Reply to you embedded ...
> ----------
> From: Monika Penner[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 6:38 AM
> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> Subject: RE:
>
> Hope I am not jumping in inappropriately (private thread). Just wanted to
> add my two bits... Am extremely interested in China (did some studies on
> Chinese culture, etc.- now I just need to go to China to learn it all the
> 'real' way *wink*)
>
Well.... it is a private thread running on a public thread so anyone
with constructive opinions are welcome!
> Indeed, it is my understanding that the state is very much seen as a
> parental (and more specifically) father figure... sort of as a benevolent
> leader, teacher, etc.
>
I can't say that I know a lot abt China's communist system since I
come from Singapore/Malaysia but I suppose being ethnically 'Chinese' allows
one to identify and understand the system better. I worked a year in China.
The state is historically known as 'fumu' or 'father and mother' and the
public officers in charge of a district are also seen as 'compassionate or
disciplinarian' parents (depending on the personality of the official) to
his people.
> So, Wong, am I correct in stating that you dislike communism? Is that
> communism in theory or practice? Also, have you ever lived in a communist
> state (i.e. have you ever lived in China, are you living there now, etc.)
> Would LOVE to talk to you about all of this... It has been my experience
> that individuals living in a communist state (recognizing that no nation
> has ever experienced TRUE communism, as Marx etc. outlined) are very
> opposed to communism...
>
Yes, I can't say I like communism but I don't know enough about its 'other'
ego: capitalism to say that I therefore like capitalism either. And don't
call me by my father's name (surname) ! I am Zin. Communism in theory
sounds great like utopia but workers of the world are far from achieving it
and if by force of centralized economy that it is achieved it will be a step
backward. That's what I think. If one is in China as a foreigner than most
of the time, it shd be ok since you are exploring a new culture and open to
it (you can't learn anything if before you enter a new culture, you get
scared...when in Rome, do as the Roman does).
If you are there to experience 'Communism' ..fine... as long as you are not
trapped in it but expect the market service to be below std (except in
places like Shanghai, Beijing and Canton). I remember once in a dinner table
for ten, the waitress could carry only some of the cutleries and not all so
she distributed that and conveniently forgot about the rest. Hahah
If you are in public relations and there a lot of official functions and
banquet, quite a hassle just to decide the sitting of every person but I
think this is as sensitive in a country like US? The most honoured in an
exclusive banquet sits facing the entrance and normally his driver will be
at the opposite end of the table facing him (since all dignitaries are
chauffered).
> I dislike outlining my personal ideologies (find them limiting) but to
> give you an idea on where I am coming from- I associate mainly with
> anarchists... Very much like anarchist ideology... But not yet ready to
> identify as an anarcha-feminist, though I will see me perhaps doing so in
> a few years (who knows!) I am always interested in discussing alternative
> social forms, structures, etc., at both micro and macro levels. For
> instance, the organization that I work in is completely
> collectivized/shared management model- non-hierarchical. Am interested in
> talking to others who are in similar situations (many women's groups are
> non-hierarchical. Yippee!)
>
I don't live by ideology either...I think it is a thing of the post-WW2 and
Cold War years! We are free man (not all free .... not too unfree!) In Uni.
I liked Taoism very much, which is the Oriental brand of Anarchism that
originated before western Anarchism. The thing is the two has different
roots of thought and are quite different at certain areas. Here's an
example:
A quotable quote from Anarchism in the west:
"I derive all right and justification from myself alone; for I am entitled
to everything which I have power to take or to do."
The Individual and his Property (1864)
Caspar Schmidt
Quotable phrase from Anarchism (Taoism) from the east:
Tao Te Ching Chapter 10
http://www.tao.ca/wind/taoanarch.html
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue.
Lao Tzu
The spiritual-social aspect as in man and his place in the universe is the
same in both, that is, living in rapport with nature and sowing the fruits
of nature; non domineering, no state control (dreaming) ... when it came to
the economic aspect, the east says: (as always, even in Buddhism) nature's
way is to own all by owning non - "renounce" grasping of accumulated wealth
and the west will equate 'individual freedom' to fighting to hold that
wealth. SO which one you think will lead one to ultimate happiness?
(presuming that all ideology , culture, form of govt has as one of the end
objectives of achieving happiness and progress for its people). I suppose
Lao Tzu's The Way of Tao is more for anarchists whose spiritual needs are at
the top and western anarchism is for people whom are also modernist. You can
check out the site, it has all the contents of Tao Te Ching translated.
> I identify somewhat with Marxist-Feminism (remembering that this is
> different than Marxism, which pretty much leaves women out of the picture)
> and I do so because I am interested in class analysis (associate with some
> class war anarchists! YIKES! Dont follow their philosophy per say, but I
> would like to see an end to classist structures).
>
Actually. I believe women are socially suppressed hence we fight for rights
but I am not a feminist, if by feminist, it means one is totally
concentrated on the female psyche. I am not always in sync with the 'female'
psyche, my yang energy often prevails but I do think women are more
beautiful, truer, compassionate than men. Thus, having said that I am not
Marxist nor Feminist so I ain't Marxist-Feminist.
> I employ a multi-issue (for lack of a better word) approach- looking not
> only at patriarchal oppression, but oppressions also based on class,
> 'race', ageism, ableism, sexual orientation, etc.
>
I prefer to be issue-oriented ( I don't know if it's politically correct)
especially in the 21st century where people from all countries are better
connected and everyday more and more issues come up! We can't give credence
in solving them if it is simply, very conveniently 'categorizing' the
issues ... or perhaps, if we know the rational behind every political theory
and say "ok for this issue that is class based and racial in content, we use
the reasoning of Marxism and Pluralism to solve the fundamentals. But not to
get stuck, thinking therefore a Marxist state has to be created in its place
and maintained ...I find some theories are better at different stages of
development.
Do you 'personalize' or 'collectivized' an item before approaching it? Do
you go by the majority or do you say:' I, this individual, believe that
.....'. There are people who feels that unity is power therefore to solve a
social issue, one has to go with the majority and there are people like
myself who are bloody self-oriented and starts feeling the 'energy' in me
and then decide 'ya' I want this to happen.... or no, go and fly kites. I
am also bloody childish but I try to grow up as much as the system allows
me...and in a way, that does not take away my spontaneity as a person. I
donwanna grow up 'dead'/
Over to you!
> So that's it! Guess I will go read some more posts!
>
> Wong Ee Ling < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I understand you although not perfectly but you need to see it from
> my point
> of
> view which is within the Asian social mileau whereby the
> authoritative
> figure
> is the 'father figure' and that runs through the society with of
> course the
> head of
> the family, the father having a tight control over the kids - what
> better
> way of
> control or monopolization than this? The family is the unit that
> makes up
> all society.
> It is 'real' for us here perhaps not for you. Anyway, this probably
> does not
> interest
> you since your culture is different......in China, do you know that
> the
> government is
> called the 'parents'.
> I wish you had a name since 'unleesh' is not a name and you know my
> name.
> And with your experience with various political groups, I'll like to
> know
> what is your
> opinion of communism? Is it the path to freedom vis-a-vis
> capitalism? Does
> c! ! ommunism
> empowers the individual and frees him/her from the mock 'slavery' of
> capitalism?
> Because I feel that communism is worse off than capitalism or
> corporatism
> since
> it is state control. In corporations, if they get too powerful like
> MS, the
> law can handle
> them. The state is sometimes so intertwined with the legislate that
> the
> individual will
> have no recourse.
> >From your past messages, you seem to adhere to 'anarchism', which I
> use to
> like
> (it's quite close to the Chinese' Taoism vis-a-vis Confucianism)
> although it
> is not
> a properly developed theory of government, that is, it can assist in
> efforts
> to change
> systems (so can communism) but might settle to be something that
> cannot
> guarantee
> freedom. What do you think? I like to her your opinion but pls note
> that
> (if you do not know
> it which I think you do....) most emails are read by other than you
> and me.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> > ----------
> >! ! ; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 10:11 AM
> > To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT
> > Subject: RE: REPLY: One WTO account
> >
> > "The 'father figure' is symbolic of the 'oppresive' figure you're
> claiming
> > freedom from..."
> >
> > I'm not claiming freedom from any "oppressive figure", so a
> "father
> > figure"
> > couldn't even be symbolic.
> >
> > The State is not a "father figure" nor an "oppressive figure".
> It's a set
> > of
> > relations formalized into a monopoly of legitimized force.
> >
> > Those who are attacking forces which constrict life are not
> engaged in
> > some
> > Oedipal struggle. It is real.
> >
> > (un)leash
> >
>
>
>
>
> � _____ �
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
> Yahoo! Shopping.
>
>
