I respect this opinion, however I wouldn't entirely agree. I believe that Holden Caulfield is a character who everyone relates to a different way. Whatever a person relates to the most they believe is the main theme. For example, as I read the story I felt a lot in common with Holden as he described all the "phony" people around him. For me, the theme is very difficult to express in words and I'm sure that others feel this way too. I disagree, because I don't feel that the book has a main theme.
This book is about innocence. This book is about innocence. This book is about innocence. Enough already! This man is attempting to go beyond the normal Cliffsnotes interpretation and present viewers with a much different point of view, yet people still want to comment and contribute nothing with the same ole analysis.. Is not child sexual abuse a loss of innocence? Is it possible Holden wishes to be "the catcher in the rye" to prevent kids from falling off the cliff (abused) like he has?
There are myriad interpertations- and could explore more but yes, innocence is one and how it is lost. Holden falls in "identity vs. role diffusion" according to Erikson.he is trying to find his place/person He exhibits signs of depression- self medication, academic difficulties, inablility to cope. Adolesence is a vital time for development &Holden's is tainted due to events, and relationships with adults and peers.He exhibits signs of regression- in order to protect himself. just a thought.
I think an individual can definetly look at this novel through the lens of psychodynamic theory. Many of the ego defenses ie: reperssion, ties in with mr. antolini. Possibly the novel could be seen as devaluing Holden as a person, and all together just the other young characters. Perhaps, Salinger was focusing on the denial of this private problem. Also, object relations could be applied also. Holden possibly lacked the ego strengths necessary to form and create healthy bonds. Interesting take_
@peyapepurHolden also exagerates EVERYTHING,this whole book he mentions pheobe and he brings up jane because she hasnt "fallen off of the cliff in the rye field",when he says he likes her keeping her kings in the back row hes referring to her innocence and being a virgin,this doesnt hav to do anything with sexual abuse?This is why JD hid, this is why he turned down movie offers for the book,becuz he doesnt want to b a phony, holden says he hates movies too. JD hid becuz of people like this guy.
I think that you really missed the point of the book. I do not believe he was sexually abused or that Mr Antolini was a paedohpile or gay. Mr Antolini cares very deeply about Holden because he is his teacher and he probably sees a lot of himself in Holden which is probably why Holden finds it easy to relate to him; it is possible that Mr Antolini experienced the same kind of thing when he was Holden's age, but he dealed with it more aptly. He was patting his head to show affection, nothing else.
@peyapepur There are so many themes like distrust of the adult world, growing up, phoniness vs reality. Tough to pin point one down. It is all just depending on how you view the book.
I disagree about CITR. Yes the teacher is gay, yes the teacher is at least grooming, or attempting to molest. But the "20 times" is hyperbole--as typical of his speech, AND/OR, the reference was to "gay stuff" that could be prevalent in boarding schools (and not directly experienced by Holden)....rather than actual molestations by adults (as it came across to me). I agree about Jane. Salinger throughout was noting the mixed signals and feelings that sex was imbued with--especially in that era.
I don't necessarily think that Holden was sexually abused. J.D. Salinger does a pretty good job explaining to his readers that Holden is an unreliable narrator. I don't think a boy getting his head patted was really a case of sexual abuse. You use the word "fondle" but in the book it says patting his head. This is just YOUR opinion of this novel. Child abuse is just a small portion of this novel, and I think you're missing the bigger picture.
I know plenty of people who started out as athiests or became so during their life only to turn to God later on. Whilst religions have definitely been abusive throughout history, it's no excuse either to tar God nor the genuinely spiritual who do believe in God with the same brush - or do we not have feelings? Where is the unbiased balance that is supposed to be projected by those who have thrown off the 'bigotry of the past'? Or has it merely morphed into another form?
I picked up on the wierdness of the teacher, but for those of us who have never experienced such abuse, it is easy to miss the link in this book. For book of this size, the links are rather sparse and buried. I would think the connection would only resonate with people who have been exposed to such abuse, either directly, or direct information from another victim.
I think this is a very interesting theory, but it ignores larger themes and events in the book. However, I agree that people misread and misunderstand this story in profound ways, which make it quite a harmful exercise. Mostly, people interpret it as training in a dismissive attitude towards phoniness or else we cannot function as adults. In this larger sense, it is completely a version of blaming the victim and making excuses for questionable behavior or life choices.
I'm not sure that Holden was sexually abused - He is an unreliable narrator, so he's probably exaggerating the number anyway, and in the 50s, homosexuality was considered perverted and wrong, and Holden expresses previously in the book that he is basically homophobic (When talking with Carl Luce), so he could be referring to 'perverty' homosexual encounters. I agree that Jane is probably abused though, and though I don't agree with the overall message, this video was very helpful:)
thank you for this vid... i totally agree with you on the severity of the sexual abuse consequences, and that the victim should never be blamed or the issue taken lightly.
This is brilliant but I don't think what you said about factory workers or cubicle workers was a fair cop, these people likely just accept such conditions of drudgery bacause they value what they can purchase with their product. They were not abused into being "good workers" for menial jobs. Obviously it might help in making a mindless worker but I think what you said demenas these people and labour in general.
What if you don't want to be a business leader or a political leader. I want to be a philosopher. I plan on getting a phd one day. Is that what happens if you are lucky enough to not be around any abuse?
You're missing everything about the book! Everything! It's not simply about sexual abuse! of course that's part of it, but it's also about a sad, lonely boy who's desperately afraid to grow up. It's called "The Catcher in the Rye" because he feels like he needs to be the catcher, keeping the children from falling of the cliff and into adulthood.
You're completey missing the state Holden is, in between adolescense and adulthood.
still working on your own childhoodtraumas??? I think the book itself was rubbish, a display of creatures lacking any form of love. I did read the book in school and it was a waste of time. The meaning of this book can be argued about, but to claim "the real meaning" is this or that actually tells more about your self-opinion than anything about the book. It's all in the word "real". Imposing your "own" views onto others dismissing in advance their possible perception of the book.
Well, actually, the book is very clearly (and it is well-known) about innocence in childhood and changing into adulthood and life in general. If you think it's a 'waste' you obviously didn't understand it. There is a very good reason why it's called one of the greatest novels ever written.
Even if people don't think this is what the book is about, to take such a meaning from it, isn't it a good thing? To spread that this is something that obviously needs to be dealt with and not ignored. We need to look at why children act a certain way rather than simply ignore them and refer to them as strange or childish. Who cares what the books real meaning was. If someone can take a meaning to change the world for the better, isn't that a good thing? End child abuse. I like that theory!
Fuck this book this caused the death of my favorite singer John Lennon i hope J.D. burns in hell for this. Besides what is it with the character and "phonies" - My grandma who got in my teachers face for making my class read it
@MamaLuigiXYZ you are a fucking idiot. If this book had never been written John Lennon would still be dead. Psychos kill people nomatter what. Learn to appreciate good literature and get over it.
@ucheinheimer You didn't read the whole thing it was said by my grandma. That was what she said when she confronted my teacher for making me and my class read it.
I hated this book. It is basically the story of a kid who whines like a bitch the whole way through the book, says bastard and goddamn every few words and really has made no effort to expand my mind to fine American literature. I grew stupider for reading that book.
Holden has no credibility. He admits to us early on that he is a chronic liar and uses exaggeration like when he says that Mrs Antolini was 60 years older than Mr Antolini. Mr Antolini was also drinking and was a part of a tennis club in long island meaning he and his wife were quite wealthy. It is a fact that the wealthy, partying people in the 40s and 50s were taking amphetamines so mr antolinis judgement was faded. It's very doubtfull that holden was sexyauly abused
Do you realize that the majority of critics decide that Mr. Antolini was in fact NOT making a sexual advance. The episode might illustrate Holden's inability to grasp reality and deal with other people, which comes up time and again in the book. Sure it's possible Antolini was gay, and you make an interesting points with it, but it's not "very clear" like your making it out to be.
A person need not to have had religion as a child to be susceptible to it as an adult. Just good old-fashioned parental nurturing will suffice so that when as an adult a person in some sort of crisis will often regress and seek some sort of parental protection and security.
I wasn't making an argument for the state. Or at least, inasmuch as my comments on this thread have supported the idea of a state, I certainly haven't argued for one that is over-interfering and unchecked or allowed to ignore basic human rights, as seems to be implied in your previous comment.
Exactly. And would we want to mirror our economic interactions on such obviously negative examples of inhumanity and injustice? This is why we seek to control the excesses of government as much as (or more) than we control the excesses of business/corporations - because power is power and the powerful are not big into self-restraint. If they were responsible and accountable (and the market only provides accountability where enough competition exists) then a truly free market would be desirable.
Where supply and demand of necessities are unmatched, uncontrolled market mechanisms lead to abject poverty/homelessness/starvation. Even when it doesn't go that far, it still sucks.
I don't think the price of watches needs to be regulated, but I'm just fine with rent control (where needed), minimum wage, limits on the cost of critical medical care, etc. I don't care how rich people get, as long as at the other end of the scale a regular person, willing to work, can make an adequate living.
2. Or their barrier to starvation. What use is entry if you can't live on what you earn?
3. Not in basic necessities where the price is at least higher than the cost of production. And I made it clear what kind of goods I was talking about. I'm talking about avoiding monopoly-style costing where competition is insufficient, not communism.
Look, you obviously think the free market delivers on its promises. I think its ability to do so is limited. We disagree, so be it.
1) Okay, so then why the hell would you support it then?
2) Let's say you make the min wage $10. If you can't work hard enough to deserve $10 dollars then you are going to be unemployed.
3)If the price is not higher than the cost of production, the producer would get no profit and therefore would have no reason to provide it in the first place. So yes, price controls will induce shortages.
1. Because it DOESN'T increase the # of homeless people.
2. Minimum wage is about people who DO work hard enough to deserve $10 NOT getting paid $2 (where $10 is just enough to keep you in food and rent) just because there are more people than jobs. Surely you don't imagine that so many people are on minimum wage because that's all they're worth?
1)All price controls induce shortages. Any economist will tell you that.
2)If you work hard enough to deserve $10/hr, why would you accept a $2? Seriously man, people aren't that stupid. People make minimium wage because that is how much their labor is worth otherwise no employer would hire them. If you are a capitalist, why the hell would you give some who does $2 worth of work an hour $10/hr? It makes no sense.
1. Not in basic products (that everyone needs, so can make a big overall profit selling many at a small profit) if the maximum price is set above the cost of manufacture.
2. In a buyer's employment market, a person worth $10/hr can be undercut by a person who will take $5/hr because they need to eat just like the next person. But if $10/hr represents a living wage, then that desperation to work creates unjustified poverty. Just read Grapes of Wrath & you'll get it.
There's no such thing as a "living wage" that can be imposed by force. And there's no such thing as a "buyer's market" for labor without state protections granted to the buyers. Left on its own, people's labor gets bid up to near their productivity levels. In certain cases, there are "buyers' markets" because of the state favoritism.
Oh yeah, because people never just flock to where they believe work exists, to the point where there are too many workers for the jobs on offer. I mean, just ask illegal immigrants in the US... (NB: in a truly free market, they wouldn't be illegal, and there would be many more of them)
1st of all, people flock to where jobs DO exist. The reason there might be an unemployment problem would be cus of things like minimum wage that don't let people legally adjust their wage preference downward. In such instances, they would,just as happens in the real world,work until they gain experience or find a better paying job opens up and try to get that job.
In a free market, yes we'd have more immigrants coming in and that would be GREAT. That would mean more stuff produced for everyone
And if too many flock there causing a glut? Think about it. Think about how things get cheaper when there is over-supply. Now imagine labour so cheap no-one can afford to live off that wage, and yet people having to accept that wage because some money is better than no money. (Be a lot shorter discussion if you guys would just read Steinbeck alongside your Rand.)
I wonder if the reason people are so short-sighted about the free market is that none of us have ever actually lived in one?
I think you're greatly exagerating. If a labour is cheap, and the wage sucks, think of whom would choose this method. Think of the incentives. Think about the other side of the coin please, we don't want to have to answer your every question; i have answered mine through reading which allowed me to understand the reasoning behind the concept of markets. There are at least 5 different points i could make to counter your assertion.
I am not exaggerating because I am not talking about the market in general. I am talking about (as I have been all the way through) the EXCESSES of free market behaviour - what will not ALWAYS happen, but what is POSSIBLE in the marketplace, and much more likely to occur where there are no controls (at all) on behaviour in the market.
It's amusing, you accusing me of not thinking of the other side of the coin. Ignore your own advice much?
Then if it does not always happen, what prevents it? And that which prevents it must have the incentive to reduce the occurence. This is why i accuse you of not looking on the other side, i just answered that on a whim. I don't mean to be condescending or anything, i'm merely trying to spark up an interest.
Not all market players have the ablity to get themselves into a position of power. Supply will not always exceed demand. Alliances/partnerships are not always available.
But you bring up an interesting point - that which prevents this behaviour can reduce occurence. I see that as the role of government in the market - not to control it as such, but to keep the playing field open, to ensure the possibility of competition remains a factor in everyone's calculations.
the problem with reverting back to the state is that liberty is not compatible with it. It's pretty much axiomatic by now that technology has improved without government in the first place (discovery of fire, etc) I would assert that if it has improved without the state, perhaps the state is irrelevant. And it's not like there aren't charts to support this; regarding the level of security at the workplace, deaths on the roads before the state took over. The corrections are hard to deny.
Sometimes, but not always. Some industries, markets, just don't lend themselves to the supply/demand model as well as others. I also believe in certain rights that you may not. For example, I think everyone should have the right to basic education (literacy) & basic medical care - assurances that are not compatible with free market thinking. & it's okay if you think it reasonable that people not have those things unless they can pay for them (truly). I just don't agree.
...and in the interests of revealing my perspective (and bias),
I work for a govt authority that employs market mechanisms wherever we can and facilitates movement of goods through the secondary market after initial allocation. However, where industry consultation reveals that there is insufficient competition to prevent a monopoly, our policy is to retain that allocatory role. We are trying so hard to be hands off (within the law) maybe it's why I think minimal govt is possible (albeit rare).
I'm glad that you were able to admit your bias, i can certainly admit mine; though i don't really have anything in it for me, rather than being granted more liberty. I do not wish to jeopardize your work, or put you at risk financially if i were to somehow change your ideology . After all, your personal well-being is obviously above all else, however i would be glad and it would probably become more gratifying for you in the long run to embrace anarchy; that is, granted that we are correct.
Actually I regard anarchy as the highest form of government. I just don't see it as feasible except in small communities. We are now so entrenched in our system of large urban communities and state and national economies and governments that I don't believe we can get from here to there in one generation unless there is a natural disaster or war that fundamentally destroys our financial and governmental systems and probably a good deal of the established infrastructure to boot.
Also, my bias has nothing to do with my financial security. I'm not afraid to lose my job, especially if there was real societal benefit to a complete dismantling of government systems. But I don't think there is. I know it's cynical, but I don't actually believe that most people have the desire or self-discipline to rule themselves. Which is why when systems break down the first thing that happens is looting.
I believe that focussing on reduction of government is more important at this point than decrying every government involvement in our lives as if it is the only evil. Then maybe we can work towards an aware population that could begin to approach the ideal of anarchy.
I know very well that prices decrease when there is too much supply...but you're not thinking about what happens AFTER that. What does it mean for ONE set of jobs to become lower-paying? It means OTHER jobs become more attractive. That's how the price system works. Workers will want other jobs, and EMPLOYERS in other areas will want more employees so they can expand their production(because the increase in people means higher demand for many goods)
Can people always move to these other jobs? Do they have the education? the skills? the legal status? the financial means to weather the transition? Not really disagreeing with you - just saying there's the theory and then there's the reality. From a distance we see the market wheels turning effectively, but some people's lives are getting ground into the works as the wheels shift and turn. I don't accept that free market players are wholly unaccountable for the collateral damage they create.
People generally don't need as much education without a state. Government subsidies to education have made it so that you "need" the education more and more to get a job, whereas before you often didn't require it (cus let's face it, a lotta stuff you learn in school, you simply don't use every day). Legal status? Again, that's a problem created by government. Financial means to transition - savings, which it does not pay to do, thanks to the Fed decreasing interest rates.
You tripped that off all so neatly, as if it actually resolves my concerns. :) But it doesn't. And I don't need a comprehensive answer - my point is more that it is not as simple as you make it sound.
People will always need education, regardless of the job situation. Information is power and always has been. Uneducated people are preyed upon - and by far more than governments.
Actually, your post begs the question. If people are more productive with higher educations (and they are in some instances) theyn why aren't businesses investing in this? The main reason is that the government already takes care of it and therefore creates the free rider problem. And even then, Pepsi was giving out grants one time(There's a vid of Thomas Sowell talking about it and public education on Youtube)but another interest ran a smear campaign to prevent Pepsi from giving students money
Smart business people do invest in the learning and development of their staff. Some industries don't required skilled staff. And the government does NOT 'take care of it' - there is a massive private education market for primary, secondary and tertiary education, plus additional learning aids and tutoring.
Did you know the education model was established in Prussia to create, uhm, well, obedient soldiers? Hasn't really changed since then. The problem is; the education is probably the way it should be; but since there is no competition the incentive to think of a better way has the tendency to not even come to existence.
I though that our education system was Elizabethan??? And anyway, what aspects of the obedient soldier model do you think are still evident? Everyone on this channel whines about public schools. I went to public schools (I'm in Australia) and I got a great education and good teachers for the most part. And I don't recall ever learning how to be a mindless member of the rank and file.
Well, it's extremely subliminal and a very complex subject, i would redirect you to the school sucks podcast for more information, i cannot compete with the guy over there. :) He explains the multifacets of the public school system , the problem with having an all-knowing un-inquisitive state official toss answers around. It literally destroys the self , reduces self-esteem of the young folks and programs the collectivistic ideology in the brain. But i warn you, it's sort of disturbing.
"Smart business people do invest in the learning and development of their staff. Some industries don't required skilled staff. And the government does NOT 'take care of it'"
That's exactly my point. The private sector has an interest in having educated people, so therefore we don't need to be forced to fund education.
Thought i'd point out that educational projects have begun on the internet. Sort of like an Ebay model. Students learn at their pace, tutors guide the students, perhaps test the abilities; and employers can require certain abilities; that which a student/master of may then be hired. And the whole process could be economically functional through bidding systems and what not. Imagine the ease of access for education!
That has potential. I think options like that will become more common now that broadband access is becoming more affordable. Possibly those students will experience the same problems common to homeschooled kids, but we'll see.
Oh, and as an aside, could you postpone destroying all government until they've rolled out their broadband programs. :)
and I'm not saying market players are wholly unaccountable at all. I'm simply saying they're following the incentives....and many of the problems you describe are because of incentives created by the government itself.
That would be very fair to say. However, I distinguish my ideology from what's pragmatic or possible. As a simple matter of pragmatism, most things are better off performed by the market than the state. There is actually very little we MIGHT need the government to do. The two main things are providing military and checking air pollution(because we can't have private property rights in air due), and due to improving technology, it's not clear that the government will be needed for air very long
Improving technology is irrelevant unless they use it. If it's more expensive, they don't. Laws about greener industry don't get introduced because government wants to be involved, but rather because companies generally only do what it legally required of them. And the power of the people in the market is reduced because most people have no idea of who produces what they buy. Even if they do, if it's happening oversea they don't tend to care. They rather have their cheaper product.
Here is the contradiction here. Government wants to introduce green tech, but then other governments devalue themselves to compete in the world (ex. china) but the fact remains that without this devaluation in the first place this green tech might be affordable right here without the need to choose overseas archaic and overpriced products. Think of the practicality, it didn't just happen magically. Also think of the useless unions and regulations we have compared to China.
Useless unions? Unions grow out of hardship and ill-used corporate power. They are a form of revolution.
I think I would find it amusing if you could experience exactly what you want - no government whatsoever. And then watch as the world devolves into some rough equivalent of lords and serfdom.
Or corporatism, but okay yes - because it would replace statism with another form of statism where there is even less protection for the individual. People on this channel keep talking about tax as violence and law as violence and intervention as violence. I'm saying I'd prefer it not be replaced by ACTUAL violence. Yah, a truly free market, with no law or government...organised crime waiting to happen. Can't wait!
so you don't want to get rid of the government (a group of people who take your money against your will by threatening you with violence) because it MIGHT be replaced with...
...a much smaller, much less powerful group of people who could take your money against your will by threatening you with violence (the mafia).
At least if I defend myself from an extortionist everyone knows that I was morally right. If I did the same to the IRS I would be considered by most people to be in the wrong.
that's a GOOD thing. That's what the price system is for - to let us know the relative scarcities of things. If something is expensive, it's supposed to reflect its costliness. That's why there should be no interferences in the price system.
The value of clean land increases as some land gets dirtied. Unfortunately, the government itself began favoring businesses by exempting them from paying victims of pollution on their property during the late 1800s
This is my problem with all of your ideas. They are sound as far as they go - on a theoretical level I often agree - but for them to work people have to act rationally and responsibly. And they don't tend to do that.
Why military? Can't people defend themselves, or hire people to do it?
"but for them to work people have to act rationally and responsibly."
Not really. the only thing necessary is for people to seek profit in order for it to work. I think it's a safe assumption to make that firms act to make profit, even if that may not be the businessperson's main goal.
And yes this applies to the military as well. The problem with military is that it's supposed to be always ready in case of attack - but in terms of effectiveness,guerilla warfare(defense) is more cost-effective
In such a case most of the flock would go back home. (As many immigrants are doing in response to the recession)
Also keep in mind much of the flock will be unskilled labor, and the only people in direct competition would be those without high school diplomas. The decrease in prices of housing and food from cheap labor more than offset any wage reduction that more skilled classes of laborers see.
1. Only temporarily and not necessarily. Producers will cut back marginal factors to maintain a level of profit consistent with other industries. If this is prevented, eventually capital will flee to more profitable production areas. If this is prohibited, then people will not invest any more into the industry and the same effect occur more slowly. To maintain the level over time more and more interventions are necessary.
2. In a situation in which labor is undervalued, it is an invitation for more employers and producers to enter the area and hire people. It is a signal to producer that a resource is being underutilized, and that a profit can be made be bringing labor into fuller utilization.
Steinbeck is not an economic expert in the least. Try Ludwig von Mises "Human Action" for economic understanding.
You'd have to explain how you can limit the powers of a monopoly of violence. You'd have to explain how you can avoid incremental changes to it's benefits. You'd have to explain how you can control the state so that it doesn't act in it's favor. You'd have to explain how you can educate people in an non-biased way towards the state. The incentive for the state to gain power is there and will always be as long as it is based on violence. I have never seen the state retract substantially.
(Cont) Besides, having a state to begin with, to me sound a little rediculous seeing as how it's services can be replaced very efficiently with market conditions. All roads lead to rome, but only one has the shortest path.
Even if you were to subdue the state to the will of all individuals (which sounds contradictory already), you're still destroying wealth in the process. There is no such thing as a necessary "evil" ; it's just clever way for "evil" to rationalize itself.
Why would I have to explain all of that? No-one else is explaining their wild claims in the other direction.
There are already check and balances in place - and I'm not saying they are 100% effective, but the point is that not every theory of the state is Machiavellian. I can, after, agree that the state has too much power and needs to be made accountable, without having to agree that a total dismantling of the state is 'the answer'.
Limit it's power? AHAHAHA! The state has never receded. It has been continuelly growing bigger and bigger since its inception. Limiting the power of the state is like trying to infiltrate the KKK and try to turn it into a human rights organization.
Here is what floors me about you. You have such a clear opposition to giving power to the state(rightly or wrongly, not arguing either way) yet you can't grasp the very basic notion that the free market, (because it lends itself to players seeking to hold a monopoly, because we already have corporations who are so big their intake is like the GNP of a small country) will create the same structures of power (and does). Read your Adam Smith. Capitalism was never workable under these conditions.
Corporations are the children of the state. And the larger the internal structure, the more the same inefficiencies they have.(due to problems of economic calculation: no internal price structure)
There is little reason to believe corporate multinationals could long remain without privileges gained though the state.
And the monopolies that do form without such privileges are of no great economic concern, still being governed by two types of competition; non-use and new firm market entry .
A very poingant video, but Stef there is still plenty of room for statism outside of a culture of abuse towards children, just look at a number of modern liberal/progressive families which have good family relations, while at the same time holding on to and imbuing their children with nanny-state values.
They make us read this in high school, and I wonder why they would do that - maybe because they want to debunk it right then and there and not have the students really understand its message~
I liked the end very much! This is completely true, and I wonder why this is the first time I've heard it. Confidence-building and Deep sympathy are the prerequisites for healing, and once you heal, you can start to self-actualize, and stand up to authority... I can confirm this with my relationship to my father 100%, for it is happening right now for me. Thank you for putting everything in such an enlightening perspective!
I don't think that there is some sort of deliberate attempt to keep people in their hierarchical place in society, but rather that most people simple raise their children as they have been raised, with all the potentially unexamined flaws and consequences. Therapists have called abuse 'the gift that keeps on giving', because it keeps on being passed on.
I agree with your solutions although you don't need to be abused in order to recieve philosophical insights. Anyone can become insecure.
I have never read the book. Perhaps I may now. However, I dont think that anyone but the author could possible know what it is really about. As a poet I have often written verse which has confused people to the point where thay have understood my poems wrongly.
thank you I really enjoyed this video, I will pass it on to others, and I'm glad I wasn't sexually or physically abused ever. I'm trying to bring an accused rapist to justice with the help of the police currently. Thanks again! Super looking forward to your schooling series, i've alrdy read several books about it so I'm all the way on your side except for the silly anarchy thing.
Bravo, well said and very moving. I have experienced these 3 types of abusers and it is soul crushing. I became a very good worker so you can guess my personal experience as a child.
My comment is not about molestation, rather about verbal and psychological abuse. I've actually never been around anyone who has acknowledged that I'm a victim rather than attempted to blame me for being a victim.
I find this interesting because even though I suffered relatively little abuse from my parents and other adults when I was young, I still (as a fifteen year old reading Catcher in the Rye for the first time) related to it deeply. I think this can be attributed to two things - the fact that I still felt that powerlessness that I think most kids experience (even good adults are still the adults and you the kid) and because I had only realised the year previous how much adults lie to children.
I teach this novel in my 10 grade classes, and have never, never focused on this...or, I think, I would have been called in 'on the carpet' in the admin office....truly....
Stef referred to the assassination of Ronald Reagan, not the _attempted_ assassination of Ronald Reagan, he obviously knows about the robot we put in to replace him. It's only a matter of time before he figures out the real reason why nobody has seen Barak's real birth certificate.
So why did he become a recluse? Just because we did not listen? Because he revealed his possible dark past as a victim?
Your explanation is reasonable. I blamed his attitude towards the world, and in part, I am correct. It was up to Caufield to overcome. Easier said than done. Certainly, if he was abused his task was greater than his ability. Beyond forgivable.
The extent of the abuse in question. He was admired while sleeping 20 times? Would that be enough dramatic cause?
The same effects that Holden goes through could also be attributed to his own latency and inability to cope with it. Although it is fashionable to call teenagers children, they are not. Holden is not a child, he is an adolescent.
He is at an age where one is about to be confronted with aspects of sexuality, not all traditional or personal choice. No one can be protected from this, it happens to every one without exception. You are saying that this confusion could make one a murder because of your own outrage towards anything but heterosexuality.
Perhaps you'd like to judge Oscar Wilde as well? Along with the Christian Americans, you have jumped onto the same bandwagon of sexual abuse everywhere. In the United States, the largest age group of child molesters is 14years old. The second is 15 and then 13.
Libertarian that you claim to be you should approve that the US now has 700,000 sex offenders registered for life and a large number of them, ....Children.. are you happy now?
i read catcher in the rye in high school, back then I didn't read into a lot of the content. Thanks Stef for reminding me of the details, it goes to show that content can really go over our heads if we're not prepared or properly primed with the context.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Also I don't understand this. I thought you were a big anarcho-capitalist. Yet you claim to be against hierarchies? I thought capitalism in it's true form is hierarchies on steroids? Letting the rich and power become as rich and powerful as possible and the less fortunate to become as poor and disenfranchised as possible.
Maybe. But no defender the democratic state will say that. Capitalists on the other hand will boast about how capitalism is hierarchy on steroids. I read Rand. It's all about letting the most privileged and "fit" to become to leaders and the elite, while letting the "unfit" and unprivileged starve.
Yes today I am told that capitalist are actually against hierarchy? I'm more interesting in knowing what people think then winning an argument. I want to know what you people think about hierarchy.
I'm not "for" or "against" hierarchies, I simply recognise them as an inescapable fact that will always be present in any social situation.
I would prefer, however, a more natural hierarchical system that is not violently imposed, but, rather, the result of voluntary associations.
Any attempt to remove hierarchy from the human equation (socialism) only result in a deeper hierarchical devide that is just as bad as an imposed class system.
02:58
twenty times means twice!
he has the habit of always multiplying things 10 times or more .
he's also a very good lair
allg0odnamesaretaken 2 months ago
I think I like Holden a lot because even though I'm a girl I look at things just as he does. For a second I thought I reading myself narrating.
susankohistany 2 months ago
I respect this opinion, however I wouldn't entirely agree. I believe that Holden Caulfield is a character who everyone relates to a different way. Whatever a person relates to the most they believe is the main theme. For example, as I read the story I felt a lot in common with Holden as he described all the "phony" people around him. For me, the theme is very difficult to express in words and I'm sure that others feel this way too. I disagree, because I don't feel that the book has a main theme.
matthewlee96 3 months ago
Great video by the way.
pmizzle2010 5 months ago
This book is about innocence. This book is about innocence. This book is about innocence. Enough already! This man is attempting to go beyond the normal Cliffsnotes interpretation and present viewers with a much different point of view, yet people still want to comment and contribute nothing with the same ole analysis.. Is not child sexual abuse a loss of innocence? Is it possible Holden wishes to be "the catcher in the rye" to prevent kids from falling off the cliff (abused) like he has?
pmizzle2010 5 months ago 5
@peyapepur I found his analysis lacking in textual evidence and his social theories without evidence whatsoever.
ryan0reese 7 months ago
There are myriad interpertations- and could explore more but yes, innocence is one and how it is lost. Holden falls in "identity vs. role diffusion" according to Erikson.he is trying to find his place/person He exhibits signs of depression- self medication, academic difficulties, inablility to cope. Adolesence is a vital time for development &Holden's is tainted due to events, and relationships with adults and peers.He exhibits signs of regression- in order to protect himself. just a thought.
blackmetallicgirl 7 months ago
I think an individual can definetly look at this novel through the lens of psychodynamic theory. Many of the ego defenses ie: reperssion, ties in with mr. antolini. Possibly the novel could be seen as devaluing Holden as a person, and all together just the other young characters. Perhaps, Salinger was focusing on the denial of this private problem. Also, object relations could be applied also. Holden possibly lacked the ego strengths necessary to form and create healthy bonds. Interesting take_
blackmetallicgirl 7 months ago
I disagree.
funckyjunky 8 months ago
@peyapepurHolden also exagerates EVERYTHING,this whole book he mentions pheobe and he brings up jane because she hasnt "fallen off of the cliff in the rye field",when he says he likes her keeping her kings in the back row hes referring to her innocence and being a virgin,this doesnt hav to do anything with sexual abuse?This is why JD hid, this is why he turned down movie offers for the book,becuz he doesnt want to b a phony, holden says he hates movies too. JD hid becuz of people like this guy.
ScreamFlip 9 months ago
Great interpretation of the book Steffan however you failed to remember that Holden constantly lies and over exaggerates everything
srt10kid 9 months ago
I think that you really missed the point of the book. I do not believe he was sexually abused or that Mr Antolini was a paedohpile or gay. Mr Antolini cares very deeply about Holden because he is his teacher and he probably sees a lot of himself in Holden which is probably why Holden finds it easy to relate to him; it is possible that Mr Antolini experienced the same kind of thing when he was Holden's age, but he dealed with it more aptly. He was patting his head to show affection, nothing else.
HPNEEK 9 months ago
@peyapepur There are so many themes like distrust of the adult world, growing up, phoniness vs reality. Tough to pin point one down. It is all just depending on how you view the book.
TeamCanadiens 10 months ago
Terrible video.
SonytoBratsoni 10 months ago
fondoling sounds a whole lot more creepy than stroking.
lookatmecrazyx 10 months ago
a lot of what holden says and does in those situations really reminds me of me at that age, and i was never sexually abused in anyway at all.
headlockboy 11 months ago
I disagree about CITR. Yes the teacher is gay, yes the teacher is at least grooming, or attempting to molest. But the "20 times" is hyperbole--as typical of his speech, AND/OR, the reference was to "gay stuff" that could be prevalent in boarding schools (and not directly experienced by Holden)....rather than actual molestations by adults (as it came across to me). I agree about Jane. Salinger throughout was noting the mixed signals and feelings that sex was imbued with--especially in that era.
GetMeThere1 11 months ago
No... Just no...
KieranIsBoss 1 year ago
I don't necessarily think that Holden was sexually abused. J.D. Salinger does a pretty good job explaining to his readers that Holden is an unreliable narrator. I don't think a boy getting his head patted was really a case of sexual abuse. You use the word "fondle" but in the book it says patting his head. This is just YOUR opinion of this novel. Child abuse is just a small portion of this novel, and I think you're missing the bigger picture.
btploxftw 1 year ago
Comment removed
btploxftw 1 year ago
I know plenty of people who started out as athiests or became so during their life only to turn to God later on. Whilst religions have definitely been abusive throughout history, it's no excuse either to tar God nor the genuinely spiritual who do believe in God with the same brush - or do we not have feelings? Where is the unbiased balance that is supposed to be projected by those who have thrown off the 'bigotry of the past'? Or has it merely morphed into another form?
BouncingFaces 1 year ago
Excellent! All Needed to be said! xky
TheMiyaMusashi 1 year ago
I picked up on the wierdness of the teacher, but for those of us who have never experienced such abuse, it is easy to miss the link in this book. For book of this size, the links are rather sparse and buried. I would think the connection would only resonate with people who have been exposed to such abuse, either directly, or direct information from another victim.
HavocGunStar 1 year ago
Bigoted of u to say we have to be young to start believing in God, your elitism is the problem in the world not child abuse nor social classes
sidgirl22 1 year ago
@sidgirl22
That is a very true and balanced comment - thank you.
BouncingFaces 1 year ago
Very well made and all agreeable.
DeathBatAteMyCat 1 year ago
@peyapepur so in essences he's every teenager...
who becomes patrick bateman lol
thelivingmanpart2 1 year ago
I think this is a very interesting theory, but it ignores larger themes and events in the book. However, I agree that people misread and misunderstand this story in profound ways, which make it quite a harmful exercise. Mostly, people interpret it as training in a dismissive attitude towards phoniness or else we cannot function as adults. In this larger sense, it is completely a version of blaming the victim and making excuses for questionable behavior or life choices.
mateo3470 1 year ago
nice review....a must read books!
khairulazizi 1 year ago
Thank you for this review.Very insightful,keep up the good work,greets from Serbia
AndyDufresne987 1 year ago
I'm not sure that Holden was sexually abused - He is an unreliable narrator, so he's probably exaggerating the number anyway, and in the 50s, homosexuality was considered perverted and wrong, and Holden expresses previously in the book that he is basically homophobic (When talking with Carl Luce), so he could be referring to 'perverty' homosexual encounters. I agree that Jane is probably abused though, and though I don't agree with the overall message, this video was very helpful:)
magicaltrevrox 1 year ago 11
Very very insightful review. I never interpreted it this way when I read it, but I very much enjoyed hearing your perspective on it.
Toro953 1 year ago
thank you for this vid... i totally agree with you on the severity of the sexual abuse consequences, and that the victim should never be blamed or the issue taken lightly.
alennna 1 year ago
The book is an amazing piece of work.
It has been analyzed for decades and will be for much longer than that.
J.D. Salinger died near where I live in NH.
His work will continue to be read for as long as there are people on this earth.
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 1 year ago
This is brilliant but I don't think what you said about factory workers or cubicle workers was a fair cop, these people likely just accept such conditions of drudgery bacause they value what they can purchase with their product. They were not abused into being "good workers" for menial jobs. Obviously it might help in making a mindless worker but I think what you said demenas these people and labour in general.
KraljevicPavle 1 year ago
i believe it is more on " innocence " than this sexual abuse..
sexual abuse is just one of those things that make Holden depressed.
MrBamSquared 1 year ago
What if you don't want to be a business leader or a political leader. I want to be a philosopher. I plan on getting a phd one day. Is that what happens if you are lucky enough to not be around any abuse?
greenghost2008 1 year ago
uh dude? seriously?
You're missing everything about the book! Everything! It's not simply about sexual abuse! of course that's part of it, but it's also about a sad, lonely boy who's desperately afraid to grow up. It's called "The Catcher in the Rye" because he feels like he needs to be the catcher, keeping the children from falling of the cliff and into adulthood.
You're completey missing the state Holden is, in between adolescense and adulthood.
jaytummy 1 year ago
ur funny :)
can3161 1 year ago
still working on your own childhoodtraumas??? I think the book itself was rubbish, a display of creatures lacking any form of love. I did read the book in school and it was a waste of time. The meaning of this book can be argued about, but to claim "the real meaning" is this or that actually tells more about your self-opinion than anything about the book. It's all in the word "real". Imposing your "own" views onto others dismissing in advance their possible perception of the book.
sowiesosso 1 year ago
@sowiesosso
Well, actually, the book is very clearly (and it is well-known) about innocence in childhood and changing into adulthood and life in general. If you think it's a 'waste' you obviously didn't understand it. There is a very good reason why it's called one of the greatest novels ever written.
AnastasiaExpert 1 year ago
Sexual abuse...?
JayBlueToYou 1 year ago
Sounds like the Franklin Scandal.
burlearth 1 year ago
Even if people don't think this is what the book is about, to take such a meaning from it, isn't it a good thing? To spread that this is something that obviously needs to be dealt with and not ignored. We need to look at why children act a certain way rather than simply ignore them and refer to them as strange or childish. Who cares what the books real meaning was. If someone can take a meaning to change the world for the better, isn't that a good thing? End child abuse. I like that theory!
PandaValentine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God, I hated this book.
Sword1479 1 year ago
Sexual Abuse??....... This book cannot reach those who cant Find there inner Caulfield.
TheBookWorld 1 year ago
Sigh... I thought this was going to be a book review and not a conspiracy theory... *stops watching*
I'm getting tired of conspiracy theorists
berner 1 year ago
Your grandma was obviously an ignorant, crowing old busy-body. This is a great book.
macpherf 1 year ago
@macpherf No it's not.
Sword1479 1 year ago
@Sword1479 witty reposte
macpherf 1 year ago
@macpherf I'm not trying to be "witty", I'm just saying this was a bad book.
Sword1479 1 year ago
@Sword1479
couldn't resist the sword/riposte thing.
Re: the book, there are millions who disagree, including some well-respected cultural critics who actually think long and hard about such things.
You may not like the book, but that doesn't mean it isn't any good.
macpherf 1 year ago
@macpherf I'm sorry, you're right. It's only my opinion, not the truth.
Sword1479 1 year ago
Fuck this book this caused the death of my favorite singer John Lennon i hope J.D. burns in hell for this. Besides what is it with the character and "phonies" - My grandma who got in my teachers face for making my class read it
MamaLuigiXYZ 1 year ago
@MamaLuigiXYZ you are a fucking idiot. If this book had never been written John Lennon would still be dead. Psychos kill people nomatter what. Learn to appreciate good literature and get over it.
ucheinheimer 1 year ago
@ucheinheimer You didn't read the whole thing it was said by my grandma. That was what she said when she confronted my teacher for making me and my class read it.
MamaLuigiXYZ 1 year ago
@MamaLuigiXYZ whoops. my bad. Must not have been paying close enough attention.
ucheinheimer 1 year ago
@ucheinheimer Its alright lmao xD
MamaLuigiXYZ 1 year ago
its about a rich whinny white boy who has everything but pretends to be miserable
Joaquin546 1 year ago
Comment removed
jaytummy 1 year ago
I hated this book. It is basically the story of a kid who whines like a bitch the whole way through the book, says bastard and goddamn every few words and really has made no effort to expand my mind to fine American literature. I grew stupider for reading that book.
N3B0R3D 1 year ago
This talk doesn't tell us why he became a recluse or why the book is popular among assassins at all.
dharmashooter 1 year ago
what?. . Regan wasnt assassinated. . .?
olneymaryland77 1 year ago
@olneymaryland77 There was an atempted assassination on him
RageAgainstNWO 1 year ago
Holden has no credibility. He admits to us early on that he is a chronic liar and uses exaggeration like when he says that Mrs Antolini was 60 years older than Mr Antolini. Mr Antolini was also drinking and was a part of a tennis club in long island meaning he and his wife were quite wealthy. It is a fact that the wealthy, partying people in the 40s and 50s were taking amphetamines so mr antolinis judgement was faded. It's very doubtfull that holden was sexyauly abused
TheDemoDisks 1 year ago
the book was about my high school valley forge military academy where j d salinger was the class valedictorian
crankrank 1 year ago
Do you realize that the majority of critics decide that Mr. Antolini was in fact NOT making a sexual advance. The episode might illustrate Holden's inability to grasp reality and deal with other people, which comes up time and again in the book. Sure it's possible Antolini was gay, and you make an interesting points with it, but it's not "very clear" like your making it out to be.
rockle18 1 year ago
A person need not to have had religion as a child to be susceptible to it as an adult. Just good old-fashioned parental nurturing will suffice so that when as an adult a person in some sort of crisis will often regress and seek some sort of parental protection and security.
TheRevaluator 1 year ago
very well said especially at the end
swimbeast117 2 years ago
poor J.D i loved him... I do believe that the book is about J.D, he just wont admit it.
swimbeast117 2 years ago
typically switf of my stef, breakneck speed of observation that makes me jealous lol
PkSage89 2 years ago
I wasn't making an argument for the state. Or at least, inasmuch as my comments on this thread have supported the idea of a state, I certainly haven't argued for one that is over-interfering and unchecked or allowed to ignore basic human rights, as seems to be implied in your previous comment.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Exactly. And would we want to mirror our economic interactions on such obviously negative examples of inhumanity and injustice? This is why we seek to control the excesses of government as much as (or more) than we control the excesses of business/corporations - because power is power and the powerful are not big into self-restraint. If they were responsible and accountable (and the market only provides accountability where enough competition exists) then a truly free market would be desirable.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Where supply and demand of necessities are unmatched, uncontrolled market mechanisms lead to abject poverty/homelessness/starvation. Even when it doesn't go that far, it still sucks.
I don't think the price of watches needs to be regulated, but I'm just fine with rent control (where needed), minimum wage, limits on the cost of critical medical care, etc. I don't care how rich people get, as long as at the other end of the scale a regular person, willing to work, can make an adequate living.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Rent control increases the # of homeless people, minimium wage is a worker's barrier to entry, and price controls induce shortages.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
1. The hell is does.
2. Or their barrier to starvation. What use is entry if you can't live on what you earn?
3. Not in basic necessities where the price is at least higher than the cost of production. And I made it clear what kind of goods I was talking about. I'm talking about avoiding monopoly-style costing where competition is insufficient, not communism.
Look, you obviously think the free market delivers on its promises. I think its ability to do so is limited. We disagree, so be it.
rivenrock 2 years ago
1) Okay, so then why the hell would you support it then?
2) Let's say you make the min wage $10. If you can't work hard enough to deserve $10 dollars then you are going to be unemployed.
3)If the price is not higher than the cost of production, the producer would get no profit and therefore would have no reason to provide it in the first place. So yes, price controls will induce shortages.
The state is a monopoly.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
1. Because it DOESN'T increase the # of homeless people.
2. Minimum wage is about people who DO work hard enough to deserve $10 NOT getting paid $2 (where $10 is just enough to keep you in food and rent) just because there are more people than jobs. Surely you don't imagine that so many people are on minimum wage because that's all they're worth?
3) Reread what I wrote.
rivenrock 2 years ago
1)All price controls induce shortages. Any economist will tell you that.
2)If you work hard enough to deserve $10/hr, why would you accept a $2? Seriously man, people aren't that stupid. People make minimium wage because that is how much their labor is worth otherwise no employer would hire them. If you are a capitalist, why the hell would you give some who does $2 worth of work an hour $10/hr? It makes no sense.
3)I think I said enough in response 1)
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
1. Not in basic products (that everyone needs, so can make a big overall profit selling many at a small profit) if the maximum price is set above the cost of manufacture.
2. In a buyer's employment market, a person worth $10/hr can be undercut by a person who will take $5/hr because they need to eat just like the next person. But if $10/hr represents a living wage, then that desperation to work creates unjustified poverty. Just read Grapes of Wrath & you'll get it.
rivenrock 2 years ago
lol
There's no such thing as a "living wage" that can be imposed by force. And there's no such thing as a "buyer's market" for labor without state protections granted to the buyers. Left on its own, people's labor gets bid up to near their productivity levels. In certain cases, there are "buyers' markets" because of the state favoritism.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Oh yeah, because people never just flock to where they believe work exists, to the point where there are too many workers for the jobs on offer. I mean, just ask illegal immigrants in the US... (NB: in a truly free market, they wouldn't be illegal, and there would be many more of them)
rivenrock 2 years ago
1st of all, people flock to where jobs DO exist. The reason there might be an unemployment problem would be cus of things like minimum wage that don't let people legally adjust their wage preference downward. In such instances, they would,just as happens in the real world,work until they gain experience or find a better paying job opens up and try to get that job.
In a free market, yes we'd have more immigrants coming in and that would be GREAT. That would mean more stuff produced for everyone
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
And if too many flock there causing a glut? Think about it. Think about how things get cheaper when there is over-supply. Now imagine labour so cheap no-one can afford to live off that wage, and yet people having to accept that wage because some money is better than no money. (Be a lot shorter discussion if you guys would just read Steinbeck alongside your Rand.)
I wonder if the reason people are so short-sighted about the free market is that none of us have ever actually lived in one?
rivenrock 2 years ago
I think you're greatly exagerating. If a labour is cheap, and the wage sucks, think of whom would choose this method. Think of the incentives. Think about the other side of the coin please, we don't want to have to answer your every question; i have answered mine through reading which allowed me to understand the reasoning behind the concept of markets. There are at least 5 different points i could make to counter your assertion.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
I am not exaggerating because I am not talking about the market in general. I am talking about (as I have been all the way through) the EXCESSES of free market behaviour - what will not ALWAYS happen, but what is POSSIBLE in the marketplace, and much more likely to occur where there are no controls (at all) on behaviour in the market.
It's amusing, you accusing me of not thinking of the other side of the coin. Ignore your own advice much?
rivenrock 2 years ago
Then if it does not always happen, what prevents it? And that which prevents it must have the incentive to reduce the occurence. This is why i accuse you of not looking on the other side, i just answered that on a whim. I don't mean to be condescending or anything, i'm merely trying to spark up an interest.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Not all market players have the ablity to get themselves into a position of power. Supply will not always exceed demand. Alliances/partnerships are not always available.
But you bring up an interesting point - that which prevents this behaviour can reduce occurence. I see that as the role of government in the market - not to control it as such, but to keep the playing field open, to ensure the possibility of competition remains a factor in everyone's calculations.
rivenrock 2 years ago
the problem with reverting back to the state is that liberty is not compatible with it. It's pretty much axiomatic by now that technology has improved without government in the first place (discovery of fire, etc) I would assert that if it has improved without the state, perhaps the state is irrelevant. And it's not like there aren't charts to support this; regarding the level of security at the workplace, deaths on the roads before the state took over. The corrections are hard to deny.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
...I agree that market forces have power and provide checks and balances, but where the market fails, minimal government intervention may be helpful.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Could it be that where market fails is due to human error, and not because there is no government?
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Sometimes, but not always. Some industries, markets, just don't lend themselves to the supply/demand model as well as others. I also believe in certain rights that you may not. For example, I think everyone should have the right to basic education (literacy) & basic medical care - assurances that are not compatible with free market thinking. & it's okay if you think it reasonable that people not have those things unless they can pay for them (truly). I just don't agree.
rivenrock 2 years ago
...and in the interests of revealing my perspective (and bias),
I work for a govt authority that employs market mechanisms wherever we can and facilitates movement of goods through the secondary market after initial allocation. However, where industry consultation reveals that there is insufficient competition to prevent a monopoly, our policy is to retain that allocatory role. We are trying so hard to be hands off (within the law) maybe it's why I think minimal govt is possible (albeit rare).
rivenrock 2 years ago
I'm glad that you were able to admit your bias, i can certainly admit mine; though i don't really have anything in it for me, rather than being granted more liberty. I do not wish to jeopardize your work, or put you at risk financially if i were to somehow change your ideology . After all, your personal well-being is obviously above all else, however i would be glad and it would probably become more gratifying for you in the long run to embrace anarchy; that is, granted that we are correct.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Actually I regard anarchy as the highest form of government. I just don't see it as feasible except in small communities. We are now so entrenched in our system of large urban communities and state and national economies and governments that I don't believe we can get from here to there in one generation unless there is a natural disaster or war that fundamentally destroys our financial and governmental systems and probably a good deal of the established infrastructure to boot.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Also, my bias has nothing to do with my financial security. I'm not afraid to lose my job, especially if there was real societal benefit to a complete dismantling of government systems. But I don't think there is. I know it's cynical, but I don't actually believe that most people have the desire or self-discipline to rule themselves. Which is why when systems break down the first thing that happens is looting.
rivenrock 2 years ago
I believe that focussing on reduction of government is more important at this point than decrying every government involvement in our lives as if it is the only evil. Then maybe we can work towards an aware population that could begin to approach the ideal of anarchy.
rivenrock 2 years ago
I know very well that prices decrease when there is too much supply...but you're not thinking about what happens AFTER that. What does it mean for ONE set of jobs to become lower-paying? It means OTHER jobs become more attractive. That's how the price system works. Workers will want other jobs, and EMPLOYERS in other areas will want more employees so they can expand their production(because the increase in people means higher demand for many goods)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Can people always move to these other jobs? Do they have the education? the skills? the legal status? the financial means to weather the transition? Not really disagreeing with you - just saying there's the theory and then there's the reality. From a distance we see the market wheels turning effectively, but some people's lives are getting ground into the works as the wheels shift and turn. I don't accept that free market players are wholly unaccountable for the collateral damage they create.
rivenrock 2 years ago
People generally don't need as much education without a state. Government subsidies to education have made it so that you "need" the education more and more to get a job, whereas before you often didn't require it (cus let's face it, a lotta stuff you learn in school, you simply don't use every day). Legal status? Again, that's a problem created by government. Financial means to transition - savings, which it does not pay to do, thanks to the Fed decreasing interest rates.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
You tripped that off all so neatly, as if it actually resolves my concerns. :) But it doesn't. And I don't need a comprehensive answer - my point is more that it is not as simple as you make it sound.
People will always need education, regardless of the job situation. Information is power and always has been. Uneducated people are preyed upon - and by far more than governments.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Actually, your post begs the question. If people are more productive with higher educations (and they are in some instances) theyn why aren't businesses investing in this? The main reason is that the government already takes care of it and therefore creates the free rider problem. And even then, Pepsi was giving out grants one time(There's a vid of Thomas Sowell talking about it and public education on Youtube)but another interest ran a smear campaign to prevent Pepsi from giving students money
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Smart business people do invest in the learning and development of their staff. Some industries don't required skilled staff. And the government does NOT 'take care of it' - there is a massive private education market for primary, secondary and tertiary education, plus additional learning aids and tutoring.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Did you know the education model was established in Prussia to create, uhm, well, obedient soldiers? Hasn't really changed since then. The problem is; the education is probably the way it should be; but since there is no competition the incentive to think of a better way has the tendency to not even come to existence.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
correction, probably not the way it should be*
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
I though that our education system was Elizabethan??? And anyway, what aspects of the obedient soldier model do you think are still evident? Everyone on this channel whines about public schools. I went to public schools (I'm in Australia) and I got a great education and good teachers for the most part. And I don't recall ever learning how to be a mindless member of the rank and file.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Well, it's extremely subliminal and a very complex subject, i would redirect you to the school sucks podcast for more information, i cannot compete with the guy over there. :) He explains the multifacets of the public school system , the problem with having an all-knowing un-inquisitive state official toss answers around. It literally destroys the self , reduces self-esteem of the young folks and programs the collectivistic ideology in the brain. But i warn you, it's sort of disturbing.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Smart business people do invest in the learning and development of their staff. Some industries don't required skilled staff. And the government does NOT 'take care of it'"
That's exactly my point. The private sector has an interest in having educated people, so therefore we don't need to be forced to fund education.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Thought i'd point out that educational projects have begun on the internet. Sort of like an Ebay model. Students learn at their pace, tutors guide the students, perhaps test the abilities; and employers can require certain abilities; that which a student/master of may then be hired. And the whole process could be economically functional through bidding systems and what not. Imagine the ease of access for education!
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
That has potential. I think options like that will become more common now that broadband access is becoming more affordable. Possibly those students will experience the same problems common to homeschooled kids, but we'll see.
Oh, and as an aside, could you postpone destroying all government until they've rolled out their broadband programs. :)
rivenrock 2 years ago
We're not quite into "destroying" :P
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
(continued)
and I'm not saying market players are wholly unaccountable at all. I'm simply saying they're following the incentives....and many of the problems you describe are because of incentives created by the government itself.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Some of them, sure. But is it fair to say that you tend to see dismantling of government as the answer to pretty much every problem?
rivenrock 2 years ago
That would be very fair to say. However, I distinguish my ideology from what's pragmatic or possible. As a simple matter of pragmatism, most things are better off performed by the market than the state. There is actually very little we MIGHT need the government to do. The two main things are providing military and checking air pollution(because we can't have private property rights in air due), and due to improving technology, it's not clear that the government will be needed for air very long
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Improving technology is irrelevant unless they use it. If it's more expensive, they don't. Laws about greener industry don't get introduced because government wants to be involved, but rather because companies generally only do what it legally required of them. And the power of the people in the market is reduced because most people have no idea of who produces what they buy. Even if they do, if it's happening oversea they don't tend to care. They rather have their cheaper product.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Here is the contradiction here. Government wants to introduce green tech, but then other governments devalue themselves to compete in the world (ex. china) but the fact remains that without this devaluation in the first place this green tech might be affordable right here without the need to choose overseas archaic and overpriced products. Think of the practicality, it didn't just happen magically. Also think of the useless unions and regulations we have compared to China.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Useless unions? Unions grow out of hardship and ill-used corporate power. They are a form of revolution.
I think I would find it amusing if you could experience exactly what you want - no government whatsoever. And then watch as the world devolves into some rough equivalent of lords and serfdom.
rivenrock 2 years ago
LOL, so we should not get rid of statism, because it might result in statism.
dude, WTF!
Alexlaird87 2 years ago
Or corporatism, but okay yes - because it would replace statism with another form of statism where there is even less protection for the individual. People on this channel keep talking about tax as violence and law as violence and intervention as violence. I'm saying I'd prefer it not be replaced by ACTUAL violence. Yah, a truly free market, with no law or government...organised crime waiting to happen. Can't wait!
rivenrock 2 years ago
so you don't want to get rid of the government (a group of people who take your money against your will by threatening you with violence) because it MIGHT be replaced with...
...a much smaller, much less powerful group of people who could take your money against your will by threatening you with violence (the mafia).
At least if I defend myself from an extortionist everyone knows that I was morally right. If I did the same to the IRS I would be considered by most people to be in the wrong.
Alexlaird87 2 years ago
"if it's more expensive, they don't"
that's a GOOD thing. That's what the price system is for - to let us know the relative scarcities of things. If something is expensive, it's supposed to reflect its costliness. That's why there should be no interferences in the price system.
The value of clean land increases as some land gets dirtied. Unfortunately, the government itself began favoring businesses by exempting them from paying victims of pollution on their property during the late 1800s
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
This is my problem with all of your ideas. They are sound as far as they go - on a theoretical level I often agree - but for them to work people have to act rationally and responsibly. And they don't tend to do that.
Why military? Can't people defend themselves, or hire people to do it?
rivenrock 2 years ago
"but for them to work people have to act rationally and responsibly."
Not really. the only thing necessary is for people to seek profit in order for it to work. I think it's a safe assumption to make that firms act to make profit, even if that may not be the businessperson's main goal.
And yes this applies to the military as well. The problem with military is that it's supposed to be always ready in case of attack - but in terms of effectiveness,guerilla warfare(defense) is more cost-effective
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
In such a case most of the flock would go back home. (As many immigrants are doing in response to the recession)
Also keep in mind much of the flock will be unskilled labor, and the only people in direct competition would be those without high school diplomas. The decrease in prices of housing and food from cheap labor more than offset any wage reduction that more skilled classes of laborers see.
WorBlux 2 years ago
1. Only temporarily and not necessarily. Producers will cut back marginal factors to maintain a level of profit consistent with other industries. If this is prevented, eventually capital will flee to more profitable production areas. If this is prohibited, then people will not invest any more into the industry and the same effect occur more slowly. To maintain the level over time more and more interventions are necessary.
WorBlux 2 years ago
2. In a situation in which labor is undervalued, it is an invitation for more employers and producers to enter the area and hire people. It is a signal to producer that a resource is being underutilized, and that a profit can be made be bringing labor into fuller utilization.
Steinbeck is not an economic expert in the least. Try Ludwig von Mises "Human Action" for economic understanding.
WorBlux 2 years ago
The Great depression was not due to the workings of a free market. Rather it was the response to very specific types fo government interference.
1. Manipulation of interest rates and the money supply.
2. Wage and price controls.
3. Regulations which were so unpredictable as to discourage almost all investment.
4. High tariffs which increased the cost of materials and capital needed for industrial production.
WorBlux 2 years ago
Yes, the state is a monopoly. And that is why we limit its power.
rivenrock 2 years ago
You'd have to explain how you can limit the powers of a monopoly of violence. You'd have to explain how you can avoid incremental changes to it's benefits. You'd have to explain how you can control the state so that it doesn't act in it's favor. You'd have to explain how you can educate people in an non-biased way towards the state. The incentive for the state to gain power is there and will always be as long as it is based on violence. I have never seen the state retract substantially.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
(Cont) Besides, having a state to begin with, to me sound a little rediculous seeing as how it's services can be replaced very efficiently with market conditions. All roads lead to rome, but only one has the shortest path.
Even if you were to subdue the state to the will of all individuals (which sounds contradictory already), you're still destroying wealth in the process. There is no such thing as a necessary "evil" ; it's just clever way for "evil" to rationalize itself.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Why would I have to explain all of that? No-one else is explaining their wild claims in the other direction.
There are already check and balances in place - and I'm not saying they are 100% effective, but the point is that not every theory of the state is Machiavellian. I can, after, agree that the state has too much power and needs to be made accountable, without having to agree that a total dismantling of the state is 'the answer'.
Regarding services - not as easy as you claim.
rivenrock 2 years ago
who does?
LatinYoung20 2 years ago
Limit it's power? AHAHAHA! The state has never receded. It has been continuelly growing bigger and bigger since its inception. Limiting the power of the state is like trying to infiltrate the KKK and try to turn it into a human rights organization.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Here is what floors me about you. You have such a clear opposition to giving power to the state(rightly or wrongly, not arguing either way) yet you can't grasp the very basic notion that the free market, (because it lends itself to players seeking to hold a monopoly, because we already have corporations who are so big their intake is like the GNP of a small country) will create the same structures of power (and does). Read your Adam Smith. Capitalism was never workable under these conditions.
rivenrock 2 years ago
Corporations are the children of the state. And the larger the internal structure, the more the same inefficiencies they have.(due to problems of economic calculation: no internal price structure)
There is little reason to believe corporate multinationals could long remain without privileges gained though the state.
And the monopolies that do form without such privileges are of no great economic concern, still being governed by two types of competition; non-use and new firm market entry .
WorBlux 2 years ago
A very poingant video, but Stef there is still plenty of room for statism outside of a culture of abuse towards children, just look at a number of modern liberal/progressive families which have good family relations, while at the same time holding on to and imbuing their children with nanny-state values.
TotalAnomy 2 years ago
They make us read this in high school, and I wonder why they would do that - maybe because they want to debunk it right then and there and not have the students really understand its message~
TheLittleBlackBear 2 years ago
very very very very true (times infinity +1)
I liked the end very much! This is completely true, and I wonder why this is the first time I've heard it. Confidence-building and Deep sympathy are the prerequisites for healing, and once you heal, you can start to self-actualize, and stand up to authority... I can confirm this with my relationship to my father 100%, for it is happening right now for me. Thank you for putting everything in such an enlightening perspective!
TheLittleBlackBear 2 years ago
I don't think that there is some sort of deliberate attempt to keep people in their hierarchical place in society, but rather that most people simple raise their children as they have been raised, with all the potentially unexamined flaws and consequences. Therapists have called abuse 'the gift that keeps on giving', because it keeps on being passed on.
I agree with your solutions although you don't need to be abused in order to recieve philosophical insights. Anyone can become insecure.
RoyvanKeulen 2 years ago
I have never read the book. Perhaps I may now. However, I dont think that anyone but the author could possible know what it is really about. As a poet I have often written verse which has confused people to the point where thay have understood my poems wrongly.
CelticReject 2 years ago
0:30, Reagan wasn't assassinated. But they sure as hell tried.
PaperSoapy 2 years ago
thank you I really enjoyed this video, I will pass it on to others, and I'm glad I wasn't sexually or physically abused ever. I'm trying to bring an accused rapist to justice with the help of the police currently. Thanks again! Super looking forward to your schooling series, i've alrdy read several books about it so I'm all the way on your side except for the silly anarchy thing.
Mocoso7 2 years ago
why do you say it's "silly?"
snipa4lyfe 2 years ago
Comment removed
rivenrock 2 years ago
Thanks for the vid Stef!
Robert Scaer is a world leading expert on the effects of Trauma, his book "The Body Bears The Burden: On The Effects Of Trauma" is rather academic
I have seen him interviewed before it was very educational
Perhaps we are all victims of victims???
Brain State Technologies seems to be helping people overcome the effects of trauma but rather expensive at the time being?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Bravo, well said and very moving. I have experienced these 3 types of abusers and it is soul crushing. I became a very good worker so you can guess my personal experience as a child.
Again well said..
azgartd123 2 years ago
I'm wondering what class children who have suffered all three types of abuse fall into as adults.
xxlem0nade 2 years ago
My comment is not about molestation, rather about verbal and psychological abuse. I've actually never been around anyone who has acknowledged that I'm a victim rather than attempted to blame me for being a victim.
RLore18 2 years ago
I find this interesting because even though I suffered relatively little abuse from my parents and other adults when I was young, I still (as a fifteen year old reading Catcher in the Rye for the first time) related to it deeply. I think this can be attributed to two things - the fact that I still felt that powerlessness that I think most kids experience (even good adults are still the adults and you the kid) and because I had only realised the year previous how much adults lie to children.
rivenrock 2 years ago 2
12:20 , the medicine for this problem is marijuana. These plants are the rememdy! we dont need hierachy xx
NeuroParadise 2 years ago
id love to have him over for diner one day .... convo!
NeuroParadise 2 years ago
I teach this novel in my 10 grade classes, and have never, never focused on this...or, I think, I would have been called in 'on the carpet' in the admin office....truly....
marypoppins2009 2 years ago
Stef referred to the assassination of Ronald Reagan, not the _attempted_ assassination of Ronald Reagan, he obviously knows about the robot we put in to replace him. It's only a matter of time before he figures out the real reason why nobody has seen Barak's real birth certificate.
newperve 2 years ago
So why did he become a recluse? Just because we did not listen? Because he revealed his possible dark past as a victim?
Your explanation is reasonable. I blamed his attitude towards the world, and in part, I am correct. It was up to Caufield to overcome. Easier said than done. Certainly, if he was abused his task was greater than his ability. Beyond forgivable.
The extent of the abuse in question. He was admired while sleeping 20 times? Would that be enough dramatic cause?
Great video.
mrethrift 2 years ago
Thank you
deadman12078 2 years ago
How do you know the book is popular among assassins? How do you research that? :-)
zardozcs 2 years ago
You have lost all your credibility with me.
The same effects that Holden goes through could also be attributed to his own latency and inability to cope with it. Although it is fashionable to call teenagers children, they are not. Holden is not a child, he is an adolescent.
Larkinchance 2 years ago
He is at an age where one is about to be confronted with aspects of sexuality, not all traditional or personal choice. No one can be protected from this, it happens to every one without exception. You are saying that this confusion could make one a murder because of your own outrage towards anything but heterosexuality.
Larkinchance 2 years ago
Thanks
Adipatus 2 years ago
Perhaps you'd like to judge Oscar Wilde as well? Along with the Christian Americans, you have jumped onto the same bandwagon of sexual abuse everywhere. In the United States, the largest age group of child molesters is 14years old. The second is 15 and then 13.
Libertarian that you claim to be you should approve that the US now has 700,000 sex offenders registered for life and a large number of them, ....Children.. are you happy now?
Larkinchance 2 years ago 3
i read catcher in the rye in high school, back then I didn't read into a lot of the content. Thanks Stef for reminding me of the details, it goes to show that content can really go over our heads if we're not prepared or properly primed with the context.
AnonSubHuman 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Also I don't understand this. I thought you were a big anarcho-capitalist. Yet you claim to be against hierarchies? I thought capitalism in it's true form is hierarchies on steroids? Letting the rich and power become as rich and powerful as possible and the less fortunate to become as poor and disenfranchised as possible.
fathead8489 2 years ago
Government is Heireichy on 'roids. And crack. And LSD for hallucinations.
DasGuntLord01 2 years ago
Maybe. But no defender the democratic state will say that. Capitalists on the other hand will boast about how capitalism is hierarchy on steroids. I read Rand. It's all about letting the most privileged and "fit" to become to leaders and the elite, while letting the "unfit" and unprivileged starve.
Yes today I am told that capitalist are actually against hierarchy? I'm more interesting in knowing what people think then winning an argument. I want to know what you people think about hierarchy.
fathead8489 2 years ago
I'm not "for" or "against" hierarchies, I simply recognise them as an inescapable fact that will always be present in any social situation.
I would prefer, however, a more natural hierarchical system that is not violently imposed, but, rather, the result of voluntary associations.
Any attempt to remove hierarchy from the human equation (socialism) only result in a deeper hierarchical devide that is just as bad as an imposed class system.
Cailwyn 2 years ago 3