[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Margaret, Platt, All,

The call for "responsible individualism" is nice, but I hardly see it as
anything less "soupy" than "human rights". We've been down this road dozens of
times, and sadly the dichotomy remains, any challenge to the unassailable
"pursuit of wealth" is deemed purely communistic and threatening.

The question I ask is, when does the pursuit of wealth over the concern for
people become "immoral"? Does it ever? The Washington Times op-ed seems to
indicate that "economic concerns" are really all that matters, that the
production of wealth trumps any and all concerns for the welfare of labor and
the working class.

It would be nice if the myth of capitalist altruism was more than propagandic
fantasy. The Victorians certainly were not all evil, and their "code of
craftsmanship" harkens of the early industrialization (before specialization),
before the problems of ZMM when artistry-craftsmanship was thoroughly divorced
from artistry-art. But, as I've said many times, how many of us (outside what
would become the artistocracy) really want to return to the 1890s. How many of
us really want to work for Pullmans, or in the mines, or in the steel plants
under those whom the capistocracy holds are near-deities? Not me. I've read
history.

The trouble with the condemnation of the "welfare state" is modern parlance is
the dichotomization of the dialogue (a common problem with ideological-drive,
party driven morality) in that there are only two poles; communism and "zero
welfare". I've agreed with Ham, and Platt, on many occasions that welfare (in
America) is in dire need of reform. But, do we dismantle all forms of social
protections? What about wage laws? What about workplace safety? What about
medical care for impoverished infants? Are these not valid concerns of social
governance?

The bottom line here, as always, is the pervasive mercantilistic ideal that
"money and wealth" are the noblest of goals, and that placing concern and
security of others above this is "evil". Are the only two options "guaranteed
work" or "people as nothing but resources in the production of wealth", as
seems to be case with Platt's argument? Is there not middle ground, where if
the dialogue was not money-centric, perhaps there would be no need for
governmental intervention?

Perhaps the trouble IS the dialogue, where too many "employers" are at fault for
reducing their employees to inhuman resources, and too many "employees" are at
fault for not investing their labor towards the success of the group.

The real question then is, why do employers see their employees as nothing but
inhuman resources, and why are employees not invested in the success of the
group? The answer is the pervasive, mercantilistic dialogue, driven by
party-ideologues, who give us only two options, one which fails to recognize
the value of "identification" (as in ZMM) between labor and craft, which sees
(and values) people only through a lens of "profit", and the other which fails
to recognize the value of a free market where success and failure are not
guaranteed but must be pursued with focused, motivated effort.

Arlo