>Doug wrote:
>
>Damn, I want a cushy life, and I'm a socialist because I think
>everyone should have a cushy life! Yeah, I know, the world is
>imperfect, and universal cushiness is therefore elusive, maybe even
>impossible, but what's wrong with security, comfort, and pleasure as
>ultimate political goals. That doesn't mean complacent or stupid; my
>idea of cushiness includes the time and capacity for intellectual and
>aesthetic engagement. But there seems to be a kind of leftist who's
>suspicious of pleasure, who exudes a Calvinist lust for suffering,
>because it's somehow ennobling. (A variant: the belief that poverty
>is ennobling, and wealth is corrupting. Why would anyone be a
>redistributionist if that were true? To hell with all that, I say.
>
> ***********
>
>There's nothing inherently wrong with comfort or inherently noble
>about poverty. But under capitalism
Yeah, I know. That's why I prefaced the comment with "I'm a socialist." I'm fully aware that what I was evoking is impossible under capitalism. Why do leftists love to re-assert the obvious so often?
Doug