| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] A New Look -- Wally comments | | Date: | Thursday, June 2, 2005 09:08:42 (+0100) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
| In reply to: | Message 1623 (written by W. McGunnigle) |
William,
I do not share your fear that the Puritan view is so embedded. I am of the
'busy' mentality and certainly will not permit anyone to bring in 'evil' or
'unGodly' labels to economic behaviour just as I find 'Christian' (or should
that be 'Pauline'?) labels in economics also unacceptable.
Further, I think you will see that the bigger issue than Puritanism is in
the UK New Labour mindset of creating a dependent underclass of both idle
souls on benefits and hard working but still overtaxed households 'grateful'
for their 'working families tax credit' to get by. Now this is added to by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new wheeze of State/Bank assisted 50%
house ownership keeping prices unrealistically high while again making
people dependent on the State and banks for their roof. VERY un-Chinese,
VERY opposed to my mindset and also VERY un-Puritan (if my understanding is
correct) but closer to the 'social dividend' mindset as far as I can see -
it is a fine line.
As to the Chinese in terms of "busy" - this only counts in terms of being
"busy" for the FAMILY. Working to save donkeys, strangers or restore a
public building while not working to feed, support or protect your family is
considered very odd indeed by the Chinese. There IS a stigma, most
certainly. The ability to be a philosopher or 'go fishing' or paint is
reserved for the same people who in our society are 'the idle rich' or later
expanded into the literary middle class who are funded from within the
family, not by the State. Everyone else was busy at work that generated an
income or assisted those who did or could be idle by the writ of those who
did work in the family.
I think you will find the concepts of Social Credit and of the leisure class
quite hard for the Chinese to accept - for I suspect that they would say
that if 25% need only work, then why not have 4 times as much with all
working? If only 25% work, then they should get 100% of the return and
decide where it goes. It will be up to the family to share out the 100%
return amongst itself, NOT the State.
Tim
On 2/6/05 1:04 am, "W. McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
> Hi Tim
> We seem to be in general agreement on this topic even though we
> may have differences about detail. A question that concerns me is precisely
> that relationship between Puritanism and the "Work Ethic". Puritanism is
> derived from the Calvinistic doctrines epitomised by the Presbyterian
> Church. It is a very rigid, inflexible, and, in many cases, bigoted way of
> living, but does provide a clear division between "good" and "evil". This is
> an excellent method of providing people with a convenient mind set by which
> to structure their lives. It does however lead to an intolerance of other
> attitudes. Its effect has been to classify "workers"(in Industry) as a
> beneficial asset to society i.e. "Good", and Non-workers ( those not
> employed in Industry) as a drain on society i.e. "Evil". Poeple are
> stigmatised by their position in society. It appears to me that this is a
> long term mind-set problem that has to be sorted out. Modern Society is so
> efficient that all our material needs can be met by the involvement of <25%
> of the population. However our society, particularly the rulers, is
> incapable of utilising the spare capacity of ability in the remaining 75%,
> because it does not recognise this capacity as"useful" or "beneficial".
> Chinese society, in contrast, appears to view the "Work Ethic"
> differently. People "work", but there is no stigma attached to how this is
> achieved. I suppose their approach is more like they expect people to be
> "busy" a some task that is of some concern to the community. This allows the
> philosopher the freedom to be "unemployed" from essential tasks to provide
> material needs to provide thought power to other aspects of human endeavour.
> It is a different thought pattern to Western ideas. Do you see the contrast?
> My other concern is that the Eastern philosophy on this could be
> undermined by the somewhat sterile materialism of the west.
> My ideas on this aspect of human society are undergoing a fundamental
> reassessment especially the "Work Ethic" criteria for judging human value. I
> am becoming more and more convinced that it is a false and inherently flawed
> value assessment.
> William McGunnigle
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message