Friday, July 20, 2012

French Restaurant Post

As for socialism dream on. It should have happened in France. Please understand my view, which is that it is a valid concept. There is the idea that you should have a sense of responsibility, like saying that there is another person next to you, and what you do will have an effect on him. Since what you do has an effect on other persons and not just on your wallet, perhaps the whole world should wake up together. The whole world should pay some attention to our mutual interdependence. The world should sit up and pay attention. All together now, pay attention to the effect that one thing or person has on another, or to the effect that a thing happening in one place has in another place. That isn't radicalism. It is only our common humanity and good sense and testifying to the truth of that there used to be socialists; even in the  U. S. A point (a point) not often understood.
    Some of those socialists were also boneheads, though, like persons who organize rallies by advertising that the rally is for "all good socialists and KKK members." (You don't hear about that one too much. So, I guess it's complicated: the left won't tell you the truth and the right won't tell you the truth. There's one problem right  there - or maybe those guys just do not know what the  truth is in the first place.)
    It is a valid concept. It has seemed so to many and this has gone on for a certain longish time. The concept is entertained especially in places like France, but, still, socialism never happened. No socialism.
    And so, dear readers, don't get your hopes up. You're going to be stuck with capitalism. You should get your head behind the concept, instead of being so darn "anti-capitalist," which has the advantage of being a bit easier. You should get your head behind the concept of capitalism before it's too late. You should think this through. Capitalism is your system. Stop saying you are an "anti-capitalist." It isn't smart.
     Then when you've figured this out, then let's defend it. There are those who cannot handle capitalism either. Some of us don't get that concept either. In other words, we cannot handle socialism, we cannot handle capitalism. Or, they have bad ideas about what to do after they are in that system. Like, they steal. They cheat. They love doing that stuff. It makes them feel powerful and virile. You have to understand what capitalism really is and stop them from doing it. Chris Hedges understands that a "tolerant" society is nevertheless within bounds when it is intolerant of those who are against tolerance. This makes sense, because a tolerant society would not exist if active opposition destroys that very element of tolerance. It needs to look out for persons actively against, or violating its principle, tolerance. Not everyone is able to be responsible enough to live in a tolerant society. They should not be free to attack capitalism, for example, by doing what we nevertheless seriously call "investing." Bashar Assad had a money manager, a man who was interviewed for the New York Times. The advisor had made successful investments on behalf of Syria. Some persons do not need to be a part of any society they are violating. Some are incompetent. How can you participate in business if you are unethical? Are you a "free" individual? I don't think so. There are too many such people and capitalism can be too easy nowadays. maybe you do not get how to do capitalism, or cannot handle it. Then, just because you find yourself within the social mileu, it doesn't mean you get to be treated like everybody else, and that you can just do whatever you want, and make easy money, and create crises everywhere. The problem is not that such persons are "capitalists," it is that they aren't acting right within capitalism. That is why you need regulation. They are not capitalists. They are persons who are not very smart.
    Capitalism doesn't owe them something. Capitalism is a system that, like any other, needs to have bounds or rules that it works within. As time goes on, it gets easier to scam your way through the society, the scam becomes more collective. Regulation would protect against that.
     A lot of people make easy money. I believe the advertisements that claim this can be done. So, some things need to be regulated. That is not competition, or frugality, or individual initiative. Give me a break. The system matures and it becomes too collectivist! It gets too easy for your little cheat squad to make money. That kind of money is not earned. It is quite ill-gotten. I would not call that capitalism. I would call "capitalism" something that makes a modicum of sense, or that is socially sustainable. These so-called "capitalists" are rushing to commit suicide, which they well do collectively as well. There are regulations you need. There are such rules and regulations that you need to put in place. And you need regulators to do that. And voters to vote for regulation. That is the correct capitalism, the correct policy.
    We need regulation because we need to defend capitalism. Let's do so collectively. (All you sharp conservatives may notice that I'm using the word "collectively" a lot.) 

    Socialism, then, is a concept, and that reminds me. A concept cafe just opened on Wells St. called La Fournette (you do not pronounce it phonetically). I thought it was OK. It claims it is, and may well be, based on the accents I heard during my visit, an "authentic," "actual" French bakery.
    Simultaneously, in the simulacrum I should say, I was reading this here novel by de Beauvior, Simone,  you see. She is good, I had previously quite enjoyed "Ethics of Ambiguity" (hard to find in a store), and there is also the novel, "Les Mandarins." It is "The Mandarins" in English, b. t. w. She writes about all her associated intellectuals friends of the French Left. Intellectuals of France – something that she knows a lot about, having been Nelson Algren's girlfriend. No. She is a really, really good author. I do not really read novels because I cannot absorb all of the social detail neurologically but I could tell she really was smart about writing it. A kind of real smarts there.
     The thesis here is that socialism didn't happen. Well, I think that is the point. I know there was a point somewhere, but getting back to the restaurant, the French apparently lack a concept for "rolls," which I noticed because as soon as I got in I order one, thinking: "it is a bakery. I don't know much about the menu yet, so I will get a roll." I think I made a mistake there. This mistake was I came in and asking for a "roll." Hey, I didn't know any better! Q: Bakery. A: Roll. No. I mean, Neu. Neuf?
    I knew it was a bakery so I asked for a roll. Crap. I had a glitch, man. I threw a bad pass, I had a "faux pas" OK. So, we, the Americans collectively, found no rolls. What they have are croissant, "brioche," et pretzel. 
 ... ...Oui!

1 comment: