Quote:
Originally posted by troutman@Sep 30 2004, 02:43 PM
I can't help but think of my college philosophy courses:
Jean Jacques Rousseau:
"Let us return to nature."
"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'" -- Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1755
The theory of the 'noble savage'
Rousseau contended that man was good by nature, a "noble savage" when in the state of nature (the state of all the "other animals", and the condition humankind was in before the creation of civilization and society), but is corrupted by society. He viewed society as artificial and held that the development of society, especially the growth of social interdependence, has been inimical to the well-being of human beings. (wikipedia.org)
Karl Marx:
Marx was especially concerned with how people relate to that most fundamental resource of all, their own labor-power. Marx wrote extensively about this in terms of the problem of alienation. As with the dialectic, Marx began with a Hegelian notion of alienation but developed a more materialist conception. For Marx, the possibility that one may give up ownership of one's own labor — one's capacity to transform the world — is tantamount to being alienated from one's own nature; it is a spiritual loss. Marx described this loss in terms of commodity fetishism, in which people come to believe that it is the very things that they produce that are powerful, and the sources of power and creativity, rather than people themselves. He argued that when this happens, people begin to mediate all their relationships among themselves and with others through commodities. (wikipedia.org)
|
Wow. This is getting good!!
My simple example of one cow/two cows provided evidence that this isn't a white man/western culture thing. That was the point.
Having established that, are we actually disagreeing?
This is the paragraph of mine you objected to:
Interesting but not particularly valid since it ignores human nature, the human part of us that wants more. The trickle down effect of globalization in places like China and India is becoming obvious. As is the hunger in those places for more.
I don't think I was objecting to the notion that cultures developed without the notion of property rights or the motivation for property rights.
I said once exposed to cultures that DO have the motivation built in, that most times that motivation is transferred quite readilly to the "purer" culture. Its a clean kill.
And it's an easy transfer because the motivation was probably there all the time but without an outlet.
Cow, about the `growth` of the economy, suppose the global economy produced in year 2003 two apples and three oranges. In year 2004 it produced 3 apples and 2 oranges. Did the economy grew, fell or remained the same? Are we better off, worse off or remained the same? And why is growth good?
You're worse off. This is the issue that came up between 2002 and 2003 when corporate earnings were ostensibly zooming but coming off a seriously eroded base. Same thing.
The IMF report concluded the globe was advancing at its fastest pace since 1973. Obviously, the global economy is far larger than in 1973 but that wasn't the comparison.
It should be interesting to know that in about 1973, global stock markets fell about 50%, similar to the 2000-2002 period. It's an interesting similarity.
Why is growth good? It might depend on your perspective. In North America, where we all have cell phones, cars, a roof over our heads, etc, you might put less of a premium on it than you would in a place like India where those things would be considered luxuries.
A woman in India might consider a USA call center opening there to be an unbelievable blessing, perhaps even the difference between life and death.
In Nova Scotia, a call center opening is the difference between a low paying job and welfare or working at 7/11.
Perspective would place a value on why growth is good.
Did I tell you guys I'm busy today? I got too many arguments going on.
Cowperson