Esti confuz daca ai impresia ca aceasta masura ti-ar sustine pledoaria. O asemenea masura, luata pe baza studiilor ce demonstreaza nocivitatea reclamelor pt. copii, este interventionista si anti-liberala, caci indreptateste o autoritate sa limiteze libertatea capitalistilor de a-si promova unele produse. Astfel, ea pune accentul pe responsabilizarea comerciantilor, nu a parintilor, asa cum ai sugerat tu mai sus ca ar trebui procedat.

Se deschide astfel posibilitatea ca, pe baza studiilor ce demonstreaza nocivitatea materialismului, a inegalitatilor sociale si a muncii in exces, autoritatile sa i masuri precum impunerea unei limite maxime de acumulare, taxarea progresiva si redistribuirea.

Vezi, ai raspuns singur:


Acest topic a fost editat de Blakut: 17 Dec 2007, 02:48 PM

Aceasta masura sustine ideea ca exista si solutii mai la indemana de rezolvare a problemelor, nu trebuie neaparat sa schimbi radical societatea.

Astfel de masuri se iau in cazul produselor considerate daunatoare (ex. alcool, tutun). Nimeni nu interzice unui producator de tutun sa castige oricat de mult, ci doar ii reglementeaza accesul la unele mijloace de publicitate.

Cele doua nu se exclud. Eliminand din programele de divertisment pentru copii anumite reclame, nu inseamna ca nu le pot intalni in alta parte, si este responsabilitatea parintilor de a supraveghea programele TV vizionate de cei mici, site-urile pe care navigheaza, publicatiile pe care le citesc etc.

Nu rezulta ce spui tu din reglementarea publicitatii destinata copiilor.

Profesorul Andrew Oswald preda economia la Universitatea din Warwick. In articolul sau "The Hippies were Right All Along About Happiness", aparut in Financial Times la 19 ianuarie 2006, Oswald recunoaste ca oamenii prea putin preocupati de aspectul material au intr-adevar mari sanse de a fi ales calea cea buna spre fericire.

Imbogatirea peste o limita a existentei decente, e inutila



Non-materialistii au dreptate



Intr-adevar, avand in vedere ca desi in tarile vestice precum USA si UK, bogatia s-a triplat, insa nefericirea e in crestere, rata depresiilor a crescut, la fel ca si numarul de sinucideri, a crescut stresul la locul de munca, iar planeta este amentintata din cauza cresterii industriale si consumerismului, a fi interesat de a face mai multi bani decat ai nevoie pentru asigurarea nevoilor de baza este o imbecilitate.

Trei argumente ca banii in exces nu sporesc fericirea



Astfel, infinitele comparatii cu averea vecinilor si cunoscutilor nostri, obisnuinta cu obiectele materiale si necunoasterea adevaratelor surse de fericire nu pot decat anuleze sau, in cel mai bun caz, minimizeze efectele pozitive pe care le-ar putea avea banii si posesiunile asupra noastra.

Autorul incheie prin a spune:
"Happiness, not economic growth, ought to be the next and more sensible target for the next and more sensible generation."

Articolul poate fi citit la adresa:
http://www.orlok.com/blog/archive_listserv...ary/004606.html

Si cat castiga profesorul Andrew Oswald?

Spune cumva si ca trebuie sanctionati in vreun fel cei care indraznesc sa castige mai mult decat media?

Sunt sigur ca isi doneaza tot plus-produsul unei societati egalitariste subversive asa ca suma castigata s-ar putea sa nu fie relevanta.



Let's smoke this shit and see what happens!

N-am de unde sa stiu asta, banuiesc doar ca e undeva pe la salariul mediu de acolo, asa cum e si aici. Oricum intrebarea e complet irelevanta, avand in vedere ca si daca Oswald castiga cu milioanele, si pastreaza toti acesti bani, asta nu infirma catusi de putin valabilitatea concluziilor din articolul citat.


Spre diferenta de Richard Layard, Robert Lane, Geoffrey Miller ori Barry Schwartz, Oswald nu am cunostinta sa argumenteze in favoarea redistribuirii veniturilor, ceea ce nu inseamna ca din scrierea sa nu s-ar putea trage perfect indreptatit aceasta concluzie.


John F Schumaker, a US-born psychologist currently living in Christchurch, New Zealand/Aotearoa, is the author of "In Search of Happiness: Understanding an endangered state of mind" (Penguin).

Intr-un articol intitulat "The happiness conspiracy: what does it mean to be happy in a modern consumer society?", aparut in numarul din iulie 2006 al revistei New Internationalist, Schumaker exemplifica cu cazul comunitatii himalayene Ladakh cum virusul capitalist, aducator de lacomie, materialism si boli mentale, a distrus un climat social fericit si auto-suficient.

Dupa ce subliniaza imbecilitatea echivalarii fericirii cu consumerismul materialist:


autorul se refera la cazul Ladakh:


Concluzia cade inevitabil:

"We usually hitch our emotional wagons to ego, ambition, personal power and the spectacular. But all of these are surprising flops when it comes to happiness. Today's 'success' has become a blueprint for failure.".

Adresa de unde articolul poate fi citit integral e de gasit aici.

Acest topic a fost editat de Helmuth: 13 Jan 2008, 09:22 AM

Intr-o societate ca cea imaginata de tine cu siguranta ca va fi o specie de lenesi care nu produce absolut nimic, lenesii absoluti, care poate sunt fericitii absoluti. Daca lenesii absoluti au o pondere foarte insemnata, ce se intampla?
Societatea ii sponsorizeaza pe acestia? Din ce surse isi asigura ei nevoile minime, din redistribuirea resurselor celor ce muncesc peste medie?

O noua confirmare a faptului ca am avut perfecta dreptate si ca inclusiv cei bogati sunt nemultumiti din cauza banilor se gaseste in Evenimentul zilei de azi, 29 ianuarie:


http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol...-oameni-bogati/

Deci nu i-ai face fericiti daca i-ai obliga sa traiasca cu mai putin.

Ba da, caci instaurand egalitarismul socio-economic, nu se vor mai gandi la cum sa castige bani in plus, astfel incat aceasta preocupare ce reprezinta o adevarata panta alunecoasa pentru fericire va disparea. Inlocuita fiind cu activitati demonstrate ca sporind cu adevarat fericirea.

Sigur, tu poti raspunde ca daca le iei banii pe care ii detin in exces, ii vei face prin asta nefericiti. Obiectie slaba insa, din moment ce se stie ca omul e o fiinta extrem de adaptabila inclusiv la circumstantele extraordinar de negative. De pilda, cei ramasi paralizati revin dupa 6 luni-1 an la fericirea avuta inainte.

Retine si ca redistribuirea ii va face cu siguranta fericiti pe cei aflati sub limita saraciei.

Ai o sursa pentru afirmatia asta?



Adica mai multi bani le vor aduce fericirea? Nu te contrazici putin?

Mi se pare mai credibil ca se vor gandi cum sa castige bani in plus ocolind legea. Ori ca pur si simplu se vor gandi sa emigreze intr-o tara libera.

Pentru 6-12 luni, probabil...


Spune-mi te rog, de ce ar trebui sa ne preocupe fericirea altora? Oamenii iau in mod benevol decizii care le afecteaza negativ fericirea. Este dreptul lor. Asa cum se stie, un nivel inalt de educatie este corelat cu un indice mai scazut de fericire. De asemenea, cu cat credinta religioasa este mai puternica, cu atat oamenii sunt mai fericiti. Rezulta de aici ca ar trebui sa-i obligam pe semenii nostri sa fie saraci, needucati si sa-i ducem mai des la biserica?

Esti impostor spunand asaceva despre tragedia unora...

Retine si ca redistribuirea ii va face cu siguranta fericiti pe cei aflati sub limita saraciei.
Cum ai facut calculul?
Tu crezi ca daca imparti avearea a 10% ii umpli de fericire permanenta pe ceilalti 90%?!

Acest topic a fost editat de freeman: 31 Jan 2008, 12:59 PM

fericirea asta se da la punga? la litra? la kila?
ce treaba are starea de moment a unui individ, cu averea daca chiar e sa vorbim pe sleau? si de ce ar trebui ca sa fim toti egali?
a vrut ceausescu asta si nu a iesit nimic, daca suntem toti egali suntem nefericiti - s-a demonstrat in atitea studii ca umanoizii sunt fericiti daca se simt 5 minute mai inteligenti, mai avuti, mai "orice" decat vecinii....

Am gasit un articol in care scrie ca fericirea in exces dauneaza sanatatii, ca cei extrem de fericiti traiesc mai putin:

se moare de ras, nu altceva

Intotdeauna.
In cazul de fata, descoperirea ca paraplegicii revin la nivelul de fericire anterior accidentului a fost facuta initial de cercetatorii Brickman, Philip; Coates, Dan; Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie in studiul "Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative?", publicat in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1978 Aug Vol 36(8) 917-927.

Rezultatele cercetarii lor au ramas valabile pana azi si sunt acceptate de alti mari specialisti in domeniul psihologiei fericirii, precum Diener si Kahneman.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...15902-5,00.html

Relatarea originala despre acest studiu ser gaseste aici: http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0124happiness.html

Studiul acesta ajunge la aceleasi rezultate ca si celelalte (de ex. ca banii in exces nu sporesc semnificativ fericirea, asa cum o fac relatiile sociale), insa incearca sa le interpreteze diferit, adica eronat. Autorii spun ca cei mai fericiti oameni nu sunt cei care au bani multi, se implica in politica si au studii inalte, ci aceia care
au o viata sociala de succes. Insa de aici, in loc sa-i sfatuiasca pe aia cu bani multi si cariere sa renunte la astea ca sa-si sporeasca fericirea, le recomanda
celorlalti sa se apuce de ele ca sa-si scada fericirea. Nimic mai ilogic.

Totodata, coordonatorul studiului, Ed Diener, spune: "The people in our study who are the most successful in terms of things like income are mildly happy most of the time," he said."

"Mildly", "moderate", termeni care ii caracterizeaza pe cei de pe treptele 8 si 9 ale fericirii, nu inseamna decat ca respectivii sunt fericiti "intr-o oarecare masura", "intrucatva", "cu moderatie". Acestea nu sunt insa decat eufemisme pentru "fericire mediocra, medie". Asa ca cei care erau scandalizati de mediocritatea indusa, chipurile, de egalitarismul financiar, ar trebui sa prefere la randul lor fericirea maximala, ca sa se asigure ca ies din zona „gri" a satisfactiei.

Si, din cate inteleg, sa-si prelungeasca astfel viata si sa-si imbunatateasca sanatatea.

aha

Fragmentul relevant este:



Dar din faptul ca atunci cand suntem diagnosticati cu o boala grava, fericirea maxima „nu ne imbunatateste intotdeauna sansele de supravietuire” nu rezulta ca trebuie sa ne scadem pana la mediocritate fericirea in tot restul vietii, in toate privintele, apucandu-ne de activitati fara sens precum imbogatirea sau accederea pe scara sociala. Din contra, inseamna ca trebuie sa fim atenti la sanatatea noastra astfel incat sa ne prelungim cat mai mult viata pentru a beneficia cat mai mult de fericirea maxima. Sfatul indicat aici este ca atunci cand sanatatea ne e in mare pericol, sa fim cat mai atenti si realisti in cautarea insanatosirii, daca o asemenea sansa exista. Cantitatea de fericire pierduta in acest interval va fi oricum compensata de ce data de insanatosire in sine.

In numarul 2005;331:1489-1490 (24 December) al revistei academice British Medical Journal, Tony Delamothe, deputy editor , a publicat un editorial in care sumarizeaza excelent descoperirile despre fericire realizate de cercetatori in ultimii ani. In linii mari, fericirea este data de relatiile de familie, prietenesti, de coeziunea sociala, dar nu de imbogatire si statut social. Totodata, aflam ca la randul lor, conditiile in care muncim (precum autonomia la locul de munca, respectul intre lucratori, participarea la luarea deciziilor etc.) sunt extrem de importante, insa munca in exces este daunatoare. Fericirea trebuie urmata nu doar pentru ca este un bun in sine, afirma Delamothe, ci si pentru ca ne sporeste longevitatea.

Banii nu sporesc fericirea
„As everyone since Midas knows, acquiring riches is a poor long term bet in the happiness stakes. A recent review concluded that "money can buy you happiness, but not much, and above a modest threshold, more money does not mean more happiness." Individuals usually get richer during their lifetimes—but not happier.
As for individuals, so for countries. Ghana, Mexico, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States all share similar life satisfaction scores despite per capita income varying 10-fold between the richest and poorest country. Per capita incomes have quadrupled in most advanced economies over the past 50 years, but levels of subjective wellbeing have hardly budged.
Researchers believe that it's relative income, rather than absolute income, that matters to people. However well we're doing, there's always someone else doing better. The pleasure of paying off the mortgage on one's modest abode is neutralised by news that a 19 year old footballer is erecting a neo-Georgian mansion, complete with indoor swimming pool, three car garage, and cinema. As we realise one set of aspirations, it seems we immediately trade up to a more expensive set, to which we transfer our hopes for happiness. As Samuel Johnson noted: "Life is a progress from want to want, not from enjoyment to enjoyment."

Realatiile sociale aduc si mentin fericirea
„If money doesn't buy happiness, what does? In all 44 countries surveyed in 2002 by the Pew Research Center, family life provided the greatest source of satisfaction. Married people live on average three years longer and enjoy greater physical and psychological health than the unmarried. Having a family enhances wellbeing, and spending more time with one's family helps even more—as many British politicians can attest. Economists define "social capital" as the ties that bind families, neighbourhoods, workplaces, communities, and religious groups together and find that it correlates strongly with subjective wellbeing. In fact, the breadth and depth of individuals' social connections are the best predictors of their happiness.”

Fericirea la locul de munca
„Work is central to wellbeing, and certain features correlate highly with happiness. These include autonomy over how, where, and at what pace work is done; trust between employer and employee; procedural fairness; and participation in decision making. (...) Make sure you're not working so hard that you've no time left for personal relationships and leisure. If you are, leave your job voluntarily to become self employed, but don't get sacked—that's more damaging to wellbeing than the loss of a spouse, and its effects last longer. In your spare time, join a club, volunteer for community service, or take up religion.”

Fericirea ne prelungeste viata
„What's so great about being happy, other than, well, being happy? At the country level, evidence exists for an association between unhappiness and poor health: people from the former Soviet Union are among the unhappiest in the world, and their life expectancy has been falling. But how good is the evidence for the opposite—that happiness contributes to good health, or a longer life? An intriguing longitudinal study of nuns, spanning seven decades, supports this hypothesis. Auto-biographies written by the nuns in their early 20s were scored for positive and negative emotions. Nuns expressing the most positive emotions lived on average 10 years longer than those expressing the least positive emotions. Summarising this work, Barbara Fredrickson cites three more studies that, after the usual confounders had been accounted for, "found the same solid link between feeling good and living longer." Happiness therefore seems to add years to life, as well as life to years.”

Editorialul poate fi citit integral la adresa: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7531/1489#REF3

Chiar as vrea sa vad daca Helmuth merge pana la a recomanda religiozitatea!

Helmuth a mutat usor-usor discutia de la placeri foarte ieftine sau gratuite inspre un soi de societate egalitarista (neocomunism? neosocialism?) in care averea celor bogati (deci nefericiti) sa se redististribuie catre cei saraci (deci fericiti).
Asta poate suna a nationalizare. S-a mai intamplata asta: s-au nationalizat mijloacele de productie, proprietatile, banii, averile - nu numai ale celor foarte bogati, dar si ale celor un pic mai rasariti 'chiaburii' de la sate ce aveau peste 2,5 hectare sau cei ce aveau o camera in plus fata de numarul membrilor familiei la orase. Societatea comunista/socialista a trait din aceste nationalizari cateva zeci de ani, pana a ajuns la un colaps economico-financiar-social in care populatia nu putea achizitiona hrana dupa dorinta, pe cai oneste, din magazine (remember: cartele la ulei, paine, carne, mezeluri, zahar etc; cozi la 'se da ceva'...). Societarea respectiva devenise dpdv social un lagar inchis, izolat si represiv care era obligata sa preamareasca cultul personalitatii conducatorilor. Cat de fericiti erau acei oameni?
Revenind la 'nationalizare': Eu am mentionat mai devreme ca acesti bani nu ajung sa niveleze toate inegalitatile materiale intre indivizii societatii, pe toata durata vietii lor - mai trebuie adaugat ceva- iar solutia propusa cu munca lejera de 3-5 ore pe zi/individ nu o cred valida dpdv pur economic, cred ca s-ar produce un colaps financiar generalizat, sau s-ar trai ca in tarile africane cele mai sarace. In acest caz am fi mai fericiti decat acum?

Johnson noted: "Life is a progress from want to want, not from enjoyment to enjoyment." Asta a scapat la tipar?!

Helmuth, o intrebare foarte relevanta: daca s-ar face redistribuirea asta a ta, tu ai da sau ai primi?

Mai ca ma manca deshtele sa facem un poll: cine vrea sa traiasca fericit, dar mai putin, ori " miserable" dar mai mult???? In ce ma priveste, deja m-am cam plikti...deci m-ash inscrie plina de ...fericire in primul pluton .Deja ma ia groaza ca vine batranetzea, o sa ma doara si mai rau ce ma doare acum, ma rog....nu intrevad vreun motiv s-o lungesc prea mult...Da' cativa ani de fericire( and I mean, fericire, cum ati promis, nu multumirea ca ai trecut cu bine si de ziua de azi)...da...ar fi grozav...

V

nu intrevad vreun motiv s-o lungesc prea mult
uite asa vorbeste o doamna trecuta prin viata

freeman, daca te-am facut sa zambesti, se cheama ca am facut un lucru bun pe ziua de azi....nu?

V

da, sigur, tu esti o doamna si d'aia imi permit sa glumesc cu tine
pana la urma e un topic despre fericire, nu?

O doamna cam ursuza zilele astea, din pacate...Multam de gluma, oricum...

Eu creca' topicul asta e despre bani...totusi... Fericirea e promisa, numai...Desi putem stabili cu (aproximativ) certitudine, putem arata cu degatul oamenii saraci sau bogati, e foarte greu de stabilit cine e fericit/a..
Chiar si aia care sunt, nu-si dau seama de asta pana nu pierd ce au, si realizeaza cat de fericiti erau inainte de...


V

Julian Edney este doctor in psihologie si preda psihologia si filosofia la Universitatea din California pe care a si absolvit-o. In articolul sau "Materialism, a deepening shadow", publicat la 15 iunie 2006 in Online Journal, Edney subliniaza cateva dintre abominatiile cauzate de goana nebuneasca si fara sens spre averi si bogatie materiala. Printre acestea, abandonarea de catre fiinta umana a interesului catre filosofie, iubirea de intelepciune, obsesia unui stil de viata dovedit stiintific ca incapabil sa sporeasca fericirea, toxicitatea competitiei capitaliste, inegalitati financiare si diluarea importantei conceptului de bunastarea sociala (common good).

Lacomia materiala, dusmanul preocuparilor intelectuale

"There are many ways to get detoured off the high path of life. Bad investments, bad marriages, the wrong occupation will all do the trick, and they all begin with legitimate-looking diversions. Whole societies can get detoured, trapped into crippling wars or imprisoned within their own borders by charismatic dictators. All start as sensible-looking ventures and on the way, nobody guesses destiny.
Our exorbitant materialism is a loss of the way. We did not come to a point of ownership-obsession overnight, nor did it descend one day like a sun-darkening cloud of locusts; it is a coloring that has been gathering slowly within. In 1966, when college freshmen were surveyed about what they were going to do with their lives, 44 percent said it was important or essential to become well off financially, but by 1996 that had risen to 73 percent. Conversely, back in 1966 a full 83 percent said it was important to develop a philosophy of life, but by1996 that had dropped to 42 percent [Edney citeaza in acest sens studiul Myers, D. G. The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist 2000, 55, 56-67. ].

On a graph, the ascending line crosses the declining line in a stark X; it is clear one motivation has displaced the other. Nowadays, it is rare to hear about a philosophy of life; money and property have become our main attention. We believe we are what we own. Where is materialism taking us?"

Bogatia nu ne face mai fericiti
"Does money make us happy? Actually, Jeremy Bentham led us astray when he stated that money is the most accurate measure of pleasure. Recently a collection of studies has revealed that in fact rich people are not happier, and that adding wealth to your life does not increase your sense of well being (unless you live below the poverty line) [vezi Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudiamonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001, 52, 141-166 ].
Moreover rich nations are not always healthier: the recent discovery is that people in egalitarian nations live longer than people in richer nations that are hierarchical" [vezi Sapolsky, R. Sick of poverty. Scientific American, 2005, 293, 92-99.].

Prosperitatea materiala si materialismul ca piedici in calea fericirii

"But people think money will make them happier, and that’s what motivates them. Psychological studies show that it is actually companionship and family that make people happier. So we are immersed in both sides. In practice, money corrupts friendship and money problems are second only to infidelity as a cause of divorce [Amato, P. R. and Rogers, S J. A longitudinal study of marital problems and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1997, 59, 612-624.].
Observe, says Yale’s Robert Lane, a simultaneous national growth of wealth and depression. In The Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies, he puts it this way: there is “a titanic conflict between the oldest human institution, and the newest, the market” [vezi Lane, R.E. The loss of happiness in market democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. p. 33.]. Statistics bear him out. We are richer than ever, and huge numbers are using prescription antidepressants. Severe depression is 10 times more prevalent that it was 50 years ago, and suicide is the third highest cause of death in young people. The triumphant free market does not care. Lane says it is Darwinian, indifferent, a winnowing process, amoral, with no concern for what happens to persons.
Psychologists have begun to focus in. Tim Kasser has a book The High Price of Materialism that investigates the type of person who should thrive in the market environment: the materialistic personality. Materialists, as we might predict, believe acquisition is the solution. They watch prodigious amounts of television that touts materialist values. But when they acquire, they are not satisfied. Research shows they are also poor at personal relationships; they are anxious, alienated, and depressed; they are competitive; and college-aged materialists are more likely to be conflictual and aggressive on dates. They drink more alcohol. Death plays a bigger role in materialists’ dreams [Kasser, T. The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.].
A single-minded pursuit of goods is justified by classical economics and it is loosely attached to the idea of liberty, but apparently our habit of making commodities our friends is not working. Why?"

Nocivitatea competitiei capitaliste
"Because the drive for material goods is competitive, and since the outcome of competition is inequality, materialism is spreading us apart. Competition erodes trust, and is a gradual poison in companionate relationships. The compensation is supposed to be freedom but in practice we are all encouraged into the same want-of-wealth by the same media, particularly television, and so we conform, which means we are not free. Summed up, over longer periods of time, the differences among us become more important than the similarities. "

Inegalitati daunatoare pentru societate
"Today the top 1 percent of the population owns more than 40 percent of the wealth [Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B.P. and Wilkinson, R.G. (Eds.) The society and population health reader. New York: The New Press, 1999. pp. xi-xii. ]. The differences between the wealthy and the poor are colossal. There is a kind of self-segregation underway, a “secession of the wealthy” into gated communities.
Robert Sapolsky makes the point that as differences grow, the wealthy also become less inclined to pay taxes that go to benefit the average person, or to invest in what is average. They are simply too different. So over time as the rich get richer the middle is not raised, and these differences will compound themselves. Radical materialism becomes a threat to the unity on which any well-ordered society is based. An obvious casualty is the concept of the common good. Nobody uses the term any more – and it’s not that the idea of common good has faded from fashion, rather, the concept has ritually been attacked by libertarians, especially by that demagogue Ayn Rand, who dogmatically and repeatedly stated that the common good does not exist. Instead, she vociferously argued for selfishness as a value. Without a common good, community values such as peace, justice and equality cannot survive. "

Remediul: ideologia bunului comun
`The writing on the wall is luminous. Unless we find a way to put the common good back in place, we can look forward to more atomization, more loneliness, more divisions, and more alienation, which sociologists will never stop reporting. This is a shadow on the land that will be increasingly difficult to lift. How will all this get repaired?
If philosophy and materialism displace each other, the antidote is to build a shared philosophy. It is called an ideology, basically a collection of ideas which describes a purpose. With the incessant commercialism we have almost lost our interest in ideas, everything being replaced by images. But an ideology puts ideas first again. It is a common sense. It states values, priorities, goals, and it prescribes a common path for action, giving continuity, which gradually rebuilds trust. It may start with a vision, which has also been missing."

Autorul incheie scriind: "This is a crisis. Because materialism is hostile to intellectual growth, it will be difficult, stumbling back, to find the right path. It is what we have to do. "

Ca sa realizez un joc de cuvinte ce precis este inclusiv pe placul lui Julian Edney, "the right path is the left path!".

Articolul prezentat poate fi citit integral la adresa: http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publis...ticle_910.shtml

Un grup de oameni fericiti, adunati pentru a-si arata bucuria pentru norocul de a trai intr-un regim egalitarist, de stanga:



Acest topic a fost editat de abis: 7 Feb 2008, 03:43 PM

Nu se vede imaginea.

Curios, la mine se vede, si cu Firefox, si cu IE...

Sa renuntam toti la masini si sa folosim transportul in comun, la fel ca in acea epoca glorioasa a egalitarsimului stangist!