I don't think that it's profit orientation that's at the heart of the
matter. It's more general than that, something I would call "exploitative
relations." A very long time ago, when we lived in small groups as hunters
and gatherers, we probably did not exploit each other partly because there
was no need for it and partly because we had to work too hard just to stay
alive. As population grew, and access to resources became an increasing
problem, proprietary rights and concepts of who could access what developed.
Systems of exchange, whether monetary or in-kind appeared -- "I will give
you access to my water provided that you labour for me." From such
exploitative relations, classes appeared and consolidated themselves. It
would be nice if it could be otherwise, and it may still be otherwise for
some isolated groups, but I'm afraid we've gone much much too far down the
path we're on.
Ed Weick
Visit my rebuilt website at:
http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/
> Oh, I'm well aware of the terrible burden on artists and others who do not
make
> money a priority. My remarks were intended to be directed toward the
> possibilities if we did not live in a profit-oriented society.
>
> Selma Singer
>
>
>
> r h wrote:
>
> > Selma,
> >
> > Money is a necessity but so is work. The problem for me is that I work
> > whether I am paid or not. I work to accomplish an artistic goal.
But I
> > do need money and will only live as long as I have it to do my work.
They
> > reason for life is accomplishment and anyone who does so merely for
money is
> > beyond my experience.
> >
> > Ray Evans Harrell
