Turns out I’m going to be doing these every other week, as work, school, the elements of chance and fate, and the incapacity to be creative on a weekly basis have come together in a maelstrom of non-posting.
Situation:
Dr. Pourhritch was perhaps the greatness social engineer to have ever lived, of this there can be no doubt. Today, all developed countries subscribe to his theories with great success. Sure, a few nay-sayers come along periodically to say that the whole process is unfair, but what does that matter if it gets results?
Briefly stated, Dr. Pourhritch’s idea was this: a certain group of individuals should be given almost no financial means to help better themselves. This will cause them to be un(der)educated and thus left with little hope to get better jobs or spend their little amount of money responsibly. There should also be another group who are given a vast amount of money and wealth. They should have so much money that they can throw it around however they would like. Since they have money for education they will know how to spend their money well and in turn will get more money for doing so.
These two groups, in honor of Dr. Pourhritch, have become known as the “Pourh” and the “Ritch,” respectively.
Now according to Dr. Pourhritch, there should be no reason as to why some are to be Pourh and others to be Ritch. There should obviously be more Pourh than Ritch and also people whose parents were Pourh are more likely to be Pourh and those who are Ritch remain Ritch. This is to establish the “Veshesh Cycle”* where people have no choice but to play the cards they were given.
And though it was once known as Pourhritchianism I think his theory now goes by the catchier name: capitalism.
*Rashithu Veshesh was another great man who saw the repetition of the world as a self-referential system which we periodical break out of to see. Thus, according to him, we mark the days and the months and the years, while all the while things just “stay the same.”
Questions:
These things have really gone off the deep end, haven’t they? More to the point, is this an adequate description of an aspect of capitalism? Is the divergence of rich and poor so easily accounted for by chance elements? Couldn’t the case be made that many rich people “deserve” to be rich and many poor people “deserve” to be poor? But what was that little bit about education? Should the fact that poor people are uneducated be taken into account at all? Why or why not? Is there a fairness to the rich and poor dichotomy? Is that even a relevant concern? If Pourhritch’s ideas aren’t the same as capitalism, what’s the difference? How could you tell if one were implemented over the other? What about Marx’s theory, is it better than Pourhritch’s? Why or why not? Does capitalism work? Is there a more just, fair, effective way to run a society? Does capitalism actually free people or does it confine them ever more to their descriptors, rich and poor? Is there any truth to the sentiment that “things just stay the same”? Is a self-reinforcing system better than one which stands on independent merit? If the rich tend to remain rich and the poor remain poor, can there be any progress? If there can, who is the progress for?
