Andy, I am very interested in that other solution, what it may be; I just
cannot see how it would look or even on what grounds it has to be built.
If you have a notion on how it should look and the foundations for it, I
would be interested to know about them (remembering that I live in the
social democratic "heaven" of Sweden, which frankly is not the solution - so
"tricotomy" doesn't work either).
Whether to be a reformist (trying to change present society) or a
revolutionary (trying to exchange present society) probably depends on
whether or not you believe present society can change sufficiently and/or
whether or not you can see a possible society you want to exchange the
present for. The latter, possible society eludes me and neither your
comments nor others' coming my way have ever managed to make the form and
content of it visible to me.
Susanne
----------------------------------------------------
Susanne Berg Institute on Independent Living
project coordinator www.independentliving.org
Luntmakargatan 86 A
113 51 Stockholm
Sweden
telephone/fax: +46 8 15 73 54
mobile phone: +46 705 15 73 56
e-mail home: [log in to unmask]
Annual report:
www.independentliving.org/docs1/ilanrp2001.html
Årsberättelse:
www.independentliving.org/docs1/ilarsbrtls2001.html
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] För Andy Velarde
Skickat: den 10 april 2003 11:38
Till: [log in to unmask]
Ämne: Re: payment for time and true solution to oppression :-)
Thanks Susane for your e-mail. The trouble is that you are using a dicotomic
approach. If we do not have capitalism then we have socialism. As there is
no socialism therefore the market economy (=democracy?) is right. There is
no need to be a dogmatic marxist, or just marxist, to realise about
alianation of money. I gather there is plenty humanitarian philosophy that
can explain why it is not right to convert everything in a commodity. Again
I agree with you only that payment could be justifiable when the resources
are available. The distinction is fundamental though, otherwise you will be
passing your bill for your e-mail.
The morale level or sphere is an expression I translate from an english
version of Habermas. y translation may not be completely right. The
disability movement is trying to establish a second order change at the
metaphisical discourse, accordint to him. You (i mean the DM) may never do
that if we lose track ofwhat is at stake at tha level.
You imply that my view is dogmatic. I disagree, it opens possibilities for
reflection.My view is that pragmatism without reflection, with out
phylosophy leads us to mantain the system that creates oppression.
Thanks again for your thoughts, Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susanne Berg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'Andy Velarde'" <[log in to unmask]>;
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 6:54 PM
Subject: payment for time and true solution to oppression :-)
Andy,
I think from a disabled person's perspective (and in every-day life I do
tend to be pragmatic) money certainly does not make you "equal" (and that
was not my intended argument) but it does provide you with comforts which
non-disabled employed people often take for granted. And of course this can
be said of more groups among the poor in society.
So I'll be pragmatic and argue for disabled people's right to the same
financial benefits that others get. After all I am not advocating that we
should all wait until society changes and "we'll get pie in the sky". I
don't think disabled people need to be morally superior to our neighbours.
As for capitalism it certainly does produce discrimination but I have a
problem with seeing the other side as a solution. Fundamentally Marx didn't
believe in the notions of rights and I have still not seen any socialist
state or community in which disabled people haven't lived under terrible
oppression.
Furthermore, I have this fancy for democracy and realising that all
democratic states are market economies, I tend to be a bit "uncertain" in my
political views. On the whole I think a sceptic view is better than an
unquestioning dogmatic belief.
I do not understand what you mean with a "moral level"? To me "morale" is a
set of principles or rules; and any such set can be and probably are more
useful to dominant groups. But maybe you mean "moral level" as opposed to
"material level"? Then I would again have to answer that I don't believe in
waiting for utopia to happen, but rather to work for changes now. But then,
I come from the Bible belt in Sweden and have worked long and hard not to
fall into the waiting-for-the-reward-hereafter-trap, and this might have
coloured my perspective some.
I sometimes wish I could believe in religion, which would surely lend a
sense of security to life; but I cannot. And I sometimes wish I could
believe in socialist heaven which would lend a sense of "faith, hope and
love"; but alas, I cannot do that either.
Fundamentally I disagree with a lot of your beliefs. But being the sceptic
is not the same as not thinking about things. Economics for sure is at the
base for oppression.
This is turning into a discussion (interesting but) on the true solution to
disability, poverty, etc. etc. and quite political. If we do not get someone
else to respond to our discussion maybe we should continue on side of list?
Susanne
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
