The following is an excerpt from an op-ed by Jonah Goldberg, National Review contributor. Not surprisingly, he's the most read columnist in the U.S. under 40. I wanted to go paragraph by paragraph systematically dismantling his flawed logic but I settled for attacking his basic premise which is not new in articulation or delivery, much less principle. Here are the first couple paragraphs:
"It's an old story. Loving parents provide a generous environment for their offspring. Kids are given not only ample food, clothing and shelter, but the emotional necessities as well: encouragement, discipline, self-reliance, the ability to work with others and on their own. And yet, in due course, the kids rebel. Some even say their parents never loved them, that they were unfair, indifferent, cruel. Often, such protests are sparked by parents’ refusal to be even more generous. I want a car, demands the child. Work for it, insist the parents. Why do you hate me? asks the ingrate[...] And so it goes, I think, with capitalism generally. Capitalism is the greatest system ever created for alleviating general human misery, and yet it breeds ingratitude. People ask, “Why is there poverty in the world?” It’s a silly question. Poverty is the default human condition. It is the factory preset of this mortal coil. As individuals and as a species, we are born naked and penniless, bereft of skills or possessions."
Is that so? But Jonah, you were born to a wealthy executive and an already entrenched member of the Washington establishment. Was poverty your “default position?” Were you born “penniless,” “bereft of possessions?” Hardly. And treating the situation you describe in the opening anecdote as if it applied to everyone is blind ignorance, and proves how disconnected you are from real life.
As I said, this manifesto isn’t much different from the usual pro-capitalist rhetoric. The central idea is that capitalism provides wealth for those who are willing to work for it. Like all capitalists who make this argument, Goldberg naively assumes that all men and women are created equal, or better put, that all men and women toed the same starting line. He also assumes that the fruits of our labor are our own. This is simply not the case. According to the Office for Social Justice (2005 numbers I think), every year, over 730,000 babies are born into poverty, with 80% of poor children living in working households or with families “willing to work.” And this number is based on the official poverty line, which is far too low, meaning many more children in this country are poor. Couple this with the fact that every year the percent of people below the poverty line living in extreme poverty continues to increase. On top of all of this, let’s remember that real wages (adjusted for inflation) have been stagnating or falling over the past 35+ years while today, the top 1% makes the largest percent of total income since 1929.
With all of this in mind, what could Goldberg possibly mean when he later writes “the fruits of your labor are your own?” Does this mean that capitalists are holding all of our labor surplus value (profit) to give to us at a later date? Of course not. The surplus-value of workers’ productivity (capital) is held be capitalists, not workers. In fact, I do not hesitate for a second to make the following generalization: the more money you make, and the more power you have, the less labor-value (work/productivity) you actually create, and vice versa. There are exceptions, but there’s a reason why an archetype exists for the office executive who spends his “work” days doing nothing (see Office Space, American Psycho, and even Costanza sleeping under his desk to name a few). The fruits of working class labor make this possible, helping to sustain growing inequality and flat lining wages. Of course Jonah defends against Americans' "what have you done for me lately" attitude by saying our complaints grow louder when capitalism "momentarily stutters in spinning its gold." When's the last time capitalsm "spun gold" for the majority of the population? When do these crises seize to be "momentary sputtering," and prove to be what Zizek calls "the point at which the truth of the system becomes visible?"
All that being said, this is what really pisses me off about the piece: Not only do pro-capitalists like Goldberg continue to push this false work ethic which keeps the oppressive system afloat, they insist that we’re grateful to the same system. Who wouldn't be thankful for a system which privatizes profits and socializes costs (pollution, poverty, human rights violations, govt. subsidies, consumerism, imperialism, etc.). I don't know about you, but I sure do feel bad for being so unappreciative.
Here's a link to the full editorial:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDdiYTgxOGE0ZjNiZTEzZmI3OGQwMzBmYWFlNWE1MDg=
Morning Prayer
13 years ago
