Freedom of Uneducated people

[hemybel]

What can you say about this...
Farmers, laborers, who are less educated than their masters, (the leaders of the society, the government)... they are oppressed... they are maltreated... they don't have enough food in the table...

Will you say that it was just like the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper? The Ant is the Wealthy and educated, the Grasshopper is the Uneducated or poor? Will you equal poor and uneducated? Most poor are uneducated right??? Will you say that they deserve to be less free than those who are educated people? So what's the problem here? Will you blame the Farmers for not working so hard to make it on top? Will you blame the Rich folks for maltreating these poor farmers that's why they got rich? It's a never ending process....


My teacher in elementary days taught me about "Justice" and "Charity"
Justice is giving others what belongs to them and Charity is giving others what belongs to you. I believe that Justice won't contribute to progress... it's just a fair thing... Charity is doing more for a progress of a person.... Both are necessary to express your love and concern to your fellowman.... to the rich and to the poor....

[Chrysalis]

Hi hemybel,

Once I asked a fellow student a question, and his first reaction was, 'Let me collect my thoughts on that.' With the series of questions you posed I feel like saying, I need to collect my thoughts on that....ah. Anyway.

So, you say...


So what's the problem here? Will you blame the Farmers for not working so hard to make it on top? Will you blame the Rich folks for maltreating these poor farmers that's why they got rich? It's a never ending process....

A Marxian analysis would look at whose paradigm it is, or was, that brought us to where we are. What dominant idea forced this disparity between the uneducated laborers and the well-educated rich? Perhaps, if we start there, we could give the uneducated laborers more than charity and love. We would give them respect as citizens with real political rights.

[redchrisfalling]

Sorry to disagree but your opening analogy is bugging me. The farmer/labouer is smarter and harder working then the politician/masters. And there we have the problem with our system, in a nut shell.

But as for Charity doing more for society then justice, i agree 100%
Good on ya for bringing this up it has been ignored for a long time.

[loveme4whoiam]

But as for Charity doing more for society then justice, i agree 100%

Does it? I guess I'm a believer in the phrase "Give a man a light, he'll be warm for a day. Set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life". Or something. You know what I mean.


Justice is giving others what belongs to them and Charity is giving others what belongs to you.

Just to clarify, are we saying that justice is giving people the means to help themselves, which they would have anyway had we not interfered in the first place, and charity as giving them what they need in order to survive in the short-term, thus making them dependent on further charity? Or have I taken what hemybel has said, and confused it?

I agree with rechrisfalling 100% on the smarter farmer thing though.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:36 PM

Justice is giving others what belongs to them and Charity is giving others what belongs to you.

Just to clarify, are we saying that justice is giving people the means to help themselves, which they would have anyway had we not interfered in the first place, and charity as giving them what they need in order to survive in the short-term, thus making them dependent on further charity?
No, you're absolutely right.

With justice, there is no need for charity.


Justice is giving others what belongs to them and Charity is giving others what belongs to you. I believe that Justice won't contribute to progress... it's just a fair thing... Charity is doing more for a progress of a person.

"Charity" today is simply a means to alleviate people's feelings of guilt for the situations of others "less fortunate" than they are. People give to charity, or give change to the homeless man on the street, or sponsor a child in Africa and it makes them feel like they are good people who are contributing to the well-being of others.
Because of this, they never feel the need to look at the structural causes of people's "disadvantaged positions", which would essentially implicate them as the "hyper-consumeristic", SUV driving, Western individuals that they are, whose lifestyles every day are linked to the poverty of people all around the world.

Justice is the end goal. I don't believe in charity.

[redchrisfalling]

But charity goes both ways. Just cause you give to me dose'nt mean i become dependant, i can still give to you. If we abolish capitalism our entire society would be based on charity if everyone only gets whats rightfully theirs they would die. We have to take care of socities weakest links, equality and selflessness. Without them any thing we achive in a revolution will be lost.

[loveme4whoiam]

If we abolish capitalism our entire society would be based on charity

My understanding of Communism is that our entire society would be based on justice - that we would all be equal because we would each earn for one another, which would be combined to ensure that we all had what we needed. In essense, we would be allowed to provide ourselves with what we needed. By the definitions above, that's justice rather than charity.


if eneryone only gets whats rightfully theirs they would die.

If they are contributing to society as a whole, then what is rightfully theirs is at least what they need in order to survive, so I don't see how people would die. If they were independent of and selfish within a Communist system, I can see how they might end up unable to survive, since they would be forced to rely on just the fruits of their own labours, rather than the benefits of collectivism (I think this is the right term) which would provide them with the fruits of their own labours PLUS anything else they lacked - since they would still be contributing to the whole they would not go lacking.

We have to take care of socities weakest links, equality and selflessness.

I assume you mean that we have to instill these qualities in everyone if a revolution is to be successful in the long-term?

[redchrisfalling]

I disagree again. Polling resorces and colectivism are forms of charity not justice. If i work all day and produce nothing but bread, you work all day to build a house, i'll freeze and you'll starve. Willingly giveing all you have to the greater good in hopes that it will be evenly redisributed sounds and awful lot like charity. And not eveyone is capable of produceing the same amount, if i do the work of two men and theirs two people who can only do a half days work, they're getting more then they put in at the exspense of me, who puts in more then i take out. That sounds an awful lot like charity.

And yes i belive that those two values, and a short list of others, should be instilled into everyone for a sucsesful revolution

[hemybel]

Originally posted by OkaCrisis+Jan 26 2006, 02:19 AM--> (OkaCrisis @ Jan 26 2006, 02:19 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 08:36 PM

Justice is giving others what belongs to them and Charity is giving others what belongs to you.

Just to clarify, are we saying that justice is giving people the means to help themselves, which they would have anyway had we not interfered in the first place, and charity as giving them what they need in order to survive in the short-term, thus making them dependent on further charity?
No, you're absolutely right.

With justice, there is no need for charity.


Justice is giving others what belongs to them and Charity is giving others what belongs to you. I believe that Justice won't contribute to progress... it's just a fair thing... Charity is doing more for a progress of a person.

"Charity" today is simply a means to alleviate people's feelings of guilt for the situations of others "less fortunate" than they are. People give to charity, or give change to the homeless man on the street, or sponsor a child in Africa and it makes them feel like they are good people who are contributing to the well-being of others.
Because of this, they never feel the need to look at the structural causes of people's "disadvantaged positions", which would essentially implicate them as the "hyper-consumeristic", SUV driving, Western individuals that they are, whose lifestyles every day are linked to the poverty of people all around the world.

Justice is the end goal. I don't believe in charity. [/b]
With justice, there is no need for charity.
This is justice... A master who owned the Farm will give the farmer a farmer all he needs, his wage... the exact wage... if he got sick, he didn't work... no wage. If he is capable of working hard like a bull without proper education... you know what I mean... he might end up gambling all the money he had... wasting it... or investing it on something where he might lose all of it... because of lack of knowledge.... I'm talking about Charity.... not necessarily donating money, food, shelter.... maybe education... teaching them to help themselves.... but it doesn't mean that they are the only one who needs them... the rich need the help of the poor too.

[loveme4whoiam]

Not to be rude, but could you perhaps in future lay out your argument in full sentences rather than a series of points with ... in between? It'd make it easier to follow, and since some of the things discussed on here are very complex indeed any attempts to make them clearer would be most appreciated :) Onwards, to the debate.


A master who owned the Farm will give the farmer a farmer all he needs, his wage... the exact wage... if he got seek, he didn't work... no wage.

You're outlining capitalism here. Under a Communist system there would be no master to provide the farmer with "all he needs". The master would simply be another farmer who would have to work on a farm just like anyone else. If one farmer became sick, others would be able to make up the deficit until he was able to return to work and give back what he had been given during his period of inactivity. This is justice, to my way of thinking.


If he is capable of working hard like a bull without proper education...he might end up gambling all the money he had...

Again, this couldn't happen since they'd be no money for him to gamble. If you have all you need in order to live comfortably, why risk some of that in order to increase what you have?


I'm talking about Charity.... teaching them to help themselves....

Going by the definitions I hesitantly laid out above (and assume most people agreed with since no-one has challenged them) this is, in fact, Justice. In an environment where those who do not have the ability to survive individually, Communism would provide them with the means to on the assumption that they would then contribute to the society that aided them in the first place.
This, to my mind, is Justice, since the people are not being made dependent upon the gifts of others, but are in fact given the means to provide for themselves and then make a contribution to the whole as well.

[Seong]

This, to my mind, is Justice, since the people are not being made dependent upon the gifts of others, but are in fact given the means to provide for themselves and then make a contribution to the whole as well.

No I totally agree with you and your definitions sound pretty good :)

Everyone has an equal right to education - giving someone the knowledge with which they can support themselves is not charity, it's justice. Teaching someone how to use a plough so that they can plant their own crops is not charity. It's a gift of knowledge that will allow that person to continue sowing, harvesting and eating for the rest of their life.

Offering them dinner without teaching them anything is charity. They have learnt nothing except to rely on the kindness of strangers, which goes against the idea of equal contribution and equal benefits in a socialist society.


If i work all day and produce nothing but bread, you work all day to build a house, i'll freeze and you'll starve.

Also in a socialist society wouldn't the bread and the house be worth the same? Both the baker and builder are working all day and contributing to the best of their abilities. The builder might build one great house to shelter a family, but the baker has probably produced 50 loaves of bread that will feed 30 or 40 families. Neither the baker or the builder own what they produced - it's given to the socialist society according to ability and taken according to need right?

[hemybel]

Ok you gave your point about what communism is but I only give that master and servant (farmer) story an example of what justice means... outside a communist government. The story before that was this farmer who immigrate in that land of a wealthy landlord. Why would you force that landlord to give his land to this farmer who just came from nowhere? Or maybe you suggest that if he wants to have his farm, he can still be the boss but he must also do what the farmer does, to be a farmer like them. So you just stole the role of the Landlord because it was you now who makes decision by forcing him to be a farmer? It was still like the capitalist's greed for power. only that you are doing it, forcing people to be equal to themselves not for more money. Why do we not want people to greed for money? That's because we don't want them to be hunger of control. That's all I see now... people with different beliefs want the remote control. i am right they are wrong. the result is war, dead innocents, catastrophe, famine. For me there is no perfect system. All system are not perfect because the government is always the people. Even in dictatorship, the government is the people. They let a tyrant leader to rule because they are scared, they are being killed, it was their own act why the tyrant leader is reigning. The people is the true leader... they are not perfect. For me an almost perfect society is a society of heros...

My point here is to tell you what charity means. Will you call a person a hero if he saved you then asks for money in return? Justice is what happens when you pay a laborer his proper wage. Charity is when you do something for your fellowman without asking for anything in return. That's what heroism is all about... the true hero is a person who gives his life for others... a selfless person.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:57 AM
What can you say about this...
Farmers, laborers, who are less educated than their masters, (the leaders of the society, the government)... they are oppressed... they are maltreated... they don't have enough food in the table...

Will you say that it was just like the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper? The Ant is the Wealthy and educated, the Grasshopper is the Uneducated or poor? Will you equal poor and uneducated? Most poor are uneducated right???
So according to this: working people are often uneducated and therefore "stupid".

Working people, who in reality produce all of society's wealth, are like the "grasshopper" living off the stored wealth of the hardworking rich "ants." Rather than demanding justice we should be grateful for whatever charity rich people give us.

What is this crap? Rich people are like the grasshopper, and working people are the ants. We work, they eat.

[Commie Rat]

Ignorance is bliss.

Not knowing of the bad things aliveates the fear of them.

[Seong]

ok fair enough. it still believe that even in a non-communist or socialist society that it is far better to give someone justice than charity. Simply because chairty is too easily relied upon.

Sure perform an act of good will. to use your example, save them from mortal peril. This is not charity. In my view it falls in somewhere with the hazy territory of a moral conscience. Charity can be heroic but heroism isn't necessarily charity.

Justice - if its meaning can be pinned down, is a better teacher. Makes people's expectations more realisitic...I hope. Anyway does justice actually exist?

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 4 2006, 10:56 AM
Ignorance is bliss.

Not knowing of the bad things aliveates the fear of them.
This is the government's justification for not telling Americans about wiretapping, secretive CIA operations, killing innocent civilians around the globe, and the conditions of those fancy factories for our corporations.

All I'm saying is that you should tread lightly in this department.

[redchrisfalling]

Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power. We can't fight against an enemy we don't know. There is no point in a revolution if we don't know what we want. And the workers are the ones who need to perpetuate the revolt.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:05 AM
My teacher in elementary days taught me about "Justice" and "Charity"
Justice is giving others what belongs to them and Charity is giving others what belongs to you. I believe that Justice won't contribute to progress... it's just a fair thing...
Your views are interesting and I don't know quite what to make of them. But I will say that with the amount of injustice in modern society, it is very difficult to foresee whether total justice would 'contribute to progress', as we just don't know what it would be like. My guess is that it would.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:17 PM

This, to my mind, is Justice, since the people are not being made dependent upon the gifts of others, but are in fact given the means to provide for themselves and then make a contribution to the whole as well.

No I totally agree with you and your definitions sound pretty good :)

Everyone has an equal right to education - giving someone the knowledge with which they can support themselves is not charity, it's justice. Teaching someone how to use a plough so that they can plant their own crops is not charity. It's a gift of knowledge that will allow that person to continue sowing, harvesting and eating for the rest of their life.

Offering them dinner without teaching them anything is charity. They have learnt nothing except to rely on the kindness of strangers, which goes against the idea of equal contribution and equal benefits in a socialist society.


If i work all day and produce nothing but bread, you work all day to build a house, i'll freeze and you'll starve.

Also in a socialist society wouldn't the bread and the house be worth the same? Both the baker and builder are working all day and contributing to the best of their abilities. The builder might build one great house to shelter a family, but the baker has probably produced 50 loaves of bread that will feed 30 or 40 families. Neither the baker or the builder own what they produced - it's given to the socialist society according to ability and taken according to need right?
Leverage technology to reduce manual work so personal compensation becomes less important than altruism. That's the only way you'll be able to have people agree to voluntary altruism, otherwise personal disputes over compensation would undermine the initiative to work.