{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5432", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5432, "subject": "Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13", "messages": 10, "voices": 5, "first": "2009-05-17T02:27:35+00:00", "last": "2009-05-18T21:34:48+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robin Dunn", "address": "bigbadgerjohnny at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-05-17T02:27:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It strikes me as fascinating that Wolfe has his finger to the pulse of\nthe country so strongly. I do believe Wolfe to be a friend of\nauthoritarianism, and like Plato, he longs for the good king who can\ndestroy and create with a Christ-like wisdom, a wisdom borne of a deep\nhumanity and humility. (Wolfe might be willing to let the artists stay\nin Athens, though . . .)\n\nBut I don't think Wolfe will ever be so fast as to to endorse this paragraph:\n\nI suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The reason" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "socialism is understood \"as robbing from the rich to give to the poor\" in\nthe US is because the country was founded on the ideals of private property.\nExcepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never a time\nof clearly defined \"class\" -- of a \"place\" in society that one is expected\nto know. Actually, \"rob from the rich\" is a nicer way to put it than Kipling\ndid: \"They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial Peter to pay\nproverbial Paul\". In order to get from here to there (socialism/welfare\nstate), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking from\nthose who \"don't need it\" in order to fund \"the community\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "America is an idea, one molded from lots of different peoples, not\nexclusively from the godlike founding fathers. Private property is\nabsolutely essential in understanding past and contemporary America,\nbut Wolfe is too smart in my opinion to embrace any kind of oligarchy,\nwhich is what the founding fathers were. Denying class in America is\na shibboleth now. No Wolfe story leaves class absent, in fact, and\ninsofar as his best protagonists often embrace the best aspects of\nChristianity, they militate against inequity in all forms.\n\nSocialism is about equity. It's about diminishing the gap between\nrich and poor. I would say this is an attractive idea to Wolfe,\ninsofar as he does valorize so many Christ-like figures who fight\nvarious forms of injustice, while sometimes perpetuating other forms\nof it, either knowingly or unknowingly.\n\nYou are absolutely right, however, that socialism is about taking\nwealth from the few to fund the needs of the group, thus perpetuating\na diminished rich/ poor gap, which most democracies consider essential\nfor their survival. Your scare quotes around \"community\" are\ntroubling indeed. I take your point that the \"community\" is a broad\nterm, and it is often misused by politicians when what they really\nmean is \"a few of my good buddies.\" But revolution comes when that\nrich/ poor gap gets too high. And revolutions have very, very high\ncosts. Wolfe knows that too, I bet.\n\n\n-Robin Dunn\n\n\nP.S.\nAgain I think it's a real tribute to Wolfe that his stories are so\nrich, varied, and in the end, non-ideological, that many different\npolitical philosophies can be tolerated in his fictional universe. ;)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM, wrote:\nSend Urth mailing list submissions to\n? ? ? ?urth at lists.urth.net\n\nTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n? ? ? ?http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net\nor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n? ? ? ?urth-request at lists.urth.net\n\nYou can reach the person managing the list at\n? ? ? ?urth-owner at lists.urth.net\n\nWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\nthan \"Re: Contents of Urth digest...\"\n\n\nToday's Topics:\n\n? 1. — The Devil in a Forest (David Stockhoff)\n? 2. Re: ?The Devil in a Forest (James Wynn)\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:13:11 -0400\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nSubject: (urth) ?The Devil in a Forest\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nMessage-ID: <4A0EBBE7.5030109 at verizon.net>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed\n\nI don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that one can so confidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic government in it. They are modern ideas that may be roughly linked but can't actually be represented in this milieu. Naturally Wolfe doesn't like them, because they are inferior to the rule of a good king. So I'd like to see more citations specifically supporting that theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or indirect sense.\n\nFirst of all, by the time you've equated socialism with \"robbing from the rich and giving to the poor,\" you've already hanged socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know what it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood in that way in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance does not rule out Wolfe's understanding it that way too.\n\nSecond, in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big government? Again, punitive overtaxing---a practice that was perfected by the Medicis, not by the IRS, by any stretch---and being corrupt and evil bears no particular relation to big government as we know it. Rather, it's business as usual for imperial/authoritarian orders of the kind our big government replaced.\n\nIf anything, the story sets---if I can again put it in the terms of past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax and kill freely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to improve things but also tax and kill with restraint. Nobility should behave in a certain way, according to a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a nobleman, and thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it wouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided.\n\n\n\n------------------------------\n\nMessage: 4\nDate: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:31:57 -0500\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <26082D4CA6CD4E83A88223747DCF7E57 at eMachinePC>\nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=\"iso-8859-1\";\n? ? ? ?reply-type=response" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Don Doggett:\nSorry James, I've read The Devil in a Forest," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "?>but I was pretty underwhelmed by it, so I never dug very deep.\n\nLook, this is no great work, but it is a very \"well-constructed\" work; to a\ndegree that it's worth examining for that reason alone. Most people are\nunaware of the story of the evil abbess who poisons, blinds, and kills Robin\nHood. Wolfe has combined the abbess, Baba Yaga, and Hansel & Gretel's witch\ninto a single character.\n\nThe story has lots of interesting, filled-out characters. The abbe' is an\nearly Silk as well as a kind of Friar Tuck.\n\nThematically Wat/Robin Hood is an interesting exemplar of the corrupting\nnature of socialism while the Ganelon/Sherriff of Nottingham is an exemplar\nof the ambiguous but cruel nature of big, bureaucratic government.\n\nI've read much worse novels, even by Wolfe.\n\n\n\n\n---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 090515-0, 05/15/2009\nTested on: 5/16/2009 9:13:13 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Sat, 16 May 2009 14:58:15 -0500\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest" } ] }, { "message_id": "<78015B0ACC4A4BBD98CA70005B934369@eMachinePC>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-05-17T03:52:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Devil in a Forest", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Robin Dunn said:\nI do believe Wolfe to be a friend of\nauthoritarianism, and like Plato, he longs for the good king who can\ndestroy and create with a Christ-like wisdom, a wisdom borne of a deep\nhumanity and humility." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I emphatically disagree with statement; especially the first half. You might \nas well say that Wolfe is a friend of cruel, unjust penal systems simply \nbecause they occur with regularity in his stories. He often presents \ncharacters who are recognized as \"kings\" solely due to their manner and \nbearing. But Able, Latro, and Horn are never \"rulers\" of anything. The \nphilosopher kings, Silk and the Rajan, are--by choice--not official rulers \nfor long." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "America is an idea, one molded from lots of different peoples, not\nexclusively from the godlike founding fathers. Private property is\nabsolutely essential in understanding past and contemporary America,\nbut Wolfe is too smart in my opinion to embrace any kind of oligarchy,\nwhich is what the founding fathers were." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Once again, not true. If anyone was part of an oligarchy it was the colonial \ngovernment established by the English crown who were displaced by the system \nthat the founders helped set up. The leadership of the states, even under \nthe Articles of the Confederation, were elected. I suppose if you believe \nthat limiting the vote to land-owning Americans an oligarchy, then it's an \noligarchy. But the term usually refers to a more closed, tightly knitted \nclub that is much harder to join. The founders established the system they \neventually did through the power of their ideas (for example, the Federalist \nPapers), not through insiders' influence. They definitely tended to be \nsuccessful merchants, but that is a position that one can easily lose or \ngain, unlike that of a nobility or a insiders cabal." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Denying class in America is a shibboleth now." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Errr...it's nothing new. It is something that has commonly been marked by \nEuropeans that Americans always say they are \"middle class\". To Americans, \nthe \"rich\" are people like Thurston Howell III: people who don't work for a \nliving and never had to. That's very rare among Americans. The term \"class\" \nis imported from the Old World. In America, it's merely an arbitrary amount \nof money that a family makes per year. People move in and out of poverty, \nmiddle class, wealthy, all the time. Since most of the top 1% families moved \ninto that percentage within their own lifetimes, this is not the sort of \nthing Marx thought of when he referred to \"class\". De Tocqueville carefully \nexplained why this tends to be so in the U.S." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No Wolfe story leaves class absent, in fact,\nand insofar as his best protagonists often embrace\nthe best aspects of Christianity, they militate against\ninequity in all forms." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Inequality of opportunity? Yes. Inequality of results? Absolutely not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Socialism is about equity. It's about diminishing the gap between\nrich and poor." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I would say this is an attractive idea to Wolfe,\ninsofar as he does valorize so many Christ-like figures who fight\nvarious forms of injustice, while sometimes perpetuating other forms\nof it, either knowingly or unknowingly." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't find your implied definition of \"justice\" (the legislated equality \nof wealth) to be recognized as such in Wolfe's stories. tDiaF is a good \nexample. The tradesmen are presented as hard-working and deserving, albeit \nimperfect and entirely corruptible (especially by a demagogue like Wat) . \nThere is never a sense that somehow the poverty of the charcoal burners \ncreated either Wat or Ganelon or the soldiers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Your scare quotes around \"community\" are\ntroubling indeed. I take your point that the \"community\" is a broad\nterm, and it is often misused by politicians when what they really\nmean is \"a few of my good buddies.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They weren't intended as \"scare quotes\" (neither were those). They were \nmeant to imply (as you acknowledged) that \"community\" is a term that \npoliticians love to use because it can mean almost anything: up to including \na single well-connected contributor. General Motors President, Charles \nWilson, famously opined that \"what is good for GM is good for America\". \nSo --to his mind-- money, considerations, and protections going to his \ncompany actually went straight to the community chest. By the same token, I \nput the words \"those who don't need it\" in quotes to imply that their \nmeaning was also up for grabs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But revolution comes when that\nrich/ poor gap gets too high. And revolutions have very, very high\ncosts. Wolfe knows that too, I bet." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wolfe has said that bad governments are subject to revolution. He has not \nopined that unequal societies are subject to revolution. In fact, his heroes \nare the epitome of inequality. They rise to the top because they deserve to \nand everyone around them recognizes it. Like the Hero in \"The Tale of the \nStudent and his Son\" they where an invisible crown that is visible to \neveryone around them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again I think it's a real tribute to Wolfe that his stories are so\nrich, varied, and in the end, non-ideological, that many different\npolitical philosophies can be tolerated in his fictional universe. ;)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree they are rich and varied. As I said, tDiaF is about many things. And \nit can be enjoyed on many levels, I think. However, I think it is intended \nto unequivocally strip the bark off the concept of the goodness of \"robbing \nfrom the rich to give to the poor.\"\n\nJ. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4A0FF3F4.70602@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2009-05-17T11:24:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Robin Dunn wrote:\nBut revolution comes when that\nrich/ poor gap gets too high. And revolutions have very, very high\ncosts. Wolfe knows that too, I bet." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's more to it, like how poor the poor are to begin with, than how \nfar the rich are above them. The Lydians didn't revolt against Croesus, \nafter all.\n\nSocialism needs to borrow more from communalism before it has enough of \na chance to be worth a trial. An adversarial system that where many \nhave-nots stand to gain at the expense of a few haves by definition is \ngoing to be opposed by all the wealth and power the haves can bring to \nbear. If you can arrange things so that Capital gets a return, even a \nmodest one, as well as Labor, then you'll get some takers among the haves." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20090517124134.NNUN29053.eastrmmtao107.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net>", "from": { "name": "James B. Jordan", "address": "jbjordan4 at cox.net" }, "date": "2009-05-17T12:41:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wolfe believes, as a \"libertarian,\" that the way to bring more \nequality between rich and poor is to get the state out of the \nredistribution business and back into the contract-enforcement \nbusiness. The poor can rise when contracts are honored and they can \ncount on pay. They can also rise when the state refuses to grant \nmonopolistic privileges to the \"haves\" against the \"have nots.\" \nAnyway, without going into economic theory, that's how Wolfe would \nsee it. Yes, the goal is for the poor to rise and more equality to \nensue; the means to that end, however, is never socialism or fascism \nor monopoly capitalism, because inevitably the state (i.e., certain \nmen and women) then decides who wins and who loses.\n\nThe USA today is a looooong way from the kind of \"servant capitalism\" \nthat someone like Wolfe believes in.\n\nNutria" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At 09:27 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:\nIt strikes me as fascinating that Wolfe has his finger to the pulse of\nthe country so strongly. I do believe Wolfe to be a friend of\nauthoritarianism, and like Plato, he longs for the good king who can\ndestroy and create with a Christ-like wisdom, a wisdom borne of a deep\nhumanity and humility. (Wolfe might be willing to let the artists stay\nin Athens, though . . .)\n\nBut I don't think Wolfe will ever be so fast as to to endorse this paragraph:\n\nI suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The reason\nsocialism is understood \"as robbing from the rich to give to the poor\" in\nthe US is because the country was founded on the ideals of \nprivate property." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Excepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never a time\nof clearly defined \"class\" -- of a \"place\" in society that one is expected\nto know. Actually, \"rob from the rich\" is a nicer way to put it \nthan Kipling\ndid: \"They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial Peter to pay\nproverbial Paul\". In order to get from here to there (socialism/welfare\nstate), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking from\nthose who \"don't need it\" in order to fund \"the community\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "America is an idea, one molded from lots of different peoples, not\nexclusively from the godlike founding fathers. Private property is\nabsolutely essential in understanding past and contemporary America,\nbut Wolfe is too smart in my opinion to embrace any kind of oligarchy,\nwhich is what the founding fathers were. Denying class in America is\na shibboleth now. No Wolfe story leaves class absent, in fact, and\ninsofar as his best protagonists often embrace the best aspects of\nChristianity, they militate against inequity in all forms.\n\nSocialism is about equity. It's about diminishing the gap between\nrich and poor. I would say this is an attractive idea to Wolfe,\ninsofar as he does valorize so many Christ-like figures who fight\nvarious forms of injustice, while sometimes perpetuating other forms\nof it, either knowingly or unknowingly.\n\nYou are absolutely right, however, that socialism is about taking\nwealth from the few to fund the needs of the group, thus perpetuating\na diminished rich/ poor gap, which most democracies consider essential\nfor their survival. Your scare quotes around \"community\" are\ntroubling indeed. I take your point that the \"community\" is a broad\nterm, and it is often misused by politicians when what they really\nmean is \"a few of my good buddies.\" But revolution comes when that\nrich/ poor gap gets too high. And revolutions have very, very high\ncosts. Wolfe knows that too, I bet.\n\n\n-Robin Dunn\n\n\nP.S.\nAgain I think it's a real tribute to Wolfe that his stories are so\nrich, varied, and in the end, non-ideological, that many different\npolitical philosophies can be tolerated in his fictional universe. ;)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Send Urth mailing list submissions to\n urth at lists.urth.net\n\nTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n http://lists.urth.net/listinfo.cgi/urth-urth.net\nor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n urth-request at lists.urth.net\n\nYou can reach the person managing the list at\n urth-owner at lists.urth.net\n\nWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\nthan \"Re: Contents of Urth digest...\"\n\n\nToday's Topics:\n\n 1. The Devil in a Forest (David Stockhoff)\n 2. Re: The Devil in a Forest (James Wynn)\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:13:11 -0400\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nSubject: (urth) The Devil in a Forest\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nMessage-ID: <4A0EBBE7.5030109 at verizon.net>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed\n\nI don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that one can so \nconfidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic \ngovernment in it. They are modern ideas that may be roughly linked \nbut can't actually be represented in this milieu. Naturally Wolfe \ndoesn't like them, because they are inferior to the rule of a good \nking. So I'd like to see more citations specifically supporting \nthat theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or \nindirect sense.\n\nFirst of all, by the time you've equated socialism with \"robbing \nfrom the rich and giving to the poor,\" you've already hanged \nsocialism without a trial, because that means you don't know what \nit is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood in that \nway in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance does not rule \nout Wolfe's understanding it that way too.\n\nSecond, in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big \ngovernment? Again, punitive overtaxing---a practice that was \nperfected by the Medicis, not by the IRS, by any stretch---and \nbeing corrupt and evil bears no particular relation to big \ngovernment as we know it. Rather, it's business as usual for \nimperial/authoritarian orders of the kind our big government replaced.\n\nIf anything, the story sets---if I can again put it in the terms \nof past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax and kill \nfreely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to \nimprove things but also tax and kill with restraint. Nobility \nshould behave in a certain way, according to a code, as a knight. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a nobleman, and thus cannot be \neither. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it wouldn't be the first time \na Wolfe protagonist is misguided." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 4\nDate: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:31:57 -0500\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <26082D4CA6CD4E83A88223747DCF7E57 at eMachinePC>\nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=\"iso-8859-1\";\n reply-type=response" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Don Doggett:\nSorry James, I've read The Devil in a Forest," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " >but I was pretty underwhelmed by it, so I never dug very deep.\n\nLook, this is no great work, but it is a very \"well-constructed\" work; to a\ndegree that it's worth examining for that reason alone. Most people are\nunaware of the story of the evil abbess who poisons, blinds, and \nkills Robin\nHood. Wolfe has combined the abbess, Baba Yaga, and Hansel & Gretel's witch\ninto a single character.\n\nThe story has lots of interesting, filled-out characters. The abbe' is an\nearly Silk as well as a kind of Friar Tuck.\n\nThematically Wat/Robin Hood is an interesting exemplar of the corrupting\nnature of socialism while the Ganelon/Sherriff of Nottingham is an exemplar\nof the ambiguous but cruel nature of big, bureaucratic government.\n\nI've read much worse novels, even by Wolfe.\n\n\n\n\n---\navast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.\nVirus Database (VPS): 090515-0, 05/15/2009\nTested on: 5/16/2009 9:13:13 AM\navast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.\nhttp://www.avast.com\n\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Sat, 16 May 2009 14:58:15 -0500\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4A101327.8010403@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-05-17T13:37:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Devil in a Forest", "in_reply_to": "<78015B0ACC4A4BBD98CA70005B934369@eMachinePC>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Brief responses below, because I think we are not necessarily in disagreement:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Sat, 16 May 2009 14:58:15 -0500\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=\"iso-8859-1\";\n\treply-type=response" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff said: I don't recall the novel well, but I'm skeptical that \none\ncan so confidently read direct criticism of socialism and bureaucratic\ngovernment in it. So I'd like to see more citations specifically supporting\nthat theory. Unless, of course, you meant it only in a general or indirect \nsense." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI do think it's done in a more indirect sense. This novel is \"about\" many \nthings, but the shadow of economic/social commentary lies long and dark over \nit. Wolfe starts with a hero of folklore known for \"robbing the rich to give \nto the poor\". But he starts the story from the perspective of \"the rich\". \nFor starters, we get an old peddler, who is also a very clever salesman that \nmanages to get housewives to spend more than they planned to. Wat shoots him \ndead with an arrow and robs him. Later he justifies it (he quite good a \njustifying everything he does) saying:\n\n\"I put my second-best shaft in his neck. I don't like the breed--nasty, \nwhining creatures that cry and say you're taking their last farthing when \nthey've half a dozen of gold in one shoe and a thousand more, like as not, \nin the mattress at home.\"\n\nThen we meet the Villagers--the rest of \"the rich\"--all of whom are \ntradesmen. They start with a plan to form a private militia to root out Wat, \nbut Wat is a clever corrupter. Before things get far along, he has convinced \na sizable chunk of the tradesmen to join him in a plot to rob a nobleman \n(someone who is rich from the tradesmen's POV). But, actually, no nobleman \nwill ever get skinned because Wat's real plan is to rob one of the \ntradesmen.\n\nOnly after we meet the rich, are we introduced to \"the poor\". The Poor are \nthe charcoal burners in the forest. Wat's relationship with them is to buy \nthem off. There is no time in the story when Wat's relationship with them is \nchummier than that. They can't go to the authorities even if they were \ninclined to because their own livelihood is technically illegal. But Wat \nknows that they might turn him in for a reward so he is never among them in \ntrust.\n\nThere are no speeches about liberty or the rights of property, but Wolfe \neffectively demolishes the whole philosophical structure of forcibly taking \nfrom \"the rich\" for purposes of benevolence. It simply does not happen \nhere.\n\n\nMy only objection is that there doesn't seem to be any philosophical structure to Wat's thieving. He's a psychopath." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "...in what way does a feudal figure resemble modern big government?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nIf this isn't a fable about the foolishness of depending on the beneficence \nof the government, I can't imagine what would be. In order to protect \nthemselves from thievery, members of the village seek the help of the \ngovernment. But once they have let the camel's nose under the tent, they \nfind that people actually performing those duties are not interested in \n\"rescuing\" them, but in following the letter of the law as it has been \ndefined to them, and feathering their own well-being as much as they're \npermitted within the strict definition of their duties. In short, the Law \n(the government from the POV of the villagers), is a bigger marauder than \nWat. They treat all the villagers as a potential law-breakers, and in deed \nPhilip the Cobbler and Gloin the Weaver are defined technically as \"Wat's \nmen\" even though they never robbed anyone, even though there was never \nanyone to rob.\n\n\n\nHere, \"government\" = the people hired by the noblemen to keep order. No more. I don't see any pretense of benevolence. Also, I don't see that The Law is the problem, but rather the corruption of those who are supposed to execute it. In this, I guess I see a parallel to the Church, which Catholics generally accept as human and flawed below the level of the Pope.\n\nThe noblemen are, however, the only ones to come off more or less clean, except that they permit evil to be done in their names." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If anything, the story sets---if I can again put\nit in the terms of past debates---'good' king vs 'bad' king. Bad kings tax \nand kill freely and destroy all that is not theirs; good kings try to \nimprove things but also tax and kill with\nrestraint. Nobility should behave in a certain way, according\nto a code, as a knight. Neither the sheriff nor Wat is a nobleman,\nand thus cannot be either. Clearly Wat is misguided, but it\nwouldn't be the first time a Wolfe protagonist is misguided." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nWat is not presented as \"misguided\". He's a ruthless murderer and thief, and \nas clever a corrupter of those around him as the Devil himself. He's also \nnot in his right mind. He's totally controlled by Mother Cloot.\n\nThere is no \"good king\" and no \"bad king\" in this story. Wat is both the \nhighwayman AND the sheriff (there's a metaphor for you). There is a king at \nthe end who provides information to tie up lose ends, but he doesn't punish \nthe soldiers for what they did to Mark's village as a \"good king\" would. He \ndoesn't attempt to arrive at a higher justice for Phillip and Gloin. Mark \ntells the king that the soldier's promised to release them if he led them to \nWat, and the king just waved it away. The abbe' tells Mark they are sure to \nbe hanged in a very short time. Nor is the king presented as a ravager. He's \njust an amiable old guy. It's not clear what he would have done if he'd \nknown how often Mark went willingly through the forest with Wat.\n\n\n\n\nI didn't mean to suggest that there was a good king in the story. By 'good' I meant \"ideal.\" The king is not ideal but very real---he doesn't really give a shit." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "First of all, by the time you've equated socialism with \"robbing" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nfrom the rich and giving to the poor,\" you've already hanged" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "socialism without a trial, because that means you don't know\nwhat it is. Though I will grant that it is commonly understood\nin that way in the US, and that the requirement of ignorance\ndoes not rule out Wolfe's understanding it that way too." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI suspect Wolfe does not believe socialism deserves a trial. The reason \nsocialism is understood \"as robbing from the rich to give to the poor\" in \nthe US is because the country was founded on the ideals of private property. \nExcepting slavery and the treatment of the Indians, there was never a time \nof clearly defined \"class\" -- of a \"place\" in society that one is expected \nto know. Actually, \"rob from the rich\" is a nicer way to put it than Kipling \ndid: \"They promised abundance for all/By robbing proverbial Peter to pay \nproverbial Paul\". In order to get from here to there (socialism/welfare \nstate), the advocates of the shift have always framed it as taking from \nthose who \"don't need it\" in order to fund \"the community\".\n\n\nJ. \n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4A101707.5080905@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-05-17T13:54:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Devil in a Forest", "in_reply_to": "<4A101327.8010403@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you're both right. However:\n\n(1) I'd say more precisely (I hope) that the novel demolishes the idea of a Robin Hood as any kind of ideal, and makes it clear that such benevolence is neither simple and straightforward nor likely, either philosophically or otherwise. Let alone 'good': if it's not achievable without destruction, it can't be that 'good,' even if in the long run it is the better ideal. Religion works in exactly the same manner, doesn't it? We can't trust anyone, not priests nor politicians.\n\nTo me, the novel reminds us that there is no free lunch, that's all. Since actual socialism does not propose that such a thing exists, I don't see that it is harmed as an idea---rather, strengthened.\n\n(2) Let's say not that Wolfe favors authoritarianism but that he favors a unitary authority, as long as it's a good one. Since there is only one permanently good unitary authority, don't expect to find it anywhere else but there. This is always the main point.\n\nSpeaking of this, I recall reading that the idea behind the fasces (those rods bound around an axe head and carried by lictors) is not just that the Republic (or its predecessor, but not a King) binds the people to make them stronger, but also that it is more just and merciful. The lictor (he who binds) also had the power to unbind, and when this was done---if it ever was done---it meant that the rods would be used to beat you to death. Better to die by a single swift stroke after a fair trial than to be beaten to death by a mob. \n\nAlso recall that in imperial times, the lictors were merely bodyguards of the powerful. All in all a perfect symbol of non-ideal and all-too-human/real execution of the ideal. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Sat, 16 May 2009 22:52:15 -0500\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) The Devil in a Forest\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <78015B0ACC4A4BBD98CA70005B934369 at eMachinePC>\nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=\"iso-8859-1\";\n\treply-type=original" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Robin Dunn said:\nI do believe Wolfe to be a friend of\nauthoritarianism, and like Plato, he longs for the good king who can\ndestroy and create with a Christ-like wisdom, a wisdom borne of a deep\nhumanity and humility." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI emphatically disagree with statement; especially the first half. You might \nas well say that Wolfe is a friend of cruel, unjust penal systems simply \nbecause they occur with regularity in his stories. He often presents \ncharacters who are recognized as \"kings\" solely due to their manner and \nbearing. But Able, Latro, and Horn are never \"rulers\" of anything. The \nphilosopher kings, Silk and the Rajan, are--by choice--not official rulers \nfor long." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "America is an idea, one molded from lots of different peoples, not\nexclusively from the godlike founding fathers. Private property is\nabsolutely essential in understanding past and contemporary America,\nbut Wolfe is too smart in my opinion to embrace any kind of oligarchy,\nwhich is what the founding fathers were." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nOnce again, not true. If anyone was part of an oligarchy it was the colonial \ngovernment established by the English crown who were displaced by the system \nthat the founders helped set up. The leadership of the states, even under \nthe Articles of the Confederation, were elected. I suppose if you believe \nthat limiting the vote to land-owning Americans an oligarchy, then it's an \noligarchy. But the term usually refers to a more closed, tightly knitted \nclub that is much harder to join. The founders established the system they \neventually did through the power of their ideas (for example, the Federalist \nPapers), not through insiders' influence. They definitely tended to be \nsuccessful merchants, but that is a position that one can easily lose or \ngain, unlike that of a nobility or a insiders cabal." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Denying class in America is a shibboleth now." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nErrr...it's nothing new. It is something that has commonly been marked by \nEuropeans that Americans always say they are \"middle class\". To Americans, \nthe \"rich\" are people like Thurston Howell III: people who don't work for a \nliving and never had to. That's very rare among Americans. The term \"class\" \nis imported from the Old World. In America, it's merely an arbitrary amount \nof money that a family makes per year. People move in and out of poverty, \nmiddle class, wealthy, all the time. Since most of the top 1% families moved \ninto that percentage within their own lifetimes, this is not the sort of \nthing Marx thought of when he referred to \"class\". De Tocqueville carefully \nexplained why this tends to be so in the U.S." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No Wolfe story leaves class absent, in fact,\nand insofar as his best protagonists often embrace\nthe best aspects of Christianity, they militate against\ninequity in all forms." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nInequality of opportunity? Yes. Inequality of results? Absolutely not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Socialism is about equity. It's about diminishing the gap between\nrich and poor." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nOkay." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I would say this is an attractive idea to Wolfe,\ninsofar as he does valorize so many Christ-like figures who fight\nvarious forms of injustice, while sometimes perpetuating other forms\nof it, either knowingly or unknowingly." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI don't find your implied definition of \"justice\" (the legislated equality \nof wealth) to be recognized as such in Wolfe's stories. tDiaF is a good \nexample. The tradesmen are presented as hard-working and deserving, albeit \nimperfect and entirely corruptible (especially by a demagogue like Wat) . \nThere is never a sense that somehow the poverty of the charcoal burners \ncreated either Wat or Ganelon or the soldiers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Your scare quotes around \"community\" are\ntroubling indeed. I take your point that the \"community\" is a broad\nterm, and it is often misused by politicians when what they really\nmean is \"a few of my good buddies.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nThey weren't intended as \"scare quotes\" (neither were those). They were \nmeant to imply (as you acknowledged) that \"community\" is a term that \npoliticians love to use because it can mean almost anything: up to including \na single well-connected contributor. General Motors President, Charles \nWilson, famously opined that \"what is good for GM is good for America\". \nSo --to his mind-- money, considerations, and protections going to his \ncompany actually went straight to the community chest. By the same token, I \nput the words \"those who don't need it\" in quotes to imply that their \nmeaning was also up for grabs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But revolution comes when that\nrich/ poor gap gets too high. And revolutions have very, very high\ncosts. Wolfe knows that too, I bet." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nWolfe has said that bad governments are subject to revolution. He has not \nopined that unequal societies are subject to revolution. In fact, his heroes \nare the epitome of inequality. They rise to the top because they deserve to \nand everyone around them recognizes it. Like the Hero in \"The Tale of the \nStudent and his Son\" they where an invisible crown that is visible to \neveryone around them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Again I think it's a real tribute to Wolfe that his stories are so\nrich, varied, and in the end, non-ideological, that many different\npolitical philosophies can be tolerated in his fictional universe. ;) " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI agree they are rich and varied. As I said, tDiaF is about many things. And \nit can be enjoyed on many levels, I think. However, I think it is intended \nto unequivocally strip the bark off the concept of the goodness of \"robbing \nfrom the rich to give to the poor.\"\n\nJ. \n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4A101782.6070904@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-05-17T13:56:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13", "in_reply_to": "<20090517124134.NNUN29053.eastrmmtao107.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All of which is perfectly correct but has little to do with actual socialism and more to do with paranoid Randian fantasies of it. In short, a straw man." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 3\nDate: Sun, 17 May 2009 06:24:36 -0500\nFrom: Jeff Wilson \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: <4A0FF3F4.70602 at io.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed\n\nRobin Dunn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But revolution comes when that\nrich/ poor gap gets too high. And revolutions have very, very high\ncosts. Wolfe knows that too, I bet." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nThere's more to it, like how poor the poor are to begin with, than how \nfar the rich are above them. The Lydians didn't revolt against Croesus, \nafter all.\n\nSocialism needs to borrow more from communalism before it has enough of \na chance to be worth a trial. An adversarial system that where many \nhave-nots stand to gain at the expense of a few haves by definition is \ngoing to be opposed by all the wealth and power the haves can bring to \nbear. If you can arrange things so that Capital gets a return, even a \nmodest one, as well as Labor, then you'll get some takers among the haves.\n\n-- Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com < http://www.io.com/~jwilson > \n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-05-18T09:34:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) The Devil in a Forest", "in_reply_to": "<4A101707.5080905@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I said:\nThis novel is \"about\" many\nthings, but the shadow of economic/social commentary lies long and dark\nover it. Wolfe starts with a hero of folklore known for \"robbing the rich to give\nto the poor\". But he starts the story from the perspective of \"the rich\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Sackhoff:\nMy only objection is that there doesn't seem to be any\nphilosophical structure to Wat's thieving. He's a psychopath." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He's unwittingly controlled by evil Mother Cloot, but he's not a\npsychopath. He's a demagogue. He cleverly pits one group against\nanother to enrich himself and to undermine any coalition against him.\n\nHow does he live safely in the woods as a thief? He pays out a portion\nof his robberies from \"the rich\" (peddlers, tradesmen, and pilgrims)\nto \"the poor\" (the charcoal burners and such who live in the forest).\nWhen it seems that the villagers will unite against him, he approaches\nthem and announces that it is not necessary for them to go to the\ntrouble of forming a private militia. He has decided to leave their\nforest to rob other places. But, oh wait, he's going to need \"a stake\"\nin order to leave, and so that means a small robbery of some pilgrim\nthe villagers don't know who his richer than themselves. Why would\nthey agree to this? Because he's going to give them a cut of the\nrobbery. They don't even have to do more than stand there while he\ndoes the work. Not everyone is willing to accept this corrupt bargain,\nbut enough are that the coalition against him is destroyed. But as\nsoon as everyone has signed on, Wat tells them that there is no\npilgrim after all. His plan is to rob one of the villagers--in fact,\none of those who signed on to the robbery. But since that neighbor\nwill never realize it is THEY who robbed him, they needn't be ashamed\nof the act. And the neighbors fall in.\n\nWhether or nor not you agree with the analogy, tDiaF is --I contend--\nintended as a demonstration of how social welfare is sold to the\npublic. The argument is that if your neighbor came to your door and\nsaid \"I need a retirement or guaranteed health care or financial\nsupport when I'm not making enough. So I've decided that you and some\nother neighbors will pay me a monthly stipend.\" You'd throw the guy\nout. If he came said, \"I need these things and you might too; so we're\ngoing to go to the better off neighborhood and demand they pay into a\nkitty to support us\", you'd consider it dishonorable to join in a plan\nlike that. But when some third party says \"I'm going to take from your\nneighbor to supply this kitty, and you'll never have to demand it from\nthem and you'll never have to face them. You don't even have to *do*\nanything. All you have to do is support me in the privacy of your\nvoting booth. And, after all, you know they can afford it\"; in that\ncase, enough people can be convinced to throw in with the plan. But\nmany of the people who think it is someone else getting taken are\nactually the victims. Just as Wat admitted privately that there were\nnot enough pilgrims and they would never be stupid enough to carry\nlarge sums through his forest, (the argument goes) there are not\nenough \"rich\" to make a viable social plan that is worth putting\ntogether in the first place.\n\nYou don't think this is a fair analogy of socialism/welfare state.\nOkay. Your disagreement is within the debate between\nlibertarian/liberal economics and socialist economics over the last\ncentury and a half (see my final response below). The point is that\nWolfe does, and has attempted to illustrate it in tDiaF. The bare\nmajority of Americans who (directly) pay any federal income taxes at\nall today is the sort of arrangement that Wolfe is warning about here.\nIt's an ingenious little fable. Is it propaganda? Sure. Propaganda can\nbe well done. It can even be on the right side. I noted on this list\nnot so long ago that I considered \"Pan's Labyrinth\" to be the best\npropaganda I'd seen in years (in that case for the Spanish Socialist\nParty of which I am no fan)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I said:\nIf this isn't a fable about the foolishness of depending on the beneficence\nof ?the government, I can't imagine what would be." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David says:\nHere, \"government\" = the people hired by the noblemen to keep order.\nNo more. I don't see any pretense of benevolence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How does the government know that Wat is roving in the forest? Because\nthe villagers have complained. Why does the government take the\ntrouble and risk of rooting him out? Public beneficience (which is\nmore extensive than public benevolence). It is Wat, not the soldiers,\nthat is analogy of public \"benevolence\". It is a canny distinction on\nWolfe's part to divide the activity of Wat from the activity of\nGanelon while making them the same person." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Sackhoff said:\nFirst of all, by the time you've equated socialism with\n\"robbing from the rich and giving to the poor,\" you've already hanged\nsocialism without a trial, because that means you don't know what it is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All of which is perfectly correct but has little to do with actual socialism\nand more to do with paranoid Randian fantasies of it. In short, a straw man." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I appreciate that you don't approve of characterizing socialism as\n\"robbing from the rich to give to the poor\". I confess I'm not\nconversant with the various denominations of socialism. I offer the\nWikipedia definition as currency:\n\n\"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly\nconcentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that\ncontrols capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide\nequal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists\nadvocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are\ndistributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in\nproduction, although there is considerable disagreement among\nsocialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.\"\n\nIn the movie \"Time Bandits\", Terry Gilliam (no laizzes faire\ncapitalist) has Robin Hood say, \"Won't you stay and help us with our\nwork? There's so much wealth to redistribute.\" So I don't think I (or\nWolfe) have made a weird conclusive leap in associating Robin Hood\nwith socialism.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4A1161AD.8020306@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2009-05-18T13:25:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13", "in_reply_to": "<4A101782.6070904@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nAll of which is perfectly correct but has little to do with actual \nsocialism and more to do with paranoid Randian fantasies of it. In \nshort, a straw man." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have witnessed more than one self-identified socialist state that \ntheir goal was the transfer of ownership of productive enterprises to \ntheir employees by constitutional amendment. So if it's an effigy, it's \nnot one I built.\n\nI'll readily admit there are more realistic forms of socialism. One of \nparticular interest to those here may be the brand espoused by Steve \nBrust, author of the Vlad Taltos books. He's blogging a reading of \nWEALTH OF NATIONS at\n\n\thttp://dreamcafe.com/words/\n\nand no one's died horribly, yet." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\n< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4A11D478.6080102@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-05-18T21:34:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13", "in_reply_to": "<4A1161AD.8020306@io.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And some people in the US would like to call the US a Christian state. \n\nWhat a state calls itself, especially a revolutionary state, is often a lie---but at least kingdoms don't put on fig leaves. So-called socialist states are based on force and a fundamentalist reading of Marx. \n\nThus, the USSR, which was never socialist in the slightest, did not have \"Communist\" anywhere in its name. If you want an example of socialism, look at Sweden. I doubt your example comes from there." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 2\nDate: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:25:01 -0500\nFrom: Jeff Wilson \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 13\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: <4A1161AD.8020306 at io.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed\n\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All of which is perfectly correct but has little to do with actual \nsocialism and more to do with paranoid Randian fantasies of it. In \nshort, a straw man." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI have witnessed more than one self-identified socialist state that \ntheir goal was the transfer of ownership of productive enterprises to \ntheir employees by constitutional amendment. So if it's an effigy, it's \nnot one I built." } ] } ] }