do provide comfort, and cake, to each other. The left just thinks it is an obligation, a “natural right”.
Karl Marx was not a politician, he was a radical intellectual. He wanted his ideas to be “proven”, just like all good intellectuals do, especially radicals who would otherwise end up in the dustbin of history. He believed that the proletariat had to defeat the bourgeousie in order for this to happen. Thus, ultimate control by the proletariat was required.
Barak Obama believes everyone has a right to be comfortable. A “right” to be comfortable. However, if Karl Marx were alive today and he were president, and were asked if he wanted to “run a car company”, he would say “absolutely!” Obama has said “no”. I believe him. Therein lies the difference.
However, Obama’s naivete is that he thinks comfort and liberty are mutually compatible. They are not. Karl Marx knew they were not – it wasn’t his goal anyway.
Logical reasoning in rant language:
Pigs love gravy. People on the left love gravy. Barak Obama is on the left. Therefore, Barak Obama is a gravy-sucking pig. Gravy is easy to make. Just take the drippings of the roast (beef, chicken, duck, etc.), add some flower and water, stir with a whisk while cooking and voila, gravy. It is also cheap to make gravy. So in large part, the answer to our woes is to take drippings and maybe some scraps, make gravy and feed it to everyone.
The meat itself will of course need to be consumed by the gravy-sucking pigs higher up in the echelon, like Barak Obama, since they are doing the lions share of the work making all that gravy. They need the protein, after all; they are the ones putting forth the effort.
Karl Marx didn’t like gravy. He was a vegetarian. He had a thesis. He felt that the the gravy-sucking pigs would live longer if they became vegetarians. For their own good, he penned in those big fat pigs, and changed their diet completely. Never mind that pigs hate vegetables. Marx didn’t care, though. He just wanted to be proven right about his thesis. That makes him a pig-headed moron, but not a gravy-sucking pig.
Now which of these two arguments do you prefer? I would like to know which form of discourse is more to your liking. Otherwise I don’t know what I am doing here.
Filed under: Uncategorized
