: : But are you to blame for what you *do*? Being born black is what you are, being born Rich is what you do- difference.
: Explain how a chiled 'does' being rich? Is he 'guilty' by not immediately giving out the wealth upon reaching whatever age?
SDF: No, actually RD has it misphrased above, it's GETTING rich is what you do. And getting rich is accomplished, basically, through the extraction of surplus labor from the "poor." Creating the "poor" occurs through the creation of slums, a matter of the impersonal operations of the capitalist system. The charity of the rich will not solve this problem, as I've explained here, so if you keep offering this as the solution to the problem of "guilt," we'll continue to say "no".
: : Erm, but you have accepted the notion of totality, gee, that its all one big system, so the one kid is rich *because* the other is poor.
: Never suggested a causal relationship that means you trace a poor persons 'poorness' to a rich persons 'richness' in any way which implies cuplibility. No contradictions.
SDF: I think RD's point is that some people are "poor" because others are, relatively speaking, "rich". RD, being a semiotician, is probably focusing upon the comparative content of word meaning. I don't think RD's comment is aimed directly at a discussion of the creation of wealth or slums. Oh well, I agree here with Gee in that I would have preferred substance over style too.