Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#621 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:11 PM

<1 imitation is not civilization>

Hi Sourabh
It's important to know the difference between the lion (the government) and the little animals (the people). Lions are lions wherever you go, and people is people. Otherwise fine.

Remember *humanism*!

PS: You are studying medicine, right? What do you think about prevention (diet, exercise, etc)? Don't you agree that a for-profit medicine encourages disease and illness? (Don't worry, doctors should be well compensated.);)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#622 sourabh

sourabh

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:01 PM

bader
i m fine thanks fr ur time and info...i fully agree with our DON that we have a lot to learn from u........however i just hav 1 objection to ur post.......<<<The "servant" spirit
of the nuses and Doctors who cared for the>>>>
the word "servent" i think should have been better written as "social servant" or "social worker"

bcoz as far as i know in the soviet times there had been no concept of master and servent
  • 0

#623 sourabh

sourabh

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:06 PM

<<<They still come by every morning to pick up dead bodies in Calcutta?>>>

no they r busy enough at Iraq , Afganisthan and Hirosima
  • 0

#624 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:07 PM

Thanks Mach-h, I enjoyed and support your comments and
I would like to hear a lot more of what you have to say.
Our perceptions may appear to vary but that I think is due to
the quantum of time, but I don't think we would much diferent
when they come together.

I am with Donq , there is a LION in the way. The lion can
represent a evolutional perspective that has man not in control
of history as it unfolds according to a mind of its own; or it can represent a determative one
that represents the will of an elite- as Roosevelt said- if it happened that way it was because it was planned. He was
in the centre of power and was subject to great pressure
from those who hold the power behind and over governments.
I think I have been making it pretty clear I'm with the second option.
Some might argue there is no lion, we just need to invent a perfect form of government.
And then there are competing perspectives within each.
( almost makes one wary thinking about it all)
  • 0

#625 Buttersideup

Buttersideup

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10450 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:13 PM

That's odd, I have Indian friends and they seem to feel there is terrible poverty there.....you must be from a rich family
  • 0

#626 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:34 PM

Point taken re the use of the word "servant".
but I deliberately chose that word to add emphasis to the point in the context.
The Doctors and nurses were trained to provide the health
SERVICE to society, ( a culture of service/ public servants) the new bureaucrats were taking away what belonged to the people to suit an ideological formula- in other words they acted like they owned what the taxpayer paid for- not a culture of service but
a lion culture of rule.
I liked your responses to Jif-7
In your last point, I diferentiate between the people and the power. If you read Bush's National Defence Strategy released last Sept, I think it was, he endevours to transform the world to
an image and where the IMF and WTO are resisted His army will
as in Iraq, restructure it. This "war" is indefinite, he said so.
The excuse is that the image will eliminate all causes of terrorism.
So in your last point nations may become like the US image whether they like it or not.
So in one respect for Russia to be like the US (image), just leave it to the IMF reforms of which the health ones I outlined are an exact model or Bush if they don't.
  • 0

#627 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:37 PM

<I am with Donq , there is a LION in the way. >

Howdy Bader
It looks like there's a lion that's very hungry--he wants to eat more than he really needs!--and stupid--he's threatening his own survival!;)

<The lion can
represent a evolutional perspective that has man not in control
of history as it unfolds according to a mind of its own; or it can represent a determative one
that represents the will of an elite- as Roosevelt said- if it happened that way it was because it was planned. He was
in the centre of power and was subject to great pressure
from those who hold the power behind and over governments.
I think I have been making it pretty clear I'm with the second option.>

Me too.

<Some might argue there is no lion, we just need to invent a perfect form of government.
And then there are competing perspectives within each.
( almost makes one wary thinking about it all) >

Well, the Lion we are dealing with certainly likes dressing like a sheep. So we got to see the facts...;)

HOW THE BLACK SHEEP WERE EXPELLED

One day the Lion, who had been thinking how to best eat the sheep,
decided to dress as a sheep... And that's how the sheep trusted the
new sheep more and more every day, some confessing to him, others voting for him, and most allowing to be trimmed by him...

Meanwhile, the Black Sheep thought this way: "If he got paws and big teeth and roars, lion he is..."

And that's the reason why from then on the Black Sheep weren't allowed
to mingle anymore with the simple and common sheep...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#628 sourabh

sourabh

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:46 PM

<<Hi Sourabh
It's important to know the difference between the lion (the government) and the little animals (the people). Lions are lions wherever you go, and people is people. Otherwise fine.>>

.......it reminds me of yr story.....about the jungle.......somewhere near newyork??


""You are studying medicine, right? What do you think about prevention (diet, exercise, etc)? Don't you agree that a for-profit medicine encourages disease and illness? "

thats why i love love the lions from my carrer point of view.................king lion will create enough job oppurtunities fr me
long live the king(as lion)
  • 0

#629 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 12:23 AM

Sorry to digress guys,

But a statement by Buttersideup caught my eye, and I'd like to expound on it.

"The line "juggernaut of American cultural imperialism abroad" is suspect."

BSU, trust me it exists. It exists in different ways in different countries, but it exists. Things made by a country carry the label of that country. People look at the product, and they see the people. That's why French perfume, wine, bread and cheese, sounds like some gay guy at the deli.

We have our influence too. Jazz, Rock and Roll, Movies, Cutting-edge technology are all symbols of the US that people readily recognize around the world. And the two most famous, fast food and gadgets, easily separate us from the rest of the world. Yes, we are known as GADGETLAND throughout the world. Anything gadgety, electronic wizardy, usually to an absurd degree, smacks of the US. And there is a lot more symbolism out there.

We kinda look like a juggernaut to the rest of the world. WHY??? Because we are! You can't be the biggest economy on the Planet and pass for a shrimp boat at the same time.
  • 0

#630 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 04:58 AM

Well, to use the metaphor, I think that in many ways the lion is in each of us and that to a large part our unjust and blind institutions reflect an unjust and blind species. That's why I like the formulation of history being not only a crime but a punishment for one. It is true that hierarchies make some powerless victims and some (and I would still claim almost equally powerless) oppressors, but it's hard to see the institutions themselves at the core of the problem but as only a symptom of something else and deeper.

To donquijote: from which world we did emerge - from an even more unjust one of subsistence and strict hierarchy. Africa is a special case, but even there I would doubt that any pre-industrial Eden existed. Even if anything like the Australian aboriginal civilization (in many ways the highest human achievement so far) should have been established also in Africa, it would not have been an Eden, but a deeply traditional and in many ways closed and non-pluralistic society with very strict roles and material limitations.
  • 0

#631 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 06:06 AM

I enjoy your answers T Beat, u're one cool dude who shows that joke about One gentleman once lived in the USA missed its mark.

Mach-h,
We put diferent weights on diferent parts of the ?quation, so I
don't disagree with your points. I do see, with no problem, the
"institutions" as being at the core of the problem, I think I have made many pointers to date, however they are servants of the
deeper "else" you speak of, but as I have mentioned before that that takes in a level above this thread for me, so by and large we are in the same ball park.
Take the "protocols of the learned Elders of Zion", ignoring the
label and claims of origin which are of less importance than the contents. The knowledge indicated there in was in advance of
what was established eg psychology and political science and the like, in universities. Anyone who reads these can clearly see that
they are and have been put to use.

Regards early civilizations, there are some who believed Eden was somewhere in the vercinity of Sudan, and given that the
Sahara desert isn't original, the region was forested, there is
a civilization remnant buried under all that sand.

I read recently that the word "slav" came from the word slave,
or that both came from the same root-word. Which suggests that somewhere in the vacinity of Russia there must have been
a powerful civilization to bring peoples into that region.
Can anyone enlighten me about anything along this line or about the origin of the Rus.

One other point of interest, in response to the comment from
Sourabh regards the US, and I know that the US has a growing
and formidable record for going to war, but as I said I seperate
the people out from the power, I am unaware of any reason to
believe that either the Russian or US people themselves are war-like in nature. I think it is reasonable to say that in the nineteenth century they both would have been viewed as likely
or potential major powers in the twentieth century and beyond.
I am suggesting that as a result they have both been subverted from within in very diferent ways.
  • 0

#632 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 06:48 AM

I would say our thinking does differ very significantly in many respects but that there are curiously close affinities despite this wide distance of origin! As to the protocols I would not see basically any significance unless a certain interest in the underlieing adamant hostility towards the modern world - and in favour of some, fundamentally imagined, premodern "paradise" (and this in itself is quite a modern attitude). So, I think I share your criticism, but extend it also and even stronger to any historical alternatives which you might not do. In many ways I like the current conditions in the West and see our societies as slightly less barbaric than what has existed before or alongside. But this is not to say much.
  • 0

#633 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 06:55 AM

i have always wondered if noah didn't come from atlantis.

as for the rus, as i understood it, they were a mixture of the original migration to eastern europe combined with the mongols.

but it's been a bit since my rusky history class; i could be off.
  • 0

#634 sourabh

sourabh

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 12:29 PM

Dear Bader
our medical science teaches us that "all man is true by heart-." the medical explanation will b out of context here but the statement is true in case of man-s nature too-..US ,Russian , human beings ..all r peace lovers--I m extremely sorry if any way any statement of mine has hurt any national sentiment-

well!! I would like to know ur view in one respect. In a different
thread "communism is a necessary evil" I came through a man called PeterL who
suggests


""" Switzerland is a capitalist federation of small republics. As in all federal republics, the people own the government, and representatives of the people make governmental decisions. For the most part the government allows the people to live their lives as they wish. The Swiss economy has large corporations and small businesses owned by individuals. It is a wealthy country, not at the top of the list, but wealthy. the society is quite diverse for such a small area; there are 4 official languages and distinct differences among the regions."""

--to b an ideal political model for the world------
in my own view such a system may prosper in a small country(by area) like Switzerland -but when such a system of local government is applied to
a vast country like Russia or USA-.. its likely to crumble -.bcoz at the eve of a
national depression (political ,military , economic) the centre with minimum power will fail to coordinate between local governments-.who will thus breakup into smaller independent nations -----
since we have always learnt a great deal from u -and since in this thread we have been discussing about an ideal political system-it wont b out of context , I think,
if u discuss the ups and downs of Switzerland model -.specially for Russia
  • 0

#635 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 05:54 PM

""" Switzerland is a capitalist federation of small republics. As in all federal republics, the people own the government, and representatives of the people make governmental decisions. For the most part the government allows the people to live their lives as they wish. The Swiss economy has large corporations and small businesses owned by individuals. It is a wealthy country, not at the top of the list, but wealthy. the society is quite diverse for such a small area; there are 4 official languages and distinct differences among the regions."""

<--to b an ideal political model for the world------
in my own view such a system may prosper in a small country(by area) like Switzerland -but when such a system of local government is applied to
a vast country like Russia or USA-.. its likely to crumble -.bcoz at the eve of a
national depression (political ,military , economic) the centre with minimum power will fail to coordinate between local governments-.who will thus breakup into smaller independent nations -----
since we have always learnt a great deal from u -and since in this thread we have been discussing about an ideal political system-it wont b out of context , I think,
if u discuss the ups and downs of Switzerland model -.specially for Russia>

Howdy Sourabh
I think the Swiss decentralized system is particularly compatible with Russia in light of her racial diversity. Whoever wants their own commune let 'em have it, *so long the free movement of people is allowed*. Why is it so important? Because if that new political turns terribly bad, the *people would be able to vote with their feet*. Look at this...

Maximizes Competition Among Policies. Because so many decisions are made at the local level, the Swiss are closely involved with the laws and regulations which affect their lives -- and because each canton is different, they are also able to see for themselves which policies work best. For example, one canton might have high taxes and expensive welfare programs, while another might opt for low taxes and private charity. Each Swiss citizen can then decide which policy suits him best and "vote with his feet" by moving to the canton which he finds the most attractive. The result is that good policies tend to drive out bad.

full text...

http://www.isil.org/...ton-system.html
  • 0

#636 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 06:28 PM

"In Cuba it has taken a fairly wealthy and diverse economy into poverty."

<i must accept since i am too young (18+) to gain enough experience i dont know much about the past n present of Cuba..... i ll b very obliged if u give me an authentic picture........
one more thing ...my object behind starting this thread was to discuss...not to dibate..... ...and i hope we will enrich our knowledge through all these discussions.....>

Sourabh, Cuba was--and still is--another centralized, dictatorial revolution.

Rene Dumont, a renowned French socialist and agronomist, proposed the cooperatives--which I support--to put food on the table, but he was igonored. Here's an interesting take on it...

'In Cuba the late state socialist Che Guevara had to quit the direction of industry, which he had run unsuccessfully owing to overcentralization. In Cuba: Socialism and Development, Rene Dumont, a French specialist in the Castro economy, deplores its "hypercentralization" and bureaucratization. He particularly emphasized the "authoritarian" errors of a ministerial department which tries to manage the factories itself and ends up with exactly the opposite results: "By trying to bring about a strongly centralized organization one ends up in practice . . . by letting any kind of thing be done, because one cannot maintain control over what is essential." He makes the same criticism of the state monopoly of distribution: the paralysis which it produces could have been avoided "if each production unit had preserved the function of supplying itself directly." "Cuba is beginning all over again the useless cycle of economic errors of the socialist countries," a Polish colleague in a very good position to know confided to Rene Dumont. The author concludes by abjuring the Cuban regime to turn to autonomous production units and, in agriculture, to federations of small farm-production cooperatives. He is not afraid to give the remedy a name, self-management, which could perfectly well be reconciled with planning. Unfortunately, the voice of Rene Dumont has not yet been heard in Havana. [He was later denounced by Castro as a "CIA agent"]:confused:

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#637 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 08:51 PM

<Cuba was an extreme example, but before Castro the economy was quite free. Battista permitted almost any economic activity, as long as he got his piece; battista was a dictator, but he did not dictate economic policy. After Castro took power everything became centralized and nothing worked. It looks like Dumont pulled his punches.>

Dumont wanted the little animals to be free and be able to feed themselves via a cooperative society. Castro--"El Lider Maximo"--though turned out to be a lion...

"..the major event of the twentieth century has been the abandonment of the values of liberty on the part of the revolutionary movement, the weakening of Libertarian Socialism, vis-a-vis Caesarist and militaristic Socialism. Since then, a great hope has disappeared from the world to be replaced by a deep sense of emptiness in the hearts of all who yearn for Freedom...."

('Neither Victims nor Executioners' by Albert Camus)

As Camus says, a deep sense of emptiness is felt by all those who wish for a revolution leading to the creation of a society which is classless and truly socialist. As the history of the 20th century has unfolded we have witnessed the repeated failure of vanguards and leaders to create the society for which the true-hearted revolutionaries have fought and died. Not so long ago most of the left held up the Soviet Union as an example of Socialism or something with some socialist features.

As the Eastern Bloc crumbled and the true horrors of sick states like Ceaucescu's Romania were exposed Cuba became the new Mecca for the left. What we find there is unfortunate and there is little to inspire us in the country which has had Fidel Castro at the wheel of power for over 30 years.

(snip)

Cuba : Castro's Playground
It comes as no surprise to learn that Castro chose to call himself a Marxist-Leninist. "I am a Marxist-Leninist and will remain one until the last day of my life" said Castro in 1961. This is a good political philosophy to adhere to if one intends to remain in power for 30 years and never release the reins of control to the working class.

How does Cuba function? On this Caribbean island you have a ruling class composed of the bureaucracy which came from the July 26th Movement. You have the remnants of the Stalinist Partido Socialista (Cuban Communist Party) who saw the Revolution and the nationalisation that followed as a means to strengthen their positions.

To the Cuban Communists their own survival is paramount, principles were abandoned as unhealthy a long time ago. Then you have the professionals such as academics, scientists and management. They have fewer privileges than their counterparts in the 'West' but are rewarded with praise and prizes as long as they remain uncritical. The ruling class is bonded together by a fear of the working class.

Castro is the cement which holds Cuban society together. As Che Guevara wrote "It is true that the mass follows it's leaders, especially Fidel Castro, without hesitation but the degree to which he has earned such confidence is due precisely to the consummate interpretation of the peoples' desires and aspirations."6 This is the cult of Castro's personality which cannot be underestimated, he is the consummate master of telling the people what they wish to hear. As rumblings of discontent come from the working class about the bureaucrats, they still look to the father figure of Fidel to deal with the nasty bureaucrats.

The 'internationalist' policy of armed support for nationalist regimes in Africa and the scientific work all gives credence to the popular story of one little island standing strong against the wicked winds of imperialism. The economy of Cuba has been distorted for years so that it is like looking at something at the bottom of a pond. The funds from Russia are drying up. The Cuban cigars are partly filled from Bulgarian tobacco. There is little to be said when you find out that there have been sugar shortages in a country where about 50% of the economy is based on this crop.

[Which is why I came with "The Guarapo Revolution"]

http://webspawner.co...ers/donquijote9

The embargo is blamed for everything covering vast areas of inefficiency. Trading has been going on with the USA for years through a series of front companies. When the squeeze had to be put on in the 1980's Castro, "El Lider Maximo", came up with the process of 'rectification'. This ingenious plan involved going back to the past and digging up the immortal legend of Che Guevara and returning to a 'high moral socialism'.

Castro came up with such perils of wisdom as "Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of rectification has been to persuade the workers to give up the excessively high wages stemming from implementation of outdated norms, or erroneous criteria". When one distils the true meaning from such pedantic language, we get the old maxim, work harder and ask for less. The words of a leader who is prepared to squeeze the working class more rather than attack the inequalities of the society which he helped create.

full text...

http://flag.blackene...s93/cuba40.html
  • 0

#638 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 12:28 PM

Mach-h,
Fair comments, I was expecting there are matters we would
agree to disagree on, but plenty of grounds to enjoy your
input. I think you are strong on the longer overview and I am
more interested in the contemporary and its predocessor,
in relation to this thread and in saying this I am not intimating
your longer time span isn't relevant, because I welcome it.
What would we gain if we just repeat each other and pat each other on the back. I have plenty of gaps, some I don't know of yet, although I may sound rather definite at times.
There is a lot of improvement/good in the west but the relatively
new characteristic of poverty in the midst of plenty is hardening and inexcusable. I personally have concerns about the future
becoming more oppressive, even barbaric given the extent that
un-natural deaths of large numbers of people has also become
a resident ugly characteristic of the modern world and the means
by which this can overflow millions through new man made deceases, as one example, are becoming its companion.

Sourabh,
Thanks for the complement. I am largely informally/self educated
and I am no expert and although I haven't a lot of knowledge
on the geography of most nations, but a general one, I will try
to answer anyway.
Can I first point out the opposing dispositions of your concern
(negative, but also realistically cautious) regarding circumstances
that may cause a rupture in the union of the model of Swiz. as
given. Compare yours with DonQ who has the
positive ( and prepared to take the risk) and I agree the posibilty
of people voting with their feet would have an informal effect to
the good. The bigger threat may be one Fed rising above the
others in power.
Don't over-read the use of negative and positive, both have negative and positive sides, ( in anygroup of people there are the conservatives and the liberals who scare each other) I am on the side of the effect of LORE rather than LAW, the former informal/cultural based and the latter legal/state based. It may well be that any group of people will settle for a combination of both and some more of one than another. If we compared Kerala and Swiz, they seem to represent the contrasts as I have made and yet both seem to be distinct from their neighbours and well united.
I like the summary as quoted, like, the people own the state, not the reverse, (systems are created to serve man not man created to serve systems etc.) I wasn't familier with Swiz being a fed. of
small republics. I prefer the original intent of the US and Austalia
that the states are effecively autonomous like individual republics
and the fed. enity is largely to make their union more effective
and especially over come weaknesses in areas such as defence,
but the Fed Gov was never meant to assume a role that put
the states in submission to it ( above the common law).
To compare Swiz. with the Russian Fed may be harder. I am not sure what the relationship is, I suspected that the members
might be even more autonomous than in the US, the western media seems to show no interest in providing a clear and
informative exposure of the RF and tends to stick with the
extremes and charicatures, like it has never shaken off the cold
war mentality.
Then there is the wider relationship of the RF with the CIS (?)
did I get that right, which is looser and would tend to serve the
effects DonQ alluded to. LIke saying now that I am married I don't have to pamper my wife, if it was just a relationship I would have to bother wouldn't I. While I am not very familiar with the
actual set up of the RF and the CIS I like it in general because the
core (RF) is surrounded by a friendly cooperating relationship
which goes a lot towards stability and the greater defence against interests that like we see today breaking up areas, eg
Islam and Yugoslavia in order to restructure the planet.
The basic soviet model (local) from what little understandingI have
in theory looks good and somewhat democratic but in practice
it served the purposes of the central power to reach right down
onto the individual. This is being constructed in the west in
the corporate/facsist world, I will come back on this later with
something from a copy of a newsletter I was given. So I can
perhaps understand why Lenin called it centralised democracy
and looked forward to the world becoming so ( we are on line,
I tell people he would be proud of the Capitalists progress in this
regard!).
Centralised systems centralise power and power corrupts and
the bureaucrats and political leaders usurp what belongs to the people. Good intentions has nothing to do with it, its the dynamics and like gravity you can't fight it, it will win out in the end. So for instance if you took the basic soviet model and compared it with the Swiz canton they may both look very
pro-democracy but history and reality show that one chick grew into a domestic and desirable bird and the other a vulture that
created a lot of tyrany. Or if you don't like those descriptions
we could rather say the price of one for its good outcomes far exceeded those of the other.
I actually don't know what the Russian "model" of today is so
I have been arguing for the principles and dynamics that would
bring the best returns without creating a monster. Doesn't matter where on earth, the core comes down to the principles and the dynamics - to build up state power or build up people power. We need a state and it is a good servant and usually a poor master. Yet on the other hand we see the state powers
being usurped by international interest to restructure the world in their interests, so today the state and the people respectively
need to be defended. They need each other. The Swiz haven't
needed a President or Prime Minister I believe. Russia needs
one or both for another generation probably. ( the US may
replace their Pres. with a Marshall yet)
  • 0

#639 sourabh

sourabh

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 05:56 PM

"Pasiba balsoi"(thank u very much in rusky) Don and Bader

-. for ur valuable time and excellent info about Cuba
n switzerland
but in case of Switzerland as an ideal model I have the following possible objections

The Great Swiss lion gives permission to the small animals to choose their local
lions-haraso--for first two decades all works well--..animals happy--.
gradually local lions become more important to the people as --..
some local lions group up-. to select Central Great Lion 1--.40% support
while some of the other local lions select Central Great lion 2 --..38% support
while most of the rest selects --. Central Great Lion 3- ..20% support

According to the Law of the jungle 50% support is needed to b the king

Great lion 3(GL3) supports Great Lion 2 (GL2)---.under some conditions--and
and thus GL2 becomes the king-.now GL3 is very cunning -.he does a political drama--as USA did b4 the Iraq war-and makes blank alligation that his conditions hav not been met-.so he Withdraws support from lion 2 and renders support to the
Great Lion 1 (GL1) to b the king---and GL3 continues to puppet the other 2 great lions -----at the same time local lions starts fishing in troubled waters and go on guided by their selfish motives go on changing their positions through GL1 GL2 GL3 ----and the small animals hav nothing to do except to watch the endless game of hope n despair---.such a situation took place in India during the late nineties -..which has a system identical to the Swiss model --.
--and the country had 5 changes in central government in 2 years
---so how can the Law of the Swiss Jungle prevent such political chaos????
  • 0

#640 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 07:10 PM

<"Pasiba balsoi"(thank u very much in rusky) Don and Bader>

Howdy Sourabh
You're welcome!

<-. for ur valuable time and excellent info about Cuba
n switzerland
but in case of Switzerland as an ideal model I have the following possible objections>

I can see you've doing some deep thinking about how the Big Lion may become different small lions...

To begin with, I expanded on the case of Cuba because you can clearly see the *classic example of the shepherd becoming a lion*. It happened with all leaders who captured power, particularly by force. In effect Gandhi didn't become one... But there's another risk in having non-predator leaders: *They tend to get shot*. So the solution would be a *proles movement based on nonviolence*.

Now let me turn to your concerns which are very valid...

<The Great Swiss lion gives permission to the small animals to choose their local
lions-haraso--for first two decades all works well--..animals happy--.
gradually local lions become more important to the people as --..
some local lions group up-. to select Central Great Lion 1--.40% support
while some of the other local lions select Central Great lion 2 --..38% support
while most of the rest selects --. Central Great Lion 3- ..20% support

According to the Law of the jungle 50% support is needed to b the king>

The King usually eats you not at the political level, but at the economic level, which is why under capitalism we got a fairly large political freedom, but a very restrictive economic freedom. In other words, the lion eats you because he keeps *the control of the water well* (the means of production and communication).

So, there's one way out of a worse-scenario situation, such as the one you have described: *the cooperative*. In it you get the *free man in the free group*, where the worse the lion gets the more the little animals would join in. It's a sort of checks and balances: The lion won't be able to eat the little animals because they would go and join the coops, and they in turn would themselves have the overwhelming strength given by their number and commitment.

***A lion can only control the little animals by their indifference. Even the bees or the ants could beat him...***

No Lion No Problem!;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru