Upon reviewing the detailed and informative interview, so given and articulated by Mr. Thomas Sowell, I have come to find that breaking down the information provided should be both enlightening, and “fun.” Within reasonable means, and an open mindset, I would first like to break down for others’ sake, as well as my own clarity, certain details.
Karl Marx, to some, was a brilliant mind, with a very complex perception about many different aspects of life. He believed “the political and economical theories (or ideals) that were later developed by followers to then form the basis of newer theories and practices.” Leading to the more confusing ideal of communism, which is deeply defined as the economical, political, social, and philosophical ideology that status is created upon the basis of common wealth and/ or ownership of a group/groups of people; SO saying, he strategically placed individuals in a box with common labels such as class or wealth. So, for those unclear, or still not grasping the basic meaning: society’s classes are indeed the cause of struggle, therefore shouldn’t exist, or be used, at all to either define a struggle or group that’s struggling.
Perceptually speaking, I agree with this ill-gotten logic for a few reasons. Of course, listening to the way Mr. Powell breaks down these findings and ideals are crucial, and you have to be willingly open minded about it.There can be many arguments to push one’s argument, for example, about a higher means of survival in a rural or segregated community with little or no resources, thana community with a higher population, pushing for a better survival rate with that of more, or better provided resources. He provides thorough representation for it all. For example, in his interview, he says that his book, A Conflict of Visions(copyrighted, 1987), which breaks down the ‘Constrained Vision’ and ‘Unconstrained Vision’ are not placed or set to complement one or the other; in fact, it is there to weigh both sides, assuming there is an opinion to be given from an individual(s), unbiased and non discriminatory.
As an individual, and well informed intellectual (at least I’d like to believe that), it is safe to say that because I was raised to think one way, I am automatically opposed to that of the opposite party. However, one of the worst things you can do is pity someone based on solutions offered, even if it may not conform to your way of thinking, emotional pull towards one side, or simple lifestyle choices. I do believe that, even in today’s worldwide pandemic, factoring in multitude of angles, it is pure emotions that drives others to pity or fall victim to helping the poor, or disenfranchised via “charity,” by giving them the rope to secure, rather than finding the materials and then securing the attainable/achievable. This mindset applies to employment opportunities, wages, food distribution, labor market, etc…
I do, however, disagree with this mindset, partially, because, realistically speaking, this is not the reality of today’s world. Many oly see what they have been objectified to see, or taught to embody. The rich feed, protect, and “admire” their own, leaving the “poor” or “low class” to defend themselves, or manage, to the best of their own ability. As a woman, who for an extended amount of time, had to rely on what was available to me (i.e, assistance, food programming, childcare, minimum wage, job placement, or availability, etc…) it may seem to be discouraging, and some may even see it as just a means to and end. However, if you continue to dig, you will find that I, like most who have developed a sense of survival, create better, seemingly easier, avenues to thrive amongst the “praised.” There are, without diving too deeply into the makings of a sustainable society, more effective, than those fortunate enough not to depend on the “handout” that may or may not be available. This discussion, though, we will dive into, at a later date.
Delving into another portion of this discussion, we shall momentarily touch our views of the system. More forwardly called,’Our Government.” I do appreciate the statement Mr. Powell made, “Government is not the personification of the national interest. They own their own interests.” I wholeheartedly agree with this. Referencing our nation’s great moniker’ “United, We Stand,” I can simply ask, can we? Are we equivocal? Are we heard, collectively? The government as we have come to know it, is very heavily divided with societal class, or status. Those with undeniable power, and those without. Those with financial stability, and those without. In my eyes, those who have power, have the opportunity to create change, inflicting newer, more adequate survival techniques. Is it possible, yes. Will it ever come to friction? Maybe. (Again, being as unbiased as possible, I’m just being honest.) The issue, however, stems to be whether or not they collectively unify to create change, or agree to disagree, therefore becoming more of the problem than the resolve. It’s a sharp, double-edged sword; one I’m sure
“Socialism is a great idea; that does not mean it’s a great reality.” If this could be the breakout argument, with every political discussion, debate, or controversial conversation from now, until the end of life as we know it… just...WOW! This single statement needs more ground, and is definitely revolutionary. It’s a perception, and a grand one. Speaking volumes, without saying much at all. It is the truth, and I absolutely 100% couldn’t agree more with it. Socialism is the primary claim that creates distortment, resulting in reduced incentives, reduced prosperity amongst the already divided social and economical classes, has low feasibility, and of course, low social and political effects. It goes hand in hand with radicalism, conservatorism, and liberalism, within reasonable standings. There are those that would agree that it is an impossible feat, because an (economical)system that does not (Properly) utilize money will be ineffective in sustaining capital goods, capital gain, and productivity. There is not a platform strong enough for it to manifest onto, or into. It is a revolving door, allowing many other negative aspects to fester, and come to fruition.