Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Tuesday, 17 March 2015 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)14. the Rich Uncle Pennybags test
http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/03/11/the-rich-uncle-pennybags-test/
For awhile now Ive counseled leftists to apply the inverse of Gandhis famous dictum: think of the most privileged person you have ever seen, and ask if your next act will be of any threat to him. I call this the Rich Uncle Pennybags test, after the guy from Monopoly. The question is, does your next proposed political action hurt Rich Uncle Pennybags? Does it threaten his station at all? Could it meaningfully reduce his advantage? Im not saying everything that you do has to pass the test. Im not saying that there arent meaningful, constructive types of political engagement that fail the test. But I am saying that a left-wing movement that devotes enormous time, effort, and attention to actions that fail the test risks no longer being a left-wing movement at all. Im saying that a left-wing that constantly fails the Rich Uncle Pennybags test is precisely the kind of left-wing movement that establishment power likes: about symbolism over substance, about the individual rather than the masses, about elevating minorities in the ranks of a corrupt system rather than changing the system, about being good rather than doing good.
So, for example: does race-based affirmative action threaten Rich Uncle Pennybags? It does. Race-based affirmative action helps to address the deep inequalities in access to college, inequalities that most often help people like Rich Uncle Pennybags and his idiot kin. Its also a (small) step to help redress the overall socioeconomic inequality that Rich Uncle Pennybags enjoys. Done well, it helps lift the fortunes of millions rather than of a few; its a victory for an entire class of oppressed peoples, not a lottery. Supporting race-based affirmative action passes the test. Meanwhile, whether Iggy Azaliea gets another nasty thinkpiece written about her just makes no difference to the privileged. Its irrelevant. So: in the last year, what have you read more of in left-wing environs? Articles about affirmative action, or articles about Iggy Azaliea?
Or consider what I am told is the great internet political debate of the moment: whether you should only read books by authors who arent white men. Well, if thats what youd like to do, go wild. I could not care less what you read. I certainly dont think not reading white men amounts to reverse racism or political correctness gone mad, the typical complaints of conservative commenters and Twitterers. Knock yourself out. I just dont mistake that decision for somehow amounting to a meaningful political action. It completely fails the Rich Uncle Pennybags test: what do the privileged care if you dont read white men? Even under the absolute best case scenario, its hard to see this kind of action making a meaningful dent in the inequalities that are present in book publishing, already a threatened field, and theres no way this engagement spreads to make the economy less sexist and racist generally. Its absolutely great if this gets more people reading a more diverse set of authors, or if some non-white, non-male authors get a bigger readership. But its not in any sense a meaningful, structural response to any kind of inequality. Yet judging by the enthusiastic embrace of this initiative, and the palpable pride of those who espouse it, youd think this was our Gettysburg.
Like I said: read who you want, and if this effort gets some people diversifying their reading, great. But this isnt happening in a vacuum. Its happening in a left that seems to have no other interests than in these kinds of purely symbolic politics. And thats a type ofapoptosis self-destruction. (Im told apoptosis, while having a self-destructive element, is actually a good thing. Too clever for my own good.)
For awhile now Ive counseled leftists to apply the inverse of Gandhis famous dictum: think of the most privileged person you have ever seen, and ask if your next act will be of any threat to him. I call this the Rich Uncle Pennybags test, after the guy from Monopoly. The question is, does your next proposed political action hurt Rich Uncle Pennybags? Does it threaten his station at all? Could it meaningfully reduce his advantage? Im not saying everything that you do has to pass the test. Im not saying that there arent meaningful, constructive types of political engagement that fail the test. But I am saying that a left-wing movement that devotes enormous time, effort, and attention to actions that fail the test risks no longer being a left-wing movement at all. Im saying that a left-wing that constantly fails the Rich Uncle Pennybags test is precisely the kind of left-wing movement that establishment power likes: about symbolism over substance, about the individual rather than the masses, about elevating minorities in the ranks of a corrupt system rather than changing the system, about being good rather than doing good.
So, for example: does race-based affirmative action threaten Rich Uncle Pennybags? It does. Race-based affirmative action helps to address the deep inequalities in access to college, inequalities that most often help people like Rich Uncle Pennybags and his idiot kin. Its also a (small) step to help redress the overall socioeconomic inequality that Rich Uncle Pennybags enjoys. Done well, it helps lift the fortunes of millions rather than of a few; its a victory for an entire class of oppressed peoples, not a lottery. Supporting race-based affirmative action passes the test. Meanwhile, whether Iggy Azaliea gets another nasty thinkpiece written about her just makes no difference to the privileged. Its irrelevant. So: in the last year, what have you read more of in left-wing environs? Articles about affirmative action, or articles about Iggy Azaliea?
Or consider what I am told is the great internet political debate of the moment: whether you should only read books by authors who arent white men. Well, if thats what youd like to do, go wild. I could not care less what you read. I certainly dont think not reading white men amounts to reverse racism or political correctness gone mad, the typical complaints of conservative commenters and Twitterers. Knock yourself out. I just dont mistake that decision for somehow amounting to a meaningful political action. It completely fails the Rich Uncle Pennybags test: what do the privileged care if you dont read white men? Even under the absolute best case scenario, its hard to see this kind of action making a meaningful dent in the inequalities that are present in book publishing, already a threatened field, and theres no way this engagement spreads to make the economy less sexist and racist generally. Its absolutely great if this gets more people reading a more diverse set of authors, or if some non-white, non-male authors get a bigger readership. But its not in any sense a meaningful, structural response to any kind of inequality. Yet judging by the enthusiastic embrace of this initiative, and the palpable pride of those who espouse it, youd think this was our Gettysburg.
Like I said: read who you want, and if this effort gets some people diversifying their reading, great. But this isnt happening in a vacuum. Its happening in a left that seems to have no other interests than in these kinds of purely symbolic politics. And thats a type of
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
IG Audit: 6.5 Million People With Active Social Security Numbers Are 112 or Older
Demeter
Mar 2015
#13