Wealth re-distribution in the USA [rah, rah, rah]

[alice wellintown]

It seems, while not predictable exactly, natural perhaps, that young
P's Marxist-Catholicism would move toward the Grace that Blake
envisioned for America. In VL, though, this is not what we get. We see
shards of it in M&D, but VL is still hung up on the family blame game
and the forever young trappings of Animals power, pigs and dogs and
sheep, and Orwell's ghost still looms.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Michael Bailey
<michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> Robin started this thread by remarking on transfer of wealth via TARP -
>
> Matt Taibbi's articles in Rolling Stone on various aspects of this
> have been pretty good, despite a somewhat rabble-rousing tone.  It's
> probably meet that the rabble should be roused to at least be aware of
> a trend that was described in _Vineland_ as "rolling back the New
> Deal"
>
> and became an overt part of public policy during the Reagan years,
> although the way it hurts everybody still hasn't become clear -
> apparently - to many Republicans.   during the clinton yrs, union
> busting, unfair trade, and working without a (social safety) net
> became part of democrat policy as well...
> and in the same sort of unseemly rush Obama invites Goldman and Sachs
> to run the treasury...
>
> but anyway
>
>
> Pynchon, even earlier,  in _V_ delineated an attitude that has got to
> have been a factor in how our friendly neighborhood malefactors of
> great wealth have been able to go so far in such a retrograde
> direction: that of the bums who sign up for Zeitsuss's alligator
> squad.  His unionist-style earnestness and organization is lost on
> them.  They'd rather glean returnable bottles for enough change to buy
> a beer.
>
> In _V_, the dichotomy between earnest endeavor and foolish pleasure is
> played straight.  There's plenty of implied value judgement in _V_ and
> the bums/Zeitsuss interface is one such --
> viz, the bums are bums because although they hear Zeitsuss and even
> sympathize, they act on a different impulse for which the text doesn't
> proffer an attitude of respect.
>
> I'm probably overstepping to name early Pynchon's attitude a
> Marxian-Catholic sort of viewpoint, but I see things in there that I
> recognize from my well-nigh cursory study of Marx and the RCC -- a) a
> singling up - the narrative of the dominant culture is viewed as
> all-important (even for dissenters and outliers and schlemihls), ie,
> logocentric, anthropocentric, there's a mainstream that defines
> everything else - and b) the sweep of history is foreshortened to
> emphasize the working out of a plan stemming from a
> religious/philosophical system...
>
> But _Vineland's_ world is different.  Rather than alligators to shoot,
> Nature provides Zoyd with a best friend, Desmond, vistas that are
> often beautiful, and crawfish to sell to restaurants.  Rather than
> relating to a Street, Zoyd roams in a
> landscape which offers many of the solaces that the characters and
> narrator of _V._ look for in philosophy.
> Not that Zoyd is exempted from value judgement, or that social
> consciousness and right action is deemed unimportant.  Rather, the
> frame is larger, allowing more redeeming graces to show, and also
> perhaps pointing to some important interpretive reasons for the way
> massive landmarks and bulwarks of attitude and law seemingly faded
> away is because they weren't exactly what they were perceived to be
> and so forth...
> there are Amerind ghosts and Thanatoids
> stretching the frame
> and even Hector admits that Zoyd isn't lazy
>
>
> All this is by way of sort of elaborating on the point I was trying to
> make earlier by repeating that old saw "who steals my purse, steals
> trash"
>
> Because there isn't just one narrative - a bunch of people took a
> bunch of money from other people by pretending to be reliable
> investors...every one of those people has other stuff going on in his
> or her life, every one is subject to karma...
>
> Because money is only one of a number of media of exchange, and not
> even the best one for many things
>
> Because it's easier and less painful to recover from having your money
> stolen, than recovering from having been somebody who stole
> something...
>
> it's not so much that I want to propound these points, just that I
> have noticed them; and there's no need for me to enforce them --
>
> because, broadly painted, doesn't it go something like
> - people banded together to demand
>           wages enough to live on
>           workplace safety
>           banks you could rely on
>           retirement
>           some protection for the environment
>           health insurance
>           product liability
>           civil rights
>
>  but instead of agreeing to work within that framework, a whole bunch
> of incredible -- what would that make somebody who instead stripped
> health insurance, lowered wages, deregulated banks, moved businesses
> to countries where they could pollute? -- incredible blue meanies have
> been chipping away at it things of value like bank regulations and
> public schools and regulated utilities and union contracts, and
> substituting the equivalent of "default credit swaps" in every sphere
> of endeavor they could think of...
>
> but honestly, that can't really be very much fun
> so one has to feel a bit sorry for them - Pity, Mercy, Peace and Love!
>