For those who take seriously the admonitionnthat we are to care for onenanother, the only valid response is tongive of their own substance so thatnothers may benefit. True, if such givingnwere indiscriminate, it would also doninjury to the work ethic. That sort ofnindiscriminate giving, though, is muchnless likely to occur in private charitynthan in government handouts. Mostnpeople—whether they support a foundationnor simply contribute to theirnchurch or the Salvation Army—are verynmuch aware that the best help you canngive someone is to help him help himself.nThe morality issue in income redistributionnis, of course, resolved. Ifnwe choose to heed the Biblical commandsnregarding aid for the poor, thenchoice is ours. We do not face the alternativenof imprisonment if we do notncooperate, which means the choice isna genuine choice! That is, we can choosenbetween more for ourselves and morenfor someone else. When the choice isnbetween less for ourselves (as imprisonmentnwould be) and more for someonenelse, the choice is hardly a genuinenone. As an aside, it is interesting tonexamine the Biblical commandmentsnbecause so many socialists are fond ofnclaiming that God is on the side of redistribution.nThese commands, fromnboth Old and New Testaments, arenaimed at individuals, not governments.nI have yet to find an injunction whichnsays “take from your neighbor and givento the poor.”nThe question of income redistributionnis central to socialist and Marxistnthought. It is the underlying themenwhich is supposed to vindicate the tortures,nmurders and confiscatory schemesnof a myriad of two-bit tyrants. After all,ncan we not forgive a few such acts ifnthe end result is to help the poor.? Thisntype of sloppy thinking, of failure tonlay out the real issues, allows a lot ofnnonsense to be taken seriously. Such isnclearly the case with Mr. Harrington’snwork. Harrington, though, stumblesnon more stones than these. He alsontrips over the reasoning of Marx. Henassumes the “structural flaws” Marxnsaid existed in capitalism without analyzingntheir validity. He goes on to beatnthe drum for a reorganization of theneconomy along essentially Marxist lines,npresumably without realizing that Marxnneeded a new type of creature to makenhis system work.nIn all, Harrington’s book is a primenOur Poky Little UniversenAnn Beattie: Falling in Place; RandomnHouse; New York.nJohanna Kaplan: O My America.’;nHarper & Row; New York.nStuart Dybek: Childhood and OthernNeighborhoods; Viking Press; NewnYork.nby Gary S. VasilashnXeter Frampton is a British rocknstar (or superstar or whatever his stellarnappellation) who is quite important to ancharacter in Ann Seattle’s Falling innPlace. Indeed, Mary Knapp, 15, wearsna Frampton T-shirt, plays his records,nand kisses and caresses his poster image.nAs rock stars go, Frampton is good-looking:nblond curly hair, pool-like eyes, anboyish face and a slight build—therencan be little wonder that young girlsn”fall” for Frampton since he resemblesna Sir Galahad, and he even tends tonplay up the knightly image at timesn(e.g., his girlfriend is termed his “ladynlove”). But the Sir Galahad of today isndifferent from the one in the days ofnyore, when a knight defended a worldnfor the sake of purity. The originalnGalahad died a virgin; he would be asncommon in today’s rock world as thenunicorn. And there are no unicorns innFalling in Place.nFrampton is not the only hero out ofnMr. Vasilash is associate editor 0/ManufacturingnEngineering magazine.nnnexample of socialist thought, whichnmeans it is the same, old, tired stuff.nHeilbroner is a different matter. If anreader takes the time to work his waynthrough this thin but dense volume, angood understanding of Marx can benobtained. Now, there is good reason tonquestion just how much that is worth,nbut if you want it—Heilbroner has it. Dnreal life for the young characters in thennovel. A checklist—or a few back issuesnof People magazine—is almost necessarynfor keeping track of them. DianenVon Furstenburg and other members ofnthe haute-couture set are there, too, innthe New Haven, Connecticut dreams.nMary’s girlfriend Angela, who is doingnher damnedest to be violated (by wearingnthe tightest clothes she can squeezenover her budding body and by drinkingnvodka out of a flask on the way to anparty so she’ll be more loquacious withnthe boys), worships the jet set. And sheneven performs a ritual sacrifice eachnday to their images in Vogue, Cosmopolitannand the rest. That is:nShe was waiting exactly half an hour,nas she always did after dinner, for thenfood to settle in her stomach, but notnto be digested. Then she would turnnup the volume on the stereo and goninto the bathroom and stick her fingerndown her throat to vomit so she wouldnstay thin.nThe rationale.” ” ‘Models do it.’ Angelansaid. ‘Lots of people do it.’ ” Lots ofnpeople who aren’t 15 years old.nFrampton and Von Furstenburg representntrends, sotial ephemera. WhennMs. Beattie was writing about Frampton,nhe was at his apogee of success. Henhas since fallen into a black hole, replacednby what are termed “New Wave”nmusicians, who are now being usherednout by the post-punk rockers. And whilenVon Furstenburg and those of her silknilk seem firmly established, it is un-nIVovembcr/Dcccmber 1980n