Tag Archives: Socialism

Sartre, Gaza, and the power of doing nothing

1 Reply

Jean-Paul Sartre was a Catholic who did not believe in God or external morality, but believed in socialism and being true to ones self without having to do anything for anyone. His most famous work, “Being and Nothingness” was written in France in 1943, during the Nazi occupation. The last 200 pages of the book deal with freedom and its limitations. Sartre points out that there are always limitations (prison guards, Nazis, your own body, etc.) It is dangerous and impractical to oppose these guards, or or to oppose your own body. Sartre’s advice is to go along in body, but oppose them in your mind. Thus, he believed, he was being true to himself to the extent of rational choice. He was totally free because he was free in his mind and in his reactions to the limitations. “Freedom is what we do with what is done to us.” This was his version of existentialism, and many Frenchmen agreed that this was the right way to behave under the circumstances. Many Nazis agreed and enjoyed his writing and plays. If they didn’t totally like what Sartre had to say, they didn’t object enough to send him to a concentration camp. In practical terms, he thus survived better than Jews and oppositional Frenchmen.

Sartre had eyes that pointed in different directions. Some try to claim this related to his philosophy

Although there is a stink of cowardice and collaboration hanging over Sartre and his outlook, it could be worse. A Sartre Joke: Sartre had just finished talk at a restaurant, and sat down. A waitress who understood the talk better than most, asked if she could get him something. Sartre said, “please bring me a coffee, no sugar, no milk.” The waitress came back and said, “we’re out of milk. I can get you coffee with no sugar and no cream.” The point of the joke being that Sartre’s freedom of choice can only be among the choices he could reasonably make. If he’d asked for milk, it’s irrational to expect that the restauranteur would run out and buy some, so it was pointless to ask for no milk.

As the Germans were leaving, Sartre took French antisemites to task in a short book, “Antisemite and Jew” (1944) where he discusses the inauthentic logic of French antisemites and the motivations behind their behavior and beliefs. He claimed the motivation was a sort of mob empowerment where the antisemite, by oppressing Jews sees himself as noble, and comes to feel himself as the heir of all France, its history and its culture. They the thus imagine themselves empowered and enriched by their hatred of he-who-isn’t-them. This motivation he inferred in the liberal Frenchman as much as in the thug; the liberal objects to the yellow star, not out of sympathy for the Jew or justice, but for an inauthentic reason. It makes him feel small by his inaction, and it crates, in the Jew, an identity that is beyond the essence they prefer; he’s more than just ‘not-them’. As I read him, the main character in “Catcher in the Rye”, Holden Caulfield, is a Sartre stand in, a privileged kid bothered by the “phoniness” around him, Like Sartre, he complains and does nothing for anyone, but he does no harm either.

Sartre didn’t join the resistance, even after the Germans were losing, nor did he hide Jews or gentles, or help anyone but himself. After the war, he pushed for the execution of those who were insufficiently anti Nazi, like Tintin author, Hergé. Hergé survived, many of those he attacked were killed in post war purges. Sartre’s philosophy actually works for prisoners in extreme circumstances. Similar philosophies were created by Victor Frankl and Primo Levi during their stays in Auschwitz. It helped them survive and stay sane. Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning”, was alternately titled, “From concentration camp to existentialism,” a lot concerns the importance of keeping your mind clear – of not becoming an animal.

Simone de Beauvoir & Jean-Paul Sartre with Che Guevara, a favorite Communist murderer, in Havana, Cuba, 1960 (photo by Alberto Korda).

After the war, Frankl became a successful psychologist helping people by helping them to see that they had a reason to exist. This is a more positive version of Sartre’s existentialism, where there was no reason. Primo Levi seems to have followed Sartre’s line more and become ever more depressed; eventually he committed suicide. Eventually, Sartre found a reason to exist in socialism. He believed that, while life was a cruel joke, socialism was pure. People could die in the millions, and he acknowledged that, the leaders were brutal thugs who did murder millions, but he believed that socialism and communism must live on. He tried to keep the bad truths hidden. So what of the killing and torture. So what if writers were imprisoned or shot — in Russia all the Jewish ones were shot in the same day — Sartre said they should have written better books, more pro-communist. Sartre would never have willingly lived in communist Russia, China, or Cuba — he stayed safe in France, and championed the oppression.

Gays for Gaza are not interested in a queer state of Palestine; they attack Jews to make themselves feel generous and powerful — it gives their lives meaning.

This brings me to the pro-Palestinian authors of today, and of 1973. Fifty years ago on Yom Kippur, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt attacked Israel by surprise simultaneously with aid from Russia. Communists and socialists supported the Arabs. Among them was Sartre, though he knew these states to be brutal dictatorships. Pretty soon Sartre discovered that his friends motivation was that they liked attacking Jews, a phony motivation, said Sartre in an interview, and he found he could not join them

I detect the same phony motivation in today’s demonstrations. The loud feminists for Palestine, the Gays for Gaza, those attacking Jews for complicity. Very few of them would willingly live in these countries or among Hamas or ISIS, and fewer of those would survive. Their love of Palestine is an excuse to hit Jews. The better version is Sartre’s he did nothing then, and would likely have done nothing today. You have to have authentic thoughts, at least.

Robert Buxbaum, November 13, 2023

The psychology of Archie comics and Riverdale; then, now, and in the socialist future

Leave a reply

I learned a lot about social interactions from a comic of my youth called “Archie“. A very popular comic for 65 years, from 1941 through the 2010s, the social structure of Archie remained remarkably constant from when I first read it, in the early 60’s to when I read it to my children in the late 90’s. The comic mostly follows the title character, a love struck teenager with two (or more) gorgeous girlfriends, shown below, and his various relationships. I find the original stories to have been hyper-true, that is more true than truth. There are also several spin-offs, including a TV series, “Riverdale“, and an underground comic “Anarchie“. Both have a degree of charm, but the original stands out for it’s wide readership and long run; clearly, it resonated. Riverdale is a far grittier take, further from hyper-reality. 

Archie enjoys a malt with Veronica left and Betty right. Archie prefers Veronica. Betty is a doormat. Though Veronica is rich, she never pays.

In Archie comics, the poorer folks worked, as in real life, at relatively dull jobs. Their parents do too, and the poorer kids are visible poorer. Archie always wore the same clothes and drives (or drove) a junker car. The few rich folks do not work in the same way, as one might expect. In the TV series, and in most TV series’s, everyone has food, friends and a car, without any serious jobs, and little social hierarchy. It’s an ideal world of sorts, but somehow everyone’s messed up.

In the old time comic, one rich character in particular, Reggie Mantle, like to flaunt his wealth and make fun of Archie and his proletarian friend, Jughead. The comic book Veronica was also something of a bitch. Her dad, while occasionally charming, could be a bully as well. He certainly displayed, and benefitted from his exceptional wealth. Meanwhile, in the comic at least, while all the poorer folks worked (except Jughead), not all of them did a good job, most of those who worked did not enjoy it. There was humor in this engaging, realistic take on life.

The school lunch lady, Miss Beasley, was relatable in her extreme dislike for her job. What pleasure she gets, seems to come from making and serving bad food. Though the details of her employment are scarce, my guess was that she was unionized. Otherwise, she would have been fired years ago. There is no similar character in TV’s Riverdale.

Weatherbee and Flootsnoot

The principal, Mr. Weatherbee, also seemed to have trouble with his job, though his relationships were more nuanced. He takes his job seriously and runs an effective school, but he’s overweight, and over-stressed — a walking heart attack. Unlike most of the people at the school, “the bee” does not take out his anger on the kids, or on his fellow faculty. He keeps it in, while tormented by the students, by the parents, by the janitor, Svenson, and in particular by Mr. Flootsnoot, the science teacher. Flootsnoot seems to delight in causing trouble, giving Archie explosives, acid, and animals. My guess is that Flootsnoot is angling for Weatherby’s job, and is not patient enough to wait for Weatherbee’s heart to give out on its own. He’s a character right out of Hitchcock, IMHO.

Ms Grundy, Archie’s teacher was also drawn a victim of playing by the rules in a crooked game. In the original comic, as i read it in the mid 60s, she’s a puritan spinster in a black dress with a tall, laced collar. She seems to dislike Archie and Jughead, but not the other kids, nor her job as such. It makes sense that she’d dislike Archie and Jughead, since Jughead is lazy, and Archie is a skirt chasing cad. By the 90’s when I read Archie with my daughters, Miss Grundy had become a Ms, and was more at peace with her position, and a lot of the humor is gone. In the TV version, Riverdale, Ms Grundy, is in a sexual relationship with Archie. It’s a lot less healthy, and not very humorous.

The main focus, of course is Archie, a workin-class teen, and straight D student. How does he have two (or more) gorgeous girlfriends? After a few years of reading, the explanation becomes obvious, and fairly depressing. Each of his many girlfriends are motivated by jealousy for the others. His first girl is Betty. She’s pretty, poor, hard-working, and a doormat. She’s always there to help out. She is treated like dirt by her richer, “best friend,” Veronica. As best I can tell, Veronica and the others mostly like Archie because Betty does. To some extent Veronica also likes to annoy her rich dad, who is portrayed as confident and proud, except when dealing with his spoiled daughter. This is old-time humor that you’ll also see in Spongebob, or (going further back) Balzac’s “Pere Goriot“.

Veronica bosses her dad around but also makes his life worthwhile, it seems. I assume he once had a wife that he loved. Now he’s got a white-haired companion, a butler, and some rich friends. The love-of-his-life is his daughter, it seems, and she is dating a free-loading cad. Veronica’s rival Betty comes from the same stable, modest backroad as Archie, but. Archie prefers life at Veronica’s house. The food is better, and there is a pool. Mr Lodge barely tolerates Archie and friends. The butler, Smithers, is less excitable, but not as tolerant.

The school also has two psychopaths, Midge and Moose, a dangerous pair. Moose Mason is a football player, dumb or brain damaged, and violently jealous of Midge. Midge, of course, flirts with everyone, and does it in front of Moose. The result is that Moose beats up any boys who respond, much to Midge’s delight. They are a sick and dangerous pair, but very realistic. Jughead, the only normal person in the comic, dislikes the pair, and dislikes both Veronica and Reggie. Jughead has a dog, and a little sister “Jellybean,” who he adores. he also has, to his chagrin, a female stalker, “Big” Ethel. She’s ugly and chases Jughead; Jughead avoids her. Jughead seems to like Archie, though, and is always loyal to him; it’s another of Jughead’s good traits. He’s always pointing Archie to Betty, as a good friend would. Meanwhile, Moose-the-homicidal is protected by “Coach Kleats,” a highly flawed character who’s obsessed with winning, and seems to have been hit in the head one time too many.

A bit more about Jughead (he got his own spinoff comic for a while). Jughead is a classic humor character from antiquity. He’s the Harlequin, the semi-loyal servant: poor, clever, resourceful, and always hungry. He’s the bird man of The Magic Flute. He’s Figaro, and the servant in Don Giovani. He’s Harlie Quinn in Batman. A harlequin makes his own clothes from patchwork, and true to type, Jughead is seen, virtually always wearing a sort-of crown, a “whoopee cap” of his own construction. Because Jughead is poor and lazy, everyone thinks him stupid, but he’s the only one clever enough to size up Midge and Veronica. Jughead’s crown is appropriate since he’s his own master. Archie comics were banned in Saudi Arabia because the Saudis took offense at the concept of a self-crowned king. It’s an unusual concept. In Riverdale, Jughead is a tortured poet who still wears a handmade crown for no obvious reason.

All these relationships had a surreal character. The relationships are funny because they are more real than reality. They also presented a simpler form of humor in that the lowly usually win, while the high and talented usually lose. Reggie commonly loses, as does Weatherbee. Then things began to change in the 2000’s when two token black characters were added: a top scholar/athlete, Chuck Clayton, and his dad, Floyd (or Harry) a wise, athletic, co-coach. These are characters without major flaws, and as such they are not funny. If a writer feels he must include a character like this, a writer should use him as a straight-man, Zeppo Marx for example. And even Zeppo Marx is presented as having a horrible flaw. In Marx Bros. movies, Zeppo is presented as being Groucho’s son. Comedy is built on flawed characters like this, who succeed, and on arrogant ones who fail. With the Claytons, you’re left wondering what comedy do they bring to the situation. Also, why do these individuals tolerate crazy Moose on the team?

In 2010, the writers added an openly gay character, Kevin Keller. A nice fellow, with no flaws who everyone likes. Really? Is there a teenager so comfortable with himself? Are there no homophobes anywhere in this school? By 2012, Kevin has grown up and is an anti-gun senator. Archie dies taking an assassin’s bullet for him. That’s heroic, and it solves some other ugly problems, but it killed the series. You don’t want an unhappy ending for a comedy. For a hint of what to do, consult Shakespeare.

Anarchy Andrews deals with his cool, pot-smoking father, Fred.

Turning now to my favorite spin-off, the underground comic, Anarchie. It’s the same batch of teenagers, more or less, navigating the same issues, but theirs is an ideal, socialist world where the revolution has won. In this world, everyone has plenty, drugs are legal, and there is no sexism, agism, racism, or shape-ism. This is a color-blind world where black and white live together, and where the gay fellow would fit right in, if anyone thought to draw them in. There is no work, but even without that pressure, and the old problems, everything isn’t great for the kids. There is still school, and Weatherby still hates Archie. The kids still have to deal with parents, even when the parents have turned-on to drugs and act cool. It’s good comedy, an up-ending of the social expectations. Most teens of my day seemed to think that socialism would solve all their problems.

noexit2
Jughead in the socialist future is a broken druggie, but still something of his own man.

For those who have not seen it, how would you expect the Archie to relate to a perfect socialist world. The answer is not well. His father smokes dope, but that doesn’t help. He’s also into recycling and yoga (yuck). Archie remains the same love stuck, philanderer disinterested in most everything else but girls. His friend, Jughead fares far worse, he’s a pock-marked, druggie, a far more likely outcome than Riverdale’s where Jughead is a tortured poet. Without societal pressures and a normal family, Jughead becomes an anarchis’s anarchist. A ruined misfit surrounded in the workers’ paradise. Jughead (now called “Ludehead” still has his crown, and is still his own person, after a fashion, but there is little room for that in a socialist utopia where all are equal.

Robert Buxbaum, August 6, 2019. In previous essays I talked about the humor of superman, and about the practical wisdom of Gomez Adams.

Ginsberg poem about Bernie Sanders

It’s 30 years to the day since Alan Ginsberg wrote “Burlington Snow” a poem inspired by Bernie Sanders, the socialist mayor of Burlington Vermont. It’s a snapshot of the wonder and contradiction of socialist government. And now Bernie is running for president.

Birlington Snows, April 24, 1996

Burlington Snow, February 21, 1996 by Alan Ginsburg.

“Socialist snow on the streets. Socialist talk in the Maverick Bookstore. Socialist kids sucking socialist lollipops. Socialist poetry in socialist mouths — aren’t the birds frozen socialists? Aren’t the snow clouds blocking the airfield social bureaucratic apprentices? Isn’t the socialist sky owned by the socialist sun? Earth itself socialist, forests rivers, lakes, furry mountains, socialist salt in oceans? Isn’t this Poem socialist? It doesn’t belong to me anymore.”

Dr. Robert Buxbaum, February 21, 2016. If anyone would write a poem about me, or water commissioner (I’m running) or pollution or drinking water, or anything like that, I’d be awfully honored. It doesn’t have to be complimentary, or even particularly good.

He/she gave it to him/her/them – the new grammar of transgender

1 Reply

When I was in grad school, at Princeton there was a grammar joke about a ghetto kid who comes to Princeton. The kid asks, “Where’s the library at?” and is told, “This is an ivy league school. One does not end one’s sentences with a preposition here.” So the kid rephrase: “Where’s the library at, asshole?” What makes this joke poignant was that I found language divides class, and is a weapon of class war, too. At Princeton, I was of lower economic class along with virtually all of the grad school. It was not that we had less spending money, but we came from public schools, while the undergraduates were virtually all from private, “prep school”. It showed in wardrobe, tastes, and especially language.

Protesting at Fergusson; white radicals marching against cops and the system.

Ferguson rally; white radicals in a black neighborhood. Are the locals as against cops and the system?

To the prep-schooler, the working class was cheap because they were racist, or apartheid, and the preppy was trying to remedy this through activism. Rarely mentioned was that daddy was a major landlord, a college president or ambassador to Chad, or that they planned to go off to jobs in finance, law, or politics as soon as they were done rallying against class, racism, and the system. I imagine that their radical politics was partially sincere, but partially a social tool to keep the unwashed bourgeois at arm’s length. The best answer, I thought then, and now, is in grammar: we are not stingy racists, just being frugal.

The sexist label of today seems similar to the racist label of those days: partly sincere, partly a social tool built on fear, and the answer too, I think is grammar. Most people see no problem with a name change (just file the paperwork), or with a change in driver’s license sex indicator (who knows or cares?). The problem comes in with the loudly gender fluid: those who’re male today and female tomorrow and want to be respected for it. Are they a legitimate 3rd gender, or an over-pampered minority with no good claim to victimhood or anything else.

Transgender does not have to do with bed partners. Some people like to "keep it fluid" and this is where the grammar problems come in.

Transgender does not have to do with bed partners, but with self-image. Some people are confused and like (need?) to “keep it fluid”; this is where the grammar problems come in. Yet others are sons of privilege trying to make a point. Is this person confused or trying to make a point? Does it matter?

In this, and all such cases, I think it pays to respond to the legitimate complainant first and see if that answers all. One popular option is to use the words “they” or “them” when male or female labels don’t fit. Thus: “I gave my homework to them,” even though only one person received it. This is bad in my mind as it solves one problem but creates at least two others. It’s confusing to call one person many, and gives that person’s opinion extra weight. “They voted yea”, implies many people, not just one. Most Americans cringe when the queen of England says, “We request…” The queen gives her request extra weight by speaking in the plural. Similarly, “L’État, c’est moi.”

More republican would be to avoid all pronouns and use the person’s name, e.g. “I gave it to Dennis”. But this can be awkward if the name is long (Hermione) or repetitively used, or if the person’s name is in flux too. What to do with someone who’s Ernestine to some, Dr. Peters to others (and Ernest in the country). Once a person settles on a single gender the grammatical problem pretty well resolves: good manners suggest one use the pronoun “him” for one who dresses male and calls himself Alphonse, not Alice.

Carrie Nation, If she says she's a woman, good manners suggests I agree

Carrie Nation, prohibitionist. If she says she’s a woman, good manners and common sense suggest we agree — no matter how masculine her behavior or dress.

There is thus a need for a good singular pronoun for the gender-fluid, and the socialists have one ready: call all people “comrade,” a word specifically chosen to be gender neutral. It further implied political solidarity and economic unity. This is fine, for some, but uncomfortable for a capitalist. Another option, one Karl Marx himself used, is “citizen.” But this word carries its own baggage from revolutionary France. Instead, I suggest “yer mate” for him/her and “matey” for he/she. Both are based on pirate lingo. Thus, ‘Matey looks t’ be drunk’. or ‘Give yer homework over to yer mate.’ It’s’s strange, but works. Give it a try on “talk like a pirate day,” September 16 every year.

It’s now to be asked, have we addressed the broader problem of those who see any gender identification as an injustice of the capitalist, repressive system? I answer, does it matter? I suspect these folks are unhappy with themselves, and will never be otherwise, but that’s just a suspicion. Even unhappy folks do good, and sometimes it’s when they try to do bad.  Here’s a poem “International Women’s Day” (1920) by–Alexandra Kollontai (1920).

Down with the world of Property and the Power of Capital! Away with Inequality, Lack of Rights and the Oppression of Women – The Legacy of the Bourgeois World! Forward To the International Unity of Working Women and Male. Workers in the Struggle for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat: The Proletariat of Both Sexes!

Suffragettes -- Meeting at Cooper Union. Not quite the poor, oppressed, but bringers of positive change, when they were not fighting for prohibition.

Suffragettes meeting at Cooper Union. Not quite the oppressed, but bringers of positive change– and also of prohibition.

Ms Kollontai was a main founder of Women’s day, and this is/ was a good thing. She was also a daughter of privilege and a fan of Stalin’s brand of social engineering: the sort that hung engineers from the lamp-posts as a warning to anti-proletarians. She was Soviet ambassador to Sweden, and as ambassador, kept Sweden from helping Poland or Finland when Stalin and Hitler joined forces to simultaneously invade those countries and murder the population. She did her good and bad together as one package. I find that the world is crazy this was, and so are the people who do things. You just have to try to take the good with the bad, and laugh if you can. Matey here owes as much to yer mate.

Robert E. Buxbaum, March 30-31, 2015.

Political tensegrity: the west is best

5 Replies

We are regularly lectured about the lack of kindness and humility of the western countries. Eastern and communist leaders in Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia point to Western pollution, consumerism, unemployment as prof you need a strong leader and central control to do good by regulation, thought policing, and wealth redistribution.

Let me point out that the good these leaders provide is extracted from the populace, and the advantage of central control is rarely as clear to the populous as to the leadership. When leaders redistribute wealth or place limits on the internet, movies or books, the leaders are generally exempted, and the populous are not made more moral or generous either. One does not say a prisoner or slave-worker is more generous of moral than one on the outside despite the prisoner working for free. The leaders feel certain they are protecting their people from thought and greed, but it isn’t clear outside of the leadership that these dangers are as great as the danger of despotism or rule by whim.

Authors and thoughts are blocked in the East by the whim of a supreme leader who also determines who is an infidel or enemy, or friend, and which businesses should flourish, and who should be rich (his buddies). By contrast, two fundamentals of western society — things that lead to purported immorality, are citizen rights and the rule of law: that citizens can possess things and do things for their own reasons, or no reason at all, and that citizens may stand as equals before a bar of law, to be judged by spelled-out laws or freed, with equal believability and claim.

In Russia or Iran, the Commissar and Imam have special rights: they can take possessions from others at whim, shut down businesses at whim; imprison at whim  — all based on their own interpretation of God’s will, the Koran, or “the good of the state.” Only they can sense the true good, or the true God well enough to make these decisions and laws. And when they violate those laws they are protected from the consequences; the masses can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and then some, not even requiring a trial in many places (Gaza, for example) if the leader feels speed is needed. The rule of law with equal treatment is a fundamental of western civilization (republicanism). It is commanded by Moses in the Bible at least seven times: Numbers 15:15, Numbers 15:16, Numbers 15:29, Exodus 12:49, Numbers 9:14, and Leviticus 24:22, “One law and one ordinance you should have, for the home-born, and the foreigner who dwells among you.”

The equal treatment under the law: for rich and poor, king and commoner, citizen and foreigner is a revolutionary idea of the west; that justice is blind. Another idea is personal possessions and freedoms. There is no concept of equality under business law unless there is a business that you can own, and personal possessions and rights. These are not in place in eastern theocracies: they tend to treat the preachers (imams) better than non preachers because they are presumed smarter and better; similarly men are treated better than women, who have few rights, and the state religion is treated better than infidels. In communist countries and dictatorships the dictator can get away with anything. Admittedly, in capitalistic states the rich and powerful find loopholes while the poor find prison, but not always (our Detroit’s ex-mayor is in prison) and it’s not the law. A feature of Eastern theocracies and dictatorships is that they lack a free press, and thus no forum for public exposure of legal mischief.

Einstein on freedom producing good. I'd say freedom is also a good in itself

Einstein on freedom producing good. I’d say freedom is also a good in itself.

The strongest arguments for socialist dictatorship and theocracy is that this is needed to protect the weak. Clement Attlee (labor socialist British Prime Minister, 1945 -56) explained his government’s take over of almost all British business: “There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day… when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners.”  (Quotes from Spartacus.edu). it’s a brilliant speech, and it taps into the government’s role in the common defense, but it’s not at all clear that a chinless bureaucrat will be a better boss than the capitalist who built the firm. Nor is it clear that you help people by preventing them from work at a salary you decide is too low. 

England suffered a malaise from public ownership and the distribution of profit by those close the liberal party. Under Attlee there was lack of food and coal while the rest of Europe, and particularly Germany prospered, and passed England in productivity. Germany had no minimum wage, and  still doesn’t have one. In eastern countries, ingenuity is deadened by the knowledge that whatever a genius or worker achieves is taken by the state and redistributed. A cute joke exchange: Churchill and Attlee are supposed to have found themselves in adjoining stalls of the men’s room of Parliament. Churchill is supposed to have moved as far as possible from Attlee. “Feeling standoffish, Winston” Attlee is supposed to have said. “No. Frightened. “Whenever you see something large you try to nationalize it.” Perhaps more telling is this Margret Thatcher’s comment, and exchange. Making everyone’s outcome equal does more to penalize those with real pride in their ideas and work than it does to help the truly needy.

While there is a need for government in regards to safety, roads, and standards, and to maintain that equality of law. It seems to me the state should aid the poor only to the extent that it does not turn them into dependents. There is thus a natural tension between private good and public service similar to the tensegrity that holds cells together. Capitalists can only make money by providing desired goods and services at worthwhile rate, and paying enough to keep workers; they should be allowed to keep some of that, while some must be taken from them to get great things done. I’ve related the tensegrity of society to the balance between order and disorder in a chemical system.

Robert E. Buxbaum,  August 27, 2014. This essay owes special thanks to a Princeton chum, Val Martinez. Though my training is in engineering, I’ve written hobby pieces on art, governance, history, and society. Check out the links at right.