Victor You are right. The term collectivism is possibly the wrong term however, what I was getting at is that there are collective aspects or traits to every part of humanity. A family is a collective of sorts, as is a business, a community etc. There is a definite collectivist aspect to publicly traded corporations and because the vote is one vote for one share it is distinctively less democratic than a co-operative which is one member one vote, regardless of dollars invested.
If you remove the collective aspect from any aspect of society it will collapse. Human beings need other human beings. No different than this exchange, if there is no discussion it all stops. As for the quote, I know that you were quoting from a book and what I was saying is that you can get the same quote from all religions as to their compatibility with other religions. I went on to mean that people are compatible it is the religions that have been teaching the incompatibility. Also if the principle is supposedly Christian or Jewish or Buddhist, or whatever but that principle is in fact good for all than it, in truth, is a human principle, good for all human beings. Hence there is then no need to say that it is based on something else that perhaps the theoretician who presented it was speaking from. Probably finding out later that it was good for everyone and not just "whatever" it was originally represented to be. The need to continue to say that it was the "whatever" principle is to deny it to others by virtue of their lack of interest in the "whatever." Chick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Victor Bridger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and Christian Philosophy/Policy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chick Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 2:26 AM > Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and Christian Philosophy/Policy > > > Chick said in part: " There is a very big difference between > totalitarianism and collectivism.". > > V.B. There is an obvious misunderstanding of the use of "collectivism". It > is not the same as collectiveness. Incidentally, it would remove > misunderstanding if, when quoting the correct source is used. aAquote was > attributed to me that was not mine. I was, and it was made perfectly clear, > that I was quoting from another source. If there is any disagreement with > the content of the original quote it should be directed to that source. > Don't shoot the messenger. > Vic Bridger > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
