|
|
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 dmaestroRight. "That has affected the West greatly for a long time." A fact is that societal movements often begin in the US before appearing in others countries. But it doesn't imply that it's all due to US influence. It's also that US has been in advance in technology (having TV in all the houses before, having Internet widespread befor the toher nations, etc. It's logical that the effects of those technologies on the society (consumerism, individualism...) appear first where they are more widespread. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 19-Aug-19, 21:14 |
A lot of what the 60’s stood for was silly. But at the center, was correct and necessary> Instead of accusing thumper of not getting the point, I think we should realise that he just cynically pointed out that "silly" part of the 60's movement. At least that's the way I read it and understood it. For people (like me), who lived through it as (young) adults, it also carries a lot of deja vu, memories and nostalgia. Vietnam was the first war that people could "watch" while sitting in their homes. The horrors of war became very real for the first time for many ordinary people. In America, the 60's movement was also an awakening from the McCarthy hysteria of the 50's. I would think, but I am not sure, that the American Left was actually born with the 60's movement. May be I am wrong- if so, please correct me. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 19-Aug-19, 22:19 |
< Sliding around naked in the mud is probably pretty fun. > I'll just remind you of the 60's slogan: MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 19-Aug-19, 22:37 |
Well, if his record of "making love" is that much of your liking, I guess that is OK - and none of my business. I am not a priest of morality, but I think liking Trump "so much" on that basis is somewhat questionable |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 19-Aug-19, 23:06 |
The 60's movement included a whole lot of stupid things. It was a pendulum swinging the other way from the stupidity of the 50's. People have that tendency - either black or white. No good in between, because it ain't sexy enough. |
|||||||||
|
thumper Not that simple : Hard work : I seriously question it. At the time of your Grand parents, if you worked in a factory, you worked around 15 days for the shareholders. Now it's 2 months ! Family values : the woman had no right to refuse herself to her husband (who merited some good time after hard work !) - One had to make as many children as possible, to spread our values. The motto of collaborationist regime in France during WW2 was : "work, family, fatherland" |
|||||||||
|
ptitroque |
|||||||||
|
thumper |
|||||||||
|
Thumper But caution is necessary. All too often, hard work ethic can become corporate wage slave. And family values can easily become MY family values and the rest of you are perverts and evil. And honestly, what’s wrong with peace, love and dope? They’re not antithetical in any way to your values. But it is telling that you see peace, love and dope as the opposite of hard work, family values and honesty. Can you elucidate? |
|||||||||
|
ptitroque |
|||||||||
|
Z That's not what I said. <All too often, hard work ethic can become corporate wage slave. And family values can easily become MY family values and the rest of you are perverts and evil.> Interesting how you twist what I said into something else. |
|||||||||
|
Thumper Yes, I suppose that my views are more base on collective approach than yours. I'll try to precise my thoughts but it's not simple and I've no time for an accurate answer just now. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Aug-19, 09:32 |
I actually don't think your values differ that much. May be in relative emphasis on individual and collective? Right wing conservatives may be more prone to individual values and rights; left wing perhaps more to collective values. Is this a correct assessment? |
|||||||||
|
zorroloco 20-Aug-19, 09:34 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 20-Aug-19, 09:39.
|
|||||||||
|
Thumper You said “Between the peace, love, dope crowd trying to influence me and my grandfathers example of honesty, hard work and family values... I went with my grandfathers example. It's never let me down.” You contrasted the two sets of values. You appear see them in opposition. You had to choose one or the other. I never saw it that way. I adopted all of them. I’m a very hard worker, honest to a fault, care for my family and community, and espouse love and peace. And I smoke a lot of dope. And i didn’t say you said that other. I said it happens. Which it does. Good work ethic gets abused by companies and corporations seeking to maximize profits. And many people do use the rubric ‘family values ‘ as code for their particular values. Relax. Not everything is a personal attack |
|||||||||
|
dmaestro 20-Aug-19, 11:24 |
|
|||||||||
|
Values The trouble is, that, like the robots of Asimov, there's always a point when you have to chose between 2 values, and in fact, we do it all the time, except but there comes a point where we are no more conscious about it, for the repeated choices are integrated. This constitute and ideology. @ Thumper : I'll try to explain how I see things (it's purely personal and I do not pretend to give lessons to anybody...) When we're born, we are a complex arrangement of molecules. Let's make the hypothesis that there is no God, no soul (I do not deny that there is one but this is another question, for another thread). What makes me human ? The fact that I'm recognized as such by other humans (BTW, the religions, all have some rythes which confers you the statute of human, adult...). First my mother, then the family then the people around me. This means that, the more I have contacts of cooperation and goodwill with other humans, as different as possible, the more human I'll be. And it's the same for everybody ! And it's something which, the more you share, the more you get in return ! This is the general idea of Albert Jacquard (as I've understood it ), I'll post links. |
|||||||||
|
Values Kropotkin (he was biologist before becoming an anarchist theoretician), gives plenty of example in the nature of species which had evolved on the base of cooperation, insects, fishes, mammals... The cooperation has proved to work well, and be at the very least, less efficient than the competition. True at the scale of one person, true at the scale of the nations. The more you isolate some people, the less open they will be, the higher the risks of war. The more you connect with people, the more collective intelligence you produce collectively. I know that it doesn't work so in the world in the moment (although plenty of experiences exist everywhere), so that a political system based on this notion is not possible on the moment but I can try to favor it in my life. Malatesta, Italian anarchist leader said that anarchy (system based on freewill, no coercion) will never cease to be under construction. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Aug-19, 20:43 |
The more we have of that the better we understand one another and the smaller the risk of aggression and dispute. I think this is the basic reason for why "globalisation" is such a positive trend. |
|||||||||
|
But this cannot and will not be forced upon free nations. It is dangerous to try to force it, and it will not lead to a peaceful outcome. Also, the goal seems to be a global outcome of equality which will never be achieved. Competition is natural and will not be repressed in our lifetime. If I can do better by my abilities I will. And I will not accept a system that aims to reduce my outcome for the benefit of those who will not try as hard or achieve as much. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Aug-19, 21:15 |
<And I will not accept a system that aims to reduce my outcome for the benefit of those who will not try as hard or achieve as much. > I don't think anyone accepts such a system. This is how a "socialist" (social democrat, liberal) system is often depicted by people on the right. But it is a total misunderstanding. A good society is built in such a way that the opportunity for success is as equal as possible. This goal can be approached by having society finance all education. So, yes, I will pay tax to make that work and allow people from a poor background to be educated. I will pay that tax gladly, because it is - in a sense - payment for what I and my children have received ourselves from society. In a similar vein a good society "buffers" the cost of healthcare in such a way that the total cost is divided among all society members (as taxation). This does not exclude private healthcare at all, which anyone can have who can afford it and/or have a insurance pay for it. It is a very fair system, because - generally speaking - disease is not self-inflicted and some healthcare procedures are extremely expensive. |
|||||||||
|
We all pay taxes in the USA to pay for a certain level of education, whether or not we have children. The healthcare issue is another matter that will only further split this discussion into different avenues. But many diseases are self inflicted. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Aug-19, 21:55 |
Yes? Do you see me laughing? < But many diseases are self inflicted. > Some are, actually only very few are. To sort out whether self-inflicted or not would be idiotic. Also self-inflicted diseases - due to smoking, drinking, eating etc - cannot (must not) be given as a burden to the individuals themselves. The disease itself is enough burden. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Aug-19, 22:04 |
I was laughing already about that statement, which is obviously false. Let's take a young man from the "rat-infested" back-lanes of Baltimore. Yes, I said BACK! What are his options/opportunities to get a doctorate in medicine? OK, nothing is impossible! He could get grants and stipends to study at Johns Hopkins, but what are his chances to achieve that relative to this other guy from the other side of the city, whose father pays all his expenses and secures his studies? |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
