On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > If it's a dictum sent down from on-high, without any consideration about the > humans she's dealing with and the situation they're in, then it's > moralistic, trying to impose her ideal on others (or wishing that they > would live up to her standards without paying any attention to the > constraints they live in).
In other words, it is hopelessly subjective what is "moral" and what is "moralistic" since I totally and utterly disagree that any of the above applies to Arundhati Roy. > In any case, the billions made by the Wall Streeters is nothing but a > redistribution > (often from industrial capitalists all over the world, who compensate > by cutting wages and benefits). Their "productivity" is nothing but an > ability to grab a "piece of the action" (sorry, I meant > surplus-value). It has nothing to do with the actual creation of goods > and services for people or or of surplus-value. In other words productivity statistics are garbage. Isn't that what I said? > Instead of pushing down the top, it's better to pull up the bottom: Exactly how a Stephen Schwarzman would put it! > I'd rather raise the standard of living of the people at the bottom > than punish hard-working people who are already highly exploited by > the aforementioned billionaires. It looks like it is axiomatic to you that the "working class" cannot over-consume. I strongly disagree. I think you and many other Western leftists are deluding yourself that the material aspirations of the "working class" i.e. the American Dream can be sustainably met. These aspirations may have to be scaled back from what seem to be the current expectations. > For example, it's not just the US which suffers from gross and increasing > inequality in the > distribution of income and wealth. It's also India and I presume a lot > of other "third world" countries.[**] And the relevance to the overconsumption issue is? > [**] Sorry about the "third world" tag, but I don't know what else to > call India. As far as I can tell, it's not "developing" except for the > rich and upper middle classes. Please correct me if my facts are > wrong. This level of sensitivity is unnecessary. But since you asked, how about "poor country"? It is not a tag but simply accurate and descriptive. -raghu. -- Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
