Last week, my colleague Leander Kahney got sliced and diced pretty good by a lot of you readers who objected to a column he wrote suggesting that Steve Jobs is no Bill Gates when it comes to charitable good works.
For myself, I couldn't care less. One free-market pirate pretty much looks like another one, no matter how much he doles out to ease his conscience or buy his way into heaven. The issue for me is you, dear reader, and your blind hero worship. What gives with that, anyway?
You know who you are. You're the guy who shows up faithfully at every Macworld convention, camping out to be first in line for Jobs' keynote. You hang on every syllable the great man utters, as words like "genius" and "God" fall from your lips. Jeez, the Deadheads weren't that servile when they were following Jerry Garcia around.
One reader, responding to Kahney's column, referred to Jobs as a "Saviour," with a capital S and the British u, bestowing on the word a sort of creepy, quasi-biblical connotation. Look, Jobs revived (or, in keeping with the theme, "resurrected") a for-profit, stockholder-beholden company. That's all. Well, bully for him. He didn't walk on water, although a lot of you seem to believe that he can. He's Jobs, OK? Not Job.
In the same vein, another reader had this to say: "Steve Jobs has contributed far more than Leander Kahney. Jobs has sold products that enriched the lives of millions of people. What has Kahney done? What right has Kahney to judge the actions of Jobs?"
Well, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says Kahney has every right to judge the actions of Jobs, a public figure, just as you have every right to judge Kahney or me or anyone else who publicly expresses an opinion. Has this country slipped so far into its evangelical dark age (or, if you hit from the right side of the plate, the Age of Craven Political Correctness) that we're afraid to say what we think, afraid of ruffling a few feathers? What weak sperm we are.
But I digress. What I want to know is why guys who manufacture computers or make software are worthy of being elevated to near-deity status by you techno-utopians. Technology, this manna from heaven that was supposed to free us from our chains, has done nothing of the sort. On the contrary, while computer technology may increase personal productivity, it's only complicated the nature of class struggle by eliminating jobs, weakening labor unions and dispersing workers. Meanwhile, the few still reap enormous wealth from the labor of the many. To a large degree, we have Gates and Jobs to thank for that.
Not all of you share my humanistic philosophy, I know. Here's one of Kahney's readers who clearly doesn't:
"Good for both those guys (Gates and Jobs) for making a buck. More power to them! Welcome to America, bud -- you earn it, you keep it or give it away. It is theirs to decide how to dispose of that income."
Aside from a profound difference in values, my problem here is with the word "earn." How do you know they "earned" their money? Because they're sitting on a pile of gold? Did Gates earn his money fairly? How? By using ruthless (and probably illegal) tactics to dominate the market? By stealing ideas and pawning them off as his own? By flooding the shelves with mediocre products and browbeating vendors into selling them, at the expense of some smaller company offering a better mousetrap?
History shows us that very few smokestack barons, railroad kings, mining magnates, real-estate moguls or software gurus came by their wealth cleanly or honestly. Yes, many rose from humble backgrounds, some started their businesses in a garage, but people have a way of changing once they've tasted wealth. Those who scrambled to the top of the heap were almost always those willing to be the biggest bastards in a society of cutthroats. I suppose that does qualify, in some minds, as having "earned" your money, but how do you admire such an ethos? This is where Ayn Rand and her merry band of objectivists execute their major pratfall.
The point is, while you might believe that Apple or Microsoft or some other company produces things that make your life worth living, worshipping at the feet of their captains is misplaced. In the end, who cares whether Gates gives away millions or that Jobs does or doesn't? It's easy to have billions and give away millions, because you're not really sacrificing a thing. Besides, noblesse oblige is to be expected, not admired.
I'll save my admiration for the guy making minimum wage who still finds the time and a few bucks to help someone less fortunate than he is. Or the schoolmarm who teaches your children how to read. Or the doctor who provides affordable medical care to a needy community instead of setting up a lucrative practice in Beverly Hills. "Hero" is a word that's bandied about a little too casually these days, but there are still real heroes out there. Almost without exception, though, you've never heard of them.
- - -
Tony Long is copy chief at Wired News and is nobody's patsy. Unless love is involved.
