Friday, December 6, 2019

the great struggle

  Yesterday I posed this question on Facebook, " is social stability dependent upon financial stability? " I only received a few responses. That wasn't surprising as it is a somewhat rhetorical question. But what I had in mind was the economy in general. The country is certainly experiencing a growth in prosperity. I don't believe anyone that is even marginally informed can deny that. I'm no economist, I'm marginally informed for sure, but see the stock market, unemployment numbers and job growth. There has been a marked improvement compared to the last administration. Just who or what is responsible for that growth I will leave to the economists, those that are trained in such things.
 For that reason I was thinking about whether social stability is dependent upon financial stability. I'm thinking our current society certainly isn't what I would describe as stable. What is the underlining cause of that? Is it financial? I'm thinking one of our political parties would certainly want you and I to believe so. The Democratic party constantly calls for the redistribution of wealth believing that to be a problem. The poor are underprovided. Isn't that what the rhetoric is? But let's consider what is privilege?  The dictionary says a privilege is a right, advantage, or immunity available only to a certain group or individual.
 Okay, so how come the wealthy are privileged? It's because they have wealth, either earned or inherited. What's the problem with that? Apparently the only problem is, poor people don't have it. But we need to examine the reason they don't have it, whose fault, if there is blame to be placed. Did these folks have wealth and it was taken away from them? Consider this; a singer makes a record and gains fame and fortune. Should that singer have to redistribute their wealth to those of us that can't sing? I mean after all, they either developed their ability to sing, or inherited it, that's not fair. Why should they enjoy that privilege? But setting that aside, will the redistribution of wealth lead to social stability? I mean, will everyone be happy and satisfied? In brief, would everyone be happy with being equal?
 We all know that answer and it is a resounding no. Humans aren't that way at all. There are different personality types. There are leaders and followers. If it isn't money, it is power, if it isn't power, it is popularity, if it isn't popularity, it is appearance, or athletic ability, or some other talent that you excel at. One person will always feel superior to others in some fashion. Even if that superiority manifests itself as being the most humble. It is innate to the human psyche. It isn't equality that promotes a stable society. At least financial equality. So what is causing the current unrest in the country. I'd say it is the diversity of cultural interests. Declaring yourself an American that upholds American values is no longer a good thing in general society. No, proclaiming such will quickly get you labeled, not as a patriot, but rather as some kind of insurgent! And why is that? The perception is Americans are white people with money, property and privilege. And that, that is bad. And what is even more amazing to me is that we have white people, with wealth and property, that are pushing that perception. The reason they are doing so is obvious enough. It is to retain their wealth, property and privilege!
 How do we achieve social stability? It is achieved through cultural stability, a common culture. The concept of becoming an American was widely promoted, indeed required, in the beginning of the 19th century and continuing into the early part of the twentieth century. Our Presidents spoke of it,  politicians embraced it and the public in general endorsed it. It was an honor and a privilege to become an American! It was the adoption of a culture that was celebrated, the certificate being Citizenship. Yes these immigrants celebrated their " culture " by practicing whatever customs and traditions their families had practiced in the " old world. " But, they were also very much aware that they were in the new world, the world of America, a world they earnestly desired to be a part of. They wanted to be a part of the culture not just extract whatever prosperity it may afford them. They didn't want the best of both worlds, old and new, they wanted the best of the new world, they wanted America!
 So I'm answering my own rhetorical question with, no social stability is not dependent upon financial stability. That's true when it comes to a nation. As far as on a personal level I'd say the answer then switches to yes. On an individual basis social stability is dependent upon financial stability. The poor are always going to feel cheated in some fashion. The wealthy are always going to feel superior in some fashion. The poor are " happier " when given whatever they desire and the rich are happy when they don't have to give it! The unrest develops when either group feels threatened in some fashion. When culture clashes! The wealthy are cultured are they not? Another perception, one promoted by whom? The wealthy. Wealth equals intelligence as well, another perception promoted by the wealthy. Wealth certainly lends itself to stability. To being established. But social stability, well, that's a different matter, dependent on different criteria altogether. Social stability can not be achieved through wealth or the redistribution of that wealth. Social stability can only be achieved through a common cultural identity. How to establish that is the great struggle.  

No comments:

Post a Comment