Looks Good On Paper

Rockin’ that dad bod.

                David Harbour is an American actor who plays police chief Jim Hopper in Stranger Things (I probably should watch that show.  I bet I’d like it) and has recently appeared with Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow as the Red Guardian.

                In a July 3rd interview with the pro-socialist British newspaper, The Guardian, Harbour, among other things, expressed admiration for the views held by his Soviet super-soldier.  After all, he said he was big into Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov while in college.  That apparently gives him mad Russian cred, so he must know what he’s talking about.  He simplistically wishes we could live in a kindergarten-type society rather than the one in which we live now.  That way, everyone could share everything with each other instead of killing each other to get “stuff.”

Wrong Chekhov



That’s more like it.

How could anyone disagree with the concept of socialism, he genuinely wonders.

                Of course, like many other out-of-touch elitist scolds, he fails to grasp the incredible disconnect that his net worth is about $6 million.  Or, roughly, about $5,800,000 more than me.

                Mind you, I DO NOT BEGRUDGE HIM THAT.  Hey, if you can parlay whatever talent you have into serious cash, go for it, big fella.  I’d love it if Nit Nats gave me the wherewithal to afford to super-size my meal at Wendy’s.

                The problem is, if viewed in a vacuum, I kinda agree with him, typical Hollywood hypocrisy notwithstanding.  I implore the two of you reading this (one of the reasons I can’t buy large fries with my spicy chicken) to hear me out.

                Merriam-Webster, one of America’s most trusted dictionaries (well, as trusted as these things can be) offers up the following definition:

                Socialism:  A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.  Oh yeah,  and socialism also requires elimination of private property.  So there’s that.

                Put simply, to quote Karl Marx (a lesser-known Marx brother), “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

                Even more basic…”All for one and one for all.”

Okay, seriously, now we’re getting silly.

                Personally, I’m a big fan of Captain John  Smith’s credo of, “Those who do not work, shall not eat.”

Okay, this is the real John Smith. But the actual one wasn’t blonde. Or sounded like Mel Gibson.

                But, for the time being, let’s just stick with Marx and his likeminded numbskulls.

                If lived strictly by this utopian ideal, then, sure, every day would be kindergarten. 

                “I’ll trade you my baloney sandwich for your peanut butter and jelly.”

                “Cool beans.  Hey, how ’bout we give Jimmy some of your Cheetos?  All he has is pea soup in a baggie and a few pickle slices.”

                Problem is, when this textbook definition is brought out of the college classroom or hookah lounge, it runs smack dab into a reality which comes crashing like a wrecking ball.  And that wrecking ball has a name.  People.

                If every person on this planet genuinely wanted nothing more than to help their neighbor, if we all pulled for the common good, then socialism (or even its ugly brother brother, communism) would be ideal.

                Be honest.  When has that truly worked for society as a whole?  You know, without that troublesome death of millions?

                Let’s look a little smaller into this, instead.  Think about it, aren’t families small socialist units?  Don’t parents strive for the greater good of all, without question?  If a child has needs, don’t the adults rush to their aid?  Then, as the children grow, don’t they nurture those who nurtured them?

                NOTE:  There is no denying that not everyone falls into this category.  Some families are screaming dysfunctional nightmares, to be sure.  However, while most aren’t the Waltons, neither are they the Bidens.  I hope you get my point.

“Absolutely, The Waltons are responsible for that evil racist Walmart.”


“Whoops! My bad. I like ice cream.”

If the world operated like a [functional] family, churches, or similar charitable organizations, then the principles championed by Karl Marx would make sense.  We would all link arms, sing Kumbaya, and never think of anything other than what is best for each other.

                I honestly wish that were so.  But, it is not.  And never will be.

                There will always be those who will seek to game the system.  They may have the ability to work, but if they can benefit from the work of others, then, by all means, they will benefit from the work of others.

                “That socialism thing is meant for thee, not for me.  I’ll keep my three houses, thank you very much.”  I’m talking to you, Bernie Sanders.

“But, they’re just small mansions.”

                If you doubt that, how is it that far too many people are content to sit on their ass at home, receiving money from the government when “Now Hiring” signs dot the landscape?  How is that otherwise fit-looking looking individuals haunt the medians of our streets with their hands out, hoping to score a few dollars from those shamed into handing them a few bucks?

                Full Disclosure:  I readily admit that I don’t know the full story behind every panhandler.  Some of them may not genuinely be able to work.  Some of them, on the other hand, may be making a killing off guilt-ridden motorists to the point that a dishwashing job looks lame by comparison.  Call me heartless, but I look straight ahead when I’m stopped at a traffic light.

“Go ahead, go ahead, keep moving. I think the Denny’s down the street is hiring.”

                In the abstract, socialism looks darn appealing to the likes of millionaires such as Harbour, who thinks that if you make a cup of coffee at Starbucks, you should own Starbucks.  I wonder how his tune would change if he was required to divide the fruits of his labor among those who want nothing more than to play video games in their basement.  For it is then when the abstract will become very real to an idealist.

                Once again, I don’t believe he should share with lazy slack asses.  Why should he?  And I’ll bet he doesn’t believe he should, either, if push came to shove (and it never will). You though?  Yeah, you should totally give until it hurts.

                Here’s the thing, though.  I would most definitely help the helpless.  Just as I definitely would not help the feckless.  Screw those guys. To me, it’s “teach a man to fish” not “give a man a fish.”

Or however you interact with fish. I won’t judge.

                A great number of good people see socialism as the panacea to what they perceive as the evils of capitalism.  They honestly believe that we should all pull together, that if we only did it right this time, socialism would bring paradise to a troubled world.

Yeah, they’re idealist dreamers, but they’re wrong. So, until we can come up with something better, I’ll stick with capitalism, thank you very much.

                I’ll bet you that many Cubans would agree with me, too.      

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.