A couple questions for Bobo (whose response follows)
and to anyone else here on the Sartre list who may
also wish to comment, that is, before I continue with
You've acknowledged that the business of companies are
primarily of making money. You also acknowledged that
wars have been fought over exploitation of humanity,
though you attribute modern terrorism more to
religious beliefs. Is it possible, however, that the
forces that formerly exploited humanity directly, are
now, in continuing to sustain their self-interest,
more inclined to be depriving certain people of any
existence that may conflict with the present hegemony,
for example, is it not possible that the powers that
be may be depriving certain groups and civilizations
the right to simultaneously subsist off the earth and
practice a certain religion?
Also, you have no qualms, apparently, about the
present capitalistic state of America and its relation
to the global economy, yet you have stated that the
U.S. could expand a little on its social services. How
do you expect these changes to ever come about if you
remain so self-satisfied with the present hegemony, a
hegemony which doesn't seem to be bringing about the
social change that you claimed you would like to see?
It is contradictory to think that sufficient
socialistic change could come about within the present
capitalistic hegemony that fosters 'making money' at
the expense of others. So what then should happen if a
'has-not' refuses to surrender his potential services
to a 'have', that is, for example, his religious
beliefs does not allow himself to sell his value for
commercial profit, and, as such, would not allow his
person to fit into the present program? How is such a
person to sustain himself?
For the love of wisdom
(and a need to survive)
--- Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...
> I will attempt to respond to Lewis' thoughtful
> Lewis asks:
> Is it possible, however, that the
> forces that formerly exploited humanity directly,
> now, in continuing to sustain their self-interest,
> more inclined to be depriving certain people of any
> existence that may conflict with the present
> for example, is it not possible that the powers that
> be may be depriving certain groups or civilizations
> the right to simultaneously subsist off the earth
> practice a certain religion?
> Anything is possible. But what I have been trying to
> emphasize, and what I think the real question is, is
> what is actual and real?
> Lewis speaks of "the forces" and "the powers that
> be". In doing so, I must confess that I am
> uncertain in some sense what exactly he refers to.
> In one sense, he could be speaking of metaphysical
> forces and poweres--like "evil","spirits", "the
> spirit", "the zeit geist", "the world Zionist
> conspiracy", "historical materialism", "money", "the
> Devil", "Wall Street", "the Vatican", "the
> Pentagon", "fate", "the gods" and a host of other
> juju forces of the human imagination.
> It's easy to ask questions, it's much harder to
> examine facts critically. I don't see "forces" or
> "powers" exploiting people or depriving groups or
> civilizations of anything. People do things to
> other people for a variety of reasons. Take, for
> example, the case of former Nigerian head of state
> Gen Sani Abacha. It is said "The Abacha loot which
> has been generating controversy and international
> furore is said to be about US$3billion in secret
> accounts in about four countries in Europe." (See
> http://allafrica.com/stories/200111070157.html) From
> oil rich Nigeria, Abacha is accused of stealing $3
> billion dollars. It is reported that last May,
> Luxembourg authorities froze $620 million in Abacha
> accounts, Swiss banks reportedly hold $530 million
> in Abacha loot, and British banks hold a reported
> $1.3 billion is Abacha booty. This surely is more
> money that every living present and former U.S.
> President has combined. (I thought of this example
> because recently read an article in the Wall Street
> Journal reporting on a British court judgment of
> over $100 million against Abacha. Apparently, the
> current government of Nigeria is trying to recover
> these assets.
> Three billion dollars can build a lot of schools and
> buy a lot of books, it can build a lot of hospitals
> and a lot of drugs. It can build many homes and
> apartrment buildings and buy a lot tractors and
> harvesters for farming. If you want to find the
> "forces" oppressing people and the "powers that be"
> you shouldn't go looking in America. You can find
> the sources of Third Word and Developing Country
> poverty a lot closer to the condition. Americans
> can buy oil in Nigeria or they can buy it in
> Britain. Americans do both. Why are Nigerians poor
> and oppressed and British prosperous and free. To
> me, it seems to have very little do to with "powers"
> and "forces" and more to do with corrupt individuals
> like Abacha.
> Lewis states and asks:
> Also, you have no qualms, apparently, about the
> present capatilistic state of America and its
> to the global economy, yet you have stated that the
> U.S. could expand a little on its social services.
> do you expect these changes to ever come about if
> remain so self-satisfied with the present hegemony,
> hegemony which doesn't seem to be bringing about the
> social change that you've claimed you would like to
> see? It is contradictory to think that sufficient
> socialistic change could come about within the
> capatilistic hegemony that fosters 'making money' at
> the expense of others. So what, then should happen
> a 'has-not' refuses to surrender his potential
> services to a 'have', that is, if, for example, his
> religious belief does not allow himself to sell his
> value for commercial profit, and, as such, would not
> allow his person to fit into the present program?
> is such a person to sustain himself?
> First, I say, see my comment above. If things are
> going to change, corruption in the Developing World
> must end. As I have said before, the people of the
> Developing World must
> take responsibility for their own political
> institutions. If they need a guide, I do not think
> they would go far wrong by looking to America's
> social and political institutions. You'll note,
> Abacha is not accussed of squirreling away any of
> his loot in U.S. banks.
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!