Two Bums
Bloggers on the right are busy reminding us that poor people/ black people need to "take responsibility" for their situation. Funny how the priveledged ones are such great supporters of a Meritocracy and find character faults to be the underlying cause of poverty and racism. What history? What structures, what institutions? What, me worry? They won't say it in so many words but they certainly imply that God is on their side. Here's a poem by Fryin Pan Jack, an old, radical hoboe. A "rod" is the under structure of an old railroad car.
The bum on the rods is hunted down as an enemy of mankind
the other is driven to his club, is feted ,wined and dined
And they who curse the bum on the rod as the essence of all thats bad
will greet the other with a winning smile and extend the hand so glad
The bum on the rods is a social flea who gets an occasional bite
the bum on the plush is a social leech, blood sucking day and night
The bum on the rods is a lone sole light whose weight you can scarcely feel
but it takes the labor of dozens of folks to furnish the other a meal
As long as we sanction the bum on the plush the other will always be there
but rid ourselves of the bum on the plush and the other will dissapear
And make an intelligent , organized kick, get rid of the wasted crush
don't worry about the bum on the rods, get rid of the bum on the plush
I was having dinner with a couple of "bums on the plush" the other night and this one was going on about the great "work ethic" her black housekeeper had. This in the middle of a discussion about the deplorable actions of the looters in New Orleans. This fat, elitist who had never done an honest days work in her life, was so moved by this blacks hard work she would sometimes give her a ride to the bus stop. This was proof that not all of "them" were lazy. This "blood sucking leech" is looting the rest of the planet with every breath of good air she wastes.
posted by troutsky @ 11:04 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I have just one question for you good sir.
You and I would disagree about what to do with poor people. You would, I imagine, wish for a great deal of government assistance, whereas I wouldn't let the government engage in charity.
What happens when government monies aren't helping? Many of the people in New Orleans were on foodstamps, etc., yet they were still trapped below the poverty line.
More money is probably called for because it will always be called for. At some point though, the poor must take responsibility.
Your error lies in calling callous what is merely practical. A fact is a fact.
temujin, your ability to know what is true and to understand better than me what I in fact heard is astonishing.You will have to explain this amazing gift.
What I would do with poor people, Wiser, is eliminate them altogether by guaranteeing an adequate living standard for all citizens, not charity but a basic human right.The disparity in wealth in our society is immoral and deplorable. Above the basic standard one could earn additional allocations in relation to how much time and energy one wishes to sacrifice. The poor are not poor because they are irresponsible but due to structural inequities and entrenched systems of priveledge to which they are not granted access. Your error lies in calling practical that which has no moral basis.
Upon further consideration I see temujin has hit upon something. Not necessarily my failure to understand a particular meaning( I have known her for years and know exactly what she was saying) but my failure to show compassion and be patient with her.
This points to a fundamental tension within my own thought system which is how to reconcile my belief in deep listening and loving speech with a belief in Marxist political engagement and the critique of bourgeois attitudes, or as the Buddhists say,wrong thinking.
The Zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh states:" Buddhism is inclusive ,not dogmatic. In the old days Buddhism was able to live with Confusionism and Taoism, and Buddhism can live with Marxism.
Buddhism and Marxism both have to develop to respond to the people now."
"We are those who are truly without possessions, we are the true Communists. I think if you can generate brotherhood, then you will not want to eliminate each other or compete with each other anymore, and you can truly have that paradise of Communism right now."
This is the synthesis that we must struggle to achieve. A dialogue between Marxists and religious people must be open to include both the destructive nature of religion and the valuable aspects of a spiritual strength to go along with material strength.
I admire your compassion Troutsky, but I do not think one could ever get rid of poverty altogether.
Further, as sad as it is, many work hard precisely because they can end up on the good end of the income gap. If I would be guaranteed to make the same amount of money no matter what I did, you can bet I'd be back at home pushing carts for the grocery store.
I'm not in engineering school for kicks--though I am having a good time. Remove the incentive to work hard and people will not work hard.
My faith in humanity does not extend as far as yours does. Perhaps that is only a poor reflection on me, but it seems to be an indictment of the human race altogether.
How refreshing to read an honest debate. Here's my 1 1/2 cents worth.
Could we really look at people with wealth and then at those without wealth, and say their difference is a result of their own efforts? There are hardworking poor people, and hardworking rich, lazy poor people (including those that have learned by their own or the efforts of those around them that their labour is very often not rewarded) and lazy wealthy people (including those who have learned that if they were born with wealth, they can usually remain wealthy without working hard). And there is everything in between.
If merit, effort, or 'goodness' played a truly significant role in wealth in this society (let alone the essential role as a writer above has claimed) the world would be a better place. I could, in good faith, look down upon the pesky poor of the world, and to those wealthier with admiration. I wish it were so.
The concern about incentive is legitimate, though. Perhaps it is an argument for propigating the false belief that effort creates wealth. It doesn't, or certainly it is not a truly significant factor if we look at the lives of millions of hard-working poor. But if we believe it does, perhaps we'll work harder. But for what and whom?
We work harder when we see the fruit. But it doesn't mean we have to be the ones to eat it. Billions of hours a day of hard work go into entirely non-paying domestic and care-taking work. Most of us work hard for those we care about, those who are close to us, in our family, in our circles of concern. We should take note of our good nature (a writer above was reluctantly indicting the 'human race'). And our concern should be about widening it.
The question should not be: are we essentially bad and need a reward-for-effort system (which again, we don't have - and why would you believe we maintain such fairness if you believe human nature is bad?). Of course nobody deserves poverty. (I.e. pain and suffering that could be avoided if wealth - human labour, technology, and resources - were shared more fairly). But how do we remind ourselves of this when we make selfish or protective decisions (not to share, not to make the effort that another who needs it would benefit from)? I feel strongly that nation-states are not the right tools, as they are unrealistically distant from families, which goes some way to explain the empty (dark?) heart of nationalism. Any thoughts on this part of the question?
Post a Comment
<< Home