Paving the wealthy way…

“The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this.”

– Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Marxist revolutionary and Cuban guerilla leader

I always found this quote interesting. Yeah, yeah I know all about Che Guevara. And don’t hit me with the “message from the messenger” slant either. Let’s just focus on the words, shall we?

In our capitalist society, does Che Guevara’s word carry any truth? After all, we live in a market-driven economy that can be extremely cruel to the losers whether it’s their choice or not. The road to some riches does have a tendency to roll over folks and kick ‘em while their down. Should that just be always accepted as reality? Or are their non-socialist ways to change that reality? Or do we even want to change the reality?

7 Responses to “Paving the wealthy way…”

1. Mahndisa says:

   October 13, 2005 at 2:00 pm

   10 13 05

   Hello T Steele:
   Good question. You know Mr. Guevera was a total hypocrite. It always seems like the rich become the revolutiionaries to overthrow themselves but that’s another story. I am unsure about that. I think of Oprah. She is totally wealthy. For some reason, I don’t think she exploited many people to get there. Of course, that is just IMO. Some could argue that the talk show circuit is exploitative by construction, but she didn’t Kathy Lee Gifford it with sweatshoppes and all. Hmm. I figure that so long as ENRON debaucles are kept in check, let money make money. If I was rich I would want to keep my wealth plain and simple. Charities would get on my bank roll, but hell, the judgementalism of thequote bothers me. That is all…
2. Tony says:

   October 13, 2005 at 3:41 pm

   Of course, we’re not supposed to “roll over” poor people to get wealthy. We are responsible to help those downtrodden by circumstance.

   However, sometimes “helping” doesn’t mean “handout”. Sometimes “helping” means “kick in the ass”. I believe I’m required to share my time and treasure with those less fortunate than I, but am not required to share with those lazier than I.
3. T-Steel says:

   October 13, 2005 at 8:12 pm

   Mahndisa: I wrote a long and detailed report on Che Guevara in college for my Latin America studies class. I’m well aware of his ways and wiles. That’s what facinates me about the guy. To this day, the very silhouette of him with his beret on still inspires many in Latin America. Communist, Socialist, Hypocrite, his impact is still felt. By the way, I knew the judgementalism of his words would irk some folks.
   Tony: I agree 100.75% with ya.
4. Francis W. Porretto says:

   October 14, 2005 at 5:51 am

   Guevara’s statement is only a wordier version of Anatole France’s “behind every great fortune is a great crime.” Neither is true.

   Because power attracts the corruptible, persons whose “services” can be bought will naturally move into positions of power, unless a filtration mechanism catches and prevents or removes them. While there, they’ll sell their access to power to the highest bidder — and unfortunately, quite a number of people who make it big in the world of commerce come to believe that success has freed them from the dictates of right, wrong, and conscience.

   Human society will not be perfected here on Earth. The seductiveness of power and the tendency of the powerful-corrupt and the private-rich to find one another will afflict us always. These things guarantee that, just as Lincoln said, the poor will always be with us — because the use of power for material advantage is what seals poor persons into their condition.

   The gap can only be filled by acts of charity, propelled by the natural fellow-feeling of men whose consciences still function. Those acts should be private, of course. Still, little blame attaches to those who prefer political solutions; they’ve been taught that that’s the way of a decent society, and they’re following the best they know. Just keep talking to them.
5. mahndisa s. rigmaiden says:

   October 14, 2005 at 7:53 am

   10 14 05

   Hey T Steel:
   Good analysis on Che. Obviously you had the knowledge to post that quote etc. and you were right that the hypocrisy bothers me. In fact, it inspired me to do my guest post on http://www.dellgines.com. So here is the link and pls feel free to comment, rip me to shreds and whatever else. Have a nice day:)
   http://www.dellgines.com/?p=285
6. Dell Gines says:

   October 14, 2005 at 2:08 pm

   The problem is that Che operates from a flawed analysis of economics. He holds to the position of a finite level of wealth, and therefore believes that as some folks get rich it by default means others get poor, and this is simply not true.

   For example, the median income in America has gone up steadily the last decade, however so has the number of millionares and billionares. Even if we reduce the value of dollars down due to inflation, we still see that the average American household today is better off than 60 years ago.

   How many ‘poor’ households have microwaves, and processed food? How many have two tv’s and an automobile etc.

   As productivity increases and technology advances there is no limit to how big the ‘economic’ pie gets and this is why Che is misguided. He says ‘the pie isn’t growing’ and then argues that for Rockfella to have a million that means that the poor had a million subtracted and that is just bad economics.
7. Purple Avenger says:

   October 14, 2005 at 9:10 pm

   He holds to the position of a finite level of wealth

   Bingo.

   New wealth can be created almost out of thin air by using something nobody was using before or was just discarded.

   ex. Some of the conduit and wire I used in rewiring my house came out of dumpsters at commercial tear out sites. It was all good clean modern stuff. That stuff, otherwise headed for the landfill, created dollars in my pocket when I put it to use.

   I was enriched, the landfill filled slower, and the guy who paid for the dumpster got to put even more in it after I made my “withdrawl”.

   Everyone was a winner and “gained” when I scarfed up that stuff.

   Almost any non-trivial economic system will have inefficiencies in it like that dumpster did that can be exploited by people to create wealth.

   The computer I’m typing on was free - it was in a scrap bin at the county solid waste disposal site. It looked like it might be a winner so I took a chance and scarfed it up. The worst thing that can happen is you bring it back and pitch back it in the bin right? I opened the case open and found a 400mhz PII, and 512M of ram, and a credible vid card installed.

   Saving that box from getting slagged created “wealth” for me - a lot more wealth than would have been recouped by the county selling the case for steel scrap.