We need to promote a wide public conversation about why our routine everyday class inequality--treating the have-nots like dirt--is grounds for revolution
John Spritzler's posts are always about explaining our central problem: the rich oppressing the poor and then providing a practical solution. He offers hope and salvation from our most dire and persistent problem.
Thank you for all your efforts. I enjoy reading the daily offerings and have begun discussing the concepts gleaned with those around me.
I had a realization the other day and I let it bubble away and then shared it with a few friends and family to see if it passes the smell test.
It is thus...I am trying to avoid a binary choice in all things - blue/red, good/bad and haves/have-nots. Life is too multidimensional and complex to reduce everything to these binary choices.
So, I propose that everyone that has life is a "have". There are no have-nots. Now, being a "have" in this scenario is a very basic subsistence, day-to day, existence. But I have had the pleasure to spend time with persons in this situation and was there myself for a time. There is a sense of limitation to be sure, but there is also a sense of freedom. It is not at all hopeless and choices are available just as in any other life. The next step on the ladder, so to speak, is "have more".
A "have more" existence is one that offers more opportunities within the community - economically, socially and so on. One might consider the majority of "working class" persons to fall into this category. Persons may have housing, for example, but it is inadequate whether it be rented or mortgaged. The acknowledged basics of life are within reach but the effort required to enjoy these basics leaves very little time or energy for reflection or relaxation. This can lead to despondence and self-sabotage.
The next step on the ladder is, "have enough". Persons who "have enough" would have all the basic necessities of life catered for. There are enough resources to comfortably enjoy a life of reflection and relaxation. Persons who "have enough" are able to spend more time and energy contributing to their community via civic engagement and volunteering to help other who are less well off and to causes that would benefit the greater good, human and environmental. The goal of any egalitarian society would be for this group to be by far the largest and most vibrant. There would be ample opportunity for self development, which would replace the current paradigm of developing one's self worth via the chase for higher numbers in one's bank balance.
The last step on the ladder is "have pathology". Persons in this category are self absorbed to such an extent that they cannot see that their actions have negative consequences to the people, animals and environment around them. They have deluded themselves into thinking that there would be no progress without them. They believe they deserve all that has been bestowed upon them irrespective of the means by which it has arrived. Despite all the outward trappings of "success", they are suffering. This suffering radiates out around them and because of their self imposed privileged position they are a threat to all forms of life.
That is as far as I have come with this idea. I do believe there is a danger to be continuing to use negative connoting language such as "have-not" as it affirms our place at the very bottom. This can lead to a feeling of despondency which is just how the "haves" would have it.
You write, "I do believe there is a danger to be continuing to use negative connoting language such as "have-not" as it affirms our place at the very bottom. This can lead to a feeling of despondency which is just how the "haves" would have it."
Please tell me about actual people you have encountered who were made despondent by talk of the haves versus the have-nots. What exactly did the say to you? I have not encountered such people.
I was first introduced to the importance of positive messaging whilst participating in Occupy events. "We are the 99%" sure sounds better to my ears than "We are the have-nots." Spell words and phrases such as "safe and effective" are regularly used by the media and are intended to have a hypnotic effect upon the listener. I use words and phrases all the time without thinking about their actual meaning. This is normal in conversation but more and more I am questioning why certain words and phrases are used. Sometimes the origins are benign but oftentimes these words and phrases have been intentionally introduced into the vernacular for specific purposes. My feeling is that the airwaves (both formal and informal) could be filled with messaging that counters that bombardment.
John Spritzler's posts are always about explaining our central problem: the rich oppressing the poor and then providing a practical solution. He offers hope and salvation from our most dire and persistent problem.
Beautifully expressed. And this is precisely the right moment
John,
Thank you for all your efforts. I enjoy reading the daily offerings and have begun discussing the concepts gleaned with those around me.
I had a realization the other day and I let it bubble away and then shared it with a few friends and family to see if it passes the smell test.
It is thus...I am trying to avoid a binary choice in all things - blue/red, good/bad and haves/have-nots. Life is too multidimensional and complex to reduce everything to these binary choices.
So, I propose that everyone that has life is a "have". There are no have-nots. Now, being a "have" in this scenario is a very basic subsistence, day-to day, existence. But I have had the pleasure to spend time with persons in this situation and was there myself for a time. There is a sense of limitation to be sure, but there is also a sense of freedom. It is not at all hopeless and choices are available just as in any other life. The next step on the ladder, so to speak, is "have more".
A "have more" existence is one that offers more opportunities within the community - economically, socially and so on. One might consider the majority of "working class" persons to fall into this category. Persons may have housing, for example, but it is inadequate whether it be rented or mortgaged. The acknowledged basics of life are within reach but the effort required to enjoy these basics leaves very little time or energy for reflection or relaxation. This can lead to despondence and self-sabotage.
The next step on the ladder is, "have enough". Persons who "have enough" would have all the basic necessities of life catered for. There are enough resources to comfortably enjoy a life of reflection and relaxation. Persons who "have enough" are able to spend more time and energy contributing to their community via civic engagement and volunteering to help other who are less well off and to causes that would benefit the greater good, human and environmental. The goal of any egalitarian society would be for this group to be by far the largest and most vibrant. There would be ample opportunity for self development, which would replace the current paradigm of developing one's self worth via the chase for higher numbers in one's bank balance.
The last step on the ladder is "have pathology". Persons in this category are self absorbed to such an extent that they cannot see that their actions have negative consequences to the people, animals and environment around them. They have deluded themselves into thinking that there would be no progress without them. They believe they deserve all that has been bestowed upon them irrespective of the means by which it has arrived. Despite all the outward trappings of "success", they are suffering. This suffering radiates out around them and because of their self imposed privileged position they are a threat to all forms of life.
That is as far as I have come with this idea. I do believe there is a danger to be continuing to use negative connoting language such as "have-not" as it affirms our place at the very bottom. This can lead to a feeling of despondency which is just how the "haves" would have it.
Hi Yanagi,
Interesting thoughts.
You write, "I do believe there is a danger to be continuing to use negative connoting language such as "have-not" as it affirms our place at the very bottom. This can lead to a feeling of despondency which is just how the "haves" would have it."
Please tell me about actual people you have encountered who were made despondent by talk of the haves versus the have-nots. What exactly did the say to you? I have not encountered such people.
I was first introduced to the importance of positive messaging whilst participating in Occupy events. "We are the 99%" sure sounds better to my ears than "We are the have-nots." Spell words and phrases such as "safe and effective" are regularly used by the media and are intended to have a hypnotic effect upon the listener. I use words and phrases all the time without thinking about their actual meaning. This is normal in conversation but more and more I am questioning why certain words and phrases are used. Sometimes the origins are benign but oftentimes these words and phrases have been intentionally introduced into the vernacular for specific purposes. My feeling is that the airwaves (both formal and informal) could be filled with messaging that counters that bombardment.