From: Ascmjk@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 17:06:23 BST
In a message dated 9/7/2004 10:28:55 PM Central Standard Time, ajb102@psu.edu
writes:
But another question emerges. If one sees history, politcal science, American
government and the "like" (from an American perspective) as irrelvant or "not
important", should it be "required" as necessary to function (and make
informed
decisions) in our present system.
I can tell you I am on the fence with this, but my feeling is that few younger
people see the importance of being educated in our (or international) history.
And yet this is "key" to functioning in a global society, or voting
intelligently in local/federal elections.
So, do we enforce certain aspects of the curriculae, or do we allow those who
choose to remain uninformed to have equal say in "the system"? I ask this only
rhetorically, to suggest a point.
I think there will always be young people (and old people) with zero interest
in history, or for that matter, thier very future. History will always be
avaliable to those who seek it out. Certainly our ancestors managed to find
history, and they didn't have the internet. History is easier than ever before to
find. Those who want to know will seek it out.
Arlo:
The problem here is that you have fully bought into the myth of "altruistic
capitalism". Remember history, "capitalists" did not create a "better
society",
they created Dickens-esque industrial, enslaved wastelands.
Jon:
I should point out that my initial post was only semiserious. It was
knee-jerk sarcasm triggered, briefly, by a line I saw in Comrade McWatt's "free
market" post. The line that triggered it was: (paraphrase)"it is moral for social
patterns to financially support intellectual patterns." I extrapolated from
that, and came up with this question: "Should those with superior intellects be
financially supported by those who value their social life more than the power
of their minds?"
As for altruistic capitalism, that's interesting. I think altruism is far
more common in socialist thought, and capitalists tend to be more pragmatic.
Arlo:
"Capitalism" is concerned only with the acquisition of wealth,
and the idea that "the market" or general altruism keeps the market "fair" is
a
myth, evident to any student of history. Some may say "things are different
now, *now* unfettered capitalism won't do those things", I say hogwash.
Jon:
Again, you won't hear many capitalists discussing concepts such as "altruism"
unless they are having philosophical conversations with Marxist sympathizers.
Also, some may say "Things are different now, Communism done *right* will
work splendidly." I say hogwash.
Arlo:
We need a "free market", most certainly, but we cannot depend on "the market"
or
the capitalists themselves to keep it "free". I will no doubt be called a
"socialist" for this (so be it), and I've discussed this at length with Platt
in posts earlier this summer. My belief is that the "free market" remains
"most
free" only when there are safeguards, and that to trust "capitalists" as
altruistic... well, I'd caution against it.
Jon:
Indeed. To trust socialists as altruistic...I'd caution against it. Two type
of people. Those who want to work their way out of the mud, and those who want
everyone down in the mud. Being dirty is a good motivator to get clean.
Certainly, education as to how to use soap is needed.
Arlo:
Really? Interesting... all the socialists I know are laborers, not
philosophers.
I think the problem with capitalism is that it assumes people can move from
laborer to capitalist freely (if the skill is there). The capitalists in this
country have gone to great lengths to promote this myth, but still the rich
tend to remain rich and the poor tend to remain poor. Capitalism attributes
this to laziness, or sloth, or some weakness. I believe it is more attributed
to entrenched hierarchy, or static social patterns.
Jon:
If the chance to fail greatly was not an active component in the system, then
succeeding greatly wouldn't be such an inspiring goal. Sure, educate yourself
first. Learn about the consequences of the chances you plan to take. And I
disagree about the whole myth thing. Rich people can become poor (and indeed,
have lost millions), and poor people can become rich (achieving middle class is
an inspiring dream to many poor people!). Again, if you changed all the things
about capitalism that made it unfair, it would be less exciting and less
motivating.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 17:06:57 BST