Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Tania Bruguera: Well, on the one hand I think that this has to do with the concern over accepting, of hoarding of that these [inaudible] resources, I think that it has to do with the concern, the concern over what the society can´t put at disposal. And a concern over, I think, which is based on the non-support of the governments to the citizens what I want to say like this for example maybe in countries where the government has a policy which is more orientated towards social [inaudible] and with a social security which is a bit more developed; maybe there weren´t so much concern, so much concern over poverty and the problem is that poverty just doesn´t cause so precarious things like hunger or diseases but poverty also causes a [inaudible] of the posibilities [inaudible] and I don´t know if it also [inaudible] with the concern over making less being human, to a certain extent. And I think that it is also accepted because one has seen that the people who have hoarded wealth has also hoarded power. And I think that power, that the wish to [blabla] is one of the big problems [inaudible] of the contemporary societies.

by Tania Bruguera

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Tavis Smiley: Why is it socially acceptable to hoard wealth while so many go without basic needs? Well, first of all, not everyone believes that it is socially acceptable to hoard wealth while many go without basic needs. It’s important to say that. We tend to sometimes answer these questions in the way that they are asked. The truth of the matter is not everyone does in fact believe that, not even all of the wealthy believe that. Around this table and around the world there are persons who have been blessed to acquire a great amount of wealth and do what they can to share that and to give that. The two richest men in the world, both who live in the United States of America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and both of late have made news by giving away so much of the wealth that they in fact have acquired and created. So not everyone believes that, to begin with. But certainly too many do. And for those who do, it is I think a matter simply of greed and again another construct that we have to redesign and recreate. But it’s important to understand that those of us who don’t feel this way have a responsibility to talk about sharing, to talk about caring in a way that resonates with persons around the world.

by Tavis Smiley

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Tegla Loroupe: Answertext will be available soon.

by Tegla Loroupe

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Thenmozhi Soundararajan: I think that is the magic show of capitalism. We don’t actually see the people who make our food, who serve us our products. I think because of that we can ignore the violence that’s related to that and continue to be on our individual paths to accumulation of our own capital. With that said, I think that one of the things that events like the Table here, or even in local communities, is that I think that we understand that this is morally an apprehensible way to interact with the world, and I think people are seeking alternatives to that. I guess one of the things that we need to do is actually make it popular to not be a consumer, make it popular to have another relationship to knowledge, wisdom, land, the earth and each other that’s not based on consumption; that’s not based on capital. I think that that seems like a very grand idea, but there are very simple things that you can do. You can have a turnoff your TV day. You can have a “I will buy nothing day.” I will barter and not use money as the means of exchange and really look at ways that we can make the ideas of this popular and not seem so fantastical. I think it’s one of the tricks of the media system that it makes having our relationships be about relationships with each other seem so abnormal without there being a consumption connection with it. That’s primarily advertising. Before advertising, we had relationships with each other all the time. We worked with each other. We broke bread with each other. We told stories with each other. Now, under the current system, we have to do all of that based on money. So, I think it’s our challenge as a generation to really look at the ways that we can basically jam that idea and be able to look at other ways we can relate to each other not based on money and not based on consumption.

by Thenmozhi Soundararajan

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Tu Weiming: One way of looking at the situation is this extremely powerful ideology of the idea of the economic man. The idea of economic man now has been a source of inspiration for some of the most talented and innovated young people and this notion that a rational animal is self-interested, is trying to maximize his or her profit in the marketplace adjudicated by law gives the rational for hoarding great deal of wealth, this very little concern in terms of social responsibility, in terms of sympathy, in terms of social solidarity. This ideology itself is the reason for the whole idea of the concentration of wealth in the hands of the field and this notion about the trickling process that will allow these kind of wealth to be distributed. And this is a totally abnormal situation and the situation has been tolerated for so long for the wrong reason unless we change this particular mindset. And of course, changing the mindset is not simply a voluntary act. It has to be challenged by the various kinds of competing ideas about what is human flourishing. If economic wealth is considered in the priority as the highest value for the brilliant and innovated young, the situation is unlikely to be changed. So it’s not simply the question of behavior but the question of attitude and belief. I strongly believe that this conception of economic men which is so deeply rooted in modern consciousness will have to be changed dramatically in order to allow people to move beyond this very… [audio ends]

by Tu Weiming

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Udi Aloni:

by Udi Aloni

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Valentina Melnikova: A question about economical and social inequality is one of the most pressing questions of the present time. Just differences in living standards, access to food, education and possibilities to earn one’s living cause hatred and aggression of people who are not able to provide them decent living standards because of a general low level of the home country, or of their state. Mankind is actually a biological species, and every biological species strives to survive and to secure the best conditions for organisms or individuals who can do it. May be my answer is a little bit cynical but I always remember that a human being is also a creature of the earth and he is quite egoistical. The problem is not about how to share what they produce in developed countries. The question is about how to give poor countries a possibility to develop their economies, their population, to produce food and clean water and a possibility of education. It is a complicated question but our meeting today should help us to find an answer to this question.

by Valentina Melnikova

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Vesna Pesic: Answertext will be available soon.

by Vesna Pesic

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Viviana Figueroa: Why is it socially accepted? Well, it depends on the “generalized society”. In my village, my indigenous village Mauaca, hoard wealth isn’t allowed, because all belongs to all members of my village. This means that [we can’t have more land of what we’ve always had to live]. We can’t hoard wealth, we have to participate on a charitable development in which everyone of the members has always an interdependency. This interdependency isn’t only in the community, but also with the other communities for example concerning the use of water, the use of resources – the use of all what belongs to our land/area. In societies where doesn’t exist indigenous villages it’s allowed to hoard wealth, because in my village there is a system of common areas. We have to respect each other and we can’t hoard more, because this would produce a state of imbalance with the nature, with our “Pacha Mama”, with our brothers and sisters. In the world the business relations gained more acceptance than the personal relations. Relations which actually produce an interesting/a precious culture, like it’s the case in my village, support human relations where everyone is important and where everybody has to obtain a role, where everybody has his / her responsibility for the community; he / she doesn’t do it only for himself / herself, not only the people, but all live beings, but also for the future generations. So this vision has gained acceptance regarding the villages and it isn’t any vision which accepts the accumulation like something natural.

by Viviana Figueroa

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Wim Wenders: The great myth of capitalism is that it allows a single person to become stinking rich and that everybody has that chance and that option. It’s the Uncle Scrooge image in the Donald Duck comics. Millionaires bathing in money are the ultimate symbol of success in our present social and economic system. The price for single man or corporations to hold so much money to achieve such abundance is for others to remain indeed poor. But why is that acceptable? The same question would be, why is capitalism so accepted that there are eventually no more alternatives around? Except for China, maybe. Why do we still glorify wealth? Why do people with a lot of money and therefore power think of themselves as worthier and indeed why do our societies or press or television or cinema revere the rich? I think it would be extremely helpful if the perception of wealth could be changed already, because that could lead eventually to a different reaction and action towards indecent wealth. Things do not change unless first the way we look at them is changed. The way wealth is represented in movies and on television, for instance, as synonymous with success. So poverty becomes failure. It’s the same with unemployment. It’s perceived as failure and that is absurd. Isn’t unemployment the ultimate triumph of capitalism? Less work produces more growth. So the unemployed should be our heroes, but that is not the present perception. In socialism, they erected monuments for the heroes who work, who had exceeded their production capacities and had – and who had surpassed themselves. In capitalism, we should erect monuments for the unemployed because they are the true symbols of growth and success. Instead they are stigmatized by our own [audio ends]

by Wim Wenders

Sep 9, 2006 10:35:00 AM cite

Yungchen Lhamo:

by Yungchen Lhamo