Thanks for the reply Apone, sorry about the late response, I've been kind of busy.
I've given you absolutely no reason to think that I would be against taking action there-- mostly because theirs is a desperate situation-- and radical action suits desperate situations. My point is that I don't think that the western economic crisis requires radical action.. at least, not the kind of radical action that you seem to be supporting.
Quite the contrary in fact, iirc you suggested earlier that you were actually in favor of taking action in Africa, and that's exactly why I used it as an example, essentially to show that "that's just reality" could apply there as well. You say you don't think the western economic crisis requires the type of radical action that I seem to be supporting... what is it you think I'm supporting exactly? I did acknowledge that the change would probably take a while, (hence the intermediate step I suggested) in the end though don't you think that everyone should have the same knowledge and access to the mechanisms for generating wealth? Even if you're dead set on insisting that people should be poor cogs in the machine because they couldn't think of anything else to do with their time. If we're going to educate people for wage-labor jobs in our schools, don't you think we should at least highlight an option or direction to choose otherwise? Personally I think even the poorest of Americans can be wealthy, and NOT because of wealth redistribution, but because of an awareness that their lives and their dreams are more valuable than the jobs they do. Employment should exist for the mutual benefit of the employees, but it has only widely grown to breed dependence, and at times, desolation. I'm saying we can make it better.
As for the suggestion that western wealth, and western charity are connected, I think muir is right they seem to be on some level, I know the economic crisis caused a lot of charities to suffer. I can see how pretty much everything is interconnected.
Or maybe some people are just more practical than others. Real craftsmanship tends to be expensive, and sometimes the mass-produced option is actually better suited to your needs.
I'd hate to think being more practical makes one less interested in quality or morality, but I would stand by the idea that expense is only an issue when money is an issue. I'm sure the honey badger wouldn't care.
And your entire argument seems to rest on the notion that whatever these money generating enterprises are, they're definitely going to succeed and definitely provide valuable contributions to society...
They already exist, and typically the wealthy use them all the time, because it's a different way of thinking... create something that makes money for you, rather than making money using yourself. There are already plenty of things in society that pay people residually already, these things I'm suggesting aren't anything new, I'm not talking about some crazy scheme I dreamed up, but a simple shift in focus. What will result from it may be new and radical when people realize they don't have to sell themselves short on their lives because it's what they're 'supposed to do.' When people will think "what kind of income would suit my life and my dreams best?" Rather than, "How do I make myself valuable to the corporate world?"
As we shift in focus to think this way, the corporate world will by necessity clean up it's act in terms of treatment of employees, and those corporations who don't will simply perish, furthermore, as more and more people begin to escape wage slavery into pursuing lives of their own interest, while human wage labor, will become more and more scarce, and more and more valuable. Until the amount of free people pursuing types of employment out of personal interest will be enough to meet demand.
I also don't think that the corporations are standing in everyone's way or indoctrinating anyone or keeping anyone down-- they're powerful and they have a lot of slick and effective advertising, but there are some pretty sharp kids out there and I don't think that everyone is as sheepish and indoctrinated as the enlightened freedom fighters of the world would like to believe.
lol! Things are hardly ever that conspiratorial. Corporations (and sometimes many individuals) act on self-interest. You becoming happy, wealthy and free holds no sway with them, and I would say the problem with corporations is exactly that. Indifference. So let's think about this, we have a handful of employees entirely dependent upon a monolith that's entirely indifferent to them. (almost sounds like an abusive human relationship) Can you imagine the kind of problems this can create?
I'm sure that it's comforting to believe that the rich are responsible for all of the world's/your problems-- because it eliminates accountability and it makes you feel justified in demanding more from others instead of actually trying to accomplish more for yourself... but while you're demanding fixes and discussing ideas, other people are out there accomplishing things for themselves. If you ask me, OWS is actually a big part of the defeatist thinking and 'programming' of which you seem to be so contemptuous... by convincing the world that the solution was talk and complaint, they've managed to eliminate thousands of potential business competitors.
Actually I (kindof) agree with you here. I think OWS (or some people in it at least) can be a little defeatist, but I can see the value of people displaying frustrations. If there were no OWS after all, we might have people arguing that people might not really be so frustrated as some others say.
The public voicing of grievances has a lot of value in itself I think.
Anyway, I agree, everyone is responsible for their own future, if they are willing to face themselves and choose to struggle after their dreams, or take the path of least resistance is entirely up to them. The point I've taken up, and where I think the OWS comes from, however, is that in this regard,
struggle, should not be the bottom line. Don't you agree?
