I really dislike this quote. It always comes across like it's designed to ease greedy people of their guilt for moving to the right as they earn more money. To me, being sound of mind is wanting everyone to have what you have, or at least an equal shot of getting there from wherever they had the roll of the dice of being born.
Well sure, it’s “sound of mind” to you because that’s your political view.
To people on the right it’s just completely naive. The first half is mathematically impossible and the second half is so wishy washy that it leaves room for everyone to claim they were born further back in one aspect or another on the proverbial board.
The quote is not nice and I don't blame anyone for taking issue with it.
However I don't see people feeling any guilt as they move right. Nor do I see a need for greed to corelate with the right leaning politics. The same teachings that lead me to lean right also lead me to donate more than 10% of my income. I think all people that can should donate to charity but I don't think anyone should be forced to. I take issue with the idea that forcing others to give money is generosity.
I think that’s possibly a fundamental misunderstanding of left ideas.
The point is not to force generosity on others. The point is to fight back against unjustified value extraction by the powerful and to democratize the workplace.
Socialists see charity as trying to patch over symptoms of an inherently deeper problem. It’s not a philanthropic movement. It’s a worker movement.
To interpret the quote charitably, I think it's more that age can come with an appreciation with the fragility of society, the recognition that it's a miracle it works at all, and a humility about how much and how rapidly a system can be changed without being destroyed.
> humility about how much and how rapidly a system can be changed without being destroyed
I guess everyone familiar with US history should find the quote to be utter bullshit, then.
The American Revolution, Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, 19th Amendment, Great Depression, WWII, and Civil Rights Act were all major upheavals in society that brought on rapid change.
A lot of people died prematurely, but a lot of lives were later extended or saved to balance that out somewhat, and the system surely didn't collapse.
The system did collapse, that's why so many people died prematurely and why the system that came after was radically different than what came before. Keeping the same name just creates an illusion of continuity.
Well, there are plenty of examples outside of the US's fairly young history where revolution has not always gone so well. Plus, I think one could argue that the US is still to prove that it can survive the aftermath of the Civil War. Sometimes collapse takes a while.
Well, since the quote comes from a Frenchman in 1875 I don't think we should read present day US politics into it. But I'm not sure what a républicain does believe.
Reminds me of a great 30 rock joke, being fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
Politics is really just dividing up the shared resources, which is the root of that joke. Who cares about politics and doesn’t care about the resources part?
I guess after 30 people forget how to share per that quote. Never happened to me though. Personally I don’t even think it’s accurate, in my life I’ve never seen people swing from generous to… let’s just say “not”
The people who were always like that a little got more so.
> Reminds me of a great 30 rock joke, being fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
You can tell online people isn't representative because they think it's a joke when this is actually pretty common among average people. (Who aren't on a single position on the political compass but are instead "cross-pressured".)
Is it a thing anywhere? Who chooses not to care about the resources, the things you're there to divvy up.
Not caring at all is certainly a choice I can see individuals making, but someone who is politically engaged and doesn't care about the resources, I can't even fathom it.
