|
new man said more or less what i was thinking of saying in direct response to you, cyn.
there's more as well:
the delusion that was the proposal to privatize social security rested on some basic assumptions particular to the self-evidently outmoded ideology of "free markets"--that the state was a priori irrational, which historically speaking is absurd (this is not to say that there are not irrationalities, but if you look at, o i dunno, the american car industry it should be obvious that the state has no monopoly on them)---that economic expansion was a steady state, a claim that was myopic even at the moment it was uttered--the latter is particularly important in that it enabled an acccompanying illusion, which was that there is no particular risk involved with privatization, only a freeing of a function from the (conservative fantasy) version of the state.
reality has pulverized all of that. you'd think that this pulverization would have some effect on people, cause them to rethink their positions, particularly if those positions are intertwined with *exactly* the political worldview that was pulverized, and that simply because it was put into practice.
it's particularly absurd now to argue that social security should be optional given the spiking of unemployment and possibility of instant downward mobility that brings along with it.
the world is bigger than you or i.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|