I do not like rich people. That is not meant as a truly blanket statement, as in "all rich people are dogs." I simply mean that as a class, over the long course of human history, rich people have done an awful lot of crappy stuff to most of the rest of the population. The other day I responded to a posting on the Huffington Post (must remind myself never to do this again) in regards to Chris Brown throwing a hissy fit over a $10 valet charge. My response, paraphrased, was "and that's why rich people suck." I was subsequently deluged by a storm of angry people who determined that my comment was 1) stupid 2) juvenile 3) essentially whining. People mentioned that they hate whiners. They said that I should move out of my Mom's basement and get a job. Apparently then I would become rich and I would stop whining about the success of all the successful people (note*-I'm a 34 year old history professor, so I haven't lived in my Mom's basement for a long time, and I've worked full time since my late teens. I'm still not rich though. I must be doing something wrong).
Americans have elevated wealth to the point where it's almost become a giant society-wide cult. It's disgusting. The notion that accumulating lots of abstract currency is the highest form of human endeavor is disgusting to me, and it should be disgusting to most other people as well. But a certain segment of our populace (and it's larger than it should be) reacts with rage and bile if anyone suggests that there's something wrong with wealth and the people who have it. This must be part of our shared national myth regarding the "American Dream," and the notion that you too...wow, even me?!...will be rich, if only we'd get off the couch in our Mom's basement and contribute to the society of the "makers."
I witnessed part of this adulation of wealth last night while watching an episode of Spartacus: War of the Damned (No, it's not that good, and it's terrible history, but I'm a Roman historian, so I get a pass to watch the soft porn and slow-mo bloodspray that makes up 2/3rds of SWD). The villain of the story, M. Licinius Crassus, is the wealthiest man in Rome. The portrayal of his character has him as selfish and calculating, but also incredibly sly/smart, always one step ahead of his enemies, always winning. He must be really smart, right, or he wouldn't have been able to amass all the wealth...they even include this sentiment in a bit of dialogue for anyone not swift enough to put it together for themselves. The problem is, Marcus Crassus wasn't as smart as he thought he was, because his record as a military commander wasn't particularly shining. The real Crassus, I mean, and not the fake one on TV.
I know this in quite a bit of detail because by training I'm a Roman historian, and by specialization I work with slave and peasant rebellions. My dissertation has a chapter specifically devoted to the Spartacan War, and another dedicated to the two Sicilian Slave wars. I know Marcus Crassus better than most historians. And he wasn't a particularly great military commander. Spartacus managed to outwit him for a considerable time, and defeated parts of his army on several occasions. Crassus did eventually defeat Spartacus, but he ended up getting his and his son's heads removed along with those of most of a large Roman army at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE. Apparently he underestimated the Parthians. Anyway, his military career wasn't sterling. Even the victory over Spartacus owed relatively little to Crassus, if you mean anything other than his money. Crassus really was more or less the richest man in Rome, and when he was granted the command against Spartacus by the Senate (they had no other choice) he not only took all the troops they gave him, but raised thousands more that he paid for out of his own pocket. The line attributed to him (again, I'm paraphrasing) is "fools ain't rich unless they can buy they own army, y'all. Peace out." If you follow the narrative, that's the point where Spartacus started to run rather than seek battle...to that point he had traversed Italy and wiped the floor with every opponent to face him, including both consuls for the year 72 and the governor of Gallia Cisalpina (centered on the Po Valley and Mediolanum/Milan). But he runs from Crassus. Repeatedly. The answer to why is that Spartacus knew how badly he was outnumbered, and that he couldn't win a straight-up fight against Crassus' horde. Crassus didn't think his way into victory. He paid for it. Stuff becomes a lot easier when you've got all the benjamins to begin with.
Which gets me back to my original point about not particularly liking "the rich" as a class. Americans seem to have the misconception that rich people all got off their Mom's couch in the basement one day and BAM!...a little hard work and Jesus and there you go. Rich. Bling. Success.
The thing is, relatively few people actually follow that "American Dream" rags-to-riches pattern. Most of the class of people I'm referring to as "the rich" entered that class by being born into it. Our economic system and the economic system of the planet at large is a system that rewards wealth. If you have wealth, its much easier to get more of it. That's not to say that people don't screw up and fall down the rungs of the ladder from time to time. But by and large wealthy people (especially really wealthy people) were born into wealth. Their friends growing up were all wealthy. They marry wealthy people, and go into business with other wealthy people. They benefit from their position and most of them try hard to give as little as possible back. Over the course of history (say the last 5,000 years or so) wealthy people have been parasites far too often. As individuals they can be decent. As a group, I'm not so sure. And certainly they become more wicked the more a population is divided between rich and poor. If things get too far unbalanced in that regard, then bad things happen...
No comments:
Post a Comment