Ok, I want to point out and emphasize, that this discussion is quite a philosophical one, meaning it focuses a lot on analyzing the problem of the current situation and thinking about ideal states of "how it should be". It cannot be a guideline or manual on how to get there!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aihwa
There isn't really too many ways for me to argue against "illegalizing success". And last I checked... Professions such as doctors usually are very, very well off in the world due to the amount of schooling they were required to achieve.
|
That is really not an argument to justify beeing "well off" by itself. Dont be hung up on current educational systems. Imagine (and in some countries this is partly realized) that education is free, everyone has access and people choose what they want to learn out of interest. A doctor would become a doctor because he is interested in helping people. A mechanic is interested in providing people with machines and a scientist wants to do science and so on. As there is no monetary investment in education, there is really no justification in increased monetary return.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aihwa
The only way you're going to achieve this, is by going up to somebody, taking something that is their property, their company, and giving it away to others.
|
This is what the stalinists did, yes - they tried to be nationwide robin hoods but here we are at the point I do not want to discuss in detail as on how to get there. Probably it is needed to "take from the rich and give to the poor" to achieve a new egalitarianism - but by what means this can be done - force is the most likely option probably. Another one is to dig away the flow - forming new companies as cooperatives and take away marketshare. A good example (though it definitly could be inproved in many ways) is Mondragon:
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the differenc between upper management and assistant worker is WAY less than in traditional companies, the setup is democratic and the managed to get in the top 10 of businesses in Spain!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zenit-yerkes
Perhaps you can convince someone reasonable about this, but not all people are ready to change their mind and give away their possessions.
Also, there's no need to justify anything if you've got a gun, for example.
|
Well - frankly there are two options - kepp up the inequality out of respect for some proclaimed ownership, or trying to establish a more egalitarian ways by not acknowledging that claim. The means to get it may be diverse, but to just accept this is not really an option for the 21st century. I already gave an example above from Spain, another obvious one is Open Source Software - you dont need to take away the posessions of Bill Gate$, you give people an alternative that does not give rise to another person becoming rich.
The theory behind this is "Rhizome":
Anthropik Podcast #4: "The Rhizome Network" : Tribe of Anthropik : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zenit-yerkes
It may work, but just within its limits and inside the previous system. And once the group splits up for any reason, it means the end of the movement.
[...] it does not bring a better life condition or political situation but to the 200 people in there;
[...]
Actually, the strongest and more powerful would take control again. Civil war, constant fights for mere possession of a piece of land. It would be the law of the jungle.
Not because we're inherently bad, but because we're in a inherently egoist culture who teaches us to take over and use the rest as a means to reach what we want.
|
Well - if it splits, you will have two groups that follow the same principle. Its like cell division - it is the way such structures grow! If it provides a better way of life for the people involved, it will attract more people and then it goes "split" again and so on. In "The Earth only endures", Julie Pretty gives some examples of these setups from "3rd world countries" in which farmers organize that way. Once the cooperative or foundation reaches a certain limit and the marginal returns diminish (marked by the appearance of administrative specialists), the groups split in regional and local subgroups, interacting with the other, but not beeing part of a hierarchy.
The "law of the jungle" is not that, I assure you. but yes - as long as people really believe in the current culture setup, they are prone to fall for it again. There is however an increasing distrust in that. Power and violence are however a problem that would have to be dealt with, that is for sure. But not by opposing it with more power, but by taking away the means to have power. If someone controls your food, your place to live, your landbase, then you are prone to his rulership. But every "big man" would need to have some means of power to begin with - he needs resources to pay his soldiers. He cant force people to do as he wishes just by having a gun. You cant control an army with a gun only.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zenit-yerkes
Perhaps you can organize your system to be so; but it will be just a matter of time for the conflicts and ownership to appear again. As simple as a single person claiming something is theirs.
And regarding mass society: most of us have realized it is bad, but since being part of the solution is too difficult, we would rather stay being part of the problem; contenting ourselves with a job, money and stuff to buy.
|
See - in southern Germany until something like 50 years ago communities existed that shared land. A village could have shared ownership of a valley and the members of the village would agree on how many cattle each of them was allowed to let graze there. One might think that eventually one person would claim it all for himself or that a few would put in a lot of cattle and others just one, but thats not what happened - it worked well for centuries until cattle farming became industrialized and cattle got put into houses and fed with grain.
And yes - most have realized that mass society is bad - the key now is to find a way to show people a way out of it. Providing alternatives that work, that are an improvement will draw people out of mass society. In the 1960ies, suddenly people saw that some communes were successful and in the blink of an eye, numbers of people abandoned mass society to go for it. Of course we know it did not work out for a number of reasons, but the point is, that if people see an alternative, they are willing to abandon the ship and go for the tropical island
Quote:
Violent revolution is not the solution -it ends up in dictatorship and repression against the enemies of it. But neither it is to create a smaller than the current government resistance -it will end up absorbed by the previous system.
I purpose a parallel government based in free association, but that's me;
|
Well any such "parallel government" would inevitably start out as smaller and weaker as the big systems in place. It is a bit of a David vs Goliath theme, but with the same reasoning as in this fable, it has a chance of success. Big systems cannot react quickly. They are buried in complexity and simply cannot react quickly. To stick to economics - if people set up more and more effective cooperatives, other companies could not really "defend" against that any more than against other traditional companies. And guess who people looking for a job would prefer to join if positions are open
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi
But then when it comes to legal issues concerning the land, who can make the claim or be held liable for damages. Who will control the use of resources on the land? One problem I can see arise is the 'tragedy of the commons.'
|
Who will control and protect the land? The very people that depend on it. If your life depends on that land, if it gives you water and food, they you take care of it. This is how native people did it for millennia and this is why they fight vigorously to protect the jungle and mountains they live on. They dont own it in a legal sense, but they defend it anyways! Maybe they dont stand a chance against rifles and helicopters but the point here was to ask who would protect the land from damages!
Sorry for the WOT, but there were many replies I wanted to adress
Greetings,
Aurora
09-24-2010, 11:45 AM
Hybrid Mode
