Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
[snip]
> back to your original quote of Brecht
> from "Galileo" he specifically states that if the peasants stopped revolving
> around the aristocracy and the a. around the bishops etc. this sounds like
> a system of stratification which the coming of communism displaced so that
> almost no one revolved around the aristocracy (except for Great Britain and
> other left over monarchies). But communism failed also and here we are at
> the brink of a new millennium with the world all enraptured in a
> capitalistic system. Now capitalism can only work if some folks are
> wealthier than others -- agreed?
[snip]
Lots of issues here!
Did the world see any *significant* amount of *communism* in the 20th century?
I don't think so. What it saw mainly was Leninism made even more
paranoid than it intrinsically was by its [correct] perception that
the West was out to exterminate it. The name for the upshot was Stalinism.
Probably social stratification did diminish in many ways during
the 20th Century. I believe an "untouchable" recently became Prime
Minister of India. However, it would still surely be an awkward moment
before the security guards arrived if a clerk walked into the
meeting of the Board of Directors and started chatting with everybody.
"Capitalism". What do we mean by capitalism? Surely our present
regime of wage labor requires not only that some be wealthier than
others, but that most be barred from independent access to the
means of production. But might we not also imagine a world
in which wage labor was *outlawed*, a world in which all persons
were independent producers, and *all* exchanged with others
in the way that, e.g., a self-employed electrician and a
self-employed plumber might interact, or a self-employed
lawyer and a self-employed dentist? Might this have been
the ideal of the founding fathers of the United States? Well,
that should give some substance to Bush's emphasis on "purpose"....
> > Another question: How might Cuba have turned out ha the United States
> > not done everything in its power to starve the Cuban people into
> > overthrowing Castro? We know that, at first, Castro was generally
> > receptive toward the United States, but for obvious reasons he was
> > forced to turn to the Soviet Union.
>
> I think what you write above about Cuba is based on hindsight rather than
> foresight.
I had those thoughts in 1969, when I subscribed to Granma and even
papered my living room wall with it.
> Whenever embargos are placed on a country (like Sadam Hussein's
> Iraq) the intention is to weaken the political power with the added plight
> of starving the innocent bystanders. Perhaps both in Cuba and Iraq the
> intention was to overthrow the government but in neither case did it work --
> in Iraq, Hussein's allegience lies with his family; Cuba faired a bit better
> in that Castro tended to the poor folk and gave everyone a subsistance level
> existence;
If one can say this of Castro even after how his regime was
persecuted by its big bully neighbor, that sounds like he did pretty
decent. Did Batista do better for the poor folk?
[snip]
> But now that the SU is
> non-existant
[snip]
I cannot resist repeating something I thought when the
devolution of the Soviet system started: How proud the West
(esp. the Reaganomic USA!) should be to have so dramatically
improved the lives of all the people in former Communist
captivity! It seems we are going to reap the rewards of
our altruism by the plague of antibiotic resistant
tuberculosis which is now raging in free Russia coming to
our shores.
There are many "little people" who miss the bad old days in
Eastern Europe and Russia.
[snip]
> Well, I remember Warren Beaty in Reds and although the movie was upbeat,
> that socialistic way of maintaining the world works in a particular agrarian
> economy. But when the economy becomes technological, the playing field
> changes.
[snip]
Interesting. I learned it the other way around: The Russian Revolution
failed largely because Russia was still an agrarian economy. Soviets
flourish in factories, not in the fields. I think the outcome might have
been better had Russia and Germany switched places, and the successful
revolution have occurred in the advanced industrial country instead of the
still largely medieval one.
[snip]
> > It would even be a start if more
> > PhDs had some "scholarship", and not just mastery or some
> > disciplinary domain (an "art" or "science").
>
> Great! Looks as though I've hit upon a common front! And yes, the
> educational system in the US needs major reform. We're churning out a bunch
> of ill trained PhDs who can't write and many who can't read. And in my
> book, that's absolutely HORRIBLE!
[snip]
My only disagreement here is that these PhDs are very *well trained*.
They just aren't [humanistically] *educated*. They don't need to be
able to express themselves in "ordinary language". The only things
they need to write are computer programs and other abstract
notations. This they can do very well. And they can read
the same notations quite well, also. What I presume you mean is
that they have little of [humanistic] value to say, and little
interest in this fact. I look upon the teaching of engineering ethics
in engineering programs as a hopeful sign. I also think recent
efforts to rehabilitate "rhetoric" (e.g., by Carlo Ginzburg) as
hopeful. To repeat some words I saw in someone's email sig:
Data is not information.
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
I also recently saw someone describe themselves as
engaged in a profession which might provide a label for
some of the not-exactly-expertise we so desperately need.
He called himself a:
Deconsultant
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [log in to unmask]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
|
