me:
>> If someone imposes his or her morality in a way that insults them
>> ("motherfucker") and totally ignores both their humanity ("stop eating
>> so much!") and the practical issues of making sure that one person's
>> abstinence from eating actually helps those who are starving, that
>> indicates an unthinking approach.
raghu:
> You are taking Roy's comment far too literally. If it helps, you could
> replace her exhortation to "Eat less, motherfucker!" with the less
> offensive (but also rhetorically sterile) "Adjust your lifestyle to
> consume fewer fossil fuels, dear friend!" Is that still moralistic?
I find that insults typically reveal more about the user than about
the target. The use of this insult in such a blanket way (with no
consideration of -- and likely no knowledge about -- the target of her
ire) suggests nothing but arrogance. Is she rich or in some other way
privileged, so that pontification comes "naturally"? (Frankly, I don't
know anything about her except that she expresses arrogance with this
quote.)
The "rhetorically sterile" rephrasing might or might not be
moralistic. Like any other quote, its meaning depends on the context.
(Roy provided her own context, with her crude insult.) If it's a
dictum sent down from on-high, without any consideration about the
humans she's dealing with and the situation they're in, then it's
moralistic, trying to impose her ideal on others (or wishing that they
would live up to her standards without paying any attention to the
constraints they live in). If it's talking to someone who she knows
and doing so with respect and knowledge, it would be a likely be an
expression of a moral position.
For example, she might approach this issue the way Frances Moore Lappé
does ("Diet for a Small Planet," "Food First"). Maybe that would be
too difficult.
>> In any event, if you want to help starving peasants, it is better to
>> teach them how to produce more crops (and, more importantly, to help
>> provide an institutional framework that ensures that they get more of
>> the fruits of their labor) instead of simply giving them food,
>> especially if it's simply taken from someone else (the alleged
>> over-eaters of the "first" world).
> It is funny how much you sound like those conservatives who want to
> cut taxes for billionaires using exactly the same argument.
There's a gigantic difference which you might not have noticed:
billionaires don't need help. Peasants do. For example, I hear that
among peasants in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere, the suicide rate is
up, do to the so-called "modernization" of agriculture. [see, for
example, http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html]
> Don't punish the successful guys! After all they earned their billions
> by being brilliantly productive in the stock market! (If you want I
> can give you productivity statistics for it). If you want to help the
> poor, you should think of a way of making them more productive instead
> of simply taking money from someone else (the alleged over-paid
> billionaires of Wall Street).
I didn't say anything about "successful guys." In any case, the
billions made by the Wall Streeters is nothing but a redistribution
(often from industrial capitalists all over the world, who compensate
by cutting wages and benefits). Their "productivity" is nothing but an
ability to grab a "piece of the action" (sorry, I meant
surplus-value). It has nothing to do with the actual creation of goods
and services for people or or of surplus-value.
Currently, workers in the "first world" are currently being dragged
down to the "third world" level by the famous "race" (or rather,
creep) to the bottom, driven by neoliberalism, increased mobility of
capital, and trade competition. If it does anything beyond annoying
people and convincing people of her arrogance, calling them
"motherfuckers" and telling them to tighten their belts joins that
unholy trio and reinforces their efforts, speeding the rate of
creeping.
Instead of pushing down the top, it's better to pull up the bottom:
I'd rather raise the standard of living of the people at the bottom
than punish hard-working people who are already highly exploited by
the aforementioned billionaires.[*] That is, instead of allying with
the nascent world ruling class (from the US to India to China and
beyond) to further squeeze workers and peasants all over the map, I'd
ally with the people who are being squeezed. For example, it's not
just the US which suffers from gross and increasing inequality in the
distribution of income and wealth. It's also India and I presume a lot
of other "third world" countries.[**]
> Beware the slippery slope of moral relativist extremism!
I don't understand the reference. To whom are you referring? Or is
this one of those "dyslexics of the world untie" jokes?
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
[*] If you'll allow me to quote one of those evil statistics, I'll use
one that the Sandwichman might quote: people in the US work
significantly more hours per year than others in the OECD, though of
course the post-2000 stagnation of employment reduces that.
[**] Sorry about the "third world" tag, but I don't know what else to
call India. As far as I can tell, it's not "developing" except for the
rich and upper middle classes. Please correct me if my facts are
wrong.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
