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

#61 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 07:00 PM

Hi Bader, Maquis

I think these forces must be equally at play: competition, cooperativism and people being able to vote with their feet...

But contrary to what Marquis may prefer personally, Curitiba doesn't limit freedom, actually it enforces it by giving the people choices. A system like the Swiss with economic as well as political choices among the communes, can be one of the best solutions.

The competition can also include a Scandinavian type of socialism, where the Danish-type coops thrive and enter in competition with the government.

Anyways, this my original proposal...

A MIXED MODEL, that includes competition and cooperation, would create a healthy competition, and it would allow to satisfy the material and human needs of all. (In this way, the cooperative enterprises would be forced to become more efficient, while capitalist enterprises would be forced to become more humane; we would have much to learn from the Israeli kibbutz [non-profit cooperatives]; and from the industrial cooperatives of Mondragon, in the Basque Country [a "workers capitalism"].)

And, if anyone prefers the 'maquiladora' --we must accept masochism as a fact of life-- let 'em go for it too! :)

http://webspawner.co...rs/donquijote:D
  • 0

#62 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 07:08 PM

< "In Russia we respect the Czar and a whip and without
Czar and whip we getting nowhere!">

"The trained dog jumps at the crack of the whip, but the really well trained dog jumps for a treat"

PS: While I don't claim total copyright in this quote, I changed it enough not to cite any source. :)

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

#63 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 04:35 AM

hi don, i dont think i have said that curitiba restrict freeedom.
  • 0

#64 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 06:21 AM

It just seems that the causes of our failures are much deeper than on the ideological level. In any time, I would concede that even the primitive bolshevik version of Marxism was and is much more rational, analytic and trusting of people than the blind chaos and jungle of western capitalism (especially in its more brutal forms). I just suspect that it is exactly this aspect of brutality and jungle which makes capitalism work: it corresponds to some fundamental aspects in our nature. Unlike even the ridiculous bolshevik version of Marxism. When all that economic and political power was concentrated in the tiny party elite in the 20's, how did things turn out? There was no check, no balance, no morality in the end, in the use of that amazing power, and the most brutal, the most amoral person emerged with a hysterically bloody dictatorship. Where did that utopia on paper go?

I suppose I do have quite a Dostoyevskian view of the humankind. What makes me still a liberal is a certain trust that with time we might learn - progress has happened, just not with politics of power and domination.
  • 0

#65 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 06:54 AM

Thanks for your frank reply MDS.
It all depends... true, there are a lot of qualifying factors and reservation once the broader framework is marked out.
I use the phrase Free enterprise where many might use capitalism
because I would avoid the dog eat dog factor which is too prevelent in what I would call capitalism.
To be more specific enterpise will be free only when the debt banking system is reformed and off the backs of the populas.
Then the dog eat dog is not driven by the need to survive
because of debt. We can accept that any dog can eat another dog from various motives within any system, but we aren't talking about that.
Free enterpise will invite various models as Donquijote has
invited and the inevitable competition will seperate the wheat
from the chaff and cause survivers to become more efficient and if there is any state industry it will have to compete to survive.
However some services and maybe industry (energy?) will be state run because of the huge outlay and the market is fundamentally the general public - water, power,roads etc. where
there is no competition.
Free enterprise would hopefully break down monopolistic capitalism and make it humane as Donquijote rightfully pointed out.
The individual is selfish in any system and naturally so. No doubt
MDS you refer to the negative antisocial aspect. Happens in
traffic every day just as much in Cuba, as France as Iran.
Individuals in a democracy have to find common grounds to
set a constitution and set policy through government. That is
mutual interest being put above individualism in the sense that
it would otherwise create anarchy which is an argument some use
against individual freedom.
Forming a consensus socially, politically or in business will be
necessary to overcome the limitations of the lone person. A
cooperative is one such form of consensus. Social skills are
very important. Dog eat dog is where social skills are not able to function because the environment is one of conflict not cooperation. I associate the dog eat dog competition and competition by conflict part of capitalism.
Free enterprise has more to do with human ingenuity working for the benefit of the one that has it. Capitalism to me is more
about financial power and exploitation so the human ingenuity
is captured for the benefit of the shareholders. It's trend is
always towards monopoly and control of markets etc.
People naturally devise systems to make life easier for themselves
and achieve more from less input just as technology and science does. It is not natural for people to devise systems to be controlled by them and that is not about practical systems like
traffic lights.
No man is an island (total individual) and as social beings we compromise - it all depends - to live in a common society
depending on the same infrastructures.
  • 0

#66 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 06:11 PM

<hi don, i dont think i have said that curitiba restrict freeedom.>

Hi Marquis

<<therefore, with a character of jaime lerner who create such a wonderful system to SERVE the PEOPLE. and yes, his main goal is to serve the masses in a cooperative manner using pratical perceptions of solving problems in a logical way. ***freedom might not be so important here. the approach is fair and just. ***>>

OK, freedom must be particularly important anywhere, and Curitiba is thriving on it. (We both agree on the model).

When you encourage the cooperative enterprise you give the people new options, perhaps the best of them all--much more important than voting Republican or Democratic--the option to work or not to work for a capitalist.

Take it from the 'capitalists': competition is good! :)

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

#67 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 06:31 PM

<Free enterpise will invite various models as Donquijote has
invited and the inevitable competition will seperate the wheat
from the chaff and cause survivers to become more efficient and if there is any state industry it will have to compete to survive.
However some services and maybe industry (energy?) will be state run because of the huge outlay and the market is fundamentally the general public - water, power,roads etc. where
there is no competition.>

Hi Bader

Exactly like you say, free enterprise including cooperative enterprises, but excluding certain services that MUST NOT be for profit: health care, culture...

Here is a summary that I found most enlightening... (The introduction is mine).

Are we to learn something from evolution? Probably it would be that both Competition and Cooperation are necessary... Thus, only a balance of the two (which neither communism nor capitalism offers) can constitute a stable political system... This interesting article illustrates the point...

Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation

Summary
Humans, like all animals, form cooperative groups to compete for limited
resources. All life is ultimately competitive, because the natural
tendency of any population is to explode, although it is kept in check
by the limited food supply (and other factors). Because there are more
animals than food, animals must compete to survive. In situations where
the food supply is somehow sufficient, deadly competition falls.
Liberals therefore advocate the creation of a sustainable economy, where
the population is kept constant (through birth control) and resources
are used no faster than they can be replaced. The result will be a more
cooperative and civil society.
Argument
In the debate over what type of society is best, conservatives generally
favor more competitive societies, whereas liberals favor more
cooperative ones. Let's attempt to see which side is correct, by
reviewing the fundamentals of competition and cooperation: The origins
of competition
Perhaps the first thing to note is that all life is ultimately
competitive. For many centuries, biologists have known that the natural
tendency of the animal population is to explode, but the limited food
supply keeps it in check. (There are also other limiting factors, like
space, climate, resources, etc.) Because there are more creatures than
food, this means that some will starve to death. Thus, in order to
survive, animals must compete for food, killing each other if need be.
(1)
The above observation is one of the most firmly proven facts of modern
biology. It's implications, however, have been deeply controversial. The
18th century economist Thomas Malthus argued that giving more food to
the poor was self-defeating, since it would only expand their population
and create more of the same hunger and misery that welfare was designed
to alleviate. Malthus therefore argued that welfare programs should be
halted. Malthus' proposal sparked a bitter political debate -- the poor
charged that he was heartless, while the rich congratulated him for
applying science to the issue of welfare. Interestingly, the controversy
itself was indicative of the class warfare that rages for society's
limited resources.
Likewise, Charles Darwin found the concept of deadly competition
important for developing his theories of natural selection and survival
of the fittest. Darwin theorized that if animals must compete to
survive, then the winners would be those with the strongest traits,
which would then be passed on to their offspring. Meanwhile, those with
weaker traits would be killed before they could breed, and would be
dropped from the gene pool. It is important to note that even if you
don't believe in evolution, natural selection indisputably occurs in all
other competitive systems. These range from individual firms competing
on the free market to individual workers competing for job promotions.
Indeed, the fact that natural selection occurs everywhere else is a
strong argument that it occurs in biology as well. Natural selection has
developed in humans a natural desire to compete. Those with
non-competitive natures would have lost their struggle for survival, and
disappeared from the gene pool a long time ago. On the other hand, those
with an overly intense desire to compete would have become dead heroes,
and likewise failed to pass on their traits. Thus, a reasonable
attraction to competition is both healthy and natural. The
competitiveness of humanity has worked itself even into our most basic
definitions of the social sciences. Economics is formally defined as the
study of "the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing
uses." (2) Politics is defined as the "relations between special
interest groups competing for limited resources." (3) War is a violent
competition for resources -- especially land -- hence Karl von
Clausewitz' famous remark that "War is nothing more than the
continuation of politics by other means." Because competitions are won
by those with the most power, political science is defined as "An
academic discipline which studies power and the distribution of power in
different types of political systems." (4) Even though these different
fields have taken different routes to reach the same conclusion, the
idea that humans compete for limited resources is one that elegantly and
coherently unites the social sciences.
The origins of cooperation
But imagine what it would be like to live in a society where each
individual competes against everyone else, without any cooperation at
all. You wouldn't dare walk outside, for your neighbor could shoot you
and take all your property. Nor could you rely on the police to protect
you, since law enforcement is a form of social cooperation. In a
perfectly competitive world, only the strongest or luckiest would
survive.
But what if you were fortunate enough to be one of the strongest or
luckiest? After killing off most of society, you would only find
yourself among survivors who were highly competent killers themselves,
and the terror would start anew. And even if you emerged the final
victor, the rewards would be slight- how rich and satisfied can you be
when you're a hermit?
All species avoid this bleak scenario through cooperation. Among humans,
cooperation can be divided into two categories: friendly and hostile. An
example of friendly cooperation is the alliances you join to compete
more efficiently against other individuals or groups. A good example is
the business firm, where employees take specialized, interdependent jobs
and work together to compete on the free market. The result is higher
quality products and greater work efficiency than if they competed
alone.

continues below

http://webspawner.co...rs/donquijote14
  • 0

#68 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 10:54 PM

While I opt for individualism, I am no disciple of Ayn Rand who
is the guru of far right thinking that typifies Liberarians.
If that is what you thought I was supporting MDS then you are right it is pure selfishness and unbalanced and impractical in my view.
I could say more, maybe later, but I haven't seen the second half of Donquijote's last post yet.
  • 0

#69 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:14 AM

Hi bader,

"I choose free enterprise which capitalists have distorted to their
advantage and not collectivism like socialism, fascism and communism."


i had thought you chose capitalism which is why i used negative social aspects to prove my claim for cooperation.

you seem to have contradicting views of capitalism which i quite confused actually.

irregardless,i certainly agree with you view on the corporate world. im just wondering where you stand.
:)
  • 0

#70 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 09:24 AM

Hi don,

<<therefore, with a character of jaime lerner who create such a wonderful system to SERVE the PEOPLE. and yes, his main goal is to serve the masses in a cooperative manner using pratical perceptions of solving problems in a logical way. ***freedom might not be so important here. the approach is fair and just. ***>>

what i meant here was that freedom might not be important but it's not totally gone as to compare freedom of a liberal country like holland. it should be a comma instead of a full-stop. my fault.

yes, i agree that competition cannot be disregarded. that is ,part of, the mechanism for improving.

in fact, im beginning to realise that the system of curitiba have similarities of confucianism. correct me if im wrong. i havent seen and experience the system yet. :D
  • 0

#71 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 05:48 PM

Hey guys, here's a most interesting article. It can be summed up as 'cooperate or else!'

http://www.ratical.c...eBridge0102.pdf
  • 0

#72 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 06:21 PM

<in fact, im beginning to realise that the system of curitiba have similarities of confucianism. correct me if im wrong. i havent seen and experience the system yet. >

Hi Marquis

Yes it is, but I doubt that's the way China is going nowadays. Perhaps China is a model of the thing NOT to do. Her health care system was privatized and now ranks about the worst in the world (140th + place).

PS: Hey Marquis, try checking the link I posted on Evolution. It touches Curitiba and Mondragon, which is another very good example.

An Overview of Confucianism
by Michael A. Ashby

(snip)

Lastly, Confucianism depends on the cooperation of the citizenry. This includes subordinating individual goals in deference to familial and governmental objectives. Although this tenet contravenes Western philosophical tenets,Confucius believed that it was an imperative facet of Chinese society.

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

#73 Capone

Capone

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 724 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 06:58 PM

"This includes subordinating individual goals in deference to familial and governmental objectives."

What's this mean? No free speech, kill dissenters (who might have better ideas), abolish fairness and hire only your relatives?

I've observed in American companies, soon as an Asian gets a postition of authority, he wields influence to get all his relatives in the place. Then they start all the scams--one relative on one shift will punch in his 2nd cousin who doesn't bother to come in, etc. The one in authority falsifies the time sheets to give his relatives extra pay, etc.

Is this what you mean by "familial objectives?"
  • 0

#74 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 08:04 PM

"This includes subordinating individual goals in deference to familial and governmental objectives."

<What's this mean? No free speech, kill dissenters (who might have better ideas), abolish fairness and hire only your relatives?>

Far fetched, but I think that-- to use Chinese terms--either too much yin or too much yang can cause an imbalance. Obviously, too much subordination to society--say communism--can cause as much trouble as too much subordination to the individual.

Perhaps a good example of the latter is the US. While the whole world is talking about signing the Kyoto Protocol, Americans are being encouraged into SUVs. Our roads too are a reflection of this; few follow basic courtesy rules like the signal lights, just "get outta my way 'cause I got an SUV". This, in turn, makes wars for resources--oil--necessary. (I saw a sign against the war in Europe: "God Bless America, **** the World!)

I think a better example of a balanced society could the be Dutch or the Danish. They are as free as it get, while working toward the common good. They ride their bicycles without ego trips while they get the best workout.

Isn't it an example of such balance?

<I've observed in American companies, soon as an Asian gets a postition of authority, he wields influence to get all his relatives in the place. Then they start all the scams--one relative on one shift will punch in his 2nd cousin who doesn't bother to come in, etc. The one in authority falsifies the time sheets to give his relatives extra pay, etc.

Is this what you mean by "familial objectives?">

Maybe. I haven't seen too much openness from them to the outside world.

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

#75 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 06:57 AM

Howdy MDS,
hope you don't mind me using initials, less work typing.
I don't know how you thought I chose capitalism when I have been critical of it. I specifically opted for free enterprise and tried to show how different it was from capitalism as usually people think they are the same. Obviously I wasn't clear enough.
I said capitalism distorts free enterprise (and can kill it at different levels)
I would put the debt based money system as the top regime of the capitalist world and once one understands the dynamics of debt it becomes quite clear that much of the worlds problems
arise from the effects of the dynamics of the money system and the reason symtoms are usually
attacked not the causes is because of ignorance of the system
the same old controversies are occupied and it all ends up like a dog chasing its tail. Good for those enjoying the power and benefits but millions needlessly suffer.
I have supported cooperatives etc against the exploitational
approach associated with capitalism and the collective systems
are just as guilty. In fact both capitalism which is driven by debt to become monopolistic and the collective goals are world government over all people and their enterpise.
That doesn't mean the run of the mill capitalist or socialist is
consciously working in that direction. When people are locked into systems the dynamics of the system does the work.
That is why a constitutional tenet of any aware people should be that systems must serve the nations social interest and not the
reverse - people being created to serve systems. Are we ants
or the highest creatures on the planet?
Definitions, labels and language always are the cause of
misunderstanding before people get down to the finer points.
  • 0

#76 Capone

Capone

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 724 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 05:55 PM

"Americans are being encouraged into SUVs."

True, but is a government objective. Good for the auto industry.

I was just poking fun at how young'uns hear some bullshit oriental philosophy and take it seriously. Wisdom is watching what people do and ignoring what they say.
  • 0

#77 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 07:36 PM

<<"Americans are being encouraged into SUVs.">>

<True, but is a government objective. Good for the auto industry.>

And bad for the rest of the world...

<I was just poking fun at how young'uns hear some bullshit oriental philosophy and take it seriously. Wisdom is watching what people do and ignoring what they say. >

I can agree on this one though. But then you would have no organized religion, would you?

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

#78 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 03:41 AM

Hi bader, no prob for the initials.

dont think i want to quote.

i believe that your post on "freedom might not be important" and some other posts did not state what your view is of free entrprises. if not, i wouldnt have presume your favouring corporate stance.
:)
  • 0

#79 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 04:04 AM

Hi don, ahhhhh...finally i can see the fruits of confucianism. not that im a pro-confucius. i do agree his teachings to a certain extent, like 'one must be able to help oneself before you can help others'. i find it too idealistic, so i never comprehend the possibility of it existing in a society. it is defintely a wonderful thing to live in such a society.

i cant find you post on evolution. which subject heading was it under?
  • 0

#80 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 08:49 PM

<Hi don, ahhhhh...finally i can see the fruits of confucianism. not that im a pro-confucius. i do agree his teachings to a certain extent, like 'one must be able to help oneself before you can help others'. i find it too idealistic, so i never comprehend the possibility of it existing in a society. it is defintely a wonderful thing to live in such a society.

i cant find you post on evolution. which subject heading was it under? >

Hi Marquis

Perhaps we should stick to evolution as a better 'teacher'...

(This article is really awesome.)

http://www.ratical.c...eBridge0102.pdf
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru