I watched a random bit of the video... he was talking about the fact that '
charity does not solve problems, merely postpone their solution', and i agree. But then, all of a sudden, he mention that '
private property is the problem'. WTF? At that point he lost me.
Private property is essential because the difference between us and what we call property are so thin that if we relinquish the right to own things to '
society' then the step toward relinquish the right to '
own ourselves' is short.
Of course this is just my opinion. At everybody his own.
He was quoting Oscar Wilde
"There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.
Under Socialism all this will, of course, be altered. There will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger-pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings. The security of society will not depend, as it does now, on the state of the weather. If a frost comes we shall not have a hundred thousand men out of work, tramping about the streets in a state of disgusting misery, or whining to their neighbours for alms, or crowding round the doors of loathsome shelters to try and secure a hunch of bread and a night’s unclean lodging. Each member of the society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society, and if a frost comes no one will practically be anything the worse.
Upon the other hand, Socialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to Individualism.
Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture – in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient.
Of course, it might be said that the Individualism generated under conditions of private property is not always, or even as a rule, of a fine or wonderful type, and that the poor, if they have not culture and charm, have still many virtues. Both these statements would be quite true. The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the institution. In fact, property is really a nuisance. Some years ago people went about the country saying that property has duties. They said it so often and so tediously that, at last, the Church has begun to say it. One hears it now from every pulpit. It is perfectly true. Property not merely has duties, but has so many duties that its possession to any large extent is a bore. It involves endless claims upon one, endless attention to business, endless bother. If property had simply pleasures, we could stand it; but its duties make it unbearable. In the interest of the rich we must get rid of it. The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance."
"The Soul of Man under Socialism" - Oscar Wilde- on a libertarian socialism bent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The take away for me though:
"The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on
such a basis that poverty will be impossible." Oscar Wilde.
Not been made a reality yet, something that has evaded the world... will technology solve the problem? not on its own... as the man made mechanism behind the problem needs to alter too..
I would even go for "extreme poverty will be impossible" to start off with...
I do not think the answers to our solutions are behind us... but in the future world.. I think some of the concepts we bring from centuries past may have to continue to change, even down to core concepts like money, property, work.
Peering into the future....and taking into account exponentially increasing technology and not to mention increasing population and the increasing automation we are going to see in the coming decades, if we reach some sort of state of technological abundance, then poverty, extreme poverty at the very least will be a thing of the past, we would hope.... however with the massive automation of tasks coupled with massive life extension, hugely increasing population, minimal space are going to bring new problems. This is assuming that we can achieve a form of technological abundance and solve our resources problem. A world of abundance is also probably a world of technological unemployment, an abundance of human labor will exist because there will be more people than jobs, so what would be the solution, control the supply of labor by limiting the amount of hours people can work? shorter work days/weeks or early retirement? also if there is an abundance of goods in part because of the ever increasing digitisation of
everything? ..........and if there are more people than work, then what are the solutions?
artificial scarcity? banning technologies? or will work and income and therefore property have to all change? for example will the answer be to provide unconditional income - just paying people for nothing? or some sort of conditional means tested
money transfers system? or perhaphs just a direct supply of basic needs met including food, housing, health care, or is it that the government provide jobs i.e construction of national infrastructure, community service, reading a book, playng a violin... cracking virtual rocks..
For now though a form of pseudo capitalism and psuedo socialism will continue to live side by side slowly morphing and losing their meaning
Poll
