Sasafrás
15th May 2002, 04:16
I hope nobody's posted this already, but I thought it was extremely interesting.. I got it from here (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/slp29/goob.html). Pleasant reading:
Another Brick in the Collective Wall
<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>I recently attended a large meeting of the Socialist Alliance (imagine the Ho Plaza Spartas, only smellier). Though I hardly frequent such gatherings, the topic of discussion "Why America and Israel are to blame for it all" was enough to attract even my interest. Though I never did find out what "it" was (I stopped paying attention after hearing there was no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the World Trade Center attacks), I did notice something else rather singular. The main speaker was wearing a Pink Floyd concert T-shirt.
Even ignoring obvious questions as to why a vanguard of the oppressed working class was wearing a shirt that costs $30 and is only attainable after attending a $60 concert, another complexity is apparent. Would Roger Waters, Doug Gilmour, and Syd Barrett (may he rest in peace) actually support my socialist associate's struggles against the capitalists?
I could not ask the speaker. He would have no doubt preached that Pink Floyd's rhythmic rebellion against the dominant musical trends was no different than his own struggle against the mainstream political ethos. In general, those on the extreme left are so desperate to gain a critical mass of support that they aggregate any random dissenter into one strand of rebellion, no matter how disparate their causes of action actually are. Such was the case in the recent D.C. protests, where thousands rallied "together" for causes ranging from Yasser Arafat to the Kyoto protocols.
Indeed, to judge Pink Floyd's view on the subject of political economy, one must refer directly to the lyrics. And after doing so, the answer is clear, even if not actually explicated (though according to several sources, if you play "Brain Damage" backwards, you can distinctly make out the words, "Michael Moore is a big fat demagogue" ). Indeed, one must wonder if the speaker ever actually considered the lyrics of Pink Floyd's epic two-volume album, The Wall, before choosing his daily fashion.
For those who have not had the great pleasure of listening to this seminal work, it describes the actions of an individual, Pink, who is alienated from himself and from society. Struggling to maintain his individuality in the face of overwhelming pressure to conform from family, teachers, and the government, he eventually becomes "Comfortably Numb" and meets his end at "The Trial". However, Pink's alienation is not the Marxist industrial brand of worker alienation from his job, but rather a subtler estrangement from the forces around him that would govern his life. Pink is an individualist in a society that treats such tendencies as a most unwelcome character trait.
Therein lies the ultimate irony. Any socialist society must ensure conformity to secure the general order of things. Individuals are legally coerced to deny their individuality for the "common good," by constantly being forced to account for other people's welfare in making their own decisions. In The Wall, Pink is ultimately convicted for a failure to do so by the judge, who crudely proclaims, "The way you make suffer, your exquisite wife and mother, fills me with the urge to defecate." Though one can make an ethical and practical case as to extending this orbit of responsibility to close family members, the socialist notion of transferring obligation to all others is a problematic proposition, both from a moral and an economic perspective.
Any ideology does preach some conformity of thought and action, but socialism does so to an extreme extent, far more than any other dogma. At its most radical level, it divides all individuals in the world into two categories (proletariat and bourgeoisie), proclaims only one motivation for human behavior (money), and maintains a rigidly collectivist mindset. Naturally not being able to tolerate dissent, it requires Floydian style "mind control" and "dark sarcasm" to maintain itself.
In contrast, a capitalist system functions through individual initiative. By allowing individuals the freedom to pursue their own objectives, public welfare can usually be ultimately preserved. Indeed, the individuality in action, sought so badly by Pink in The Wall, can only be achieved through a free-market system
Socialists can still feel free to turn to the Dead Kennedys and Rage against the Machine for cultural inspiration. But they had best leave Pink alone.</span>The things in italics are what I want you guys to really pay attention to..
Well, personally, I don't listen to Pink Floyd, The Dead Kennedys, or RATM, so I don't get that and I'm not familiar with what points are being made with the references to the song(s).
Anyway, my main point in posting this is, of course, to see what you guys think of it. I don't agree with Goober's idea that socialism supresses individuality and I definitely don't see how a free-market system would allow 'Pink' to express it (especially if it does not concern business, you know?). It really doesn't make much sense, though I do agree with the statement "a capitalist system functions through individual initiative." Of yeah, mos def (most definitely) but, as far as it being the only society in which "individuality in action" can be achieved; Gee, I don't know about all that... And what does he mean about the "dark sarcasm" and "mind control"? Please!
Anyway, what do ya'll think about this Goober?
Another Brick in the Collective Wall
<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>I recently attended a large meeting of the Socialist Alliance (imagine the Ho Plaza Spartas, only smellier). Though I hardly frequent such gatherings, the topic of discussion "Why America and Israel are to blame for it all" was enough to attract even my interest. Though I never did find out what "it" was (I stopped paying attention after hearing there was no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the World Trade Center attacks), I did notice something else rather singular. The main speaker was wearing a Pink Floyd concert T-shirt.
Even ignoring obvious questions as to why a vanguard of the oppressed working class was wearing a shirt that costs $30 and is only attainable after attending a $60 concert, another complexity is apparent. Would Roger Waters, Doug Gilmour, and Syd Barrett (may he rest in peace) actually support my socialist associate's struggles against the capitalists?
I could not ask the speaker. He would have no doubt preached that Pink Floyd's rhythmic rebellion against the dominant musical trends was no different than his own struggle against the mainstream political ethos. In general, those on the extreme left are so desperate to gain a critical mass of support that they aggregate any random dissenter into one strand of rebellion, no matter how disparate their causes of action actually are. Such was the case in the recent D.C. protests, where thousands rallied "together" for causes ranging from Yasser Arafat to the Kyoto protocols.
Indeed, to judge Pink Floyd's view on the subject of political economy, one must refer directly to the lyrics. And after doing so, the answer is clear, even if not actually explicated (though according to several sources, if you play "Brain Damage" backwards, you can distinctly make out the words, "Michael Moore is a big fat demagogue" ). Indeed, one must wonder if the speaker ever actually considered the lyrics of Pink Floyd's epic two-volume album, The Wall, before choosing his daily fashion.
For those who have not had the great pleasure of listening to this seminal work, it describes the actions of an individual, Pink, who is alienated from himself and from society. Struggling to maintain his individuality in the face of overwhelming pressure to conform from family, teachers, and the government, he eventually becomes "Comfortably Numb" and meets his end at "The Trial". However, Pink's alienation is not the Marxist industrial brand of worker alienation from his job, but rather a subtler estrangement from the forces around him that would govern his life. Pink is an individualist in a society that treats such tendencies as a most unwelcome character trait.
Therein lies the ultimate irony. Any socialist society must ensure conformity to secure the general order of things. Individuals are legally coerced to deny their individuality for the "common good," by constantly being forced to account for other people's welfare in making their own decisions. In The Wall, Pink is ultimately convicted for a failure to do so by the judge, who crudely proclaims, "The way you make suffer, your exquisite wife and mother, fills me with the urge to defecate." Though one can make an ethical and practical case as to extending this orbit of responsibility to close family members, the socialist notion of transferring obligation to all others is a problematic proposition, both from a moral and an economic perspective.
Any ideology does preach some conformity of thought and action, but socialism does so to an extreme extent, far more than any other dogma. At its most radical level, it divides all individuals in the world into two categories (proletariat and bourgeoisie), proclaims only one motivation for human behavior (money), and maintains a rigidly collectivist mindset. Naturally not being able to tolerate dissent, it requires Floydian style "mind control" and "dark sarcasm" to maintain itself.
In contrast, a capitalist system functions through individual initiative. By allowing individuals the freedom to pursue their own objectives, public welfare can usually be ultimately preserved. Indeed, the individuality in action, sought so badly by Pink in The Wall, can only be achieved through a free-market system
Socialists can still feel free to turn to the Dead Kennedys and Rage against the Machine for cultural inspiration. But they had best leave Pink alone.</span>The things in italics are what I want you guys to really pay attention to..
Well, personally, I don't listen to Pink Floyd, The Dead Kennedys, or RATM, so I don't get that and I'm not familiar with what points are being made with the references to the song(s).
Anyway, my main point in posting this is, of course, to see what you guys think of it. I don't agree with Goober's idea that socialism supresses individuality and I definitely don't see how a free-market system would allow 'Pink' to express it (especially if it does not concern business, you know?). It really doesn't make much sense, though I do agree with the statement "a capitalist system functions through individual initiative." Of yeah, mos def (most definitely) but, as far as it being the only society in which "individuality in action" can be achieved; Gee, I don't know about all that... And what does he mean about the "dark sarcasm" and "mind control"? Please!
Anyway, what do ya'll think about this Goober?