Friday, November 11, 2005

The Rich and the Oppressed

How many of you have ever had a real discussion with a liberal, leftist, progressive etc. about economics?  The entire discussion eventually centers around one overriding theme.  The "rich" are bad and "workers" are oppressed.  The amazing thing, though, is that once you press the issue, the leftists have funny ideas about who comprises these two groups.

First, you aren't a "worker" unless you are a low skilled, underpaid employee of some exploitative corporation.  For example, the guy down the street who works twelve hours a day as an accountant in his own small firm is NOT a worker.  The person who gathers up the buggies at Walmart IS a worker.  Let's try it again.  The person who has a landscaping service and does most of the labor himself is NOT a  worker.  The guy who works on a GM assembly line in Atlanta IS a worker. 

Before you ask, let me clear a few things up for you.  Mary Kay Ash of Mary Kay Cosmetics, even though she built her empire from nothing, is NOT a worker.  Warren Bechtel, of Bechtel Construction cannot be a worker.  Why?  Because if you are an individualist, a success and have enough money to qualify as "rich" then you cannot be a worker in the dream world that is leftism.  Remember, Karl Marx said that when a worker becomes an entrepreneur he sacrifices his humanity.  Today's leftists, while publicly avoiding Marx, still believe this.

That brings us to the next class in the leftist lexicon, the "rich".  Ted Kennedy and John Kerry don't qualify as "rich" regardless of how much money they have.  They aren't currently engaged in any enterprises that "exploit" "workers", so they cannot be the evil "rich".  The Walton family, of course they are "rich".  They are slave owners and despoilers worthy of an abolitionist novel from the 1850s.

You don't have to have millions, though, to be considered the evil rich.  Any entrepreneur who has employees and is working to be rich qualifies.  Any achiever who doesn't see himself or herself as part of the "oppressed masses" qualifies.  Anyone who thinks that they know better how to spend their money than the government does qualifies as "rich".

Any of us who would be considered "well to do peasants", a phrase coined by Mao Zedong, would be considered "rich".  Mao said it like this, "There is a serious tendency towards capitalism among the well-to-do peasants. This tendency will become rampant if we in the slightest way neglect political work among the peasants during the co-operative movement and for a very long period after."

Basically, what Mao was saying is that once we "well to do peasants" stop thinking of ourselves as oppressed workers, we become a problem for the anti-capitalists.  Yes, today's American leftists are just as anti-capitalist as Karl and Mao ever were.

Their entire world view requires there to be an "us" and a "them".  However, to the leftist, these distinctions have nothing to do with national identity and everything to do with perceived economic class.  You notice that I said, "perceived" economic class.  I said that intentionally. Once we view ourselves as individuals with ambition, goals and dreams that WE, as individuals, intend on achieving, we cease to be helpful to the revolution.

Like Mao, the American Left can only win if a majority considers itself oppressed and poor.  The Left has to break our spirit in order for it to advance.  Isn't leftism a lovely ideology?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Once we view ourselves as individuals with ambition, goals and dreams that WE, as individuals, intend on achieving, we cease to be helpful to the revolution.

Like Mao, the American Left can only win if a majority considers itself oppressed and poor.  The Left has to break our spirit in order for it to advance.

WhooHooo! Send it to the press :)  If they would only print it, but then you would be on the hit list. :) It's not only blurry on how they think about this, but on almost everything else. Love how you put into words what a lot of us think.  :)







Anonymous said...

You know, this reminds me of a discussion I had in a political forum where a liberal poster self-righteously claimed that I ought to be ashamed of myself for supporting those who wish to make money.

This puzzled me, as I know of few people, save a Franciscan monk or two, who didn't wish to do just that.

It's always easier to squelch individualism when you can make someone ashamed of their own sense of self-worth.  All you have to do is convince folks that working to better themselves over the betterment of the collective is not only wrong and unfair--but immoral, too.



Anonymous said...

"It's always easier to squelch individualism when you can make someone ashamed of their own sense of self-worth."

I'd like to add "ambition" to the last part of that sentence.

Ambition is not immoral, either.