Saturday, September 20, 2008
Explication on tap...
Some dialectical refinement may be needed.
The estimable Holbers evinces surprise that a stupid bastard is being stupid.
Holbers wonders why socialists believe that the answer to socialist failure is more and harder socialism.
I heard a lot of this toss from my socialist pals and drinking buddies in the eighties. 'We failed because we weren't socialist enough' was the constant cry, and the vehemence with which this was propounded grew in proportion with the boneheaded lunacy issuing from Foot and other loonies passim.
Well, basically applied socialism works like this:
A man, driving along a road decides that it would be an interesting experiment to plough his car into a brick wall. It's a new, untested concept and so he does this at twenty-five miles per hour.
Net result: The wall is fucked, and the car is off the road for two weeks.
Most people would decide at this point that the experiment was finished. The result was an inoperable car, two weeks on public transport, increased insurance premiums and a buggered wall.
Conclusion: Driving into walls in your car is counter-productive.
However, if we apply the socialist mindset, our hypothetical driver will view the wreckage and loss, and wonder to himself:
"Perhaps that didn't produce a useful outcome because I wasn't going fast enough"
Therefore, the experiment gets repeated, but at forty miles per hour.
Net result: The wall is fucked and the car is a write-off.
Again, anyone rational would lower the boom on this one. Fucked wall, indefinate time on public transport whilst our hero raises the bread for another car and insurance premiums up the wazooly.
Ah, but socialism is a brilliantly successful notion! Onwards and upwards!
If that approach failed, perhaps he was driving into the wall at the wrong angle!
Thus he hits the wall again, at sixty miles per hour, but at an angle of sixty-five degrees.
Net result: Fucked wall, car written off and two months in traction.
And so it will go on. If it's not a problem with speed and angle, it must be the type of wall. If he drove into a drystone, or one made of London stock brick it will produce The Beneficial Outcome he craves. If that fails, it's the type of car or the underpants he's wearing or some other fucking thing.
It can't ever be the simple fact that driving into a wall in a car is a fucking stupid thing to do.
Oh well. You can lead a socialist to water, but they'll never have the common sense to drown themselves. Such is life.
I got that wrong. Bear with me, be patient and read the analogy again, but this time for 'car' read 'someone else's car', and for 'wall' read 'someone else's wall'. This is known as Toynbeeism.
There. That sums it up quite well.