- Capitalism and Alternatives -

No, it couldnt.

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on May 04, 1999 at 13:30:37:

In Reply to: Could it be only an illusion that wealth has grown? posted by Anne on May 04, 1999 at 12:29:57:

: *This is where participatory democracy would come into play. We would have to implement a method where everyone has their say, rather than elected officials.

I would like that. but why not dimply do away with state and have everyone 'having their say' by being sovereign individuals?

: * I doubt that the majority of Germany's citizens felt that this country was acting in the best interests of the collective good.

Enough of them were, and that is all it takes. most of the others 'let it happen' and avoided blame in that way. In a sense I can see their position.

: Certain people did, and they used force,propaganda, and fear to pursue their own self-interests. I don't consider there to be many individual freedoms in Nazi Germany in the first place. Perhaps you could provide some examples.

Poeple favoured by the state were 'allowed' to act freely- as long as those freedoms were in line with what the state wanted. in this sesne you are right - there can be no freedom.

: * How is that so? Could it be only an illusion that wealth has grown? Or maybe it's because we are stripping more and more of our planet and selling it off as our own. Sure the standard of living has increased for some, but I don't believe that wealth has increased at all.

Wealth. If 100kg of steel once made a plough which fed 100 people, and a technologically more advanced plough that feeds 200 is made has wealth increased? yes, the same 100kg of material has produced more wealth. it is by changing the form or materials that people have created wealth - and the trend has been toward greater efficiency (ie more wealh per material)

: * The picture in your head though, is it male or female.

Both. Really, I am not lying.

: How about when you hear the word God? What image is in your head?

Actually I think of church goers rather than an image of god.

: My point is that most people, regardless of gender, perceive the majority of the world's population as male when they have a mental image, and this sends a very powerful message as to the inequalities between the two sexes.

If they do then I can perceive the problem too. Changing the language doesnt do it though. Changing the underlying view of others (from lumping them together in collectivised masses, to considering each upon their own merits) would.

: * Not that it is invalidated, but that you couldn't possibly understand because you have never been the minority in an oppressed group. I'm sure that if you gave it some really profound, honest thought, your conclusion would be the same as mine.

My conclusion is the one above - move away from thinking in terms of groups, majorities, minorities, races, sexes, heights etc. the language does not have to change - thats just painting over rust, a pointless exercise.

ML King put it well.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup